The Eternal Science Party of the USA

The Eternal Science Party of the United States of America is the world's first political party centrally-dedicated to the elimination of rule by secrecy and the revelation of the intelligent nonhuman presence on Earth/among humans. It's the name that never wears out, since there will always be science and eternity. We're understood as democratic, republican and libertarian. Those are (now) redundant, easy child's play terms.

This is more of an outline than a formal platform (and from only my perspective), but I think it covers the most important issues (as I see them).

The current political system simply doesn't have enough that's truly substantial to show for its deception and violence. (See Breakthrough...).

Other than the mandatory revelations of new science/reality, the essence of the Eternal Science Party is libertarian; but with de-emphasis on guns/weaponry and violence in general. What's needed is to address the underlying psychology of the pathological need to own a gun for protection.

Unless the hard science exists to negate it, I support legalizing (recreational) marijuana for those 21 and older and prostitution (by and for adults). Let's face it: Alcohol and cigarettes are legalized public health hazards. Other vices must be proven equally or more hazardous before they can be (logically) prohibited. "A crime based on nothing but disapproval is no crime at all." Legal prostitution is, in fact, pro-marriage or monogamy. Would one rather their significant other be unfaithful with a whore or with someone who could ruin their relationship? It's no more complicated than that.

On taxes/the economy I pretty much know squat, but it seems rather obvious that if military spending were drastically reduced and the Black Budget eliminated (or perhaps virtually so), we could cut the hairy bejeezus out of taxes. And I bet in doing so we could easily institute universal health care. Eliminating all wasteful government spending will allow us, at longest last, to focus on that which is important: health care, education, clean energy, ecological rehabilitation. Should it turn out that, due to (mostly) Republican/neocon maniacs - those of the magical credit card persuasion - the deficit requires higher-than-wanted taxes, it won't require a genius to discern the "conservative" culprits.

Again, my ignorance of matters economic makes me a little hesitant, but as far as I can tell, we need to work toward having either a new currency (as in credits) or perhaps none. Granted, socialism is a viable concept only if there are far superior goods and services than today; and an inexhaustable supply.

State-sponsored execution isn't the practice of a sufficiently-enlightened people. Authorities must prove themselves unequivocally, thoroughly removed from the criminal class mentality before they're worthy of being considered authoritative. We must stop teaching death/murder, literally or suggestively, by clearly not condoning it. Violent offenders simply need to serve longer (or life) sentences, and nonviolent people need to be kept the heck away from prison as much as possible.

Abortion is a complex issue that can't be resolved within the present level of science. Other than my support of a woman's control over her body, I'm pro choice because of the unanswered questions of what exactly constitutes personhood, sentience and consciousness. Is the soul real, and does everyone have one? Even if it's proven that an embryo is as much a person as a full-term infant, who can say every person is best-suited to be born in a civilization on a biodiverse planet like ours? Perhaps certain vampiric types (evil spirits?) belong on dead, Mars-like worlds where they live underground like the vicious troglodytes they are... Or perhaps behavior is determined mostly by environment, education.

Though most people don't yet realize it, homosexual marriage is strictly a population-specific issue. I don't have a number that would be considered too low to allow gay/lesbian marriages. I leave that to a democratic consensus and/or the higher power to decide. Point is to recogize opposition to it as purely biological; not bigoted. Homosexuals (and bisexuals) must never be persecuted officially or otherwise, since they have equal human rights as contributers to society.

Nudity isn't pornography. We might as well face the fact that America as we know it has an inordinate percentage of repressed perverts. Males (or virtually totally males) who grow up without enough exposure to the nude adult female body too often end up exhibiting adverse, aggressive effects. De-sensitation is needed. It's just nature; no big deal. Aggression can be curbed with early enough exposure to the virtues of respect and consent.

There's no good reason why tasteful nudity can't be shown on prime time (and late night) TV in the US. And profanity should be allowed on at least late night. We need to bleep the living bleep out of the damn bleeps! If Canada can show the Osbournes without the bleeps, we can take their anti-neurotic cue and make it even more real, normal. Time to lighten up, people.

I believe, unless proven otherwise, that the only way the Eternal Science message/agenda stands a chance of taking hold and really working is if it's not attached to a significantly or perhaps at all visible person. Anything else places too much emphasis on the messenger and dilutes (at best) or obliterates the Message (hence: Christianity). We must never lose sight of the goal of the elimination of political idolatry. We need to bring ourselves as close to anarchy as possible. (For the totally brainwashed, the real definition of anarchy has nothing to do with chaos). I see no reason why the particularly vampiric nonsense of central/federal government - or anything resembling the one we know - should exist.

Of course I've no problem with a truly minimally nationally representative group of some sort (that's probably located in a small town somewhere in the Eastern Time Zone) that serves as a combination Chamber of Commerce, Tourist Bureau and Diplomatic Corps. And instead of a House of Representatives (and Senate), eventually (or immediately?) there can be (if necessary) a 5000-seat (or so) auditorium somewhere that would be the forum for solving public issues and lawmaking. That would allow a far truer representative democracy than we now have. The current garbage is secrecy-based elitism, imperialism.

Americans in particular need a lesson in substance over symbolism; or to be introduced to the concept of substance in our symbols. And what better lesson is there than to change the primary symbol - the flag? As inflammatory as it sounds, there's a good reason for it. It's in the highly objectionable portrayal of the blue. The current version, in my opinion, is an insult to (truly) intelligent (and presumably morally advanced) nonhuman beings. Of course if it's ever proven that such beings don't exist, there'd probably be no need to change the current flag.

Acknowledging that the blue represents the "heavenly" or "divine" (nonhuman origin), what real reason is there to darken it and (militarily) square it off? Shouldn't the only honest shade be primary (or perhaps light) blue? And shouldn't the starfield be circular and in the middle of the flag? (Red and white stripes are the same)... When one visualizes an honest blue, one should first imagine our planet from space or the afternoon sky. The blue circle represents Earth and the unseen realm.

Our fetid corpse of a national anthem has to go. The Star-Slathered Babble is the biggest worthless piece of bellicose, virtually tuneless Klingon Empire crap ever created. America the Beautiful has a pleasant melody and harmony and a positive message. The only line I'd change, due to my extreme digust with the g word, is "God shanned His..." to "love brought its..." Case closed.

Finally, I'm not running for President. My personality is that of a songwriter; not a chief executive. However, if the universe really is stranger than we can imagine, I'd gladly rise to the occasion if clearly called as such; even at the cost of my martyrdom (if necessary).

I'm a democrat; not an autocrat. I'm open to all the discussion, debate, revision, augmentation or whatever necessary regarding anything I've written or said. Starting a real, viable political party can only be a group effort. As of now - late June, '07 - it would be quite miraculous if we could have candidates in place for the November, '08 election. Anyone interested in PR?