Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The Nation’s Left has become Irredeemably Socialist, it’s time it came out of the Authoritarian closet.

Published

on

There was a time when the nation’s Socialist Left at least made the pretence of defending Liberty, but that time has passed.

Being true to oneself is always a good moral standard, even if one does not have moral standards. False pretence only works for a limited time period until its falsity becomes obvious to all. Such is the case of the nation’s Socialist Left.

Consider the following recent developments in the ‘progress’ of the nation’s Left:

In summation, it has become the party wanting to obsessively control people’s lives. It needs to come out of the authoritarian closet, becoming true to itself and everyone else.

Robert A. Heinlein had a very interesting point that illustrates the distinction between Left and Right:

“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

One could say that the desire to control people is a demarcation line between the Socialist-Left and the Conservative-Right. While there are some exceptions, for the most part this tends to explain the difference in underlying philosophy between the two sides of the political spectrum. The items mentioned are very illustrative of this divide.

The Party of Gun Confiscation.

Despite it’s incessant lies on the subject, the nation’s Socialist Left has made it entirely obvious that it wants a monopoly on the use of force. While it revels in exploiting children to further this authoritarian goal, the result will be empowerment for themselves.

It is also indicative of the underlying collectivist mindset of the Left. To them, individuals are only useful as a collective body of people, whose value is dependent on this use.

The Party of censorship and the suppression of free-speech.

This is another area in which the Left plays it’s little word games over whether it’s actions to suppress speech violate the first amendment. This actually isn’t the case here, although it has made moves in this direction campaign finance reform. No, the question is whether the nation’s Left has attempted to suppress free-speech regardless of it’s Constitutional implications.

Granted, there are certain private entities can do whatever they want in running their concerns. The real issue is whether they are truly supporters of Liberty ( With their supposedly being ‘Liberals’… ahem ) or are they authoritarian at heart. Recent events should make it clear they are of the latter more than the former. Witness the nation’s Socialist Left attempts at “Deplatforming” those who which they disagree. Or the many examples of the government indoctrination centre’s suppression of opposition voices.

In their zeal to clamp down on the fundamental human right of self-preservation, the nation’s Left has also suppressed certain types of videos discussing Constitutionally protected entities . As well as trying to use the finance industry to hamstring the commerce in these items

The party of wealth redistribution and High Taxation.

Recent days have seen the nation’s Left come out fully for the imposition of higher taxes on the people. The Left’s obsession with a fundamental part of Marxist doctrine is at the level of it’s DNA. It’s tired, time-worn talking point “Tax breaks for the wealthy” is a staple of Leftist demagoguery. Even it’s most cherished version of “Progress”, the Obamacare incremental move towards national socialist health care was couched as wealth redistribution. But only after the law was passed.

Government suppression of opposition voices.

Then there is the case of the Internal Revenue Service abuse of the Tea Party groups during the Obama administration. In classic form, the nation’s Left used a powerful government agency to suppress these groups. Still further, it used time-tested methods to slow down the investigation of these abuses to dissipate the damage it itself when these abuses were revealed.

The nation’s Left needs to admit to it’s true Socialist authoritarian nature.

All of these examples are indicative of a movement that is becoming increasingly authoritarian. The nation’s Left is following in the footsteps of totalitarians of the past in wanting to carry out these measures to have strict control over society. Authoritarians of the past have also denied becoming so, as has the Left of modern times. Thus a good explanation of the Left’s desire to control free-speech as well as monopolize freedom of the press.

It’s said that the first step in solving an obsessive personality disorder is to admit to the problem on the road to recovery. Perhaps the nation’s Left should consider this advice before it takes this authoritarian inclination to far.

Righteousness, honesty as well as truth in advertising should see the nation’s Left ‘come clean’ on its base ideology. It should freely admit that it wants to confiscate guns, control free-speech, raise taxes and ‘punish its enemies’.  It may not win any more elections if the people were fully apprised of the truth. But at least it could hold it’s head high in knowing that it had been honest for once.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

Published

on

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

It genuinely disgusts me that, despite how much we’ve progressed as a society, especially in regards to our treatment of minorities and women, men still earn more than women do. It makes me ashamed of my country. How can we still refer to the United States as the “Land of Opportunity” when women are only paid $0.80 for every $1.00 that men are paid despite working just as hard in the same positions? Hell, even that depressing number doesn’t accurately express how large the gender pay gap is, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

In the report, titled Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Slowly Narrowing Gender Wage Gap, published in November 2018, the organization revealed that women earn a mere 49% of what men do. What’s worse is that it won’t be until 2059 that men and women have 100% equal pay, assuming the gap continues to narrow as slowly as it currently is. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it’s well past time Congress made it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.

At least, that’s what I would say if I was a leftist moron who still pays attention to the easily debunked “women earn less than men because of sexism” argument that’s been regurgitated countless times over the years.

The reality is that Congress made it illegal for employers to pay people differently based on their sex decades ago. It was called the “Equal Pay Act” and it was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy all the way back in June 1963. Ever since then, employers have been able to pay employees differently based on their merit, their seniority, their work output, or really whatever factors the employer desires… except sex.

A man and a woman in identical positions with identical output are legally required to be paid the same amount, and employers that fail to do so run the risk of some hefty legal ramifications. But if that’s the case, then why do the numbers presented by the IWPR show that there’s such a massive gender pay gap? Is the Equal Pay Act ineffective? Did the IWPR mess up its numbers? Is there some patriarchal plot to keep women from making money?

No, no, and no. The real answer is incredibly simple, and it’s one I’m sure most of us were able to figure out on our own the first time we heard the “women earn ($0.75, $0.79, $0.80) for every $1.00 that men earn” statistic that’s been getting thrown around for years. Basically, men are paid more than women on average because they seek out more lucrative jobs on average and work longer hours on average. If you take the combined earnings of all the women in the United States in a given year, divide that number by how many women worked at any point in that year, and then do the same for men, you’ll see that the earnings-per-working-woman are quite a bit lower than the earnings-per-working-man, so clearly there is a gender pay gap. However, despite what leftists like the people at the IWPR want you to believe, this gap has nothing to do with sexism.

This was demonstrated in a report, also published in November 2018, by two PhD Candidates in Economics at Harvard University. In the report, titled Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? Evidence from Bus and Train Operators, the two students examined the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in order to figure out why such a heavily unionized agency in such a notoriously progressive city (Boston) still paid its female employees $0.89 for every $1.00 it paid its male employees. The answer was, once again, incredibly simple. Women were less likely than men to work overtime hours while also being more likely to take unpaid time off. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Men tended to prefer making more money to having more free time, while women tended to prefer having more free time to making more money. While an argument could be made that more employers should account for the different preferences of men and women, something the report actually advises on how to do, there’s no basis for the argument that the gender pay gap is a result of sexism.

It should be noted that the Harvard report examined just one industry in one metropolitan area, which means the findings aren’t applicable everywhere, but the gist of them is. Yes, there is a gender pay gap. That’s an objective fact. However, it has nothing to do with sexism. The causes of the gap vary from industry to industry and place to place, but they almost always have to do with the inherent differences between men and women. I think there’s a conversation to be had about whether or not this is an issue, and if it is, whether it’s up to employers, society, or women themselves to solve it, but to even have that conversation requires us to abandon the idea that sexism is the cause. There are certainly some instances where it is the cause, but the vast majority of the time, it’s not.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

A guide to classical liberalism

Published

on

A guide to classical liberalism

The modern interpretation of the ideology known as “liberalism” is usually associated with the progressive left. Despite the roots of true liberalism – individualism, Natural Rights, and liberty itself – the modern understanding of liberalism has been skewed to make people think more of illiberal politicians like Bernie Sanders instead of Constitutional originalists like Antonin Scalia as liberals.

This 27-minute video does a fine job of breaking down the historical ideas that brought about classical liberalism and the men who brought them to light. It also accurately points out that equality of opportunity for individuals is necessary for a modern society, thus it was this mentality that brought about the end of slavery and the promotion of women’s rights.

From John Locke to James Madison, from the thinkers of Great Britain to the founding fathers of the United States, this video from The Academic Agent brings us through the history of classical liberalism.

For a brief introduction we posted a shorter video earlier:

What classical liberalism is, briefly

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/12/classical-liberalism-briefly/The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Published

on

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace is familiar with looking for tampering. His job makes him look for things that don’t fit. At his core, he is forced to ask questions about the various situations he investigates in order to see where the evidence points.

When he’s not catching bad guys, he’s a Christian apologist. In this role, he utilizes the same skills he’s honed over the decades as an investigator to demonstrate why it makes much more sense to believe in creation than a randomly generated universe.

The author of Cold-Case Christianity started off as a skeptical atheist, but as he investigated deeper, he soon realized it was impossible for the secular worldview to be correct as it pertained to the origins of the universe and life on the planet.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report