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’:

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:

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:

The Oxford English dictionary defines 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:

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.

Elizabeth Warren is the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. I’ll admit, I never expected that to be the case until recently. I truly believed she would be in the middle of the pack before bowing out in favor of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, or one of the other radical progressives who would take on Joe Biden. But I was wrong. She has surged into the lead and at this point, it’s her race to lose.

BlazeTV’s Andrew Wilkow explained her popularity among the progressives, and in doing so showed by I was unable to see her appeal. According to Wilkow, the difference between her and Hillary Clinton is that she’s a member of the elite academia, which progressives love. Her lack of real-world experience isn’t seen as the clear detraction that it should be. Instead, having lived in a theoretical bubble of feel-good progressive policy proposals gives her an advantage in the eyes of hyper-leftists.

In other words, she hasn’t had any real-world experience to burst her bubble, so she’s able to enact hypothetical ideas that are demonstrably bad without reality clouding her judgment. To the far-left, this makes her an ideal candidate.

How in the world is Elizabeth Warren leading in the Democratic polls? Andrew Wilkow breaks it all down for us in this eye-opening analysis for BlazeTV. She’s as detached from reality as her policy proposals, which is why the radicals adore her.

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.

Socialism is growing in popularity in America. If you’re a regular reader of NOQ Report, chances are you’re a conservative who scratches your head any time you hear statistics pointing to the rise of Marxist principles as acceptable to Americans, particularly the youth in our country. But we need only look to the two most influential forces propagating ideologies to realize what the source is of all this lunacy.

Progressive mainstream media, which comprises somewhere around 80% of the “news” spread across America, has fully embraced not only the Democrats’ doctrine, but also the hyper-leftist philosophies of socialism, communism, and authoritarianism. They want a nanny state because they believe it will protect us from ourselves. They do not believe in the supremacy of our Creator nor the efficacy of individualism. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be so supportive of abortion, open borders, gun control, single-payer healthcare, climate change hysteria, wealth redistribution, or any other components of a Marxist future.

Then, there’s our education system. It has always been populated by teachers and administrators who are unabashedly progressive. In fact, the progressive worldview is often inherent in the desire to educate; I’ve always found conservatives are more about “doing” than “teaching.” Conservatives become trial lawyers. Progressives become law professors.

A new report from Cato Institute shows the rise in popularity of socialism, especially among those under 30:

A new poll shows that half of Americans under 30 support socialism, with 1 in 3 even saying it is "justified" to take "violent action" against the rich. https://t.co/u1HbhzPpOy

— MRCTV.org (@mrctv) October 8, 2019

Some of my NeverTrump friends ask me why I converted to become a supporter. I was so adamantly opposed to his candidacy during the 2016 primaries that I essentially changed my life, selling my company and dedicating full-time to fighting on political, cultural, and religious fronts. I gave up a very comfortable, blissful existence in exchange for struggles and ongoing battles against progressives. But during the course of this transition, I came to realize that the real existential threat to America wasn’t the President or RINOs on Capitol Hill. It was the rising Marxist mentality spreading across America that threatened to upend our way of life. It threatens to fundamentally change America into something I would not want for anyone’s children, particularly my own.

I’ve never regretted this decision despite the challenges. We’re seeing a ludicrous mindset spreading across our nation, one that is borne by nefarious forces. One might even read some Ephesians 6:12 into it as none of the insane ideas from the radical progressives make sense. It’s very much like the warning of Isaiah 5:20.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

We can no longer take for granted that logic, history, and common sense will guide our nation’s voters. We must expose socialism for what it is – an existential threat – and make sure 2020 voters know they cannot allow it to take hold in America.

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.