It’s funny because it’s hardly an inspiring or memorable 14 word sentence. It’s just awkward and clunky.
Like, why “secure”? Why not “safeguard” or “defend”? IMO those are stronger, more emotionally resonant words.
And why “existence”? Why not something stronger like “survival” or something more than survival like “prosperity”?
And just “a future” for white children? Not “a glorious future” or “a triumphant future”?
And, why “white children”? Not the white race?
Also, how is “a future for white children” distinct from “the existence of our people”? Are white children distinct from “our people”?
I could get it if it were framed as: we must defend our survival now so that our children can prosper. In that case you’re saying that the present might be tough but the future will be bright. But they’re not painting the future as bright, just “a future”, which is really the same as an “existence” so it’s basically saying “Our people must survive and so must our children, who are also our people, but smaller.”
Like, they memorized the first draft of some dumb saying and revere it as “the 14 words”, but it’s just badly written, nevermind all the racism.
It’s the same tactic as the “It’s OK to be white” or “White lives matter” slogans, but more clever because it leaves enough ambiguity such that just about anything can be justified under it. It mentions children to come across as more innocent and to implicitly accuse the opposition of endangering children (also playing into LGBT scaremongering, with the Nazis using the same tropes they use today). “Think of the children!” is a common and effective propaganda line.
Saying “future” instead of “glorious future” suggests that the children wouldn’t have a future at all otherwise. That the white race is under attack and is otherwise on track to be eliminated by Jews and communists and so forth. It’s harder to justify atrocities in the name of “a glorious future” vs “a regular future” as opposed to “a regular future” vs “we are completely exterminated ourselves.”
It is, of course, bullshit, because it’s literally Nazi propaganda trying to frame them as on the “defensive,” but it is carefully and intelligently crafted propaganda. It’s important to understand the enemy and their approaches in order to better counter their movements and defeat them, they should not be underestimated.
“Secure” also has the meaning of taking something with great difficulty, not simply defending. It’s a threat. All the rest is just using catastrophic/severe language to lure in followers to their cause.
The whole number or just the 88? I learned about 88 in high school because I questioned why all the racist kids wore it.
Edit: I just noticed the rest of his name. Hooboy. lol
The 14 refers to “The Fourteen Words”
“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”
It’s funny because it’s hardly an inspiring or memorable 14 word sentence. It’s just awkward and clunky.
Like, why “secure”? Why not “safeguard” or “defend”? IMO those are stronger, more emotionally resonant words.
And why “existence”? Why not something stronger like “survival” or something more than survival like “prosperity”?
And just “a future” for white children? Not “a glorious future” or “a triumphant future”?
And, why “white children”? Not the white race?
Also, how is “a future for white children” distinct from “the existence of our people”? Are white children distinct from “our people”?
I could get it if it were framed as: we must defend our survival now so that our children can prosper. In that case you’re saying that the present might be tough but the future will be bright. But they’re not painting the future as bright, just “a future”, which is really the same as an “existence” so it’s basically saying “Our people must survive and so must our children, who are also our people, but smaller.”
Like, they memorized the first draft of some dumb saying and revere it as “the 14 words”, but it’s just badly written, nevermind all the racism.
It’s the same tactic as the “It’s OK to be white” or “White lives matter” slogans, but more clever because it leaves enough ambiguity such that just about anything can be justified under it. It mentions children to come across as more innocent and to implicitly accuse the opposition of endangering children (also playing into LGBT scaremongering, with the Nazis using the same tropes they use today). “Think of the children!” is a common and effective propaganda line.
Saying “future” instead of “glorious future” suggests that the children wouldn’t have a future at all otherwise. That the white race is under attack and is otherwise on track to be eliminated by Jews and communists and so forth. It’s harder to justify atrocities in the name of “a glorious future” vs “a regular future” as opposed to “a regular future” vs “we are completely exterminated ourselves.”
It is, of course, bullshit, because it’s literally Nazi propaganda trying to frame them as on the “defensive,” but it is carefully and intelligently crafted propaganda. It’s important to understand the enemy and their approaches in order to better counter their movements and defeat them, they should not be underestimated.
“Secure” also has the meaning of taking something with great difficulty, not simply defending. It’s a threat. All the rest is just using catastrophic/severe language to lure in followers to their cause.
This reminds me of an anecdote talking about language differences between the US armed services:
If you told a Marine to secure a building, they would kick the door in and take control of the building.
If you told a soldier in the Army to secure a building, they would set up a fence around it and establish a sentry.
If you told a Navy sailor to secure a building, they’d turn off all the lights and close and lock the door on their way out.
If you told an Airforce airman to secure a building, they would write up a purchasing contract.
It’s like the kind of shit 11 year olds come up with FFS.