Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Questions on Nationalism and the right.
Options
-
13-07-2012 3:57am#1In Ireland, nationalism is associated with the extreme left wing Parties, like Sinn Fein for instance. On the other end of the spectrum, the centrists like Fine Gael are associated (rightly or wrongly) with their west brit credentials.
These are interesting facts given that in other countries, nationalism is associated with right wing politics whereas the center and left are more into other notions.
Why is it that in this country we have never had a proper right wing party. The PDs made certain pretenses to being right of center but they bottled it at every turn. Why do those parties that do edge away from the extreme left (Fianna Fail, PDs, Fine Gael) invariably assume west brit attitudes.
Why do we not have a proper right wing party in the real sense in the country and why should such a party not be ultra nationalist in its outlook.0
Comments
-
On what planet are Sinn Féin extreme left? They are slightly left of centre. Fine Gael are a centre right party.
TBH the type of right wing nationalism you are looking for sounds quite dangerous.0 -
All things being relative, Sinn Fein are the extreme left and Fine Gael in centre left. I wound consider myself a centrist to the right of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and the former PDs but to the left of the Nazis for example.On what planet are Sinn Féin extreme left? They are slightly left of centre. Fine Gael are a centre right party.
TBH the type of right wing nationalism you are looking for sounds quite dangerous.0 -
Nazis were positioning themselves as socialists - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)Hawkeye123 wrote: »All things being relative, Sinn Fein are the extreme left and Fine Gael in centre left. I wound consider myself a centrist to the right of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and the former PDs but to the left of the Nazis for example.0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »Nazis were positioning themselves as socialists - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)
No they didn't. They claimed to be the party of law and order who would crush the communists, socialists and trade unions. Before obtaining power the nazis received their funding from German capitalists and industrialists. The nazis were of course also nationalist and claimed to restore German national honour and the role of the army, the bourgeoisie and landed classes.0 -
Bolshevicks in USSR also got funding from Wall Street and russian capitalists, like Morozov, , but it doesn't make them right wingNo they didn't. They claimed to be the party of law and order who would crush the communists, socialists and trade unions. Before obtaining power the nazis received their funding from German capitalists and industrialists. The nazis were of course also nationalist and claimed to restore German national honour and the role of the army, the bourgeoisie and landed classes.
Also they destroyed all political opponents from left to right without any exception, because it can be only one true socialism, all others are wrong
Because Russia didn't have much bourgeoisie and peasants didn't have own land, bolshevicks didn't had much to restore, they tried it during NEP, but soon realized that it not worst effort and more easy to start everything from scratch0 -
Advertisement
-
Count Dooku wrote: »Bolshevicks in USSR also got funding from Wall Street and russian capitalists, like Morozov, , but it doesn't make them right wing
Also they destroyed all political opponents from left to right without any exception, because it can be only one true socialism, all others are wrong
Because Russia didn't have much bourgeoisie and peasants didn't have own land, bolshevicks didn't had much to restore, they tried it during NEP, but soon realized that it not worst effort and more easy to start everything from scratch
Stop your nonsense. The NAZI party was extremely anti-marxist. Socialism comes from marxism. You are getting confused because of the name Drexler gave the party before Hitler took over and moulded it into a right wing nationalist party. And the nazis did not lock up their right wing political opponents usually. Franz Von Papen for example continued to have a successful political and diplomatic career in NAZI Germany. It was a right wing coalition that made Hitler Chancellor afterall. The socialist and communist parties opposed him.0 -
No they didn't. They claimed to be the party of law and order who would crush the communists, socialists and trade unions. Before obtaining power the nazis received their funding from German capitalists and industrialists. The nazis were of course also nationalist and claimed to restore German national honour and the role of the army, the bourgeoisie and landed classes.
They were a combo of the extreme racist volkisch movement and the freikorps paramilitary movement. Dexler attempted to draw workers away from socialism and communism with anti-bourgeosie and anti-capitalist rhetoric. They attempted to draw people away from communism ingo volkisch nationalism. You have to remember Europe was emerging from a parctically fuedal class system with Russia going into communism. And an older aristocary an amatuer politicians having ruined Europe. They lured workers then later cahnged rhetoric to an anti marxist one to lure finance an business. You must realize there were no huge institutions of media like now calling out inconsistancies. So they then switched to an extreme anti-semetic anti-marxist rhetoric.
It was to appeal to both sides by attacking all that was not German. Capitalism Marxist were international ...not German.
They are hard to define as a party because they never really developed a philospohical ideology. But they refered to themslves as NATIONAL socialists ....but national socialism is an oxymoron..socialism tends to by default give equality in theory to more nations than your own as an ideology....so they sought to PURIFY their ideology...
Their idea of socialism was giving benefits to those they considered to be part of the Aryan race ..by rejecting capitalism as they preached it was run by the jews. Thats as socialist as they got....They wanted to apeal to middle classes as they rose so the removed the socialist term from the ame an became the German workers party. Once Hitler was made leader his twin goals were German expansionism and violent antisemetism...he saw the two as being one as he believed that Britain France etc were being controlled by the Jews through Capitalism...Bascially he was BAT **** CRAZY
They believed Russia etc was through communism and Britain through capitalism were being controlled through the Jews and that any war against a nation for German expantion would need to include a war on the jews in Germany too in order to bring down their 'Jewish Capitalist System'...
It is kind of like the cry of oh 'It's the bondholders' or 'its the bankers' or 'it's the unemployed' bleh bleh...
They wanted to appeal to the middle classes the rich ad the poor ...so they made the Jews the problem...
From when Hitler became it's leader all pretension of politcial ideology in a normal sense of right or left went out the window...both were wrong and the Aryan race was right .....trying to appeal to both and get loyalty of individuals..from then on racism and anti-semitism were the main political ideas...it is totally crazy but that is what they based there ideology and even economic policies on...
The party had different men of differing ideoogies Strassler was socialist Hilter was insane and Goebbels was loyal to Hitler..
After they got enough votes to become the biggest faction in the german parliment Hitler was made Arch chancelor..he then persuaded the president to allow him to abolish civil liberties and the reichstag fire gave him an excuse to supress and abolish political opponents....
They then consolidated the german federal states into a totalitarian and oppressive regime conferring dictatorial powers on Hitler ..allowing him to rule by decree..
They then abolished trade unions and put opponents into labour camps then concentration camps
They still did not have complete control of the Reichshwere military but they made them subordinate to the SA ..(assualt division of the party) they then separated the SS from the SA and made them subordinate....the German mililatry leaders themselves feared the SS an SA and gardually the party gained control
They had no real politcal leanings or ideology it was just a can of crazy...the used mythology manipulation and intimidation to gain control
There ideology was power racism and anti-semitism along with German expanism ...it's crazy to think a political party could be founded on that ..but there you have it...it's a warning
Scholars cannot really identify them as left or right ...they were simply anti-semetic and racist that was there position...that was there sole distinguishing characteristic....
You may as well ask is the KKK socialist or capitalist...it's neither...they think all social problems are caused by other races than their own and only by fighting them will these problems end..it is why they are so dangerous..one moment they are communist ...the next they want to defend capitalism against other races...
Extreme nationalism ...in the bad sense is built around the idea that an enemy is causing your social woes...and that in fact defending your country against them will ease these woes ...it is the primacy of your nation that will save it ....getting rid of its enemies within capitalism or communism or the enemies of captitalism or comunism (which are supposedly dangerous to your nation ) is the goal....and that is the ideology....it's neither left nor right really...sometimes capitalism becomes more internationalist favouringtrade benefits sometimes socialism becomes more international identifying with other socialist nations or communist ones...like workers of the world unite etc...
Extreme nationalism sees non nationals as the problem....ie. it's the immigrants or the British or the Irish...it refuses to acknowledge that politics or economics are the problem and puts non nationals as being the cause of a problem in an economy or a system.
Or it builds myths with nations whereby when outside menacing influence is ended it's all rainbows just like it used to be in the good ol days..we can build a nation for the people ....our people .....ourselves.......remind you of anyone..i am think slightly SF territory and OO...they both have a bit of bonkers about them0 -
Stop your nonsense. The NAZI party was extremely anti-marxist. Socialism comes from marxism. You are getting confused because of the name Drexler gave the party before Hitler took over and moulded it into a right wing nationalist party. And the nazis did not lock up their right wing political opponents usually. Franz Von Papen for example continued to have a successful political and diplomatic career in NAZI Germany. It was a right wing coalition that made Hitler Chancellor afterall. The socialist and communist parties opposed him.
According to Marx socialism is transitional stage on way to communism, so truly marxist party can be only communist. Hitler just offered alternative version of socialism.
Communists also didn't execute every political opponent. Andrey Vyshinsky, who issued in 1917 order for Lenin arrest, finished his life as minister of foreign affairs in Stalins government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »According to Marx socialism is transitional stage on way to communism, so truly marxist party can be only communist. Hitler just offered alternative version of socialism.
Communists also didn't execute every political opponent. Andrey Vyshinsky, who issued in 1917 order for Lenin arrest, finished his life as minister of foreign affairs in Stalins government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky
No Hitler did not offer up an alternate version...he had no interest in socialism or capitalism...he offered what sold...which was lies until he gained totalitarian control ...his party sold racism and anti-semticism as the solution to all economic and social problems ....the party believed that all capitalism was in th hands of other world Govts and the Jewish people and that the Jewish community in Germany was even controlling the British and French Govts. There is no logical political theory in any of it. It is not left or right is not really even facist....it was simply based on anti-semiticism.
And all communist countries supress their opposition if differing voices arise it imply means they have ceased differing.
Try voicing an opposition in russia under Stalin.
You are not going to have any success in trying to align the NAZI's with the left or right....they were pro german ....and pro power and expansion and anti Jewish and thats all...there view was simply elientating anything non Aryan would solve the world's issues and they would sell any rhetoric to get and keep power they embraced any ideology and tried to refine it by Nazi brand racial purification.
Capitalism and Communism were both fine to the Nazi's..so long as they had been purified idelogically and in practise by any international influence or people .....and so long as they ould control them...it makes no sense whatsoever but thy never developed a real political philosophy beyond anti-semiticism and nationalism0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »According to Marx socialism is transitional stage on way to communism, so truly marxist party can be only communist. Hitler just offered alternative version of socialism.
Whats in bold is what Marx actually said, the rest is your addition.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't remember socialist manifestoDuffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »Count Dooku wrote: »According to Marx socialism is transitional stage on way to communism, so truly marxist party can be only communist. Hitler just offered alternative version of socialism.
Whats in bold is what Marx actually said, the rest is your addition.0 -
The initial thrust of this thread was a question: Why are Irish Nationalists generally left wing like the sinners but as you move to the center parties like Fine Gael the nationalism has given way to a kind of sycophantic west brit pseudo-nationalism. Why for instance, do we not have a party which is vehemently nationalist but also uncompromisingly capitalist.0
-
Hawkeye123 wrote: »The initial thrust of this thread was a question: Why are Irish Nationalists generally left wing like the sinners but as you move to the center parties like Fine Gael the nationalism has given way to a kind of sycophantic west brit pseudo-nationalism. Why for instance, do we not have a party which is vehemently nationalist but also uncompromisingly capitalist.
So you want some Irish version of the Tea Party movement?0 -
Moved from Political Theory
Thread just hasn't met the higher standard expected in that subforum
Cheers
DrG0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »Nazis were positioning themselves as socialists - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party)
Nazis using the term "socialist" in National Socialism doesn't make it right wing. Any more than the German Democratic Republic was really democratic
From Hitler, A Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock (Penguin, 1958)The Strasser brothers did not share Hitler's cynical disregard
for any programme except as a means to power. Their own
programme was vague enough, but it proposed the nationaliz-
ation of heavy industry and the big estates in the interests of what
they called 'State feudalism*, together with the decentralization
of political power on a federal basis, the break-up of Prussia and
the establishment of a chamber of corporations on Fascist lines
to replace the Reichstag. Hitler had little sympathy with these
ideas, least of all with the Strassers' anti-capitalism and their
demand for the breaking up of big estates, which embarrassed
him in his search for backers among the industrialists and land-
owners. But while Hitler spent his time in Berchtesgaden, Gregor
and Otto Strasser were actively at work extending their influence
in the movement.
The split between Hitler and the committee went deeper than
personal antipathy and mistrust. Drexler and Harrer had always
thought of the Party as a workers' and lower-middle-class party,
radical and anti-capitalist as well as nationalist. These ideas were
expressed in the programme, with its Twenty-five Points (drawn
up by Drexler, Hitler, nd Feder, and adopted in February 1920),
as well as in the name of the German National Socialist Workers'
Party. The programme was nationalist and anti-Semitic in
character. All Germans (including those of Austria and the Sude-
tenland) were to be united in a Greater Germany. The treaties of
Versailles and St Germain were to be abrogated. Jews were to be
excluded from citizenship and office; those who had arrived since
1914 were to be expelled from Germany.
At the same time the Party programme came out strongly
against Capitalism, the trusts, the big industrialists, and the big
landowners. All unearned income was to be abolished; all war
profits to be confiscated; the State was to take over all trusts and
share in the profits of large industries; the big department stores
were to be communalized and rented to small tradespeople,
while preference in all public supplies was to be given to the small
trader. With this went equally drastic proposals for agrarian
reform: the expropriation without compensation of land needed
for national purposes, the abolition of ground rents, and the
prohibiting of land speculation.
There is no doubt that on Drexler's and Feder's part this
represented a genuine programme to which they always adhered.
Hitler saw it in a different light. Although for immediate tactical
reasons in 1926 he was forced to declare the Party programme
unalterable, all programmes to Hitler were means to an end, to be
taken up or dropped as they were needed. 'Any idea,' he says in
Mein Kampf, ' may be a source of danger if it be looked upon as an
end in itself.' Hitler's own programme was much simpler : power,
power for himself, for the Party, and the nation with which he iden-
tified himself. In 1920 the Twenty-five Points were useful, because
they brought support; as soon as the Party had passed that stage,
however, they became an embarrassment. Hitler was as much
interested in the working class and the lower middle class as
Drexler, but he had no more sympathy for them than he had had
in Vienna: he was interested in them as material for political
manipulation. Their grievances and discontents were the raw
stuff of politics, a means, but never an end. Hitler had agreed to
the Socialist clauses of the programme, because in 1920 the
German working class and the lower middle classes were saturated
in a radical anti-capitalism; such phrases were essential for any
politician who wanted to attract their support. But they remained
phrases. What Hitler himself meant by Socialism can be illustrated
by a speech he made on 28 July 1922. 'Whoever is prepared
to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he
knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation ; whoever has
understood our great national anthem, DeutscMand, Deutschland
liber Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in
his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people - that
man is a Socialist' [...]
[..]
The situation repeated itself in 1930 when Otto Strasser and his
friends left the Party, complaining bitterly that they had been
deceived in their belief that it was a radical and socialist move-
ment. [...]
When it came to industry, business, and trade (especi-
ally the retail trade), it was not so easy to square the circle, for
here there was an open clash of interests and bitter antagonism
between the workers and the employers, no less than between
the small trader or shopkeeper and the big companies and depart-
ment stores. Hitler needed the support of both, of the indus-
trialists and big business interests because they controlled the
funds to finance Ms organization and propaganda, of the masses
because they had the votes. But In origin the National Socialists
had been a radical anti-capitalist party, and this side of the Nazi
programme was not only taken seriously by many loyal Party
members but was of increasing importance in a period of econo-
mic depression.
The question, how seriously Hitler took the socialist character
of National Socialism, had already been raised both before and
after 1923. It was to remain one of the main causes of disagree-
ment and division within the Nazi Party up to the summer of
1934; this was well illustrated in 1930 by the final breach between
Hitler and Otto Strasser. [...]
[...]
Hitler had never been a Socialist; he was indifferent to econ-
omic questions. What he saw, however, was that radical economic
experiments at such a time would throw the German economy
into a state of confusion, and would prejudice, if not destroy, the
chances of cooperation with industry and business to end the
Depression and bring down the unemployment figures. [...]0 -
Sinn Fein and other such groups in Ireland are the direct equivalent of 'far right' nationalist parties elsewhere. The term 'far right' is not generally applied to figures such as Thatcher or Reagan or Bush, but rather to ethno-centric parties who in general oppose unfettered free market capitalism, generally preferring some sort of state control over the corporate sector. In this they present a 'third way', neither capitalism or socialism.
It is surprising how many Irish people don't seem to recognise Sinn Fein in this picture. To any educated outsider, it is clear as day.0 -
whitelines wrote: »Sinn Fein and other such groups in Ireland are the direct equivalent of 'far right' nationalist parties elsewhere. The term 'far right' is not generally applied to figures such as Thatcher or Reagan or Bush, but rather to ethno-centric parties who in general oppose unfettered free market capitalism, generally preferring some sort of state control over the corporate sector. In this they present a 'third way', neither capitalism or socialism.
It is surprising how many Irish people don't seem to recognise Sinn Fein in this picture. To any educated outsider, it is clear as day.
Theres etho-centrism contained in SF policies? Fascinating. What are they? A few links and quotes please.0 -
The link between nationalism and the left seems to mainly be a Celtic trend: Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National Party and so on.0
-
can a party not comprise of different policies from left and right without the party being pigeonholed into ether side?0
-
The link between nationalism and the left seems to mainly be a Celtic trend: Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National Party and so on.
I can't accept that generalisation without a clarification of the terms left and right wing. As said previously, most 'far right' nationalist parties seem to propose a sort of 'socialism' within one nation program. In this sense, so do The SNP and PC (as indeed do Sinn Fein).
There's an enormous difference between a party such as The SNP and a party such as Sinn Fein. The most obvious difference is that Sinn Fein are not advocating Northern Irish independence, rather they support (fervently) the transferring of large swathes of one nation's territory to a neighbouring nation. This speaks of nationalism red in tooth and claw (as of course it was literally in Sinn Fein's case) rather than self determination as normally understood.
The fact that Sinn Fein organises in two adjacent states sets alarm bells ringing. I can only think of how National Socialists organised in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia pre-war as a comparison. It indicates a party that places national chauvinism above all else.0 -
Advertisement
-
celtictiger32 wrote: »can a party not comprise of different policies from left and right without the party being pigeonholed into ether side?
Absolutely! Fascism has specialised in this approach right across the globe.0 -
whitelines wrote: »I can't accept (.............) above all else.
If you'd be good enough to get back to me on....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79928058&postcount=180 -
Well, there are different shades of nationalism: Sinn Féin and the SNP exhibit different degrees of it. Both groups believe in self determination: SF merely believe that their self determination involves merging with another country.whitelines wrote: »I can't accept that generalisation without a clarification of the terms left and right wing. As said previously, most 'far right' nationalist parties seem to propose a sort of 'socialism' within one nation program. In this sense, so do The SNP and PC (as indeed do Sinn Fein).
There's an enormous difference between a party such as The SNP and a party such as Sinn Fein. The most obvious difference is that Sinn Fein are not advocating Northern Irish independence, rather they support (fervently) the transferring of large swathes of one nation's territory to a neighbouring nation. This speaks of nationalism red in tooth and claw (as of course it was literally in Sinn Fein's case) rather than self determination as normally understood.
The fact that Sinn Fein organises in two adjacent states sets alarm bells ringing. I can only think of how National Socialists organised in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia pre-war as a comparison. It indicates a party that places national chauvinism above all else.0 -
I hope you don't mind a plastic Paddy perspective - born and raised in England of Irish parents, but I've lived in Ireland for 20+ years now.
I too was confused when I came to Ireland. When I left Britain, it was in the throes of the Thatcher revolution. The SDP had also recently split with Labour. It was all about ideology. The new Tory party was into Milton Friedman, deregulation and lower taxes. The SDP were into a well-funded public service (with higher taxes than favoured by the Tories). Labour was having a battle for its soul, between Bennite old Labour and the Tory-lite New Labour. Politically, there was a lot happening - withdrawal of subsidies for heavy industry, big bang in financial services etc., etc.
And then I came to Ireland. Now I freely admit I knew nothing, but my initial reaction was that the choice was between the centre-right Fianna Fail or the centre-right Fine Gael. Then there was a split-off that led to the formation of the centre-right Progressive Democrats. None of it made any sense to me. There were of course Labour and the Worker's Party, but all I really noticed about them was that the most expensive-looking tailoring - Proinsias De Rossa and Ruari Quinn - belonged to the supposed men of the people.
So to recap. Ireland seemed intent on choosing between three centre-right parties. The left-wing parties seemed marginal and all dressed like gentleman's club capitalists.
Over the years, I've read the speeches, listened to budgets, heard policy platforms outlined and it still appears to me that there's very little in the way of ideology. As far as I can make out - and this is still very much a head-scratching plastic Paddy's perspective - there is no ideology at work. The parties are basically the ongoing fall-out from civil war and not much else. Each party's guiding principle is that "We are not the other party."
Fianna Fail are the kings of the parish pump politics. You do a family (or families) a big or small favour with a local decision - zoning, grants, new roads, public lavvy in the town centre etc - and you give them a wink on the assumption of continued support. In the 80s, my mum got her phone in within two weeks of a friend whispering in Haughey's ear, after she'd been waiting a year on Telecom Eireann.
Fine Gael are the default opposition, more popular with small farmers and shopkeepers, who get a turn once in every blue moon when FF screw up particularly badly. The Shinners are socialist because they see themselves as part of that revolutionary breed on the left, from Che Guevara to Baader-Meinhof. If you trace their roots in that manner, it makes a lot more sense than trying to see them through the prism of a traditional right-wing nationalist perspective or via comparison with a party such as the BNP or French National Front.
But there still seems very, very little to me of coherence of political thought. A Thatcherite revolution never happened, with the cutting of the state and taxes. So Ireland kept a large state sector, cut taxes and hoped it would all add up somehow. A Social Democratic revolution never happened, with a thriving SME and industrial sector, keeping manufacturing employment high, and providing the reliable tax base to create a more socially just society, a la Scandinavia.
An ideologue can be a pain in the árse, but I just wish sometimes that a party (or even clique of individual politicians) would arise with a clear plan of what they want to do, and why. As it is, Ireland seems condemned and content to have pale, haphazard mimicking of whatever's going on overseas without a coherent plan behind it.0 -
Well, there are different shades of nationalism: Sinn Féin and the SNP exhibit different degrees of it. Both groups believe in self determination: SF merely believe that their self determination involves merging with another country.
A few decades ago Sinn Fein didn't believe in self-determination. They believed NI should be integrated with the Republic irrespective of the wishes to the Northern Irish majority. They wanted Irish-determination for NI, not self-determination. Their policy on that has only been change grudgingly.
Perhaps any attempt to create a unified theory of nationalism will fail? Or do the British Isles just provide counter-examples not generally seen worldwide and insignificant from the broader perspective?0 -
-
Socialist Sweden didn't destroy own corporations because it doesn't make sense as soon as it working and provide jobsNazis using the term "socialist" in National Socialism doesn't make it right wing. Any more than the German Democratic Republic was really democratic
From Hitler, A Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock (Penguin, 1958)
IKEA and Tetrapack are still privately owned0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »Socialist Sweden didn't destroy own corporations because it doesn't make sense as soon as it working and provide jobs
IKEA and Tetrapack are still privately owned
Can you rephrase this please? I don't know what you're trying to say.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Count Dooku wrote: »I mean that if Hitler didn't destroy corporations, it doesn't make him right wing, even if left whingers don't agree with it
Main purpose of socialism is to make poor richer rather than make rich poorer
Less of the left whingers nonsense please, doesn't add anything to the thread. The topic is about Ireland and the lack of a "right wing" party so calling Hitler a Socialist is off topic!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement