Hacker News Reader

Comment by leaveyou | Hacker News Reader

seriously, what are you talking about ? and even if it was true, what does one have to do with another ?

Vlad Țepeș is commonly used and invoked in 'national democratic' fascist imagery, from frequent invocations by late fascist leader Corneliu Vadim Tudor[0] to the official symbol of the short-lived 'United Romania Party' (PRU) [1], to Facebook posts by the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR)[2]. He is usually seen as a (a) a symbol of law and order, for the way he is perceived as having been extraordinarily tough on crime, impaling criminals; and (b) a Christian fighter against the Islamic (Ottoman) Turks, similarly to the recently sainted Ștefan cel Mare and other historic leaders - a common source of nationalistic, xenophobic pride in Romanian fascist circles.

Links in Romanian.

[0] https://m.poetii-nostri.ro/corneliu-vadim-tudor-in-tara-lui-...

[1] https://m.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/pru-partidul-...

[2] https://m.facebook.com/alianta.pentru.unirea.romanilor.a.u.r...

Could you take your fascist propaganda somewhere else please ?

Associating Vlad Tepes and the people above is like associating the indian religions with the nazis just because the nazis picked the swastika as their symbol.

It may seem interesting to you but it brings nothing but noise to the discussion.

The article is about a book that explicitly combines the image of Vlad Țepeș (apparently mostly from the foreign Dracula symbolism perspective) with modern-ish Romanian history. So, the use of his as a symbol in modern Romanian politics is, I think, interesting to note at least.

I only started presenting concrete examples because you claimed the association doesn't exist.

To be clear, I am not claiming in anyway that a 17th century prince was himself a fascist, or that any use of his image in modern discourse is fascistic or a dog whistle. I was just adding a bit of extra context about some local symbolism.

Also, not sure how you could misconstrue my post as "fascist propaganda". I could see how you might accuse me of seeing dogwhistles everywhere, but I think my stance was quite explicitly anti fascist.

It's relevant to a discussion of how he's seen to modern audiences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com