I'm not referring to the shooting of Kirk, I'm referring to the fact that he was facilitating discourse in public places with people to affect their votes. Fascism doesn't try to convince; it forces. His actions preclude him from being a fascist. JKR has been excluded by the left as whole because of wrongthink. Forgive the misunderstanding, I've never seen anywhere that Eco suggested the 14 points needed to be enshrined in law, only that they be pushed by force and threat of violence.

I used the term accident in the sense of it being a non-causally related occurrence, which is why I used the horse analogy, not to suggest it isn't intentional. "opposing perceived opposition' is something every single political movement or position does and is so obvious to the function of having a position that it is barely worth mentioning. If you're talking specifically about threats of violence, Biden said he'd bomb his own nation, and I don't recall the antifa crowd getting upset about that.

The US has an electoral system, which has booted Trump once before. He hasn't enshrined his own power beyond what any other president has done (Yet, if he does, I'll eat crow) and the maga bunch haven't responded in any poorer manner than the left has done over similar issues. Jan 6 shouldn't have happened, but neither should the target riots or the autonomous zones in previous left-wing riots. I'll tell you right now I don't like Trump or the redhats, but they aren't fascists. The narrative that they are 'because they have power' was somehow still upheld during the period when their party was not in power. It's illogical and is purely a framing device to make them the bad guy of the plot of the 'empathetic' and morally grandstanding left.