Connect with us

Culture and Religion

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

Published

on

“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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘Bottomless Pinocchios’ of the national socialist left

Published

on

By

Top 5 Bottomless Pinocchios of the national socialist left

That perfect paragon of journalistic ‘objectivity’, the Washington Post, introduced a new rating for lies. We applied them to the left.

The Washington Post has developed a new rating system – the ‘Bottomless Pinocchio’ – for a false claim repeated over and over. This is somewhat ironic since the leftist media excels in the practice. While we will try to keep this to the more egregious and discrete lies of the left, a few notes on their other types of lies are in order.

The labeling and language lies of the left

Even the labels they apply to themselves aside from being socialist are falsehoods. These are people who work against the cause of liberty on a daily basis while pretending to be liberal. It’s a post-modernism community that has the false front of being ‘progressive’, that would prefer to use the judiciary to impose their socialist national agenda rather than democratic means.

Then there is the game of lying by language the left plays to excess. Time was, global cooling was the existential threat to woman and mankind, until it stopped getting cooler. Then global warming became the existential threat until it stopped getting warmer. Accordingly, they hit on the deception of working against it doing either, so no matter what happens, they can claim they are right because the climate has always changed. This also gave them a nice bonus in tarring any who opposes their control agenda as being a ‘climate change denier’ – even though no one actually denies the climate changes. Better yet, they have been able to shorten it up to the ultimate insult of labeling their opposition as ‘climate deniers’ as if people would actually deny reality itself.

These will be the top 5 ‘Bottomless Pinocchios’ of the left. These are lies that are recycled repeatedly by the left in their effort at distorting reality to the point where gun free zones actually keep people safe, no one is starting a conversation about gun confiscation and societal slavery can really work.

 Bottomless Pinocchio 5: People have a ‘right’ to health care

This is one of the left’s favourites in trying to reshape (or ‘reform’) reality. Like many other variations of the ‘people have a right to’ line, this stems from the concept of Coercive or Collective Rights, whereby people have the ‘right’ to force others to provide them with the vestiges of this ‘right’. These are contrasted with Natural Rights possessed by everyone, the right to self-preservation, the right to property, the right of freedom of expression.

Having a ‘right’ to health care, or ‘right’ to feel safe, or a ‘right’ to not be offended, generally entails that someone else has to provide for this ‘right’. In the case of healthcare, providing this ‘right’ would mean that medical professionals would be required to sacrifice their time and labour in this effort. Citizens would also be forced to contribute their property. There is a word for when people are forced to provide their time and effort to others. It’s called slavery.

In point of fact the phrase should really be people have a ‘right’ to enslave others. But the folks who pretend to support liberty can’t say that directly, hence they use the ‘right to’ lie.

Bottomless Pinocchio 4: Gun free zones work as advertised

This one is slightly different from the others in that even leftists know they will be laughed off the public stage if they said this out loud. Rather, they imply the idea with their policy agenda of incessantly working towards gun confiscation, supposedly rendering the entire world a global ‘gun-free’ zone such as the latest example in France.

Expanding what doesn’t work always seems to be a hallmark of the left. Never mind that something doesn’t function in one area, extend it elsewhere so it’ll work… somehow.

Anyone familiar with logic can easily see why these don’t work, since those bent on evil will tend to go where they will have little opposition. Unfortunately, as with the fact that there are only two genders, leftists don’t seem to be able to comprehend that which is bloody obvious. They seem to have the misguided idea that a rule or a sign will stop a mass murderer.

The facts bear this out given that most mass shootings take place in ‘gun-free’ zones. This has been the situation for almost 30 years.

The problem for the left is that they can’t actually admit to their absolute failure in this area. Were they to do this, it would mean an end to their whole gun confiscation agenda. Thus they perpetuate that it’s a myth that defensive gun uses exist or that a ‘good guy (or gal) with a gun’ will deter these tragedies. It means that they continue to put people at risk for the sake of their disarmament agenda, without the hint of guilt on their part.

Bottomless Pinocchio 3 : No one is talking about gun confiscation

Finding cases where leftists have demanded gun confiscation has become as easy as shooting fish in a barrel (pardon the pun Peta). The past few years have seen an increase in these demands from the left to the point that it’s occurred more than 70 times not counting excerpts, syndication and reprints. Repeating this lie enables leftists to keep the discussion to the next incremental step instead of their final solution to the liberty problem.

Still, the liberty grabber left persists in propagating this enormous lie. It does several things for them. It short circuits the negative effects of gun confiscation such as leaving the innocent defenseless against criminals and the government. It lulls some into a false sense of security as to the left’s long term goal for the cause of liberty.

This perennial lie is also necessary to get some to accept governmental overreach in controlling their personal property. They have used this same technique in getting people to register their guns accompanied by the solemn promise that they won’t use it to confiscate guns, after which their guns are confiscated.

Bottomless Pinocchio 2: Failed socialist experiments weren’t really socialist

It would seem this little ditty began when the socialist-left started trying to claim that a certain National Socialist German Workers’ Party wasn’t actually a National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The Left actually tried to reverse reality, making a party with a collectivist ideology of the left to one of an individualist ideology of the right. The problem for them is that those on the pro-liberty, conservative right, by definition favour lower taxes and limited government. Hardly something the Nazis were known for.

Leftists will often times try to deflect the facts of the matter given the very name of the party: ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’. But consider the words of the translator of Mein Kampf:

Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.
James Murphy. Abbots Langley, February, 1939

Later on, they played this little game with virtually every other socialist regime. Miraculously enough, before these socialist regimes ran out of other people’s money the left labelled them as one of their own. Then in the blink of an eye, they would ping-pong from left to right almost overnight when they inevitably failed.

The problem for the left is that they have nothing on George Orwell. We’re supposed to simply ignore basic facts from history, beginning with the very words that socialists have used to describe themselves. These socialist regimes also followed collectivist precepts. But in an instant these facts are swept away, in favour of a new reality where Red is Blue and Blue is Red.

Bottomless Pinocchio 1: Socialism can actually work

This is a basic survival lie of the left. They cannot accede to the fact of 400 years of the failure of the ideas of their base ideology, so they must pretend it can work… somehow. Just as they can pretend to be liberal while working to tear down liberty, but that’s another subject.

Since their agenda of societal slavery has never worked, they have to deflect the argument with the aforementioned ‘socialism has never been tried before’ and ‘failed socialist experiments weren’t really socialist’ lies. Or pretending that non-socialist nations are really socialist.

The bottom line is that socialism can never work because it runs counter to basic human physiology. One will always see less of a behaviour that is negatively reinforced, while more will be seen with behaviour that is positively reinforced. The fundamental results of reward and punishment cannot be ignored, and yet this is what socialists have as the basis of their ideology.

Consider that the experiment of socialism has been conducted in situations around the world for over 400 years with the same result: failure. It should be obvious by now to most intelligent people that it cannot work, and yet the national socialist-left still persists in trying to turn that which is impossible into something that is possible, no matter who has to suffer and die.

The takeaway

In many ways the left should stay away from pronouncing judgement on falsehoods when they are so rife with them. Leftist lies keep them afloat in the sea of politics. We have shown that not only are they false, but they must be retold in order for the left to survive.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Dr Paul Lim tells how he went from atheist to Christian… at Yale

Published

on

Dr Paul Lim tells how he went from atheist to Christian at Yale

Universities aren’t usually considered likely venues for people to turn to the Christian faith. Ivy League universities rife with atheist professors are even less likely than most to yield a conversions to the faith. If anything, they’re efforts are often directly focused on converting Christians into abandoning their faith.

Dr Paul Lim tells a different tail. His personal journey from South Korea to California, then Pennsylvania on to Yale, is an exception to the rule. His journey is not common, but then again who’s to say what sort of journey to embracing Jesus Christ can be considered common?

It’s not too long, clocking in at just over 48 minutes, and much better than your average network television hour. If you already believe, it may help you open the eyes of others. If you don’t believe, your eyes may be opened.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report