Definitions by Abzugal
Atheist Fanaticism
A zealous, dogmatic form of atheism that goes beyond disbelief in gods to active hostility toward religious people and any spiritual or metaphysical worldview. The atheist fanatic treats religion not as mistaken but as evil, and religious believers as intellectually or morally deficient. They often mimic religious behaviors: preaching, converting, forming closed communities that enforce orthodoxy. Online atheist fanatics engage in constant mockery, harassment of believers, and purity tests that expel anyone who shows tolerance toward religion. What began as skepticism hardens into a new dogma, complete with its own saints (e.g., Hitchens, Dawkins) and excommunication rituals.
Example: “He spent hours each day posting memes mocking believers and celebrating when religious figures faced public shame—atheist fanaticism, having replaced one absolute certainty with another.”
Atheist Fanaticism by Abzugal May 2, 2026
Scientistic Fanaticism
A more intense form of scientific fanaticism, rooted in scientism—the belief that science is the only legitimate source of knowledge. Scientistic fanatics treat every human question (meaning, morality, art, love) as ultimately a scientific problem, and dismiss any non‑scientific approach as worthless or irrational. They exhibit purity spirals, attacking even other scientists who acknowledge the limits of science. Their zealotry often extends to praising “the scientific worldview” as a total replacement for philosophy, religion, or humanities, and they react with fury to suggestions that science might have boundaries.
Example: “He argued that poetry should be replaced by neuroscience because only science reveals truth—scientistic fanaticism, reducing human meaning to data and demanding everyone obey.”
Scientistic Fanaticism by Abzugal May 2, 2026
Scientific Fanaticism
A critical term describing how some online science communication communities and self‑styled science communicators adopt behaviors indistinguishable from religious zealotry: dogmatic adherence to certain theories (even as they evolve), hostility toward dissent, excommunication of heretics, and a missionary zeal to convert the “unscientific.” They speak of “believing in science,” treat scientific consensus as infallible scripture, and frame any questioning as moral failing rather than intellectual inquiry. Scientific fanaticism mistakes the authority of science for the authority of scientists, and turns a method of inquiry into a rigid belief system. It is especially visible in online debates where “science says so” ends conversation rather than opening it.
Example: “He declared that anyone who doubted the study was a science denier who deserved public shaming—scientific fanaticism, wielding the prestige of science like a catechism to silence questions.”
Scientific Fanaticism by Abzugal May 2, 2026
Theater of Scissors
A political expression describing a strategy in which two ostensibly fierce opponents actually act as allies or share the same underlying power project, creating a false polarization that deceives the electorate. The name evokes a pair of scissors: two blades that appear to oppose each other, cutting against one another, yet they are joined at the pivot and work together to achieve a common result. In the Theater of Scissors, the ruling parties perform dramatic conflicts—debates, scandals, policy disagreements—while collaborating behind the scenes to protect elite interests, limit real change, and channel popular discontent into safe, managed channels. The electorate is led to believe it has a meaningful choice, when in fact both options serve the same fundamental agenda. The term is often applied to the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States since the end of World War I, where alternating administrations have maintained the core structures of corporate power, military intervention, and financial capitalism despite their rhetorical clashes.
Example: “Every election season, the two parties scream about existential threats, yet after the votes are counted, Wall Street gets bailed out, wars continue, and healthcare remains a privilege. That’s the Theater of Scissors: the blades cut each other on TV, but the handle is held by the same hand.”
Theater of Scissors by Abzugal May 2, 2026
Consented Authoritarianism
A critical term for how pro‑Western political groups argue that an authoritarian or totalitarian government can still be “democratic” if it was elected by a majority—especially when that government aligns with Western interests. The logic holds that as long as the ruler came to power through a vote (even a sham election) and maintains Western support, it is not “real” authoritarianism. Critics point out that this standard is never applied to non‑Western regimes. The term exposes the selective outrage of liberal interventionists who condemn illiberal governments only when they resist Western hegemony.
Example: “He praised the president’s landslide victory and ignored the jailing of opponents—consented authoritarianism, calling a rubber‑stamp election ‘democratic’ because the winner was pro‑West.”
Consented Totalitarianism
Similar to consented authoritarianism, but reserved for even more extreme cases where a regime controls every aspect of life, yet Western apologists defend it on the grounds that the people “chose” it or that the totalitarian measures are necessary to combat an external enemy. The term highlights the contradiction of praising “democracy” while justifying mass surveillance, secret police, and party‑state fusion when the ruler is a Western ally. It is a powerful critique of double standards in international politics.
Example: “She argued that the mass surveillance was ‘a democratic decision of the people’—consented totalitarianism, dressing up dictatorship as the will of the majority.”
Consented Totalitarianism
Similar to consented authoritarianism, but reserved for even more extreme cases where a regime controls every aspect of life, yet Western apologists defend it on the grounds that the people “chose” it or that the totalitarian measures are necessary to combat an external enemy. The term highlights the contradiction of praising “democracy” while justifying mass surveillance, secret police, and party‑state fusion when the ruler is a Western ally. It is a powerful critique of double standards in international politics.
Example: “She argued that the mass surveillance was ‘a democratic decision of the people’—consented totalitarianism, dressing up dictatorship as the will of the majority.”
Consented Authoritarianism by Abzugal May 2, 2026
Consented Imperialism
A critical term describing how pro‑Western political groups reframe Western imperialism and colonialism in non‑Western countries as “consented” and therefore not “real” imperialism. According to this logic, if a foreign power invades, occupies, or exploits a country while claiming to act in the interests of that country’s people—or if a local elite collaborates—the act is magically transformed from domination into partnership. Critics argue that “consented imperialism” is a rhetorical trick: the same people who say “imperialism is when you invade another country against its will” conveniently forget that label when the invader is a Western democracy. In practice, “consent” is often manufactured through puppet governments, economic coercion, or the sheer threat of worse alternatives.
Example: “He called NATO’s intervention ‘a request from the local government’—pure consented imperialism, pretending that a small group of collaborators speaks for a whole nation.”
Consented Colonialism
The colonial version of consented imperialism: the idea that colonialism can be legitimate if the colonised population (or its appointed representatives) supposedly “agreed” to it. Pro‑Western apologists use this to defend settler projects, resource extraction, or military bases by pointing to local elites who benefit from the arrangement. Critics note that “consent” obtained under threat of violence, economic strangulation, or cultural erasure is not consent at all. The term exposes the hypocrisy of those who condemn old‑fashioned colonialism while defending its modern equivalents under the banner of “partnership.”
Example: “She claimed the economic zone was ‘invited’ by the local chief—consented colonialism, ignoring that the chief was installed by the same foreign power and faced prison if he refused.”
Consented Colonialism
The colonial version of consented imperialism: the idea that colonialism can be legitimate if the colonised population (or its appointed representatives) supposedly “agreed” to it. Pro‑Western apologists use this to defend settler projects, resource extraction, or military bases by pointing to local elites who benefit from the arrangement. Critics note that “consent” obtained under threat of violence, economic strangulation, or cultural erasure is not consent at all. The term exposes the hypocrisy of those who condemn old‑fashioned colonialism while defending its modern equivalents under the banner of “partnership.”
Example: “She claimed the economic zone was ‘invited’ by the local chief—consented colonialism, ignoring that the chief was installed by the same foreign power and faced prison if he refused.”
Consented Imperialism by Abzugal May 2, 2026
Authoritarian Precarization
A critical term for how precarization—the spread of unstable, contingent, insecure work—functions as an authoritarian mechanism. Precarious workers cannot afford to dissent, to organize, or to demand rights. The threat of losing one’s livelihood is the most effective discipline: it turns workers against each other, forces compliance, and eliminates resistance. Authoritarian precarization is rule by fear of falling, where insecurity is not a bug but a feature—a quiet, economic authoritarianism.
Authoritarian Precarization Example: “She knew speaking up about safety violations would get her hours cut. Authoritarian precarization: the whip of uncertainty, more effective than any boss’s shout.”
Totalitarian Precarization
An extreme form of authoritarian precarization, where insecurity becomes total—encompassing work, housing, health, and social belonging. People live in a state of chronic emergency, never able to plan, trust, or hope. Totalitarian precarization dissolves solidarity, commodifies every relationship, and leaves individuals atomized and desperate. It is the totalitarian control of life through the engineered absence of stability, making everyone a supplicant to the next contract, the next gig, the next arbitrary decision by an algorithm or manager.
Example: “He had three ‘jobs,’ lived in a weekly motel, and had no health insurance—his entire existence was a month‑to‑month negotiation. Totalitarian precarization: freedom as constant collapse.”
Totalitarian Precarization
An extreme form of authoritarian precarization, where insecurity becomes total—encompassing work, housing, health, and social belonging. People live in a state of chronic emergency, never able to plan, trust, or hope. Totalitarian precarization dissolves solidarity, commodifies every relationship, and leaves individuals atomized and desperate. It is the totalitarian control of life through the engineered absence of stability, making everyone a supplicant to the next contract, the next gig, the next arbitrary decision by an algorithm or manager.
Example: “He had three ‘jobs,’ lived in a weekly motel, and had no health insurance—his entire existence was a month‑to‑month negotiation. Totalitarian precarization: freedom as constant collapse.”
Authoritarian Precarization by Abzugal May 2, 2026