We need to call it Liberty Control instead of Gun Control.

The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national
Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.

“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”

For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect
for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit
language to very good effect. They enforce an iron discipline when it
comes to the words they use to frame the discussion to their cynical
advantage. An article in The Atlantic exemplified this with: Don’t Call It ‘Gun Control’.  Or more recently in New York magazine: ‘Gun Control’ Has Outlived Its Usefulness

While we will never adopt it’s immoral base ideology of collectivism, it is time we maintained the same discipline in the words we use. This occurs in various instances, with the incorrect use of the term Liberal being the most prominent, but that is for another column.

The debate is rightfully over the cause of Liberty, so why not act like it?

At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the discussion over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A Pew research poll from last June showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom.  The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.

It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but
that is the implication when using those terms instead of the underlying
issue. Consider some other essential topics of freedom such as the
right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a ‘War on ballots’ or ‘assault search warrants’ instead?

Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the Left doesn’t understand.

The national Socialist-Left would love to keep this debate framed as one over scary looking pieces of aluminium instead of freedom. Even though polling has shown there are about 120 Million gun owners
in the country, many have no direct experience with firearms. Still
further many gun owners don’t have personal experience with every aspect
of the issue. Sad to say, but many people don’t care about subjects
that do not impact their lives directly. Never the less, they do care
about the subject of Liberty, they can see as something immediately
important to them.

Just compare the emotional influence of a polling question with just one word difference Liberty in place of Gun:

Do you favour more gun control?

Do you favour more Liberty control?

That changes the thinking from that of objects to one that personally impacts their lives. This Liberty instead of Gun phraseology also goes directly to the heart of the Left’s deceptive use of the term ‘Liberal’.
Even if they don’t know it implicitly, both words have the same
underlying meaning – they both come from the same root word after all.

The Takeaway.

It should be obvious why the national Socialist Left does things in a
certain way with an iron grip on words being at the forefront.
Revealing the underlying issues will cause them to lose the argument. So
now, en mass they are playing games with language the use to avoid the
word ‘Control’ but still framing the debate as one over inanimate objects. They’ve begun to use the alternative phrase ‘gun reform’ but this is still an issue over everyone’s freedom. Thus a phrase such as ‘Liberty reform’ will nail them to the wall as to their true intent.

Originally published on the NOQ Report



Why do leftists consider themselves to be of superior intelligence?

Centuries of failure of the collectivist ideologies beg the question
of why its purveyors would think of themselves as more intelligent than
anyone else.
“If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists.” ― Friedrich HayekTwo recent news articles on the ongoing failure of the Socialist
ideologies should call into question the intelligence of those who want
to forcibly impose ideas that harken back more than 500 years. The first
was on the ongoing saga of Seattle’s soda tax from Twitchy:

SERIOUSLY!? City of Seattle’s response to reports about new soda tax proves prog pols FAILED Econ-101
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/01/06/seriously-city-of-seattles-response-to-reports-about-new-soda-tax-proves-prog-pols-failed-econ-101/City officials are trying to dispel reports like the one above indicating the tax will actually increase the price of certain drinks. Why? Because they don’t intend for that to be the case: “The tax is collected on the final distribution of sweetened beverages by a distributor. The tax is not collected by the retailer nor is the tax burden intended to fall
onto the consumer.”–Seattle’s response to complaints about the sudden
increase in prices for sugary drinks — Joseph Bishop-Henchman (@jbhenchman) January 5, 2018

“The tax is collected on the final distribution of sweetened
beverages by a distributor. The tax is not collected by the retailer nor
is the tax burden intended to fall onto the consumer.”–Seattle’s
response to complaints about the sudden increase in prices for sugary

One can only assume that the people of the collectivist mindset have
convinced themselves of their superior intelligence because of their
superior intelligence and the rest of the great unwashed are beneath
them on the I.Q. scale. Hence the reason they make statements such as this:

The sweetened beverage tax is a tax on
the distribution of sweetened beverages in the city of Seattle. The tax
is collected on the final distribution of sweetened beverages by a
distributor. The tax is not collected by the retailer nor is the tax
burden intended to fall onto the consumer.

It would seem as though the Socialist mindset is that there is this
vast pool of money being hoarded by the rich. With just the right kind
of taxation scheme will serving to tap into that vast wellspring of cash
to the betterment of all (and more specifically to them because they were so magnanimous hand it out to everyone else).

The second article once again illustrated the non-functionality of
the collectivist ideals. In case that was all too predicable from those
with a modicum of common sense. From the Daily Mail:

St Louis ‘pay-what-you-want’ cafe is forced to close down
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5239621/St-Louis-pay-want-cafe-forced-close-down.htmlA Panera Bread Company restaurant in the St. Louis area where patrons for eight years had the option of paying as much or little as they wanted for a meal is closing its doors.

Panera founder and Executive Chairman Ron Shaich told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the St. Louis Bread Co. Cares Community Cafe in Clayton, Missouri, is imminently due to close because it was on a month-to-month lease and the store would have required a big investment. (H/T Louder with Crowder)

Perhaps the Left should try to come up with a workable ideology to
replace it’s failed socialist national agenda. That would at least show
everyone that they have what it takes in the cerebral cortex. For those
who want some further lessons in why the nation’s socialist left has to
up their game in the I.Q. department, there is this short video also
from Louder with Crowder:  Why “Democratic” Socialism Doesn’t Work

Originally published on the NOQ Report

Scrap Socialism, Part II

In the first part of this series, we laid out the case that the limited government of a representative republic is far superior to the oppressive collectivist ideologies. Part II will dispel the ‘That wasn’t really Socialism’ mythology of the nation’s Left as one of the last ways of selling it to a new generation, and another reason the ideology should be eliminated.

Part III will briefly discuss the vast sins of socialism, etc. , with regard to the ‘Socialism hasn’t been done correctly’ Lie or some variation thereof as the final part of the case for the abolition of this modern day slavery.

‘That wasn’t really Socialism’

Most of the Conservative-Right find it absolutely baffling that anyone would support the immoral and parasitic collectivist ideologies after their centuries of failure, oppression and mass murder. The abject denial of the ideology’s dark history has to be the main reason, if not merely a lack of knowledge or the prospect of obtaining free stuff.

Much like a ‘snake-oil’ salesman of the past peddling his useless wares with new labels, collectivists try to sell their ideology under a new name after each failure. This is how there are now over 30 different synonyms for the same failed concept, that alone should inform the reader that there is something seriously wrong with it:

Behold the wonderful new idea of Communism even though it’s closely related to socialism that failed to work in New Harmony, Indiana. Hey folks, look over here at Karl Marx’s new manifesto even though Communism failed to work in the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’. And back to everything is new again with Democratic Socialism, even though it’s the same thing in an old package.

The problem for the advocates of these same ideologies is that they all have the same common elements with just the names changed to protect the guilty. The absurd contention that ‘Socialism hasn’t been tried before’ or ‘done correctly’ has been thoroughly eviscerated many times over in a number of different ways. These denials of history are primarily based on the fallacy of the ‘No True Scotsman’ variety, with retroactive alterations of the definition of the word to confidently exclude the past failures of the ideology.

During freedom week back in July of this year The IEA’s Dr. Kristian Niemietz gave a talk on the subject on the historical record of how Leftists have lauded the beginnings of experiments in socialism and then changed to the ‘That wasn’t real Socialism’ line when they have invariably failed. These are the links to the 3 part series of the articles on those talks: Part I, Part II, Part III

In addition to this my esteemed colleague Paige Rogers thoroughly wrecked this contention with a point by point comparison of the antiquated writings of Marx and the latest incarnation of Socialism in Venezuela. These are the links to the 2 part series of the articles: Part I and Part II

Part of the problem of the Left is that they have to narrow the field of discussion to just one or two examples so as not to give up the game of trying to apply the same excuses to every instance of the failure of their ideology. For example, they will try to claim a certain national socialist worker’s party wasn’t actually a national socialist worker’s party or present-day example of absurdly claiming that a socialist regime is actually ‘capitalist’.

The Leftist-Socialist site Socialist Party of Great Britain [SPGB] has an interesting FAQ on the subject matter.

Full disclosure: It is questionable whether or not this is some sort of parody site since it has very interesting lines such as this in their FAQ:

Q: But why will people work if they don’t have to?
A: People will have to work, but it will be voluntary.

Which suspiciously sounds like the joke: As a Leftist being someone who doesn’t care what you do as long as it’s mandatory.

Never the less, they provide the following in their FAQ:

A short definition of what we understand to be socialism: “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.”

Well, if we examine the writings of one William Bradford and his history Of Plymouth plantation in his detailing of the results of the experimentation with collectivism:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For ye young-men that were most able and fit for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense.

We can see that was most assuredly sounded like “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.” Well, perhaps the excuse could be offered that Technically it wasn’t socialist because the word hadn’t been created yet. That had to wait for further experiments in collectivism in the early 1800’s with Robert Owen’s experiment in the concept at New Harmony in the American state of Indiana.

Owen set out in 1825 to establish a model of social organization, on land he had purchased in the U.S. state of Indiana. This was to be a self-sufficient, cooperative community in which property was commonly owned. New Harmony failed within a few years, taking most of Owen’s fortune with it.

The first use of the word ‘Socialism’ in the 1820’s referred to Robert Owen’s experiment and it meets the fluid criteria of the socialist in denying their past.

This was by no means the only example of early experiments in collectivism failing to work, later on, the communal colony of La Réunion was established near Dallas, Texas in 1855 and this only lasted 18 months.

It was founded by Victor Prosper Considérant, one of the leading democratic socialist figures in France and director of an international movement based on the philosophical and economic teachings of François Marie Charles Fourier. Considérant planned for the colony to be a loosely structured communal experiment administered by a system of direct democracy. The participants would share in the profits according to a formula based on the amount of capital investment and the quantity and quality of labor performed.

The Take-Away

Those were just a few examples of the early experiments in socialism, etc., that prove it’s been tried in the fluid ‘No true Scotsman’ form from the Socialist-Left. Each time, no matter the circumstances, it has failed to work. Each was “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.”

And each failed, so what is the point in repeating the experiment, time and time again? This is why this modern day slavery must be abolished from the list of viable governmental forms.

Part III will be a short overview of the Sins of Socialism and how the phrase ‘Socialism hasn’t been done correctly’ is also false because the results of collectivism are always the same, and part of the case for the ideology to be abolished.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

Video – SAS2017: Dennis Prager

 Liberals have been brainwashed into thinking the right is the enemy when the real enemy of Liberalism is the Left.

“We are fighting the Left, Not Liberals.” – Dennis Prager[7 minute mark]

Dennis Prager Of PragerU Speaks To Thousands Of Conservative Activists From Across The Country At Turning Point USA’s Annual Student Action Summit In West Palm Beach, FL! #BigGovSucks #TPUSA #PragerU

Courtesy of: Turning Point USA,

Dennis Prager of PragerU and other endeavours gave a superb speech at Turning Point USA’s Annual Student Action Summit. The whole 57 minute video is well worth watching because he discusses some very important topics, but here are some of the most important points he raised in the first few minutes of the speech:

  • We are fighting the Left, not Liberals.

This [point] will help you immensely in making converts or at least making people aware of what you’re fighting.

Liberals have been brainwashed into thinking the right is the enemy when the real enemy of Liberalism is the Left.

  • Every American coin has what American stands for Liberty and in God we Trust, E pluribus unum. All three repulse the Left.
  • We are in a non-violent civil war.
  • The Left wishes to undo the American Revolution.

The left has never been interested in Liberty except for abortion, they have no desire for individual freedom.

There were two revolutions at the end of the 18th Century, The American and the French.
They had very little in common. And the biggest difference between them was, one affirmed equality and one did not.

  • The American revolution was for Liberty. The French revolution was for equality.

You cannot have Liberty and equality as equal values. The moment there is Liberty, there is inequality.
We believe in two equalities, one that we are all God’s Children, we all created in God’s image and therefore we are all equal. And that we are all equal before the Law.

The points he raised were also articulated in a column of his several years ago entitled: It’s a Civil War: What We Do Now

In this unprecedented crisis of values, this is what needs to be done:

1. Know and teach America’s core values.

In a nutshell, they are what I call the American Trinity: “In God we trust,” “Liberty” and “E Pluribus Unum.” The left has successfully made war on all three — substituting secularism for God and religion in as much of American life as possible; substituting equality (of result) for liberty; and multiculturalism is the opposite of “E Pluribus Unum.”

2. Recognise that we are fighting the left, not liberals.

Conservatives and centrists are no longer fighting liberals. We are fighting the left.

Liberalism believed in American exceptionalism; the left not only does not believe in it, the left opposes it.

Liberalism believed in creating wealth; the left is interested in redistributing it.

Liberalism believed in a strong defense. The left believes in cutting defense and a strong United Nations.

7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

Scrap Socialism: Part I

The collectivist ideologies have left a trail of death and
destruction for centuries, isn’t it time to be rid of them as a viable
form of government?

“A society based on the freedom to choose is better than a society based on the principles of socialism, communism and coercion.” – Milton Friedman

Why the economic slavery of Socialism, etc. need to be eliminated

Since the Socialist-Left insists on recycling the absurd idea of
abolishing the economic liberty of the Free-Market [Or their pejorative
terminology ‘capitalism’] why not consider the reverse position of
abolishing the economic slavery of Socialism? The means scraping it’s
dizzying array of alternate labels which all can be included ‘collectively’ as: Socialism, etc.
We will make the case for the abolition of theses ideologies and the
keeping of economic liberty. This will be built upon three main parts.
The first will be an examination of the age of experimentation of
governance and why the best forms should be kept and the worst rejected.
The second will be a brief overview of the history of the collectivist
ideologies and why its variations of failure make the case for their
abolition. Finally we will examine the sins of socialism, etc., as a
basis for humanity rejecting collectivism.

The age of experimentation of governance

It could be argued that the past few centuries since the dawn of the
industrial revolution have been a crucible for the refinement of how
people can govern themselves. Agriculture had originally made it more
advantageous for people to live in groups and governments were
instituted to protect property and bring order out of chaos. The
industrial age saw the creation of new forms of governance with some
being far more successful than others. Now is the time to consider which
of these should be utilized and which should be relegated to the ash
heap of history.

The origin of collectivist ideologies could be traced back to ancient
times exemplified with the expression of the ideas in the works of
Plato. These were followed centuries later with Thomas More’s seminal
work ‘Utopia’ published more than 500 years ago in 1516.  Even the Marxists have acknowledged that this 500 year old tome was the first ‘genuinely socialist position’.
The collectivist fantasy world envisioned in the book didn’t have to
accede to the flaws and foibles of the reality of imperfect human
beings, thus it could be a perfect society. This tendency to assume that
fanciful theoretical constructs can work the real world is a common
denominator with the Socialist-Left. This is partially how they can
explain away the repeated failures of their base ideology down through
the centuries. Since there can never be a melding of the real
world and the theoretical, they always have a ready made excuse for why
it’s never worked.

These Utopian fantasies are postulated on the idea that human
beings can be made perfect and thus can be the basis of a perfect
History should teach us that this is an impossible
task because people will always have flaws and imperfections.
Collectivists of the past have tried to reform people into perfect
beings through various means and have always failed. Governmental
systems that take into account that people are imperfect are far more
While the Socialist-Left would like people to think that it’s tired old concepts are ‘fresh’, ‘scientific’ and the wave of the future, the plain fact is that they are centuries old
with a consistent history of incessant failure. This contention is
rather ironic given that experimentation in the collectivist forms of
governance were some of the first new forms and prevalent within the
historic record of the past few centuries.

It is also supremely ironic that the first trial runs of the failed
collectivist ideologies took place in the Americas, given that these
ideas are now thought of as new and originating in Europe. The first
colonies in the new world of Jamestown and Plymouth
practised a disastrous form of collectivism that saw the first vestiges
of death that has plagued that ideology since it’s inception. The
fruits of everyone’s labour were placed in a common store, and since
there was no advantage to work the results were pitiful and the people
starved. It was only after the protection of private property
whereby people were able to keep their earnings that the colonies

Of course, the rest of the story was that the colonies formed a
nation and won their independence. Thankfully, the founding fathers were
learned men and they studied what works and what does not and brought
forth the best form of government ever created. Their study of the works
of John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu taught them to restrain the
government and ‘provide new guards for their future security’.

The representative republic they created is the best form of
governance by far, and it’s track record speaks for itself. The
Socialist-left is constantly disavowing it’s string of past failures
with repetition of the lie ‘that wasn’t real socialism’ or that
‘Socialism has never really been tried’. No one has ever said that about
a representative republics, that alone should point to that form of
government being the best and that the collectivist ideologies being the

The true genius of the founding fathers was that they understood the
basic forms of government and selected the best for the new nation.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the following encapsulation of the three types of
government in a letter to James Madison, in 1787:

“Societies exist under three forms sufficiently
distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under
governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence,
as is
the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great
one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other
monarchies and in most of the other republics.

History has taught us that the second type is the best form. It
should also be clear that the collectivist forms fall into the third
category given that they depend on force to impose collective instead of
individual rights.

The collectivist ideologies depend on force to redistribute property.

Force and coercion are the only way to control people and properly
redistribute their wealth. At some point the guns have to come out to
pay for all the free-stuff promised by the Socialist-Left, that is the
ugly truth of Socialism, etc. and the collectivist ideal. It is also the
reason the Socialist-Left has to couch it’s ideology in terms of
‘freedom’ and ‘equality’. But just like it’s pretence of creating a
perfect society, those two concepts are incompatible.

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they
are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not
free.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Takeaway

We need to recognize the true genius of the founding fathers in what
they created. The government they formulated has served us well for over
240 years. No government or society can ever be perfect, because they
are based on imperfect beings. The collectivist forms are based on the arrogant but impossible idea that people and societies can somehow be perfected.
History teaches us that these beliefs will lead to simple failure in
the best case scenario, and concentration camps and mass murder in the
worst. This is why these ideologies need to be eliminated as viable
forms of government.

Originially posted on the NOQ Report.

Scrap Socialism, Part III

A multi-count indictment of the crimes against humanity
perpetrated by the Socialist ideologies as justification for their

In Parts I and Part II of this dissertation, we made the case for the abolition of the modern day slavery of the collectivism. Part I
presented the proof that Limited government and the economic liberty of
the free-market are far superior to the unlimited authoritarian
government and economic slavery of the socialist ideologies. Part II Eviscerated the ‘That wasn’t real socialism’ lie while examining the early history of these ideas and their abject failure down through the centuries.

Part III will attempt to briefly detail the sins of socialism,
because one could easily write a whole book about the crimes against
humanity perpetrated by the collectivist ideologies and the case for
their abolition.

“Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.” – President Calvin Coolidge

500 year old ideas relabeled as new and being ‘social’.

One could argue that there are really only two basic political
ideologies of either the individual or the collective. Leftists are very
adapt at word selection, and in this case they prefer to use ‘social’ instead of collective or communist for that matter. So, in the flowery language of the Left and with the suffix ‘ism’ added it is ‘individual’ ism versus ‘social’ ism.

Yes, this is how these decrepitly old ideas are being repackaged and sold to a new generation brought up on ‘social’ media and similar phrases. Individualism subtly implies self-interest or being selfish, or ego(t)ism [German: ‘eigennutz’]. Contrast this with the almost subliminally positive terms of being ‘Social’ or ‘Sociable’ or for the ‘common good’ [German: ‘gemeinnutz’]. Years of social indoctrination have convinced a generation that this is a positive attribute. Witness the overuse of the term ‘Social Justice Warrior’ as something allegedly noble and good.

Socialism: Subjugation by Force.

Meanwhile, the dirty little secret of the socialist ideologies is
that they require the individual to be subjugated by force to the
collective in order to operate. Everyone’s property and liberty are to
be sacrificed for the ‘common good’ by the threat or actual use of force. This was detailed by Milton Friedman in the short video ‘Socialism is Force’.
The socialist ideologies cannot operate in any other manner, but this
is dressed up as “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” [Liberty, Equality,
Fraternity] or similar nonsensical boilerplate.

Consider the positive spin that Mayor Bill de Blasio placed on these ideas in an interview from last September in New York Magazine.

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is
structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city,
of every background, would like to have the city government be able to
determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to
live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic
impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they
would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I
would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of
years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the
point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of

Note the subtle positivity of the promise of the people collectively
enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labour in having all manner of
housing and other wonderful manifestations if not for those pesky
property rights of the individual.

Further on in the interview he rips off the mask and revels in the wondrous benefits of authoritarianism with a “very, very powerful government”:

That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have,
in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal
back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful
government, including a federal government, involved in directly
addressing their day-to-day reality.

The implication is that everyone would love to have a centralised “Nanny state”
that provides all kinds of freebies for the low-low price of their
liberty and the property of a few individuals. All it takes is enough
government force to run people’s lives, or as he put it: “directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

The problem is that these Utopian fantasies is that there promises
can never come to fruition. They are fundamentally contrary to economic
logic and human nature. Worse still, the sins of socialism are a direct
outgrowth of this subjugation of the individual to the collective.

The justification for the elimination of the Socialist ideologies.

The stirring words of Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of
Independence seemed to be the most appropriate in addressing the
justification in the elimination of the socialist ideologies from the
slate of viable governmental forms and the rightful conclusion to the
age of experimentation:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future

Notwithstanding their flowery Utopian words and promises, the socialist ideologies for all intents and purposes begin as a colossal fraud against humanity and end with incomprehensible oppression and mass murder.
Socialists must know that their pompous sales pitch of free health
care, housing, college education and anything else they can think of can
never be fulfilled. But this never stops them from trying to con a new
generation to the siren song of free stuff. Not to mention the old saw
of the state ‘withering away’ never happening in their base ideology’s checkered and dreadful past. If ever there was “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” it would have to be the socialist ideologies.

While it might seem strange and somewhat hypocritical for those of a conservatarian
mindset to advocate what type of government a people can choose for
themselves, at some point humanity should be able to determine which
governmental form is superior and which should end up on the scrap heap
of history. It is out of humanitarian compassion that we should
want to stop some from making the same dreadful mistakes, so often
repeated with horrific results.

The axiom of “One Man (or woman), One vote, ONCE” succinctly
encapsulates the problem in the choice of collectivist governmental
forms. Over the centuries, many a populace has fallen for the siren song
of socialism and it’s unrealistic theory of a perfect “worker’s paradise”. Collectivists as a group tend to be long on promises and flimsy excuses instead of actual results.

The fact that force has to be used to implement these ideologies is
never really discussed in the glossy brochures or manifestoes. By the
time the promises have fallen short a bureaucratic behemoth will already
be in place to intimidate, imprison or execute those who have become
aware of the fraud being perpetrated. In his book on the Hungarian
revolution in 1956 “The Bridge at Andau” , James A. Michener touched on this historic con game. This was also mentioned recently by Anatole Konstantin in an “Ask Me Anything” session on reddit as to why the Soviet union eventually collapsed. He stated:

”I think it was the spiritual crisis caused by
discrepancy between the rosy propaganda and totalitarian reality that
made the Soviet people lose faith in the system. I think there is a
lesson in this for us.”

This is why these ideologies have to be banished as a form of
government. There are many of forms of deception that are rightfully
considered to be crimes. The socialist ideologies have a history
of unmatched crimes against humanity, shouldn’t that alone be the apt
justification for their abolishment?

The Sins of Socialism.

The final nail in the coffin for socialist ideologies should be their
incessant crimes against humanity. These range from societal
oppression, torture and imprisonment to mass murder on an industrial
scale. This is on top of the fact that the age of governmental
experimentation have demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of a
constitutionally limited representative republic model.
Not to mention the plain fact that the socialist ideologies simply do not work in the real world.

One of the Left’s most common excuses in defense of socialism is that ‘It wasn’t done correctly’
or some variation thereof. The problem with these tiresome and overly
repetitive excuses is that the collectivist ideologies are all based on
the same basic principles, as they yield the same horrific outcome every
time they are tried. After centuries of the same failure and the same
oppression ridden results, it is safe to say that these experiments will always end up the same,  no matter how the Left tries to play with the meaning of words, 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America over and under defining their base ideology.

The final case for the abolition of the socialist ideologies will
begin with it’s mildest forms of oppression and ending up with it’s most
brutal. This also just happens to coincide with the usual timeline of
how these con games are usually perpetrated.


For the most part, deception is part and parcel to the socialist
ideologies. This goes back to their basic principles of subjugation of
the individual by force. The brutal reality of these ideologies is
hardly amenable to acceptance by people, so as a matter of course
socialist ideologues have elevated lying and deceit to an art form.
Their deceptions begin with all manner of labeling lies – their being “Liberal” or “Progressive” to playing games with the names of their legislative program (e.g. “Affordable Care Act”) to the very colours used to describe their side of the political spectrum.

Denigration of Liberty.

Many have taken notice of a distinct feature of the Socialist-Left,
that of wanting to have tight control over people. This was exemplified
in the previous previously referenced piece on Mayor Bill de Blasio. In
the past, it has kept a lid on it’s totalitarian tendencies, but as of
late, they have really come out of the authoritarian closet.
Time was they just had their gun control hobby horse, but this has
expanded to wanting to clamp down on free-speech by the expedient of “Hate Speech”  to wanting to have any form of religion [with one notable exception] banished from the public sphere.

People (Gun) Control.

As mentioned, this has always been an obsession with those of the
socialist ideologies, since one cannot subjugate a population without a
monopoly on the use of force. Socialists , Communists, Maoists and Fascists
of the storied past of the Left have all taken the step of disarming
the people, before it becomes necessary to oppress them. It never works
out too well to have Chekists or Gestapo break down someone’s door at
3:00 AM and be on the receiving end of a blast of friendly gunfire.
Better to have people acquiesce to registering and then having their
guns confiscated before the real oppression can commence in earnest.

Censorship and tight state control of the media.

Those of the control obsessed socialist ideologies also need to keep a
tight lid of information and free-speech. One cannot pull a con game on
an entire population if people can start to question the veracity of
all the lofty promises of free stuff. Cults often use the same
indoctrination tactics, bombarding people day and night with the same
simplistic and false messaging, keeping them in an echo chamber where
contravening facts can’t get in the way. An essential part of this
propagandization involves the denigration of alternate information
sources to keep the victim suspicious of anything that contradicts what
they are being repetitively taught.

Tight Societal Control.

The erasure of privacy and personal lives in favour of collectivist
mentality is part and parcel of the indoctrination process. One is no
longer supposed to focus on themselves, but on the ‘greater good’
of the collective. A tight surveillance state is also essential in
these matters with the carrot of convenience hiding the stick of
government control as in the case of Communist China as detailed in the Washington Post.

Secret Police Apparatus.

In the book “The Bridge at Andau”
, James A. Michener had an extensive discussion on the AVO – the
Hungarian version of the typical secret state security apparatus. These
are all too commonplace amongst the collectivist regimes. While the Cheka,
Stasi and Gestapo were infamous in their brutality, the history of the
socialist ideologies are replete with these organisations with many
still continuing the ‘traditions’ of torture and imprisonment: Asphyxia and Drills: How Political Prisoners in Venezuela Get Tortured, Venezuelan Regime Steps up Torture against Protesters, Forces Them to Eat Excrement.

It also follows that subjugation by force require a vast system of
facilities to imprison, torture and murder those that disagree with it’s
“Democratic” process. In the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’ this immense network was termed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as The Gulag Archipelago, the ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’ regime had it’s system of concentration camps and ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ has it’s ‘La Tumba’,  amongst other prisons to give just a few examples.

Mass Murder on an Industrial Scale.

This of course was the end of the line in the range of barbaric
realities of the socialism. What begins with brainwashing and absence of
liberty finishes up with unmerciful torture and death. Even this
portion of the collectivist oppression realm has it’s horrific ‘innovations’ unmatched in modern times. Socialists know from their cold, calculating thoughts that there will be those who refuse to be “Re-educated” and become model comrades of a glorious collectivist society. They know that some will have to be sacrificed for the ‘common good’, but they are perfectly willing to “Break a few eggs to make an omelet”.
No one has an exact read on the death toll of the Socialist ideologies,
but there have been attempts to make these estimates in: The Black Book of Communism

The Final Word.

This long list of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the
socialist ideologies is a multi-count indictment against their
continuation as viable government forms.
The original
inspiration for it were the absurd calls by the Left for the elimination
of economic liberty. It should be clear that the case for the opposite
has been made. The socialist ideologies do not work and they are
woefully inferior to Limited government representative republics that
protect property and the rights of the individual. Lastly, the
incomprehensible crimes against humanity perpetrated by the socialist
ideologies should seal their fate as to what should be done with them. Those
vile, immoral, parasitic and downright evil ideologies should never
have been tried in the first place and never tried again.


Originally published on the NOQ Report

New Years Resolutions

Well, it’s about that time when people start thinking about new years resolutions, such as to resolving to Smile More and Complain less…

So, in that spirit …

For the President: Please stop getting into petty fights with leftists on twitter.

Mr. President, Twitter can be a double edged sword at times – a way
to be instantly in touch with constituents, and a way to get off track
in petty battles over irrelevant subjects. You need to show some
restraint in picking your battles and perhaps have another pair of eyes
to be sure of what is being disseminated. You have a powerful weapon of
mass communication in social media. However, you need to be mindful that
the backlash from inadvertent slip-ups can be devastating.

For the Conservative-Right: Resolve to stop complimenting Leftists with the term ‘Liberal’.

We all know that it’s hard to kick a bad habit and easy to confuse the terms ‘Leftist’ and ‘Liberal’.
Nevertheless, we must be mindful that these terms signify two entirely
different and antithetical concepts.  Besides that, Leftists love the
deception having their authoritarian designs labelled as “Liberalism’.

Leftists are advocates of Collective rights – Socialism, Marxism, etc. while Liberals [from the same root word as Liberty] are by definition, advocates of individual rights and freedoms. At it’s core, Socialism is the subjugation of the individual to the collective and anathema to personal freedom and Liberty. Liberal implies a support of liberty, but if they advocate the economic slavery of socialism, that isn’t the case.

There is a silent split taking place in the formally unified Leftist sphere. Search on YouTube for “Leaving the Left” and you will see there is a whole series of videos on ‘Leaving the Left’ , including one from Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report ‘The Left is No Longer Liberal.’

So, how does one distinguish between the two?

If someone advocates for the collective rights of socialism, they are
Leftist. If someone advocates for individual liberty and free trade,
they are Liberal. [‘Classic Liberal’ in the vernacular – perhaps it is time to reclaim the original word…]

For the Socialist-Left: Resolve to give up on Gun Confiscation.

We are all well aware that this is your obsession and the lynch pin
in depriving the people of their Liberty. Never the less, you people
should realise that it’s just not going to happen.

We also know that you are working tirelessly day and night to chip
away at out common sense civil rights. Everything from incremental steps
like Intergalactic Background Checks and registration to ‘hail Mary’ attempts with the banning of undefined ‘assault weapons’.

This is why we resist (how’s that for a word) your efforts to use every ‘serious crisis’ and falsely pretend gun are unregulated and need something – anything – to clamp down on those who are innocent.

And for everyone else: Resolve to go back to the logical colours for two political sides – Red for the Socialist-Left and Blue for the Conservative-Right.

For years the common held designation had the Left as Red and the Right as Blue,
then back during the year 2000 election some folks decided to turn
things upside down. Well, now is the time to change them back to their
rational form. Even the New York Times has acknowledged this with it’s “Red Century” series, and this would just be common sense to all involved.


When Republicans Were Blue and Democrats Were Red
not everyone liked the shift. Republican operative Clark Bensen wrotean analysis in 2004 titled “RED STATE BLUES: Did I Miss That Memo?” “There are two general reasons why blue for Republican and Red for Democrat make the most sense: connotation and practice,” Bensen wrote. “First, there has been a generally understood meaning to the two colors inasmuch as they relate to politics. That is, the cooler color blue more closely represented the rational thinker and cold-hearted and the
hotter red more closely represented the passionate and hot-blooded. This would translate into blue for Republicans and red for Democrats. Put another way, red was also the color most associated with socialism and the party of the Democrats was clearly the more socialistic of the two major parties.

“The second reason why blue for Republicans makes sense is that
traditional political mapmakers have used blue for the modern-day
Republicans, and the Federalists before that, throughout the 20th
century. Perhaps this was a holdover from the days of the Civil War when
the predominantly Republican North was ‘Blue’.”

Originally published on the NOQ Report