Queen performs fascist salute

[A.J.]

http://www.rt.com/uk/310165-Elizabeth-Nazi-salute-queen/

Surely explodes the myth that the British ruling classes declared war on Germany because of some sort of moral objection to hitlerite fascism.

The real reason, of course, was that German expansionism presented a threat to British investments in central and eastern Europe.

Other than that significant sections of the British ruling classes were quite well disposed towards fascism due to the suppression of the labour movement that occurred Germany and Italy immediately following the coming to power of Hitler and Mussolini.(indeed, Churchill himself was quite open in his praise for the Duce)

[Armchair Partisan]

Eeeh, you know, at that point Elizabeth the younger was only 7 years old, so... whatever? It would be better to point out that the queen mother was doing it (and let's not forget Edward VIII). On the other hand, salute or not, the fact that parts of the British ruling class loved fascism was obvious to begin with.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bunch of inbred, fascist lizards.

[Tim Cornelis]

"No one at that time had any sense how it would evolve. To imply anything else is misleading and dishonest."

"Astonishing that 7 year-old Queen being filmed trying Nazi salute in 1933 didn't have foresight aged 7 to see war and holocaust..."

"The Queen doing a nazi salute as a kid with no possible notion of the horrors to come, is just Cowboys & Indians. Not scandalous whatsoever."

Obviously the queen has no blame, but her family seems to be defended too. Mussolini had only been in power for well over a decade, how could they have known fascism was bad?

Or do they mean the only bad thing about fascism was the Holocaust ("evolve"), the rest is okay?

[Black Panther]

Huh, that's really funny. But seems it was a bit puffed up by RT.

[Cliff Paul]

Surely explodes the myth that the British ruling classes declared war on Germany because of some sort of moral objection to hitlerite fascism

tbh I don't think too many people outside the UK actually believe that shit

[cyu]

If it's an ideology that provides rationalization for the rule of the ruling class, then it's an ideology they will embrace. Even the ruling class suffers from self-esteem issues too :lol:

[Rafiq]

Or do they mean the only bad thing about fascism was the Holocaust ("evolve"), the rest is okay?

With the ongoing rehabilitation of "soft" Fascism in Europe, from Franco to Salazar, from Mussolini to Horthy, this is exactly what they think.

[Comrade Jacob]

You can't really attack the queen over doing a nazi salute with her family at the age of 6/7. You can attack her family but it was hardly as controversial in '33 due to the fact there was no war and no holocaust yet.
I hate the queen and the nazis (obviously) but attacking her on this is a bit weak.

(And no, don't twist my words into defending fascism or some shit)

[Tim Cornelis]

You can't really attack the queen over doing a nazi salute with her family at the age of 6/7. You can attack her family but it was hardly as controversial in '33 due to the fact there was no war and no holocaust yet.

Again, the salute originates from Italian fascism which recycled it form the Roman Empire. Mussolini had been in power for over a decade. And Hitler's horrific politics were no secret either. The political nature of fascism wasn't a secret.

[Delusional Kid]

A lot of members of the world's rich loved fascism at the time. And a lot probably still do.

[cyu]

And a lot probably still do.

These days, they call it "meritocracy" instead.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yep, it's just one more reason why the monarchy is ridiculous.
As for the 'rehabilitation' of fascism:


When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts.

EDIT: Fun fact: According to Business Insider, "What is your opinion about Adolf Hitler?" has been an actual interview question for a position on Wall Street.

[Sibotic]

I think that the OP's point stands regardless of the person mentioned in the thread title, given that they were hardly the only 'royal' involved in that image, etc., who presumably did not have their pseudo-moral objections to etc. More consequential perhaps, though, is that these people were fairly irrelevant at the time due to the British system at the time. That said, though, it does also imply that there was a greater degree of enthusiasm in Britain in various circles concerning the Nazis and such, which in this case implied the 'royals' engaging in activities associated with more common circles and the German people, etc. Not that they weren't that.

[cyu]

"What is your opinion about Adolf Hitler?" has been an actual interview question for a position on Wall Street.

An adolescent who stumbled on to the family gun collection, shot up his school, thought he was all-powerful until the grown ups stepped in.

[StromboliFucker666]

First, I thought you meant the band queen lol

Second, is this really supposed to be surprising?

[Counterculturalist]

EDIT: Fun fact: According to Business Insider, "What is your opinion about Adolf Hitler?" has been an actual interview question for a position on Wall Street.

Let me guess: you only get the job if you say "he was a left-wing collectivist, but not as bad as Stalin."

[Comrade Jacob]

Again, the salute originates from Italian fascism which recycled it form the Roman Empire. Mussolini had been in power for over a decade. And Hitler's horrific politics were no secret either. The political nature of fascism wasn't a secret.

Fair point, didn't think of that.

[Sibotic]

First, I thought you meant the band queen lol
This lot are more like reality TV, but anyway.


An adolescent who stumbled on to the family gun collection, shot up his school, thought he was all-powerful until the grown ups stepped in.
They might have shot up their* university as well, in part they might have, just as Britain were closest to 'admirable' there, which I think is what you might have meant to say there, when they got rid of Churchill for a bit after the war. They basically took charge of their country, began a regime based on personal views, party views and circumstances - which might have intervened overly -, started a war and enforced their rule over their people, which means that there's no need to get so myopic. If Hitler wasn't an adult, being a dictator, then who is an adult, given that democratic rule is weakened and not absolute or individual per se, still; nor is the nationalism here particularly fruitful, being that of an objectionable Germany.

I think this is straying on the boundaries of stuff such as attacking Marx for their economic situation later on, which is absurd. Obviously school shootings would imply the ability to shoot up a school, otherwise they wouldn't just be shooting up a school, would they; they would be ISIS or something.

[cyu]

If Hitler wasn't an adult, being a dictator, then who is an adult


A lot of "adults" aren't really adults. For example, an "adult" might be playing chess, discovers that they're losing, and instead of playing normally, they flip over the chess board and throw a fit. Some might just call these people "immature" - but if you give them weapons or command over special forces teams, then bad things happen. Similar things happen when you give immature people control over the mass media. Ironically more "mature" people might not feel the need to be petty, but more "immature" adults might seek out power, simply so that they can act on their petty hatreds. As a result, often the "mature" adults have to act from a place of "powerlessness" - that is, they haven't spent a lot of time collecting weapons or high political office, yet they still have to do something about the petty sociopaths that have taken power.

[Sibotic]

A lot of "adults" aren't really adults. For example, an "adult" might be playing chess, discovers that they're losing, and instead of playing normally, they flip over the chess board and throw a fit.
If they're losing, then playing normally is losing. In a chess context, this effectively means that it's a problem. The rest needn't matter. At the same time, the parallel between age or otherwise and state power doesn't seem to work out, Hitler's position was very much different to that of an adolescent being discussed, which is presupposed to be a low one separated from power and the established Order. In any case, saying 'Hitler was an immature adult' seems a bit petty, has Hitler been mean to you or much.

In addition, the quoted section reads like a hamfisted attack on the proletariat being revolutionary. Well, whatever.

Unless the problem is with their conduct later on in the war, rather than their starting it and so on, which of course followed a jail term, being positioned as effectively unemployed (they would later alter this image somewhat to 'unemployable' in addition), etc., which are all one would think legitimate complaints and don't constitute 'losing' because they haven't fought yet, in any case they did eventually win, which isn't the same as just using time to rise into a position - which is just reactive rather than substantive. There's also a certain line where communists and such are seeking power, so who are the mature people not seeking power and why do we care what generally happened to them in the war. Hitler's rise didn't necessarily take 'long,' nor were they obsessed with 'power,' the people in which they often had issue with, nor were they isolated in their views, and in this analogy it seems that the 'mature' adults are the German Jews who occasionally were at fisticuffs with the Nazis, who achieved little and lost. Like, where were these 'powerless' mature adults, the German government before Hitler, in the universities (somewhat weakened later perchance), the people who imprisoned Hitler, or. Evidently, Hitler didn't just have 'weapons,' they were in charge of a state, which is different. What might seem 'petty' in such a context in the 1930s is stuff which isn't just straightforwardly serving the ruling class or opposed to the workers, and that's surely the least of the problems and doesn't much represent the others favourably. As said, though, Hitler evidently might not have liked the universities.

[cyu]

Let's say there was a secret manual that allowed you to control other people's minds - or at least be convincing enough that you practically controlled their minds. If you read this secret manual, what would you do with that power? Would you say different people would use that power to do different things? What kind of a person would use it for genocide? What might other types of personalities do with that power?

Similarly, someone who finds a stash of guns might use their newfound power for different things. What type of person would use them in attempted genocide? What might other types of personalities do with that power?

This applies to many things. What if you were able to use predator drones? White phosphorus? What if you inherited Fox News? What if you were appointed the head of the NSA or CIA?