Connect with us


The Left is fracturing, so please stop conflating Socialists and Liberals as being one and the same.



Liberals have far more in common with Conservatives than they realize, it is time to welcome them to the freedom side of the political spectrum.

The classic liberal used to be the man who believed the individual was, and should be forever, the master of his destiny. That is now the conservative position. The liberal used to believe in freedom under law. He now takes the ancient feudal position that power is everything. He believes in a stronger and stronger central government, in the philosophy that control is better than freedom. The conservative now quotes Thomas Paine, a long-time refuge of the liberals: “Government is a necessary evil; let us have as little of it as possible.” Ronald Reagan

YouTube has a very curious series of videos that feature people who are leaving the Left. It should be noted that the nations’ left has always been deceptive in the false front it portrays to the general public. Most political movements have internal squabbles over policy and priorities and the political Right is no exception. For example, we don’t all agree on distinguishing Leftists or ‘progressives’ from Liberals… ahem.

The Left is splintering

But the Left is quite different in this respect. While it endeavours to display an external appearance of unity it’s many factions are at odds with each other. Dennis Prager has made the point a number of times, and unfortunately has yet to produce a ‘PragerU’ video on the subject…. Hint..Hint..

Many recent articles have highlighted the fact of the nation’s Left is fracturing and splitting apart:

The Nation: What Killed the Democratic Party?
The New Yorker: The Democratic Civil War Is Getting Nasty, Even if No One Is Paying Attention.
The New York Times Magazine: A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself
The Hill: To win in 2018, Democrats must resist moving further left.
The Washington Post: The Democrats’ use of the race card does real harm

On a basic level the difference between Right and Left is one of an Individual versus collectivist philosophy. Granting that human nature is a very complicated subject and there are exceptions and contradictions to this rule, this does work as a ‘Litmus test’ in distinguishing both sides of the political spectrum. It also helps explain why those who consider themselves to be Liberal throw their lot in with the Left.

It is high time that those who like to think of themselves as Liberal realize the stark differences between them and those who have the collectivist philosophy of the Left. Definitionally speaking, these two types of people are quite different from each other [Don’t even get me started on the virtually meaningless term ‘Progressive’].

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term Left in part as follows:

Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
left periodicals such as Marxism Today(often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.[Our emphasis]

The definition does mention the terms ‘radical’ and ‘reforming’ but these fail to refer to any political philosophy and refer back to other words, etc. Thus it should be clear that the Left is synonymous with Socialism and the reason for the use of the term Socialist-Left. One could say that is repetitive and redundant, but it is a good reminder of the Left’s base ideology.

The Left’s dirty secret

It should also be clear that the dirty little secret of the Socialist-Left is that their collectivist philosophy requires coercion in order to function. One cannot take “From each according to his abilities” without the threat of force against those with better abilities. This is hardly amenable to those who value individual rights and freedoms, in other words – Liberals.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term Liberal in part as follows:

Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:
person of liberal views
Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’. The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’, hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense ‘generous’ (compare with sense 4 of the adjective) gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint’, leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).
[Our emphasis]

“Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms”
“favouring individual liberty, free trade”

Doesn’t part of that sound very much like the definition of a Conservative? Yes, there are other parts that could be at odds with Conservatives e.g.“moderate political and social reform” which could mean just about anything. But consider the commonalities before dismissing those who could be potential allies.

Why do Leftists and Liberals coexist?

So what explains the grouping of Leftists and Liberals together given their stark definitional divide?

This could at least be partially explained by cultural and educational indoctrination that most children and young adults are inundated with on a daily basis. It could also be explained by collectivist thinking that obscures the underlying the application of force required for it’s implementation.

On a very superficial level it’s easy to go along with Leftist attempts at making everyone ‘equal’ while being generous with other people’s money. The Socialist-Left’s visions of Utopia are very seductive with everyone being ‘equal’, living ‘Harmony’ with free healthcare, housing and other wonders all paid for by someone else.

As previously stated, the distribution of all that wondrous largess comes at a high cost – that of society having to extract the hard earned property of some to buy the votes of many. The immoral requirement of stealing other people’s money is rationalized by some because it was stolen or they have too much or something.

The problem soon becomes one of disincentivised behaviour and they quickly run out of other people’s money. Consequently, the flowery promises cannot be fulfilled and the heavy hand of society has to come down hard on those who become restless with a police state. It’s at that point the powers that be have become entrenched and keep a death grip on power as the whole system falls apart. It’s at this auspicious point that Leftist will suddenly discover that it wasn’t really socialism after all.

For reference, take a look at the current situation in Venezuela with it’s people starving enough to be eating garbage and horrible developments that cannot even be mentioned.

This is why Liberals should part company from the Left. While they may agree with the Utopian BS spouted by their Leftist comrades, they should know that history has repeatedly shown this is but a fantasy that can never be realized. That soon enough events will transpire that are completely at odds with the word they use to describe themselves. They need to understand these fundamental realities and come over to the side that is far more amenable with what they believe and want for their posterity – the Right side of the political spectrum.

We may not agree 100 % on every aspect of life in a free-society, but at least they can be honest disagreements. Let the Socialists, Progressives and Leftist pursue their chimera on their own as a small political minority, the rest of us can ‘move-on’ from the false promise of socialism and live our lives with the vestiges of economic liberty.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Joe Biden is considering Stacyy Abrams as his running mate. Why hasn’t he declared yet?



Joe Biden is considering Stacyy Abrams as his running mate Why hasnt he declared yet

The Joe Biden saga keeps getting stranger every week. While most anticipate the former Vice President is going to run for President in 2020, he still hasn’t announced despite most of the major candidates who were expected to run have already made their announcement. Now, a report that his staff is considering asking former Democratic contender for Georgia Governor Stacey Abrams continues to add fuel to speculation while also making this whole thing even more strange.

In 2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made the rare move of announcing his Vice Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, before securing the nomination. It was a desperate move at a time when his prospects for defeating Donald Trump were fading and it didn’t work out. Biden’s alleged move is very different. He’s ahead in the very early polls even before the first debate, let alone the Iowa caucus. Yet speculating about a potential VP seems out of place, just like everything else in this whole debacle.

My theory is he’s trying to minimize the potential attack channels by cautiously field-testing everything first. By gathering data without officially announcing a run, he has the luxury of riding the speculation train as long as he can. He would be the instant frontrunner if he were to announce, but if history tells us anything, frontrunner status rarely means much. Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner from beginning to end in 2016, but even then the speculation of a late run by Biden was appealing to many Democrats.

Biden likely fears being the early frontrunner will generate fatigue for his name being tossed around so often. It’s still early; at this point in 2015, only one major GOP candidate, Cruz, had officially announced his run. Biden wants to ride the speculation as long as possible knowing once he’s officially in, he’s open to attacks. Just as his old boss President Obama did in 2008, some lesser known high-energy candidate could sneak up on the frontrunner and knock them off quickly. In 2015, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were early frontrunners before being embarrassingly tossed aside by Trump and the other candidates.

Whether or not Biden selects Abrams, and if she’s willing to take the nomination, this type of speculation allows him to stay in the news while people continue to hold their collective breath about a future announcement.

Bottom line, he’s running. He’s been running for a while. The fact that he’s not official yet only plays into the fundraising he’s missing, which he’ll be able to make up quickly once he announces. All in all, the Democratic race is turning hilarious.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


Babylon Bee satire piece pretty much nails the Democrats’ incentive on Electoral College



Babylon Bee satire piece pretty much nails the Democrats incentive on Electoral College

The founders decided to employ an Electoral College in picking the President to prevent tyranny by majority. They realized back then exactly what is happening today – the establishment of urban and suburban echo chambers that would rather see flyover country engulfed by a giant tornado than to “suffer” through conservative and Christian ideologies, especially in Washington DC. This is the driving force behind the sudden push to abolish the Electoral College, and the satirical masterminds at Babylon Bee nailed it.

Democratic candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is leading the charge to make the process that saved us from a Hillary Clinton presidency obsolete. Why? Because they can’t figure out how to win otherwise. Sure, they were able to dominate the Electoral College with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, but the last two Democratic Presidents were running against weak Republicans in both of their elections. Had they been running against conservatives, especially in each of their first elections, the results may have been very different and the country may be in much better shape by now.

Nevertheless, this is what the Democrats want. Any system that can yield President Trump is a system they know they can fight against with their unhinged supporters, blind followers, and Trump haters.

That’s the nature of America today. Satire doesn’t need to venture too far away from reality in order to get a hilarious version of the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in, especially as it pertains to the loony party on the far left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


TIL the famous bar AOC worked at shut down over rising costs, minimum wage increase



TIL the famous bar AOC worked at shut down over rising costs minimum wage increase

Today I learned something that surprised me, not because of the event itself but because so few people have talked about it. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is known for being a leader of the socialist movement in Washington DC after rising from the humble status of bartender to the Congresswoman of the 14th district in New York. Her policies include a push for a “living wage” of $15 per hour. I’ve always thought the wording was odd considering Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and others have been calling for a rise in “minimum wage.” Today, I found out why she’s shying away from that phrase.

When New York City raised their minimum wage $15, many businesses were hit hard, especially in the hospitality industry. Restaurants and bars started cutting hours and often even closing their doors over the increase. One of those hit hard by the massive bump was The Coffee Shop. Owner Charles Milite blamed the closure on high costs, with the rise in minimum wage as the last straw.

“The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees,” he said.

The Coffee Shop is the bar where AOC once worked.

Keep in mind, this wasn’t some random bar. The Coffee Shop in Union Square was considered a high-end establishment, buzzing all the time with “A-list” patrons. It was featured many times in the HBO show Sex and the City and had built a reputation as an “it” spot for Manhattan residents and tourists alike. In other words, this wasn’t a hole in the wall hanging on by a string. It was a vibrant, successful business for almost three decades before New York City’s untenable leftist policies, including a $15 minimum wage, became more than the bar could bear.

On the surface, many voters may see the very basic math of “oh, Democrats want to pay me more” and assume there’s no repercussions for such actions. This is why Democrats prey on those people who currently make lower wages. They feel if they can promise them something that sounds good even if they know with 100% certainty based on empirical evidence that it will actually hurt them, these new socialists are willing to make that trade. They figure they can blame the conservatives later for why the place they were working at before cut their hours, removed their jobs, or shut down because of raising the minimum wage.

As usual, socialists rely on ignorance and emotion as the driving forces behind their plans. They’re not stupid. They know their ideas won’t work. But they’re willing to push them on people anyway in hopes that ignorance will keep them in power.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report