In these modern, strong delusional times, it is often hard to see the forest through the trees and to distinguish the lies from reality. Even the principles of law conclude that a lie may be confirmed and ratified as a legal “truth,” that black may be declared as white, left right, and up down. In short, we live in a democracy.
Plato wrote in his 5 regimes that this state of democracy is only the lowest form of humanity before the final step of total tyranny, from which a reset happens as the pure aristocracy reestablishes itself as the cure for democracy and tyranny, the repeating cycle of all the ages. Like the phoenix rising from its own spent ashes, these planned revolutions apparently reestablish the old order as the new order, the bloodlines of the ages appearing in new form and title. Same as the old boss…
But there is something new on the horizon. For we are witnessing global government for the first time in history. It’s not so much that this notion of globalist rule wasn’t already established long ago with such beauties as Unum Sanctum and other bull-shit from the powers of combined church and state that be, it’s that for the first time in history technology has caught up with greed and desire. The combined legacies of so many “leaders” have added up to one big modern orgy of infrastructure and control.
Democracy is politically spouted from all the virtual rooftops of the mass media, that exceedingly transparent controlled opposition of the old and new boss, as the CIA’s large-breasted bluebirds report and sing homage and fealty to that great system of political corruption. It is touted from the halls of legislature and parroted by the multitude of the unaware. And as it turns out, both main political parties are on board the same purposefully sinking ship, desperately and meticulously building a new Atlantis around their own dying model.
But do not be fooled, for this word Atlantis merely means fantasy, its synonyms being delusion, illusion, nightmare, apparition, chimera, mirage, a fool’s paradise, hallucination, fabrication, and of course the impossibility of a man-made utopia.
That only leaves a few things in opposition to such a false creation, and the antonyms to this word Atlantis are indeed simply truth, reality, certainty, actuality, and fact.
Now, the author realizes that the masses of goyim out there as the citizenships of the nations united in such an invention would rather support and live falsely in such a lie as this, a virtual matrix of pure delusion. I have no doubt that this will be the future of the majority. And so I am not here to try and prevent its dissemination as much as I am to document the tools of its creation. For we who will not take the marks and use the biometric identification and suffer the inoculations designed to rid us of our spirituality must be ever vigilant of such evils, such darkness posing as the light.
And so today we shall focus on what this author considers to be one of the most ridiculous customs and rituals that the common people participate in without having the slightest clue as to the origins and intent thereof. That is, of course, the private associations called as the political party system and its control over the electoral process.
But before we expose the communitarian, socialist agendas of both parties as that celebrated “democracy” in action, perhaps we should get a better grasp on the historical point of view of this word. So who likes and who opposes democracy?
“Of or pertaining to democracy, or to a political party called “democratic,” particularly, in the United States, the Democratic party, which succeeded the Anti-federalist, or Republican, party.”
—Black’s Law 4th Edition
“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.”
“A pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.”
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“Democracy is the road to socialism.”
“To my mind, there is a solution which has to do with democracy, because democratic governments are subject to the will of the people. So, if the people will it, you can actually create international institutions through the democratic states.”
“Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.”
–H. L. Mencken
“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”
—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
“Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and value with all nations.”
—Chuck Hagel, 24th United States Secretary of Defense under Obama, Chairperson of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board
“Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.”
“I’ve always had a Marxist understanding of history: democracy is a result of a broad modernization process that happens in every country. Neocons think the use of political power can force the pace of change, but ultimately it depends on societies doing it themselves.”
“Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood.”
—Augusto Pinochet, president of Chile
“Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.”
“Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.”
“The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.”
“The President will lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you… When evil men take office the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade. When Government removes your armaments, you will have no power, but government will have all power.”
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”
—John F. Kennedy
“Democracy needs support, and the best support for democracy comes from other democracies.”
Perhaps the greatest flaw in this concept of government in general, be it of kings or representatives, is the mistaken identity of its members. To assume the incorruptible nature of any man is the folly of all others. And in this lowest form of government called democracy, such an assumption would only lead to exactly what we see in government today. For behind the banner of democracy lies always the worst possible cheats, pirates, and thieves. And under that subjective banner lies only illiteracy and ignorance, the masses of they who actually vote for their tyrants while choosing to believe they are saviors.
To turn the entire world into individual democracies is the number one goal of the modern tyrant. For only in the ignorance of the masses may democracy may take hold, thrive, and destroy itself. From this subversion the tyrant thrives, the old system dies, and the new order begins. This rebirth process is well under way in most nations. And of course war will transpire in those whose people choose knowledge over the necessary ignorance of democratic public-mindedness, for war is merely the clearing of obstacles in a globally sanctioned international commerce of nations, utterly controlled by one united front ratified by those same tyrants promoting democracy now and central, globalist rule later.
“Democracy still has a real hope and chance in Iraq, and true freedom in this country would be the greatest testament to those who gave their lives for it.”
Nothing is more ridiculous than this political notion of killing millions and causing mass starvation, suffering, and destruction of infrastructure with only the somehow innocent and patriotically perceived design to spread freedom and democracy. This attitude that many millions or billions must die so that democracy can live is ludicrous at worse, paradoxical at best. But then, what else would one expect from these creators of a New Atlantis?
What really is this militarized, psychological warfare effort to spread democracy to the world? Why the need to cause democratic elections?
The answer is simple really… volunteerism, or at least the appearance of a voluntary society. You see, this term “volunteerism” goes by a different name in law, that being the doctrine of master and servant. When a commonality of people are all given “equality” to vote for their tyrants, the title of those tyrants is officially merely professed as legitimately elected “politicians.” Thus the voting process is the creator of mutualistic consent as mob rule. The minority assumes the majority will; the majority always being the most weak and susceptible to illusion and predictive programming. This is called as democracy, where a bunch of fools (a legal term meaning those not in right mind or in Latin non compos mentis) believe they each have a voice, when in reality their votes are counted as only one voice from one body. And those who choose not to decide between their tyrants in that democratic system of voting still have made a choice, that choice being assent to the majority will. It’s a no win situation, regardless of how we individually vote. For it is not the results of the vote that matter, only the volunteerism that causes legitimacy of the whole illusionary process. The act, not the result, is what makes tyrants become as legitimate in the minds of the masses.
Obviously both political parties and all third parties must include themselves in this democratic process. And so we can state with self-evident absoluteness that all parties must support democracy. The Lenin and Marx quotes above certainly help us to understand the origins and necessity of democracy as the gateway to all other systems, be they socialism, communism, or that great combination of all isms called and promoted as communitarianism. The reader would be shocked to learn that most “politicians” out there are grand supporters of this modern plan of communitarianism. And I invite the reader to research this on his or her own. A good source is here:
Note: Please support Niki Raapana in her works. (http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com)
Now let us examine this collusion of the Republican National Party of the United States with the International Democrat Union (IDU), supporting so many other socialist and communitarian constructs around the world.
“Being committed to advancing the social and
political values on which democratic societies are founded,
including the basic personal freedoms and human rights,
as defined in the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights….”
–IDU founding Declaration of Principles, second Paragraph
Yep. You read the title of this blog-post correctly. As it turns out, the political party game is one giant United Nations, Agenda 21 fraud.
Yes, the Republican Party of the United States is actually a member of the International Democrat Union (IDU), which above all else promotes the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the supposed sovereignty of the United States constitution – and over that of any other member party’s (nation’s) constitutional charter as well! This is essential for global governance.
In an article written by Tom Deweese (American Policy Center) and posted on the Gunowners of America website, the IDU is succinctly unveiled:
“The root of the IDU’s political agenda is Fabian Socialism which wants to blur national borders and cultures, eliminate private property and individual liberty in favor of the common good. The Fabians consider themselves to be a ruling elite that knows better than individuals how to run our lives. Their way is: Heads, government wins. Tails, citizens lose. It is the worst form of tyranny. And this is the root of the IDU, and by association, apparently the Republican Party. That answers a lot of questions about recent Republican policy decisions…”
As it is so very easy to confuse the intentions of these international bodies with that of individual peoples of sovereign states, we must make this very important distinction between the United Nations and the individual but no longer seperate Nations that subscribe to it.
From the American Policy Institute in 2009, again by Mr. Tom Deweese, we read:
New GOP Chairman should remove Party from the International Democrat Union…
“As an example of how this second system works in practice, The Constitution of the old Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans. Except that it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia where individual wants and needs simply didn’t count. We all know how that worked out for the Soviet citizens.
“While veiled in language designed to sound much like the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of “unalienable” rights, instead referring to “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Human Rights Declaration? It says, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds like America. Democracy. People voting – the opposite of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks or wants. Moreover, Article 29, Section 3 of the Declaration says “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” So much for “unalienable” rights.”
Of course those unalienable rights spoken of in the declaration of independence had nothing to do with public 14th amendment citizens of the United States, but only actually protected those private men who reserved all rights from the United States. The American Policy Institute will never tell the common citizenship this of course (or simply does not know). Often the parrots of policy know nothing of the words they speak, led by the beak to support and make falsely patriotic what should be abandoned and utterly destroyed, such as the existence and purpose of these controlling and corrupting political parties.
We must learn to recognize the difference between blood and fiction, between man untainted by political, public status and he who avoids such marks, names, and numbers in privacy. Citizenship is, of course, an alienation upon privacy. Thus the United Nations and its declarations only apply to the public citizenships of each nation, which are only the common, registered goyim (general people) and the commercial laws pertaining to us. The private men of each private (several) State will not be subject to such national rule, for they are the creators of nations. Gods. A “State” is nothing more than a Private bloodline of “People.” And it is these tyrants that create the democratic nations and the law of nations for their own protection against that mass of illiterates we call nationally as the public. In short, the United Nations is the uniting in commerce and law of all slave colonies called as nations. Colony means only farm or plantation. And global governance will only apply to those born in the nations; those birthed and certified in attainder or legal “corruption of blood” under a commercial, legal system of alienation.
It is certainly true that those who falsely believe they are free are the most hopelessly enslaved. And democracy is certainly the best tool for the propagation of such a false dialectic.
In the history section of the about tab from the IDU.org website we read:
“The International Democrat Union (IDU) is a working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre and centre right.
Formed in 1983, the IDU provides a forum in which Parties holding similar beliefs can come together and exchange views on matters of policy and organisational interest, so that they can learn from each other, act together, establish contacts and speak with one strong voice to promote democracy and centre-right policies around the globe. FOUNDER MEMBERS of the IDU included Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, then US Vice-President George Bush Sr, Paris Mayor and later President of France Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and many other Party Leaders.
I. The International Democrat Union (IDU) shall consist of Member Parties of the Asia Pacific Democrat Union (APDU); the Caribbean Democrat Union (CDU); the Democrat Union of Africa; the European Democrat Union (EDU); the European People’s Party (EPP); the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR); and the Union of Latin American Parties (UPLA), which have adhered to the IDU Declaration of Principles.
II. The IDU will foster the common philosophy of its Member Parties, establish permanent relations at a bilateral and multilateral level, encourage mutual support and to these ends will provide a forum for the exchange of views and information on matters of interest to all or a considerable number of its Member Parties.
Countries can only develop their full potential if they develop recognising the ideals of liberal democracy, freedom of the individual, and the need for economic growth to be based on individual initiative and free, competitive enterprise economies. The IDU has a clear role in a modern world, where today’s idea in one country is tomorrow’s policy in another.
Through the IDU, member Parties can exchange policy ideas, assist each other to win the political argument, and to win elections. There are regular meetings of both the full IDU and its Regional Unions and Organisations. The officers of the IDU are elected at Party Leaders’ Meetings which are held every three or four years.
At IDU Executive Meetings, briefings are given on local and topical issues, as well as consideration given to applicant parties. Apart from Executive Meetings and meetings of IDU’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the IDU holds events such as the Young Leaders Forum, plus undertakes fact-finding missions and election observation. A major event is also held every four years to coincide with the Republican Convention, the last one held in September 2012 in Tampa (Florida).
The IDU also organises campaigning seminars for politicians and party workers. These involve exchanges of information on campaign technology, fund-raising techniques, opinion polling, advertising and campaign organisation. The IDU plays an essential role in enabling like-minded, centre-right parties to share experiences in order to achieve electoral success.”
Under the history tab we read:
“19 dignitaries attended the meeting that established the IDU held at the Hotel Intercontinental n London on 24th June 1983: Dr Alois Mock (Osterreichische Volkspartei, Austria); Prime-Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party, Great Britain); Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU, Federal Republic of Germany); Prime-Minister Franz-Josef Strauss (CSU, Federal Republic of Germany); M Jacques Chirac (Rassemblement Pour la Republique, France); Mr Andrew Peacock (Liberal Party, Australia); M Evangelos Averoff-Tossizza (Nea Demokratia, Greece); Sr Fraga Iribarne (Alianza Popular, Spain); Sr Oscar Alzaga, (Partido Democrata Popular, Spain); Mrs Susanne Wood, National Party, New Zealand); President Glafcos Clerides (Democratic Rally, Cyprus); Mr Ilkka Suominen (Kansallinen Kokoomus, Finland); Sr Lucas Pires (CDS, Portugal); Mr Tatsuo Tanaka (Liberal Democrat Party, Japan); Mr Ulf Adelsohn (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Sweden); Mr Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative Party, Canada); Prime-Minister Poul Schluter (Det Konservative Folkeparti, Denmark); Mr Jo Benkow (Hoyre, Norway); and Mr Frank Fahrenkopf (Republican National Committee, USA).
In addition the US Vice-President George Bush and Norwegian Prime-Minister Kare Willoch (IDU’s second Chairman, from 1987 to 1989) were present and both spoke at the founding meeting. Click here for the minutes of the founding meeting and Declaration of Principles in PDF format.
The IDU officers elected were: Chairman: Dr Alois Mock (Osterreichische Volkspartei, Austria); Vice-Chairmen: Ulf Adelsohn (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Sweden); Richard Allen (Republican National Committee, USA); Jacques Chirac (Rassemblement Pour la Republique, France); Cecil Parkinson (Conservative Party, Great Britain); Sir John Atwill (Liberal Party, Australia); and Prime-Minister Franz-Josef Strauss (CSU, Federal Republic of Germany), in addition to Treasurer: Allan Lawrence (Progressive Conservative Party, Canada) and Executive Secretary: Scott Hamilton (Conservative Party, Great Britain).
That’s right folks, the self-labeled “Conservative” Republican Party of the United States has partnered with such other national political parties as the Liberal Democrat Party of Japan, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Democratic Rally of Cyprus, and who could forget those supposed tyrannical redcoats of the Conservative Party of Great Britain?
Thank you very much Mr Vice-President, and I am particularly grateful to you coming to London and conferring additional reputation to our meeting by your presence. May I now ask Mr Fahrenkopf to take the floor.”
MR FRANK FAHRENKDPF:
“>Chairman, Republican National Committee, U.S.A .]
“Mr Chairman, my colleagues, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I as Chairman of the Republican Party of the United States join Vice-President Bush in commemorating the historic creation of IDU here in London today.
“A year and a half ago I attended an EDU meeting in Munich, at which the seed of the Pacific Democrat Union and the International Democrat Union was sown. Last July, in Tokyo, the PDU was formed; and last week, in Honolulu, I had the great pleasure to host the PDU’s first annual council meeting. Today, we reap the remaining harvest of that Munich meeting with the birth of the IDU. On behalf of the Republican Party, let me assure my colleagues of our full cooperation and participation in the IDU – and in seeking our mutual goals of promoting democracy, freedom, self-determination and, most important, peace in the world.”
Thank you Mr Fahrenkopf.
May I now ask the Norwegian Prime-Minister to take the floor.”
—Minutes of the IDU founding meeting and Declaration of Principles
Even as the Pope calls for the same system of worldwide “peace and safety” through United Nations programs and one world religion, we are warned repeatedly that these artful terms are merely the lies of tyrants.
“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape…
1 Thessalonians 5:3 KJB
“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”
—Daniel 8: 23-25, KJB
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
—Mathew 7: 15, KJB
“Now, it is true that the nature of society is to create, among its citizens, an illusion of safety; but it is also absolutely true that the safety is always necessarily an illusion. Artists are here to disturb the peace.”
—James Baldwin, ‘An interview with James Baldwin’ (1961)
“As distrust, in some sense, is the mother of safety, so security is the gate of danger. A man had need to fear this most of all, that he fears not at all.”
—Thomas Brooks, citation in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert’s, ‘Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers,’ p. 532 (1895).
20 bucks says the reader has no idea what the word “danger” means in its etymology.
DANGER – noun – mid-13c., “power of a lord or master, jurisdiction,” from Anglo-French daunger, Old French dangier “power, power to harm, mastery, authority, control” (12c., Modern French danger), alteration (due to assoc. with damnum) of dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominarium “power of a lord,” from Latin dominus“lord, master” (see domain). Modern sense of “risk, peril” (from being in the control of someone or something else) evolved first in French and was in English late 14c. Replaced Old English pleoh; in early Middle English this sense is found in peril.
The United States, the nation, is the creation of a danger, also called as a district. And citizen-ships are of course on a commercial voyage in peril, requiring licensure and insurance on their surname. This scratch of the surface will be expounded upon intricately in my upcoming book, a private work currently in editing and due out very soon, free to all who seek such forbidden knowledge.
It is strange that no one seems to question the fact that Abraham Lincoln, as he who caused what can only be compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia that killed so many millions, was the first Republican party president. And suddenly, a civil war? Suddenly, the first tyrannical executive order against brother and sister, mother and father. Suddenly, lawlessness according to the law of necessity in war. Suddenly, reconstruction of the constitution and government, including the 14th amendment that enslaved all commoners under a slave-state based on equality, but never equity?
No one seems to question that the later and 2nd president Roosevelt, whom days after his election caused congress to declare his and all future president’s virtual dictatorship through permanent national emergency status, was of this Democratic platform, though his previous presidential namesake was certainly of that “Grand Old Party.” For those unfamiliar with these histories of the American presidency and the dictatorship spoken of, please see my articles entitled “Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution,” parts 1 & 2, or Volume II of my upcoming book series.
“Two distantly related branches of the family from Oyster Bay on Long Island and Hyde Park in Dutchess County, Upstate New York achieved national political prominence with the elections of (republican) Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) and his fifth cousin (democrat) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933–1945), whose wife, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, was Theodore’s niece.”
–Wikipedia entry for Roosevelt family
But where exactly does this leave us as compared to the already so-named competition?What about the other United States “Democratic” Party?
“Note that the Political Party today known as the “Democratic Party” was
initially established as the “Republican Party.” The Jeffersonian party
members were labeled “Democratic” by opposition Federalists –
an attempt to stigmatize them as purveyors of democracy or mob rule.
By the Jacksonian era, the term “The Democracy” was in use by the party;
the name “Democratic Party” was eventually settled upon and
became the official name in 1844.”
–Thomas Jefferson, by Joyce Appleby, Encyclopedia Britannica
One would be hard-pressed to describe the National Democratic Party of America as anything but a promoter of it’s own brand of the similitude of neoliberal, communitarian socialism promoted by its mainstream counterpart. And certainly the antics of this current president need to be discussed as to their source.
For instance, the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America stated in true communitarian spirit the following in its report entitled “New Ground 45” in 1996:
March – April, 1996
A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity: Employment and Survival in Urban America
By Bob Roman
Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America,” the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago’s 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA’s National Political Committee…
…One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is “what does it take to create productive communities,” not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.
The first is “human capital development.” By this he meant public education (think Common Core), welfare reform (Think Obama-Care), and a “workforce preparation strategy” (more Common Core). Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training (i.e. Common Core and Obama-care). While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy,” Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.
The state government can also play a role in (wealth) redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts…
Not only was Barack Obama an honored attendee and speaker for the socialist party of Chicago, in September 1995 he was a contracted publicist for the Marxist “New Party”.
“About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, CANDIDATES MUST SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE NP. The contract mandates that THEY MUST HAVE A VISIBLE AND ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NP.
The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama…”
Perhaps the most amazing cognitive disassociation and dissonance of the American people is the fact that “democracy” and the spread of it actually means that the people do not elect their own president/head of state.
The member nations/states of the International Democrat Union, including the United States, are almost exclusively nations/states where the president/head of state is elected through parliament or electoral college. In other words, in most of these “democratic” nations/states, the head of state is an INDIRECT ELECTION, NOT BY THE COMMON, VOTING PEOPLE.
For instance, the following nations have indirect elections for president, either as a monarchy, by election of legislature or by electoral college, orby some other committee or parliament, as opposed to that supposedly communist China, where the common people actually directly vote for their president:
Peoples Republic of China –
Hong Kong –
New Zealand –
Saudi Arabia –
South Africa –
United Arab Emirates –
United Kingdom –
United States –
Vatican City –
Complete list here –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_by_country
In contrast, when we view the nations or states that do have direct elections, with few exceptions they are generally considered as “third world” counties. It is not that they are, just that the self-proclaimed first-worlders call them as such. Ireland and Iran for instance hold direct elections, two very isolationist countries that do not cooperate with the monarchical or electoral systems and wish to preserve their culture and religious heritage. The same cannot be said of America, a people that seem to have no idea that their vote is purely a political pole, a popularity contest, and not the actual vote for a president. We do not vote for the best man, only for the best fictional party member, 1984 style.
I have presented here many threads to follow for the reader. At the time of this posting the IDU.org website is conveniently and temporarily not in service. And so I hope this collection of information will be a foundation for your own future research and sharing with others so brainwashed by this illegitimate system.
Will it stop you from voting? Who cares? The result is always the same with or without your individual vote, and not enough common goyim will see this to matter. I speak now only to the remnant, to those desiring to be unenfranchised from their false, political freedom.
DOM – Used as a termination, denotes jurisdiction, or property and jurisdiction; primarily, doom, judgment; as in kingdom, earldom. Hence it is used to denote state, condition or quality, as in wisdom, freedom. (Webster’s 1828)
FREE – noun – [Hebrew. See Frank.] 1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations. 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. 3. Instituted by a free people, or by consent or choice of those who are to be subjects, and securing private rights and privileges by fixed laws and principles; not arbitrary or despotic; as a free constitution or government. There can be no free government without a democratical branch in the constitution. 4. Not imprisoned, confined or under arrest; as, the prisoner is set free. 5. Unconstrained; unrestrained; not under compulsion or control. A man is free to pursue his own choice; he enjoys free will. 6. Permitted; allowed; open; not appropriated; as, places of honor and confidence are free to all; we seldom hear of a commerce perfectly free. (Webs1828)
FREEDOM – noun – 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. Freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious. [See Liberty.] 2. Particular privileges; franchise; immunity; as the freedom of a city. 3. Power of enjoying franchises. 4. Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will. 5. Any exemption from constraint or control. 6. Ease or facility of doing any thing. He speaks or acts with freedom. 7. Frankness; boldness. He addressed his audience with freedom. 8. License; improper familiarity; violation of the rules of decorum; with a plural. Beware of what are called innocent freedoms. (Webster’s 1828)
FREEDOM – Liberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. (Bouvier’s 1856)
ENFRANCHISE – To make free; to incorporate a man in a society or body politic.(Black’s 4th)
ENFRANCHISEMENT – The act of making free; giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Admission to the freedom of a city; admission to political rights, and particularly the right of suffrage. Anciently, the acquisition of freedom by a villein from his lord. The word is now used principally either of the manumission of slaves, of giving to a borough or other constituency a right to return a member or members to parliament, or of the conversion of copyhold into freehold. (Black’s 4th)
ENFRANCHISEMENT – noun – Release from slavery or custody. 1. The admission of persons to the freedom of a corporation or state; investiture with the privileges of free citizens; the incorporating of a person into any society or body politic. (Webs1828)
“In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage.”
–Black’s Law 2nd Edition, definition of franchise
This idea of liberty and freedom is taken so completely out of context to the average “citizenship” in public-mindedness that the notion that we live in a voluntary society where servants choose their masters as the doctrines of law is completely lost. We do not realize that it is our own unrestrained freedoms (liberties) as franchises of the state that actually cause us to be slaves to it. For a citizen-ship is like a rental care, a legal status that is bound to all legal laws of persons. And so the freedom (franchise) enjoyed, including the right to suffer from our own choices, also called suffrage or voting, is the very nature of the slavery system called politically (artificially) as liberty. Yet again, we are taking what is false, what is created only in the Atlantean jurisdiction, and pretending it to be a reality.
And so if one and only one thing is learned by the reader of this article it must be this: that the powers that be exist and subsist only because we suffer (vote) for them to do just that. In other words, we can only blame ourselves for voting for the better of two evils. No one is forcing our hand. No one is forcing our participation in the franchise of citizenship. We put ourselves into the path and ad-venture of the danger of another. We consent through our actions and inaction, and by doing so allow the worst of the worst element of the human equation to cheat, steal, and pirate everything we need even while it allows us the franchise to use what we want. After all, we voted for everything we complain about and deserve everything we are handed. Until we admit defeat, we cannot and will not find natural freedom, only the false appearance of nature as a political art from called franchise.
In the end, which is by the way right now, we need not fear the threat of globalism for it is already here. To fear deceit when it is already upon us is foolishness. Fear of it is truly irrelevant at this stage of a very ancient game of pledging. The only consideration we must individually make is wether to participate in it or not, whether to voluntarily carry its enfranchised mark, surname, and number or not, and ultimately whether we are willing to be persecuted, imprisoned, and killed for daring to have, and more importantly act upon, the Highest knowledge of self-evident Truth.
Remember, you are voting for a party, not a man. The party has no power without the person you vote (or don’t vote) for and thus give legitimacy to. Whether we give willingly our choice or refrain and offer no choice at all, either action is an expression of consent. Not tacit, expressive.
We must choose our Master. Reality or Atlantis. It’s that simple.
Until then, enjoy the big legal lie…
–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, April 28th, 2016