Connect with us


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



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.’

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]

Image courtesy of

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:


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


Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help




The left has destroyed their cause by jumping the gun and demanding confiscation, Part II




The left has destroyed their cause by jumping the gun and demanding confiscation Part II

Leftists have dropped all pretence of being reasonable, destroying their socialist national agenda on gun confiscation.

In Part I we began our examination of how the left has damaged their cause of eviscerating everyone’s inalienable human rights. This part will detail some of the implications of their dropping of the authoritarian mask.

Leftists have the absurd idea that gun confiscation will be the natural outcome of a certain level of societal violence. That a death toll factor ‘x’ multiplied over time ‘t’ will equate to an overwhelming demand for gun confiscation ‘c’. Despite the lies propagated by the authoritarian socialist left, we on the pro-liberty right are always deeply saddened by these tragedies. This is why we offer thoughts and prayers to the mockery of our betters on the left.

Were it not for the constraints of civility, we would assert that the liberty grabber leftists revel in the pain and suffering of others to the point of encouraging future attacks. Those on the other side of the political spectrum are supposedly our moral and intellectual superiors, therefore they should be well aware of the psychological phenomena of Media Contagion whereby the breathless wall to wall coverage propagated by them results in additional tragedy. Thus the conclusion that they are merely projecting their delight on their political enemies.

Leftist demands for gun confiscation are coming into a new light.

As one who has studied and researched the deluge in confiscation demands  occasioned by tragedy over the years, it was no surprise when many of the democratic presidential candidates jumped on the gun confiscation bandwagon after recent events. Many others took notice, easily looking past the Orwellian terminology to come to the stark realization that the left has finally dropped the mask of being reasonable. These kinds of demands have been common place for years now, the latest – but somewhat dated – list from last September tells the tale.

In most cases leftist liberty grabbers tend to couch the demands for confiscation in softer terms while casting the subjects, both inanimate object and possessor, in the harshest terms possible. They love to call the outright confiscation of private property a ‘buy-back’ implying collectivized ownership narrative to the whole affair, while the rightful owners of said property will supposedly be ‘compensated’ [with their own money] for this government sanctioned theft.

They, of course, tar those who want to conserve liberty as ‘gun nuts’ or ‘terrorists’. While the love to lay on the hyperbole labeling the modern-day musket a ‘military style assault weapon’ or a ‘weapon of war’. Never mind that ordinary citizens commonly use these to defend themselves.

This is just a small sampling of leftist demands for gun confiscation that have been spewed forth over the years:

Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them

Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

This time around prominent ‘democratic’ politicians were making these demands in the national public spotlight:

Medium: Senator Elizabeth Warren: My plan for gun violence prevention.

NOQ Report: Kirsten Gillibrand wants to confiscate guns

Daily Wire: ‘NO COMPROMISE’: Biden Goes Extreme On Guns, Calls For Ban On All Magazines, Rips Texas For Allowing Worshipers To Defend Themselves

Bearing Arms: No One Is Coming For Our Guns? Someone Needs To Tell Beto

The left openly demanding gun confiscation has changed the debate.

This time around, these demands were met with defiance. This time around everyone realized that with the left losing the plot, they had just dropped the mask on being reasonable. The liberty grabber left used to at least portray an outward appearance of being reasonable with talk of ‘common sense gun safety’ or similar folderol.

Discarding all of stepping-stones to their ultimate goal has revealed the gun-grabbing zealots they truly are. Many patriots on the pro-liberty right already knew this to be the case, but now everyone knows that when leftists talk about ‘gun reform’ they really mean gun confiscation, never mind the Orwellian sugar-coating.

Now that we have proven that the nation’s socialist left has truly come out once and for all for gun confiscation, let us consider the full implications of this emergence. Beginning with abject rejection of these authoritarian demands by those on the right imbued with the conservation of liberty..

The almost instantaneous reaction to these game-changing decrees from the left was defiance across the board. This of course is named after the false narrative nickname of the man spearheading the destruction of everyone’s inalienable human rights: Robert Francis O’Rourke.

The ‘Beto’ Backlash.

‘NO to more govt. intrusion’: TX Rep. Matt Schaefer’s thread pushing back on gun-control causes heads to EXPLODE

Texas Lawmaker Delivers Blistering Rebuke To Anti-Gun Democrats, Media

Why ‘Mandatory Buybacks’ Are A Non-Starter

HAMMER: I Will Never, Ever Let The Government ‘Buy Back’ My ‘Assault Weapon’

Talking to the Left About Gun Control Is a Chump’s Game and We Aren’t Playing

The Anti-Gun Left and the Media Can’t be Allowed to Destroy the Second Amendment – The Truth About Guns

An Open Letter To Beto O’Rourke

This open defiance of our betters on the left was met with instant condemnation. After all, how dare we speak out on conserving our inalienable human rights?

The full implications of the ground shifting under the left.

To begin, we should preface this discussion that this should be a cautionary tale for anyone steeped in an echo chamber. Leftists tend to believe their own false narratives, for example a poll that shows most are concerned about ‘mass shootings’ and will agree with whatever is the stepping stone to gun confiscation de jour. As reported in the Daily Wire, this poll was perfectly decimated by gun expert Loesch.

Those misleading polling results are contradicted by the fact that NICS background checks on guns jumped 15 percent in August. As someone postulated on the site The truth about guns Everyone’s Happy to DO SOMETHING After a Shooting, As Long As It’s Done to Someone Else.

Giving up the pretense of being reasonable.

It has always been an essential part of the lefts debating points on guns. Rhetorically speaking, the left would always wield their current restriction of liberty as a sword, while using the ‘no one is talking gun confiscation’ lie as a shield against any counter arguments.

‘Universal’ background checks are clearly meant to set up for gun registration’/licensing, ‘red flag’ gun confiscation SWATing laws and ‘assault weapons’ bans are of course for the outright taking of guns from the people. Leftists would simply use the ‘no one is talking gun confiscation’ lie to deflect any arguments against these measures. Most likely throwing in a little personal attack that anyone pointing this out is ‘paranoid’ at the truth staring them in the face.

This is the one main reason for the left keeping a death grip on that outright lie. They could sound reasonable while casting aspersions on their opponent. Now with the left dropping the mask on gun confiscation, they no longer have that shield, they no longer sound reasonable.

Confiscating guns takes away any benefits they provide.

The fact that guns save more lives than are lost, is one of the left’s major sins of omission. Dropping the pretense of practicality and making demands that guns be taken from the innocent changes the dialog from ‘common sense’ to endangering the innocent as exemplified in this article from The Federalist: entitled: Why Criminals Looking To Victimize Women Love Gun Control.

The left is throwing away the mask of being liberal.

One of the major implications of the left dropping the mask on gun confiscation is that they can no longer claim to be liberal. Those studying the left have known this for some time, but this and their increasing attacks against the 1st Amendment have made it clear that they no longer have any use for liberty. These attacks also reveal that they have no use for the bill of rights or individual freedom.

Maintaining the ‘no one is talking gun confiscation’ lie at least gave them a toehold on being within the bounds of the Constitution. Coming out for confiscation eviscerated any questions of constitutionality for them.

The bottom-line: A repudiation of republican self-rule.

In writing this dissertation, the subject always seems to circle around to why the left still uses the ‘no one is talking gun confiscation’ lie. It seems like every day a politician here or a pundit there proves that saying to be a ridiculous assertion. Most major publications of the national socialist media have come out for gun confiscation [or one of it’s thematic variations]. Most politicians of note from the national socialist left have advocated the destruction of the inalienable human right of self-defense. Thus it is patently absurd for anyone to use the ‘no one is talking gun confiscation’ lie. This begs the question one more time: why is it critical for the left to maintain this lie?

Leftists love to pride themselves as being ‘democratic’ as well as being ‘liberal’ while they are neither. Gun confiscation means that they no longer trust their fellow citizens with firearms, preferring to have the government imbued with a monopoly on the use of force. Instead of the means of self-defense equally distributed amongst the people, they would prefer to have power elite in control of the ordering of society.

Maintaining the ‘no one is talking gun confiscation’ lie, let them hold onto this false pretense while their recent demands blew it away. The right to possess arms distinguishes a citizen from a subject, or a slave. In dropping their authoritarian mask, the left has made it quite clear what they think of their fellow citizens: That they would prefer them to be subjects of their rule instead. They have crossed the line in wanting absolute power. That is why they should NEVER have it.

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


Medicare-for-All will become a nation-crushing reality if the GOP doesn’t surge in 2020



Medicare-for-All will become a nation-crushing reality if the GOP doesnt surge in 2020

Obamacare has been a debacle. Costs for both healthcare and health insurance have skyrocketed over the last nine years. Meanwhile, quality of care has suffered despite advancing technologies, better information, and more medical professionals available. This was what the Democrats wanted and it’s what America has right now, thanks in part to the feckless RINOs on Capitol Hill who blocked attempts to repeal and replace it in 2017.

The Democrats’ response to the looming healthcare crisis they created: Triple-down with single-payer. Around half of the people’s reaction to this notion: Sure, why not?

What Obamacare introduced with government meddling in health insurance may be a big problem, but it’s infinitesimal compared to the existential threat of Medicare-for-All. Keep in mind, Obamacare was never meant as a permanent solution. It was supposed to expose holes in the system over time and be replaced by a single-payer system preferred by socialists around the globe. The left want a system that gives total control over the healthcare of the people to incompetent and oftentimes uncaring bureaucrats administering how and even why people should receive healthcare.

But Obamacare was built to be a long-term stepping stone to allow the American people time to get acquainted with DC stepping all over our medical needs before slowly introducing single-payer. In the left’s master plan, Obamacare would transition into single-payer in two or three decades, four at the most. By 2050, every American would be insured by taxpayers. Then, something they didn’t expect happened. It failed from the start. It failed miserably. It failed much harder than expected. The foundation for socialism they worked so hard to establish in 2010 wasn’t going to make it to its first decade before being replaced.

It was a disaster, especially after the 2016 election when they realized their plans had been obliterated. All they had left was to hope the GOP would fail to deliver on their 6-year-old promise and then the people could be shepherded into giving Democrats a chance to replace their crumbling stepping stone with the real deal. These were both longshots, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that the people can be swayed into supporting what they once opposed. They can be led like sheep to their own slaughter if emotion can replace logic. And that’s where we stand leading up to the 2020 election.

The transition of Medicare-for-All over the last three years has been startling to me even as I’m well-aware of the ease in which opinions can be swayed on individual topics. In 2016, one can argue a majority of people were not only opposed to Medicare-for-All but also to Obamacare itself. They saw the results and it never delivered as promised. By 2017, repealing Obamacare had been tainted by a shifting perspective that doing so meant tens of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions would suddenly lose their health insurance. In 2018, Medicare-for-All started picking up steam with radicals and spreading into the consciousness of moderates as something to consider.

In 2019, a majority of Democratic lawmakers and a growing chunk of Democratic voters are now all-in for Medicare-for-All.

Majority of House Dems now support ‘Medicare-for-all’

The single-payer health care plan known as “Medicare-for-all” now enjoys support from more than half of Democrats in the House of Representatives, with top-ranking Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., adding his name to the list of co-sponsors.

The bill, introduced in February by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., calls for the replacement of private health insurance with a government plan covering everyone. Jeffries became the 118th co-sponsor.

“Given the enduring nature of our health care access and affordability crisis, more must be done,” Jeffries, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a statement to The Washington Post.

It’s time to wake up to the reality that Medicare-for-All could actually happen if Republicans do not come together, get organized, and reverse the shifting perspectives spreading across American consciousness like a plague. People often ask me how I went from being a conservative critic of President Trump’s to a staunch supporter. The answer is in the nation-crushing policies the Democrats are embracing. Their proposals for Medicare-for-All, open borders, and the Green New Deal are three of the biggest threats standing out in a sea of major concerns over their policy proposals.

This is why when NeverTrump Republicans try to convince me the GOP is so bad, I can only chuckle. It’s like telling me I should put down the heart-disease inducing donuts to save my life when there’s a terrorist with a knife at my throat. No, I don’t agree with everything the GOP or the President do, but the nuances in their handful of poor decisions are inconsequential compared to the freedom-sucking vacuum of socialistic principles that would be forced upon us if we don’t coalesce around the Republican Party immediately.

My priorities for both NOQ Report and the formation of the American Conservative Movement are these and in this order:

  1. Stop Democrats. They’ve rapidly transitioned from an annoyance with bad policies into the image of authoritarianism, anti-Americanism, and in many cases, true evil.
  2. Replace RINOs with conservatives. This can be done simultaneously with the first priority, but it must be practical. Attacking Republicans in ways that will get them replaced by Democrats is counterproductive. Helping conservative primary candidates evict moderate Republicans is a righteous goal.
  3. Educate the people. As I’ve long said, most Americans are conservative. Some just don’t realize it because of the stigma associated with the Republican Party. Minorities are particularly susceptible to this stigma as many of them believe in conservative principles but have been told that voting Republican is like voting for racists. The record-setting low unemployment rates for African- and Hispanic-Americans should counter this if we can get the information out there.

2020 must be an unambiguous mandate against the socialistic principles driving today’s Democratic Party. This needs to happen up and down the ticket to protect Americans from the existential threats being embraced as policy by the left.

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


Dinesh D’Souza: Gun confiscators are ‘coming out of the closet’ in ‘all-out assault’ on 2nd Amendment




Dinesh DSouza Gun confiscators are coming out of the vloset in all-out assault on 2nd Amendment

Dinesh D’Sousa makes the point that the gun grabbers have finally admitted the obvious truth of their ultimate goal.

Pro-liberty patriots such as Colion Noir have been saying it for years the national socialist left has only one ‘solution’ to the problem they created, confiscate guns from the innocent.

As reported on CNS News, Dinesh D’Sousa made the same point on Fox News’s Laura Ingraham program recently:

At first, for many years, I thought that the NRA was kind of using, you may call it the ‘slippery slope’ argument, which was essentially that once you start outlawing one type of weapon, you will then slowly proceed to outlawing the next type and eventually it becomes a kind of a comprehensive confiscation.

But I think what’s interesting here is this isn’t even a slippery slope. It now appears like there’s a whole group of people that from the outset want a comprehensive ban, and these mass shootings are making them come out of the closet, you may say rhetorically, and be more and more frank and candid about what their real agenda is. It never was a kind of targeted or narrowly tailored law. It’s ultimately an all-out assault on the Second Amendment.

And let’s remember, too, Laura, that the Second Amendment is no less important than the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, so we should very jealously guard against these constitutional rights being stripped away based upon some sort of pretext. If you’re going to abuse your rights, the solution is not to take away my rights.

[Emphasis added]

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden announced that he wants to ban magazines that hold “multiple bullets” — which means all magazines. Robert Francis O’Rourke has declared that he wants the government to ‘buy-back’ what is has never owned with money taken at gun point – rhetorically speaking. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also set out her own little gun confiscation plan with a ‘buy-back’ what the government never owned and a requirement to obtain permission from the government in order to exercise an inalienable human 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