In case this wasn't clear from my last comment, I think that from a causal point of view what is important is the continuity between idiotarianism and evil. But from a moral point of view it is their difference that is important. "Moral inversion" is my name for the unified causal explanation for the psychological and cultural mechanisms that give rise to both phenomena.

But I fully agree with David and Woty that when discussing the morality of the two conditions, there is an important difference between them -- one which justifies having two separate terms. The distinction is important, not least, because evil people such as Hamas operatives and Saddam Hussein can merit being killed in extra-judicial ways, whereas idiotarians cannot.

I still don't like the word "idiotarianism" and have never used it except when debating the nuances of its meaning with other readers of LGF. We need a term whose meaning is more apparent and which has connotations of immorality, rather than irrationality.

To that end, I propose the term "morality denial". Chomsky, the French, The European Union, and all those who believe America to be guilty of unilateralism, are morality deniers.