Locking this post because it’s a constant stream of rule three violation reports. Don’t be a jerk.
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.
He also wasn’t a member of the NAZI party in NAZI Germany. Whats your point.
Neo Nazi.
Is that better?
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.
Sparkling fascist then?
Wow, you really got em
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…
Kirk, said the above, to point out that it was an urban thing, rather than a race thing.
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
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.
-
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.
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.
I fucking hate talking to you people.
Then leave.
We don’t need people bending over backwards making bullshit excuses for white supremacy.
Leave.
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:
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
hitler wasn’t a pure fascist
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.
as evil as they both were there are differences.
Yes, but the similarities are such that they still both fit into the basic category of fascism.
It’s nitpicking ofc
That, and a misunderstanding of what constitutes fascism.
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?
Did World War 2, Indiana Jones, Wolfenstein, and Quintin Tarantino not explain what we do to Nazis?
Is the Quentin reference in reference to pulp fiction or something else?
Inglourious Basterds. The one where Brad Pitt was collecting the scalps of Nazis.
I never realized that was one of Quentin’s movies. Thanks!
Don’t forget The Blues Brothers!
I have this shirt and it’s one of my favorites!
Looks like the KMFDM album art
Says the bitch who regularly doxxes people so the right can harass and make death threats.
Libs of TikTok is a domestic terrorist and proud of it. She needs to be in jail.
She’s also dumb as bricks, check out that interview by Taylor Lorenz
Not dumb, malicious.
Did you see the interview? Malicious, yes, but also simply dumb. She has no idea what she’s talking about. And I’m not saying that because I don’t agree. She’s a bad advocate for her own position
They don’t feel they’re Nazis but they feel they align with Charlie Kirk, who they think was unjustly labeled as a Nazi
Charlie Kirk was a brave, genius patriot who was speaking truth to power. We know this because he pulled in $85M that year from his oligarch friends to tour the country telling people how brave, smart, and patriotic he was.
And the Groyper Conservative who put a bullet through his neck was a cowardly, idiot traitor who wanted to silence this golden child. We know this because Kirk’s replacements have been climbing over one another to say as much, hoping they’ll be the next ones to command that enormous slush fund.
The money doesn’t lie. Trust the money. People with money are better than you, so you have to believe what they say. If you don’t believe them, you won’t be rich. And people who aren’t rich are stupid.
Charlie Kirk was racist and a disingenuous debater. But was he a Nazi?
I mean, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and espouses all the same racist ideologies as a duck, it might as well be a duck no matter what it calls itself.
Here he is promoting the great replacement theory
this is outright Nazi rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory
He helped legitimized the current far-right, which openly endorses Nazi policies, he was a nazi propagandist whose influence helped make fascist ideals more mainstream. He engaged in bad faith debate to make gotcha clips taking down ‘liberals’ to demonize them and inspire his fascist followers.
You know, I never heard about Charlie Kirk before he got shot. But afterwards, there was all manner of people telling me he was a nazi. Giving me all these quotes of things that he said, and how awful they were. But every time I chased one up, it was a lie. Or at best, it was taking what he said out of context to make it look far worse than it actually was.
Saying “Charlie Kirk was a nazi” is just a popular thing to say. But it sure seems like its a hard thing to prove.
Examples of this would be:
“Charlie Kirk said the civil rights was a mistake and that black people shouldnt have gain equality!”
Not true. What he did say was that he didnt like the wording of the law, because it allowed abuses later. He was very careful to say that black people SHOULD have equal rights.
“Charlie Kirk said that black people should have their credentials checked for things like flying planes!!!”
Not true. What he said was that he felt that people were being hired in too many areas based on skin colour and gender, instead of merit. And that because of this, it caused him to doubt the suitability of people hired for jobs who were black. This was a dig at hiring practices rather than saying black people shouldnt or couldnt do high talent jobs.
Charlie Kirk said a lot of dumb shit over the years, so I have no idea why the internet decided it wanted to make some things he said sound worse by taking them out of context. But here we are.
The truth is that Charlie Kirk was a right wing populist. He advocated for limited government and individual liberty, which is inconsistent with the idea of being a nazi. He also never said that immigrants should be put to death. He was nationalistic, rather than xenophobic, and was against multiculturism rather than the extermination of other cultures. Another distinction that moves him away from “nazi”. No matter how you look at it, he was a right wing populist, not a fascist(The internets new favourite word).
Telling the truth about him, doesnt make him a good guy. But lying about him, sure fucking makes it look like youre trying to make him look like a bad guy. Let the truth speak for itself, and stop trying to force the narrative. Im 100% sure people will still arrive at the same conclusion about the man when presented with the truth alone.
Ahh yes, advocating for limited government like the “full military occupation” of American cities. Totally just a small government guy.
Here’s another quote from the same article. “Simple fix. You steal a car, 25 years in prison,” the pro-Trump pundit raged. “I don’t care if you’re a teenager. I don’t care if — well, I was raised without a dad. Well, you’re going to go meet a new dad in jail. We’re done. We’re not putting up with it. We need more prisons, and we need more prisoners.”
The guy calling for more prisons and prisoners is small government? What world are you living in?
You see, this is what Im talking about. Youve left out the context. The comments were made while there was reports of large scale car thefts and violent street crime. You can also see people talking about cutting the balls off of men anytime some rapists gets found. Does that mean that people who hate rapists are all man haters?
He was also addressing the culture of making excuses for criminals, most notably home life. “I grew up with out a dad, so that makes it ok that I was a cunt!” type of deal.
Why are you presenting that he was calling for a constant military occupation, when the reality was it was a limited call? And since the subject he was being asked about or addressing was in black communities, why are you acting like he was claiming only black people are criminals?
Again, you can easily attack the shit he was saying, without framing it being worse than it was. What he actually said was bad enough.
why are you acting like he was claiming only black people are criminals?
I never said anything like that, all I was arguing is he clearly wasn’t a “small government” anything. You’re the one who asserted he was. It really seems like you’re invested in defending the guy… I wonder why that would be
Because the whole right wing propaganda apparatus jumped into action to tell all the people who didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was at all that he was a good man and blah blah blah, meanwhile those of us who have known about him for a long time and seen all the shit he’s said over the years already knew what a shit head he was.
He was a christian nationalist. What’s funny is you can see similar language used by the Nazis in MSG in 1939.
I feel like you’ve cherry-picked a few examples of claims people have made that are disprovable while conveniently ignoring some of the more reprehensible things Kirk said and believed.
And I feel like youre not getting the point Im making. Im not saying Charlie Kirk was a great guy. He wasnt. What am I saying is that you can hate the man for who he was, without making shit up about him. Im not cherry picking these. These are the ones that I saw the most often pushed. Thats why they are the ones Im addressing.
Again, Im not saying he was a good guy. Im saying hate him for who he was, not for what social media grifters told you he was.
I disagree with your characterization of Kirk as just being a “right-wing populist” and denying that he held views that were deeply racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and transphobic. He was a white supremacist and a Christian Nationalist. Lets not beat around the bush. From an outside perspective it appears that you’re trying to minimize that or even outright deny that it’s true.
It’s funny you’re saying you don’t think he’s a nazi when you only heard about him after he was shot. I have heard and seen him for years, and let me tell you even if he wasn’t himself literally a nazi, he was happy to be a voice for modern nazis. Also, fascist is a popular word these days because fascists have taken positions of power in a way not seen in decades.
I never heard about Hitler until after he was dead either. Is that a rib tickler for you too?
Okay but could still have studied him for 70 years, you just heard about Kirk and have only seen the massive wave of propaganda trying to sanitize his image and make him some hero since his death, not the years of racist and homophobic trolling he’s done.
No, Ive only just heard about Kirk and Ive only seen a wave of propaganda trying to convince me that murdering him was the way to defeat him. I have no doubts that he was an asshole. I just dont like the fact that damn near everything that people told me, was exaggerated at best, and worst a straight up lie. I know enough about the man by looking at him, to know he wasnt a good guy. The best thing you could say about him was that he was just another grifter. But youd be stretching it mighty thin to get there.
Im really not saying he was a good guy. Im not saying he didnt say horrible things, he did. But I really dont like being lied to, and I really, REALLY dont like the current trend of social media users believing the first thing they see that fits their narrative. If people stuck to hating him for the things he did say, I would just click the up arrow and be on my merry. I really dont see why hating the man for who he was isnt enough. Cherry picking comments and removing context to make them sound worse is dumb. IMO, anyway.
Thank you for providing context in a place where things are very much polarized. This is much appreciated.
Don’t fondle troll balls in here.
I know almost nothing about this Kirck besides that he was killed, is what he said not correct?
No need to take anything I have said as the truth, mate. In fact, I would urge you not to. Always question what other people say on the internet, because you never know where they are getting their info from, or what biases they have. You can fact check anything that Ive said, and I wont be offended. All I would ask is that you dont just go with one source. Always get multiple sources to make sure you have the broadest picture.
Charlie Kirk was a not a good guy. But for some reason, his comments are often cherry picked sans context for dramatic affect. Why? Dont know. Because most often times, what he actually said was bad enough.
He wasn’t a member of the Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party prior to 1945.
But yes.
At this point it’s pretty easy: he supported Trump.
Not a nazi, but a fascist and a white supremacist. For Nazism you still need antisemitism.
He was definitely antisemitic to some degree. Just look at what he’s said about Jewish people:
“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them."
“The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
“[Their] goal is to destroy Western civilization, get rid of anything that the white man might have been responsible for.”
“It is true that some of the largest financiers of left-wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans.”
Sounds pretty antisemitic to me.
One of his largest financiers is a Penis Prager, a Jew. Also Charlie Kirk was a staunch supporter of Israel. I would still say rather fascist than nazi. I think the dude was more of an opportunist and a hypocrite, saying antisemitic things while supporting Zionists at the same time. Probably only supported Jews if they were “right Jews” (conservative and orthodox Jews).
I would argue that neither of those facts disqualify him from being antisemitic.
Thanks for stating this fact, I really think people should not be viewing him as anything other than a youtuber who was paid to push a product except it was fascist ideology instead of vitamins.
Removed by mod
Also, he supported Israelis, who punish orthodox Jews for refusing to enlist in the military during a genocide
That “Libs of TicTok” woman is an incredibly stupid person. Even if you explain this to her, she still won’t get it.
That “Libs of TicTok” woman is an incredibly stupid person.
She found the feed bar that you need to hit in order to get oligarchs to give you money and promote you into their social circle. And she’s slapping the fuck out of it.
Idk if you can call that “smart” or “dumb”. But if I knew that I’d get a $100 bill slipped into my G-string every time I waved my tits at a conservative mega-donor and shouted “Liberals don’t have a pair like this”, you know I’d be on stage wiggling and shouting until my knees buckled and my throat was horse.
It’s dumb that you can make a career this way, but I’m not shocked to see folks out there grabbing the bag. Say what you will of Anna Nicole Smith, but it was one hell of a way to make a living.
now acknowledge that at least half of the MAGA cult is twice as stupid as her.
You can’t lose an argument your base doesn’t understand
Where can I order this as a toilet seat, I want this!
I was told the bullet didn’t exit his body.
Yep, his holy super skin kept it in to save the innocent bystanders
Too bad it didn’t keep his super blood in his super sized head
i heard it went the other way
To be fair, the “source” here is the toilet seat where it says Nazi and the Charlie Kirk assassination
Having said that… That’s about the only contrary thing to say here
Its LibsOfTikTok…pretty low hanging fruit ha ha!
Does that stupid buttfuck from LibsofTikTok realize that her side has written and talked extensively about how they want to kill all “communists”, meaning just about everyone to the left of Stephen Miller?
See the book Unhumans for example. These assholes revel in political violence.
“We’re pretty fucking open about how we want leftists dead, and we actually do kill them pretty often simply for that reason, but how dare anyone project the sentiment that nazis, which we’re totally not but take offense to them being attacked in any way shape or form literally every fucking time. Those inhuman leftists scum, even when it’s not them it’s them.”
Fuck these mouth breathing swine.
This portrays a harmful image promoting a conspiracy that Kirk was shot from the side and not from the front as dear leader has declared.
Yes. It was all the rage back in the 1940s.
Up to everyone to keep it in style
