Connect with us

Conservatism

Proving a far-left National Socialist Workers’ Party was a far-left National Socialist Workers’ Party – Part I

Published

on

Proving a far-left National Socialist Workers Party was a far-left National Socialist Workers Party

Recent events have illustrated the need to once again eviscerate a favorite myth of the left’s socialist national agenda.

Some leftist lies refuse to die. One of their perennial favorites is the bizarre habit of claiming socialist nations are somehow ‘right wing’ or ‘conservative’ while in the throes of their inevitable collapse. The latest example is of course the socialist nation of Venezuela, but this scheme reaches back to the WWII era nation of Germany and a certain national socialist worker’s party.

Repeating a lie doesn’t make it the truth

Much like mythical zombies of the undead that arise again and again, this lie crops up in the news with tiresome regularity. The latest example being Robert Francis O’Rourke compares Trump to Nazis. Or the headline dripping with incredulity from the Daily Mail: Brazil’s President Bolsonaro says there is ‘no doubt’ Nazism was a leftist movement after visiting Holocaust museum in Israel.

Those are just from recent days with the nation’s socialist media fervently espousing far-left talking points last week with regard to Republican Congressman Mo Brooks daring to have the effrontery to reference historical facts. Ever the ones for irony, each of these sources reported on this story because the good Representative talked about left’s use of the ‘Big Lie’. This is the presumption that as socialist Vladimir Lenin once quipped: ‘A lie told often enough becomes the truth.’ Alternatively, as stated by another infamous socialist, Adolf Hitler: ‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’ It’s not just a coincidence that leftists all use the same tried and true tactics of deception.

While it should be easy to prove that a far-left, National Socialist Worker’s party was, in fact, a far-left National Socialist Worker’s party. The left has decided that their opinion should overcome any facts on the matter. For what better way to deflect the horrid results of their base ideology than to distract with similar results of what is supposedly not their base ideology. The left is trying this with the socialist nation of Venezuela, but it reaches back decades to the aforementioned example.

Thus in another example of having to once again eviscerate this perennial lie from the nation’s socialist-left we will present some of the pertinent facts of the matter. Part II will discuss some of the left’s talking points on the matter for the purpose of trying to finally put this to rest.

The facts of the case

The Oxford English dictionary definition of Left:

‘2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favoring 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 Oxford English dictionary definition of Nazi:

‘noun (plural Nazis)
1 historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Origin German, abbreviation representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist’ national socialist’, probably by analogy with Sozi, from Sozialist ‘socialist’.’

[Our Emphasis]

In addition to this we have the following stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Left.
Ending with this succinct phrase:

‘Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.’

[Our Emphasis]

Thus the definitional facts prove that a Far-Left National Socialist Workers’ Party is a Far-Left National Socialist Workers’ Party, QED!

We also have the last part of the Translator’s introduction to the English edition of Mein Kampf by James Murphy:

‘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

[Our Emphasis]

Coining a phrase

The words and phrases placed on the currency of a nation are of profound importance. They are emblematic of a country’s national character and a constant reminder of what it holds as significant.

In the states we have the American Trinity as Dennis Prager terms it. These are E Pluribus Unum, Liberty, In God We Trust. These are American values emblazoned on every coin that remind everyone who we are and what we believe.

Political ideologies are based on the two fundamental philosophies of Individualism and Collectivism. Those who favor individual rights and liberties are of the pro-liberty right and are obviously of the philosophy of individualism. Those favoring collective rights and collectivism are of the socialist-left and are obviously of the philosophy of Collectivism.

This provides the last and strongest data points in our discussion proving a socialist worker’s party was a socialist worker’s party.

Consider this image from Time of Adolf Hitler’s 1920 Political Platform [Courtesy of Time.com]

Image courtesy of Time.com

Note the last part of the 25 point program of the Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei with the words in BOLD: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz

The original German version being:

Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz

Translated as:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

From Yale Law school and the Lillian Goldman Law Library

‘Common Good Before Individual Good’ Could there be any more succinct assertion of collectivism over Individualism? This wasn’t just a BOLD declaration in the party program of a socialist worker’s party. This phrase was literally ‘coined’ in the money of that socialist nation.

The final data point proving the Nazis were of the far-left

Take note of line 25 of the Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party [from the same sources] Translated as:

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

Leftists will quite often like to parrot the lie that the Nazi were ‘right-wing’ such as the case of Robert Francis O’Rourke , while failing to explain why this is the case. Very much like the meaning of common words, the political spectrum must have some basis in fact. Simply saying that one ideological group belongs somewhere without a factual basis is a meaningless statement.

Any decent model of the political spectrum will have one scale with the proper metric of governmental power as its standard of measurement. This enables someone to quickly and easily determine where they are situated on the scale instead of making the determination more opaque. That being said, it should be clear that by the ideological definitions, the proponents of limited or no government belong on the right or the minimal government side of the scale. While proponents of authoritarian or totalitarian government belong on the left.

Thus, that part of the Nazi program should be the final nail in the coffin of the ‘Nazis were right-wing’ lie, since it is obvious that they were proponents of a ‘strong central authority in the State’. But let us consider this given that ‘right-wing’ essentially equates to conservative, with one of its central tenets being of limited government, that is clearly at odds to that stated in the Nazi program.

There is the absurd contention that somehow the Nazis were further off to the right, but as detailed in the case for the linear political spectrum, this makes no sense since it would require a mathematical discontinuity with regard to the measurement of political power. Thus the Nazis belong on the far left no matter the self-serving protestations of the left.

Concluding remarks

Thus we have presented the definitional facts of the case proving the Nazi party of Adolf Hitler was indeed a Far-Left National Socialist Worker’s party. This was bolstered by several other data points, including the words setting forth the Nazi’s authoritarian mindset in their 25 point program. As well as they’re coining of a phrase of their collectivist philosophy. Other publications listed here have also proven this point, Left still tries to persist in this very convenient lie.

Other references:

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

Fascism

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

A trillion dollar deficit is much more dangerous than the GOP acknowledges

Published

on

A trillion dollar deficit is much more dangerous than the GOP acknowledges

Spending. It’s the thing that helped me make my decision to leave the GOP a few years ago as there seemed to be very little difference between them and the Democrats when it came to fiscal responsibility. Where we spend the money is the only big deviation, but both sides of the political aisle have an addiction to spend more than the country has available. In the past, this was dangerous because of the crushing force of national debt that will eventually bring about an economic collapse. Today, the risk is much, much greater and within immediate striking distance.

What a trillion-dollar budget deficit represents today is an avenue through which Modern Monetary Theory could actually be realized in the United States. Those who are familiar with MMT may still be as complacent about it as I was a year ago; “It’ll never happen, not in America.” But as Democrats push Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, open borders, state-funded education, reparations, and outright socialism, there’s only one conclusion that any economist or political pundit can come to: If the new thinking of the Democratic Party gets a foothold and initiates some of their plans, then MMT is the only possible way to make it happen.

They don’t even need to initiate all of them. Just one or two will be enough for catastrophe.

In other words, they’re policy proposals are already writing checks the U.S. can’t cash, so every scenario in which a partial implementation of these policies takes place can only happen through MMT. For those who don’t want to read up on it, MMT is essentially the practice of printing the cash to pay the bills. Proponents say it will be different this time from every other failed attempt at MMT because America is responsible enough and too crucial to the world economy for it to cause hyperinflation. Reading the delusional excuses for promoting MMT reveals an uncanny ability to deny reality while simultaneously suppressing common sense. It’s the type of thing that only progressive economic scholars can truly comprehend, and that should terrify you.

By moving the budget deficit into the ten-digit arena, we’ve broken a threshold that gives MMT legs. Whether it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying, “You just pay for it,” or Elizabeth Warren constantly saying the rich will be taxed until it’s paid for despite the basic arithmetic that demonstrates this is impossible, they’ll all latch onto the notion that if we can spend a trillion dollars in one year that we don’t have, why can’t we spend two? Ten? Fifty?

On one hand, I want to do whatever it takes to convince Republicans they need to do what they campaign to do: cut spending. It’s not as easy as just pulling the plug on frivolous programs, services, agencies, and whole departments… except that it truly is that easy. It’s not popular. Some say it’s political suicide. But considering it’s never been tried in the modern era (no real cuts have been made to spending in decades), now is the time to be bold and do what’s right for the nation. The rise of the internet in general and social media in particular gives conservatives an outlet through which they can educate the masses about the need to make cuts. It’s something we plan on doing as part of the American Conservative Movement.

But on the other hand, one thing that can’t happen in trying to convince Republicans they’re doing it wrong by allowing them to lose. The Democrats are now more than the lesser of two evils. They’re dangerous. The plans they will implement are existential threats to America. Sadly, many of them know this. The Justice Democrats, who are driving the leftward lurch within the Democratic Party, are shockingly aware of what they’re trying to accomplish. Destroying and rebuilding America in their image is the end goal. That image is not a pretty one, even to the Justice Democrats, but things are rarely pretty when radicals get their hands on it.

Modern Monetary Theory will be implemented if the Democrats get full control. Unfortunately, Republicans aren’t helping fight it as long as they’re pushing such untenable budget deficits. It’s time for a heavy dose of fiscal conservatism.

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

Conservatism

Why conservatives shouldn’t support ‘Ag-Gag’ laws

Published

on

Why conservatives shouldnt support Ag-Gag laws

For the most part, conservatism is black and white, especially when compared to progressive ideologies that dwell in contradictions and allow activists to make a living telling lies. But there are circumstances that demand a deeper examination and possibly a little soul-searching to help decide which conservative stance should prevail. One example of this is with “Ag-Gag” laws that attempt to prevent undercover filming of animal mistreatment on farms.

There have been so many undercover investigations at farms that it’s becoming hard to be shocked by what goes on at some of them. The mistreatment of animals at some farms is unambiguous; we’re not talking about poor facilities or crowded cages. We’re talking about physically harming animals while they’re alive and feeling pain. In some cases, the pain is clearly intense as some farm workers seem to get a thrill out of it.

Ag-Gag laws make it illegal for people to sneak onto farms with the intention of filming animal cruelty. Many Republicans support these laws because they help the agricultural and livestock industries that have had rough times over recent decades. Some justify it by claiming it’s easy to find abuses in any industry, and piecing together weeks or even months of footage of abuse to make ten minute videos intended to shut a farm down is unfair.

This is a case in which a conservative-backed industry has appealed to conservative lawmakers for protection against a generally progressive activism topic, fighting animal cruelty. It would seem on the surface that Ag-Gag laws are, therefore, conservative. They’re not. They’re an attack on the 1st Amendment, not to mention a preventative measure designed to stop crimes from being exposed.

Should we support American farms, their owners, and their employees? Yes. But that support does not give conservatives license to suppress a part of the 1st Amendment or to ignore crimes like animal cruelty. We must take the high road whenever it’s presented, and in this case that high road means siding with progressive activists to prevent farms and their workers from committing these crimes.

This video from John Stossel shows both sides of the Ag-Gag debate. In the end, he rightly concludes that subverting part of the 1st Amendment and enabling animal cruelty is inexcusable, even in support of the farming industry.

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

Conservatism

Quick note to #NeverTrump conservatives: Check the policy proposals

Published

on

Quick note to NeverTrump conservatives Check the policy proposals

I was a #NeverTrump conservative. I’ve come to terms with the reality that President Trump, with all his flaws, is promoting a mostly conservative agenda. I also acknowledge that any damage done by carrying over the divisiveness that began in the Obama administration has already been done. I still believe I was right to oppose the President’s nomination, and I’m still extremely happy Hillary Clinton isn’t President.

News today that Mark Sanford is considering joining Bill Weld to run against President Trump in the GOP primaries has drawn some praise from many that I follow on Twitter. I understand their emotional response; many of them are still condemning the President and even wishing Clinton had beaten him in 2016. But there comes a time when we have to take the best that we can get, and today that’s President Trump.

And guess what, folks… it isn’t even close. The country under President Trump is better than it would have been under Hillary Clinton and the future of the country is exponentially better off with him than any of the Democrats running for office.

Look at Joe Biden’s proposal for healthcare. It takes the worst parts of Obamacare, elements that couldn’t be included in the original legislation because it was just too radical, and inserts them to form the Affordable Care Act 2.0. This is a disastrous proposal, one that would insert a cost-driving public option into the mix. If you want to make health insurance companies happy, have the government “compete” against them. They’ll be able to raise costs based on the government’s inefficiency and won’t have to deal with the higher-risk, lower-paying patients who will be forced on the government solution.

Or, consider the push towards open borders. Elizabeth Warren’s plan is de facto open borders, and all of the Democratic candidates will embrace it, just as they embraced her plans for free education, reparations, and anything else they’re calling “free.”

I often hear NeverTrumpers say the President’s foreign policy actions are embarrassing. They chide him for stepping into North Korea. They laugh when a British ambassador calls him an imbecile. But the alternative is a return to the Iran nuclear deal, failures over China policy, and the infamous “flexibility” President Obama had with Russia.

You’re angry because Trump is President. You’re angry because things haven’t imploded as you predicted. But you’re siding with socialists who truly want to destroy America. It’s time to grow up and pick the right side again.

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

Facebook

Trending