Le Pen shocks France as far right hits historic heights

I love how the OP calls the Le Pen vote a rejection of socialism when she is known for attacking capitalism openly and wanting to nationalise some areas of the economy.

 

I don't think Marine Lepen is very dangerous... She had never said any racist thing...

The problem for her is the reputation of his dad, in my opinion... Because his dad, Jean-Marie Lepen is really racist and have say a lot of racist thing... Marine Lepen want change the name of her Party for loose the bad reputation of the National Front.

 

From this logic we can infer that the Democratic republic of the Congo is a democracy no?

 

Sure Marie Le Pen has done a very good job of making fascism palatable, good for her, doesn't make her party, her ideology or her supporters any less dangerous.

 

Even Sarko has attacked unrestrained capitalism in this campaign, the french are pissed at what they see as the failure of global markets laissez faire is winning no one any votes. She will say what ever she has to, to grow her party and gain seats.

 

Yes, I think to the National Front is always very dangerous... But, less than before, I think. After, that's just my opinion.

I have ever met some people who vote for Marine Lepen. They don't think they are racist; a lot of them live in the suburb where the native are in minaurity and are offended 'cause they are white... After that, it's difficult to say at this people that their party is dangerous etc... They think they are right to vote for Marine Lepen, and, that's hard to make change their opinion!...

 

....Its not about the words..

Both are movements that demand that individuals should be subjugated to the service of the state. The only thing that they disagree on is nationalism.

..And thats exactly what you want. You want the rich to lose their rights because you cant stand the fact that someone else has more money than you. Theres absolutely nothing respectable about that.

 

Yes Socialism can be as authoritarian as fascism. But one is a leftwing ideology the other is a right and nazi's are not socialist, they are fascist.

Excuse me?

You seem to have me confused with another poster because I know have never supported ANY of that.

It is complete BULLSH!T and I would love for you to provide some corroborating evidence.

This seems to be a common theme with you. You lose the argument, get petulant and construct a disgusting straw man, your posts are intellectually and apparently morally bankrupt. And there is nothing particularly respectable about that either.

 

What is "left wing" and "right wing"? Those words mean nothing in this context. Nazis were socialists (left) who believed in nationalism (right). Thats neither right or left.

You are a socialist arent you? And every lefty in this forum is demanding rich peoples money so how was that not true?

 

What is left and right? I am not here to provide you with a basic political education. You are clever enough to get it yourself or you aren't.

Nazi's began as a socialist party they quickly adopted fascism and moved to the right while retaining their original name, like Sinn Fein which began as a dual monarchist party but became republican as its popularity bloomed.

Nazi's were not socialists while they governed nor were they socialist when they came to power but fascist which is not a socialist ideology nor is it categorised as such it is a right wing ideology and authoritarian.

So nothing to support the Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you posted above, a straw man and you know it though not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

No I am not a socialist.Now, do you have anything to offer this discussion except name calling?

 

So nazis began as socialists? What was it exactly that turned them from socialist to fascist? Details please.

 

Pick up a history book.

You complete avoidance of the fact that you straw manned me made a complete fool of yourself is noted.

 

I will ask again. What was it that turned nazis from socialists to fascists?

Im too stupid to learn history on my own. You must teach me.

 

The example of Mussolini, and a desire to bring the middle class and german industrialists onside.

That has been patently obvious from the beginning of this conversation.

 

You're avoiding the question.

What policies turned them from socialist to fascist? What exactly were they? = What is the difference between fascism and socialism? (other than nationalism)

 

You are still avoiding the fact that you falsely and without a shred of supporting evidence accused me of being a socialist and claimed that I was attempting to deprive people of their rights through jealousy.

Protection of private property, Support of the industrialists, nationalism as you mentioned, strong emphasis on tradition and the family (Kinder, Kuche, Kirke the place of the good Aryan woman), conservatism and and great emphasis on conformaty, and a massive emphasis on the superiority of the Aryan race (as distinct from nationalism) to all other races.

See all that FASCISM not socialism, and right not left, the only thing you have been right about is subjugation of the individual to the state, in the case of fascism, or the collective in the case of socialism (or the variant of socialism that has most commonly found expression).

That subjugation of the individual makes an ideology authoritarian not rightist or leftist.

 

Nazis didnt nationalize businesses - but they had full power over them and everything those businesses produced. Thats the same thing.

As far as social liberalism goes, socialists havent traditionally been socially liberal. (homosexuality etc were banned in socialist countries). They did have different values (feminism for example) but there was nothing liberal about it. Both socialists and nazis wanted to force their morality on others. Social liberalism was something that western socialists added in to the mix after the war.

 

Now you are babbling and seem to have completely ignored everything I have just posted.

Nazi did not nationalize business nor did they abolish private property both socialist positions. Yes they did exercise considerable control over factories during they war as did every major player, that again is not socialist that it authoritarian. See that? Not socialist, but right wing and authoritarian.

Where did I mention Homosexuality in my posts? The world pre 1960 was very different to the world post 1960's but aparently you wish to deny that the Nazis were extremely socially conservative.

And the forcing of others? That is the defininition of authoritarian.

So I post this...

And all you can do is pathetically attempt to obfusciate and throw up the red herring of homosexuality.

Lets go through this slowly okay?

Protection of private property = Right wing position. Okay?

Am I moving too fast for you?

Support of industrialists = Right wing, okay?

Nationalism, as you mentioned, = Right wing (Even you have already admitted it is right wing we can't take any chances.)

Strong emphasis on tradition and the family (Kinder, Kuche, Kirke the place of the good Aryan woman) = Right wing

Conservatism and and great emphasis on conformity = More right wing

Massive emphasis on the superiority of the Aryan race (as distinct from nationalism) to all other races = Very right wing and is generally the feature that has earned them the title far right.

And you are still avoiding this.

The problem seems to be that you are searching for any possible way to avoid reality, you have heard it once it seems a convenient smear to throw at those who dare to have an opinion that differs to you. Whatever evidence is presented against it you will still mumble about how a fascist party were socialists because they have it in the name and were authoritarian. Completely ignoring the ideology esposed by the party and the fact that authoritarian parties can be on the right or left of the spectrum.

 

Le Pen inherited her father's party in 2011 and it's not clear how she intends to modernise the party to make it more acceptable. The party only won 2 of the 2,026 seats up for the 2011 cantonal elections and it would be a challenge for the FN to win a National Assembly seat but the victory of Hollande could strengthen the party's position if he pushes multiculturalism too far.

 

Yes, you're totaly right. But, I think the party have progress; with his dad, he's got approximatly 10%, and, now 18% in the election...
Marine is most loved than her dad!... She had never say any racist thing...!


Yes, I think Hollande help very much the National-Front... First, he eject Sarkozy, so, the UMP, the french right, have no leader, now; and they will not to find an other leader charismatic like Sarkozy!... So, a lot of people who votes now for the normal right, will vote for the extrem right in the 2017 election... And, Hollande want legalize the all the illegal emigrants who are in France... Of course, every the emigrants will go the France, now... I don't think everybady will be very happy about that... To, a lot of people want make the country change, they have elected Hollande for that I think, and they say if it don't change, they will vote for the National Front... (Hollande will not to change anything ...)

Marine Lepen say she will win in 2012... I think she can!...

 

anti-immigration nationalists are going to kick the foreigners out.

http://vnnforum.com/video.php?do=Iviewdetails&videoid=3899

 

Let's hear from the man himself:

"
The Third Reich showed the world that you could have a free market AND a planned economy…and produce in only a few years the highest standard of living in the world and full employment.

If you want to know the facts, you’ll have to read primary sources that should be available at any good North American university but that have been outlawed by the anti-German BRD (“the freest Germany in history!&#8221 and, hence, cannot be found in the Bastardstate. Of course, they’ve never been translated and are only accessible to those who can read German. I can give you some titles that I’ve read, if you’re interested.

[BERLIN, RHEINMETALL-BORSIG WORKS - SPEECH OF DECEMBER 10, 1940]

They claim to be fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We, too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.

When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers, technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though we have no gold, we have capacity for work.

The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work. My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work. We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.

Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable. German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.

My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: ‘In seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find workers,’ I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have declared: ‘The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.’ Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the blessing which work brings