this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
901 points (96.8% liked)
Political Weirdos
1279 readers
377 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-trump-military-occupation-b2805750.html
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.
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.
To be fair I don't really remember anything he said, I just remember he was a Nazi because he supported Israel and was involved in Turning Point USA, an organization that paid the YouTube algorithm to spam me with annoying bullshit
He was a christian nationalist. What's funny is you can see similar language used by the Nazis in MSG in 1939.
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.
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.
I can imagine. This fact does not affect me in such a way that I'd be interested in checking multiple sources. I mostly do not actually care. I don't know the guy and it's not my country.
I just find American politics to be very polarised. I was appreciating someone giving context.
Not that the US is the only country with polarised politics.
Fair enough. Have a great weekend, mate.
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.
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).
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.
Also, he supported Israelis, who punish orthodox Jews for refusing to enlist in the military during a genocide