• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

France's National Front to sue Madonna over Le Pen swastika

It was stupid for Madona to Godwin during the concert.

Doesn't "Godwin's Law" only apply to internet discussion boards?

In the real world, you are free to call a Nazi "a Nazi."
 
Good luck on that lol...


wish though she would stop flashing her tits... they aint what they use to be!

Beautiful post, finally PeteEU you're actually right :2razz:
 
So did the communists.

They didn't prosecute them because they were communists. That little detail seems to escape you.
 
How is mercantilism classically right wing?

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Switzerland considered closer relations with the European Union in the 1990s, the SVP adopted a more militant protectionist and isolationist stance. This stance has allowed it to expand into German-speaking Catholic mountainous areas.[107] The Anti-Defamation League has accused them of manipulating issues such as immigration, Swiss neutrality and welfare benefits, awakening anti-Semitism and racism.[108] The Council of Europe has called the SVP "extreme right", although some scholars dispute this classification. Hans-Georg Betz for example describes it as "populist radical right".[109]

Founded in 1926 as the Conservative Party, Iceland's Independence Party adopted its current name in 1929. From the beginning they have been the largest vote-winning party, averaging around 40%. They combine liberalism and conservatism, supporting nationalization and opposed to class conflict. While mostly in opposition during the 1930s, they embraced economic liberalism, but accepted the welfare state after the war and participated in governments supportive of state intervention and protectionism. Unlike other Scandanivian conservative (and liberal) parties, it has always had a large working-class following.[99]

Capitalism isn't 'right wing' | right, left, american - Opinion - YumaSun

In European political history, the right has been royalists, fascists, traditionalists and even militarists, while the left included mainly socialists, communists and welfare statists.

Read more: Capitalism isn't 'right wing' | right, left, american - Opinion - YumaSun

Oh hey... here is the very party in question - a right wing party - supporting protectionism:

http://inthesetimes.org/uprising/entry/13462/the_rights_useful_idiots/

Under Jean-Marie Le Pen the party was at the cutting edge of neoliberalism, before shifting towards a kind of right-wing protectionism, an evolution cemented in the recent election rhetoric of his daughter Marine Le Pen, who has positioned herself as a defender of the social safety net and the European Central Bank's foe. “Neither right nor left – French!” the slogan goes.

I'm not sure how private ownership makes sense when it's subject to national interests.

Your ignorance on the subject is not something I can do much about. Try Google?
 
Last edited:
No wonder you know seem to know so little about history/politics.

Ah - so you can't reply with anything of value and resort to calling out ad homs? Just went on the quickest link son.
 
Ah - so you can't reply with anything of value and resort to calling out ad homs? Just went on the quickest link son.

You are citing a source that any moron on planet earth can(and do) freely change/manipulate. Whatever is derived from such a flawed source is inherently flawed. garbage in, garbage out.

it's also well known that wikipedia has a very strong leftist bias. Doubly flawing it as a source for such matters.
 
Oh hey... here is the very party in question - a right wing party - supporting protectionism:

Protectionism isn't mercantilism. The first is defensive, the second is offensive.

As for your wiki links, you seem to be conflating classic with modern liberalism.

Yes, many modern conservatives support nationalized populism. It's because modern conservatism embraces classic liberalism on the basis of labor theory of value. They want the domestic working class to take pride in hard work, and don't want people to be able to escape it via free trade and free labor.

My question, though, wasn't about classic liberalism. It was about classic conservatism.

Your ignorance on the subject is not something I can do much about. Try Google?

Tu quoque.

Capitalism indeed is classically conservative, and I'll do you one better than wikipedia:

Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism by Murray N. Rothbard

Do try to remember that classically liberal labor theory of value was advocated by Adam Smith from Protestant Britain.

Turns out you don't need Protestant classic liberalism for capitalism to take off after all.
 
You are citing a source that any moron on planet earth can(and do) freely change/manipulate.

And yet, you can't disprove any of the evidence in it. Complaining about the source without pointing out what's false in it makes you look stupid. Almost as stupid as assuming that Nazis and Communists were the same because they both prosecuted communists.
 
Doesn't "Godwin's Law" only apply to internet discussion boards?

In the real world, you are free to call a Nazi "a Nazi."

while the group sounds like your typical far-right nationalists, the nazis went a bit beyond that. So calling someone a nazi doesn't actually mean the label is anything more than political hyperbole
 
And yet, you can't disprove any of the evidence in it. Complaining about the source without pointing out what's false in it makes you look stupid. Almost as stupid as assuming that Nazis and Communists were the same because they both prosecuted communists.

I like how you skip the part of nazis/commie leadership agreeing there is no difference between a commie and nazi and that the nazis were, in fact, socialists.

If you source for anything is wikipedia, I do not care to debate or discuss it. It's no better than citing your uncle bob's website.
 
I like how you skip the part of nazis/commie leadership agreeing there is no difference between a commie and nazi.

You didn't source it. So of course I ignored a bull**** claim.

If you source for anything is wikipedia, I do not care to debate or discuss it. It's no better than citing your uncle bob's website.

Still can't point out what is false in it? Well then I guess you can go on your marry way then :)
 
Yes, it is a complete error of history that the nazis were socialists and that the communists and nazi leadership both agreed that there is little difference between a nazi and communist.


sure sounds like a far right group to me.

Publik edjewkayshin bull****.

And from where do you derive such nonsense?
 
History, IQ over 10, basic logic.

I'm sorry, bu that won't work. You're going to have to pro e the assertion that the nazi leadership and communist leadership decided that they have something in common.

I like how you skip the part of nazis/commie leadership agreeing there is no difference between a commie and nazi and that the nazis were, in fact, socialists.

That is just absurd!
 
Just so you know, the Nazis actually prosecuted socialists, social democrats and communists. Their ideology was one of "socialism" in which the individual freedoms (of Aryans) would not be restricted by classes. Furthermore they supported classical right wing ideas like mercantilism and even modern concepts of private ownership as long as they furthered the interests of the Aryan nation.

As far at this goes:

National Front (France) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



National Front (France) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Funny that we can't call ducks by their names anymore.

How is mercantilism a, "classic right wing", idea?
 
I'm sorry, bu that won't work. You're going to have to pro e the assertion that the nazi leadership and communist leadership decided that they have something in common.



That is just absurd!

"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground."

That's from Hitler himself. The one thing he was referring to was the Aryan element of the nazi party.
 
First they came for the communists, then the trade unionists, then the social democrats, then the Jews, then the protestant church ... Note the order.

"The German political scientist Klaus von Beyme describes three historical phases in the development of far right parties in Western Europe after the World War II.

From 1945 to the mid-1950s, far right parties were marginalised and their main objective was to survive rather than having any political impact. Far right policy had been discredited by Nazism, and was subsequently politically isolated. From the mid-1950s to the 1970s, the so-called "populist protest phase" emerged with sporadic electoral success. Characteristics of far right parties in this phase included charismatic leaders and a profound dislike of the political establishment, using an "us and them" model; with “us” being the “common man” and “them” being the politicians and bureaucrats. In the 1980s, electoral success of far right parties consolidated, while they used anti-immigration views as a main issue..."
 
Last edited:
Doesn't "Godwin's Law" only apply to internet discussion boards?

In the real world, you are free to call a Nazi "a Nazi."

No it applies in all types of discourse. Comparing lepen to hitler is no more accurate than comparing melenchon to Stalin. Typical of the celebrity activist.
 
Jean-Marie was blatantly anti-semetic and was convicted for holocaust denial. His daughter has somewhat distanced herself from her fathers positions, but its hardly inaccurate to point out theme of Nazi apologism within the party.
 
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground."

That's from Hitler himself. The one thing he was referring to was the Aryan element of the nazi party.


Here is the rest of the quote:

Mein Kampf - Volume II, Chapter IV

For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Here is what is said before that quote:

And Marxism itself has furnished the proof that it cannot do this. Not only has it been unable anywhere to create a cultural or economic system of its own; but it was not even able to develop, according to its own principles, the civilization and economic system it found ready at hand. It has had to make compromises, by way of a return to the principle of personality, just as it cannot dispense with that principle in its own organization.

Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish endeavour to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In politics the parliamentary form of government is the expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the trade union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry. Just to the same degree in which the principle of personality is excluded from the economic life of the nation, and the influence and activities of the masses substituted in its stead, national economy, which should be for the service and benefit of the community as a whole, will gradually deteriorate in its creative capacity. The shop committees which, instead of caring for the interests of the employees, strive to influence the process of production, serve the same destructive purpose. They damage the general productive system and consequently injure the individual engaged in industry. For in the long run it is impossible to satisfy popular demands merely by high-sounding theoretical phrases. These can be satisfied only by supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so doing create the conviction that, through the productive collaboration of its members, the folk community serves the interests of the individual.

Hahahaha. You seem like a bigger idiot now. Hitler essentially rants about how Marxism is Jewish, evil and counterproductive and then somehow embraces it? Yeah, I don't think so chap.
 
Here is the rest of the quote:

Mein Kampf - Volume II, Chapter IV



Here is what is said before that quote:





Hahahaha. You seem like a bigger idiot now. Hitler essentially rants about how Marxism is Jewish, evil and counterproductive and then somehow embraces it? Yeah, I don't think so chap.

I'm not sure how i am an idiot by knowing more than you. weird. I get that from libs all the time though. He knows something i don't, he must be steewpid.

You didn't prove anything at all. The quote i presented was very clear that there is no difference between communism in Nazism save for the volk.
 
I'm not sure how i am an idiot by knowing more than you. weird. I get that from libs all the time though. He knows something i don't, he must be steewpid.

You didn't prove anything at all. The quote i presented was very clear that there is no difference between communism in Nazism save for the volk.

Actually what you proved is that you have zero reading comprehension. When Hitler says he's talking about "the same ground" he's talking in regards to the State as competing ideologies. Not that Nazism and Marxism are the same. The entire document actually disproves your ridiculous claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom