What's with white supremacists and Vlad the Impaler

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Seriously whenever I cross past a racist on the web they're always going on about the guy and how he 'valiantly fought off turkish people'. Every second user on scumfront has a big portrait of Vlad on there.

Do these idiots just defend any old murderer just because of their skin colour?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Seriously whenever I cross past a racist on the web they're always going on about the guy and how he 'valiantly fought off turkish people'. Every second user on scumfront has a big portrait of Vlad on there.

Do these idiots just defend any old murderer just because of their skin colour?This is a new one to me. I wonder if it's just a recent phenomena due to Islamophobia or if there's always been a white nationalist attraction?

It could be that he is seen regionally as a nationalist icon and then this spread to other white supremacists - in part maybe because of an attraction to a strong-man figure who supposedly brought "order".

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You kidding, the only reason they probably like him is because he's a sick twisted person who had no limits on brutality and he's white. They like that he was a murderer.

[Tolstoy]

I have to admit that Vlad the Impaler was pretty goddamned cool. Still upholding him as a great person in any sense is just really goddamn creepy

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It makes sense, I mean, he was some noble cat, caught and oppressed by the brown Turkey people, then he became big boss and was all Orthodox-Catholic warrior hell bent on defending Christendom from the "Musselman" hordes. I could totally see why fascists would like him and stuff. Plus, he's all brutal, dark and spooky and half of the internet fascists are goth bat sharts anyway.

[Red Commissar]

Let's see

-Individual who they see as "resisting" Muslim domination and not submitting

-Taking violent measures against both Muslims and those who worked with the Ottoman Empire

-Was subsequently feared by the above

Yeah this pretty much fits into their self-victimization over the presence of minorities from countries associated with Islam and their "Eurabia" paranoia, and their fetishes of translating hate to violence. Brevik pretty much did the same thing, but he substituted the Templars for this instance.

As to why Vlad the Impaler might be highlighted as opposed to other figures who were fighting against an Islamic power in medieval times- say something in Spain, lead up to Tours, or generally anything in Eastern Europe (especially the Balkans), I don't know. Maybe he's more visible and well-known because of the Dracula connection, maybe he's the most violent of them.

I don't like to make comparisons but most political groups do this on some level. We like to find examples of people who we see as a "proto-us" in the grand scheme of things to drive home that the issues a group are concerned with are not merely an abberration as far as history is concerned, but a long-running struggle.

[Bostana]

Vlad the Impaler was known for his for war against the Muslim-Turks. His father was part of a post-crusade group who's goal was to do away with the Muslim powers of the world any way they can.

[Sasha]

It's not that people here are above toting around pictures of murderous strongmen...

[synthesis]

You kidding, the only reason they probably like him is because he's a sick twisted person who had no limits on brutality and he's white. They like that he was a murderer.

Don't forget that they also like to eat babies, drink menstrual blood, and blast Nickelback in the apartment above you with the subwoofer turned all the way up.

[bcbm]

It's not that people here are above toting around pictures of murderous strongmen...

zing!

[4MyNation]

I know, and the main user on Scumfront with vlad in his avatar is named Phoenix.

Much like King Leonidas he was a pretty good warrior, but honoring him for racist reasons is plan silly.

[Rafiq]

I think we should appropriate historically progressive leaders along the same lines as what the east Germans did with Geyer, the Russians with Nevsky, and Romania with vlad. These are all scum, but we shouldn't let fascists take a hold of historical figures who within a paralleled context were not their time periods equivalent of fascists. The problem is one of seeking legitimacy, not a historical debate. If fascists claim they are the direct heirs to, I don't know, Alexander the great, that makes them out to be more than mutated bourgeois liberals at a desperate last resort.

[synthesis]

I really don't think who claims which historical figure is going to make much of a difference. (It's not like any of them are on some objectively higher moral ground.)

[adipocere]

It's not that people here are above toting around pictures of murderous strongmen... seriously, what gives? :lol: