7. How can
America overcome its intrinsic disadvantage and return to the founding
principles (if ever)?
8. Under current conditions of
"duopoly"1), the small (so
parties are doomed to be merely "place
holders". How can they make any difference ever?
9. What is a "Political correctness"?
14. What kind of religion
is there in the
title? There is
faith called Judeo-Christianity.
15. Does this party appeal only to religious people
Christians and Jews)?
1. How can
this new party possibly make any
In short, due to emergency of the
situation (2014), due to aggressive exposure of all parties guilty in
the 2008/2012 double coup, and due to bringing back the
constitutional principles appealing to any
patriotic conservative mind.
multi-party parliamentary system is not the solution: Our twin party
Wrong. It may be difficult to set and
maintain a parliamentary coalition in multi party parliament, but at
parties do follow their clearly
platforms. The voice and goals of such
parties are always heard, so they keep the critical issues in a public
focus. For example, in the Netherlands the MP Geert Wilders and his
party openly denounce islam as an evil which must have no place in
their nation. On the contrary, in the US no party and no Congressman
to whisper the truth like
this (or other such tabooed
In the American twin party duopoly, each of them
plays a role of a coalition so vague, and the "tent
wide", that adherence to any fixed values is discouraged in order to
not displease anybody in the opposition, or those sitting on the fence
on the top). Such a
coalition is lead by
spineless crooks anchored to nothing (but their bosses and sponsors),
and not even
formally competing against the opposite party (both owned by the
same clique). Both "parties" just drift into the same
set by their "progressive" owners.
Worse: Such spineless "parties" present an ideal environment for
controlled and manipulated by the owners, including the New World Order
clique (NWO). Not only is
this environment ideal for suppressing the most
crucial issues . Due to this environment
the crucial issues were removed from
circulation entirely, creating rather a paradoxical
situation. The freedom
speech still exists, but is not used: Voluntarily
not used. Instead, we have a "freedom from
speech": The freedom from speech
about everything that displeases the
"progressives". These are combined effects of the idiocy of American
political system, and how they work for the
NWO and other enemies of America. Still not convinced? Here is what one
of the NWO insiders Carroll Quigley had to say in his 1966
book "Tragedy and Hope":
"... The argument that the two parties should represent
opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of
the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic
thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that
the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without
leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies
that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of
significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of
procedure, priority, or method ... Then it should be possible to
replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which
will be none of these things but WILL STILL PURSUE, with new vigor,
approximately the SAME BASIC POLICIES." (See more here).
That said, now (in 2014) it is not a first priority to change
mode of operation of the Congress: The first priority is to fully
expose the Congress by making the explosive truth ring so loud that it
the way for other things to come.
3. A "third"
party and the third party's candidates only
spoil the election(?)
Wrong. It is not a 3rd (or n-th)
party that spoils the election: It is
the degeneracy of American mentality and
the electoral system which leaves more
choices in the final
election. In the electoral practice of other nations, voters
choose among multiple contenders only during the primary election. If
neither of them gained 51%, only 2 strongest candidates run in the
final stage. Then the minority parties must decide whom to support (if
anybody) not disrupting the majority consensus.
Invented and historically entrenched, the logically
controversial American tale of the 3rd party disruption served as a
justification in support of the sham twin
party system, or duopoly, both used by the ruling elite
very successfully for suppressing and eliminating "unapproved" opposite
That said, now (in 2014) it is not a
first priority to change the
operation of elections: The first priority is to fully expose the
illegitimacy of this governance,
to make the explosive truth ring so loud that it cleans
for other things to come.
All plurality of candidates must be
resolved in the primary elections. In the final election there must be
listed only two candidates (stopping that propaganda about a 3rd party
spoilers). Ideally, a law must be changed, but even with the existing
laws conscious parties which took 3rd and lower places in primaries,
must advise their electorate to support only one of the two front
4. The parties are in place to facilitate
elections of their candidates, nothing else (commented by some RC).
The goal of any party
is to win so that it will be possible to govern... We must sell our
ideas without alienating too many voters such that we would lose...
Hell, we do not even need
parties and the nation would go on running...
Wrong! This is an invented, historically
controversial American tale. The first
goal of any party is to push
its ideas, or at least to keep them on the surface being loud and
proud: In order at least to preserve
them — no matter whom you alienate! Caring about not alienating
ends up with suppressions of free speech, de facto one party,
and no opposition — the
despicable state of affairs we are in now!
This statement twists the concept of a political party in order to
justify the deficiency of
existing American "electoral practices and political campaigns"
designed by NWO and ruling elite. An electoral
activity for winning of party's candidates must be only a final
conclusive step of many others efforts listed below such as:
Reducing a party mission to only the last item
facilitates for the ruling elite their task of keeping all parties at
bay; Facilitates suppression of the free speech while keeping it
formally allowed; And facilitates to rule smoothly despite the formally
existing freedom of speech.
- To promote a certain set
of own ideas, loud and proud: in order at least
to preserve them for the
- To be on watch and to momentarily expose
opponents violating laws or committing crimes;
- To represent a certain class of people carrying
- To educate general electorate in favor of these
ideas, exercising the freedom of speech; And only finally yes,
- To facilitate election of their candidates. In this order.
5. What is a technology of neutering the
freedom of speech in the West? How and why did such a technology
emerge in the West
despite laying in its foundation?
First, neutering or rude suppression of the freedom of
speech was a characteristic of the post-Stalinist USSR indeed. It was
then in the 1980s that a great Soviet satirist Michael Zhvanetskiy
ironically uttered the following variation of the famous Socratic credo: There are topics for which a discussion is
As the West got gradually consumed by the Marxist, leftist, and
progressive infection, just like the former
slogans of Soviets, each of
the progressive's mantras could not withstand scrutiny of any honest
discussion. Therefore the Western rulers have elaborated a "technology"
for elimination of the "difficult topics" from the public discussion
entirely: The "technology" of freedom
from speech. It is based on the following two methods:
In order to "voluntarily" discourage people
from exercising their free speech rights, they make them to refrain
from whispering out anything which displeases progressives by a "soft
intimidation" such as threats of losing the job and other
repercussions, so that the freedom of speech still exists, but is
"voluntarily" unused. A
euphemism "political correctness" and discussion stoppers like "bigot",
"racist", "homophobe", "islamophobe" comprise an arsenal of such soft
intimidation (after which the less soft measures like firing from a job
- To "voluntarily" discourage people from
exercising their free speech
by curtailing their free of thoughts.
No free thought — no free speech!
- To go on with the business as usual ignoring any
effects of remnants of (not yet killed) freedom of speech.
As so far it is still impossible to kill the freedom of speech in America completely, the rulers
elaborated a habit of ignoring any
effects of still leaking free speech. A truth can find its way
on the surface through a concrete of silencing, yet instead of being
picked up by other agencies and become widely discussed, this truth
remains completely ignored, or marginalized and ridiculed, taking no
effect at all, as though in a parallel universe. All and any effect of
such undesired truth is neutered, so that rulers just go on with their
business as usual.
How come that the "Freedom
"freedom from speech" and no
the (former) "land of the free"?
Such a state was achieved in a more than
100 years long process due
effects of various factors. To mention
just a few, the freedom
of expression is never really "free",
always depending on support of those who have means. Thus the
in minds of the rich and powerful and of all business owners
translates into the
uniformity of the media and into the totalitarian
state in general. In particular, the invented
American tale of the 3rd party disruption
and the "advantages" of the twin party sham
greatly contributed to suppression and elimination
of all points of views except those approved from above, which
otherwise could not
withstand the scrutiny of any honest discussion. The freedom of speech
in the Internet and in marginal media still exists, however the
existing political machine is designed in such a way, that such
remnants of free speech take no effect. Free speech exists, but is made irrelevant.
The ruling elite has learned to co-exist with such occasional squeaks
of the truth. That's an "art" of coexistence
with freedom of speech while neutralizing
and ignoring it, developed in
this nation (and in the West) during the last 100 years.
What good is
free-speech right if you voluntarily
refrain from using it? Thus
in the idiotic political system of America not one party even attempts
to speak out the truth, and not one truly opposition party even exists
(except the Judeo-Christian America)! Not one even tries to utilize
still existing freedom of speech for keeping the truth at least on the
surface and for propagating own ideas.
What good is free-speech right if even
when you utter your truth, it is ignored as if dog's barking?
After all, it's merely your "opinion" - and this is America, you know,
and everyone is entitled to one's "opinion" - the truth be damned...
This is another idiotic tradition to merely
ignore any "controversial"
truth which did somehow make it on the surface. Instead of engaging in
a discussion and addressing "controversial" issues, those issues are
The "Land of the free" now has reached the stage of voluntary renouncing the freedom of
speech and voluntary
not having any opposition! This is akin an era of darkness of humanity
That is why the Judeo-Christian America is a
party of straight speech.
We do not fear to be called bigots, blamed in any kind of
"phobia", or to be "full of hate" (for there is a time for
everything... And this time is now).
7. How can America
overcome its intrinsic disadvantage and return to the founding
principles (if ever)?
America (and the Free world in general) have an intrinsic disadvantage vs.
any ruthless dictatorships such
as the Soviet (Chinese, North Korean), or islamic nations. The USSR
had a "luxury" of plotting demise of the West for decades, having no
inside opposition and capable of redirecting the immense recourses into
this goal. So did also Islam empowered with the
oil money in 20th century.
The Soviets or Islam did
have the strategy for decades or centuries ahead, and they implement their strategies very
consistently without any internal resistance. On the contrary, in the
West there always are too many conflicting interests and dirty hands on
the rudder, with no
strategy longer than the election cycle. This asymmetry alone near dooms the
West, so more that these dirty hands on the rudder get bribed and do
bidding for the enemy as though it were their regular job (see "American
Betrayal" by Diana West).
Perhaps the only advantage of America and its antidote
against such inroads of the enemy was the freedom of speech and the
moral and religious people of
John Adams implied).
However, the Freedom of speech was neutralized and turned
into the Freedom from
speech (by artfully exploiting the degeneracy of the American twin party sham), while the
"moral and religious people" were converted into their opposite.
Therefore the first
step on the way of recovery must be to restore the practice of speaking
out the truth; To restore open
discussions of all issues of survival
progressive dogmas and talking points cannot withstand a scrutiny of
free polemics). That is why we need this
party and other parties whose operation mode is speaking out —
and therefore spreading
the truth, and fighting
for realization of their Platforms (rather
than merely placating dubious electorates).
8. Under current conditions of "duopoly"1), the small (so called "third")
parties are doomed
to be merely "place holders". How can they make any difference ever?
Under "normal" conditions of business as usual and the deeply
rooted duopoly (the monopoly of the twin party sham), the fat and brain
dead American people would never seek or switch to anything else.
However now (2015) it is not a situation of business
as usual! For 6 shameful years America is having a UFO (Unidentified
Foreign Operative) in the White House. As shameful and tragic as it
this UFO usurpation also gives a unique opportunity to create a huge
wave of indignation which sweeps away the criminal duopoly and gives a
steep rise for the emergency party(s) which would create this wave and
on it. As one commentator properly noted, migrate away from GOP and
make them a "small party"!
That is why those of the small parties which shun of the
ineligibility issue not only are doomed to be merely place
holders, but they are also traitors of the Constitution as well.
is a "Political correctness"?
"Political correctness" is a concept invented in and
unique to the (former) Free world only. This concept in itself is a
euphemism (sweetening pill) for "voluntary self censorship" based
either on sincere convictions of an indoctrinated person, or on his
discomfort of being out of the "main stream".
The technology of "Political correctness"
was invented by
the NWO ideologues at least
100 years ago. The essence of "Political correctness" is in neutralizing the free speech and
turning the nations with
"freedom of speech" into nations with "freedom from speech". Thus, despite the
formal existence of freedom of speech, the elite rules completely
ignoring and dismissing any
opposition views as though there were none.
As a result, the media and institutions of the Free world became
less totalitarian than those in the Evil Empire of the USSR, however
important difference. Unlike in the Soviets, the Western
totalitarianism is caused exclusively by general misery and baseness of the human material of
the West. People like Academician Sakharov, Elena Bonnar, dissidents
chaining themselves for a 5 minute message of truth until grabbed by
are impossible in this
nation of eunuchs, turned into a null and void entity under a UFO - Unidentified Foreign Operative;
The nation still having the 1st and 2nd Amendments, yet both unused.
faith called Judeo-Christianity.
True, Christianity and Judaism are different (though
indeed, and our title does not presume as though they are joined into
one faith. The title merely refers to the national identity of our
this party appeal only to
(practicing Christians and Jews)?
The party appeals to all people which acknowledge the
mindset of our Founding Fathers, i.e. to the people recognizing Judaism
Christianity at least as a pledge of allegiance to our Constitution and
national identity. What they believe in their hearts and how they
their beliefs is only between them and God. However atheist
whiners need some other party (and some other nation)! See also here.
The term "duopoly" is borrowed from an article
of Chuck Baldwin