Running the numbers on why socialism can never work

The early history of socialism and its various ‘issues’ and selling it by criticizing economic freedom.

This is another one of the lectures from the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama in July 2019. Although somewhat entertaining and a little bit dry in places, it makes some very good points. Primarily that socialists have to tear down economic liberty to sell their socialist slavery. Along with the fact that socialism depends upon central planning and it is impossible to develop the proper calculations to successfully run an economy by these methods. These types of videos are important to understand what we on the Pro-Liberty Right are up against in the coming years.
One of the earlier points made is that there was somewhat of a conflict between the two kinds of the early socialists. Those being the Utopian Socialists: Charles Fourier, Henri Saint-Simon and Robert Owen followed later by Marx and Engels who critiqued Utopian socialism as unscientific. The professor details some of the early ideas of socialism as a way of explaining the ideology.
We can’t do justice to the entire presentation, aside from the point that the left can’t actually sell socialism, they can only criticize economic freedom as in the case of Marx with his book Das Kapital.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Advertisements

Moving left into the province of propagandists, the AP avoids the pesky issue of due process

More akin to being authoritarian propaganda, a media source ignores an important civil liberty while casting opinion as fact.

Trying to come up to speed on what is going on in the world each morning is quite often akin to the “kawoosh” seen in the Star Gate genre, with a sudden onrush of stories and opinion pieces cast as ‘fact checks’. It’s also important to stay out of any type of echo chamber on either side, thus we check what AllSides would consider to be ‘Centrist’:
A Center media bias rating does not always mean neutral, unbiased or reasonable, just as “far Left” and “far Right” do not always mean “extreme” or “unreasonable.” A Center bias rating simply means the source or writer rated does not predictably show opinions favoring either end of the political spectrum.
Please note that as they state in their FAQ, a centrist bias rating doesn’t mean neutral or unbiased, just that it supposedly doesn’t favor either side. The problem is the Associated Press has been moving inexorably left exemplified by two stories from this weekend.

Due process, what’s that?

In our first example, the esteemed Associated Press that labels itself as ‘independent’ produced a long piece on Gun Confiscation SWATing also known as ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation. With an almost tangential reference to the infringement on Constitutional rights several paragraphs in on the piece, and only casting it as the contention of other law enforcement leaders while ignoring the fact that laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment already exist:
Involuntary civil commitment is the admission of individuals against their will into a mental health unit. Generally speaking, there are three reasons why an individual would be subject to involuntary civil commitment under modern statutes: mental illness, developmental disability, and substance addiction. In the case of mental illness, dangerousness to self or others defines the typical commitment standard, with almost all states construing the inability to provide for one’s basic needs as dangerousness to self. In terms of process, every state provides for a hearing, the right to counsel, and periodic judicial review, while most states have statutory quality standards for treatment and hospitalization environment.
Source: Ralph Reisner, Christopher Slobogin, and Arti Rai, Law and the Mental Health System: Civil and Criminal Aspects (2009), pp. 704-705.
[Emphasis added]
They avoid any real discussions on critical Constitutional principles such as due process [5th amendment], searches and seizure [4th amendment], private property rights and of course the 2nd amendment. They spend an inordinate amount of time in what could be characterized as a one-sided infomercial for the destruction of due process and gun confiscation.
The headline for the piece was a masterful casting as the destruction of civil Liberties as a ‘tool’, while hedging their bets on this ‘tools’ effectiveness: ‘Red flag laws’ offer tool for preventing some gun violence.
Note the use of the phrase ‘some gun violence’ as a subtle hint that other measures against the cause of liberty will be needed. Authoritarianism never sleeps in keeping people safe and enslaved.

Opinion as a ‘fact check’

Our second example of authoritarian media bias also does a masterful job subtly casting opinion as fact in one of the national socialist media’s interminable ‘fact check’ diatribes. Once again we turn to the ‘independent’ Associated Press with a piece entitled: AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s swerves on economy, guns and migrants .
We’ll leave some of their use of ‘Newspeak’ on the subject of illegal Invaders and other issues to emphasize this excerpt on the subject of ‘gun’ violence:
TRUMP: “I don’t want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. … Just remember this: Big mental problem, and we do have a lot of background checks right now.” — remarks Sunday to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey.
THE FACTS: He’s oversimplifying the role of mental illness in public mass shootings and playing down the ease with which Americans can get firearms.
Most people with mental illness are not violent and they are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators, according to mental health experts. They say that access to firearms actually is a big part of the problem.
[Emphasis added]
How are the terms ‘oversimplifying’ and ‘playing down’ even close to being statements of fact? What numerical values translate to ‘big part’? Does the staff at the ‘independent’ Associated Press know the difference between fact and opinion? For example, it is a fact of history that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or ‘Nazi’ Party was in fact the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Whereas the descriptions layered on by the AP could hardly be considered factual in nature. As is usually the case, they couldn’t help themselves in also including a plug for the destruction of due process, touting something they would resist when it comes to their common sense civil liberties.
Their ‘FACT CHECK’ also included a push for Gun Confiscation SWATing, emphasizing the words of an executive of the American Psychological Association while forgetting the fact that media sources such as the ‘independent’ Associated Press contribute to the problem of Media Contagion.

The Bottom-Line: The equivalent to the media of ‘red flag’ gun confiscation

Since it’s been established that there is a direct connection between the mass murder tragedies and media coverage, would esteemed ‘independent’ sources such as the Associated Press agree to the ‘red flag’ gun confiscation equivalent for them: Prior Restraint?
They would most certainly object to the destruction of their civil liberties while they cheer for the same in the case of Gun Confiscation SWATing. Perhaps they need to understand that double standards are the grease that makes the slippery slope so dangerous. The whole point of the ‘first they came for..’ sentiment is that we who stand for freedom have to defend all aspects of liberty, Including the common sense civil right of self-defense.
Only defending one basic human right means that all the others will be soon swept away, with only one remaining on the chopping block.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Fear not! We are sanitizing the language of surprise incidental contacts

We’re taking a cue from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to take the fear out of societal violence.

Not to make light of a very serious situation that has been caused by the national socialist left. From their predilection to further media contagion to denigrating the culture to leftists actually being mass murders.
We as a society need to address this situation, but not by making it worse and stripping the innocent of their means of self-defense or destroying due process with Gun Confiscation SWATing laws.
There are a number of steps that can be taken without dismantling our basic human rights such as the steps they are taking in Adams County with FASTER –Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response as reported by Fox31 KDVR-TV.
Even subsidizing the 2nd Amendment. But since the left loves to deny reality and distract from problems they’ve caused, we’re going to illustrate their sheer absurdity by applying the same type of nonsense to other criminal acts and inanimate objects.

Engage Satire!

The SF Board of Supervisors is trying to sanitize the language with regard to convicted felons and other dangerous criminals. This is to dial up the absurdity to 11 and apply this kind of ‘PC’ nonsense to the issue of firearms and other weapons – or more appropriately: Tubular object dispersal systems.
Perhaps we should bow down to our betters on the left with their ever-superior knowledge in how to solve intractable problems such as crime. This is true progress, since there will no longer be criminal roaming the streets, only ‘justice-involved persons’ or ‘persons with a history of substance use’.
This has inspired us to get to work and solve other problems of violence – better known as ‘surprise incidental contact’. So comrades, this is a list of the old, discredited terms and their new sanitized versions in no particular disorder:
  • Cartridges – single unit object dispenser.
  • Gun – Tubular object dispersal system.
  • Handgun – Handheld tubular object dispersal system.
  • Rifle – Shoulder braced tubular object dispersal system.
  • Gun free zone – tubular object dispersal system denial area.
  • ‘Assault Weapon’ – Randomly designated tubular object dispensing system.
  • Military style – noncivil chic.
  • Violence – Surprise incidental contact.
  • Knife – Bifurcational hand tool.
  • Shooting – Mistimed object dispersal.
  • Mass murderer – Surprise contact incident participant.
  • Good guys with a gun – incidental tubular object dispersal system operators.
  • High capacity magazine – Randomly designated single unit object dispersal clip.
  • Chainsaw bayonet [this is for CNN] – segmented plant material bifurcational tool accessory.
So, how would this de-weaponized Newspeak work? Easy, just use this translation matrix – or word corresponding chart – to convert those scary words to the calm and bright PC versions.
Usage example: A military style ‘assault weapon’ would be a noncivil chic, randomly designated tubular object dispersal system. Doesn’t that sound a whole lot better and not as frightening?

No more scary words

Leftists think they are entitled to not be offended and to complete safety, and they don’t care what all of someone else’s God-given rights they have to trample in order to achieve that impossibility. The ‘PC’ sanitization of the language can go to absurd lengths as we have demonstrated.
Now with all of those formerly scary terms recast and sanitized we shan’t need to worry about these events taking place. As long as we’re not caught without our handheld tubular object dispersal system or in a tubular object dispersal system denial realm.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Buying back the ‘assault weapon’ scam with military style hate speech

A look at the insanity of leftist weasel words in furthering their socialist national agenda.

It would seem we are in the calm before the storm of the next gun debate. We’ve gone through the invective of having blood on our hands and all the other insane accusations while the story has dropped from the headlines. But rest assured this is only a lull in the action. Republican leadership has foolishly decided to give a hearing on all the gun confiscation schemes the authoritarian socialist left has been able to dream up the past few years.
In light of all this, we decided to look at some of the language the Left uses in going after a basic human right. Some of it conveys their collectivist mindset, while the rest are simply base substitutions for real civil rights – ‘assault weapons’ instead of arms, hate speech instead of free speech. This gives the left a cynical excuse to attack liberty and individual rights while they pretend that isn’t the case.

These words show the fundamental dichotomy between Individualism and Collectivism

The phrase ‘buy back’ goes to the fundamental political ideologies of Individualism and Collectivism, the basis of all other ideologies and the fundamental precept in arranging a rational political spectrum model. The country began with the setting out of the precepts of individualism in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
Note that it does not refer to people collectively and that each individual has certain rights that cannot be given away – they are unalienable. Furthermore, it sets out that government is to be limited to securing these rights. Not attempting the impossibilities of fairness and equality, not redistributing other people’s money.
Contrast this with how the collectivists look at the world, were they see everyone as belonging to a certain groups or collective aggregations without individual rights or property. Collectivists have a strange idea that rights or property are somehow under the ‘democratic’ purview of society as a whole. This is how they can rationalize the forcible taking these from some and handing it out to others. It’s that infamous line that is the crux of collectivist thought:
‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’
[Never mind that Karl used gender exclusionary language]
The collectivist mindset is that individuals are only of value in so much that they contribute to the collective, with their rights dependent on being a part of that collective.

The collectivist mentality of a firearm ‘buy-back’

This is how the collectivist can rationalize the theft of private property from individuals. It’s somehow ‘collectively owned’ by society, so taking it back at gun point in exchange for what is essentially someone’s own tax dollars is somehow justified.
Purchasing a gun from a manufacturer precludes it ever being the property of the government [or society as a whole]. Thus, common sense logic would hold that it is impossible for the government to ‘buy-back’ something it never owned. It’s only by the bizarre logic of ‘collective ownership’ that this can be logically rationalized. An authoritarian mindset that believes that private property can be forcibly taken from the people simply because the socialist-left wants it to be so.

Military style hate speech

When it comes to the subject of assaulting liberty, the authoritarian socialist left has no equal. They really know how to twist the language to their own cynical use in developing weasel words as a substitute for basic human rights. These give the left the ongoing opportunity to go after civil liberties while maintaining the false pretense supporting liberty or being ‘Liberal’. The first being the term ‘hate speech’, the term’s construction implies a certain level of laziness in just swapping out the word ‘free’ for the word ‘hate’.
As in all of these weasel words, the idea is to use these as the supposed subject of their ire, while they are really going after free speech. The fact is there is no set definition for the term, so it can be applied to anything they want, this being a common characteristic of these phrases. We tacked on another set of weasel words just to illustrate the absurdity of this genre. Again, there is no set definition of ‘military style’ so it could apply to anything.

The ‘assault weapon’ scam

This is another weasel word construction meant to convey something, but without definition so it can be applied to anything. The fact is, just about anything can be used as a ‘weapon’ to ‘assault’ someone; it’s in the definition of the word weapon. It’s a scam because it’s meant to be used to ban certain arms and then expanded to anything and everything left wants. One can assault someone with any kind of weapon.
Other types of arms have a set definition. Banning those would restrict the standard to just those types of arms. For example, revolvers are one of the oldest repeating firearms. Banning them wouldn’t give them an open-ended way to ban everything else. They can’t very well ban a lever-action firearm as a revolver, for example. This isn’t the case with ‘assault weapons.’ Today it’s semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine, tomorrow it can be bolt action rifles. This is why this phase is a scam, although the same term can be applied to all of the other weasel words of the Left.

The bottom-line

All of these phrases should be rejected by those who are fair-minded and support the rule of law. Since they are undefined or make no sense, they have no place in civil discourse. The fact that the left uses them with abandon proves they are not working in good faith with the rest of us, and any legislation that uses these terms should also be rejected.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

How many times is the left going to claim the ground is shifting in the gun debate?

While Cory Booker is channeling George Orwell, once again the ground has supposedly shifted on Liberty Control.

Good news, the Left has come up with some ‘new’ memes in their synthesized self-righteous condemnation of Liberty in the midst of a ‘Serious Crisis’. Anyone on social media will recognize this all too familiar pattern that will begin the moment the news breaks of a tragedy they can exploit:
  • The Left will immediately politicize the pain of others – while projecting that on everyone else.
  • ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ are then mercilessly mocked.
  • It will be said that the defenders of Liberty ‘have blood on our hands’.
  • Then the calls to ‘do something!’ – anything, whether it will solve the problem or not.
  • Further restrictions on civil liberties are the made by opportunistic politicians.
  • Demands for laws that already exist on Background checks or Civil commitment.
  • While other Leftists make more demands for gun confiscation.
  • As emotions subside, entreaties for compromise emerge.
This is usually the end stage of the crisis sequence, after all of the juvenile invectives hurled by the Left, after all of the demands that we ‘turn in our guns’, after all of the exposition on how our basic human rights are to be controlled – by them. The national socialist left will realize they won’t be able to bully us into giving up our basic civil liberties. Hence, they will look to exploit something – anything – out of the ‘crisis’, they will try to force us into a compromise whereby they give up nothing and we move down the slippery slope to gun confiscation once more.
Afterwards, any ‘compromises’ or ‘bipartisan’ agreements that restrict the human rights of the innocent will inevitably fail to work. Then when another tragedy takes place the whole sequence begins once again. Existing laws will be ignored in lieu of new laws that do the same thing – while denigrating liberty in the process. This is ‘progress’ to the national socialist Left, seeing each ‘serious crisis’ as an opportunity they can exploit for political gain while never addressing the true causes of these tragedies.

The ‘new’ momentum meme addition to the same old crisis exploitation of the left.

A ‘new’ aspect of the debate has the ground shifting more than the San Andreas Fault. Leftists love their euphemisms, using every kind of synonym for confiscation they can muster. The ground shift meme is no exception, with endless variations that essentially try to exploit the same idea over and over. The problem is that the ground shift meme is only viable once. Then it becomes just one more piece of useless rhetoric thrown out into the ether. The ‘blood on hands’ accusation was the same at one point, now it’s just a pathetic attempt by the left to exploit a crisis they created.

From December 2012 [7 years ago]:

December 17th, 2012

From last year:

Then this year:

It getting to the point that these pieces are merely wishcasting by the Liberty Grabbers hoping to move something that isn’t there.

Cory Booker channeling George Orwell.

It’s one thing to reuse the same meme over and over while trying to pretend it’s brand new, it’s quite another to try and sell socialistic slavery as ‘freedom’. Yes, there is nothing like taking away some people’s basic human rights to make them ‘free’.  In this case it’s everyone’s favorite political ambulance chaser from New Jersey, Cory Booker, trying to sell the idea that fear is supposed to justify the restriction of the common sense civil Liberty of self-defense. Eliminating fear from modern life would of course be impossible and there is no end to the rationalization of government control that could be used with this absurd pretext.
Apparently he thinks that the government and criminals having a monopoly on the use of force will serve to protect liberty because reasons. Since we all know how criminals and governments scrupulously follow the law, he has the perfect solution to the problem. Sadly because of what the left has done to the culture, we are witness to some more of these tragedies. Statistics show that thankfully these are decreasing and there are ways to solve the problem without restricting Liberty.
Unfortunately, the left has a very myopic view of the situation, only seeing opportunities for them to exploit rather than problems to be solved. Perhaps it is time to leave them out of the conversation and consider real reforms that will save lives instead of destroying Liberty.

One final word.

We of the Pro-Liberty Right need to start using one word when it comes to the Authoritarian Socialist Left’s demands that we incrementally give up our common sense human rights. We have compromised over and over without so much as an acknowledgement or thanks from the left, much less any type of compromise on their part.
There are ways to solve this problem without punishing the innocent and confiscating their private property. These need to be considered to solve this societal problem instead of focusing on inanimate objects. As for the Left’s incessant demands that we give up our basic human rights, we only need this one word response: NO!    [Repeat as many times as necessary]
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

We don’t need ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. The solution to the problem is already in place.

Laws for Civil Commitment procedures that also protect due process are in place in every state -‘crisis’ solved QED.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left keeps on insisting that there is a ‘serious crisis’ and that Gun Confiscation SWATing laws are desperately needed before anyone can rationally think through their true implications of destroying due process and the presumption of innocence.
The problem for the Left is that there really isn’t a ‘crisis’ since there are laws on the books to handle situations where someone may be a danger to themselves. We have already proven this here, therefore, there is no reason to implement these draconian measures that will serve to eviscerate multiple parts of the bill of rights in one fell swoop. Thus the solution to this problem should be pretty straightforward, point this out to everyone and move on to other issues of greater importance.

Solving the problem by simply pointing out that the solution already exists.

We supposedly need to discuss this issue immediately, without any delay. Fine, it is just a matter of having President Trump or Senate Majority Leader McConnell schedule a formal announcement on this allegedly intractable issue. This announcement would simply reiterate that laws for Civil Commitment are already on the books, so there is no reason to waste precious time in debating a non-issue. We also have the added bonus that these laws also protect civil Liberties, something of primary importance for those of us on the pro-Liberty Right.
It will be a formal announcement that there is absolutely no reason for these laws, followed with a press kit detailing Civil Commitment procedures in every state. Then it will be logical to ask why the authoritarian Left keeps on demanding news laws for a problem that has already been solved. Please note that they are essentially doing that on the Intergalactic Background Check issue, since these also already exist, but that’s a separate issue.

Consider the reasons why the politicians should accept this elegant solution to the problem:

  • It wouldn’t require any new laws.
  • It wouldn’t take any political wrangling.
  • It would solve the problem immediately.
  • It would protect the bill of rights –specifically the 2nd, 4th, 5 and 6th amendments.
  • It will resolve the situation with minimum trouble.

Why aren’t the politicians already calling for this perfect solution to the problem?

There are only two reasons why this perfect solution has not been brought forward by the legislators on either side. Either they don’t know the law – which is absurd – or they want the power they would attain from ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation.
Legislators really have only one job – to understand and perfect the law. They should have already known about this solution. This means they only have one reason to push for Gun Confiscation SWATing laws. These politicians would clearly like to expand their own power, even now, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is salivating at confiscating the guns of those merely accused of ‘thought Crime’.

Who know what clever ways they will develop for their new-found power? We’ve already shown that these laws don’t work as advertised, that they have caused more problems than they have solved and they are a civil rights nightmare. Why are they being imposed by the government to solve a problem that has been already addressed?

The Bottom-Line.

This editorial could have been just two lines – the headline and the subhead – summarizing the whole point. Solving the problem that gun Confiscation SWATing is supposed to address is simply a matter of following existing law. The same could be said for liberticidal Leftist power grabs – Intergalactic Background Checks, the ‘Assault Weapon’ scam.. er ban and most everything else. It’s already illegal for felons and others to possess firearms. Thus, these measures are like making things double secret, illegal, in the vain hope that people who don’t follow the law [hence the term ‘lawbreaker’] will suddenly do so because of the magic of a new law on the books.
In the specific example here, the laws already exist and they protect due process. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply need to step up and use them instead of trying to use the latest ‘serious crisis’ to grab even more power for themselves.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Why isn’t gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist?

Liberty [Gun] Control is rooted in racism. It also adversely affects women. Why isn’t it considered to be racist and sexist?

A recent video from One America News Network entitled: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ made this very important point on the topic of Liberty Control. The basic facts of science have one sex at a disadvantage to the other, with guns being the great equalizer.

Why doesn’t the Left have to answer for the sexism and racism of Liberty control?

These days, the national socialist Left wields pejoratives Racism and Sexism like an assault weapon. So why aren’t these labels applied to them for their incessant attacks against freedom? Firearms are the great equalizers, with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda having a disproportionate effect on women and minorities.  Somehow the Left escapes these facts being applied to them, while they exploit those words with abandon.
We’ve already detailed the racism aspect of this issue here, and case for Liberty control being sexist made in this video.

Why the gun is civilization..

We will wrap this up with a column written in 2007 by Marko Kloos on a WordPress blogging site the Munchkin wrangler. It encapsulates the issue of firearms down to one proposition on how human being deal with each other.
MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS

Why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
[Emphasis added]
Originally published on the NOQ Report