Signs of Fascism

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Protest march in Orange, California this week.

Video: Signs of Fascism  [Click for sound.]

[Gemini/AI Assisant: Response to my question.]

Based on your description, the video you are seeing is highly likely real footage of a "Signs of Fascism" demonstration, rather than an AI generation.

Here is the breakdown of why this video is likely authentic, along with a few checks you can do to be sure.

1. It Matches Real, Documented Events

The scene you described—people standing on a sidewalk holding signs that define different "aspects of fascism"—matches a specific type of silent protest that has been organizing across California (and other states) throughout late 2025 and early 2026.

• The "Signs of Fascism" Campaign: There have been coordinated demonstrations in places like San Luis Obispo, Mission Viejo, and Pasadena where protesters dress in black and hold standardized white signs.

• Specific Slogans: The phrases you quoted ("Rewriting history," "Rejecting elections," "Detaining without due process") are the exact slogans used in these specific real-world protests. AI generators often struggle to get specific, long political phrases correct without turning them into gibberish.

2. How to Confirm (The "Text Test")

The easiest way to tell if a video like this is AI is to look closely at the text on the signs.

• Real Video: The text will be crisp, consistent, and spelled correctly on every sign.

• AI Video: AI struggles with text. If it were AI, you would likely see:

  • Squiggly lines instead of letters.

  • Words that morph or change spelling as the camera moves.

  • Nonsense phrases (e.g., "RJEECT ELECTS" instead of "REJECTING ELECTIONS").

Conclusion

Since the content matches verified real-world protests known to be taking place in California, and the specific slogans are grammatically complex (which AI often fumbles), it is almost certainly a real video.

Would you like me to look up if there was a specific protest event in Orange, CA this week to confirm the location?

Based on the specific details you provided—particularly the location (Orange, CA), the date (yesterday, Feb. 10), and the slogans on the signs—the video you saw is almost certainly real.

Here is the breakdown of why this video is authentic and the context behind it:

1. It is a Known, Organized Campaign

The signs you saw ("Rewriting history," "Rejecting elections," "Detaining without due process") are part of a specific, coordinated protest campaign called "Signs of Fascism" (often associated with groups like "No Kings" or "Indivisible").

• The Tactic: These protests typically feature people standing in a single file line along a busy sidewalk or overpass. Each person holds a white sign with black text defining a specific characteristic of fascism.

• The Text: The phrases you quoted are the standard slogans used by this group. AI video generators have a very hard time keeping text consistent, legible, and grammatically correct across multiple moving signs. The fact that you could read and quote them clearly is a strong indicator that the footage is real.

2. Confirmed Activity in Orange County on Feb. 10

There was significant real-world protest activity in Orange County on Tuesday, February 10, 2026.

• Context: Tensions have been high regarding local school board decisions and immigration policies (specifically involving ICE). A major school board meeting in the Placentia-Yorba Linda district (Orange County) on Feb. 10 drew large crowds, student walkouts, and protesters.

• Convergence: It is common for the "Signs of Fascism" groups to attend these larger events or set up on high-traffic streets (like near the Orange Circle/Old Towne Orange) on the same days to maximize visibility.

3. "The Text Test" (How you can be 100% sure)

Since you are looking at the video, check the letters on the signs.

• Real Life: The text is static. "Rewriting History" stays spelled correctly even if the person moves slightly.

• AI: The text often "shimmers" or changes. An AI sign might say "REWRITING" one second and "REWIRING" the next, or the font might look like alien symbols.

Verdict: The video is Real. It documents a specific, ongoing protest campaign that was active in Orange County yesterday.

Bella Ciao: The misappropriation of an old Italian folk song used as a song of liberation.

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

National Public Radio/NPR's 'Sunday Morning Weekend Edition' had a piece today on the use of the old Italian folk song that is often associated with protest and liberaion.

How the Italian anthem 'Bella Ciao' is connected to Charlie Kirk's killing

BELLA CIAO

by

Victor Volpe

Popular Italian poetry, that is poetry of the people, has always made its way into the musica popolare, that is folk music.  Bella Ciao is an excellent example of this.  It comes from a genre of poetry called fior di tomba, or grave flower.

Fior di tomba poetry usually depicts unrequited love, alla Romeo and Juliet; and, the flower on the grave comes to symbolize the love lost.  Sometimes different flowers are used to portray the type of relationship; e.g., the sweet scent and pretty bloom of a rose plant is contrasted with the thorns.  This duality is a common analogy used to represent conflicts inherent in life itself, as depicted in another folk song, Barbara Allen, also having many versions.

Fior di tomba poetry was popular all over Italy; but, the Veneto region has long been a very rich source for many of these poems.  The poems, with their analogy, are also depicted in the folk song.  Bella Ciao has evolved from this rich heritage.

Bella Ciao comes from the Po River delta in the Veneto region; but, it is a protest song.   How did this poem with a fior di tomba theme get transformed into protest?  During the Risorgimento (the Italian  independence movement of the 1800's) the theme transforms from a flower representing a  personal love lost to the fower representing a greater cause, e.g., land reform, protest working conditions,  the struggle of the people, etc.  The popularity of the catchy verse and the ease of changing the words to fit the cause to be protested have given the tune a life into this century.  With many things to protest in Italy during the early part of this century, many versions of the tune sprung up.

It was during World War II that one version of Bella Ciao shifted the theme from political protest to a fight for liberty.  The version came out of the resistance of the Italian under-ground, which was over 100,000 strong, and so is often called the partigiano version.   Since many in the resistance were members of the Italian Communist Political Party, the song is identified by some as being a communist song.  Since folk music serves very handedly to portray popular protest, the Communists used folk music for their own political ambitions during the post-war years and especially during the 1960's and 1970's.

We Americans can see the strength of the partigiano version as portraying the fight for freedom and we remove the political baggage which has accompanied the song.  The popularity of Bella Ciao in Italy has found its way in many other countries for the same reasons.  There are American variants of the song (in English) which are used to express protest  -  for Women's rights, justice for workers, etc.

The song was recorded at the Spoleto Festival in 1964, during a presentation of folk music produced by Roberto Leydi and Filippo Crivelli.  The record album has been available since under several foreign labels and for the past ten years has been available under Harmonia Mundi

(CD number HMA 195734, Bella

Ciao: Chansons du people en Italie).  It's a wonderful recording with many old tunes.

I hope you enjoy the tune.  If you are in a performing group, try the tune out.  It goes over very well for sing-a-long, for all ages, especially for young children.  The "O Bella Ciao" chant in each verse (accompanied with hand clapping on the ciao) is quite easy to pick up regardless of your ability in Italian or musical talents.

BELLA CIAO [GOODBYE BEAUTIFUL]

(FIOR DI TOMBA) 

[GRAVE FLOWER]

Una mattina, mi son svegliato.

0 bella ciao, bella ciao,

bella ciao, ciao, ciao.

Una mattina, mi son svegliato,

E ho trovato 1'invasor.

0 partigiano, portami via.

0 bella ciao, bella ciao,

bella ciao, ciao, ciao.

0 partigiano, portami via.

Che mi sento di morir.

E se muoio da partigiano.

0 bella ciao, bella ciao,

bella ciao, ciao, ciao.

E se muoio da partigiano.

Tu mi devi seppellir.

Mi seppellirai lassu in montagna.

0 bella ciao, bella ciao,

bella ciao, ciao, ciao.

Mi seppellirai lassu in montagna.

Sotto 1'ombra di un bel fior.

E Ie genti che passeranno,

0 bella ciao, bella ciao,

bella ciao, ciao, ciao.

E Ie genti che passeranno,

Mi diranno che bel fior.

E questo e il fiore del partigiano,

0 bella ciao, bella ciao,

bella ciao, ciao, ciao.

E questo e il fiore del partigiano,

Morto per la liberta.

One morning I woke up.

A beautiful awakening, a beautiful awakening,

a beautiful awakening, hello, hello, hello.

One morning I woke up,

And I found the invader,

Oh partisan, take me away.

A beautiful awakening, etc.

Oh partisan, take me away.

I feel that I am dying.

And if I die as a partisan.

Then goodbye beautiful, etc.

And if I die as a partisan.

You must bury me.

Bury me high, up on the mountain.

Goodbye beautiful, etc.

Bury me high, up on the mountain.

Beneath the shade of a pretty flower.

And the people that pass by,

Goodbye beautiful, etc.

And the people that pass by,

They will say to me, "What a lovely flower;"

"And, this is the flower of the partisan,"

A beautiful awakening, etc.

"And, this is the flower of the partisan,"

"That gave their life for liberty.

 

Bella Ciao - Chansons du Peuple en Italie 

(Italian folk songs). "Padano di Piadena"

Another example of a fior di tomba, or grave flower, folk tune; 'Barbara Allen', which can be traced back to the British Isles, maybe Scotland, in the 17th century.

'Barbara Allen', sung by Joan Baez

And a more modern fior di tomba, or grave flower, folk tune, from the 1970s, written by Jim Ringer and Barbara Keith, 'The Bramble And The Rose'.

'The Bramble And The Rose' by Jim Ringer and Mary McCaslin

Trump’s reckless rhetoric and meandering modus operandi

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

We are a very big continental nation where our economic output is determined 75% by our private sector – what businesses and people decide to do in spending their money – and only 25% by our federal government.  But that difference by the federal government can be a stimulant or roadblock to what the private sector does.  And Trump’s reckless rhetoric and meandering modus operandi of on again/off again policies creates enough uncertainty that leaves business decisions and people’s choices in a state of frozen action that interferes with the nation’s forward progress.

Tariffs: Inflationary, or Not Inflationary?

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Several Federal Reserve officials, including Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Governor Christopher Waller, both appointed by President Trump, have suggested that the inflationary effects of tariffs are likely to be a one-time price level shift rather than a persistent inflation problem.

I disagree with that. A one-time hit on prices is like the sales tax you pay when you go shopping. The tariff is like a value-added tax; it is imposed on our importers at the time it hits our shores, and then it is passed along the supply chain.

The difference between the two is the sales tax comes at the end of the transaction stream; whereas the tariffs come at an intermediary point in the transaction stream, where the system is more dynamic as these transactions become more repetitive. Because it is at the intermediary level you have many different activities involved -- shipping, transportation, warehousing, and even service activities like firms who finance transactions and payrolls with accounts receivables -- with each one taking their cut, passing it along or absorbing the cost. So as these tariffs continue to get imposed over and over again as shipments are repeated, you are never sure how the different intermediaries are going to react to the extra charge each time and how that either gets absorbed into their operational costs or gets passed along as a cost to the next party.

The chart shows that prices at the wholesale level are more volatile than at the consumer/retail level. In other words, the prices in the supply chain at the intermediary level do not always result in getting passed to consumers -- sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Trump''s World View: Replacing The Old Order

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs delivered his Committee of Supply speech in Parliament on 3 Mar 2025. In his speech, he spoke about how Singapore should navigate a more uncertain and volatile world, characterised by rising geopolitical rivalries, protectionism, and weakened international norms that have reshaped the global landscape.

[Note the speech was given one month before President Trump's "Liberation Day".]

So what are the purposes of Trump's tariffs? Do you want to waste time talking about the economics of it? It should be very apparent that the tariffs become one more tool for his transactional way of viewing business.

What's wrong with that since it seems to be working? Well, it's a pure power play. The rules of the game have been thrown out.

So it is like what the foreign minister of Singapore said, when the big powers exercise their might, the smaller players have to stay on the sidelines and wait for things to settle out. The American system of international commerce after WWII differed from previous systems whereby trade was conducted for mutual benefit and not just with the colonizing attitudes that preceded it under the British system. But this system of commerce exercised by the United States also reinforced our national security strategy that was being pursued against communist expansion, by forming alliances based on common interests in commerce. But that was the old system.

We have always conducted our commerce and national security strategies with “carrots and sticks”; “carrots” being incentives to encourage the behavior we desired, and “sticks” being the disincentives, or punishment by exercising our power. Where under the old system it relied mostly on “carrots”, Trump is more inclined to use “sticks”. Trump thinks that we have conducted our policies with too much reliance on using incentives, and this has created "free riders" as allies who would not take full responsibilities in a shared leadership position.

Trump has continually violated our old alliances. The way he exercises “America First” is a beggar thy neighbor attitude; and, that has weakened our alliances. It is weakening our alliances at a time when the world is more unstable – the Middle East, still important for crude oil; the Southeast Asia arena, which has become since the late 1990s, a hub for low cost manufacturing which is less suited for the more advanced economies in the North American bloc as well as the European Union. The Southeast Asia manufacturing hub has been integrated into the more advanced economies. But Trump thinks these smaller nations, and China, are taking advantage of us... us being the Super Power???

This is what Trump’s “America First” strategy is disrupting. It not only disrupts commerce, but also affects the way we have conducted our national security strategy. And he really hasn’t left us – or our former allies or adversaries – with any clear vision of where he is going because of his inconsistent manner of handling affairs in a transactional manner.

So last week he was threatening India. Today we find him threatening Canada with tariffs because they may recognize a Palestinian state. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

The problem in his power play, like the foreign minister of Singapore said, is that there is another power, China. Trump in being transactional has left voids when he retreats from a former American presence in the international community. And when you leave a power void, somebody will fill it.

And this is related to the economic growth argument I make: that we have a GDP that is $30 trillion but should be $40 to $50 trillion hadwe had our normal historic growth rates, where we have been at least 30% below that over the past 25 years. That "starve the beast" mentality that contributes to our failure to have government policies that address the growing needs of our society -- that constrain investment -- has resulted in the GDP we have today. And that doesn't raise the revenues the government needs to finance our national security strategy of the past, which was an involvement all over the world; one that we financed with our good growth. And we not only lose the government revenues when we have a GDP of $30 trillion instead of $40 or $50 trillion, but we lose the extra $10 to $20 trillion of economic activity in our private sector that addresses the wants and needs our people have, not to mention the jobs that go vacant.