The Political Litmus test: Determining one’s place on the political spectrum.

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

It’s to the advantage of some groups to deliberately confuse the issue as to where one fits in the scheme of politics. Baffling political spectrum models or false labels are used to make this a daunting task. It’s the political version of the old saying that those who believe in nothing will fall for anything. Muddy the political waters to the point of absolute chaos and people will accept whatever they are told is their political ideology.

This is seen with various nonsensical political spectrum models that result in ridiculous political combinations such as an Anarchist-Communist. This incongruous juxtaposition of the complete absence of government control with complete government control is akin to the physical impossibility of Antimatter-Matter. Or there are the more commonplace attempts to make the slavery of socialism the natural extension of ‘Liberalism’. One being of the collectivist or left side of the political spectrum while the other is of the individualist or right side. In both cases, these phenomenon cannot logically exist due to the incongruity of the two concepts.

Simplifying the process to let people determine their ideology for themselves.

The point of this discussion is to end the confusion using fundamental principles in combination with the practical application of the ideological definitions. This will let everyone determine their place in the political universe for themselves instead of having it done for them with some biased questions or confusing graphics.

The engineering fields provide us with the best analytical model for making this determination. This begins with looking to basic principles to develop a ‘rough calculation’ of the answer. Then one proceeds to a more sophisticated analysis of the issue to develop more refined solutions. The first step in grounding the analysis in the fundamentals insures that the results of each stage will be in overall agreement.

The basic principle determining who is on which side of the Political Spectrum.

Author and Engineer Robert A. Heinlein set forth this fundamental principle of the political realm as the first step in this analysis:

Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A. Heinlein

This provides the underlying precept for the rest of this analysis. It is a ‘rough calculation’ giving a very good approximation on where one might fall on the political spectrum. This is most likely objected to by those who would prefer a confused electorate, but its a superb way of making this determination. We will label this the ‘Heinlein line’ in honour of the man articulated this rule.

It should be readily apparent that those who clamour for wealth redistribution, Liberty control and tight regulation of business would fall on the ‘want people to be controlled’ side of the equation. One cannot have these ‘benefits’ without the strict control of the people as well as their property. It should also be obvious that those who want limited government would fall on the ‘no such desire’ side of the line.

We can also refine the determination with a few additional questions along the same lines:

What is the purpose of the government? Is it to impose fairness and equality or is it to let everyone live in peace with minimal interference?

Should government have virtually unlimited power for ‘the common good’ or should it be constrained?

Those on the political Left tend towards the control side of the line. Although they prefer to dress up their control fetish in terms of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’, their ruling over the population is always seems to be the final result. This is contrasted with those on the political Right who want to be left alone, with strict limitations on governmental power.

Developing the metrics of a True Political Spectrum.

Now that we’ve done the ‘rough calculation’ indicating which side someone is situated on the Right-Left divide. We can refine where someone might be on the scale based on the definitions of the various common ideologies.

A political spectrum model is only is good as it’s underlying metric. Utilising nonsensical measurements such as ‘reaction to change’ are only useful to those with a certain political agenda that presumes an inexorable movement of history towards the Left. These only serve to reinforce these agendas without having any logical usefulness.

First principles would indicate that political power translates to governmental power, therefore that should be the generalised metric for any political spectrum model. While there are those who prefer to confuse the issue with 2 or even 3 dimensional constructs, the point here is to array the various ideologies in a logical manner instead of trying to foster a particular agenda. A quick search on the topic will yield a dizzying array of Lines, Squares, Diamonds, Cubes and other indescribable constructs that only serve to bewilder those trying understand the subject. Most often, these are set-up to convince the reader they are of a certain ideological bent when this is nothing of the kind.

Constructing the True Political Spectrum.

A basic two-dimensional graphic is the best illustration of the political spectrum. The y-axis indicates the percentage of government control while the x-axis is the Left-Right specrum line. The Right endpoint indicates 0% Government, while the Left endpoint indicates 100% Government. Definitionally speaking, the Right end will represent Anarchy – or no government control. While the Left end will represent Totalitarianism – Total government control. Please note that this corresponds directly with the ‘rough calculation’ of the Heinlein rule.

As one moves from the Right to the Left, government control increases. Libertarians are a short distance in from the Right end desirous of minimal government. Conservatives are a little further along in wanting a little more, followed by the Liberals desirous of ‘moderate political and social reform’ but still ‘favouring individual liberty’ and ‘free trade’.

Keep in mind that we are still on the Right side of the political spectrum, the side that favours the individual and individualism.

Over on the Left side of the political spectrum past the ‘Heinlein line’ the ideological terms are often used interchangeably. Moving Leftward there are the ever vaguely defined progressives who believe in ‘moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action’. Then there are the Socialists, Fascists, Communists or one of the myriad of synonyms for these ideologies. These ideologies are all of the collectivist mindset that necessitates expansive government control in order to operate.

The Takeaway.

It should be clear that instead of a complicated graphical models or a set of biased questions, one can easily determine their place on the political spectrum with some basic logical reasoning. Along with a check on the actual meaning of certain ideological terms.

One can easily surmise that most people would be of the ‘no such desire’ in controlling others on the Right side of the political spectrum. Which most likely would explain why things are not taught this way, there would be far fewer Leftists as a result.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report


Celebrate #Liberty with Gun Pride Month #GunPrideMonth

Firearms in the defense of Liberty made Independence day possible, Gun Pride Month is a commemoration of that fact.

The 4th of July and the independence of the United States of America wouldn’t have been possible without the force to defend Liberty. At present there are many of the nation’s socialist Left who obsess over depriving the people of that force. This will be a month-long celebration of firearms in the defence of Liberty.

Authoritarian Socialism can only be imposed by a force of arms.

The blunt fact is that the Left’s socialist national agenda can only be imposed at the point of a gun,
this is why they obsess over depriving the people of their commonsense
human Liberty of self-defense. Toward this end, the Liberty grabbers of
the Left are working day and night to stigmatize guns and gun ownership,
so this is a direct response echoing the founding fathers’ conceptions
in the defense of Liberty. The Untied States became the greatest nation
on earth because of foundational limitations on governmental power, with
the most important being the common sense human right of self-defense.

Gun Confiscation sparked the Revolutionary War.

It is important to note that what became the war for independence
began when his majesty’s troops tried to deprive the colonials of their
fundamental human Liberties with gun confiscation. An idea the Left obsesses over now.
They can only do so by denigrating gun ownership/Liberty culture along
with the tactics of divide and conquer. This entails attacking parts
culture of Liberty culture in detail, attempting to defeat those
portions before moving on to other sections. Thus they are going after
those scary looking guns that have falsely labelled as ‘Military style’.
Were they to succeed in depriving the people of their venerable AR-15s,
they would soon enough go after another segment of Liberty culture.

The primary lesson of Gun Pride Month.

There would be no Bill of Rights were it not for the commonsense human Liberty of self-defence. In other words “Without the 2nd there would be no 1st”. That firearms are the last bulwark of Liberty, epitomised by this quote from Hubert H. Humphrey:

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under
any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of
citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should
not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution
should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear
arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more
safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but
which historically has proved to be always possible.

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,

Comm.: Foreign Relations Minnesota

Firearms serve as a check on government power, a force possessed by
the people that preserves their Liberty. The reality is that the Left
obsesses over the deprivation of this fundamental human right because
they want over control of the people, that is the bottom line of their
Liberty grabber agenda.

The Schedule of events for Gun Pride Month.

So now that we’ve explained the reason for the season, this is the
tentative outline for the festivities. During the month long
celebration, each day of the week will have it’s own special

#BLOATMondays [Buy Lots Of Ammo Today]
– This should need no explanation. One cannot defend Liberty without
the tools to do so. This includes practice ammunition to maintain what
are very perishable skills. For you Liberty grabber Leftists out there,
this means that someone with a few thousand rounds means they prefer to
be safe, properly maintaining their skills.

#DGUTuesdays – a weekly celebration of that which the Liberty grabbers claim never happens.

#Full30 Wednesdays  – Celebrating a video channel that doesn’t try to suppress liberty with censorship.

#3DThursdays – Highlights the ever advancing 3d printer technology  that has rendered Liberty [Gun] control obsolete.

#Freedom Fridays – The day for everyone to bring another freedom defender into the fold showing them how to select and buy a new gunhow else are we going to reach the goal of 200 million gun owners with 700 Million guns?

#SaturdayShoots – Practice makes perfect and it’s lots of fun.


Week Long Celebrations.

Each week of the month of July will focus on some of the very important parts of Liberty Culture.

  • The first week will celebrate the 4th of July and the AR-15: The Modern Day Musket.
  • Week two will honour the organisations that defend our vital civil Liberties from the scourge of Socialism – the NRA, Gun Owners of America [GOA] as well as other civil rights organisations.
  • The third week of the month of July will commemorate all of the Pre-Constitution repeating firearm technologies the Socialist-Left would like to pretend never existed.
  • Next we will have Guns save Lives week focusing on deterrence and the millions of times each year that firearms preserve life.
  • Finally, week 5 will be a tip of the hat to all of the Liberty
    grabbers that have helped boost memberships in those aforementioned
    Civil Rights organisations the civil rights and caused more and more
    people to buy more and more guns. This will be a half week recognition of their unwitting contributions to the cause of Liberty that cannot be underestimated.

We will add special events such as Eugene Stoner day as time permits. Now go out there and celebrate Liberty – it will be well worth it just to upset the Leftists.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report



True Liberals Belong on the Conservative-Right.


Which side of the political spectrum deserves the meritorious designation of Liberal?

Consider the words of a true Liberal on the effect of ever-expanding government on the cause of Liberty:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.” Letter From Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 27 May 1788

Then consider this ‘progressive’ synopsis of the issue:

  • Liberal precepts are essentially Individual rights and freedoms, It is self-evident that these are diminished as government grows.
  • Socialist-Left Precepts are of expansive government in conflict with the Liberal precepts based in Liberty.
  • Therefore, one cannot be an advocate of expansive government and be a true Liberal.

Despite this straightforward logic, the ever deceptive Socialist-Left would like to have it both ways. They
incessantly demand the ever-expanding government to the detriment of
Liberty, and yet they have the insolence to assume the pretense of being
This term is deeply rooted in the concepts
of freedom, it really belongs to the Pro-Liberty, Conservative side of
the political spectrum. The point of this discussion is to set the
record straight on this issue, despite Leftist lies on the subject.

Those of the Socialist-Left belong on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum.

Those who favor Individual rights and freedoms belong on the Pro-liberty, right side of the political spectrum.

While It is conceivable that Leftists may try to rationalize that
Liberty can thrive with an overarching government, common sense clearly
indicates this is an impossibility. Perhaps they know deep down that
this is a severe deception on their part. Or it could be that they
haven’t given the contradiction too much thought, lest it disturbs their
superficial worldview that is bereft of logical underpinnings. After
all, everyone would like to have a positive view of themselves. Who
wouldn’t want to think of themselves as “Liberators” or protectors of freedom?

The problem for the Socialist-Left is that they are neither protectors of freedom or liberators, they are quite the opposite.
The blunt fact is that their base ideology of collectivism has been the
cause of horrid oppression, as well as, mass murder in the past century
– and is still going strong.
That they severely contradict themselves each and every time they use
the Liberal label for their freedom destroying agenda should be obvious
to everyone, but many (even on the Pro-Liberty Right) still unwittingly praise them when they use that label.

The unchanging meaning of the words Liberty and Liberal.

If it seems that words such as Liberty, Liberation, Libertarian, Liberalis as well as Liberal all convey similar conceptions it is because they all stem from the same root word Liber. This word that signifies the idea of freedom that traces it’s roots to the word in Greek eleutheros meaning: free, i.e. not a slave or not under restraint free.  That they all have a common and unchanging meaning should be obvious.

Proving the case that true Liberals belong on the political right with two recent examples.

Consider a recent article from Reason magazine  on the revelation that the ACLU is wavering on Free-Speech

It seems fairly clear to me what’s
happening here. Leadership would probably like the ACLU to remain a
pro-First Amendment organization, but they would also like to remain in
good standing with their progressive allies. Unfortunately, young progressives are increasingly hostile to free speech,
which they view as synonymous with racist hate speech. Speech that
impugns marginalized persons is not speech at all, in their view, but
violence. This is why a student Black Lives Matter group shut down an
ACLU event at the College of William & Mary last year, chanting “liberalism is white supremacy” and “the revolution will not uphold the Constitution.”
Campus activism is illiberal, and liberal free speech norms conflict
with the broad protection of emotional comfort that the young, modern
left demands.
The ACLU’s capitulation to the anti-speech left should serve as a wake-up call for true liberals.

[Our emphasis] This revelation is pretty extraordinary considering
that Liberty is part of the organization’s very name. That is but one
data point in the revelation of the Left turning against Liberty and the
proper place for true Liberals being on the political right.

Then there is the example of the Dartmouth study that showed that who self-identify as Republican were more likely to be tolerant of others:

Democrats were consistently more likely to indicate conflicting politics negatively affect potential relationships. While 82 percent of respondents who identified Democrats say they would be less likely to date someone with opposing political beliefs, only 47 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans said the same. Similarly, 55 percent
of Democratic respondents said opposite political views would make them
less likely to befriend another student, compared to 21
percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.

In other words, it was those of the right who displayed a very Liberal attitude towards others.

The Takeaway.

Thus we have demonstrated that advocates of ever-expanding government
are adverse to Liberty and the Liberal precepts of Individual rights
and freedoms. This means that those two goals are in opposition such
that those on the Socialist-Left cannot be Liberal.

We have also shown that despite many protestations to the contrary,
the word Liberal, as well as others of the same root structure, have not
changed in meaning. Thus those who are true Liberals belong on the right side of the political spectrum
that supports these important concepts. Finally, we furthered the case
with two recent examples of how the Socialist-Left has turned it’s back
on Liberty [and being Liberal] and is now very intolerant of other points of view.

Thus we have made the case that True Liberals belong on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right side of the political spectrum.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report



Video: Celebrate the “Assault Weapon*” Tricentennial!

How time flies, it’s been 3 Centuries [1718 – 2018] since the
invention of the Puckle gun – one of the many early “Assault Weapons*”

Image Credit:

When they aren’t spouting nonsensical lines such as “30 magazine clip in ½ a second”,
Liberty grabber Leftists love to parrot the lie that back before the
ratification of the Constitution, (1788) they only had one shot muskets
that took 5 minutes to reload.  The reality is that repeating and other early versions of ‘automatic weapons‘ were in existence long before this time period. Imagine that, the national Socialist Left lying about an important historical fact that furthers their agenda?

This is a full video exposition of this historic gun from Forgotten Weapons

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

It utilised a revolving cylinder to bring a projectile and powder
charge to the breach of the gun. In essence, it was a manual revolver, but it was in existence 70 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. So much for the ‘One shot musket Lie’.
One could have several of these revolving cylinders loaded and ready to
be placed on the gun – making them something akin to the first “High
capacity magazines*”.

*Yes, we’re playing it a bit fast and loose with these terms, but since they have no set definition, that doesn’t matter. In point of fact, that term (and others) were made up by the Liberty grabbers
as a way of destroying the basic human Right of self-defense while
maintaining the fiction supporting it. The tactic is to use a term such
as this so it’s an easy progression to destroy any civil or natural
right. In the case of the Liberty of self-defense, the definition is simply expanded to include just about every gun in existence.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report


Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory: ‘Writing out’ Most Guns with the Bump-Stock ban.

The latest Liberty grabber wave has crested, but Trump is about to give them a tremendous victory over the 2nd amendment.

Now that the Sturm und Drang of the March for gun confiscation has ‘died down’
it has become evident that, much like previous movements of the past,
it came to nought aside from some localised suppressions of Liberty. The
problem is there a vestige of this assault of freedom that is still
rearing it’s ugly head, that of the infamous ban on so-called “Bump-Stocks”.

Those who are rightly concerned about this assault on Liberty can still inscribe their opposition with the Moonshine, Cigarettes and Fire-sticks bureaucracy [Better known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – BATF]  pushing through a new ‘law’ that all by himself, Trump has taken to “Writing Out”.  The deadline is June 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET for everyone to post their opposition to this ‘Law’.

First they came for the Bump-Stocks.

For those who may not care about someone else’s concerns over
freedom, just be mindful of a reprise of Martin Niemöller Poem starting
with the line: “First they came for the Bump-Stocks, and I didn’t object – For I didn’t care about Bump-Stocks….
Soon enough, they get around to coming after the firearms everyone else
cares about, and eventually that will be hunting rifles or shotguns. If you chose to remain silent those guns will be “written out” as well.

But don’t just take our word for it, listen to what the Liberty grabbers have stated in bragging about the subject:

Delaney Tarr [March for Our Lives]

When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.):

Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, “So what? … I certainly hope so.”

Apparently we’re not supposed to notice when the Liberty grabber Left
broadcasts their intentions to the world. We’re supposed to let them
get a foot in the door of a pretext for further bans before objecting.

Giving up the question.

David Deming over on the American thinker, Made the very important point that sacrificing one more time to the Liberty grabbers of what seems to be nothing is in essence:

If we agree to ban bump
stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the
question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be
banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order.
guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous.
Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek
can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds.
High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they
also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual
ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

Automatic redefinition.

In point of fact, the ATF previously ruled that Bump-Stocks [and presumably other ways of ‘bump-firing a gun – Fast fingers, Rubber bands and Belt-loops] don’t actually convert ordinary semi-automatic firearms to a “Machine gun” because the trigger has to be pulled for every shot.
Now with the President’s authorising this linguistic legerdemain, this
definition codified in the law has been blurred to the point that any gun that can be ‘Bump-fired’ could also be banned. However, they can’t very well ban fingers, belt-loops or rubber bands, so they will just ban each and every gun that can fire too fast.

Just ‘Write-out’ this legal requirement and Voila! Any gun
that can be fired too fast for the sensibilities of the Liberty grabbers
can be thought of as a “Machine Gun” and banned instantly –
converting most of the 120 Million gun owners into instant felons. With a
bit of training,  most guns can be fired faster, so in essence, letting
them change this legal definition could have them ban just about every gun in existence.

The Takeaway.

One might not care about the fate of thousands of inert pieces of
plastic or what happens to those who have them. One might not care if
someone won’t be able to bump-fire a weapon in this particular way. But we on the Pro-Liberty Right will rue the day that we let this go through in exchange for nothing.

If we let the powers that be arbitrarily proclaim that some guns with
these pieces of inert plastic are “Machine Guns’, the day will soon
dawn when ALL guns are dishonestly ‘written out’ as the same. It will then just be a slippery slope to everyone having to undergo a background check, registration and of course – TAXES – on guns that we already own. Followed by the inevitable confiscation of those guns.

Those who remain silent now will only have themselves to blame when
this happens – so now is the time to stop this dead in it’s tracks. The comment window is only open for a few more days [Jun 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET], make the best of it.

Originally published on the NOQ Report


Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty
grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution
the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial,
which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other
repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period.
These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two
videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from
the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading
superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries

Published on Aug 30, 2017

Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,

I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of
this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015

People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was
written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved
weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that
the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore,
they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to
muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Originally published on the NOQ Report


PragerU Video: Control the Words, Control the Culture

On why it’s critically important to use the proper words such as Leftist instead of Liberal.

 PragerU has published a new video on a very important subject. Many
argue that we are in a culture or civil war with the Left, thus it is
extremely important that we don’t accede to their linguistic propaganda.

PragerU: Control the Words, Control the Culture

The culture war is first and foremost a war of words – and the
left is winning. The consequences can be seen everywhere: in politics,
in education, in media. In this video, Michael Knowles, host of the
Michael Knowles Show, explains why we should not cede another syllable.

It should be axiomatic that one doesn’t concede ground to an enemy
without making them pay a price for taking it. But in essence, that is
what we on the Pro-Liberty Right are doing every time
we use certain terms that help the Left in their deceptions. As
mentioned, we are in a culture war with the Left and every time we use a
word such as ‘Liberal’ to describe them or capitalism to refer to economic Liberty we are surrendering linguistic ground to the Left without ever firing a shot.

In an effort to defend Liberty these are the important word choices we all should use in our contentions with the Left.

1. Leftist instead of Liberal

Can anyone seriously argue that with the Left going after the 1st and 2nd amendments that it still promotes the idea of Liberty?

There are a number of words that signify freedom that have the same origin from Latin: liberalis

This is why they all at least partially sound the same. It is also why
the use of Liberal has obvious as well as almost subliminal qualities
for the Left.

Take these points into consideration when referring to the Socialist-Left:

Leftist clarifies the issue….Liberal confuses the issue.

Leftist identifies them as Socialists….Liberal compliments them as freedom fighters or Liberators.

Leftist doesn’t insult those who cherish Liberty….Liberal chastises the Liberty minded as part of the Socialist-Left.

2. Economic Liberty instead of Capitalism.

Often times the word Capitalism is used as a pejorative, not to
mention that it obscures the fact that it is based on freedom instead of
oppression as with the collectivist systems. This is once again a case
of unnecessarily ceding ground to the enemy. Keeping economic issues
termed as those of Liberty instead of money put us on the firmer
rhetorical ground.

3. Red instead of Blue when referring to the nation’s Socialist Left.

There was a time when Red
signified the Socialist-Left. It’s the reason certain Socialist worker’s
parties incorporated it into their national flag. Literature from this
time would refer to Red China or ‘The Reds’. Then the geniuses
on the Left decided to switch these colours to confuse the issue as they
did with their labeling as Liberal or Progressive.

Presumably the argument was that it was only fair to swap the
colours, then they were never changed back. Once again, using this
colour scheme confuses the issue and cedes important definitional ground
to the enemy.

4. Liberty Control instead of Gun Control [Liberty Reform, Liberty Grabbers]

Finally, we should consider using this terminology instead of one
centred on inanimate objects. The nation’s Left would like to distract
attention from this being an issue of Liberty. Human rights are not
based on a discussion of mere objects, so why should this be the case
with the right of self-preservation? Free-speech is not referred to as ‘Pen control’ so why should the right of self-defence be any different?

The fact is, keeping it as an issue over mere objects of aluminium makes it easy to denigrate.

How can a gun have rights? People have rights, Guns do not.

So taking them away shouldn’t matter, but talk about taking rights away from people, that’s a different story.

Change the terms of the debate to one of Liberty and it will be a game changer focusing the mind on what is truly at stake.
The Left cannot abide this change, thus they usually refuse to discuss
the issue when couched in this way. They will protest over ‘Gun reform’ all day long, but let’s see them take to the streets to demand ‘Liberty reform’.

The takeaway.

If we are to win the culture war, we will need to use selected tactics of the nation’s Socialist Left. That includes using the correct words.
There is really no cost to making these easy changes in how we debate
the issues of the day. But the resulting dividend will be the survival
of Liberty.