I missed some of your points because I made bad assumptions and overlooked some things.
I’m not surprised that at some point in time he would say he was pro-liberal. But the positions he argued for were in support of fascism. He didn’t other just gay people. He othered Muslims. He has brought up the Jewish question. He is a fan of centralizing power. Not that centralizing a power by itself would be a strong indicator of fascism. You have to take a look at the big picture.
There are several statistical lies that he keeps repeating to maintain his position. Someone is popular and is well known as Kirk would surely have people able to quietly correct him on some of these things. Yet he keeps repeating them. The outcome of this rhetoric is to empower fascists. He very likely knew that.
Now I’m not saying he was rubbing together his hands and whispering to himself “good good”. I think he just followed the money.
He didn’t say he was liberal I’m saying he was inherently classically liberal because of his views on the constitution, individual rights etc. He believed in representative democracy (e.g. a republic).
Again I implore you for your definition of fascism.
“Othering” isn’t fascist. It just is. We are the society we are because we are not the society we aren’t. This is the case with any group. If not being cool with literally everything makes you a fascist then everyone is fascist. He’s right to question why we send so much money to Israel that’s just having a brain. I guess AOC is a fascist too because she is anti-genocide.
I don’t know what youre talking about in the last part but everyone lies with statistics all the time. If you found statistics to counter that statement you’d be lying. When it comes to statistics “lying” is often times simply an interpretation or spin you disagree with. Of course some one can tell a bald faces lie but I haven’t seen that with him.
Followed the money
If he was just doing what got him paid that doesn’t make him a fascist it makes him a grifter. A fascist is an ideologue with a very specific non-liberal worldview. He was an egalatarian that wanted to settle differences through debate. That is a far cry from someone marching around in jackboots looking for a victim.
The definition of fascism doesn’t start when they put on the boots. It doesn’t end when they take the boots off. Just because Kirk never killed anyone doesn’t mean he isn’t complicit in creating a system that would kill lots of people.
You can be both a grifter and a fascist. Especially if you grift for a fascist cause.
You can be call a fascist even if ideologically you’re not, but the outcomes you produce are fascistic. This is the category I think Kirk is in.
Would we stop calling Hitler a fascist if we found out that he actually just wanted to be friends with everyone and he didn’t actually care about killing all those Jews? He just failed spectacularly.
Sorry about this second thread. It’s all my fault. I have answered your question on what I use to determine fascism in the other thread.
I missed some of your points because I made bad assumptions and overlooked some things.
I’m not surprised that at some point in time he would say he was pro-liberal. But the positions he argued for were in support of fascism. He didn’t other just gay people. He othered Muslims. He has brought up the Jewish question. He is a fan of centralizing power. Not that centralizing a power by itself would be a strong indicator of fascism. You have to take a look at the big picture.
There are several statistical lies that he keeps repeating to maintain his position. Someone is popular and is well known as Kirk would surely have people able to quietly correct him on some of these things. Yet he keeps repeating them. The outcome of this rhetoric is to empower fascists. He very likely knew that.
Now I’m not saying he was rubbing together his hands and whispering to himself “good good”. I think he just followed the money.
He didn’t say he was liberal I’m saying he was inherently classically liberal because of his views on the constitution, individual rights etc. He believed in representative democracy (e.g. a republic).
Again I implore you for your definition of fascism.
“Othering” isn’t fascist. It just is. We are the society we are because we are not the society we aren’t. This is the case with any group. If not being cool with literally everything makes you a fascist then everyone is fascist. He’s right to question why we send so much money to Israel that’s just having a brain. I guess AOC is a fascist too because she is anti-genocide.
I don’t know what youre talking about in the last part but everyone lies with statistics all the time. If you found statistics to counter that statement you’d be lying. When it comes to statistics “lying” is often times simply an interpretation or spin you disagree with. Of course some one can tell a bald faces lie but I haven’t seen that with him.
If he was just doing what got him paid that doesn’t make him a fascist it makes him a grifter. A fascist is an ideologue with a very specific non-liberal worldview. He was an egalatarian that wanted to settle differences through debate. That is a far cry from someone marching around in jackboots looking for a victim.
The definition of fascism doesn’t start when they put on the boots. It doesn’t end when they take the boots off. Just because Kirk never killed anyone doesn’t mean he isn’t complicit in creating a system that would kill lots of people.
You can be both a grifter and a fascist. Especially if you grift for a fascist cause.
You can be call a fascist even if ideologically you’re not, but the outcomes you produce are fascistic. This is the category I think Kirk is in.
Would we stop calling Hitler a fascist if we found out that he actually just wanted to be friends with everyone and he didn’t actually care about killing all those Jews? He just failed spectacularly.
Sorry about this second thread. It’s all my fault. I have answered your question on what I use to determine fascism in the other thread.