Elon Musk’s Salute-Defenders Call for Context
So, here's context for you. Let's look at how white supremacy is responsible for this oligarchy of madness.
I kept seeing arguments that Elon Musk is autistic and therefore should be given the benefit of the doubt with his Sieg Heil.
So, as an autist, I posted this:
Most replies were in agreement, but there were several defenders arguing I missed the context. Musk was sending his heart out to the crowd while saying,
“My heart is with you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.”
Let’s say we give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say, in that moment, Musk really was just expressing solidarity and appreciation.
But the context of what was said—and the gesture itself—goes far deeper than one moment. The rhetoric of preserving civilization, particularly when framed by figures like Musk or Trump, does not exist in a vacuum. Historically, this language has often served as a dog whistle for exclusionary policies, reinforcing racial and social hierarchies under the guise of protecting cultural or societal norms.
From the Southern Strategy to modern campaigns against immigration and affirmative action, such rhetoric has consistently been wielded to maintain systemic inequality while avoiding explicit appeals to racism. It has decades of history as a coded appeal to white supremacy, nationalism, and exclusionary ideologies.
Even if Musk didn’t intend to evoke such ideas, he operates in a political and cultural landscape shaped by them.
To understand how we arrived here, we need to examine the deliberate, decades-long strategy to maintain white supremacy in the United States.
History of Dog Whistles in Politics: López, I. H. (2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press.
1. George Wallace and the Segregationists
George Wallace, the infamous governor of Alabama, is a key figure in the post-Civil Rights Movement shift toward coded racism in American politics. His 1963 proclamation, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” defined his resistance to racial integration.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, overt appeals to segregation became politically unpalatable. Wallace and others pivoted to subtler language about "states’ rights" and "law and order," cloaking their white supremacist agenda in terms that resonated with white voters without explicitly mentioning race. This rhetoric became the foundation for what would later be formalized as the "Southern Strategy."
Sources
Southern Strategy and States’ Rights: Phillips, K. (1969). The Emerging Republican Majority. Princeton University Press.
PBS
Learn about the Southern Strategy here.
2. Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, and the Rise of the Religious Right
In the 1970s, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich mobilized the Religious Right, building a coalition of conservative Christians. Ostensibly focused on "family values," their movement gained traction by opposing desegregation efforts, particularly in private schools known as segregation academies. Jerry Falwell himself owned a segregation academy and was a staunch segregationist, using his platform to defend these schools as a moral imperative. He was responsible for working with the CIA to distribute pamphlets promoting propaganda against Martin Luther King Jr.
“The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race… [Integration] will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”
Weyrich, meanwhile, co-founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973, creating an institutional backbone for the Religious Right’s political agenda. While Falwell used his televangelism platform to influence Christians politically, Weyrich established the Heritage Foundation to shape policy in tandem.
Together, Falwell and Weyrich founded the Moral Majority, aiming to influence Christian voters to support policies that maintained segregation and upheld systemic inequality. For example, the Moral Majority lobbied against busing initiatives designed to integrate schools, supported tax exemptions for segregation academies, and campaigned for "law and order" policies that disproportionately harmed communities of color.
These efforts were framed as defending traditional family values, but their underlying goal was to protect white-dominated social and economic structures. This movement blurred the lines between religious conviction and white nationalism, offering a theological justification for resistance to racial integration and women’s autonomy.
Weyrich’s influence endures today through the Heritage Foundation, which authored the controversial Project 2025 plan.
Sources
Religious Right’s Role in Segregation: Balmer, R. (2006). Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America. Basic Books.
Politico
Mobilizing the Moral Majority: Paul Weyrich and the Creation of a Conservative Coalition, 1968-1988
3. The Southern Strategy
The Southern Strategy, a deliberate Republican Party effort beginning in the late 1960s, sought to realign white Southern voters by appealing to their racial anxieties. Figures like Richard Nixon and strategist Kevin Phillips advocated for "law and order" and "tough on crime" policies that disproportionately targeted Black Americans, all while using racially coded language to avoid overt racism.
This strategy redefined political campaigns, embedding dog whistles into mainstream discourse. Nixon’s campaign advisor, H.R. Haldeman, famously summarized this approach: “You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”
Read more about the Southern Strategy and its implementation during this era.
4. The Heritage Foundation and the Institutionalization of White Supremacy
Founded in 1973, the Heritage Foundation became a powerful think tank that helped shape Republican policies on immigration, welfare, and affirmative action. Its agenda aligned with the Southern Strategy, emphasizing “traditional values” while promoting policies that perpetuated systemic inequality. The Heritage Foundation’s role in shaping anti-immigrant policies, cutting social programs, and resisting affirmative action continues to reflect the same exclusionary goals championed by earlier segregationists.
Paul Weyrich’s vision for the Heritage Foundation was to create a lasting institution that could influence policy at the highest levels, operating in tandem with the Religious Right’s efforts to mobilize voters. Today, this vision persists in initiatives like Project 2025, which seeks to codify the exclusionary ideologies Weyrich championed into future policy frameworks.
Speaking of Paul Weyrich, I’d be remiss not to compare these two moments. The first was in 1980:
The second was during Trump’s 2025 inauguration:
5. The Pro-Life Movement
The modern pro-life movement, often framed as a moral crusade to protect unborn life, has its roots in white supremacy. As historian Randall Balmer has noted, the movement gained momentum not as a reaction to Roe v. Wade (1973) but as a tool to mobilize evangelical voters around racial issues, particularly the defense of segregated schools.
During the 1970s, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich initially struggled to gain widespread support for their pro-segregationist agenda as public attitudes shifted in favor of civil rights. Realizing the need for a broader coalition, they aligned themselves with the anti-ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement led by Phyllis Schlafly. Before this alliance, opposition to abortion was primarily a Catholic issue. However, the anti-ERA rhetoric began to link women’s autonomy to the perceived decline of traditional family values, creating a more critical view of abortion among evangelicals.
Paul Weyrich strategically used the Heritage Foundation to craft campaigns portraying abortion as the murder of innocent babies, framing it as a civilizational crisis.
Around the same time, Jerry Falwell declared that life begins at conception, tying evangelical identity to pro-life advocacy. This marked the moment when they successfully mobilized a voting bloc of evangelical Christians to support policies that covertly maintained segregation and white male power under the guise of protecting life and family values.
By linking abortion to the survival of "civilization" and the sanctity of family, the pro-life movement reinforced a racialized narrative about declining white birth rates and the preservation of a white-majority America.
6. Ronald Reagan and the Expansion of White Supremacist Policy
Ronald Reagan’s presidency solidified many of these ideological threads. . His 1980 campaign famously began in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers. Reagan’s invocation of “states’ rights” in this speech was widely interpreted as an appeal to Southern white voters still resentful of federal desegregation efforts.
Reagan’s stance on abortion shifted dramatically during this period. Previously pro-choice, he recognized the political opportunity in adopting a pro-life position to win over Catholic and evangelical voters. The Heritage Foundation worked closely with Reagan to secure his election, crafting messaging and policies that aligned with this new stance. These policies covertly maintained segregation and systemic inequality. Source: PBS
For instance, “tough on crime” legislation disproportionately targeted Black communities, leading to higher incarceration rates and the erosion of civil rights. Welfare cuts deepened economic disparities by reducing access to critical resources for marginalized populations, further entrenching poverty. Meanwhile, tax policies benefited white suburban voters by prioritizing deductions and credits that favored affluent homeowners, often at the expense of urban areas and communities of color. Source: Brookings
Reagan also advanced initiatives like the "War on Drugs," which exacerbated mass incarceration and disproportionately impacted Black Americans. His administration’s rhetoric about "welfare queens" and "urban crime" further entrenched the racialized narratives that underpinned the Southern Strategy, all while creating a broader coalition of evangelical and conservative voters under the guise of protecting family values.
Read a Mandate for Leadership: Then and Now
Examine Reagan's political strategies and their implications
The Throughline to Elon Musk and Donald Trump
In light of this history, it’s impossible to separate Musk’s statement about "the future of civilization" from the context in which he operates. The phrase evokes the same racialized fears and exclusionary ideologies that have driven American politics for decades.
Musk himself has faced criticism for promoting ideas rooted in eugenics and white supremacy. His push for high birth rates among “intelligent” individuals and his remarks about population decline echo long-standing white nationalist concerns about declining white birth rates.
Similarly, Trump’s ties to the Heritage Foundation and its authors of Project 2025 further connect him to this legacy. Key figures such as Ken Cuccinelli and Russ Vought, both significant contributors to Project 2025, held influential roles in Trump’s administration, shaping immigration and budget policies.
The Heritage Foundation’s input was evident in policies like the "public charge rule" that targeted non-white immigrants and efforts to dismantle affirmative action. These collaborations highlight how Project 2025’s authors actively worked to implement exclusionary and regressive policies during Trump’s tenure. Many of the architects of Project 2025 have been appointed to his cabinet or held influential positions within his administration, demonstrating the ongoing partnership between the Heritage Foundation and Trump’s policies.
This collaboration shaped key policies that covertly perpetuated systemic inequality, such as stricter immigration laws targeting non-white immigrants, the dismantling of affirmative action, and tax reforms benefiting the wealthy while harming marginalized communities.
Trump’s rhetoric, policies, and associations have consistently reinforced a white supremacist agenda, from his “very fine people on both sides” comment to his immigration bans targeting predominantly Muslim countries.
The Bottom Line
So yes, it’s entirely possible that, in that moment, Musk didn’t mean to evoke a Nazi salute or align himself with white supremacist rhetoric. But decades of history make it clear that these ideas—about preserving civilization, ensuring the future, and promoting exclusionary values—are deeply intertwined with white supremacy.
These words and gestures don’t exist in a vacuum. They are the result of deliberate strategies to maintain racial and social hierarchies, strategies that continue to shape our political and cultural landscape today.
As we critique these moments, we must also recognize the systems and histories that make them possible—and hold those in power accountable for perpetuating them.
I appreciate your deep dive into this political history. Thank you.
Megan, I find your post, VERY Educational AND Interesting.
You have backed up your opinion with some very convincing arguments!
The bottom line for me is that it is ESSENTIAL to maintain a sense of Curiosity and Humility when trying to “interpret” what I observe in any situation from afar.
Unless I actually “KNOW” someone personally, I try to remind myself that, typically, there are parts of the story to which I am ignorant.
Things aren’t always necessarily what they appear to be. I’ve learned this through personal experience. 😊