Connect with us


Are things really as bad as the media would have us believe?



The short answer is, “No.”

The longer answer was tackled by editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward and John Stossel. Fear sells when it comes to mainstream media and progressive politics. They need a populace who believes things are getting worse in order to promote their agenda of authoritarian policies that will allegedly make things better.

“Fearmongering” is often invoked by the left to condemn the right, but in reality the left have been so adept at fearmongering that we have an entire generation who believe the world is going to end if we keep eating meat. They believe the economy is bad even though every economic indicator is great. They believe we need to be told how to live by our government instead of being allowed to live freely in an open and responsible society.

Whenever you’re told by the mainstream media how unhappy you are, question it. They don’t know. They have an agenda to push and a narrative to sell. Otherwise, they’d report the truth that things aren’t bad and are getting better.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement



Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal, Part I




Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal Part I

The NBA strife over Hong Kong has laid bare the left’s socialist national agenda and their hatred of liberty.

It’s never more gratifying than when prominent leftists prove several assertions about themselves all at once. Such was the case recently when left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr asserted a false complexity when defending authoritarianism over the cause of liberty.

As reported in the Daily Wire, the prominent NBA coach made the following comments defending the authoritarianism of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’:

When asked about whether he’s ever been asked about China’s record of human rights abuses before, Kerr responded: “It has not come up in terms of people asking about it, people discussing it.”

As is usually the case with leftists, he deflected the deliberate oppression and mass murder of the socialist-left side of the rational political spectrum model in the guise of the Communist Party of China (CPC) with the red herring of the actions of criminals in the states. He then asserted:

“We can play this game all we want and go all over the map. There’s this issue and that issue. The world is a complex place and there’s more gray than black and white,” Kerr concluded. “I realize that what’s popular these days is making it black and white. You’re either good or you’re evil. It’s convenient to do things that way, but not realistic.”

In actuality, those words of deflection are only meant to confuse the issue and hide that the socialist-left favours control over liberty, authoritarianism over freedom.

Most complex systems are based on elegant formulations.

While the world is a complex place, most of it’s workings can be explained by relatively simple but elegant formulations such as Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. While there are vast differences between the physical and political sciences given that the latter deal with very complex and changing phenomena and the actions of people in large populations. Both have certain basic precepts that can be used to generally model the political spectrum. In the case of modelling the political spectrum, it’s imagined complexity can be broken down into several basic assertions that correctly explain the situation.

The key difference between the development of the formulations in the field of engineering and those of politics is that there are no groups [perhaps aside from ‘flat-earthers’] that argue over the parameters of Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. No one really has a reason to argue over the law of gravity in non-relativistic sphere.

Unfortunately, this is not the case when trying to model the political spectrum, primarily because the groups that make up the various factions have a vested interest in obscuring the true situation.

The right prefers liberty, the left prefers control.

In general terms there are just two sides of politics – left and right. Despite attempts by the left to muddy the waters and confuse the situation, that is the generic formulation. These two terms were born out of the historical events surrounding the French revolution, but have gained different meanings along the way. Howbeit this was the source of the terms, it is incorrect to use the context in which they were coined. As is the case with analyzing most complex systems, it’s best to start with first principles. In the case of any political spectrum model we begin with a statement that sets forth the primary difference between left and right, as engineer and author, Robert A. Heinlein so eloquently termed it:

“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

Stating it in as basic terms as possible the right favors liberty over control while the left favors control over liberty. In other words, the right favors minimal government and maximum liberty, while the left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The left will of course object to this kind of generalization simply because it casts them in a bad light as authoritarians at heart. One only needs to look at their socialist national agenda to confirm this assertion, in that they prioritize control over the cause of liberty.

The right favors individualism, the left favors collectivism.

We can also consider the two sides in terms of the two basic political philosophies of individualism and collectivism. This also affirms the precepts of rational political spectrum model.

The Oxford English dictionary defines individualism:

1The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
‘a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth’

Synonyms: independence, self-direction, self-reliance, freethinking, free thought, originality

2A social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
‘encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit’

The Oxford English dictionary defines collectivism:

1The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
‘the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism’

Synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism

1.1The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system.
‘the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism’

Please note that these principles are of giving a group priority over individuals. The problem is that since groups or collectives happen to be arbitrary constructs, the rights imbued to them are also arbitrary, or non-existent. It logically follows that only individuals can have rights.

Individual rights, liberals and liberty.

Consider how the Oxford English dictionary defines liberal:

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.

[Emphasis added]

While the definition refers to ‘moderate political and social reform’, it clearly shows that true liberals favour individual liberty, free trade, placing them on the pro-liberty side of the rational political spectrum model.

This in essence ties everything together, clearly placing liberals in the camp of favouring individual rights and freedoms. While also demonstrating that liberty and liberalism are tied together, having the root word from Latin: liberalis.

Thus, we have set out the basic parameters of the rational political spectrum model:

  • The right favors minimal government and maximum liberty.
  • The left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The actions and policy agendas of the left confirm these general assertions, despite the false protestations of complexity by that side of the political spectrum as exemplified by the words of Left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr.

In part II we will examine in greater detail why it’s important to properly identify and cut through the confusion propagated by the authoritarian left. As well as distinguish their precepts with those of the pro-liberty right.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Elementary, Season 7, is a Libertarian’s dream



Elementary Season 7 is a Libertarians dream

Fans of CBS’s Elementary, the show that has a modern day Sherlock Holmes and his partner Joan Watson solving crimes in New York City, have grown accustomed to hearing how it’s the other Holmes story, with BBC’s Sherlock being the real show. But while the latter has been sporadic in quality and arguably in decline since its acclaimed first two seasons, the former has been on a steady rise in quality, culminating in the final 7th season.

And in this 7th season, we get to hear Libertarian arguments throughout. Warning: Spoilers.

Imagine if the founding CEO of one of the big tech companies, whether Facebook, Google, or any of the others who have massive amounts of our personal data on their servers, decided to initiate a Minority Report-esque department that sought out and murdered potential terrorists and mass shooters? That’s the premise behind the final season’s bad guy with Holmes and Watson playing the liberty-loving, privacy-defending protagonists against an omniscient pre-crime division.

They even get to take on the NSA to boot.

It’s very similar to the uphill battle we face today. Big tech really is collecting vast amounts of data on us and the NSA really is using their own access to data to spy on us. Perhaps nobody’s using it for murder on a regular basis yet, but this season put a spotlight on the potential of an “idealistic” social justice warrior whose manufacturers morals demand drastic measures to be taken to prevent potential mass shooters from executing their potential plans.

It’s like red flag gun laws, only instead of disarming the potential shooter with a court order, they’re simply removed from the equation altogether. Once a potential terrorist, always a potential terrorist.

The likely intentions of the writers and showrunners wasn’t to promote liberty, but to instead send Holmes and Watson off with a big enough case and a strong enough enemy for their going away party to mean something. Nevertheless, it’s refreshing to see something coming out of Hollywood that depicts both big tech and big government as the oppressive forces they can be.

As the final season, it’s noteworthy to point out that this show really was quite special. It may not have had the creative oomph of Sherlock‘s first two seasons, but it executed seven strong seasons without missing many beats. Jonny Lee Miller’s portrayal of Holmes has been solid throughout and having a female counterpart in Lucy Liu’s Watson was an opening twist that didn’t end up as ham-fisted as it began. By the end, it’s clear that a real partner in Watson, whether it’s a John or a Joan, is better than being a tag-along as the character’s often portrayed.

Big tech poses a much bigger problem than most people are willing to acknowledge. We see the possibilities but willfully ignore them for the sake of keeping our profiles active. Season 7 of Elementary is a warning to us all.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


A Libertarian and a Conservative walk into a bar and discuss social media censorship



A Libertarian and a Conservative walk into a bar and discuss social media censorship

Okay, so it wasn’t a bar, it was John Stossel’s ReasonTV studio. But when he had conservative show host Glenn Beck on to discuss social media censorship, I’ll admit I expected some fireworks. What ended up happening was far more enjoyable as both agreed there’s a problem and government isn’t the solution.

There we go. End of video. It’s settled.

Well, there’s a bit more than that, but the two firebrands for their respective political philosophies both understood the barrier for exposure is much higher for the freedom-loving right than for those who espouse social justice violence, such as the hatred spread and acted upon by groups like Antifa. In an effort to fight “hate speech,” tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google have established a double-standard in which “hate speech” rules apply loosely to the political left even in blatant instances while the hammer is dropped instantly on the political left when there’s even a hint of it.

We’ve experienced it for ourselves multiple times, most recently when an article description called for criminal illegal immigrants to be deported back to their nations of origin. We weren’t calling for immigrants to be “sent home” or even for all illegal immigrants to be. We were specifically calling out violent criminal illegal aliens, but that was too much for a particularly huge social media “platform” to accept. Our accounts have been shadowbanned. One account was fully banned. And, to our chagrin, we’ve learned the wrong lesson from it. We’re careful with what we post, now. Such things should not be, especially when we’re pushing truth, not hatred.

In this video, John Stossel and Glenn Beck discuss the problems so many right-leaning Americans are experiencing on big tech platforms. Behind the guise of fighting “hate speech,” they’re actually quashing ideas that oppose their own progressive worldviews.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading