I think the current context is perverted from the original meanings of those terms. Furthermore, the propaganda coming from both Nazis and Communists has made either term completely meaningless.
Is one a Nazi if one wants National Boundaries, for example? IS one a NAzi if one does not want floods of perma-foreigners in one's country?
Is one a Commie if one believes food, housing and clothing etc. are necessary to keep a country healthy and low-crime, what about having decent-enough roads? How about running an election using old-fashioned paper (NAzis love computers see: IBM in WW2)?
Or do these labels only apply when slandering someone when one does not agree with them? I suspect so.
I find myself hopelessly dangled, and needing to see what either ideology was all about in their inception, sans all the slanderous epihets flying around in the Twitter-sphere.
Guess what? National Socialists were searching for the same answers as Communists (both Socialist), during a time of extreme, global hardship (financial crash, rise of crime, etc.), the Germans decided to organize their society along the lines of armies, that could be taught to march in formation carrying pageant-like torches early in the piece, even as the government were hiding the full extent of what they were building (i.e. munitions factories and autobahns) from Versailles-treaty afficionados. The moment Hitler decided to stop paying those murderous damages for WW1 so that he ould look after Germans, who had an inflation problem, he was declared literally Satan by the West. So NAtional Socialism = le bad.
Meanwhile the Russians mobilized their population towards decentralized agriculture and government controlled war-machine industries, in preparation for yet another invasion from Europeans. (Yes, they knew about those, from before - the devastation of a civil war and foreign destabilization was enough of an indicator for what was coming). Communism meant empowering the working classes, and they did exactly that. Any hard-working citizen was useful member of society. It is just that when communists decided to root out the de-stabilizing, mostly tribal, dissidents (cough ... that Khazarian issue), they were labelled as totalitarian arseholes. But, you know, empowering the working classes = MArxism = le bad.
I think the current context is perverted from the original meanings of those terms. Furthermore, the propaganda coming from both Nazis and Communists has made either term completely meaningless.
They are commies,so the call us Nazis.
And they still pretend they are smarter than us.
I think the current context is perverted from the original meanings of those terms. Furthermore, the propaganda coming from both Nazis and Communists has made either term completely meaningless.
Is one a Nazi if one wants National Boundaries, for example? IS one a NAzi if one does not want floods of perma-foreigners in one's country?
Is one a Commie if one believes food, housing and clothing etc. are necessary to keep a country healthy and low-crime, what about having decent-enough roads? How about running an election using old-fashioned paper (NAzis love computers see: IBM in WW2)?
Or do these labels only apply when slandering someone when one does not agree with them? I suspect so.
I find myself hopelessly dangled, and needing to see what either ideology was all about in their inception, sans all the slanderous epihets flying around in the Twitter-sphere.
Guess what? National Socialists were searching for the same answers as Communists (both Socialist), during a time of extreme, global hardship (financial crash, rise of crime, etc.), the Germans decided to organize their society along the lines of armies, that could be taught to march in formation carrying pageant-like torches early in the piece, even as the government were hiding the full extent of what they were building (i.e. munitions factories and autobahns) from Versailles-treaty afficionados. The moment Hitler decided to stop paying those murderous damages for WW1 so that he ould look after Germans, who had an inflation problem, he was declared literally Satan by the West. So NAtional Socialism = le bad.
Meanwhile the Russians mobilized their population towards decentralized agriculture and government controlled war-machine industries, in preparation for yet another invasion from Europeans. (Yes, they knew about those, from before - the devastation of a civil war and foreign destabilization was enough of an indicator for what was coming). Communism meant empowering the working classes, and they did exactly that. Any hard-working citizen was useful member of society. It is just that when communists decided to root out the de-stabilizing, mostly tribal, dissidents (cough ... that Khazarian issue), they were labelled as totalitarian arseholes. But, you know, empowering the working classes = MArxism = le bad.
Agree