just a quick gpt comparison for people wondering
The fundamental differences between Firefox and Waterfox are as follows:
- Philosophy & Development
Firefox is developed by Mozilla and follows a mainstream development cycle with frequent updates, strong security policies, and telemetry (data collection).
Waterfox is a fork of Firefox designed for privacy-conscious users, removing telemetry and data collection while maintaining compatibility with legacy Firefox features.
- Privacy & Telemetry
Firefox collects telemetry by default, though users can disable it.
Waterfox removes Mozilla’s telemetry entirely and disables other tracking features by default.
- Extension Support
Firefox only supports modern WebExtensions, dropping support for older XUL/XPCOM extensions since Firefox Quantum (version 57).
Waterfox retains support for legacy extensions, making it a preferred choice for users who rely on older add-ons.
- Update Frequency
Firefox follows a rapid release schedule, often updating every 4-6 weeks.
Waterfox updates more slowly, incorporating Firefox’s latest security patches but lagging behind in feature adoption.
- Performance & Resource Usage
Firefox is optimized for modern hardware and multi-core processing, often outperforming forks in speed and efficiency.
Waterfox may use more memory due to its legacy support but offers some performance tweaks.
- Default Services & Features
Firefox integrates with Mozilla services like Pocket, Sync, and its VPN.
Waterfox removes these integrations to minimize data-sharing concerns.
In summary, Firefox is better for users who want the latest security, performance, and mainstream web compatibility, while Waterfox is ideal for those prioritizing privacy and legacy extension support.
chatgpt generated
Your confusion is warranted, but the shift toward overt Nazi symbolism among certain far-right elements in the U.S. is not as irrational as it might seem at first glance. It’s a combination of factors: ideological radicalization, the Overton window shifting, strategic provocation, and a loss of the pretense that once kept extremists in check.
As you pointed out, American white supremacy and fascism have always been intertwined. The U.S. had its own Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s (the German American Bund, America First Committee, Charles Lindbergh’s isolationist faction), and after WWII, many of those ideologies just went underground rather than disappearing. The Republican Party’s rightward shift over the past few decades—accelerated by Trumpism—has created an environment where dog whistles have become bullhorns.
Online radicalization has turned the “ironic Nazi” into the genuine article. Far-right spaces like 4chan, Telegram, and Gab have served as breeding grounds where Nazi imagery was initially used as an edgy provocation but ultimately shaped actual ideological beliefs. This was already happening in the early 2010s, but the rise of Trump and subsequent crackdown on these spaces caused a shift: instead of hiding behind irony, they started openly embracing the imagery.
Many of these groups are deeply influenced by accelerationism—the belief that by making things as extreme and chaotic as possible, they can hasten the collapse of the current system and usher in their fascist ideal. Openly flaunting Nazi symbols is a way to force polarization. Either people reject them, pushing society into a harder crackdown (which they think will fuel more radicalization), or their symbols become normalized. Either way, they win.
Groups like the Heritage Foundation aren’t necessarily full of true believers, but they recognize that the white nationalist bloc is a useful tool. They might not openly say “Yes, let’s be Nazis,” but they won’t condemn it either because they see the political utility in stirring up cultural and racial grievance. The Proud Boys, on the other hand, have increasingly absorbed genuine fascists who have no problem crossing that line.
Trump has emboldened extremists to the point where they don’t feel the need to hide. His rhetoric gives them cover, even when he doesn’t directly endorse them. At the same time, foreign influence—whether from Russia, China, or other actors—could certainly be amplifying these elements. Destabilizing the U.S. by fostering internal division is classic asymmetric warfare.
Why Did They Think This Would Work?
They didn’t expect it to be embraced universally. They’re banking on two things: (1) the media and political establishment being too weak to properly respond, and (2) enough people either looking the other way or outright accepting it that they can normalize it.
What they didn’t anticipate was just how much backlash it would generate, even among right-wing circles. That suggests they either miscalculated public sentiment or, more likely, that the more extreme factions are losing control of their messaging discipline. Either way, it’s dangerous.
This isn’t a sudden emergence—it’s an inevitable consequence of where things were headed. The only question is whether this backlash is enough to force them back underground, or if it’s just another step toward further radicalization.