France's National Front picks Marine Le Pen as new head

[Gerald]

France's far-right National Front has named Marine Le Pen as its new leader at a party conference.She is succeeding her father Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the FN in 1972.

On Saturday party sources reported that she had secured two-thirds of votes against rival Bruno Gollnisch in a recent referendum of members.

The anti-immigrant FN has been shunned by France's main parties, but Ms Le Pen has said she wants to break with the party's xenophobic image.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12201475


Note: 16 January 2011 Last updated at 10:06 GMT

[STEED]

Keep it in the family. :88)

[the_tyrant]

how can you accuse a french person of being a nazi?:doh:

[Schroeder]

how can you accuse a french person of being a nazi?:doh:
Nazism isn't defined by nationality. It's a political movement that can be practised by people from any nation.;)

[Skybird]

Disappointment with failing established politics. Decline of social status. State corruption. Policies being run in explciit ignorration of people's will, showing them how meaningless they are to those that lead them.

If reasonability and moderate approaches do not work ands ghet frustrated time and again, people see a grow in their acceptance to turn towards more radical approaches and alternatives.

I see it in myself, too. I am certainly not somebody who would vote for a Nazi party and ligning up with right- or leftwing extremists, but today I am willing to accepot more drastic strategies to certain issues, than I would have thought possible ten and twenty years ago. Because I see the political establishement ruining my country and all Europe since as long as I can remember, and my former good will to try reasonable positions has been ignored and frustrated time and again.

If the mainstream politics don't work, people try something less mainstream. In Germany, we see a rise of the right especially in the former GDR, and in those places that have been disconnected from the improvement of social conditions and economic circumstances (though not exclsuively there). German politicians produce these new rights themselves by having made promises they could not keep and a general failure to push forward certain developement processes (whether this always would have been possible anyway, is something different). Extremists do not just fall down from the sky. They get created by circumstances - or not, they meet a public desire for drastic chnages - or not. It'S in the hands of Germany. As well as it is in the hands of France.

In Germany, as I see it, we fail terribly. We seem to be unfit to erode the basis in situational circumstances that helpsa the right to grow, while we appease and tolerate and whitewash violence being conducted by the left extremists. Some parties and politicians from the Green and the left spectrum even side up with the latter. So why are we surprised by what we get?

[Takeda Shingen]

how can you accuse a french person of being a nazi?:doh:

There were all kinds of French nazis.

[Gerald]

Nazism isn't defined by nationality. It's a political movement that can be practised by people from any nation.;) Yes, definitely true

[Freiwillige]

Many of the Waffen SS troops defending Berlin in the final battle were Walloons (Belgens of French decent) and A few Frenchmen Joined the military ranks of the Third Reich.

[Freiwillige]

Nazism isn't defined by nationality. It's a political movement that can be practised by people from any nation.;)


Not if you take Hitler's word. "National Socialism is a Germanic movement, It is not an export." (Based on memory actual wording might be slightly different)

[DarkFish]

Not if you take Hitler's word. "National Socialism is a Germanic movement, It is not an export." (Based on memory actual wording might be slightly different)The party is German, yes. But NS as ideology is international. No matter what the Almighty Führer thinks about it.

Walloons (Belgens of French decent)Ehm, not exactly. The Walloons are the inhabitants of Wallonia, the French-speaking part of Belgium.

[nikimcbee]

Vichy?

[Skybird]

Originally, nationalsocialism was an ideology bred by a German workers party, uniting ideologic content from anticommunism, antisemitism, and antidemocratism, and giving harbour to followers of certain other political traditions and also occult sects, namely elites from the fallen Austrian dynasty. But the movement was already popular in Austria before Hitler, an Austrian, transplanted it to Germany, recent historic findings from archives (amongst them film footage showing the ammount of applaus in Austria before Hitler came to Germany) have shown two years ago.

In this, Nationalsocialism originally was a German-Austrian ideologic movement and tradition, comparable to that the socalled black shirts and fascism originally have been linked to a purely Italian movement. During the war, factions in other countries, from France over the Balkans to Scandinavia, also joined it, making Nationalsocialism an intereuropean thing. After the war, even in the victorious nations factions inside their poltical landscape formed up and confessed to Nationalsocialism, including Britain, America, Russia and today even Israel (!, in the main caused by Russian immigrants to Israel, if I remember correctly, but I may be wrong on that detail).

The biggest nationalsocialist community with the greatest global influence and financial power, today is in America. It has taken over the helm from post-war Germany. But Nationalsocialism is existent in varying strength in practically all Western countries, and beyond.

So while having its roots in Germany and Austria, Nationalsocialism today is a truly international thing.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I protest for the sole reason that no person with the name "Marine" should ever have anything to do with France. It's a disservice to those who have earned the uniform:O:

I have no serious opinion on the matter. France is little more than an example of what happens when one turns a wealthy and more-or-less productive Western nation into a a debt-ridden psuedo-communist sinkhole. How many times have we seen this? Three? Four? All in the last century and a half? I've long since written them off as a lost cause.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And yes, there were French Nazis. Many of them, in fact. The sad thing is that nobody remembers them for anything other than the name "Nazi" and the murder of the Jews, whilst they ignore the horrendous crimes of the international socialists, which are, amazingly, even worse in every concievable sense. Such is the power of propaganda.

[tater]

I was reading their platform. I couldn't find the "right" part of it as they are protectionist.

[Penguin]

I would do her! :D


how can you accuse a french person of being a nazi?

Where in the article or this threrad was the term "Nazi" mentioned?


I was reading their platform. I couldn't find the "right" part of it as they are protectionist.

Que? Don't get what you mean...
I could not read anything on their website since it was protected by the french language...;)
If you refer to their politics: I would hardly call it protectrionist. Protectionism refers solely to economic policies. The FN has far more policies than just economic ones - if they represent any economic model at all, besides "buy french only"

[the_tyrant]

Where in the article or this threrad was the term "Nazi" mentioned?

didn't know who she was, so i went on the wikipedia page for her party
Winock also defines the FN as the conjunction of all far-right French traditions: the counter-revolutionaries, the pétainistes (collaborationists under Vichy France), fascists and members of the OAS terrorist group.

[tater]

Que? Don't get what you mean...
I could not read anything on their website since it was protected by the french language...;)
If you refer to their politics: I would hardly call it protectrionist. Protectionism refers solely to economic policies. The FN has far more policies than just economic ones - if they represent any economic model at all, besides "buy french only"

I read the wiki entry on the party (since I knew nothing about them other than they routinely get called "far right." I don't see them as "right" at all. Then again my benchmark for far-right would be a Libertarian (minimal government involvement in personal OR economic matters).

Nationalism is not a "right" or a "left" thing. The CCCP was every bit as nationalistic as any country or ideology described as "far right." Ditto the PRC, or any other "far left" system. So if a definition of "far right" includes nationalism, it's a bad definition. Communist states used to also source products internally by force (you had no choice in the CCCP but to "buy Soviet!"). So that's not "right," either. If they are going to describe them as "far right" I'd like to see the criteria for assigning "right" to them.

[Penguin]

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3245/europeanpoliticalspectr.png

1: european political spectrum by Hans Slomp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#cite_note-slomp-0


http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4203/200pxnolanchartsvgcopy.jpg
2: Nolan chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart


:hmmm:
Neither in model 1, nor in the Nolan chart (designed by a libertarian), are libertarians described as right-wing.
I think the FN wikipedia article refers to the classical 1 axis spectrum, which includes not really an economic definition.

I would describe the CCCP as a state capitalistic monopoly, as the state was the only entity able to accumulate resources and act in a economical way (economical not meaning using few resources in this context, just be an economical player). The PRC has a weird mixture of state capitalism and private enterpreneurship. It is the best example that a capitalistic economy does not necessarily need political freedom.

[tater]

What are the units on the first graph that magically puts fascism far right?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a far more rational graph. Economic freedom on one axis, personal on another. Your graph seems meaningless.

Fascism has lowered economic and personal freedom. It has more economic freedom than the communist countries had, but LESS than any modern country (it was in fact a command economy—it looked like a market at first glance, but only "allowed" companies did business, so it was in no way a free market).

So fascist countries rightly belong left of modern countries in terms of economic freedoms, and are also more authoritarian (limits on personal freedom).

In the Nolamn chart, Libertarians are still on the far right of the graph. That graph is also broken because there is zero reason why the lower right should be called "right wing" (used in discussion of "normal" parties) since the normal political right (say in the US) is not the least authoritarian. Decentralized government is mutually exclusive with authoritarianism. That is the primary danger of socialism. It is not dangerous in and of itself, but central control over people's lives means you are a single despot away from ruining everyone's life. When power is decentralized, one person is very limited in what they can do.

[Penguin]

well, the first graph's x-axis, would represent the traditional (1 axis) L-R spectrum.

The political compass is about the same as the Nolan chart, just with an axis tilt of 45°. Nolan would put fascism and communism in the lower left corner, with fascism a little more to the right maybe. Both axis' would represent the level of government interference in this model, same as in the compass' model. The world's smallest political quiz also uses this model:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored 100/40, this pretty much describes me as a leftie :)

I gotta get off work now - already 1.5 hours overtime - so my economical freedom(money) interfers with my personal one (freetime) ;)

[tater]

The "traditional" L-R spectrum is meaningless and biased (putting nazis on the right is nothing but bias, as they are only "right" compared to Stalin).

[Schroeder]

Left and right over here are not only defined by the economical perspective. There is far more to it. The standpoint towards immigration, traditions, values and so on do play a big role in it as well and that makes Nazism far right.

[Hottentot]

Left and right over here are not only defined by the economical perspective. There is far more to it. The standpoint towards immigration, traditions, values and so on do play a big role in it as well and that makes Nazism far right.

Speaking of which, what do the modern nazis stand for anyway? The picture I have is that they mostly oppose immigration, but have they ever given any other concrete examples in the middle of their rants? Surely they don't answer this question by just handing out a copy of Mein Kampf and telling to read it? Or do they even read it themself anymore?

Honestly, I don't know. They are supposed to be into politics, but usually I can tell what kind of policies different parties stand for quite easily. But in this case I can't.

[Schroeder]

Good question.
To be honest I don't exactly know. They hate foreigners, that one is certain (or at least non white foreigners). I also think that the rest of their political view is very conservative regarding family, educating the youth and the military (like in the "good" old days). In economics I think they want something like our social market economy but with stricter rules against exploitation.
I think that are the basics, but I'm really no expert in modern German far right parties so use this info at your own risk.:O:

[Skybird]

Not so much do Nazis just hate foreigners, but they consider them to be genetically inferior. Nazism includes an idea of genetic supremacy of own "race" (often while maintaining a very disarranged understanding of what their "own race" in fact is), it always includes a racist component, and also always present is a strong antisemitic component.Another characteristic is a strong hate of communism and democracy, b oth are being seen as a sign of weakness and degeneration, I can't tell which of the two they hate more. That is what makes Nazism in Germany, according to the German constitution, truly anti-constitutional, since it aims at overthrowing the constitutional order - even by force, if that is a promising chance. It also is in vilation of human dignity, which also is agaiunmst the constituion (article 1 of the Basic Law: The dignity of man is untouchable.)

We see since years that for the latter reason, Nazis opportunistically cooperate with Islamic groups, since both have three things in common: 1. their defence of the holocaust and their antismetic hate against Jews, 2. the intent to topple the democratic state, 3. the totalitarian basic structure of their ideologies, which by content are different, but by aim are identical: gaining total control over the social community as well as over the individual. Both want total uniformity, and collectivism.

[Penguin]

Left and right over here are not only defined by the economical perspective. There is far more to it. The standpoint towards immigration, traditions, values and so on do play a big role in it as well and that makes Nazism far right.

:sign_yeah:

The 1axis left-right scheme is more defined by social values.
To add some more confusion, we also exchange the words 'liberal' and 'libertarian' - not 100% comparible though.
Our european liberals (US: libertarians) define themselves just as centrist - neither right nor left.