1. Why We Do This
Democracy depends on informed citizens making decisions based on accurate information. Yet understanding political rhetoricâwhat leaders say, how they say it, and how media frames itârequires time, attention, and historical context that most people lack in their daily lives.
Our rhetoric analysis module aims to help. We apply established academic frameworks to contemporary political speech, identifying patterns that scholars have associated with authoritarian movements and war propaganda. When these patterns appear, we flag themânot to tell you what to think, but to provide context you might otherwise miss.
We believe in transparency. Every rating we assign links directly to:
- The specific text that triggered our indicators
- The academic framework criteria being applied
- The original source articles
- This methodology page explaining our approach
You may disagree with our frameworks, our application of them, or our conclusions. That's your right, and we respect it. What we offer is a consistent, documented approach that you can evaluate for yourself.
We track two separate but related categories: fascism indicators(patterns associated with authoritarian movements) and warmongering indicators (patterns associated with manufacturing consent for military action). These often co-occur, but not always. When both are elevated for the same speaker or story, we flag the combined concern.
2. Fascism Indicators
âFascismâ is a contested term. Scholars have debated its definition for decades, and the word is often misused as a general insult. We take a more precise approach: identifying specific rhetorical and political patterns that historians and political scientists have documented in fascist movements.
Our fascism indicator system synthesises two widely-cited academic frameworks: Umberto Eco's âFourteen Properties of Ur-Fascismâ and Jason Stanley's âTen Pillars of Fascist Politics.â Together, these provide 24 distinct indicators we track across political speech.
2.1 Eco's Fourteen Properties of Ur-Fascism
About the Author: Umberto Eco (1932â2016) was an Italian novelist, literary critic, and philosopher who grew up under Mussolini's fascist regime. His 1995 essay âUr-Fascismâ (or âEternal Fascismâ) drew on his childhood experiences and scholarly work to identify features common to fascist movements across different times and cultures.
Eco emphasised that these features âcannot be organised into a systemâ and that âit is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.â The fourteen properties are:
1. The Cult of Tradition
Truth has already been revealed; all we can do is interpret it. Combining ideas from different traditions is acceptable because they all contain the same primordial truth.
2. Rejection of Modernism
The Enlightenment is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. Fascism can use technology, but ideologically it rejects modernity, reason, and the notion of human progress.
3. The Cult of Action for Action's Sake
Thinking is emasculating; action is inherently good. Culture is suspect when it doesn't serve immediate political goals. 'Universities are a nest of reds.'
4. Disagreement is Treason
Critical thinking is rejected. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and distinguishing is a sign of modernism.
5. Fear of Difference
The first appeal of fascism is against intruders. Fascism is therefore racist by definition.
6. Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class
Fascism appeals to a middle class frightened by economic crisis or humiliated by lower-class pressure, offering them a sense of identity and social position.
7. Obsession with Plot
Followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is to appeal to xenophobia. The plot must come from both inside and outside.
8. Enemy is Both Strong and Weak
Followers must be convinced they can overwhelm enemies yet feel humiliated by their ostentatious power. This requires enemies to be simultaneously too strong and too weak.
9. Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy
Life is permanent warfare. Since enemies must ultimately be defeated, there must be a final battle.
10. Contempt for the Weak
Elitism is typical. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, but within the hierarchy, leaders show contempt for those below.
11. Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero
The cult of heroism is connected with the cult of death. The hero of Ur-Fascism is impatient to die. This impatience is usually rewarded with sending others to die.
12. Machismo and Weapons
Male chauvinism implies both disdain for women and intolerance of non-standard sexual habits. 'War is man's game.'
13. Selective Populism
Individuals have no rights. The leader pretends to be the interpreter of the common will, though this will is not delegated but intuited. Citizens do not act; they are called upon to play the role of the People.
14. Newspeak
Ur-Fascism uses impoverished vocabulary and elementary syntax to limit critical reasoning. 'All Nazi texts for schools were made simple and poor.'
Source: Eco, Umberto. âUr-Fascism.â The New York Review of Books, 22 June 1995.
2.2 Stanley's Ten Pillars of Fascist Politics
About the Author: Jason Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale University. His 2018 book âHow Fascism Worksâ analyses how fascist politics functions in contemporary democracies, even when full fascist regimes don't emerge. Stanley argues that fascist tactics can be employed by politicians across the spectrum, and that identifying them early is crucial for democratic defence.
Stanley's pillars describe how fascist politics operates, focusing on the rhetorical and social mechanisms that enable authoritarian movements:
1. The Mythic Past
A glorious past is invoked that never actually existed, contrasted with a debased present. The nation must be restored to its former greatness. History is rewritten to create patriotic mythology.
2. Propaganda
Fascist politics attacks the distinction between truth and falsehood. It replaces evidence-based reality with the leader's assertions, creating a shared alternative reality for followers.
3. Anti-Intellectualism
Universities, experts, and intellectuals are targeted as liberal elites divorced from 'real' people. Education is attacked as indoctrination. Knowledge becomes suspect.
4. Unreality
Conspiracy theories replace evidence. Facts are what the leader says they are. Creating a sense of unreality makes democratic accountability impossible.
5. Hierarchy
Natural hierarchies are asserted: some groups are inherently superior to others. The nation is defined by the dominant group, and others must know their place.
6. Victimhood
Despite their supposed superiority, the dominant group is framed as the true victims. They are losing 'their' country to outsiders and traitors who threaten their way of life.
7. Law and Order
The 'other' is inherently criminal and threatening. Only a strong leader can restore order. Civil liberties are obstacles to safety. The ends justify the means.
8. Sexual Anxiety
Gender roles are strictly defined. LGBTQ+ people and feminists threaten the natural order. Protecting women and children from the 'other' justifies violence.
9. Sodom and Gomorrah
Cities are corrupt, cosmopolitan, and full of outsiders. Rural areas represent authentic national virtue. Urbanites are out of touch with 'real' people.
10. Arbeit Macht Frei
Work is virtue; poverty is moral failure. The 'other' is lazy and parasitic, living off the hard work of 'real' citizens. Social welfare is theft from the deserving.
Source: Stanley, Jason. âHow Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.â Random House, 2018.
2.3 How We Apply These Frameworks
We analyse political speech for linguistic markers and narrative patterns that align with these frameworks. Our system:
- Extracts quotes from news coverage, identifying speakers and their roles
- Scans for linguistic markers such as dehumanising language, us-vs-them framing, euphemisms for violence, and appeals to a mythic past
- Maps matches to framework indicators with confidence scores
- Provides source links to the original text so you can verify our analysis
- Aggregates over time to track whether patterns are increasing, stable, or decreasing
A single match does not mean someone âis a fascist.â Our analysis is descriptive: we identify when rhetoric aligns with patterns documented by scholars. Context matters, and we encourage users to read our source links and draw their own conclusions.
That said, frequency matters. A politician who consistently employs multiple indicators across different statements warrants closer attention than one with occasional, isolated matches.
3. Warmongering Indicators
Wars require public support, and that support must be manufactured. Scholars have documented consistent propaganda patterns across different conflicts and eras. We apply these frameworks to identify when rhetoric follows established patterns of war justification.
Our warmongering indicator system synthesises two complementary frameworks: Anne Morelli's âTen Principles of War Propagandaâ and Herman and Chomsky's âManufacturing Consentâ propaganda model.
3.1 Morelli's Ten Principles of War Propaganda
About the Framework: Belgian historian Anne Morelli synthesised earlier work on First World War propaganda (notably Arthur Ponsonby's 1928 âFalsehood in War-Timeâ) into ten principles that recur across conflicts and nations. Her 2001 book demonstrates how these same patterns appear in wars from different eras and political systems.
The ten principles describe the standard narrative arc of war justification:
1. We Do Not Want War
Leaders always claim they don't want war; it is being forced upon them. 'We have no choice.' 'We've tried everything else.' 'They left us no option.'
2. The Adversary is Solely Responsible
The enemy is presented as the sole aggressor. Our side was peaceful and reasonable; their actions alone caused the conflict. History begins at their first provocation.
3. The Enemy's Leader is Evil
The conflict is personalised around an evil leader, often compared to Hitler. The enemy population is depicted as victims of their own leadership, awaiting liberation.
4. We Defend a Noble Cause
We fight for freedom, democracy, human rights, or civilisation itself. Material interests (oil, territory, markets) are never mentioned as motivations.
5. The Enemy Commits Atrocities
The enemy's cruelty is emphasised, often with atrocity stories that may be exaggerated, distorted, or fabricated. Our side's violence is minimised or justified.
6. The Enemy Uses Forbidden Weapons
Chemical weapons, torture, targeting civilians. Even when our side uses similar methods, the enemy's use is presented as uniquely barbaric.
7. We Suffer Few Losses
Our casualties are minimised in reporting. Enemy casualties are either inflated (they're being defeated) or omitted (they don't count). Civilian deaths are 'collateral damage.'
8. Artists and Intellectuals Support Us
Cultural figures and academics are enlisted to legitimise the war effort. Those who dissent are marginalised as naive, disloyal, or enemy sympathisers.
9. Our Cause is Sacred
The war takes on religious or civilisational dimensions. We defend values that transcend politics. The enemy threatens everything we hold dear.
10. Those Who Question Our Account Are Traitors
Dissent is disloyal. Questioning the official narrative aids the enemy. Nuance and complexity are rejected as moral cowardice or active collaboration.
Source: Morelli, Anne. âPrincipes Ă©lĂ©mentaires de propagande de guerre.â Ăditions Labor, 2001. Based on Ponsonby, Arthur. âFalsehood in War-Time.â George Allen & Unwin, 1928.
3.2 Manufacturing Consent: The Five Filters
About the Framework: Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's 1988 book âManufacturing Consentâ proposed a propaganda model explaining how commercial media systems produce consent for policies that serve elite interests. The five filters describe structural biases, not conscious conspiracy.
Rather than identifying explicit lies, this model explains how certain perspectives are systematically amplified while others are marginalised:
1. Ownership
Major media outlets are owned by large corporations with interests beyond journalism. Coverage tends to reflect owner interests and avoid stories that threaten advertising revenue or corporate relationships.
2. Advertising
Media depends on advertising revenue, creating pressure to maintain audiences and avoid controversial content that might drive away advertisers. Content that challenges corporate power is inherently risky.
3. Sourcing
Journalism relies heavily on official sources (government, military, corporate PR) for information. These sources are treated as authoritative, while alternative sources face higher standards of proof.
4. Flak
Organised campaigns to discredit or punish journalists and outlets that deviate from acceptable narratives. Think tanks, pressure groups, and social media campaigns create costs for dissent.
5. Common Enemy
Originally 'anti-communism,' now adaptable: terrorism, 'rogue states,' or whatever threat justifies military action. This filter creates a framework where questioning the threat is seen as naive or dangerous.
We analyse coverage for evidence of these filters operating: heavy reliance on official sources, absence of alternative perspectives, uniformity of framing across outlets, and marginalisation of dissent.
Source: Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. âManufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.â Pantheon Books, 1988.
3.3 How We Apply These Frameworks
We analyse both what officials say and how media frames it. For statements, we look for narrative patterns matching Morelli's principles. For coverage, we assess sourcing diversity and the presence of alternative viewpoints.
- Statement analysis: Does the rhetoric follow war justification patterns? Are enemies dehumanised? Is dissent delegitimised?
- Framing analysis: How do different outlets cover the same events? Whose voices are included? What context is provided or omitted?
- Source diversity: Are all sources from official channels? Are critics represented? Is there substantive debate?
- Language patterns: Euphemisms for violence, asymmetric casualty coverage, sacred vs. profane framing
As with fascism indicators, a single match is not proof of anything. We document patterns over time, provide source links, and let you evaluate our findings.
4. Scoring and Concern Levels
We assign numerical scores (0â100) to each quote and aggregate them for speakers over time. These scores are converted to concern levels for easier interpretation:
| Level | Score Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| None | 0â19 | No significant indicators detected |
| Monitor | 20â39 | Some patterns present; worth watching |
| Elevated | 40â59 | Multiple indicators; concerning pattern emerging |
| Severe | 60â79 | Strong pattern alignment; serious concern |
| Critical | 80â100 | Extensive pattern match; highest concern |
Scoring methodology:
- Each indicator match contributes points based on confidence (how certain we are the match is accurate) and severity (how significant the indicator is)
- Multiple indicators in the same statement add cumulative points
- Recurring indicators across multiple statements increase the speaker's rolling score
- Scores decay over time if new concerning statements aren't detected
When both fascism and warmongering scores are elevated for the same speaker or story, we flag a combined concern. Historical evidence suggests these patterns are more dangerous when they co-occur.
5. Limitations and Caveats
We believe in being honest about what our analysis can and cannot do:
What We Cannot Determine
- Intent: We analyse rhetoric, not minds. A speaker may use concerning language without fascist intent, or may harbour fascist views while speaking carefully. We document patterns; we don't read thoughts.
- Truth: We don't fact-check claims. A statement may be factually accurate and still employ concerning rhetoric, or be false without triggering our indicators.
- Policy wisdom: We don't evaluate whether specific policies are good or bad. A policy can be poorly argued (triggering our indicators) while being substantively sound, or well-argued while being harmful.
- Context nuance: Automated analysis misses irony, satire, quotation, and rhetorical devices. We try to filter obvious cases, but some will slip through.
Framework Limitations
- These frameworks were developed primarily from European and American historical examples. They may be less applicable to different cultural or political contexts.
- Scholars disagree about the precise definition and characteristics of fascism. Our synthesis of Eco and Stanley is one approach among many.
- Language evolves. Some rhetorical patterns that were once clearly concerning may have become normalised, or new concerning patterns may have emerged that our frameworks don't capture.
False Positives and Negatives
- False positives: Some legitimate political rhetoric may match our indicators. Patriotism isn't automatically nationalism; criticising experts isn't automatically anti-intellectualism. Our confidence scores try to account for this, but imperfect matches will occur.
- False negatives: Sophisticated communicators can convey concerning messages without using obvious markers. Dog whistles, coded language, and plausibly deniable statements may evade our detection.
Our recommendation: Use our analysis as one input among many. Follow our source links to read the original statements. Consider the broader context we can't capture. Draw your own conclusions.
6. Further Reading
For those who want to explore these topics more deeply, we recommend:
On Fascism
- Eco, Umberto. âUr-Fascism.â The New York Review of Books, 1995.[Available online]
- Stanley, Jason. âHow Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.â Random House, 2018.
- Paxton, Robert O. âThe Anatomy of Fascism.â Knopf, 2004.
- Albright, Madeleine. âFascism: A Warning.â Harper, 2018.
- Snyder, Timothy. âOn Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.â Tim Duggan Books, 2017.
On War Propaganda
- Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. âManufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.â Pantheon Books, 1988.
- Ponsonby, Arthur. âFalsehood in War-Time.â George Allen & Unwin, 1928.[Public domain, available online]
- Morelli, Anne. âPrincipes Ă©lĂ©mentaires de propagande de guerre.â Ăditions Labor, 2001.
- Curtis, Mark. âWeb of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World.â Vintage, 2003.
On Media Analysis
- McChesney, Robert W. âRich Media, Poor Democracy.â University of Illinois Press, 1999.
- Davies, Nick. âFlat Earth News.â Chatto & Windus, 2008.
- Cadwalladr, Carole. âI Made Steve Bannon's Psychological Warfare Tool.â The Observer, 2018.[On digital propaganda]