Comment by immibis
It takes a special personality to be able to see the difference between Nazis killing Jews, and Jews killing Nazis, I guess. Especially in the midst of so much propaganda. Most Germans thought they were doing the right thing to protect their country. The Nazis were all like "the Jews are killing us so this is just self-defence!" and the Jews were also like "the Nazis are killing us so this is just self-defence!". Yet, one of those statements was correct. You'd have to really pay attention to know which one was correct, because the TV (if they had TV in that era) wouldn't tell you.
Politics is a perpetual motion machine because there are always people who seek to dramatically increase their own power and will use any excuse to do so - that is a constant. What fluctuates back and forth is which excuses work - that is the apparent pendulum, but it's the same constant driving force underneath. When protecting the country is in vogue, power-seeking sociopaths will use excuses related to protecting the country. When religious freedom is in vogue, power-seeking sociopaths will use excuses related to religious freedom. When liberating the working class is in vogue, power-seeking sociopaths will use excuses related to liberating the working class. Those aren't different sides - they're just different excuses used by the same side.
I'm oddly impressed by your initial paragraph and knowledge of history. Because it's indeed completely accurate. Few are aware that the Hitler weaponized 'victimhood culture' to an extreme degree. But I'm quite confused by your conclusion, at least if you're implying what I assume you are. Charlie Kirk's entire schtick was giving people a loud platform to speak where he'd engage with them in complete civility, letting them go on monologues, and debating in a completely respectful fashion - avoiding the typical trappings of ad hominem, strawman, and so on. It was actual real debate, not the news stuff where people just scream over each other. Then he'd post the entire thing, unedited, online. Everything he was doing was literally about as much of the the opposite of fascism as you could possibly get.
You know the paradox of tolerance certainly. In it, who do you think Popper was talking about? The people happy to openly engage and debate anybody in a fair and respectful fashion? Or the people shrieking for censorship, denouncing debate, demanding people not be heard, and then going on to start murdering people over their views?
----
"But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
----