I’m not saying this image is generated, but it is at least a little bit weird that a reverse image search only shows this specific comparison. I even tried Google Images for a “Visual Match” instead of just Tineye, and nothing.
That, and Hitler’s eyes look weird, and the folded Nazi flags in the back look garbled. Circumstantially, it’d be extremely fucking weird if whoever planned this layout put a plant obstructing the view of the symbol on the podium. And what the hell would that cut-off, stark white symbol at the bottom right be?
It’s definitely not a good sign when we’re talking about a picture of Hitler being a Nazi is AI generated, but it’s a given that Hegseth being a Nazi is legitimate.
The image of Hegeseth is real, at the 5 second mark in this video
The image of Hitler may be altered
The image of Hegeseth is real
Sorry, I should’ve been more clear; I was never questioning the Hegseth image.
The image of Hitler may be altered
Generated, not altered. I don’t think this speech footage/image existed at all. The angle is weird along with the other points.
Yeah pretty sure it’s generated. Look at the flags in the background, the black in the centre doesn’t make sense on a lot of them. And the people in the bottom left corner also look strange. Another strange point is the swastika below the eagle: the upper arm seems to be a bit shorter than the others. And the style of the eagle itself looks strange to me, but I’m not a historian, so that is just feeling,not knowledge.
We must be more critical as a people of political images these days, the hitler image is AI… :/
The new Wolfenstein looks like shit.
RAM prices
The eagle is clutching arrows, representing a fasces, the root of the word fascism, representing the power of the state. Traditionally depicted with an axe at the centre, a fasces was a tool used by the roman armu to discipline soldiers. An axe for decapetation, rods for beating.
these things are everywhere un modern nation states, but I’m told it’s not important, it doesnt mean what i think it means.
it is also the root of the word f*ggot, a bundle of sticks.
:3
Fasces are bundles of sticks, not arrows. The American eagle has always held arrows, along side an olive branch. Peace and aggression juxtaposed. Unless you’re saying that the US has always been a fascist state hiding in plain sight, it’s not the same symbology.
As to “faggot” meaning a bundle of sticks, yes that’s one (non-slang) definition of the word. Another is a type of meatball. The slur having any relation to the “bundles of sticks” definition is urban legend
Hegseth has obviously nazified the eagle, and made himself echo Hitler in an ill-fitting suit, for sure, but the links you’re coming up with are just bollocks.
Hegseth is just a greasy bitch though. He is no leader.
In fairness, Hitler was a greasy little bitch too.
But he was a greasy little bitch who could inspire with words.
You don’t find:
No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals.
To be inspiring? 🙈
Look, I could shit out a more inspiring speech after a night of heavy drinking. The fact that he repeated parts of it tells me he thinks it’s clever… Which, although I didn’t think it possible, does make me somehow think less of him.
How is it possible to be not just demoralized but also negatively inspiring?
What the USA is doing right now is unique to her history and it does the gravity of what’s happening a disservice to pretend otherwise.
When I had the misfortune of travelling in the US one of the many things that were striking to me was the use of fasces in monuments, including engraved in marble on a war monument in Washington Square Park in NYC.
Of course it’s far from the most fascist thing about modern day America, but it was fascinating to see how blunt it is. I’d jump if I saw the same thing in Europe.
I feel like there’s a term for this sort of backwards misattribution of a symbol’s later meaning onto examples which predate their modern connotation, but I can’t think of what it would be. The war memorial you’re referring to was dedicated in 1920. Considering fascism as a political ideology had just started coalescing around Mussolini in Italy circa 1919-1920, it strains credulity to link the two. In a similar fashion, you wouldn’t suggest the presence of swastikas outside a Hindu temple indicates support for Nazism by default.
Fasces have represented the strength of the state dating back to the pre-Roman Etruscan kings. Therefore, seeing it on the national architecture of a Western nation which fancies itself as a descendent of Greek and Roman civilizations shouldn’t be that surprising, nor taken as a tacit endorsement of capital-F “Fascist” ideology. Case in point, do you know what’s prominently featured on the cover of every French passport? It ain’t a baguette, I’ll say that much. Heck, in 1953, France elected to keep the fasces as part of their diplomatic emblem, despite their very recent experiences in WW2 under Fascist rule. If we can give France a pass for continuing to use the symbol after post-war, surely that can extend to a 1920 Revolutionary War memorial in America. Unless every example of nationalism is equivalent to Fascism (and I readily grant that nationalism is a core tenet of that ideology, but allowances should be made for nuance), sometimes a fasces is just a fasces.
All of which is not to say that America is fascism free. Obviously not. Just that the above comment made me roll my eyes when there are so many better examples to cite, like the roving gangs of brownshirts disappearing people into nebulously legal holding centers.
To a degree, fair enough. I hadn’t studied a French passport.
But also, it was always a symbol of the strength of the state through violence. It is fundamentally fascist in nature. When France still embraces it it’s the same France that is currently beating the shit out of schoolchildren and harming them for life for wanting to receive education. Like most western countries France has a huge cultural problem of state violence.
So I still think the historical use of this symbol does not align with pretending fascist ideology is something new in a society. And anyone giving France a pass is not paying attention.
I don’t disagree with you in any particular part, and almost wrote a paragraph clarifying that the swastika and fasces are not 1:1 equivalences specifically because the Nazis divorced the swastika from its original meaning for their own purposes, while the Fascists selected the fasces as their core symbol because of its already established symbolism.
However, you can understand that the circular logic of calling something “fascist” which predates the codification of “Fascism” is doing my head in. If you want to counter that that’s a semantic argument which doesn’t invalidate your point, I tend to agree, with the significant caveat that this entire discussion is semantic in nature, so it’s more relevant than usual.
Long story short, I don’t equate every example of a state using violence to achieve its purpose as fascism, though it’s certainly a necessary ingredient, so I won’t yuck your yums if you do. To me, a war memorial is an appropriate venue for the fasces to appear, given its martial and reflective nature (as in, reflecting on the past), whereas including a fasces as the centerpiece of the nation’s diplomatic emblem is significantly more concerning as a forward looking statement of intent (so to speak).
Yeah, I was a bit on the fence writing my comment without getting into these nuances themselves, so fair game. To me, independently of whether state sanctioned violence can be legitimate, the celebration of it that is inherent to the fasces makes it impossible to distinguish the symbol from the ideology. This is not very surprising considering that the ideology is named after the symbol.
I don’t disagree with your point though. The symbol was in all likelihood not used to mirror the emerging political trends in Europe, but as a symbol in its own right. But nevertheless I maintain that any main that carved fasces into marble a hundred years ago cannot legitimately claim fascism to be a foreign ideology.
Obama raised his Hand like Hitler while waving. It was only for a few moments. What are we even going at atp?
Always with the whataboustism.
Alright, let’s play.
A guy who hasn’t been in charge of anything of consequence in a decade once did a thing where he raised his arm.
Whatabout ICE murdering people. Whatabout violating the constitution and trying to get rid of right of citizenship. Whatabout violation of the constitution about detainment without cause. Whatbout pulling aid from organizations that kept children alive, causing their deaths. Whatbout violating arms length financial dealing rules. Whatabout deragulating climate policies and making the world objectively fucking worse. Whatbout starting a war that was settled before someone had to put their eensy mushroom stamp on it and caused a global financial meltdown. Whatbout the fucking rapes. Whatabout the fucking cons and grifts.
But yeah… Obama raised his arm…
I could go on for hours whatabouting.
Instead I will say everyone in that administration is a garbage human being supporting a garbage human being and anyone who thinks they are OK or handwaves away their atrocities is also a garbage human being.
They all deserve to burn in the hell they claim to believe in.
Edit: I will also add, anyone who tries to whatabout away atrocities is also a garbage human being.
Always with the whataboustism.
More a vulgar critique of asthetics without regard for material policy.
I might go with “Hitler Also Invaded North Africa” if I wanted a proper comparison. But you’ll get mega-yelled-at if you draw a straight line between Operation Odyssey Lightning and Operation Sonnenblume.
anyone who tries to whatabout away atrocities
President Obama, who hoped to sow peace, instead led the nation in war
Just because he idolizes the nazi military doesn’t mean he’s a nazi. He is of course. But that’s not why, everything else he does is why.
Nazis were a lot more competent and did drugs that improved their performance (in the short term)
Honestly the Nazis were not this Uber competent group. Tons of in-fighting, poor strategic and logistical choices, and they did not run the government nor country in this rigid orderly way that is and was projected by their propaganda.
I would say they had a very good propaganda campaign that’s still ongoing and paying dividends. Once you look under the surface some and start learning more about how the country was governed it becomes clear there was plenty of room for improvement.
I mean, think about it this way, they chose to commit an industrial genocide on a hellacious scale wasting men, material and destroying the soul of a nation. How much more manpower would they have had if they didn’t commit these crimes against humanity and instead had drafted these folks.
Like I know it’s not a great comparison or awesome though experiment and lacking any nuance but I think it makes a point.
Nazi economy was dependant on war. Their propaganda that Nazis have fixed the economy was so good that it lasts to this day. While the person responsible for it was ingenious his policies went all against at the time rules of economy and for a reason. It was just masking the problem which could be hidden only as long as there was war. In defense of the economist it was not his plan unlike other nazi’s to expand the war, but to stop pretty early compared to what happened. I would love to answer any questions but even after spending 90 minutes on a 30 minute video I was not able to understand it completely.
The German economy under the fucking Nazis was a Ponzi scheme and the German worker was earning less than the incomes from late 1920’s. That is f’ed up and MAGA continues to guzzle down their Orange Kool-Aid.
Yes, they controlled inflation by controlling unions and ceiling prices.
