A Question for Orcinus

You write:

Do I think this is a sign of incipient fascism? No. I only think it's another progression in a trend I've already discussed at length, namely, that conservatives appear (consciously or not) to be laying the groundwork for an eventual outbreak of genuine fascism.

Practically speaking, what's the difference? You're always writing that what we're seeing in the States is not fascism or protofascism, but pseudo-fascism. And maybe I missed the part where you explained why you're so careful to make that distinction, but to me it sometimes seems like you do it just to avoid Godwin's law. I admire your work tremendously, but what you have to write is very disturbing, and not made less so by this distinction without a difference that is pseudo-fascism vs. incipient fascism vs. proto-fascism.

I know you write that what we are seeing today is different in many respects from the 'original' fascisms. But wouldn't that always be the case, since it's a different time and place? What is the difference, particularly, between 'incipient fascism' and 'laying the groundwork for the eventual outbreak of genuine fascism"?

When you say "pseudo-fascism", it makes it sound like whatever is going on, since not fascism, is not actually that dangerous. Do you do this just to calm the tin-hatters? Because everything else you say makes things sound pretty darn dangerous. It looks like fascism and quacks like fascism. Sure, it's not just like the fascism we all know and love from our history books. But it's not an entirely other species. It's not like the difference between a king snake and a coral snake, the difference between harmless and deadly.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Why "pseudo-" instead of "proto-", "neo-" or "Americo-"?