The title’s a bit disingenuous, I know: this didn’t come out of nowhere. White supremacism is as American as Manifest Destiny and has been heavily intertwined with Nazism from its inception. That overlap with the Republican party, and their gradual slip into the extreme far-right, is evident.
But Seig Heils? Even the most dense among them must know that blatant Nazism hurts their legitimacy in the eyes of the public, even among MAGATs (as is evident right now if you peek at their echo chamber on Reddit). Surely they would have a much easier time pushing their rhetoric and establishing their agenda by keeping a purposeful distance from that sort of indefensible imagery and symbolism. How do they expect to keep cohesion in the military when you imply to the soldiers that they are Nazis now, seig heils and all.
Why Nazis?
Any theories as to where this is coming from? Follow the ketamine-fueled leader? A directive for operative Krasnov, from Putin himself, to implode the country? True Nazi beliefs among the Heritage Foundation, Proud Boys, etc? I just don’t understand how they thought this would fly. I don’t understand anything anymore lol.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s always been there. Trump just told them it’s ok to be nazi in public? He’ll protect them. Because he is a damn nazi.
an important historical note is that the Nazis drew a lot of their ideology and argumentation from the American eugenics movement, which has been a major undercurrent in America since the early 1900s and never went away
They’re looking for yes-men, who will be loyal to them in even the worst possible situations. Heiling is just a test to weed out anyone else.
Also, the heiling gesture came a little too natural to them.
Someone that bought his place at the white house did it and didn’t get shot by a flamethrower, so all the Nazis hiding literally just below the surface feel ok to talk a little louder now.
Honestly, with sufficient evidence it should be legal to kill them in public and receive any inheritance from their wills. I don’t typically enjoy personally hunting people down typically, but these aren’t people.
One comment blatantly in favor of it Goodies any human rights in my opinion. It’s the only way. They may say it too (vermin, poisoning the blood, etc) but they’ve only ever been right about themselves.
I would give a pedo human rights before them. And that’s saying something.
They’re just rabid animals, and I defy anyone to give a reason they deserve a single second of life at all, for any reason, in any context. Maybe with the one exception of using them to find gatherings of others. But that’s it.
It begins by realizing that economics is also politics. The US ran out of indigenous peoples and lands to exploit, so it is turning inwards.
There are many books one could recommend. But an easy one to understand is: Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to Fight the War on Terror, this book was published in 2012. Whatever an empire perfects to crush other people, always sooner or later is used internally.
It’s been fairly blatant for a while now. The seig heil is coming out now that they feel they’ve won. The goal is for the US to fall this time.
It came from LIBERALS who demanded that we protect the free speech of Nazis while they were building their death camps.
Underrated perspective. Absolutely a big part of the problem.
It’s always been there, it’s just now coming to the surface.
Like shingles
it’s a combo of trolling and attention seeking. “there’s no such thing as bad press” and all that.
we should point it out, condemn it, but not engage in arguments with them about what is and isn’t a sig heil.
and when they pop up in other places trying to talk about other stuff, just bring up the fact that they threw a Nazi salute from time to time.
the most important thing is to focus on their evil policies and actions. but we can’t forget their performative evil.
Small nit: they didnt just “throw a Nazi salute”; they openly and loudly declared they were Nazis, and they have done so many times in their conventions
“suddenly”
Astroturfing and boosting on Twitter and other platforms.
Fascism shouldn’t be thought of as a static “thing” or an object of ideology. Peoples beliefs come from their environment. We are so individualized as a society that often we as progressives take “personal responsibility” too far, we buy the premise implicitly without realizing there are flaws with thinking in this way. Every logical system has flaws and contradictions, its proven mathematically though I think some systems are more rigorous and based on evidence.
GWF Hegel’s philosophy of Right was written in 1820, and influenced political thought ever since. Liberalism was still in it’s revolutionary phase and theories about it were still fairly new, the Wealth of Nations was written just 50 years before, and Karl Marx was like two when it was released, although it would serve as the basis for much of his work analyzing the hidden relationships of Capital, and ethical political philosophy on the whole.
The book is the closest I think someone can honestly get to an actual “horseshoe theory” because not only did it influence the left but it also influenced the far right. Hegel, using the works of other great liberal philosophers such as Locke and Kant, who Hegel was always working to surpass, applied his dialectical philosophical methods to the writings of liberalism.
What he discovered was a natural tendency toward what we would calll fascism. Like he prefigured fascism by 100 years. He wasn’t a fascist, there was no such thing. He was just exploring the ideas of this revolutionary philosophy, one that purported to liberate the mind, body and spirit, and discovered the oppressive seeds which might grow into something quite different.
This isn’t to call liberals fascists, I’m a communist and 20th century communism had a lot of problems, to put it mildly. I would say confidently that progressive liberals are not crypto fash, in fact the term “progressive” is a typically left-Hegelian ideal, in that it describes human progress and development as the subject of history. Instead it challenges the idea of the liberatory nature of private property, a key component of liberal thought. Of course this is all depending how you look at it, right-Hegelians see this same formulation as proof of the inevitability of their ideas and justification for their actions.
You’re getting a lot of different opinions about this stuff so I’m trying to make sort of a different point about philosophy, history and action. Other reading for a deep dive on fascism is the essay Ur Fascism by Umberto Eco (great empirical analysis, but the least scientific IMO), Trotsky’s pamphlet Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It, and HA Roy’s Fasism, Its Philosophy, Professions and Practice.
In a way, fascism has always been there below the surface, informally shifting the sands of history until it was formalized in the early 20th century. I don’t think you can have a society based on private property without some elements of fascism somewhere. Mostly “western democracies” will outsource their extreme cruelty to other countries where it doesn’t affect their citizens.
But in summary, Fascism is the realization of the contradictions inherent in liberal ideology, its liberalism turned inside-out, with all its appearances of justice and freedom cut away, leaving only the logic of expansion and domination that most liberal democracies do their best to hide. This is how fascists are able to hide in our society, their individual beliefs are not completely unpalatable to centrists and conservatives who have also started to dispense with justice and freedom in the interest of national greatness. Its what makes their beliefs so malleable, and its also why liberals have such a hard time defining it. But fascism isn’t an individual’s beliefs, if it was it would be just regular bog-standard chauvinism. Fascism is a mass movement which will use charismatic leaders amenable to their politics to rally the masses.
In our society, the middle classes are the “battery” for fascism. Middle classes are constantly under attack under capitalism and the individuals often feel this and become paranoid (doomsday prepping, etc.,) and this paranoia and real social pressure to produce or be wiped out, the fear from the constant threat of precarity and uncertainty fits hand in glove with the aims and means of fascists.
The entire problem with this conversation is that “liberal” has become an overloaded term. The concept was originally anti-feudal so the context of “private property” was very different from the industrial context Marx would eventually add. You can see this in the US and French revolutionary writers who are clearly more focused on the idea of “just laws” being a product of political self determination which requires individual liberty. And now we have modern liberal progressives who have extended that idea to a kind of radical inclusivity, and modern leftists who even got as far as suggesting it is a critical aspect of the post scarcity state.
But Hegel is controversial for a reason. Elements of the Philosophy of Right is filled with equivocation and even Hegel’s personal grudges. This is why everyone just projects their own ideas into Hegel’s writing - because he spends a lot of time not saying much. Also I do not recall the conclusion being that free men inevitably create autocracy. I recall it being more like "I haven’t figured out what comes next for the state "
It’s not a new thing, and while I don’t think it can be easily distilled into a social media reply. I’ll do my best.
This has been a 40-year process, beginning with Ronald Reagan and continuing incrementally with every president since, including Obama unironically. (Remember how he crushed Occupy and ignored Ferguson and legalized torture on New Years Day?) It’s become stronger as people have become poorer and more willing to not give a shit about the quality of our country’s leadership. Now every person not only has personal biases, but a computer in their pocket constantly telling them everything they think is correct and actively angering them. Hitler would have creamed himself at the thought of being able to dictate social media algorithms.
If people can’t afford to feed their kids or see a doctor, they’re not going to give a shit about fascism, and no matter who we elect, most people can’t afford to see a doctor and adequately feed their kids.
It’s going to be worse now than it had to be. In 2016 people were willing to punch Nazis. Now, you can render a Nazi salute twice, in the seat of government, in front of the entire Democratic leadership… and they will fucking clap and smile.
Nazis are a symbol of power and authority for the far right the same way every international dictator has used hilters style of government to rule and oppress. They aspire to build a country similar to the one of the Nazis. Elements of this include: “christian” values, centralisation of power, uniting of the country, removal of “impures” (trans people).
Eugenics and the idea of a ‘chosen’ race is also powerful - you might be genetically destined for greatness, and the fact you have not achieved it is due to systematic oppression by a hidden conspiracy. People love that shit.
I think OP is asking why narratives around that theme keep coming back to the Nazi narrative, specifically. Why not another example of populist authoritarianism, unburdened by the systematic murder of millions of civilians? Why not invent a new narrative rooted in their own national history?
I think the answer to that is: creativity is hard. Once people have a successful first draft, they tend just to edit that draft rather than pitch it and come up with something completely new. People recognize any borrowed elements and return to the archetype. If you’ve every tried to write anything by committee or group project, you’ve probably seen people choose to edit a horrible first draft, retaining the same basic structure (however flawed) rather than start over. Committees where someone finds an existing, related text online, which then becomes an anchor for whatever the committee had planned to draft.
In short, Nazis serve as ‘best practices’ example for any new ethnic nationalist group by the simple fact of their existence.
I think the answer to that is: creativity is hard.
Ask Curtis Yarvin, seems like most of his “theory” is Ayn Rand rehashed. These people think they’re far more clever than they actually are.
Plenty of answers here but I don’t think anyone has answered this part:
Surely they would have a much easier time pushing their rhetoric and establishing their agenda by keeping a purposeful distance from that sort of indefensible imagery and symbolism.
So here’s my take …
Musk did the sig heil as a fuck you to everyone that doesn’t like him. That’s it.
They just won the election by basically lying, ignoring, and playing for time. They can literally do whatever the fuck they like for the next n years with impunity.
Imagine if Harris had won and in her victory speech said something like “Don’t worry Don, I’ll make sure they give you diapers in jail.” It would’ve been a low blow but we would’ve loved her for it because it’s poking fun at the conservatives for no other reason than to stir them up.
I think there’s another, longer conversation to be had about why racism (and by extension nazism) resonates with voters in 2025, but I’m too weary for that I think.
