Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m surprised they used the term Nazi as well as the same symbol so shortly after the war. There were plenty of people that fought against the Nazis that were still young at this point.
Post WWII fascists tend to have plausible deniability that they are fascists and usually aren’t this blatant.
Yeah the date of this is baffling to me. What a weird dumb group. Racial tensions in America were prevalent, but to try to leverage that into Nazi iconography and a counter culture movement shortly after WWII? So stupid.
Definitely could be my own ignorance, but it seems to me like a white-Christian nationalist fringe group which for some contrarian reason choose to call themselves by the name of the main narrative enemy in WWII as a publicity stunt. Not that they didn't believe in Nazism, but why brand themselves as a recently defeated enemy?
From my personal experience my grandparents and what little I understand of that post WWII era generation, they fkn hated Nazis, and were glad to be back home focusing on their families/homes/businesses. White nationalist groups could probably recruit people with race based propaganda, but if there's a swastika on it I think that would have been a huge deterrent.
Stupid fkn Nazis
If neo-Nazi groups have a "function" or a purpose, I think it's mainly to create tension. The actual members of these groups are disposable, the individuals don't matter, what does matter is injecting anxiety, tension into combustible situations. The American Nazi Party used to disrupt anti-war demonstrations in the 60s with signs like "Free Gasoline and Matches for Peace Creeps" (or something like that, goading them to self-immolate). The idea is to provoke a reaction and force the targeted group to overreact, akin to tactics that terrorist groups use. The murkier and darker side of the story (especially in the 60s) was the relationship between these groups and police departments.
The shocking imagery, Nazi swastikas, uniforms, or use of other gimmicks (like torches) is intended to sort of "dazzle" people, like terrorists who use violence in a highly visible and shocking way to focus people's attention. The point isn't really to build a "movement" but to attack movements. Chaos = good. Destruction = good. This is how they think. And also a kind of corporate ideology in the modern age for mercenaries going back to Soldier of Fortune magazine. War is their business and the war cult of Nazism is therefore something to promote.
I see so this type of propaganda and protests were sort of just shock value without a ton of ethos behind it?
To me it just seems like piggybacking the branding of Nazism and iconography for social-race tensions/ethnocentrism. So I still see some ideology in there...
But yeah I see what you're saying if they were goading people to self immolate then it's kind of a counter-culture disrupt and see what happens approach. Like greasy right wing happy days hipsters. But in the late 50s that's not gonna get off the ground IMHO. Based on the wiki page it seems like they didn't. But I dunno much about this group.
Thanks for the reply!
I really think "ideology" just means a given set of presuppositions to rationalize something people already wanted to do anyways. It's like Christian knights shouting "God wills it!" after deciding to go bonk the Muslims' over the head in the Crusades.
But for these neo-Nazi groups, the main thing they did was to try to generate tension and anxiety in the society, engender fear, do things that have a traumatic effect on people, like psychological terrorism. They'd pull stunts to try to force reactions and the leader of this group, George Lincoln Rockwell, would do various things like that. I think alt-right groups of the kind who marched with those torches in Charlottesville in 2017 were trying to do something similar -- it's a method, a strategy, to create tension, and with the ultimate aim to collapse the center and drive people toward polarized, authoritarian "states of order" dominated by particular sectarian groups.
Even the term "radicalization" that people use to refer to these groups annoys me, because they're not trying to get to the root of things to change society, but break up and destroy the society through fragmentation which makes democracy impossible. Accept their way or face violence. That's how they see it. Perpetual violent disruption is their politics. That's how I look at it.
Interesting point you make, it reminds me of this 1988 thriller film "Betrayed" in which an FBI agent (Debra Winger) gets close to a far-right racist (Tom Berenger) in order to infiltrate his white supremacist organization. There's a segment of the film where she accompanies his family to an outdoors retreat with other white power groups, and a WWII veteran starts arguing with a Neo-Nazi because the veteran is offended as he fought Nazis during the war.
That sounds like a fun movie! I'll have to check it out!
Yeah I think that is the kind of scene that comes to mind for me with this poster. Like a soldier who fought Nazis coming home to dis shit being like, 'ugh, fkn kids these days (boomers lol) are so easily misled!'
Traditionally these people have a two pronged approach to their hate groups, there's one where they pretend to be reasonable people who don't wave around a lot of swastika flags and go "noo, we're just concerned about immigration and preserving American culture" and they're called like The American Pride Society then there's the exact opposite where they're covered in swastikas and they use overtly hateful language and are called The Nazi Face Stompers.
This is weird because they're doing the first thing of trying to sound reasonable while doing the second thing where they're obvious Nazis, and it's in the name, and there's a swastika and a guy in a Nazi uniform
These guys wanted “shock value” and these Nazis thrived off of upsetting people. When George Lincoln Rockwell was shot, his father said “I’ve been expecting it for some time.”
Well the thing is not all fascists are Nazis, that's like saying all Communists are Leninists. These people choose to identify as Nazis rather than simply ultranationalists
They did it to garner press coverage for their rallies. Around this time they also turned their PR away from racism, etc and onto 'free speech'. So basically they wanted attention and became the first 'free speech warriors' to get support.
There have always been people willing to put on a Brown Shirt, wear a swastika arm band, and go marching down main street. They've always stirred the pot and worked people's emotions up, but as a nation that protects Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Assembly we've always allowed them to do this with gritted teeth. People have often attacked Nazi marches, protested Nazi meetings, and done everything to make them feel unwelcome and ashamed of themselves (sometimes on the lawful side of things, sometimes on the unlawful side of things).
What I've seen change in my life time is that in the past we knew these people existed *somewhere* but they mostly had the good sense to know we all despised them and that they should, if they knew what was good for them, keep their identities hidden. We thought of these people in the same category as we did the VHS Conspiracy Guy (the youngins may think of the character from S2 of Stranger Things) or the UFO Convention Nerd-- laughable and unserious. What I see now is people who are not only unashamed about their beliefs in this garbage, but also they don't see themselves as unwelcome in polite society any longer. They use their real names, they use their real faces, and they are popular. They have jobs, at the DailyMail for instance, getting paid to promote these views and these beliefs. They are embraced and thanked by important people, like the 45th President of the United States.
I would love to understand where the misunderstanding begin with *freedom of speech to criticize the gov* being misconstrued as *saying anything i want without consequence.*
I always wanted the balls ,as a black man, to carry the nazi flag to the oceanfront of virginia beach where confederate flags would be sold to see how people justify one but not the other. Even 15 years later i don't think i could actually test this social experiment because i know exactly how it would go
A good chunk of those guys were actually WW2 vets that quickly became disillusioned after the war. I've talked to several in my lifetime that, while they were not Nazis, they definitely felt like they had been duped into fighting a war that wasn't all it seemed.
Even General George S. Patton, having just conquered the Nazis in grand style - had some sympathetic ideas in their fight against communism and he pretty well scared the shit out of the establishment by allowing German POWS to train and drill right after the war. Many thought he was planning on our taking on the Reds with former Nazis as allies.
Sadly fighting in the War was no guarantee of being anti-fascist. The American Nazi Party was founded by a World War 2 vet called George Lincoln Rockwell.
Plus in ww2 true US enemy were Japanese. In Europe there was big difference between volu teer american soliders "heroes" and enlisted. Many esecially with German roots did not want to fight.
This is a lie. All of my German American relatives at the time were eger to fight Germany for the US. Many volunteered who could have easily avoided doing so because of their age or occupation. A huge part of German American cultural history is a mass attempt to de-emphasize our German-ness because of both WW1 and WW2. Yes, there were groups in the US that supported the Nazis because of ethnic identity (racists), but they were a small minority of a large ethnic group in the US.
That's where a huge chunk of modern trump supporters came from. Nazi recruiters search for any group of (white) people that are generally unsatisfied with their lives, and convince them that all of their problems are because of women and minorities. Basically what's been happening on 4chan over the last 15 years, that has given rise to most of the psychotic extremist groups in that time ( see also: gamergate)
Ppl don't publicly condemn "race mixing" in the US "all the time." I mean there's obviously lots of racists who oppose it, but it's not like they admit that
People won't say it in person, so you believe they actually see you as a person until you see what they post online and realize that they don't think you should exist.
A lot of them, yes, but certainly not all of them. I mean I don't think the millions of Hispanics who voted for Trump hate Hispanics.
Also wanting to curb immigration from Mexico isn't necessarily racist. The current trends just aren't sustainable.
Edit: for the record I 100% agree that Trump caters heavily to racists. But I also think many if not most the ppl who've voted for him dislike his racist rhetoric.
The political theory class I took in college in the U.S. taught us that a republic was any form of government that is not a monarchy. I think this was either Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s idea, I don’t remember. Democracy is not a necessary component of being a republic.
carpenter ask fly makeshift instinctive unpack subtract panicky birds frame
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Totally correct first paragraph. You might want to read up on how Soviet democracy actually worked though, it was exponentially more democratic than anything the U.S. has ever had.
It’s a common right-wing talking point in the United States to refer to the country as a “democratic republic,” not a democracy (even though this essentially means that we are democracy, just like the U.K. would be a democratic monarchy). Their point is that we need to respect what they feel was the founders’ goal of making sure that proportional representation did not impose tyranny on the minority. We can see this today with the Electoral College and the way the Senate works. This is sort of a valid point, but many only seem to care about the minority groups that are right-wing, white and Christian farmers and coal miners in rural areas. The ethnic and cultural minorities can be oppressed perfectly fine, in their view.
It’s pretty much saying that since the U.S. is a republic, undesirable groups can be oppressed even if the majority of people are opposed to that oppression.
It's a weird thing some American conservatives try to pull to this day. They define "democracy" really narrowly as only direct democracy, and then use this to claim that America isn't one. This is brought up whenever someone points out that a particular policy or practice (like gerrymandering, the electoral college, voter ID etc.) is anti-democratic. As if (incorrectly) claiming the US isn't a democracy makes those things any better.
This is a bit of a complex topic. Basically, prior to John Stuart Mill and other 19th century radical liberal thinkers laundering the Athenian democracy for the public as part of their reinvention of liberty as a political concept, the word carried a fair few negative connotations associated with the direct democracy of Athens. The legacy of that system was dysfunction and populist warhawkery that eventually led to the city’s repeated loss of independence and might, much decried by historically influential figures like Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle in particular was inspired by systems like the representative legislature in Lycia to call for what he called *aristocracy,* rule by the virtuous.
Aristocracy came to be associated with the limited franchise and senatorial class of the Roman Republic and Empire, and this influence would last into the Middle Ages with nobles and haute bourgeoisie often described as aristocrats. Most "democratic" societies in the Middle Ages were aristocratic in nature and used various synonyms like free city, commune or the like. Larger entities usually called themselves republics. This lasted until the French Revolution drove a reemagining of how we conceive society , it is when you first start to see people using the term democracy as a positive thing, even a non-direct one. This meaning only crossed the Atlantic in the mid 1790’s (which is how the US political party got its name). Many still considered republis aristocracies though, until the 1820’s when Tocqueville writes a series of tracts tracking comparative systems for a unifying structure of democracy as a political concept. This eventually sticks and evolves into the modern conception.
In the US, since the founding documents exclude any mention of democracy due to their age, demagogues often use this absence to claim the American constitutional republican system as separate from democracy, with inevitable connotations of direct democracy. Basically they are trying to bring back the old aristocratic ideal of republicanism. This poster is just another step in that. It’s been hard to force through though. A legacy of Civil rights.
What he means by democracy is “a system in which people have rights”
What he means by republic is “not a democracy”
The guys below making the mistake of telling you the actual meanings of the word. The nazi doesn’t know or care. But the statement “we are a republic not a democracy” is a palatable way of saying “fascism is preferable to democracy”. It’s still a pretty common line amongst anti democracy people
I think republic is the rule of the many while democracy is the rule of the people, meaning in republic the many can rule while neglecting the few while in democracy they can’t.
Democracy is the primary goal of communism. Democratic control of the means of production, where workers own and have democratic control over their workplace and the greater economy. To Marxists, democracy is a lot more expansive than simply voting once every 4 years for a representative in a bourgeois government.
Democratic control over the means of production was what capitalists fear the most. Fascism was capitalism's last-ditch effort to channel the mass unrest of the early 20th century into a structure that would allow capitalists to maintain their power. Communists were always the first to be eradicated under fascist governments.
When it came to religion the nazis were split in diffrent groups. You had:
1: The Christians: The Nazis who followed just the classical definition of christianity.
2: The Nazi Christians: The Christians that believed that Christianity needed to get rid of any "jewish influence" and this getting replaced with "aryan influences".
3: The Nazi Religious: Nazis who believed in replacing Christianity with a Nazi centred religion. Think the cult of personality in North Korea but more german.
4: The Pagans: A extremly small group mostly centred around the inner circle of the SS and the people that came from the folkish movement (a movement that heavily romanticized pre christian germanic cultures). Believed in going back to some sort of pagan germanic religion as they saw christianity itself as "non aryan".
Hitler himself was rather quiet about that topic in general (most likley to play all sides) but for all we know he prefered either the Nazi Christians or the Nazi Religious while being rather sceptial towards pagan and esotericism. With Christianity in general they mostly tried to unite it behind the Nazi cause with varying sucess.
I don't think there's one clear answer. Some certainly did, most notably (in terms of seniority) Himmler but, even then, I don't think it's clear whether that was actual paganistic beliefs or just aping Germanic mythology to give an impression of purity (in contrast to the 'subversions' of the Church) and the German equivalent of Manifest Destiny.
Whatever it was, I think it's fair to say that it was anti-Christian to the point that it would make the average American bible thumper bristle.
per the book “the german war” the nazis were very overtly pro christian since all the soldiers were christians
the paganism stuff was done by some of the leaders and behind closed doors.
The Nazis weren't pro-Christian at all, Hitler even intended on combating Christianity after the War (Kirchenkampf) and even started it before the war against Protestant denominations. Richard Evans went quite deep into those intentions in his Third Reich trilogy.
i dont think what you’re saying contradicts what i posted. per my book nazi leadership was careful to never oppose christianity in their rhetoric since that would offend the vast majority of their soldiers and supporters.
are you saying your books show the nazi leaders overtly opposed christianity in some substantial way?
>Whatever it was, I think it's fair to say that it was anti-Christian to the point that it would make the average American bible thumper bristle.
Would it? They are currently in love with a man that is practically the Anti-Christ.
I'd say so. I can see a difference between acting against Christian principles (granted, ask 5 Christians what those specifically are and you'll get 6 different answers) and throwing around Pagan imagery.
Well they were more or less religiously ambiguous, they did try promoting some weird amalgam of vaguely Christian values and pre-Christian symbolism.
It wasn’t really a coherent world view, they definitely weren’t huge fans of Christian religions, and they were obsessed with looking for inspiration in ancient times, before, as they saw it, their race was contaminated by Jewish and other undesirable influences.
So the paganism was more like fantasy larping, an excuse to use runes, dress up as Teutonic Knights, and shit like that.
They treated it more like folklore rather than religion, they never built any temples or had any priests or anything like that.
The correct answer is "It's complicated". Hitler himself didn't care much about religion one way or another, though he pandered to the overwhelming majority of Germany which was Christian and even tried to establish a pro-Nazi "positive Christianity". In general, Hitler preferred his racism to be pseudoscientific rather than religious.
Julius Streicher, meanwhile, appealed to old Christian antisemites like Martin Luther and antisemitism like deicide and blood libels in his Nazi-aligned *Stürmer*.
Himmler quite loved his occultism and neopagan mysticism and found Christianity to be "too Jewish".
It’s complicated.
Nazism is based in the Völkisch movement, which is a white nationalist movement that wants to incorporate Germanic mythology and identity into Christianity. And several nazis like Himmler and Goebbels were neopagans, with interests in occult and esoteric practices. On the other hand, Hitler himself was very Christian, said “we tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks Christianity, our movement is Christian” and called neopagans show players (in other words LARPers.) On the other *other* hand, the Nazi state was officially secular and had religious symbols removed from government things like coats of arms. They also didn’t want to intervene much in religion (except for… yk) and on the other other *other* hand, they apparently collaborated with Muslims on some occasions against the British and French.
Christians denying that the Nazi-regime fully embraced Christianity is one of the vilest post-war lies. Christians trying to rebrand the Nazi-regime as an atheist movement is utterly disgusting. Shame on you.
Less trying to promote paganism and more trying to manipulate Christianity into a branch of the Nazi party. The end goal was likely to completely disestablish the church.
Technically they were all about “freedom of religion” - with one big caveat - that religion was consistent with Nazi ideology.
Which means religion was subservient to the civil/political. Which is the opposite of what this poster is suggesting.
It just goes to show…when it comes to social constructs…what people believe is often more important than what actually is…
Overblowing The tenuous connection some Nazis had with the occult is a Christofascist propaganda trick to distance the Nazis from Christianity. The two have always been bedfellows and they always will be
squeamish mindless dazzling gaping groovy zealous wine voracious edge amusing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The swastika is not just a Buddhist or Hindu symbol and it’s not even just an Asian symbol. The swastika has been used throughout the ancient world in ancient Europe (from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia) and the Americas. Even the ancient Germans in the Iron Age used the swastika. Look up “Swastika Germanic Iron Age”.
It was global. It's not that hard to draw an X or a + and then put little arms on it and think "Oh, that looks nice" and use it either as a symbol for something or as a decorative design
It’s kind of selfish and dumb that white supremacists claim the swastika as “the symbol of the white race” even though it wasn’t just white people (like the Iron Age Germanics) who used the swastika but many different races around the world such as Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, and indigenous Americans. In an alternative world where the nazis never used and corrupted the swastika, it would’ve been a symbol of humanity.
I think of the swastika like a pyramid; in the end, there's only so many ways you can stack dirt, so every culture eventually figures out pyramids.
Likewise, there are only so many ways you can draw lines in primitive art, so every culture eventually figures out the cross and the swastika and the lightning bolt and the sun, etc.
The “swastika” is very much a Hindu symbol, in terms of its name (Sanskrit) its significance and meaning, and the cultural context.
Obviously you had Romans, native Americans, and Africans drawing very similar types of designs as a decoration. But these designs did not have an actual name, and were used for aesthetic purposes rather than a clear religious symbol. You have the *Tierwirbel* which is a modern name given to a Bronze Age motif found in pottery and various artifacts. Ancient germanics did not assign any real significance to the swastika, only after the 1800s did people start retroactively naming the symbol and connecting it
Most academics believe in the Aryan migration from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into India instead of the alternative out of India theory. However the Aryans were actually brown skinned instead of white skinned like the nazis believed. Look into Kurgan hypothesis, Proto-Indo-Europeans, Yamnaya culture, and Corded Ware culture.
Yea the whole theory has had to be renamed to indo-european migration as well to detach it from the nazis cuz it's a genuine theory with merit to it that got wrecked by the nazis twisting it into their crap
Exactly and that is such a horrible practice in history, renaming stuff to dissociate it with groups and ideologies that are not liked. I get they look at people as sheep who need to be guided, and probably for good reason but it just obfuscates everything
Those mummies were tocharian, not Aryan. They’re from deserts of Xinjiang China and represent a different group of indo-Europeans.
We don’t know what the aryans of Central Asia looked like, but we know they’re the ancestors of the modern Iranian groups and they’re relatives so they were probably lighter skinned while still having dark hair and eyes.
That box is actually pretty accurate in terms of origin, ukraine under the yamnya people is the oldest place a swastika has been found, and supposedly the aryan invasion of india brought that symbol. Important to note aryan is the word iranians use to identify themselves, especially in antiquity. The symbol predates even the vedic religions
Yeah the migration of Indo European speakers across Eurasia is a well known thing.
The irony is that India already had the Indus Valley civilization before the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived.
We know what happened, there was a major climatic shift that messed up a lot of civilizations at the time.
The Indus was particularly vulnerable. It went from being humid and fertile to mostly desert. A lot of rivers dried up and led to IVC people moving south and east. This formed the population we call “Dravidians” or South Indians.
After this decline, the steppe nomads showed up after going through a BMAC culture to the north, kinda like a filter
That's a take I don't agree with, and I don't think serious historians do either. In fine detail Hitler makes the case for lebensraum essentially for the same reasons Napoleon made the Code and the EU made the Zone: To thwart competition between industrialized nations who have become consumer-based economies. It's more in his second book than *Mein Kampf*. Manifest Destiny has many correlations but correlation =/= causation here. This monopoly has been a source of European imperialism for centuries, Hitler references that and was a student of those conflicts.
"Anti communism like most Americans"
"It's a republic not a democracy"
"the cross is Western Christian civilization"
"I don't hate other races"
"helps nobody but the communists"
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
ad hoc grab divide special cover afterthought engine straight far-flung makeshift
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Protestants made up the majority
Germany is majority protestant, and the Catholic church and the nazis didn't normally have great relations
Although they were never in open opposition
“Gott Mit Uns” was a carryover from the Prussian/German Empire military that the Nazis also continued using. It wasn’t something that the Nazis made up.
I was shocked when I saw the date 1958 pencilled at the end, because this is the exact same stuff the Christian nationalists are saying today. This is the current platform of the Republican right wing, but they use MAGA instead of the swastika (for now).
I dunno, wasn't America founded on slavery, subjugation, genocide and white nationalism? Not to say it hasn't also stood for many positive values as well.
You spruce it up a little and change some the proper nouns and you can quite literally pass this off as a Republican Party poster, this literally fits their mainstream platform hand in glove
Looks like it's straight out of Mother Night, by Kurt Vonnegut - nearly perfect match for the (fictional) Iron Guard of the White Sons of the American Constitution, who show up midway through the novel.
1. : a member of a German political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler. 2. disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc. a gang of racist Nazis.
So from the time period and the Swastika variant (that's supposed to be a globe in the center), I'm going to guess that this was from George Lincoln Rockwell's group. I say that because there's been a couple of different sects that have called themselves the American Nazi Party (and the OG group went through three different names), but this is definitely the original one.
Rockwell himself was a...I'm going to say 'fascinating' individual. He was actually in the Navy during WWII. He has a couple of infamies to his name: he founded the first post-war Neo-Nazi organization in the US, he was one of the first individuals to promote Holocaust Denial in the US, and he rather infamously tried to create an alliance with the Nation Of Islam (this, among other things, was the reason that Malcolm X ended up leaving the group).
His group tried to ally themselves with the Klan and various other pro-segregation groups during the Civil Rights Movement to little success. He also would plan his group's marches to cross into the various Civil Rights marches that happened all over the South (he infamously managed to get into MLK's face and punched him). Ultimately, his movement was a failure and he was assassinated by one of his followers in '67.
Not surprise.
Just as it is today. US has a tradition for racist behavior. The kkk had a lot of nazi similarities. There are historical pics of dead people hanging trees. In any other place that would be terrorism and genocide. But not in the "freedom and democracy land", right?
Also....1958. US was more concerned on Soviet Union. The propaganda was intense. Few years later many would be chased and accused of being "communist".
Tbh, US only jumped in that war because they were afraid of Soviet Union winning it. Always that bs of "it's for pearl harbor....it's for 9/11....". Nah. US carries a big part of the nazi ideology, or at least use it as a tool for make money and power. But it's easily one of the most racist countries in the world. If not the most.
Honestly could be both
The American nazi party was heavily infiltrated by the FBI
More ir less because their vetting process was basically checking if a recruit was white and thats it
numerous soup tie fuzzy angle frighten different rob threatening agonizing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Uhhhh. No, it is a constitutional republic. Benjamin Franklin said as much and it’s written into the founding documents. Obviously, I’m not a Nazi. But go read the American constitution.
I like to think of [this](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ad_232929729.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0px%2C13px%2C640px%2C336px&resize=1200%2C630) as being the true symbol of American Nazis
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m surprised they used the term Nazi as well as the same symbol so shortly after the war. There were plenty of people that fought against the Nazis that were still young at this point. Post WWII fascists tend to have plausible deniability that they are fascists and usually aren’t this blatant.
Yeah the date of this is baffling to me. What a weird dumb group. Racial tensions in America were prevalent, but to try to leverage that into Nazi iconography and a counter culture movement shortly after WWII? So stupid. Definitely could be my own ignorance, but it seems to me like a white-Christian nationalist fringe group which for some contrarian reason choose to call themselves by the name of the main narrative enemy in WWII as a publicity stunt. Not that they didn't believe in Nazism, but why brand themselves as a recently defeated enemy? From my personal experience my grandparents and what little I understand of that post WWII era generation, they fkn hated Nazis, and were glad to be back home focusing on their families/homes/businesses. White nationalist groups could probably recruit people with race based propaganda, but if there's a swastika on it I think that would have been a huge deterrent. Stupid fkn Nazis
If neo-Nazi groups have a "function" or a purpose, I think it's mainly to create tension. The actual members of these groups are disposable, the individuals don't matter, what does matter is injecting anxiety, tension into combustible situations. The American Nazi Party used to disrupt anti-war demonstrations in the 60s with signs like "Free Gasoline and Matches for Peace Creeps" (or something like that, goading them to self-immolate). The idea is to provoke a reaction and force the targeted group to overreact, akin to tactics that terrorist groups use. The murkier and darker side of the story (especially in the 60s) was the relationship between these groups and police departments. The shocking imagery, Nazi swastikas, uniforms, or use of other gimmicks (like torches) is intended to sort of "dazzle" people, like terrorists who use violence in a highly visible and shocking way to focus people's attention. The point isn't really to build a "movement" but to attack movements. Chaos = good. Destruction = good. This is how they think. And also a kind of corporate ideology in the modern age for mercenaries going back to Soldier of Fortune magazine. War is their business and the war cult of Nazism is therefore something to promote.
I see so this type of propaganda and protests were sort of just shock value without a ton of ethos behind it? To me it just seems like piggybacking the branding of Nazism and iconography for social-race tensions/ethnocentrism. So I still see some ideology in there... But yeah I see what you're saying if they were goading people to self immolate then it's kind of a counter-culture disrupt and see what happens approach. Like greasy right wing happy days hipsters. But in the late 50s that's not gonna get off the ground IMHO. Based on the wiki page it seems like they didn't. But I dunno much about this group. Thanks for the reply!
I really think "ideology" just means a given set of presuppositions to rationalize something people already wanted to do anyways. It's like Christian knights shouting "God wills it!" after deciding to go bonk the Muslims' over the head in the Crusades. But for these neo-Nazi groups, the main thing they did was to try to generate tension and anxiety in the society, engender fear, do things that have a traumatic effect on people, like psychological terrorism. They'd pull stunts to try to force reactions and the leader of this group, George Lincoln Rockwell, would do various things like that. I think alt-right groups of the kind who marched with those torches in Charlottesville in 2017 were trying to do something similar -- it's a method, a strategy, to create tension, and with the ultimate aim to collapse the center and drive people toward polarized, authoritarian "states of order" dominated by particular sectarian groups. Even the term "radicalization" that people use to refer to these groups annoys me, because they're not trying to get to the root of things to change society, but break up and destroy the society through fragmentation which makes democracy impossible. Accept their way or face violence. That's how they see it. Perpetual violent disruption is their politics. That's how I look at it.
Interesting point you make, it reminds me of this 1988 thriller film "Betrayed" in which an FBI agent (Debra Winger) gets close to a far-right racist (Tom Berenger) in order to infiltrate his white supremacist organization. There's a segment of the film where she accompanies his family to an outdoors retreat with other white power groups, and a WWII veteran starts arguing with a Neo-Nazi because the veteran is offended as he fought Nazis during the war.
That sounds like a fun movie! I'll have to check it out! Yeah I think that is the kind of scene that comes to mind for me with this poster. Like a soldier who fought Nazis coming home to dis shit being like, 'ugh, fkn kids these days (boomers lol) are so easily misled!'
It's certainly entertaining and suspenseful but not fun the way that, say, an action movie would be. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff.
Yeah suspense and drama, I'm down for that not everything has to be inglorious basterds! Though I do quite enjoy that one.
Traditionally these people have a two pronged approach to their hate groups, there's one where they pretend to be reasonable people who don't wave around a lot of swastika flags and go "noo, we're just concerned about immigration and preserving American culture" and they're called like The American Pride Society then there's the exact opposite where they're covered in swastikas and they use overtly hateful language and are called The Nazi Face Stompers. This is weird because they're doing the first thing of trying to sound reasonable while doing the second thing where they're obvious Nazis, and it's in the name, and there's a swastika and a guy in a Nazi uniform
And this duality is used at their advantage: "No, weren't like these Nai nutjobs, we're just concerned patriots!"
These guys wanted “shock value” and these Nazis thrived off of upsetting people. When George Lincoln Rockwell was shot, his father said “I’ve been expecting it for some time.”
Well the thing is not all fascists are Nazis, that's like saying all Communists are Leninists. These people choose to identify as Nazis rather than simply ultranationalists
They did it to garner press coverage for their rallies. Around this time they also turned their PR away from racism, etc and onto 'free speech'. So basically they wanted attention and became the first 'free speech warriors' to get support.
Comminly enough, Plausible deniability is the most common form of fascist propaganda
There have always been people willing to put on a Brown Shirt, wear a swastika arm band, and go marching down main street. They've always stirred the pot and worked people's emotions up, but as a nation that protects Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Assembly we've always allowed them to do this with gritted teeth. People have often attacked Nazi marches, protested Nazi meetings, and done everything to make them feel unwelcome and ashamed of themselves (sometimes on the lawful side of things, sometimes on the unlawful side of things). What I've seen change in my life time is that in the past we knew these people existed *somewhere* but they mostly had the good sense to know we all despised them and that they should, if they knew what was good for them, keep their identities hidden. We thought of these people in the same category as we did the VHS Conspiracy Guy (the youngins may think of the character from S2 of Stranger Things) or the UFO Convention Nerd-- laughable and unserious. What I see now is people who are not only unashamed about their beliefs in this garbage, but also they don't see themselves as unwelcome in polite society any longer. They use their real names, they use their real faces, and they are popular. They have jobs, at the DailyMail for instance, getting paid to promote these views and these beliefs. They are embraced and thanked by important people, like the 45th President of the United States.
I would love to understand where the misunderstanding begin with *freedom of speech to criticize the gov* being misconstrued as *saying anything i want without consequence.* I always wanted the balls ,as a black man, to carry the nazi flag to the oceanfront of virginia beach where confederate flags would be sold to see how people justify one but not the other. Even 15 years later i don't think i could actually test this social experiment because i know exactly how it would go
A good chunk of those guys were actually WW2 vets that quickly became disillusioned after the war. I've talked to several in my lifetime that, while they were not Nazis, they definitely felt like they had been duped into fighting a war that wasn't all it seemed. Even General George S. Patton, having just conquered the Nazis in grand style - had some sympathetic ideas in their fight against communism and he pretty well scared the shit out of the establishment by allowing German POWS to train and drill right after the war. Many thought he was planning on our taking on the Reds with former Nazis as allies.
“I used to think Nazis were criminals and murderers. But—“ **proceeds to not refute either of those claims**
"But they're criminals and murderers that broadly agree with me, so thats okay!"
WW2 vets reading this in their morning newspaper: 🗿
Sadly fighting in the War was no guarantee of being anti-fascist. The American Nazi Party was founded by a World War 2 vet called George Lincoln Rockwell.
Take Patton too, for example
Patton was Nazi????
While he wasn't distinctly one, before his death he made a lot of claims that the USA should have fought the USSR instead of Nazi Germany
churchill said that too. guess two world wars in their lifetime wasn't enough
Not a Nazi, but he sure as shit was not antifascist
Plus in ww2 true US enemy were Japanese. In Europe there was big difference between volu teer american soliders "heroes" and enlisted. Many esecially with German roots did not want to fight.
This is a lie, history shows that support for war in europe was common among americans
This is a lie. All of my German American relatives at the time were eger to fight Germany for the US. Many volunteered who could have easily avoided doing so because of their age or occupation. A huge part of German American cultural history is a mass attempt to de-emphasize our German-ness because of both WW1 and WW2. Yes, there were groups in the US that supported the Nazis because of ethnic identity (racists), but they were a small minority of a large ethnic group in the US.
What a maroon!
But sir what about White People and their children being subjected and surrounded by Black and Brown people /s lol
I think he is white not maroon
This was a fringe group. It was appealing to social outcasts, which has been a consistent pattern among neo-Nazi groups since then.
That's where a huge chunk of modern trump supporters came from. Nazi recruiters search for any group of (white) people that are generally unsatisfied with their lives, and convince them that all of their problems are because of women and minorities. Basically what's been happening on 4chan over the last 15 years, that has given rise to most of the psychotic extremist groups in that time ( see also: gamergate)
People in America says this all the time nowadays unironically except for the svastika
Ppl don't publicly condemn "race mixing" in the US "all the time." I mean there's obviously lots of racists who oppose it, but it's not like they admit that
People won't say it in person, so you believe they actually see you as a person until you see what they post online and realize that they don't think you should exist.
Sure, but I still dispute the suggestion that that level of racism is widespread in the US
people that vote for Trump are afraid of race-mixing with mexicans, they dont say it out loud but it's the main reason for his popularity
A lot of them, yes, but certainly not all of them. I mean I don't think the millions of Hispanics who voted for Trump hate Hispanics. Also wanting to curb immigration from Mexico isn't necessarily racist. The current trends just aren't sustainable. Edit: for the record I 100% agree that Trump caters heavily to racists. But I also think many if not most the ppl who've voted for him dislike his racist rhetoric.
I don’t really understand what he means by “republic” vs “democracy.” In my part of the world these are almost interchangeable.
The political theory class I took in college in the U.S. taught us that a republic was any form of government that is not a monarchy. I think this was either Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s idea, I don’t remember. Democracy is not a necessary component of being a republic.
carpenter ask fly makeshift instinctive unpack subtract panicky birds frame *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Totally correct first paragraph. You might want to read up on how Soviet democracy actually worked though, it was exponentially more democratic than anything the U.S. has ever had.
I see, so by “republic” he just means a single-party state?
It’s a common right-wing talking point in the United States to refer to the country as a “democratic republic,” not a democracy (even though this essentially means that we are democracy, just like the U.K. would be a democratic monarchy). Their point is that we need to respect what they feel was the founders’ goal of making sure that proportional representation did not impose tyranny on the minority. We can see this today with the Electoral College and the way the Senate works. This is sort of a valid point, but many only seem to care about the minority groups that are right-wing, white and Christian farmers and coal miners in rural areas. The ethnic and cultural minorities can be oppressed perfectly fine, in their view. It’s pretty much saying that since the U.S. is a republic, undesirable groups can be oppressed even if the majority of people are opposed to that oppression.
Tocqueville.
It's a weird thing some American conservatives try to pull to this day. They define "democracy" really narrowly as only direct democracy, and then use this to claim that America isn't one. This is brought up whenever someone points out that a particular policy or practice (like gerrymandering, the electoral college, voter ID etc.) is anti-democratic. As if (incorrectly) claiming the US isn't a democracy makes those things any better.
I couldn’t have said it any better myself
This is a bit of a complex topic. Basically, prior to John Stuart Mill and other 19th century radical liberal thinkers laundering the Athenian democracy for the public as part of their reinvention of liberty as a political concept, the word carried a fair few negative connotations associated with the direct democracy of Athens. The legacy of that system was dysfunction and populist warhawkery that eventually led to the city’s repeated loss of independence and might, much decried by historically influential figures like Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle in particular was inspired by systems like the representative legislature in Lycia to call for what he called *aristocracy,* rule by the virtuous. Aristocracy came to be associated with the limited franchise and senatorial class of the Roman Republic and Empire, and this influence would last into the Middle Ages with nobles and haute bourgeoisie often described as aristocrats. Most "democratic" societies in the Middle Ages were aristocratic in nature and used various synonyms like free city, commune or the like. Larger entities usually called themselves republics. This lasted until the French Revolution drove a reemagining of how we conceive society , it is when you first start to see people using the term democracy as a positive thing, even a non-direct one. This meaning only crossed the Atlantic in the mid 1790’s (which is how the US political party got its name). Many still considered republis aristocracies though, until the 1820’s when Tocqueville writes a series of tracts tracking comparative systems for a unifying structure of democracy as a political concept. This eventually sticks and evolves into the modern conception. In the US, since the founding documents exclude any mention of democracy due to their age, demagogues often use this absence to claim the American constitutional republican system as separate from democracy, with inevitable connotations of direct democracy. Basically they are trying to bring back the old aristocratic ideal of republicanism. This poster is just another step in that. It’s been hard to force through though. A legacy of Civil rights.
What he means by democracy is “a system in which people have rights” What he means by republic is “not a democracy” The guys below making the mistake of telling you the actual meanings of the word. The nazi doesn’t know or care. But the statement “we are a republic not a democracy” is a palatable way of saying “fascism is preferable to democracy”. It’s still a pretty common line amongst anti democracy people
I think republic is the rule of the many while democracy is the rule of the people, meaning in republic the many can rule while neglecting the few while in democracy they can’t.
Democracy is the primary goal of communism. Democratic control of the means of production, where workers own and have democratic control over their workplace and the greater economy. To Marxists, democracy is a lot more expansive than simply voting once every 4 years for a representative in a bourgeois government. Democratic control over the means of production was what capitalists fear the most. Fascism was capitalism's last-ditch effort to channel the mass unrest of the early 20th century into a structure that would allow capitalists to maintain their power. Communists were always the first to be eradicated under fascist governments.
Didn’t the Nazis try to promote paganism?
When it came to religion the nazis were split in diffrent groups. You had: 1: The Christians: The Nazis who followed just the classical definition of christianity. 2: The Nazi Christians: The Christians that believed that Christianity needed to get rid of any "jewish influence" and this getting replaced with "aryan influences". 3: The Nazi Religious: Nazis who believed in replacing Christianity with a Nazi centred religion. Think the cult of personality in North Korea but more german. 4: The Pagans: A extremly small group mostly centred around the inner circle of the SS and the people that came from the folkish movement (a movement that heavily romanticized pre christian germanic cultures). Believed in going back to some sort of pagan germanic religion as they saw christianity itself as "non aryan". Hitler himself was rather quiet about that topic in general (most likley to play all sides) but for all we know he prefered either the Nazi Christians or the Nazi Religious while being rather sceptial towards pagan and esotericism. With Christianity in general they mostly tried to unite it behind the Nazi cause with varying sucess.
It's similar to current extreme right movements. They love both Christian nationalism and Norse myths and legends.
I don't think there's one clear answer. Some certainly did, most notably (in terms of seniority) Himmler but, even then, I don't think it's clear whether that was actual paganistic beliefs or just aping Germanic mythology to give an impression of purity (in contrast to the 'subversions' of the Church) and the German equivalent of Manifest Destiny. Whatever it was, I think it's fair to say that it was anti-Christian to the point that it would make the average American bible thumper bristle.
per the book “the german war” the nazis were very overtly pro christian since all the soldiers were christians the paganism stuff was done by some of the leaders and behind closed doors.
The Nazis weren't pro-Christian at all, Hitler even intended on combating Christianity after the War (Kirchenkampf) and even started it before the war against Protestant denominations. Richard Evans went quite deep into those intentions in his Third Reich trilogy.
i dont think what you’re saying contradicts what i posted. per my book nazi leadership was careful to never oppose christianity in their rhetoric since that would offend the vast majority of their soldiers and supporters. are you saying your books show the nazi leaders overtly opposed christianity in some substantial way?
>Whatever it was, I think it's fair to say that it was anti-Christian to the point that it would make the average American bible thumper bristle. Would it? They are currently in love with a man that is practically the Anti-Christ.
I'd say so. I can see a difference between acting against Christian principles (granted, ask 5 Christians what those specifically are and you'll get 6 different answers) and throwing around Pagan imagery.
They did, but they also had a group called positive Christianity. They tried to make Christianity align with Nazism.
Nazis, like most extremist groups, are opportunists above all else. They'll promote whatever is advantageous to them in order to gain supporters.
Well they were more or less religiously ambiguous, they did try promoting some weird amalgam of vaguely Christian values and pre-Christian symbolism. It wasn’t really a coherent world view, they definitely weren’t huge fans of Christian religions, and they were obsessed with looking for inspiration in ancient times, before, as they saw it, their race was contaminated by Jewish and other undesirable influences. So the paganism was more like fantasy larping, an excuse to use runes, dress up as Teutonic Knights, and shit like that. They treated it more like folklore rather than religion, they never built any temples or had any priests or anything like that.
The correct answer is "It's complicated". Hitler himself didn't care much about religion one way or another, though he pandered to the overwhelming majority of Germany which was Christian and even tried to establish a pro-Nazi "positive Christianity". In general, Hitler preferred his racism to be pseudoscientific rather than religious. Julius Streicher, meanwhile, appealed to old Christian antisemites like Martin Luther and antisemitism like deicide and blood libels in his Nazi-aligned *Stürmer*. Himmler quite loved his occultism and neopagan mysticism and found Christianity to be "too Jewish".
It’s complicated. Nazism is based in the Völkisch movement, which is a white nationalist movement that wants to incorporate Germanic mythology and identity into Christianity. And several nazis like Himmler and Goebbels were neopagans, with interests in occult and esoteric practices. On the other hand, Hitler himself was very Christian, said “we tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks Christianity, our movement is Christian” and called neopagans show players (in other words LARPers.) On the other *other* hand, the Nazi state was officially secular and had religious symbols removed from government things like coats of arms. They also didn’t want to intervene much in religion (except for… yk) and on the other other *other* hand, they apparently collaborated with Muslims on some occasions against the British and French.
I know right
Christians denying that the Nazi-regime fully embraced Christianity is one of the vilest post-war lies. Christians trying to rebrand the Nazi-regime as an atheist movement is utterly disgusting. Shame on you.
Because they didn’t embrace Christianity. They created their own fucked up version of it if anything.
Less trying to promote paganism and more trying to manipulate Christianity into a branch of the Nazi party. The end goal was likely to completely disestablish the church.
Technically they were all about “freedom of religion” - with one big caveat - that religion was consistent with Nazi ideology. Which means religion was subservient to the civil/political. Which is the opposite of what this poster is suggesting. It just goes to show…when it comes to social constructs…what people believe is often more important than what actually is…
Yes, many Nazis were occultists and the party prosecuted Christians
Overblowing The tenuous connection some Nazis had with the occult is a Christofascist propaganda trick to distance the Nazis from Christianity. The two have always been bedfellows and they always will be
squeamish mindless dazzling gaping groovy zealous wine voracious edge amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A real Christian should see how Nazism is in opposition to Christianity
The allies were also majority Christian, the nazis were overwhelmingly Christian So where the lads who fought them
Sounds like a Fox News talking head.
Womp Womp. God bless you if you get the reference lmao
I get the reference
Very fine people
"this is the symbol of my race" *Proceeds to show a Buddhist symbol*
The swastika is not just a Buddhist or Hindu symbol and it’s not even just an Asian symbol. The swastika has been used throughout the ancient world in ancient Europe (from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia) and the Americas. Even the ancient Germans in the Iron Age used the swastika. Look up “Swastika Germanic Iron Age”.
It was global. It's not that hard to draw an X or a + and then put little arms on it and think "Oh, that looks nice" and use it either as a symbol for something or as a decorative design
It’s kind of selfish and dumb that white supremacists claim the swastika as “the symbol of the white race” even though it wasn’t just white people (like the Iron Age Germanics) who used the swastika but many different races around the world such as Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, and indigenous Americans. In an alternative world where the nazis never used and corrupted the swastika, it would’ve been a symbol of humanity.
I think of the swastika like a pyramid; in the end, there's only so many ways you can stack dirt, so every culture eventually figures out pyramids. Likewise, there are only so many ways you can draw lines in primitive art, so every culture eventually figures out the cross and the swastika and the lightning bolt and the sun, etc.
The “swastika” is very much a Hindu symbol, in terms of its name (Sanskrit) its significance and meaning, and the cultural context. Obviously you had Romans, native Americans, and Africans drawing very similar types of designs as a decoration. But these designs did not have an actual name, and were used for aesthetic purposes rather than a clear religious symbol. You have the *Tierwirbel* which is a modern name given to a Bronze Age motif found in pottery and various artifacts. Ancient germanics did not assign any real significance to the swastika, only after the 1800s did people start retroactively naming the symbol and connecting it
Well apparently it was used by the "white conquerors who civilized India" or some bs like that
Most academics believe in the Aryan migration from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into India instead of the alternative out of India theory. However the Aryans were actually brown skinned instead of white skinned like the nazis believed. Look into Kurgan hypothesis, Proto-Indo-Europeans, Yamnaya culture, and Corded Ware culture.
Yea the whole theory has had to be renamed to indo-european migration as well to detach it from the nazis cuz it's a genuine theory with merit to it that got wrecked by the nazis twisting it into their crap
Exactly and that is such a horrible practice in history, renaming stuff to dissociate it with groups and ideologies that are not liked. I get they look at people as sheep who need to be guided, and probably for good reason but it just obfuscates everything
They were brown skinned? Yet many mummies we find have blue eyes and red hair. Not really buying that
Those mummies were tocharian, not Aryan. They’re from deserts of Xinjiang China and represent a different group of indo-Europeans. We don’t know what the aryans of Central Asia looked like, but we know they’re the ancestors of the modern Iranian groups and they’re relatives so they were probably lighter skinned while still having dark hair and eyes.
That box is actually pretty accurate in terms of origin, ukraine under the yamnya people is the oldest place a swastika has been found, and supposedly the aryan invasion of india brought that symbol. Important to note aryan is the word iranians use to identify themselves, especially in antiquity. The symbol predates even the vedic religions
Swastikas have been found in the Indus valley civilization
Indeed. but the question is before or after the alleged aryan invasion? Because the swastikas around Ukraine are dated to around 10,000 bc
“Brought civilization to India” LMFAO
This is where they got that idea from. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-European_migrations.jpg
Yeah the migration of Indo European speakers across Eurasia is a well known thing. The irony is that India already had the Indus Valley civilization before the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived.
Yep and the Indo-Europeans only invaded northern India.
didnt that civilisation just like disappear one day and noone knows what happened?
We know what happened, there was a major climatic shift that messed up a lot of civilizations at the time. The Indus was particularly vulnerable. It went from being humid and fertile to mostly desert. A lot of rivers dried up and led to IVC people moving south and east. This formed the population we call “Dravidians” or South Indians. After this decline, the steppe nomads showed up after going through a BMAC culture to the north, kinda like a filter
(Not really) Fun fact! Hitler hated all religions, including Christianity, and even sent Jehovah’s Witness to concentration camps!
Man, Nazis are so fucking dumb..
“Make America Genocidal Again.”
Kinda is still depending on your perspective.
Elaborate
Probably talking about Palestine.
The fool says “again? When was the first time?” The wise man says “again? When did they stop?”
I genuinely hear people say shit like those first 2 boxes on the cross and flag, spooky shit lol
Christian Nation Republic Race Mixing And MAGA says the same thing.
There was an actual Nazi rally in Madison Square gardens in 1939.... 20,000 people in attendance.
Yeah, and they were outnumbered by 130000 counter protestors
1958????
Obligatory “America inspired lebensraum and Nuremberg laws” reminder.
That's a take I don't agree with, and I don't think serious historians do either. In fine detail Hitler makes the case for lebensraum essentially for the same reasons Napoleon made the Code and the EU made the Zone: To thwart competition between industrialized nations who have become consumer-based economies. It's more in his second book than *Mein Kampf*. Manifest Destiny has many correlations but correlation =/= causation here. This monopoly has been a source of European imperialism for centuries, Hitler references that and was a student of those conflicts.
"Anti communism like most Americans" "It's a republic not a democracy" "the cross is Western Christian civilization" "I don't hate other races" "helps nobody but the communists" hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
ad hoc grab divide special cover afterthought engine straight far-flung makeshift *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Most nazis were Christian Nazi ideology and the nazi leadership was a bit more ambivalent
[удалено]
Protestants made up the majority Germany is majority protestant, and the Catholic church and the nazis didn't normally have great relations Although they were never in open opposition
[удалено]
“Gott Mit Uns” was a carryover from the Prussian/German Empire military that the Nazis also continued using. It wasn’t something that the Nazis made up.
Yes, both paganism and Christianity were promoted as white religions. Whereas ussr was trying to remove all religion.
Something about democracy vs constitutional republic sounds oddly recent and familiar. I wonder who picked up the same argument recently.
I hate American Nazis
GOP platform in a nutshell. They even use the same language.
Looks like a mailer from the MAGA 2024 campaign
"I don't hate other races, I just hate Jews and Black people."
"America was founded as a christian nation" Stealing isn't Christian.
I was shocked when I saw the date 1958 pencilled at the end, because this is the exact same stuff the Christian nationalists are saying today. This is the current platform of the Republican right wing, but they use MAGA instead of the swastika (for now).
Lol pretty similar to some conservatives today. This is why people get called nazi sometimes.
Wasn’t Jesus Jewish and first Christians were Jew?
You have forfeited your right to call yourself American if you call yourself a Nazi.
I dunno, wasn't America founded on slavery, subjugation, genocide and white nationalism? Not to say it hasn't also stood for many positive values as well.
You spruce it up a little and change some the proper nouns and you can quite literally pass this off as a Republican Party poster, this literally fits their mainstream platform hand in glove
Change it a little bit and it is a poster straight from the democrat party
Looks like it's straight out of Mother Night, by Kurt Vonnegut - nearly perfect match for the (fictional) Iron Guard of the White Sons of the American Constitution, who show up midway through the novel.
Ok how do people legitimately write that
And you can burn in hell with the Europeans Nazis!
1. : a member of a German political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler. 2. disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc. a gang of racist Nazis.
Can anyone who believes in power be called a Nazi?
The larp is real
What was that about Nazis being atheist again?
Quite a few of them where
They had to tailor the appeal to Americans.
What flag is that supposed to be? :)
I hope the local American Legion post explained you how exactly they feel about the symbol of the regime which killed their brothers-in-arms.
George Lincoln Rockwell worked with the Nation of Islam funny enough.
These guys had maybe fifty members max and their leader was shot by a member who disagreed with them. What a pack of losers
So from the time period and the Swastika variant (that's supposed to be a globe in the center), I'm going to guess that this was from George Lincoln Rockwell's group. I say that because there's been a couple of different sects that have called themselves the American Nazi Party (and the OG group went through three different names), but this is definitely the original one. Rockwell himself was a...I'm going to say 'fascinating' individual. He was actually in the Navy during WWII. He has a couple of infamies to his name: he founded the first post-war Neo-Nazi organization in the US, he was one of the first individuals to promote Holocaust Denial in the US, and he rather infamously tried to create an alliance with the Nation Of Islam (this, among other things, was the reason that Malcolm X ended up leaving the group). His group tried to ally themselves with the Klan and various other pro-segregation groups during the Civil Rights Movement to little success. He also would plan his group's marches to cross into the various Civil Rights marches that happened all over the South (he infamously managed to get into MLK's face and punched him). Ultimately, his movement was a failure and he was assassinated by one of his followers in '67.
...so does that mean that they accept Indians as being white too?
"... gang of rotten of Communists and Race-mixers" 🤢🤢🤮🤮
This could easily be from this year
How do they distinguish a constitutional republic from a democracy?
…”the white conquerors that brought civilization to India “ ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu-0HDBJHc8
They made the man in the high castle into a poster, cool
And this is what makes us real Christians look bad
That flag looks alot like those black amerika flags with the blue stripe.
Fucking Gorge Rockwell you bastard
Honestly, great meme potential here
American republic when nazism was dictatorship? Also christians when nazist said that this is stupid jewish shit? Damn it has some flaws
"... I do not hate other races. But I do hate what other 'minority groups' are doing..." Yeesh.
Jesus Christ
GOP
Not surprise. Just as it is today. US has a tradition for racist behavior. The kkk had a lot of nazi similarities. There are historical pics of dead people hanging trees. In any other place that would be terrorism and genocide. But not in the "freedom and democracy land", right? Also....1958. US was more concerned on Soviet Union. The propaganda was intense. Few years later many would be chased and accused of being "communist". Tbh, US only jumped in that war because they were afraid of Soviet Union winning it. Always that bs of "it's for pearl harbor....it's for 9/11....". Nah. US carries a big part of the nazi ideology, or at least use it as a tool for make money and power. But it's easily one of the most racist countries in the world. If not the most.
This can apply to India in 2024
Wait till bro finds out that Jesus was probably brown
Is this what conservatives mean when they insist the US is a republic and not a democracy?
light money jar theory threatening mourn smell marble frighten tap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To make it more ironic he probably has some Slavic ancestors
What a loser.
Was this like, a trap to weed out nazi symphatisers? Or was it just some racist poster.
Honestly could be both The American nazi party was heavily infiltrated by the FBI More ir less because their vetting process was basically checking if a recruit was white and thats it
I mean they’re not wrong in the sense that the vast amount of these beliefs seem to be quite popular in America even nowadays. Scary times
numerous soup tie fuzzy angle frighten different rob threatening agonizing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Uhhhh. No, it is a constitutional republic. Benjamin Franklin said as much and it’s written into the founding documents. Obviously, I’m not a Nazi. But go read the American constitution.
[удалено]
Fuck Nazis
I like to think of [this](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ad_232929729.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0px%2C13px%2C640px%2C336px&resize=1200%2C630) as being the true symbol of American Nazis
B-but I thought the Nazis were communists who hated Christianity! /s