I completely agree with your gist but

whose academic background has fuckall to do with history since he’s a fucking philologist.

Dude, don't do philology dirty like that. They're reading dusty old tomes all day long and you need a lot of historical knowledge to make proper sense of them. We couldn't read hieroglyphics without their work, and their extrapolations have been proven by Hittite (which was discovered after the reconstruction of proto-Indo-European and looks exactly as expected). The two disciplines feed into each other. Dr. Daniel Jackson is a philologist and at least as cool as Indiana Jones and do I need to mention J.R.R. Tolkien.

Being genocidal and being exceptionally genocidal both earn you a one way ticket to “shoot on sight” land in my book, debating which one is worse is thoroughly pointless from a moral standpoint and a red herring from a political science standpoint as being a fascist does not require a kill count (though it usually predicts a pretty fucking high one.)

Okay, so people who support liberal "democracies" like the US currently backing genocide should be shot on sight then? Or just the governments responsible?

The problem with "those genocidal communists" is that liberal democracies are significantly more genocidal. You want to go with the least bad system.

Take the notion that man-made famine counts as genocide. 8 million people starve under the capitalist world order every year.