The “we’re gonna go back” platform is doing exactly what could be expected and will kill millions. One estimate in South Africa alone is 500K dead from a disease that was trending towards being eradicated.

Projects funded by the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar), founded by George W Bush in 2003, appear to be particularly affected. In South Africa it funds 17% of the HIV response; in other countries the figure is much higher.

Prof Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre at the University of Cape Town, said: “It is not hyperbole to say that I predict a huge disaster.”

Bekker has worked on modelling suggesting a complete loss of Pepfar funding in South Africa would lead to more than 500,000 extra HIV deaths over a decade.

It comes at a time when scientific breakthroughs, such as the introduction of long-acting injectable prevention drugs, meant many working in the HIV field had hoped an end to the disease might be in sight.

Now, said Bekker, it was likely things would go backwards.

Going backwards, full retreat, with people dying unnecessarily from preventable causes is the definition of MAGA.

Throughout history, a particularly effective rhetorical weapon has been used to attack critics: falsely pathologizing dissent.

Framing criticism as a form of mental illness or irrational obsession, is how powerful figures and their supporters dismiss opposing viewpoints without ever engaging with their substance.

The contemporary use of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) to dismiss criticism of Donald Trump is the latest abuse in the historical tradition.

Attack of Pathologizing Dissent

When criticism is labeled as a form of mental instability, several things happen simultaneously:

1. Red Herring – focus shifts from the content of the critique to the supposed psychological state of the critic
2. False Binary – those who “see clearly” versus those who are “deranged”
3. Ad Hominem personal attack – how can one reason with someone who is, by definition, irrational?

This rhetorical triad attack has proven remarkably effective across languages, cultures, political systems, and historical periods.

Let’s examine some key examples, their precedent and parallels to contemporary discourse.

Soviet Union: Punitive Psychiatry

Perhaps the most direct historical parallel comes from the Soviet Union, where psychiatry became weaponized against political dissidents. Critics of the regime were diagnosed with:

• “Sluggish schizophrenia” – a fabricated mental illness characterized by the “symptoms” of questioning Soviet authority or desiring reform
• “Reformist delusions” – the supposedly irrational belief that the Soviet system needed improvement
• “Political paranoia” – the “delusion” that the Soviet government might be oppressive

Soviet citizens who criticized policies or leadership found themselves not in political debates but in psychiatric hospitals, where their “illness” of dissent could be “treated.” The diagnosis itself was circular: the very act of criticizing the system was considered evidence of mental illness.

Nazi Germany: “Negativism”

The Nazi regime similarly pathologized opposition by diagnosing critics with “negativism” – a supposed condition where individuals irrationally opposed the positive transformation of Germany under Hitler. Those expressing concerns about Nazi policies weren’t treated as having legitimate political viewpoints but rather as suffering from psychological dysfunction that prevented them from seeing Hitler’s “greatness.”

Mao’s China: “Rightist Thinking Disease”

During China’s Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong’s government labeled critics as suffering from “rightist thinking disease.” This “condition” required intensive “thought reform” rather than rational engagement with the critiques being raised. The diagnosis served to isolate critics and frame their concerns as personal psychological failings rather than legitimate political positions.

Pol Pot’s Cambodia: “Memory Sickness”

The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia diagnosed those who expressed nostalgia for pre-revolutionary life or questioned current conditions with “memory sickness.” This wasn’t seen as rational comparison but as an ideological disease requiring reeducation. Similarly, intellectuals and critics were dehumanized as “microbes” infecting the revolutionary body, requiring elimination rather than engagement.

Ceaușescu’s Romania: “Hostile Attitude Syndrome”

In Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu, critics were diagnosed with “hostile attitude syndrome,” a supposed condition that made them irrationally opposed to the Romanian leader’s policies. This diagnosis allowed the regime to medicalize political opposition and treat it as a form of mental illness rather than legitimate dissent.

American McCarthyism: “Comsymp” Label

During the McCarthy era in the United States, critics of anti-communist efforts were labeled “Communist sympathizers” or “comsymps.” While not explicitly framed as a mental disorder, this label functioned similarly by suggesting critics were irrationally sympathetic to communism rather than making legitimate critiques of McCarthy’s methods and excesses.

American Iraq War: “Anti-American Sentiment Disorder”

More recently, during debates over the 2003 Iraq War, some proponents of the war characterized critics as suffering from “Anti-American Sentiment Disorder” – implying their criticisms stemmed from psychological issues rather than reasoned analysis of the war’s justification and execution.

American “Trump Derangement Syndrome”

Against this historical backdrop, the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” emerges as the latest iteration of a long-established tactic. Originally coined as “Bush Derangement Syndrome” by psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer to describe critics of President George W. Bush, the term was repurposed and gained widespread usage during the Trump presidency.

It is typically defined as an irrational hatred of Donald Trump that impairs the sufferer’s judgment and leads them to criticize everything associated with him, regardless of merit. This framing does three things:

1. Preemptively discredits criticism – Any critique, no matter how factual or reasoned, can be dismissed as a symptom of “derangement”
2. Creates a circular logic – The more evidence one presents to support criticism, the more “obsessed” and therefore “deranged” one appears
3. Shifts discussion from policy to psychology – Rather than debating the merits of policies or actions, the discussion becomes about the critic’s mental state

Information Warfare Angle

Pathologizing dissent is studied in information warfare doctrine because it represents a sophisticated tactic of authoritarian threats:

• Creates epistemic closure – When legitimate criticism can be dismissed as derangement, a closed information environment forms where contrary evidence never penetrates
• Reinforces in-group/out-group dynamics – Those who accept the framing see themselves as rational and clear-thinking, while critics are dismissed as irrational and unworthy of engagement
• Inoculates against criticism – Supporters are provided with a ready-made explanation that requires no further consideration of the criticism’s substance

Breaking the Pattern

Understanding this historical pattern is crucial for meaningful democratic discourse. When we recognize “derangement syndrome” accusations for what they are – the latest iteration of a longstanding tactic to pathologize dissent – we can move beyond them to engage with the substance of political disagreements.

Legitimate criticism should be met with counterarguments addressing the substance, not with accusations about the critic’s mental state. History shows us that when societies accept the pathologizing of dissent as normal, the result is not better discourse but rather the silencing of necessary criticism and the reinforcement of unchecked power.

The next time “derangement syndrome” is mentioned, recognize the warfare context of history. Ask whether the accusation addresses the substance of the criticism or merely attempts to delegitimize, and dehumanize, the critic. In a healthy democracy, we need robust debate focused on issues, not ad hominem attacks disguised as psychological diagnosis.

From Stalin’s “sluggish schizophrenia” to “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the tactic of pathologizing dissent has remained remarkably consistent across time and political contexts. By recognizing this pattern, we can resist its divisive effects and recommit to substantive political dialogue where ideas are engaged on their merits rather than dismissed through psychological labeling. The health of our democracy depends on our ability to critique power without being fraudulently labeled as ill for doing so.

Persistent Pattern of Nazi Non-Denials

Elon Musk’s latest appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast yet again reveals the continuation of a troubling pattern – persistent refusal to directly deny making a Nazi salute. In case you’ve been under a rock, here’s the Nazi salute in video:

And here is the same as an image:

A new Rogan episode revisits this Hitler salute and engages in the same rhetorical strategies of deflection, wordplay, and reframing that characterized Musk’s earlier responses.

Let’s examine the very exact words used in the February 28 Joe Rogan Experience podcast:

• “I did not see it coming,” the tech billionaire said, putting “not” and “see” together to sound like “Nazi,” of the reaction to the move he made, which was likened to a Nazi salute.
• “People will Goebbels anything down,” referring to German Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
• “It was obviously meant in the most positive spirit possible. Hopefully people will realize I’m not a Nazi.”
• “What is bad about Nazis, it wasn’t their fashion sense or their mannerisms, it was the war and genocide is the bad part. Not the mannerisms and their dress code.”

Security Analysis of Rhetoric

These statements follow the same playbook we identified previously on this blog for national security professionals:

1. Wordplay instead of denial – Rather than a simple “I did not make a Nazi salute,” he creates a pun (“not see” sounding like “Nazi”). This allows him to acknowledge the controversy without addressing the substance.
2. References to Nazi figures – His “Goebbels anything down” comment deliberately invokes Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, continuing the pattern of Nazi references found in his earlier “jokes” about Nazi leaders.
3. Minimizing Nazi symbolism – Most troublingly, he explicitly argues that Nazi “mannerisms” (like salutes) aren’t inherently problematic – only their “war and genocide” were bad. This dangerous logic separates Nazi symbols from Nazi ideology, effectively normalizing the former.
4. Framing himself as misunderstood – His claim that the gesture was “meant in the most positive spirit possible” attempts to reframe criticism as a misunderstanding of his intentions rather than addressing the gesture itself.

The Telling Pattern

The progression remains consistent with the tactics of Nazism that we’ve observed before:

1. Make a controversial gesture resembling a Nazi salute
2. Refuse to directly deny it
3. Use wordplay and “jokes” referencing Nazi figures
4. Attack critics or frame them as misunderstanding his intentions
5. Minimize the significance of Nazi symbolism

Most importantly, at no point does he simply state: “I did not make a Nazi salute.” That’s it. He hasn’t done it.

This consistent refusal to deny speaks volumes.

Why This Matters

As we noted previously, this pattern of behavior is how extremism becomes normalized – not outright endorsement, but through strategic non-denials and the separation of symbols from their history. Someone saying a racist phrase, then going on podcasts to say they aren’t a racist, is a tactical method of saying racist phrases without being held accountable.

When someone with Musk’s vast influence and platform continues this pattern, he is using his bully pulpit to clear the space for even more extremist rhetoric to move from the margins into mainstream discourse. It’s a land and expand plan for Nazism to take over American political discourse.

His latest statements don’t represent a break from his earlier behavior – they represent its continuation and escalation. The progression from non-denial to wordplay to minimization of Nazi symbolism follows the exact pattern we’ve warned about.

In a healthy democratic society, the appropriate response to being accused of making a Nazi salute would be a clear, unambiguous rejection of both the action and the ideology. Instead, we continue to see linguistic games, deflection, and minimization of Nazi symbols – all without a very simple denial.

This is how it happens. This is how it continues to happen.