Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 6359
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by Huntinger »

The MC wrote: The Nazis were not socialists by any definition of the word ‘socialist’. They persecuted socialists and banned other political parties.
This one started this thread with the following question.
The MC wrote: What exactly is the definition of National Socialism?
One would think that it wishes to discuss the question due to it being perhaps unclear. There is also the vexing question of what it means, whether it was the National Socialism as envisaged by Anton Drexler, Dietrich Eckhart, the Strasser Brothers or just Herr Hitler, Hermann Wilhelm Göring even Rudolf Hess. Herr Hitler agreed the DAP should change its name but wanted the
Sozialrevolutionäre Partei (Social Revolutionary Party). Rudolf Jung who persuaded Hitler to adopt the NSDAP name. National Socialism borrowed its name from the Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei an Austrian party that began in 1918.

It can be debated whether Hitlerism and National Socialism are the same, many beg to differ, but for sure Herr Hitler had his own cult following adopting the symbolism of the NSDAP which of course had his huge artistic input.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑
Alle Trolljuden werden ignoriert Hüntinger


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8962
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by been-there »

The Marxist Corey wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:03 pm
One cannot be a capitalist and a socialist, politically speaking they are the complete opposite of each other... Blah, blah, blah... do some reading on capitalism and socialism... Blah, blah, blah... The Nazis [National Socialists] were not socialists by any definition of the word ‘socialist’... Blah, blah, blah...
Yeah. You're American educated. :roll:

But why can't you admit that? :ugeek:

Denial I suppose.

Fascinating how it's the people who call others 'deniers' who invariably prove to be the one's in denial.
Further evidence of psychological projection predominating in the cultish mindset of online defenders of this 'hollow-co$t' pseudo-historical narrative!

Here, read this.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

The Marxist Corey
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by The Marxist Corey »

been-there wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:26 am
The Marxist Corey wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:03 pm
One cannot be a capitalist and a socialist, politically speaking they are the complete opposite of each other... Blah, blah, blah... do some reading on capitalism and socialism... Blah, blah, blah... The Nazis [National Socialists] were not socialists by any definition of the word ‘socialist’... Blah, blah, blah...
Yeah. You're American educated. :roll:

But why can't you admit that? :ugeek:

Denial I suppose.

Fascinating how it's the people who call others 'deniers' who invariably prove to be the one's in denial.
Further evidence of psychological projection predominating in the cultish mindset of online defenders of this 'hollow-co$t' pseudo-historical narrative!

Here, read this.
Rinse, repeat.

Your personal attacks and unfounded claims are boring to read.

You’ve now moved the goalposts and sent a link about the difference between communism and socialism. I’m well aware of the differences between communism and socialism.

A fact for you to know: the Nazis persecuted and targeted both communists and socialists.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8962
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by been-there »

The Marxist Corey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:16 am
been-there wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:26 am
The Marxist Corey wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:03 pm
One cannot be a capitalist and a socialist, politically speaking they are the complete opposite of each other... Blah, blah, blah... do some reading on capitalism and socialism... Blah, blah, blah... The Nazis [National Socialists] were not socialists by any definition of the word ‘socialist’... Blah, blah, blah...
Yeah. You're American educated. :roll:

But why can't you admit that? :ugeek:

Denial I suppose.

Fascinating how it's the people who call others 'deniers' who invariably prove to be the one's in denial.
Further evidence of psychological projection predominating in the cultish mindset of online defenders of this 'hollow-co$t' pseudo-historical narrative!

Here, read this.
Rinse, repeat.

Your personal attacks and unfounded claims are boring to read.

You’ve now moved the goalposts and sent a link about the difference between communism and socialism. I’m well aware of the differences between communism and socialism.

A fact for you to know: the Nazis persecuted and targeted both communists and socialists.
If a person can't understand what is a personal attack and what isn't, it is not suprising that they will not be able to distinguish something more complex.

Q1. ARE YOU American educated or not? Yes or no.

That you refuse to answer such a simple question demonstrates you are neither interested in a proper understanding of national socialism nor are able to understand how OUR OWN education and conditioning can be an obstacle to correct cognition.
That is NOT a personal attack. That you think it is demonstrates part of your problem.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

The Marxist Corey
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by The Marxist Corey »

been-there wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:55 am
The Marxist Corey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:16 am
been-there wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:26 am
The Marxist Corey wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:03 pm
One cannot be a capitalist and a socialist, politically speaking they are the complete opposite of each other... Blah, blah, blah... do some reading on capitalism and socialism... Blah, blah, blah... The Nazis [National Socialists] were not socialists by any definition of the word ‘socialist’... Blah, blah, blah...
Yeah. You're American educated. :roll:

But why can't you admit that? :ugeek:

Denial I suppose.

Fascinating how it's the people who call others 'deniers' who invariably prove to be the one's in denial.
Further evidence of psychological projection predominating in the cultish mindset of online defenders of this 'hollow-co$t' pseudo-historical narrative!

Here, read this.
Rinse, repeat.

Your personal attacks and unfounded claims are boring to read.

You’ve now moved the goalposts and sent a link about the difference between communism and socialism. I’m well aware of the differences between communism and socialism.

A fact for you to know: the Nazis persecuted and targeted both communists and socialists.
If a person can't understand what is a personal attack and what isn't, it is not suprising that they will not be able to distinguish something more complex.

Q1. ARE YOU American educated or not? Yes or no.

That you refuse to answer such a simple question demonstrates you are neither interested in a proper understanding of national socialism nor are able to understand how OUR OWN education and conditioning can be an obstacle to correct cognition.
That is NOT a personal attack. That you think it is demonstrates part of your problem.
LOL! Of course you’re personally attacking me. Anyone who is sane can see that.

This thread was not created for you to start asking me personal questions.

You claim that capitalism and socialism are compatible which is absolutely ridiculous because they are the complete opposite of each other. Socialism was created to get rid of capitalism.

You claim that the Nazis were socialists and point to the 25-point program as proof. How many of those ‘socialist’ policies were put into practice?

If they were socialists, why did they persecute socialists and ban other political parties?

You need to really start to do some reading about the Nazis and their policies. They were neither ethnic nationalists nor socialists. They weren’t ethnic nationalists (they claimed to be) because they allowed other ethnic groups to be Reich citizens. Any attempt at trying to implement socialism was rejected. Are you not aware that Hitler objected to Gregor Strasser‘s so-called ‘socialism’?

If you want a “proper understanding” then you should stop personally attacking me and accusing me of being conditioned and indoctrinated. On the contrary, I understand the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Explain how capitalism and socialism can work together when they are politically the complete opposite of each other.

Explain how the Nazis were socialists.

Only an absolute moron would think that the Nazis were socialists. They adopted the word ‘socialism’ because in the early 20th century socialism was popular and they wanted to try and appeal to more ordinary Germans. As soon as they got into power they banned political parties and persecuted political opponents, mostly socialists and communists.

Richard J. Evans explains in simple terms:
Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism.
https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/

The Marxist Corey
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by The Marxist Corey »

Joachim Fest:
This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.
Richard J. Evans:
In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.

The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.
The Holocaust Encyclopedia:
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the Nazis were socialists.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8962
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by been-there »

The Marxist Corey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:34 am
There is NO EVIDENCE that the Nazis were socialists.
Ha ha! :lol:

Is there any evidence that you are not an American? :D
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8962
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by been-there »

.
NATIONAL-SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER's PARTY

Nationalism for Hitler and the NSDAP meant preserving the racial purity of what they regarded as the Germanic Volk within German territory.
They were big on the then world-popular concept of Eugenics.

Socialism
They wanted to eliminate and replace the old nepotist/aristocratic, plutocratic capitalist order with a meritocratic, socialist capitalism that rewarded industry and innovation done for the benefit of all.
That is what the slogan 'Arbeit macht frei' is all about.
And incidentally, that is why delinquents and criminals who were sent to concentration camps were paid for their enforced labour. Jews sent to Auschwitz and other Labour camps (arbeitslager) were paid, first in ordinary money and later in camp currency. This is another of the deceits-by-omission that the holocaust narrative has deceitfully eliminated from the collective consciousness.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Image

Image

In September of 1936 the great British statesman and well-respected Liberal Leader and ex-PM David Lloyd-George visited Hitler. He was extremely impressed with what he personally witnessed in Germany. His account of that visit is now rarely repeated for the masses. When it is, it is deceitfully presented as an abberation caused by a gullible person being duped. The accuracy of his account is an embarassment to the current world order, which is why it is never mentioned.
Here are some excerpts from it, concerning the NSDAP's application of Nationalist Socialism:
David Lloyd-George wrote:I have just returned from a visit to Germany. In so short a time one can only form impressions or at least check impressions which years of distant observation through the telescope of the Press and constant inquiry from those who have seen things at a closer range had already made on one's mind.

I have now seen the famous German Leader and also something of the great change he has effected. ...there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement has made a new Germany.

It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war — broken, dejected, and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.

There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.

One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic, dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against that constant dread of starvation, which is one of the poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.

The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of a repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him unchallenged authority in modern Germany.

As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation.

It is true that public criticism of the Government is forbidden in every form. That does not mean that criticism is absent. I have heard the speeches of prominent Nazi orators freely condemned. But not a word of criticism or of disapproval have I heard of Hitler. He is as immune from criticism as a king in a monarchical country. He is something more. He is the George Washington of Germany—the man who won for his country independence from all her oppressors.

To those who have not actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany this description may appear extravagant. All the same, it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modem Germany.

...This is the new temper of the German youth. There is almost a religious fervour about their faith in the movement and its Leader. That impressed me more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to the new Germany. There was a revivalist atmosphere. It has had an extraordinary effect in unifying the nation.

Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.

The divisions which followed the collapse of 1918 made Germany impotent to face her problems, internal and external. That is why the clash of rival passions is not only deprecated, but temporarily suppressed.

Public condemnation of the Government is censored as ruthlessly as it is in a state of war. To a Briton accustomed to generations of free speech and a free Press this restraint on liberty is repellent, but in Germany, where such freedom is not as deeply rooted as it is here, the nation acquiesces not because it is afraid to protest, but because it has suffered so much from dissension that the vast majority think it must be temporarily called off at all costs.

Freedom of criticism, is therefore for the time being in suspense. German unity is the ideal and the idol of the moment, and not liberty.

I found everywhere a fierce and uncompromising hostility to Russian Bolshevism, coupled with a genuine admiration for the British people with a profound desire for a better and friendlier understanding with them. The Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again. Nor have they any vindictive feelings towards the French...

But there is a real hatred and fear of Russian Bolshevism, and unfortunately it is growing in intensity. It constitutes the driving force of their international and military policy. Their private and public talk is full of it. Wherever you go you need not wait long before you hear the word "Bolschewismus," and it recurs again and again with a wearying reiteration.

Their eyes are concentrated on the East as if they were watching intently for the breaking of the day of wrath. Against this they are preparing with German thoroughness. This fear is not put on. High and low they are convinced there is every reason for apprehension. They have a dread of the great army which has been built up in Russia in recent years.

An exceptionally violent anti-German campaign of abuse printed in the Russian official Press and propelled by the official Moscow radio has revived the suspicion in Germany that the Soviet Government are contemplating mischief against the Fatherland. Unfortunately the German leaders set this down to the influence of prominent Russian Jews, and thus the anti-Jewish sentiment is being once more stirred up just as it was fading into turpitude. The German temperament takes no more delight in persecution than does the Briton, and the native good humor of the German people soon relapses into tolerance after a display of ill-temper.

We can all recall the time when Moscow, through its official publications, Press and radio, made atrocious personal attacks on individual British Ministers — Austen Chamberlain, Ramsay MacDonald and Churchill — and denounced our political and economic system as organised slavery.

We started this campaign of calumny by stigmatising their leaders as assassins, their economic system as brigandage, their social and religious attitude and behavior as an orgy of immorality and atheism. This has been the common form of diplomatic relationship between Communist Russia and the rest of the world on both sides. We must not forget that even when we had a Russian Minister here we actually sent the police to raid one of the official buildings of the Russian Embassy to rummage for treason in their hampers of frozen butter.

No one imagined that was intended as a preliminary or a provocation to war on either side. The slinging of scurrilities between Germany and Russia is only the usual language of diplomacy to which all countries have been accustomed during the last 20 years where Communist Russia is concerned. It is important we should realise for the sake of our peace of mind that a repetition of this unseemly slanging match does not in the least portend war. Germany is no more ready to invade Russia than she is for a military expedition to the moon.

What then did the Führer mean when he contrasted the rich but under-cultivated lands of the Ukraine and Siberia and the inexhaustible mineral resources of the Urals with the poverty of German soil? It was simply a Nazi retort to the accusation hurled by the Soviets as to the miseries of the peasantry and workers of Germany under Nazi rule.

Hitler replied by taunting the Soviets with the wretched use they were making of the enormous resources of their own country. In comparison with the Nazi achievement in the land whose natural wealth was relatively poor.

He and his followers have a horror of Bolshevism and undoubtedly underrate the great things the Soviets have accomplished in their vast country. The Bolsheviks retaliate by understating Hitler's services to Germany. It is only an interchange of abusive amenities between two authoritarian Governments. But it does not mean war between them.

I have no space in which to give a catalogue of the schemes which are being carried through to develop the resources of Germany and to improve the conditions of life for her people. They are immense and they are successful. I would only wish to say here that I am more convinced than ever, that the free country to which I have returned is capable of achieving greater things in that direction if its rulers would only pluck up courage and set their minds boldly to the task.

~~ Source: Daily Express, September 17, 1936, pp. 12-17

Here is another account given by Mr. Lloyd-George in an interview to another newspaper in the same week as the one above:
“Germany does not want war, but she is afraid of an attack by Russia, and is suspicious of the Franco-Russian Pact. I have never seen a happier people than the Germans, and Hitler is one of the greatest of the many great men I have met.”

People worship Hitler
“Germany does not want war. Hitler does not want war. He is a most remarkable personality, one of the greatest I have ever met in the whole of my life, and I have met some very great men.”

“Affection is a quite inadequate word to describe the attitude of the German people towards Hitler. It amounts almost to worship. I have never seen anything like it. Some men I met who are not Nazis told me that they did not know what the country would have done without him. They are inclined to blame Hitler's supporters for some of the things which they do not approve, but there is no whisper of criticism of Hitler. It is just like our motto, “The King can do no wrong.'”

Mr Lloyd George was asked, “How do you reconcile that attitude towards Hitler with the suppression of the trade unions and the freedom of expression of opinion?”

“I cannot explain it,” he replied. “I am merely stating the facts, but you must remember that the Germans are a highly disciplined people, and have always been so. They are far more accustomed to discipline than we are, and I think that the restrictions in existence in Germany at the present time would have a far greater effect upon people of this country than upon Germany.”

A great misfortune
“I have always thought, and still think, that the persecution of Jews in Germany has been a great misfortune. But Germany is not the only country that has persecuted Jews. We must not forget the pogroms in Russia and in other European countries.”

Giving his impression of the German people of today, he said: “I have never seen a happier people. The feeling of depression and gloom which has oppressed them in post-war years has completely disappeared. The are today a very gay people. That is not merely my own opinion. Since I returned from Germany I have had letters from Englishmen who have been in the habit of visiting Germany on business or holiday, and they all confirm my own view.”

“One of the foremost impressions which I derived from my visit was the universal desire to remain on terms of closest friendship with Great Britain. I found that among everyone I met, from Hitler down to the working men with whom I spoke. Everywhere Britain is held in deepest respect, and there is a profound desire that the tragic circumstances of 1914 should never be repeated.”

Economic recovery
Mr. Lloyd George was profoundly impressed by the economic recovery of Germany. “We hear a great deal,” he said, “of the efforts that Germany is making in the direction or re-armament, but little is said of the colossal schemes that are being pushed through for the development of the internal resources of the country, and the improvement of the conditions of the working population.”

“I saw a good deal of the latter, and I was enormously impressed by the boldness and beneficence of the German plans. The Germans are reclaiming over 4,000,000 acres of land which was either completely waste or barely cultivated at all. They are building millions of houses for their working population, and everywhere they are constructing settlements for their town workers outside the city boundaries, with gardens attached to each house.”

“The new roads which they are constructing are magnificent. By these and similar means they have reduced unemployment from 6,000,000 to 1,000,000 in three and a half years. Whatever we may think of Hitler and the present regime, that in itself is a very great achievement.”
Image
Image
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

The Marxist Corey
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by The Marxist Corey »

Congratulations on spamming a post without a single bit of evidence showing that the Nazis were socialists.

“Hitler’s definition...” - so what? Hitler enjoyed trying to redefine terms e.g. he stated that no Jew could ever be a real German, but he couldn’t even define a Jew or a German properly.

I know that since you’re a Holocaust denier that you like to ignore evidence which refutes your claims, but the only people who think that the Nazis were socialists are Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis and the alike.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8962
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Definition of National Socialism - How nationalist was it? How socialist was it?

Post by been-there »

The problem for a great many people who have been educated in America and subjected to American conditioning is that they are not intellectually equipped to understand any form of semantic social/political/historical/moral complexity and subtlety.

That is why they can not understand that if you doubt some aspects of the protected 'holocaust' narrative that DOES NOT mean that you reject ALL of it.
Such people can not get their head round such a simple truth.

Likewise now here with the reality that there are many varieties of socialism. Corey simply can't understand that.

Not only are there many versions of socialism, the obvious corollary of that therefore is that there is no single definition that encapsulates all of these variations.
But again for someone like Corey, this is a quite incomprehensible reality. Sad really. :|
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests