Even if it’s negotiable, that makes it a negotiation. Just because a president crossed the line and people voted for him doesn’t change the line. Nor does it suggest we should accept where they want to place the line. It isn’t dependent on partisanship, but on common behavior. 2/2

Using him, not to make the world a better place for everyone. But to push for conservative hegemony.

In short, journalists are putting the cart before the horse when talking about Kirk and influence. And because of that, it makes the whole spectacle look opposite to what it is. This isn't a movement inspired by Kirk. It is a movement who are using him in death as a martyr.

This is often how journalists cover people because their influence is usually measurable in direct impact on their community. But when one is a product of a system, is given wealth and status within it, and builds up a corner of the movement, the influence goes the other way.

This isn't to say it isn't aligned with Kirk's agenda, it totally is. The point is that this is clearly not a spontaneous reflection of how powerful this one man was. Like he was the centerpiece of an upstart thing called the conservative movement. And now they're just following his lead.

They are giving the man credit for influence that came from being part of a movement machine. And the canonization of him has to at least be considered an intentional amplification of their own agenda.

Like, he could really be just killing for the killing and not know it is also what fascists want from him. And people are out here thinking there’s a true, draw the dividing line with a sharpie and I’m like, you’re literally giving the fascists what they want.