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.
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 "