Definitions by Abzugal
IMFism
The ideological stance associated with the International Monetary Fund, positioned as the opposite of National Bolshevism. IMFism champions fiscal austerity, privatization, deregulation, and structural adjustment as the remedy for economic crises, particularly in developing nations. It prioritizes repayment of debt and integration into global financial markets over social welfare or national economic sovereignty. National Bolshevism, by contrast, emphasizes state control of industry, nationalist economic planning, and rejection of foreign financial domination. IMFism has been widely criticized for imposing harsh conditions that deepen poverty and inequality, leading to the term “IMFism” as a pejorative for neoliberal orthodoxy imposed from above.
Example: “The government’s austerity package—cutting healthcare and raising retirement ages—was classic IMFism, enacted despite popular opposition because the loan agreement demanded it.”
WEFism
A shorthand for the ideological position associated with the World Economic Forum, positioned as the polar opposite of National Bolshevism (which mixes nationalism with left‑wing economics). WEFism combines neoliberal market policies with global governance institutions, technocratic management, and a focus on “multi‑stakeholder” decision‑making. It rejects both nationalist isolation and classical socialist state ownership, instead promoting public‑private partnerships, digital surveillance for efficiency, and climate capitalism. Critics on the left see WEFism as a fig leaf for corporate power; critics on the right see it as a globalist plot against national sovereignty. WEFism is often invoked in conspiracy theories, but it also has real policy manifestations.
Example: “The proposal for a global carbon trading system with private oversight was pure WEFism—market‑based, internationally managed, and suspicious of direct democratic control.”
Schwabism
Named after Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, Schwabism represents the ideological opposite of Duginism. It advocates for globalist stakeholder capitalism, digital governance, and the “Great Reset”—a vision of post‑crisis economic and social reorganization that prioritizes sustainability, inclusivity, and technological integration. Schwabism rejects nationalist autarky and civilizational isolationism, promoting instead a tightly interconnected world managed by elite consensus. Critics label Schwabism as a technocratic, corporate‑friendly globalism that undermines democratic sovereignty and local autonomy. Supporters see it as a pragmatic response to global challenges like climate change and inequality.
Example: “She critiqued Schwabism for concentrating power in unelected global forums while claiming to represent ‘all stakeholders’—pointing out that the World Economic Forum’s membership is overwhelmingly corporate and wealthy.”
Fehlingerism
A political ideology named after Gunther Fehlinger, often framed as the polar opposite of Duginism (the Eurasianist, anti‑Western, nationalist philosophy of Aleksandr Dugin). Fehlingerism embraces Atlanticism, liberal democracy, European integration, and a rules‑based international order. It emphasizes the sovereignty of individual nations within a cooperative framework, opposition to authoritarian expansion, and the protection of human rights. Where Duginism seeks a multipolar world with competing civilizational blocs, Fehlingerism advocates for a unipolar or hegemonically liberal order under Western leadership. It is often invoked critically by those who see it as a naïve or imperialistic ideology.
Example: “His Fehlingerism led him to support NATO expansion without question, believing that any spread of Western institutions was inherently good—ignoring local complexities and historical grievances.”
Fehlingerism by Abzugal April 18, 2026
Evidence‑based Defaultism
An ideological extension of evidence defaultism, where “evidence‑based” is treated not as a methodology but as a totalizing worldview that dismisses any knowledge claim not grounded in empirical, quantitative, peer‑reviewed evidence. Evidence‑based defaultism assumes that evidence, as defined by Western scientific institutions, is the only legitimate basis for belief, and that any other way of knowing (intuition, tradition, revelation, embodied experience) is automatically inferior or delusional. It often appears in policy debates, education, and online skepticism, where it is used to exclude indigenous knowledge, spiritual practices, and qualitative research from consideration. Unlike genuine evidence‑based practice (which uses evidence as a tool), evidence‑based defaultism uses “evidence” as a gatekeeping ideology.
Example: “The committee rejected traditional ecological knowledge from consideration, stating that only ‘evidence‑based’ studies would be accepted. Evidence‑based defaultism: using the rhetoric of evidence to erase non‑Western knowledge systems.”
Evidence‑based Defaultism by Abzugal April 18, 2026
Proof Defaultism
A bias closely related to evidence defaultism, but focused specifically on the concept of “proof.” The proof defaultist assumes that unless a claim can be proven according to their own narrow, often impossibly strict criteria (e.g., mathematical certainty, absolute logical deduction), it is automatically false or not worth considering. This bias is common in debates about philosophy, religion, and metaphysics, where one side demands “proof” for the existence of God, consciousness, or objective morality, while ignoring that such domains rarely admit of proof in the mathematical sense. Proof defaultism weaponizes the ambiguity of “proof” to dismiss whole fields of inquiry.
Example: “He demanded proof that love is real, not just brain chemistry. When she offered experiential, relational, and behavioral evidence, he insisted that wasn’t ‘real proof.’ Proof defaultism: setting an impossible standard to avoid engagement.”
Proof Defaultism by Abzugal April 18, 2026
Evidence Defaultism
A cognitive bias where one automatically assumes that the absence of immediate, tangible, or conventionally formatted evidence is sufficient grounds to dismiss a claim, without considering that evidence might exist in other forms, be inaccessible, or be contextually inappropriate. The evidence defaultist treats their own evidentiary standards as universal and self‑justifying, and any failure to meet those standards is treated as proof of falsehood or irrationality. This bias often appears in online debates where one party demands “evidence” for spiritual, experiential, or historical claims, then declares victory when the other party cannot produce a peer‑reviewed study on demand. Evidence defaultism confuses “lack of evidence I accept” with “lack of evidence altogether.”
Example: “He asked for a randomized controlled trial proving that her grandmother’s herbal remedy worked for her family. When she couldn’t produce one, he declared the remedy worthless. Evidence defaultism: demanding a specific kind of evidence and ignoring all other forms of knowing.”
Evidence Defaultism by Abzugal April 18, 2026