“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.
Comment on frenly warnin
merc@sh.itjust.works 1 week agoIt’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.
june@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
TheDoozer@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
“Secure” doesn’t just mean “defend” or “safeguard”. “Secure” also means “capture”, so it implies you need to go put and get it, like with invasions or something maybe, idk. It’s a lot less passive.
“Existence” means both “survival” and “prosperity”. It implies that both their existence is under threat, while creating the idea that they might be able to make it better. Maybe they could, idk, make america great again, trying to return to some mythical prelapsarian era by beating back the eternal threat.
“A future” does this too, implying they may not have a future at all.
And talking about the “children” brings up the concept of making new people, evoking the idea that non-white races are out-breeding them. It also includes the common “think of the children” idea.
And finally the fact that it’s short and boring comes from the fact that nazis are uninspiring and uninspired, and they need a simple, to the point slogan to repeat without thinking about it too hard. They certainly know how to make a message concise, even at the cost of saying almost nothing of meaning when you think too hard about it.
All of this is classic fascism.
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
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.
merc@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
I get what you’re saying, but it’s still just really clunky writing.
Like, you want to include children for the “think of the children!” aspect, then just add “and our children” to the existing clause. There’s no need for a whole secondary clause about the future of the children when that’s already covered by the clause about the existence of our people.
It’s not that I expect Nazi writing to be good. It’s just that someone has to have said it better than this, even just accidentally, and yet this version is the one that Nazis have decided to immortalize.
If this version was the winner, what were the early drafts like?
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I looked into it more and the specific phrase was developed by a Neo-Nazi domestic terrorist. It bears a heavy resemblance to the following quote from Hitler:
Idk what you’ll think of that one, but I actually thought the 14 words were a slogan used in Nazi Germany. The fact that it was just some whackjob makes me see it as less professionally crafted.
Also, if you think the 14 words are cringy and poorly written, wait until you hear the often omitted follow up to them:
Right wingers be normal about women challenge level: impossible.
oo1@lemmings.world 1 week ago
Maybe they emphasise “children” to encourage more of the current adult generation to sacrifice themselves. And to manage expectations of when the benefits arise.