I. Introduction

A popular social-media influencer recently tried to justify calling his conservative critics “fascists.” He claimed precision: I know what fascism means. But beneath the intellectual confidence lies a classic rhetorical trap. This isn’t reasoned critique—it’s name-calling, an ad hominem tactic dressed up as moral urgency.

I’ve written before about this in How Language Turns People into Enemies. When we brand entire groups with moral absolutes—fascist, groomer, racist, communist—we aren’t clarifying truth; we’re collapsing humanity. We are exchanging persuasion for power.

This is the logic of dehumanization: reducing opponents to something less than fully human, unworthy of empathy or dialogue. And once we strip away someone’s humanity, it becomes dangerously easy to justify harm in the name of righteousness.

“American partisans have really inaccurate views of rival partisans. And those misperceptions shape their own attitudes.” — Robb Willer

The social science is chilling. Studies from Stanford and others show that partisans on both sides literally perceive the other as less evolved on the evolutionary scale—20 to 30 points lower. Worse, each side believes the other sees them as even less human, creating a feedback loop of fear and hostility.

This isn’t harmless online posturing.

• Erosion of democratic norms: When rivals are seen as morally inferior, people feel justified breaking the rules to defeat them.
• Normalization of aggression: Dehumanizing language—calling migrants “animals” or political opponents “vermin”—lowers the threshold for violence.
• Historical precedent: Genocides in Rwanda and Nazi Germany began with words that turned neighbors into “cockroaches” and “rats.”

As sociologist Aliza Luft notes, “Dehumanizing propaganda sends signals to people about what others believe, and even if they disagree, those perceptions can alter their actions in turn.”

The influencer’s monologue below may sound intellectually rigorous, but its emotional architecture rests on these same patterns—moral certainty, fear, and contempt. What comes next is the influencer’s full argument—followed by a breakdown of how it works, why it feels persuasive, and where its logic quietly breaks apart.

II. Transcript

You should never call somebody a fascist, unless you know precisely what that word means. I do know precisely what that word means. So when people come at me for calling other people fascists, they usually come unprepared.

So when is it appropriate to call someone a fascist? Great question. And the answer is when they exhibit worldviews and perspectives that are aligned with historical fascist movements. Before we go any further, it’s probably helpful to define fascism, which is something that nobody in these conversations ever seems to do, which is why they get so emotionally heated.

Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultra-nationalism. Now that word palingenetic comes from palingenesis, the idea of a national rebirth. Fascism is obsessed with a cult of national purity and an idea of a mythic golden past that must be returned to through a form of national rebirth.

The nation, which is imagined to be humiliated and threatened on the international stage, must be reborn through a broad-based revolutionary nationalist movement that defines itself against the backdrop of political gridlock and rejects both liberal reformism and leftist class struggle. Are you tracking with me so far? Fascism is a style of politics, not a form of government. It is a process, not an end result.

While fascism tends to end with jackbooted thugs in the night and boxcars to Dachau or slit trenches in Treblinka, it usually starts as a protest movement inside a broader conservative coalition. A conservative commenter recently replied to one of my posts and said, in I think a way that was tongue-in-cheek, do you think every conservative is a fascist? Could you point to any conservatives who are not fascists or is that a label that you apply to all of them? And the answer is yes, throughout history, there have been thousands of conservatives who are not fascists. There are many notable conservatives who stood up against fascism vocally and strongly, figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Germany or Winston Churchill in the UK.

The problem is that conservatives have a weakness. They are more afraid of the left and its radicalization than they are of the right. Fascists exploit this weakness in order to form an alliance with traditional conservatives, which they then hollow out from the inside.

Afraid of the left, conservatives form an uneasy partnership with fascists, thinking that they can control them. The result is always the opposite, which means that most conservatives only end up becoming anti-fascists once they realize that it’s already too late. I think that if I started rounding up queer people into concentration camps, you would see a lot of conservatives in the United States hiding queer people beneath their floorboards.

But what those conservatives probably would not like to admit is that they were so afraid of phantom threats like wokeness or leftist radicalism or cultural Marxism, which by the way is literally a Nazi dog whistle invented by Joseph Goebbels, than they are of rising radicalism and violence on the right. Conservatives have a tendency to support and even vote for fascists out of fear from the left, and then turn around and claim that they had nothing to

do with the rise of fascism in their countries. And this is because they don’t realize that fascism is a process of radicalization rather than an end state.

It is about the consolidation of a cult of unity and national purity through coercion, mass mobilization, and militarism. This is why when conservatives echo the great replacement theory, talk about immigrants as invaders, and obsess over internal enemies who are corrupting the purity of the nation, they don’t often realize that they are explicitly echoing fascist talking points. And when they are, it’s your responsibility to call them a fascist.

I hope that clears it up for you.

End transcript

III. Analysis

Here’s a structured review of the transcript, applying the lenses of cognitive biases and fallacious reasoning.

1. Positive Elements

Before moving into critique, it’s worth noting what the speaker does well:

• They define fascism (palingenetic ultranationalism), which is stronger than most rhetorical uses.
• They acknowledge not all conservatives are fascists, citing Churchill and Bonhoeffer as counterexamples.

That said, the reasoning contains problematic moves worth unpacking.

2. Cognitive Biases in the Transcript

a. Confirmation Bias

The influencer interprets conservative fears (e.g., of “wokeness” or “cultural Marxism”) as always irrational or manipulated, without entertaining the possibility that some concerns might be legitimate. Evidence and narratives are filtered to fit the “conservatives enable fascism” schema.

b. Outgroup Homogeneity Bias

The speaker treats “conservatives” as a bloc with predictable weaknesses (“conservatives have a weakness… they fear the left more than the right”). This risks ignoring intra-group variation and reinforces stereotypes.

c. Negativity Bias

Focus is heavily on extreme outcomes (“jackbooted thugs,” “concentration camps”), which highlights worst-case scenarios to make the point more vivid, possibly overshadowing moderate interpretations.

d. Moral Credentialing Bias

By claiming to “know precisely what fascism means,” the influencer may be falling into an epistemic overconfidence trap — assuming their definition and application are unimpeachable.

3. Fallacious Reasoning

a. Hasty Generalization

Even while disclaiming that not all conservatives are fascists, the narrative still implies that most conservatives are complicit in fascism due to fear of the left. That leap from “some conservatives” to “most conservatives” is logically shaky.

b. Straw Man

The speaker frames conservative concerns (e.g., about “wokeness”) as phantom threats or Nazi inventions. While “cultural Marxism” does have Nazi propagandistic origins, reducing all current conservative discourse about social change to Goebbels’ dog whistle risks misrepresenting the actual arguments being made today.

c. Slippery Slope

The suggestion that conservative rhetoric about immigration or “replacement” inexorably leads to concentration camps is an example of slippery slope reasoning. While there’s historical precedent, the argument assumes inevitability rather than demonstrating causality.

d. Ad Hominem / Dehumanization Risk

Labeling people as “fascists” can shift discourse from evaluating arguments to attacking character. Even if technically accurate in some cases, the label risks dehumanizing by reducing people to an ideological caricature. This borders on the poisoning the well fallacy: once labeled, their views can be dismissed without engagement.

e. False Cause (Post hoc reasoning)

The claim that conservatives’ fear of the left causes alliances with fascists may oversimplify a more complex interaction of historical, cultural, and political forces.

4. Dehumanization Concerns

You sensed correctly — there is a dehumanizing undertone:

• By framing conservatives primarily as “weak,” “fearful,” and enablers of fascism, the influencer risks stripping them of rational agency.
• By reducing certain conservative talking points to “Nazi dog whistles,” all nuance is erased, making dialogue harder.

This aligns with what Brownstein (2025 SEP) notes about implicit bias: once groups are cognitively framed as dangerous or irrational, every action is interpreted in that light, further entrenching division.

5. Deep Consideration

• If the influencer is accurate, the warnings about fascist rhetoric echo historical patterns and may serve as a valid cautionary heuristic.
• If overstated, the reasoning risks creating polarization feedback loops: labeling opponents as fascists may push them further into defensive identity postures, which can ironically accelerate the radicalization the influencer fears.

Bottom Line:

The transcript mixes valid definitional clarity with overgeneralization, slippery slope reasoning, and potential dehumanization. It leans on biases like confirmation bias and outgroup homogeneity, which make its conclusions feel rhetorically powerful but logically brittle.

Concerning the Definition of Fascism

1. Typical Definitions of Fascism

Most historians and political theorists describe fascism as a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the early 20th century. Some representative definitions:

• Oxford English Dictionary: “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.”
• Encyclopedia Britannica: Fascism is a “political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and was characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”
• Roger Griffin’s influential academic definition: Fascism is “palingenetic ultranationalism,” meaning a movement that seeks the rebirth (palingenesis) of the nation through radical renewal, often tied to myths of national decline and promised restoration. (Griffin, The Nature of Fascism, 1991).

Key common elements:

• Ultranationalism (extreme focus on the nation’s superiority).
• Authoritarianism (strong leader, centralized power, suppression of dissent).
• Myth of decline and rebirth (palingenesis).
• Militarism and mass mobilization.
• Rejection of liberalism, democracy, and socialism.

2. The Influencer’s Definition

From the transcript:

• “Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultra-nationalism… obsessed with a cult of national purity and a mythic golden past that must be returned to through national rebirth.”
• “It is a style of politics, not a form of government. A process, not an end result.”
• “It ends with jackbooted thugs… but begins inside conservative coalitions.”

3. Alignment and Divergence

Alignment:

• The use of palingenetic ultranationalism comes directly from Roger Griffin, one of the most cited academic authorities on fascism.
• The emphasis on national purity, mythic past, rebirth, and revolutionary mass politics matches Griffin and many mainstream scholars.
• The idea that fascism can begin as a movement within coalitions is historically accurate (e.g., Mussolini’s alliance with Italian conservatives, Hitler’s rise with conservative backing in Weimar Germany).

Divergence / Emphasis Choices:

• By stressing that fascism is a “style of politics, not a form of government,” the influencer broadens the term’s application beyond regimes to rhetorical and cultural patterns. This is defensible in Griffin’s framework but also risks concept creep — stretching the term to label movements or rhetoric that may not meet all fascist criteria.
• The influencer highlights conservative weakness as the enabling factor. Standard definitions don’t include that; that’s an interpretive layer, not a definitional one.
• The imagery of camps, Dachau, Treblinka connects fascism inevitably with genocide. While historically linked (Nazism in particular), scholars caution that not every fascist movement necessarily results in extermination camps — though authoritarian violence is typical.

4. Evaluation

The influencer’s core definition (palingenetic ultranationalism) is consistent with one of the leading academic standards. However, the applied interpretation in the transcript expands the concept to a broad critique of conservatism, which risks slippage into generalization and rhetorical weaponization.

So:

• Accurate in theory (Griffin’s definition).
• Overstretched in practice (applied to wide swaths of political opponents).

Related Posts for Influence & Control Meta-Framework

Explore my series exploring the psychological tools, logical distortions, and social mechanisms that shape how influence and undue control operate.

Posts | References

References

• Academy of Management. (n.d.). Academy of Management journals. Academy of Management. https://journals.aom.org/
• American Psychological Association PsycINFO. (n.d.). PsycINFO database. https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo
• Brownstein, M. (2025). Implicit bias. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2025 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/implicit-bias/
• Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. (n.d.). Catalogue of bias. https://catalogofbias.org/
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2018). Introduction to logic (15th ed.). Routledge.
• Elsevier. (n.d.). ScienceDirect — scientific, technical, and medical research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
• Engel, S. M. (2022). With good reason: An introduction to informal fallacies (8th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/10403/emotional-intelligence-by-daniel-goleman/
• Govier, T. (2013). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.). (1995). Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. Penn State University Press.
• Harvard Business Review. (n.d.). Emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Publishing. https://hbr.org/topic/emotional-intelligence
• Harrison, E. S. (2018). Think (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Helpful Professor. (2023, September 10). 18 informal fallacy examples (A to Z). https://helpfulprofessor.com/informal-fallacy-examples/
• Journal of Organizational Behavior. (n.d.). Journal information. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10991379
• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (n.d.). Journal information and archives. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
• Logical-Fallacy.com. (n.d.). List of informal logical fallacies. https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/list-of-informal-fallacies/
• Logically Fallacious. (2022). Logically fallacious: The ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies. Archieboy Holdings. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/
• Luft, A. (2019, May 21). Dehumanization and the normalization of violence: It’s not what you think. Social Science Research Council. https://items.ssrc.org/insights/dehumanization-and-the-normalization-of-violence-its-not-what-you-think/
• Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user manual (technical ed.). Multi-Health Systems. https://www.mhs.com/
• PositivePsychology.com. (n.d.). Emotional intelligence resources, tools, and exercises. https://positivepsychology.com/emotional-intelligence/
• PositivePsychology.com. (n.d.). Breaking generational trauma with positive psychology. https://positivepsychology.com/generational-trauma/
• Neurolaunch. (n.d.). Generational trauma therapy: Breaking the cycle of inherited pain. https://neurolaunch.com/generational-trauma-therapy/
• Rivera, R. C. (2024). Dehumanization: An early warning sign of future political violence [Senior thesis, University of California, Irvine]. https://www.polisci.uci.edu/files/docs/theses/2023-24/2024_rivera_rocioceleste.pdf
• Simmons, L. (2022, October 17). Many Americans don’t see their political rivals as people. But that can be fixed. Stanford Graduate School of Business. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/many-americans-dont-see-their-political-rivals-people-can-be-fixed
• The Cognitive Bias Codex. (n.d.). Bias.wiki. https://bias.wiki/
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). List of cognitive biases. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Excerpt

When moral outrage replaces moral reasoning, language turns into a weapon. Labeling opponents “fascists” may feel righteous, but it erodes empathy, fuels division, and normalizes contempt. Dehumanization doesn’t defend democracy—it destroys it from within.