Login/Sign Up

Words make it possible for humans to Conceive Of, Communicate, and Understand abstract concepts, like "We hold these Truths to be. Self-Evident ..."

Therefore, if the words a person is able to use are controlled, or limited, the person is contolled, and limited in what she or he is able to conceive of, communicate, or understand. Her or his ability to reason or even think is controlled and limited.

Yet the majority of people who label themselves Conservatives or Republicans are horribly careless in their use of words. And seem to lack an appreciation of their Power.

Just look at how easily collectivists trained Republicans/Conservatives to obey the rules of Politically self–Censored (PC) Speak. And even trained them to refer to it as "Correct" Speech.

For example, with no exceptions, the only people who have ever told me "You can't say that or they will call you a bad name" are people who label themselves Republican of Conservative.

And for that reason, no collectivists minion has ever found it necessary, or dared, to tell me that.

Or look at the muddling of Republican and Conservative. Almost no one understands those terms refer to two different concepts. Not alternatives.

That's because this This is America, and in America, voters do not have the power to "Throw the bums out.

Although I hope someday to seriously pursue a law that invalidates any election in which no candidate achieves 60%. Then requires a new election in which no initial candidate may participate. But I drift.

My point: Republican and Conservative represent different concepts. They do not represent alternatives.

Republican refers to a Party that offers candidates who voters can use to replace the bums: Conservative refers to a set of beliefs.

Beliefs. that often seem more like like inconsistent, and loosely defined, complaints.

Things to be against. Complaints that offer no way to replace the bums. Complaints that mostly just rail against the unfairness of collectivists attacks. Often resorting to the kind of name calling Conservatives critize the collectivists of using.

Quite often seemingly singing only to the choir.

But never offering something that can be done, especially that requires surrendering the "Army of One" as a self-image. Or requires many to pursue in a coordinated fashion that would require a material contribution of time, effort, and risk of public criticism.

No. An additional new party that actually offers candidates with enough money and manpower backing to get elected doesn't automatically pose the risk of "Splitting the vote".

That risk only exists for Third Parties led by people silly enough to make their new party's first, and only, purpose electing its very own President.

Absent that, there are many public offices where replacing a "Lesser of two evils" Republican incumbent would do good. But again I drift.

Regardless, I don't yet know how to best oranize this section to serve as both a reference, and a learning resource for new candidates.

So for now I'll just add some examples I hope will make the future direction of this page self–evident.

Miles to go before this page is what it is intended to be. Again, help is welcom.