By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Official social media accounts from government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the White House have adopted a distinct online voice, utilizing AI-generated art and patriotic slogans. However, closer examination reveals that many of these posts repurpose language and symbolism with direct connections to neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements, often echoing phrases and themes used by these extremist groups. Experts suggest this approach, characterized by subtle suggestion and emotional appeals, serves as a form of propaganda designed to normalize extremist rhetoric for a wider audience.
Read the original article here
The US government’s continued sharing of Nazi propaganda is a deeply concerning issue, and the idea that it will not stop is, unfortunately, a sentiment echoed by many. It stems from a perception that the government, or significant elements within it, actively embrace or at least tolerate the dissemination of such harmful content. The argument isn’t just about isolated incidents but about a pattern of behavior that suggests a disturbing alignment with Nazi ideology.
Some believe that the very reason the US government persists in sharing Nazi propaganda is because they *are* Nazis, or at least operate under similar principles. This perspective views the government as embodying Nazi ideals, making the sharing of their propaganda a natural extension of their own identity. It’s a stark accusation, suggesting a foundational corruption where the institutions meant to protect citizens are instead promoting ideologies that led to unspeakable atrocities.
This belief is often tied to the idea that specific political factions or supporters are the modern-day equivalent of Nazis. The hashtag #FACT, used in conjunction with such assertions, highlights a perceived undeniable truth, aiming to shut down debate by presenting these claims as self-evident. The imagined response from these groups, “Stop calling us Nazis!” is presented as a predictable, yet ultimately disingenuous, plea to avoid accountability.
The superficial banality of a headline discussing cooperation on documents related to Nazi war criminals masks the gravity of the situation, according to some. The real controversy, they argue, isn’t about the mechanics of historical tracking but about the underlying willingness to engage with and, by extension, perpetuate the very ideas that fueled the Nazi regime. There’s a frustration that historical archives of evil are treated with less seriousness than entertainment spoilers by some segments of the population.
The notion that “Nazis gonna Nazi” reflects a resignation to the perceived inevitability of their actions. This viewpoint suggests that if a group or entity exhibits Nazi-like characteristics, their propagation of Nazi propaganda is simply an expected behavior. It’s a cyclical argument: they act like Nazis, so they share Nazi propaganda, which further reinforces the perception that they are Nazis.
Specific instances are often cited to support these claims, such as the placement of two 88-foot flagpoles at the White House. The number 88 is a notorious white supremacist code, representing “Heil Hitler.” The choice of this specific height, rather than a more conventional number, is interpreted not as coincidence but as a deliberate, symbolic endorsement of Nazi ideology by those in power.
The argument is made that those associated with such actions lack intelligence and creativity, resorting to repackaging horrific Nazi propaganda because they have no better ideas. This suggests a certain intellectual laziness or a lack of original thought, leading them to draw from a well of established hate. The missing images, in this context, might be seen as a missed opportunity by the government to *truly* make their point, implying a desire to see the propaganda itself more widely disseminated.
The act of blocking government accounts perceived as promoting Nazi propaganda, such as DHS, USCIS, and the Department of Defense, illustrates a personal stand against this perceived endorsement. The exclusion of Amtrak from this block is a darkly humorous acknowledgment of the perceived pervasiveness of the issue within governmental bodies.
The idea that the government is intentionally sharing Nazi propaganda is further reinforced by the notion that “It’s what they want you to know about them.” This implies a level of transparency, albeit a disturbing one, where the propaganda serves as a confession of their true nature. The mention of Trump doing someone’s makeup injects a personal, almost absurd element, perhaps suggesting a close and intimate involvement with the dissemination of this hateful material.
The surprise at this development is characterized as misplaced, with the sentiment “Literally nobody did Nazi this coming” sarcastically highlighting the obviousness of the situation to those who are paying attention. Voting is presented as the sole mechanism to dismantle this perceived Nazi regime, a call to action against the unfolding “nightmare.”
The phrase “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…” perfectly encapsulates the logic: if the government exhibits all the characteristics of Nazis and disseminates their propaganda, then they are, by definition, Nazis. This is deemed “blatant and frequent,” and the failure to be “highly disturbed” is seen as a form of denial.
Historical parallels are drawn, with the America First Coalition being identified as the American Nazi party of a century ago. This connection aims to demonstrate that the current manifestation of “Nazi” sentiment is not new but a recurring theme in American history. The observation that they have “lost every part of the broader coalition that got them elected” and are left with only their “Nazi base” suggests a shrinking, radicalized core of support.
The “jump scare” analogy implies that the revelation of this propaganda is meant to shock, but perhaps not with the intention of stopping it. The idea that they “don’t have too many other fans left” suggests that this base is their primary, and perhaps only, constituency.
The link to Jim Crow laws and the historical inspiration Nazis drew from American racial policies is crucial. This argument posits that the US has a long-standing history of fascist and ethno-nationalist tendencies, predating and even influencing the German Nazi regime. The current situation is seen as an exacerbation of these deeply rooted issues.
The plea to “Believe people when they tell us who they are over and over and over…” emphasizes the importance of heeding explicit declarations, whether through actions or rhetoric. The personal anecdote about leaving X (formerly Twitter) due to Elon Musk’s perceived endorsement of Nazi propaganda before the Trump administration was “upfront about it” highlights the platform’s role in the dissemination and normalization of such content.
The “level of denial surrounding the fact they are indeed Nazis” is described as the “most staggering” aspect. This suggests that the evidence is so overwhelming that the refusal to acknowledge it is itself a remarkable phenomenon. The idea that people can become Nazis “without even realizing it happening” points to a subtle indoctrination or a gradual erosion of moral boundaries.
The observation that “Nazis learned Nazism from America” is a provocative claim intended to underscore the historical roots of these ideologies within the US. The inclusion of a deleted comment referencing Ted Cruz and pedophiles, alongside the “Let’s stop attacking pedophiles” quote, seems to be an attempt to connect disparate, yet alleged, moral failings within certain political circles.
The “banality of evil” concept, popularized by Hannah Arendt, is invoked to describe how horrific actions can become normalized. The mention of the number 1488 appearing in merchandise and its association with Nazi ideology further fuels the perception of an embedded, deliberate agenda. The conclusion that “they’re Nazis at this point. Or pedophiles” reflects a deep distrust and a willingness to assign severe, negative labels.
The observation of symbolism, like Musk wearing “Proud Boy colors” at rallies, is presented as a clear sign. The frustration lies in the surrounding ignorance or deliberate ignorance of others who are “more stupid, too ignorant, don’t care, wholeheartedly support it, or too afraid to openly support it.” This paints a bleak picture of societal awareness and complicity.
The mention of symbolism in an Instagram video, with its portrait aspect ratio making it difficult to watch, adds a layer of frustration about the presentation and accessibility of this disturbing content. The casual remark about primer filling in cracks humorously, yet grimly, reflects the perceived need to cover up or smooth over deeply ingrained problems.
A critical counterpoint is raised regarding the efficacy of voting as the *only* solution to authoritarian regimes, questioning historical examples of such regimes being peacefully voted out. The sentiment that “voting is what got us into this nightmare” suggests that the democratic process itself has been manipulated or undermined. The frustration with voters who cast “tantrum votes” or support other candidates underscores a belief that the electorate is flawed and contributing to the problem.
The seemingly innocuous question, “What’s wrong with happy bright faced attractive blonde white people?” followed by “/s” (sarcasm), directly confronts the aesthetic preferences often associated with Nazi propaganda. The comparison to Hitler being impressed by America’s treatment of Black people is a powerful indictment of historical American racism, which the Nazis allegedly modeled their own policies upon.
The statement “Everyone who isn’t a Nazi at this point” implies a radicalization where the definition of “Nazi” has broadened significantly in the eyes of the speaker, suggesting that any deviation from their perspective is met with such a label. The offer to “admit it on reddit” and the assertion that “Its obvious at this point and the administration doesn’t care” reiterate the perceived lack of concern from the government and the ease with which this perceived truth can be acknowledged online.
The notion of “Fighting fire with fire” as the method to defeat Nazis, a tactic used in WWII, is presented as a necessary but potentially unpopular approach, suggesting people have become too “soft” to consider it. The concluding sentiment that “Love IS stronger than hate” offers a hopeful, albeit contrasting, perspective to the grim realities discussed.
The examples of Bolsonaro and Pinochet are offered as counterarguments to the idea that authoritarian regimes can only be removed through violence, suggesting that electoral defeat, even after attempts at insurrection or coups, is a possibility. This provides a nuanced view on the historical outcomes of authoritarianism.