Connect with us

Culture and Religion

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



Proving a far-left National Socialist Workers Party was a far-left National Socialist Workers Party2

Dealing with the usual tactics of the nation’s Socialist-Left in their denial of historical fact.

Part I of this 2 part series presented just some of the historical facts of the case. In the interest of ‘fairness’, Part II will present and eviscerate the usual tactics and talking points of the nation’s socialist-left on this subject. Please excuse the excessive length of the article, but the left has many issues here that need to be addressed.

In one regard, this might seem to be a trivial issue since the National Socialist German Workers’ Party [Nazi’s] only existed for a mercifully short time over 70 years ago. However, the tactics used to deny the history of this socialist nation are still being used to try revising history while it is being written with the socialist nation of Venezuela. The nation’s socialist-left also persists in trying to invoke it’s false history labeling some on the pro-liberty right with the ‘Nazi’ pejorative.

Headlines that present opinion as fact in a one-line editorial

We begin with a recent piece that is typical of leftist methodologies from Vox. Note that this is the same leftist-socialist media source with one founder that reveled in being very effective in misleading people.

The author of this piece begins masquerading opinion as fact with a careful construction of the headline:

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist

With the subhead:

A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions.

Then she uses the tried and true technique of ‘burying the lede’ before getting to the ‘factual’ part that supposedly backs up her opinion presented in the headline. As is usually the case with these ‘debunking’ opinion pieces there is a great deal padding in the presentation with extraneous background information before setting up her later conclusions. Along the way she throws in a word or two, to subtly reinforce the opinion she presented in the headline with the arrogant presumption that it was bolstered by facts. Then to hammer the point home she uses a word that closely verges into the realm of ridicule with a statement dripping with disdain:

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.

[Our emphasis]

Please note the subtle switch in the issue under discussion, from this question being applied to Hitler to a generalized assertion. Then to appear to ‘fact check’ the assertion – and bury the lede even further- the author goes through a history lesson detailing the neutral historic facts on the issue to lend an air of legitimacy to the proceedings.

During this process, she uses one of the Left’s favorite tactics in attacking – or as they term it ‘fact checking’ – assertions made by the pro-liberty right. This is the tactic of finding a subtle or minor error present in the item they are attacking as a way of discrediting everything else being presented. In this case exploiting Representative Rep. Brooks ‘error’ in stating that:

“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”
[Our emphasis]

The good Representative most assuredly meant this in a colloquial sense, but it was an ‘error’ hence the likelihood that she directly quoted him to correct him later cast a pale of illegitimacy on everything else he said. Then in the middle of her offering of the historical facts she slips in her opinion in the matter. Directly asserting that despite the name that Adolf Hitler was not a socialist.

But despite joining what would be called the “National Socialist” German workers’ party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it.

Please note the authors use of “scare quotes” around the words “National Socialist” leaving out the inclusion of workers’ in the party name. Also, note that she conveniently switches back to a narrow focus after implying this was to be a more generalized discussion.

There is a very important reason for this subtle focus, the very name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party has always been very problematic for the nation’s socialist-left. Thus they have developed very careful techniques to mitigate this historical fact, that will be the subject of the next section. In the case of this piece, the purpose of switching the focus back and forth between a narrow focus on Hitler and a generalized discussion is to help ‘prove’ the one line editorial in the headline.

Ostensibly keeping the discussion on Hitler gave the author the leeway to argue that discussions of the nature of socialism somehow ‘prove’ Hitler wasn’t a socialist. It also allowed the author to talk of left-wing elements of the party in these discussions while maintaining the generalized assertion that the party wasn’t Left-wing.

Surrogate names to deny the basic facts of history

As they try to deny that socialist nations were or are socialist, the lseft has to deny or dismiss historical facts in order to do so. This is just the beginning of their journey of denial, but it’s the toughest since most people understand that the name of an organization speaks volumes about it true character. Thus, they have to avoid mentioning these names, going to great lengths in their efforts to the point of trying to suppress speech that verges on the truth of the matter.

The most infamous being the use of the word ‘Nazi’, this, of course, an abbreviation of the name: Nationalsozialistische [deutsche Arbeiter-Partei] translated as National Socialist [German Workers’ Party]. There are others, but the particulars of this case illustrate the point.

Leftists explaining away the word socialist in National Socialist German Workers’ Party

The historical fact that they had Socialist and Workers’ Party is very problematic to the Left, necessitating some very careful ‘progressions’ in dealing with the issue. In most cases, they will prepare the field of debate in trying to gloss over this very damaging historic fact to their assertion.

This was usually done with a tactical trio of presumed correctness, ad hominem attacks, and circular logic. They simply presume that their historically contravening assertion is correct without question. Then they attack those who dare point out these facts with childish invective or false assertions as to one’s intelligence level. All of this tied together with circular logic.

The wording and levels of childishness depend upon the ‘intellectual level’ of the leftist media source promulgating these articles. The ‘Snopes’ article begins this process with an almost subliminal implication in the subhead of the article:

Were the Nazis Socialists?
We look into the burning (at least for some) question of whether members of the National German Socialist Workers’ Party were accurately classified as “socialists”.

[Our emphasis]
Note the ‘at least for some’ and the “scare” quotes around the “socialists”

Further on in the piece the begins with the spin:

According to historians, the complicated moniker reveals more about the image the party wanted to project and the constituency it aimed to build than it did about the Nazis’ true political goals, which were building a state based on racial superiority and brute-force governance.

This is a subtle version of the ad hoc rescue technique by which authoritarian tendencies of the socialist-left somehow prove that it wasn’t socialism because somehow that isn’t ‘really’ socialism.

Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.

[Our emphasis]

Note that they fail to explain why ‘Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology’ they simply state this ‘without evidence’ as the saying goes. This is often the case, where certain inconvenient facts are slipped past the reader, presumably to be accepted without question.

In other sites of lower prominence, the subtleties are discarded while the same tactics are maintained. Some Leftists simply assert that ‘nonsense is nonsense’, dismissing basic historical facts while combining all three tactics in one neat phrase. This process is done to prepare the reader for a nonfactual dismissal of the name of the organisation.

Having prepared the battlefield with the usual methods, Leftists will either gloss over the label as ‘just a word’. Alternatively, they will use little evasions and talking points to deflect the conversation, such as the ever-irrelevant ‘North Korea’ dodge. Making claims that the word just happened to be very popular at the time and so it was used despite their not being socialist or something.

Refuting the ever-irrelevant ‘North Korea’ dodge

One of the most infamous and completely irrelevant red herrings in these discussions is the ‘North Korea’ dodge. Somehow the name of that particular nation makes all the difference because reasons. The problem for the left is that there are other national monikers are true to a country’s characteristics:

  • The Principality of Andorra
  • Australia
  • Barbados
  • Canada
  • The Cook Islands
  • The State of Eritrea
  • Hungary
  • The State of Israel
  • The United Mexican States
  • Independent State of Papua New Guinea
  • The Independent State of Samoa
  • The Swiss Confederation
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • The United States of America

Everyone is supposed to ignore these facts to instead dwell on the official names of one or two nations to distract from the subject under consideration. The fact is the irrelevant ‘North Korea’ dodge doesn’t prove anything, but the nation’s socialist-left has to fall back on it since it doesn’t have anything else.

Leftists explaining away the use of the term Workers’ in National Socialist German Workers’ Party

This is even more damaging to their case in combination with the word socialist. In most cases, leftists will completely ignore this part in hopes that no one will notice. As was mentioned before, in the Vox article the workers part of the name was quietly ignored. In a classic case of misdirection, they tend to emphasize the ‘national’ part of the name as though it magically transforms the meaning of the word socialist.  Again, this issue also highlights the reason that the nation’s Socialist-Left prefers to use the terms ‘Nazi’ instead of the full name. It keeps both words ‘socialist’ and ‘workers’ out of the discussion.

Dealing with Leftists lies and evasions over basic historical facts

The first step is to question their presumptions. Why is it presumed that they are correct given that their asseverations that defy basic reality? They can try to dismiss what is extremely problematic for their cause, but it is a historical fact that the Nazis were a National Socialist [German Workers’ Party]. It’s not as though that German Workers’ Party obtained a great deal with the Berlin stationery store for letterhead so it wouldn’t be cost-effective to change it. This was the name they used for the life span of the party, the words socialist and workers’ succinctly stated important aspects of their inherent beliefs.

It’s part and parcel to having to put up with Leftist ad hominem attacks and childish insults. But this means they are lacking in an intellectual argument. This was best summed up by Margaret Thatcher:

In my work, you get used to criticisms. Of course, you do, because there are a lot of people trying to get you down, but I always cheer up immensely if one is particularly wounding because I think well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. That is why my father always taught me: never worry about anyone who attacks you personally; it means their arguments carry no weight and they know it.

Margaret Thatcher, interview with Enzo Biagi, Mar. 10, 1986

The Left doesn’t have a defense for these facts of history, so they have to go on offense. But they won’t be able to mount an intellectual case for these facts because there have none.

One will also note that Leftist loves to follow the maxim from W. C. Fields: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.” The leftist genre here entails the padding of arguments to merely support the one line editorial as exemplified by the two examples cited in this discussion.

Defeating the double-lie tactic

In our efforts to cover most of the prominent methods, we need to mention one that they try to use in proving that a Far-Left National Socialist Worker’s party was somehow ‘right-wing’. For want of a better name, this is the double lie technique whereby the pro-liberty right is falsely accused of a characteristic endemic of the Left as a way of ‘proving’ the opposite.

One of the best examples is the parroting of the lie that everyone on the pro-liberty right is racist. The left then uses this lie to forward a false equivalence with that far-left National Socialist Worker’s Party as a way of ‘proving’ they were ‘right-wing’.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King

Knocking down the first lie is the best defense against this type of attack. One only needs to recall the words of Martin Luther King, on judging people on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Recalling that it’s the nation’s Socialist-Left that dwells in identitarian politics.

Refuting the rivalry talking point

This is the absurd idea that rivals of the same ideology competing for power somehow ‘proves’ that one is not of that ideology. In reality, this doesn’t prove anything since tyrants will often compete to enslave people. There are plenty of cases of authoritarian leftists going after authoritarian leftists. There were conflicts between the various factions of socialists in the old Soviet Union, does that mean they weren’t socialist?

Consider the rivalry between the old USSR and communist China or communist China with communist Vietnam or communist Vietnam with communist Cambodia. Do these rivalries magically convert one or both into being non-socialist? Alternatively, there is the rivalry between different factions of Islam; do these rivalries magically convert one or both into being non-Muslim?

In the case of the particular National Socialist Worker’s Party in question, at one point they co-operated with another group of socialists – the USSR. Did they magically change ideologies during this time period? That fact that different factions are rivalrous proves nothing in the debate, however, this doesn’t stop leftist from bringing up this tired talking point.

Refuting the National Socialist German Workers’ Party banned trade unions talking point

This is another fact the nation’s socialist-left loves to trot out, but as with the rivalry talking point, this also fails to prove the case since there are other examples of socialists banning trade unions. Again, this is as yet another example of the tactic of the nation’s socialist-left creating false criteria unrelated to whether or not a national government is socialist.

The prime example would be Solidarity [Polish Solidarność], a Polish trade union formed in 1980 in Poland and what was part of the Warsaw Pact, the Polish government in December 1981 forcibly suppressed it. But then again, leftist also like to claim that socialism has never been tried before, therefore they might claim that this proves that the Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik and the rest of the Warsaw Pact weren’t really socialist as well.

Refuting the Ad Hoc rescue: ‘socialists acting like socialists means they aren’t socialists’

This last one uses the after the fact presumption that since the definition of socialism doesn’t mention concentration camps, secret police or the suspension of liberty. The lie here is that somehow that those nations that engage in these tactics to suppress dissent aren’t really socialist.

The problem for the nation’s socialist-left in forwarding this presumption is that their base ideology is predicated on wealth redistribution. Even though he was late to the party in the development of socialism, Karl Marx did contribute one little ditty to the ‘intellectual’ foundation of the ideology. This was, of course, the infamous: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Socialists attain power by making all manner of promises that require the taking of other people’s money to fund their schemes. The numbers never work out for this, but that isn’t the point. The purpose here is to entice people into voting for free college, free housing, free food, free healthcare and even free money. Never mind that these farcical promises can never be fulfilled.

It takes coercion to even try to fulfill these impossible promises, necessitating the need for the people to be disarmed, a secret police apparatus, concentration camp system as well as the suppression of all Civil Liberties.

The bottom line is that socialist nations require repression, thus what took place in Nazi Germany, the USSR and even today with the socialist nation of Venezuela are all a result of socialism’s basic precepts.

The Takeaway

The underlying mythology of this subject is that somehow National Socialist Workers’ Party was somehow ‘rightwing’. The nation’s socialist-left still vehemently persist in trying to foment this two for one special in the wholesale rewriting of history. This historical sleight of hand requires a two-fold lie that said National Socialist Workers’ Party wasn’t the case. As well as the even more extraordinary lie that they were the exact opposite of their name, that somehow the word ‘national’ is some magical elixir that turns left into right.

The fact is, no matter the false spin and lies, a nation with an authoritarian edict is antithetical to pro-liberty right precepts of limited government and individual liberty. Authoritarianism is and always will be a left-wing precept, denying that is akin to denying reality.

Other references:

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help



  1. DeathMerchant

    April 14, 2019 at 12:58 pm

    “The fact is, no matter the false spin and lies, a nation with an authoritarian edict is antithetical to pro-liberty right precepts of limited government and individual liberty. Authoritarianism is and always will be a left-wing precept, denying that is akin to denying reality.”
    Perhaps, however in some cases when the pro-liberty right precepts of limited government and individual liberty have permitted the subversion of established national identity and traditions as well as attempts to radically change the core society, a little dose of authoritarianism may be necessary to get things back on track.

  2. Joe Liberty

    April 14, 2019 at 1:44 pm

    Pamphlet written by Joseph Goebbels

    “Why Are We Socialists?

    We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

    Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

    The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

    The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

    We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

    Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

    We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

    We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

    We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!”

  3. Joe Liberty

    April 14, 2019 at 1:46 pm

    The Nazis THEMSELVES said they were socialists, but not Marxists. Their socialism was, in their own words, different than the Communists. Since they were competing against the Communists and other Socialist parties, their hostility towards them was a function of their desire to gain power against their rivals.

    As to their social policies not being sufficiently “leftist” enough for you, let me point you to two more passages just a little later in the pamphlet:

    “We call ourselves a workers’ party because we want to rescue the word work from its current definition and give it back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a creator, that is, a worker. We refuse to distinguish kinds of work. Our only standard is whether the work serves the whole, or at least does not harm it, or if it is harmful. Work is service. If it works against the general welfare, then it is treason against the fatherland.

  4. Joe Liberty

    April 14, 2019 at 1:49 pm

    Here are two quotes by Hitler from Hitler Speaks by Hermann Rauschning, published in 1940:

    “There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I
    have always made allowance for this circumstance and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.”

    Another quote:

    “Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline
    they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

    But let’s not stop there…

    How about the Nazi party platform?

    9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

    Therefore we demand:

    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

    12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and
    property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

    13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

    14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

    15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for the provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

    17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

    Sounds pretty Leftist to me.

  5. Curmudgeon

    April 15, 2019 at 10:42 am

    Joe Liberty.

    The points you have raised are important, but missing from the Goebbels’ pamphlet is some context. The 19th century French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stated that “Marx is the tapeworm of socialism”, more than 60 years before the NSDAP was formed.

    While Hitler acknowledged an affinity between National Socialism and communists, the reason is that communists, not Marxists, recognized the value of work, and that work, not gold, gave currency its value. The reason many communists joined the NSDAP was the workers’ councils that were established, that gave the workers direct access to the “bosses” required them to address on the workers’ concerns.

    As for the “the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels”, that was aimed at what we now call multinational corporations and the banks. Germany, through establishing commodity for commodity international trade with other nations, had freed itself from the Bank of International Settlements which was the basis for Churchill telling Lord Boothby: Germany’s most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.”

    This is something that the WJC understood very well, and led to the Daily Express headline of March 24, 1933 “Judea Declares War On Germany”
    Note that the NSDAP was already the largest party in the Reichstag, but not a majority, with the Communist Party (Marxist orientation) being the 3rd largest. Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, less than 2 months prior. Not one law or restriction against Jews existed at the time of the declaration of war.

  6. Renaissance Nerd

    April 15, 2019 at 1:44 pm

    While all these reasons and arguments are excellent and correct, perhaps we could just say that anyone who claims Nazism and Fascism are right wing is a Stalinist stooge, as it was Stalin who declared them ‘right wing’ as if it could be so in either case. Franco could be considered right wing, as he was primarily a royalist with himself as Shogun or eminence gris rather than a socialist of any stripe. Arguments are of no avail when dealing with any leftist. If they were thinkers, they’d already know they were following a well-worn path to Auschwitz. And if they admit they are Stalinist, remind them that WWII was started by Hitler and Stalin as allies. They invaded Poland together. They won’t know, so it might actually shock them into using their own brains.

    Not likely, I know, but every so often it works.

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Sometimes it’s the little wrongs that stick



Sometimes its the little wrongs that stick

I was a pretty cocky kid.

It’s something that I get to hear a lot lately, especially when connecting with old friends from high school and college. I remember thinking that I wouldn’t be that guy, the one who looks back while on the second half of a standard life and calls himself stupid, but that’s exactly what I’ve started doing. I was a cocky, stupid kid.

There are several instances that I can recall that had an effect on the way that I grew and would eventually point me to dedicate my life to Christ. One of those events was very small, so small that the person I “wronged” likely doesn’t even remember the incident.

I was managing a steak house in Oklahoma City. I was the youngest of the managers of what was supposed to be a summer job and ended up supporting my young family for three years. I was cocky (and did I mention I was stupid as well?) and took pride in my ability to diffuse situations. It wasn’t a fancy steak house. In fact, it was a two-story, 550-seat monster that served hundreds of steaks every night.

One particular evening I was helping one of the servers by taking the order. It was a special day for the patriarch of the family and they were celebrating – what exactly I don’t recall or perhaps never knew. The special day man had one important request – no Texas toast. His wife (or daughter, couldn’t tell for sure) said that he was extremely allergic to anything that had bread and I assured her that no bread would touch his plate. I plugged in the order, put the special instructions in all caps (NO BREAD NO BREAD NO BREAD) and went on to see to the hundreds of other guests as well as the staff.

I was walking by the table, just checking in, when the food came. Time went into slow-motion mode as the plate was put down in front of him with a big, buttery piece of Texas toast right smack dab on his 14 oz. ribeye. The look on the wife/daughter’s face has always stuck with me. It was pure disappointment, shock, and even a little bit of fear all flashing before me in technicolor slow motion.

Instantly, I reached down and grabbed the plate, but the man grabbed my arm. His fury was clear. I told him that I would get him a new steak, but refused to let go. He wanted to keep that steak hostage to make certain that we didn’t just take it to the back, pull of the bread, and serve him the same steak. I assured him that we wouldn’t do that but he was firm. He didn’t believe me and that made me mad.

In the same situation today, I wouldn’t have tried to take the steak back. In fact, I would have left one more instruction on the ticket – “Page ME for delivery”. I would have made certain that the bread didn’t go on his plate. Instead, I allowed myself to get angry. I took it out on the staff that couldn’t read instructions. I took it out on the table that had a special occasion ruined. I didn’t even comp the meal because of my petty, stupid, cocky anger.

For all I know, they never thought about it again. For all I know, the man was emotionally unstable and hurt someone that night due to my mistakes. His grip was very strong, the type of grip that one can’t get by working out. It only comes from working through life with your hands.

It’s the fear in the wife/daughter’s eyes that I’ve never been able to shake for two decades. Mad – understandable. Disappointed – who wouldn’t be? Fear – that’s something that was distinct. She wasn’t looking at me. She was looking at him. She was waiting for his response. I don’t recall if I truly saw it out of the corner of my eye or if it has emerged through my imagination over the years, but I think she even looked up at me with a subtle, desperate shake of her head as I tried to pry the plate from his grip as if she was warning me that this many might kill me over the mistake.

We never know the effects of our actions. We don’t know what little thing we might do that causes someone to snap, something bad to happen, or something life-changing that could have been avoided by being a little less stupid, a little less cocky, and a lot more like a believer in Jesus Christ should act.

I never had the chance to apologize properly to the family. Maybe that’s why it stuck with me for all of these years. The slow motion look of mixed, terrible emotions – I pray that my little act of defiance didn’t cause pain to anyone.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Do not presume to know if someone is saved, even if they’re pro-abortion pastors



Do not presume to know if someone is saved even if theyre pro-abortion pastors

This could very easily turn into a discussion about Arminianism versus Calvinism, but that’s a topic I’m still not ready to tackle on this site. One thing I will tackle is the presumptive nature that guides many people to make calls about who is a Christian and who’s a false-Christian as if they’re baseball umpires calling balls or strikes.

It’s something I’ve faced on literally hundreds if not thousands of occasions over the years. People will read my bio on the various social networks, then use my proclamation of being a Christian to call out my posts. Heck, it happened twice today on a reply I sent to Kamala Harris on Twitter that had absolutely nothing to do with faith. I’ve grown used to it, and I try my hardest to never let it get to me on a personal level. I’ve found that many who call me out for a Tweet or Facebook post are simply disagreeing with the content and trying to shame me by saying it’s not very Christian-like. This is a common tactic, folks, so be mindful of it if you face similar complaints.

But today I’d like to discuss a similar situation. Should Christians call out other’s who profess to be Christians based on actions or perspectives that are clearly non-Biblical? The answer to this question, in my humble opinion, is yes and no. Yes, I believe it behooves us as Bible-believers to call out the actions of others, particularly if they profess to be Christians. No, I do not believe we should be claiming people are not Christians because of their misguided beliefs or actions. That’s a call that’s way above our pay grade.

For example, there was a lot of controversy over a letter by 150 Christian leaders who support a pro-choice stance. As most Christians know, abortion is not a Biblical practice and is spoken against in the Bible itself. We should definitely be calling on those who are supportive of abortion and who also profess their faith, but we shouldn’t be telling them they’re going to burn in hell over their perspective, that they have no Grace, or that they’re not really Christians. I said it before and I can’t really say it enough – such things are above our pay grade.

We know from the Bible what God disapproves of, but we are not capable of known WHO God approves of, as in who He considers to be saved as a Christian. When we tell people who believe they are saved that they’re actually not saved because they believe in abortion, we’re presuming to know God’s Will on such matters. We do not.

If we want to call out the sin, that’s proper. If we’re telling a sinner they’re condemned to hell because of their sin, it’s like taking on the role of passing eternal judgment. That is not our calling. Mind your tongues, folks. God does.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Michael J. Knowles on the reality of ‘white privilege’ and intersectionality



Michael J Knowles on the reality of white privilege and intersectionality

There’s a strange contradiction that’s been essentially taking over the mentality of many leftists for some time now. The contradiction has to do with bigotry and is framed around the concept of “white privilege.”

If you’re white, you instantly have privilege in their eyes. If you also happen to be a straight male, you really, really have privilege. This characterization by the left does two things. It paints those who are straight male Caucasians as not being capable of experiencing the types of hardships experienced by others and it forces anyone who is not a straight male Caucasian to embrace their victimhood if they’re going to be part of the leftist tribe.

This is, of course, all ludicrous. White privilege is a myth in today’s America. There are enough safeguards to protect those who aren’t straight white males from persecuting the rest of us, and those safeguards have been working. But that’s not enough for the left. They aren’t looking for equality. They want the status they place on people of having “white privilege” to work against them.

Michael J. Knowles and Andrew Klavan from the DailyWire took to Texas A&M to discuss some of the challenges leftists force onto people, particularly at college campuses in America. The event, hosted by YAF, yielded an extremely interesting series of discussions. You can watch the whole event here.

Knowles was asked about “white privilege” and gave a thoughtful response. Here’s one important quote from his answer:

“Ironically what this ideology does is it turns privilege into victimhood and it turns victimhood into privilege, and that’s the upside down world of the left, and it’s why they go after you on immutable characteristics such as the color of your skin and your biology and your chromosomes.”

Will there ever come a time when the left is willing to look past our gender, religion, sexual preference, or the color of our skin and simply see people as who they are? The way things are going, it doesn’t seem like it.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report