In terms of their psychology and philosophical content, idiotarianism and outright evil differ only in degree. Both are parts of the moral inversion continuum. Both are driven by a logic-of-situation imperative to deny the true explanation for human progress and to discredit those who live by it. That is the reason why idiotarians and evil-doers from widely diverse backgrounds all agree on hating and blaming the morally most progressive peoples, such as Americans and Jews.

Where an individual ends up on this moral inversion continuum depends more on contingent factors, than on their own philosophical commitments. Their moral and intellectual trajectory is largely shaped by the objective logical and epistemic constraints of trying to pin the blame for the failure of immoral cultures, at the feet of the most virtuous cultures.

Moral inverters learn what to think and how to argue partly from the intrinsic logic of this predicament, and partly by memic transmission from others who have trodden the same ground before them. Generally speaking, an individual moral inverter's only substantive contribution to his or her own stance is deciding how far to go down this road.

I think the transition of German culture from pre-WWII idiotarianism, to the extreme evil of Nazism, and then, following its defeat, back to idiotarianism again, bears out my thesis that evil and idiotarianism are parts of the same continuum, and can be inter-converted under suitable external circumstances.

Having said that, for many practical purposes the distinction between evil-doers and their mere apologists, is very real and very important. So I agree that having a separate term for the latter is useful. But I still think that "idiotarianism" works better as an in-jibe, than as a term that is conducive to the enlightenment of the uninitiated.

The reason is that it obscures the fundamental psychological and moral relationship between full-blown evil and its precursor stance, which we might more accurately call "proevil".