Ehhhhhhhhhh. It’s more the picture of Charlie Kirk.
To put this in the context in which I imagine the Right would see it, they don’t believe Kirk was a Nazi, that’s a slur the Left uses. If someone had a picture of a drag Queen getting shot and had “Pedophile lives don’t matter” (common meme on the Right is the lgbtq community are pedophiles etc) on the Left, we’d probably say they want to kill us, even though (hopefully!) none of us identify as pedophiles.
No he wasnt. He was an open right wing populist. The “he was a white supremacist” comes from things he either didnt say, or from things he did say that were taken out of context. For example that thing he said about checking a black mans credentials wasnt about black men not being able to be pilots. He was having a go at left wingers who hire based around race and gender. Up to you if think he had a point on that front, but the point is, he wasnt taking about black people. He was talking about white people/companies using black people to clout chase and wash their reputations.
“There is a disturbing pattern of Blacks jumping people of all races in the urban corridors in America. That is a fact.” -Charlie Kirk
“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” -Charlie Kirk
“CRT has spread, and now it’s time for us to remove the tumor.” -Charlie Kirk
“America does not need more visas for people from India. Perhaps no form of legal immigration has so displaced American workers as those from India. Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our own people first.” -Charlie Kirk
“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” -Charlie Kirk
“You have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of young, fighting-age Muslim men in America. All it takes is for a couple of them to be activated in this country.” -Charlie Kirk
“The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.” -Charlie Kirk
“The Civil Rights Act, though, let’s be clear, created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.” -Charlie Kirk
“Thank you for your courage to call it out what it is which is an outright war on white people.” -Charlie Kirk
“[Their] goal is to destroy Western civilization, get rid of anything that the white man might have been responsible for.” -Charlie Kirk
“Why are whites taking this? Why are we just sitting idly by and allowing corporate America to give all the jobs to nonwhite people?” -Charlie Kirk
“It is true that some of the largest financiers of left-wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans.” -Charlie Kirk
“The southern border is, of course, the great replacement. They’re trying to replace us demographically. They’re trying to make the country less white. They’re trying to make the country more like the third world, the dumping ground of the planet is the United States southern border. And the secret is out - the rapists, the thugs, the murderers, fighting-age males, they’re coming from across the world, from China, from Russia, from Middle Eastern countries, and they’re coming in and they’re coming in and they’re coming in and they’re coming in … It is an anti-white agenda.” -Charlie Kirk
I expect a reply acknowledging he was, in fact, a white supremacist.
Lots to unpack here. Lets try the first one and see if it passes the sniff test:
“There is a disturbing pattern of Blacks jumping people of all races in the urban corridors in America. That is a fact.” -Charlie Kirk
Seems he was addressing Tucker Carlson here. Seems it comes from a leaked text message about a video in which Trump supports were beating an “Antifa kid”. Carlson said something along the lines of “Thats not how white men are supposed to fight” and it caused outrage. Kirk, said the above, to point out that it was an urban thing, rather than a race thing.
This took me 2 fucking seconds to find the context by the way, you people have no fucking excuses.
I wasnt defending him. I was saying hate him for who he was, not for what social media grifters tell you he was. I dont laugh at people being shot and killed. Im not a fucking ghoul. The way to defeat people like Kirk was, is and always will be with words. Not bullets. Everyone knows you dont kill the popular voice, you kill the message. If you kill the voice, you make the message immortal. And oh look, hes an inspiration now… yay…
It is insane and disengenous of you to pretend he was anything but a raging racist.
He opposes the Civil rights act, hates MLK, and pushes utter bs theories like that liberals hired unqualified people based on race/gender
The comment about black pilots was heinous. It immediately in its premise asserted that one should at all be questioning a pilots abilities based on race. It was a way to get a foot in the door for racism.
Well, if you present that you are hiring based on race, which some companies were doing. Why would not be ok to question about the merits of the hiring outside of, what is seemingly, the only thing that the people hiring care about?
This is the issue that he was talking about, and the issue that caused others to listen. He didnt make it about race, the companies looking to racewash their shitty reputations did. He only joined the conversation later for grifting purposes. How can you not see the difference?
The very premise is incorrect. I’m not going to argue with you based on a false premise.
I know of no cases where companies hired solely based on race, in fact, that wouldn’t be legal.
In reality, DEI programs were cheap courses to encourage hiring managers to not hire racistly and understand the value of diversity. They were mostly box ticking, no qoutas.
I mean* look at Google, if anything they have reverse quotas with how few minorities they hire.
He only served to poison minds like yours with faulty premises to feel discriminated against by policies that simply aimed to stop having marginalized groups unfairly turned down from positions they were qualified for.
I know of no cases where companies hired solely based on race, in fact, that wouldn’t be legal.
Google: Multiple lawsuits and internal complaints alleged that Google, under its diversity initiatives, gave preferential treatment to women and underrepresented racial groups in hiring and promotions. While Google did not publicly admit wrongdoing, leaked internal communications and testimony in related cases referenced managers being pressured to “balance” teams racially and by gender.
Harvard University Admissions (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023 Supreme Court Ruling). Although not a hiring case, this is directly relevant to institutional selection practices. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s use of race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. Evidence revealed that Harvard consciously adjusted acceptance rates to maintain racial balance, which it openly defended as part of its diversity mission.
Various Tech Start ups. Basecamp and several Silicon Valley firms were revealed to have instructed recruiters to prioritise women and minority candidates to “improve representation metrics.”. Internal memos and recruiter testimonies (That were leaked via The Verge and Insider) showed directives to only consider female applicants for some engineering roles.
BBC: The BBC faced controversy over a diversity programme that guaranteed BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) candidates certain production and internship roles. They stated explicitly that certain training and entry-level positions were “only open to BAME applicants.”. This was judged to be legal.
Women-Only Job Advertisements:
Ernst & Young (Australia, 2018): Advertised women-only internships to boost female representation. The firm confirmed that these were “deliberately restricted to women.”
UK Civil Service (2019): Some graduate schemes were briefly open only to women or minority applicants under positive action.
Facebook: A U.S. Department of Labour investigation found that Facebook discriminated against U.S. citizens by favouring temporary visa holders for certain positions. Facebook paid $14.25 million to settle the claims.
Tesla faced multiple lawsuits alleging discriminatory practices within hiring and workplace culture. Internal testimonies from HR staff and former managers suggested informal guidance to recruit “more diverse” applicants to reduce legal exposure.
RAF: In 2020, the RAF conducted a recruitment drive to increase representation of women and ethnic minorities. Defence-sources alleged that the service accelerated training places for such candidates ahead of other eligible candidates, including white men. A report found that “161 candidates, who were either women or from ethnic minority backgrounds, were accelerated into training places ahead of other candidates.” Leaked internal documents and interviews with defence sources claimed that recruitment officers were directed to prioritise female and minority ethnic applicants once the minimum standard was met, even if white male candidates had passed ahead of them.
The fact that you don’t know something, doesn’t mean anything. These 8 examples of hiring or recruiting practices based around sex or race. It is happening, whether you know or not.
And thats before you get to racists like Dani Lalonders, a game dev, who said openly: “We have no white people on our team. I did that because I wanted to create a safe environment … I know the best way for an environment to be safe is to be around people who are just like me.”. Where is your outrage for this? Because, this is clearly racist. The internet, in true culture wars fashion, hand waved it away with “You cant be racist towards white people”. And then you all scratch your heads as to how people like Charlie Kirk can find an audience…
Some of your example literally aren’t the US and the ones that are don’t support what you are alleging. None of these are hiring uneligible people based on race etc.
For your legal cases, they are basically doing exactly what I mentioned just more strongly: saying “hey stop hiring racistly”.
It really seems you are simply also racist and want companies to not address existing racism problems because your perceive removing disadvantage/removing repivelege and somehow being the real racism.
I don’t scratch my head and kirk having an audience, it’s all priveleged people angry that when the privilege is removed, they’ll be revealed as less worthy than they thought.
Those are all cases where they were balancing out for the fact that they’d been discriminating against women and minorities for decades and were trying to diversify their employee rosters.
If you have a job opening that requires X degree and Y experience and your last 17 hires were white men despite a bunch of women and minorities having the qualifications, you probably should start prioritizing those applicants you’ve spent the last few decades ignoring for one or two cycles.
I fucking hate talking to you people. Youre so fucking desperate to be right all the fucking time. Are you like, scared of being wrong? Is that what it is? If youre hiring based on race, YOU are the racist. Kirk may well have been a racist, but this was not example of it. Calling out racism, isnt racist.
lol If you dont like what Im saying, feel free to not reply. But we both know you cant do that, because you want your worthless fucking internet points from like minded culture war weirdos.
Im happy to talk with people who arent dumb as fuck, as you clearly are. Agree with me or not, I dont care. Just fuck off with culture war popular thing thats a straight up and easily defeated lie.
Fuck you peddlers of fake news/misinformation. Youre the reason the internet fucking sucks now. Hell, youre the reason cunts like Charlie Kirk had a fucking audience in the first place.
He didnt do that though, which is the point Im making. What arent you getting here? He was talking about companies using black people and women and gay people to wash their shitty reputations. You dont like they way he was doing it? Thats totally fair. But THAT is what he was doing, he wasnt saying that being black makes a person inferior.
I would take exception to the pedophile accusation too though. Libs of tik tok is a Jewish woman. You’d think she’d want to say, “Im not a nazi either.”
Hatred of jews isn’t what makes someone a Nazi. That was always more of a Christian thing in Europe. Cult infighting. It’s unfortunate that education on the rise of the third reich is so focused on the killing of the jews. Maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation today if people actually knew what a Nazi/Fascist is.
From what I’ve read about the Nazis I don’t think they were very religious. Makes sense too, if you are a fascist regime you want your leader to be the top dog, not some guy in the sky. Hitler, their fuhrer was their god.
But yeah I wouldn’t really define them by their antisemitism. The jews were just the minority they picked to demonise. I think fascism is defined by:
Creating a cult-like society where the narrative is strictly regulated and any deviation heavily punished
Setting their society apart from others (“us vs them”) and demonising minorities (in their case the jews but they were not the only ones, LGBTQ and people with mental health issues and physical disabilities too!)
Extreme nationalism, exceptionalism and glorification of country and its leader
Military imperialism (fed by the above point of nationalism, to give the soldiers a cause to fight for) and self-enrichment of its leaders
But this is how I see it, I kinda wonder now what the official definition is.
When someone says its unfortunate the killing of Jews is central to the education about the Nazis, I dont raise an eyebrow, i raise both.
Its almost like you’re trying to make the case that Jews could be Nazis without any sort of compartmentalization or cognitive dissonance. A real masterpiece of gaslighting.
There were Nazi Jews during the time of Nazi Germany, and there still are today. It’s not the weird thing you’re making it out to be. Hating Jews was not, and still isn’t central to Nazi ideology. While it’s often presented like it’s the only thing they’re about.
I dont think we’re talking about the same thing exactly, I think I agree with you in a lot of ways actually.
However, the analogy with Trump would be to say that immigration isnt central to his policies. Is it the tariffs then that’ll MAGA? Is this how you start to try and convince a latinx person to vote for a Trump endorsed candidate?
But to the topic at hand, why are you insisting to frame NAZIs in a less nationalistic light? Nationalism is certainly a feature of fascism. Are you trying to convince antisemitic people that Trump can hate jews and still be a bad choice for them? I am confused about you concerns and priorities.
There’s both similarities and differences, both Trumpism and nazis decided on several other groups as a scapegoat. Nazis started with people with disabilities and similar groups first and shifted to exploiting existing prejudice against Jewish people. Trump and much of GOP have been stupid racists from the start. Also, all of these types of fascist groups starts infighting eventually and fewer and fewer people are “pure enough”
Thank you for making this comment. There are enough moments where right-wingers legitimately do out themselves as fascists that we don’t need to be elevating these silly gotchas.
To be historically correct, the nazis were not fascists, they were Nazis. The italians with Mussolini were fascists. Hitler wanted so hard to be a fascist, a bit like donald wants to be putin.
To be historically correct, the nazis were not fascists
Incorrect. Nazism is a form of fascism. They’re not mutually exclusive any more than either is with the even broader category 'right wing politics ".
The italians with Mussolini were fascists
The original ones, yeah, but nowhere near the only ones.
Hitler and other later fascists (including the ones currently in charge of the US government) basically built their own variant of the same basic recipe
Hitler wanted so hard to be a fascist, a bit like donald wants to be putin.
All three are (were in the case of Hitler and hopefully all of them soon) fascists, just different flavors.
I agree to it all except hitler wasn’t a pure fascist because he couldn’t take over the german companies and so on. It’s nitpicking ofc. but as evil as they both were there are differences.
He wasnt a fascist either though. He was a right wing populist. While they share similarities, they are not the same thing.
Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that seeks to create a unified national community under an authoritarian leader, abolishing liberal democracy and subordinating all aspects of life to the state. It is revolutionary in nature, aiming to replace existing institutions with a new, militarised order grounded in mythic nationalism and the glorification of violence.
Right-wing populism operates within, and often manipulates, democratic systems rather than abolishing them. It claims to defend “the people” against “the elites” but usually through electoral means and rhetorical warfare rather than institutional annihilation. Its nationalism is defensive and nostalgic rather than expansionist or revolutionary.
The German Workers Party was also far right fascists.
The reason that Hitler and Nazis were able to gain power was because the allies put all the weight of world war 1 onto Germany, and that, together was taking on debt that they expected to pay by winning the war, destroyed their economy. Then they took already well established hatred of Jewish people, and incorporated it into the Nazi party. It would be a mistake to assume that hate for Jewish people started with Nazis. It did not. It started 2000 years before that, and prevailed ever since by Christian groups who blamed “The Jews” for the death of Christ. Need I continue with the history lesson?
Being a right wing populist doesnt lead into Nazism naturally. And the wording of Kirk was never about killing anyone. It was about preserving culture and opposing multiculturalism. So you can still call him a cunt, and you would still be right. You dont need the popular buzzwords to make it so. What he was, was bad enough.
This is correct but ultimately not that important. By that logic you would only be a Nazi if you disown the Jews and give their stuff to the Germans. Disowning being the supposed socialist thing here.
It did not go to the state, it went to some rich fucks, whose grandchildren are still rich fucks today.
The socialism in NSDAP is always overplayed by Americans. This might be due to MCarthiesm.
I’m not sure anyone would accept the pedophile label or rush to defend pedophiles. She obviously didn’t object to the title of Nazis and she rushed to defend them as “us”.
If it was about Charlie Kirk, just use a picture of Chile Kirk. Why would they chose the one that says “Nazi Lives Don’t Matter”? They’re either inattentive or they want to enforce the connection.
Ehhhhhhhhhh. It’s more the picture of Charlie Kirk.
To put this in the context in which I imagine the Right would see it, they don’t believe Kirk was a Nazi, that’s a slur the Left uses. If someone had a picture of a drag Queen getting shot and had “Pedophile lives don’t matter” (common meme on the Right is the lgbtq community are pedophiles etc) on the Left, we’d probably say they want to kill us, even though (hopefully!) none of us identify as pedophiles.
While this is true, he was an open white supremacist, so, mild nuance.
Still nuance, but mild.
No he wasnt. He was an open right wing populist. The “he was a white supremacist” comes from things he either didnt say, or from things he did say that were taken out of context. For example that thing he said about checking a black mans credentials wasnt about black men not being able to be pilots. He was having a go at left wingers who hire based around race and gender. Up to you if think he had a point on that front, but the point is, he wasnt taking about black people. He was talking about white people/companies using black people to clout chase and wash their reputations.
“There is a disturbing pattern of Blacks jumping people of all races in the urban corridors in America. That is a fact.” -Charlie Kirk
“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” -Charlie Kirk
“CRT has spread, and now it’s time for us to remove the tumor.” -Charlie Kirk
“America does not need more visas for people from India. Perhaps no form of legal immigration has so displaced American workers as those from India. Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our own people first.” -Charlie Kirk
“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” -Charlie Kirk
“You have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of young, fighting-age Muslim men in America. All it takes is for a couple of them to be activated in this country.” -Charlie Kirk
“The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.” -Charlie Kirk
“The Civil Rights Act, though, let’s be clear, created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.” -Charlie Kirk
“Thank you for your courage to call it out what it is which is an outright war on white people.” -Charlie Kirk
“[Their] goal is to destroy Western civilization, get rid of anything that the white man might have been responsible for.” -Charlie Kirk
“Why are whites taking this? Why are we just sitting idly by and allowing corporate America to give all the jobs to nonwhite people?” -Charlie Kirk
“It is true that some of the largest financiers of left-wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans.” -Charlie Kirk
“The southern border is, of course, the great replacement. They’re trying to replace us demographically. They’re trying to make the country less white. They’re trying to make the country more like the third world, the dumping ground of the planet is the United States southern border. And the secret is out - the rapists, the thugs, the murderers, fighting-age males, they’re coming from across the world, from China, from Russia, from Middle Eastern countries, and they’re coming in and they’re coming in and they’re coming in and they’re coming in … It is an anti-white agenda.” -Charlie Kirk
I expect a reply acknowledging he was, in fact, a white supremacist.
Lots to unpack here. Lets try the first one and see if it passes the sniff test:
“There is a disturbing pattern of Blacks jumping people of all races in the urban corridors in America. That is a fact.” -Charlie Kirk
Seems he was addressing Tucker Carlson here. Seems it comes from a leaked text message about a video in which Trump supports were beating an “Antifa kid”. Carlson said something along the lines of “Thats not how white men are supposed to fight” and it caused outrage. Kirk, said the above, to point out that it was an urban thing, rather than a race thing.
This took me 2 fucking seconds to find the context by the way, you people have no fucking excuses.
Stop defending n*zis, especially dead ones. Just laugh at them like a normal person.
I wasnt defending him. I was saying hate him for who he was, not for what social media grifters tell you he was. I dont laugh at people being shot and killed. Im not a fucking ghoul. The way to defeat people like Kirk was, is and always will be with words. Not bullets. Everyone knows you dont kill the popular voice, you kill the message. If you kill the voice, you make the message immortal. And oh look, hes an inspiration now… yay…
He said “blacks”, you stupid fucking nazi. Go follow your leader and skip to the end
Yeah, this is why no one likes you outside of your echo chamber.
Too much yapping, not enough suicide
Behold, the good guy…
It is insane and disengenous of you to pretend he was anything but a raging racist.
He opposes the Civil rights act, hates MLK, and pushes utter bs theories like that liberals hired unqualified people based on race/gender
The comment about black pilots was heinous. It immediately in its premise asserted that one should at all be questioning a pilots abilities based on race. It was a way to get a foot in the door for racism.
Well, if you present that you are hiring based on race, which some companies were doing. Why would not be ok to question about the merits of the hiring outside of, what is seemingly, the only thing that the people hiring care about?
This is the issue that he was talking about, and the issue that caused others to listen. He didnt make it about race, the companies looking to racewash their shitty reputations did. He only joined the conversation later for grifting purposes. How can you not see the difference?
The very premise is incorrect. I’m not going to argue with you based on a false premise.
I know of no cases where companies hired solely based on race, in fact, that wouldn’t be legal.
In reality, DEI programs were cheap courses to encourage hiring managers to not hire racistly and understand the value of diversity. They were mostly box ticking, no qoutas.
I mean* look at Google, if anything they have reverse quotas with how few minorities they hire.
He only served to poison minds like yours with faulty premises to feel discriminated against by policies that simply aimed to stop having marginalized groups unfairly turned down from positions they were qualified for.
Google: Multiple lawsuits and internal complaints alleged that Google, under its diversity initiatives, gave preferential treatment to women and underrepresented racial groups in hiring and promotions. While Google did not publicly admit wrongdoing, leaked internal communications and testimony in related cases referenced managers being pressured to “balance” teams racially and by gender.
Harvard University Admissions (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023 Supreme Court Ruling). Although not a hiring case, this is directly relevant to institutional selection practices. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s use of race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. Evidence revealed that Harvard consciously adjusted acceptance rates to maintain racial balance, which it openly defended as part of its diversity mission.
Various Tech Start ups. Basecamp and several Silicon Valley firms were revealed to have instructed recruiters to prioritise women and minority candidates to “improve representation metrics.”. Internal memos and recruiter testimonies (That were leaked via The Verge and Insider) showed directives to only consider female applicants for some engineering roles.
BBC: The BBC faced controversy over a diversity programme that guaranteed BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) candidates certain production and internship roles. They stated explicitly that certain training and entry-level positions were “only open to BAME applicants.”. This was judged to be legal.
Women-Only Job Advertisements:
Ernst & Young (Australia, 2018): Advertised women-only internships to boost female representation. The firm confirmed that these were “deliberately restricted to women.”
UK Civil Service (2019): Some graduate schemes were briefly open only to women or minority applicants under positive action.
Facebook: A U.S. Department of Labour investigation found that Facebook discriminated against U.S. citizens by favouring temporary visa holders for certain positions. Facebook paid $14.25 million to settle the claims.
Tesla faced multiple lawsuits alleging discriminatory practices within hiring and workplace culture. Internal testimonies from HR staff and former managers suggested informal guidance to recruit “more diverse” applicants to reduce legal exposure.
RAF: In 2020, the RAF conducted a recruitment drive to increase representation of women and ethnic minorities. Defence-sources alleged that the service accelerated training places for such candidates ahead of other eligible candidates, including white men. A report found that “161 candidates, who were either women or from ethnic minority backgrounds, were accelerated into training places ahead of other candidates.” Leaked internal documents and interviews with defence sources claimed that recruitment officers were directed to prioritise female and minority ethnic applicants once the minimum standard was met, even if white male candidates had passed ahead of them.
The fact that you don’t know something, doesn’t mean anything. These 8 examples of hiring or recruiting practices based around sex or race. It is happening, whether you know or not.
And thats before you get to racists like Dani Lalonders, a game dev, who said openly: “We have no white people on our team. I did that because I wanted to create a safe environment … I know the best way for an environment to be safe is to be around people who are just like me.”. Where is your outrage for this? Because, this is clearly racist. The internet, in true culture wars fashion, hand waved it away with “You cant be racist towards white people”. And then you all scratch your heads as to how people like Charlie Kirk can find an audience…
Some of your example literally aren’t the US and the ones that are don’t support what you are alleging. None of these are hiring uneligible people based on race etc.
For your legal cases, they are basically doing exactly what I mentioned just more strongly: saying “hey stop hiring racistly”.
It really seems you are simply also racist and want companies to not address existing racism problems because your perceive removing disadvantage/removing repivelege and somehow being the real racism.
I don’t scratch my head and kirk having an audience, it’s all priveleged people angry that when the privilege is removed, they’ll be revealed as less worthy than they thought.
So, youre the racist? Got it.
Those are all cases where they were balancing out for the fact that they’d been discriminating against women and minorities for decades and were trying to diversify their employee rosters.
If you have a job opening that requires X degree and Y experience and your last 17 hires were white men despite a bunch of women and minorities having the qualifications, you probably should start prioritizing those applicants you’ve spent the last few decades ignoring for one or two cycles.
lol Jesus fucking christ…
Regardless of DEI, affirmative action, or anything else - all airline pilots are required to be licensed, qualified pilots.
There’s no nuance here. If you agree with Kirk and worry about a pilot being unqualified because of their race, then you’re a racist.
I fucking hate talking to you people. Youre so fucking desperate to be right all the fucking time. Are you like, scared of being wrong? Is that what it is? If youre hiring based on race, YOU are the racist. Kirk may well have been a racist, but this was not example of it. Calling out racism, isnt racist.
Then leave.
We don’t need people bending over backwards making bullshit excuses for white supremacy.
Leave.
lol If you dont like what Im saying, feel free to not reply. But we both know you cant do that, because you want your worthless fucking internet points from like minded culture war weirdos.
Im happy to talk with people who arent dumb as fuck, as you clearly are. Agree with me or not, I dont care. Just fuck off with culture war popular thing thats a straight up and easily defeated lie.
Fuck you peddlers of fake news/misinformation. Youre the reason the internet fucking sucks now. Hell, youre the reason cunts like Charlie Kirk had a fucking audience in the first place.
Do you believe that it’s defensible to tell people to fear flying on a plane operated by qualified pilots because they are black?
If yes, you’re racist. Full stop.
He didnt do that though, which is the point Im making. What arent you getting here? He was talking about companies using black people and women and gay people to wash their shitty reputations. You dont like they way he was doing it? Thats totally fair. But THAT is what he was doing, he wasnt saying that being black makes a person inferior.
He also wasn’t a member of the NAZI party in NAZI Germany. Whats your point.
The definition of a Nazi is someone that is a member of the Nazi party OR a follower of the Nazi ideology.
Charlie kirk meets the definition of a Nazi, with a hole in its neck.
Neo Nazi.
Is that better?
Sparkling fascist then?
Wow, you really got em
I would take exception to the pedophile accusation too though. Libs of tik tok is a Jewish woman. You’d think she’d want to say, “Im not a nazi either.”
Prepending the tweet with “I’m not a Nazi but…” wouldn’t make it much better.
Yeah, I guess your right. She may have actually started writing something like that and realized it.
I will never not think of the Not Racist Butt anytime I see or hear someone say “I’m not a Nazi but…”
Hatred of jews isn’t what makes someone a Nazi. That was always more of a Christian thing in Europe. Cult infighting. It’s unfortunate that education on the rise of the third reich is so focused on the killing of the jews. Maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation today if people actually knew what a Nazi/Fascist is.
From what I’ve read about the Nazis I don’t think they were very religious. Makes sense too, if you are a fascist regime you want your leader to be the top dog, not some guy in the sky. Hitler, their fuhrer was their god.
But yeah I wouldn’t really define them by their antisemitism. The jews were just the minority they picked to demonise. I think fascism is defined by:
But this is how I see it, I kinda wonder now what the official definition is.
From what I studied, the majority were indeed conservative Christians.
When someone says its unfortunate the killing of Jews is central to the education about the Nazis, I dont raise an eyebrow, i raise both.
Its almost like you’re trying to make the case that Jews could be Nazis without any sort of compartmentalization or cognitive dissonance. A real masterpiece of gaslighting.
There were Nazi Jews during the time of Nazi Germany, and there still are today. It’s not the weird thing you’re making it out to be. Hating Jews was not, and still isn’t central to Nazi ideology. While it’s often presented like it’s the only thing they’re about.
I dont think we’re talking about the same thing exactly, I think I agree with you in a lot of ways actually.
However, the analogy with Trump would be to say that immigration isnt central to his policies. Is it the tariffs then that’ll MAGA? Is this how you start to try and convince a latinx person to vote for a Trump endorsed candidate?
But to the topic at hand, why are you insisting to frame NAZIs in a less nationalistic light? Nationalism is certainly a feature of fascism. Are you trying to convince antisemitic people that Trump can hate jews and still be a bad choice for them? I am confused about you concerns and priorities.
There’s both similarities and differences, both Trumpism and nazis decided on several other groups as a scapegoat. Nazis started with people with disabilities and similar groups first and shifted to exploiting existing prejudice against Jewish people. Trump and much of GOP have been stupid racists from the start. Also, all of these types of fascist groups starts infighting eventually and fewer and fewer people are “pure enough”
Thank you for making this comment. There are enough moments where right-wingers legitimately do out themselves as fascists that we don’t need to be elevating these silly gotchas.
This is the sort of rational and well balanced take that would get you perma’d on reddit.
He wasn’t a Nazi, but he was a fascist agitator. All Nazis are fascists, not all fascists are Nazis.
The Nazis were very much into public works projects and pretending to be socialist, both of which are anathema to contemporary American fascists.
I think you’re missing the main parts of being a Nazi that people dont like about Nazis.
Nope, those parts are common to all fascists.
To be historically correct, the nazis were not fascists, they were Nazis. The italians with Mussolini were fascists. Hitler wanted so hard to be a fascist, a bit like donald wants to be putin.
Incorrect. Nazism is a form of fascism. They’re not mutually exclusive any more than either is with the even broader category 'right wing politics ".
The original ones, yeah, but nowhere near the only ones.
Hitler and other later fascists (including the ones currently in charge of the US government) basically built their own variant of the same basic recipe
All three are (were in the case of Hitler and hopefully all of them soon) fascists, just different flavors.
Basically, nazism is fascism with fervent antisemitism and “scientific racism”.
I agree to it all except hitler wasn’t a pure fascist because he couldn’t take over the german companies and so on. It’s nitpicking ofc. but as evil as they both were there are differences.
Again, that’s not how fascism works. It doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of the original Mussolini fascism in order to be fascism.
Yes, but the similarities are such that they still both fit into the basic category of fascism.
That, and a misunderstanding of what constitutes fascism.
It fits todays definition of fashism.
Not the one in the 1920-30-40, that was why I said “historically”.
I don’t disagree with you.
He wasnt a fascist either though. He was a right wing populist. While they share similarities, they are not the same thing.
Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that seeks to create a unified national community under an authoritarian leader, abolishing liberal democracy and subordinating all aspects of life to the state. It is revolutionary in nature, aiming to replace existing institutions with a new, militarised order grounded in mythic nationalism and the glorification of violence.
Right-wing populism operates within, and often manipulates, democratic systems rather than abolishing them. It claims to defend “the people” against “the elites” but usually through electoral means and rhetorical warfare rather than institutional annihilation. Its nationalism is defensive and nostalgic rather than expansionist or revolutionary.
Good morning, we might be witnessing the gradient from right wing populism to fascism in the next years.
How the fuck do you think Nazi Germany started?
The German Workers Party was also far right fascists.
The reason that Hitler and Nazis were able to gain power was because the allies put all the weight of world war 1 onto Germany, and that, together was taking on debt that they expected to pay by winning the war, destroyed their economy. Then they took already well established hatred of Jewish people, and incorporated it into the Nazi party. It would be a mistake to assume that hate for Jewish people started with Nazis. It did not. It started 2000 years before that, and prevailed ever since by Christian groups who blamed “The Jews” for the death of Christ. Need I continue with the history lesson?
Being a right wing populist doesnt lead into Nazism naturally. And the wording of Kirk was never about killing anyone. It was about preserving culture and opposing multiculturalism. So you can still call him a cunt, and you would still be right. You dont need the popular buzzwords to make it so. What he was, was bad enough.
This is correct but ultimately not that important. By that logic you would only be a Nazi if you disown the Jews and give their stuff to the Germans. Disowning being the supposed socialist thing here.
It did not go to the state, it went to some rich fucks, whose grandchildren are still rich fucks today.
The socialism in NSDAP is always overplayed by Americans. This might be due to MCarthiesm.
I’m not sure anyone would accept the pedophile label or rush to defend pedophiles. She obviously didn’t object to the title of Nazis and she rushed to defend them as “us”.
Its not that they dont believe they are NAZIs. They havent fully accepted it yet.
They will or change the meaning of the word NAZI to disqualify themselves.
Just remember, human ingenuity is incredible. Except, its not always used for good.
If it was about Charlie Kirk, just use a picture of Chile Kirk. Why would they chose the one that says “Nazi Lives Don’t Matter”? They’re either inattentive or they want to enforce the connection.
THANK YOU!
Y…You’re welcome?