I didn’t want to write this. I’ve tried really hard to keep politics off my Substack. That’s what X is for. Over here, I like to write pretty things. Thoughtful things. Slow, expansive pieces. But last week, as many of us noticed, something shifted. And sometimes a piece of writing is so egregiously bad, so manipulative, so divorced from reality, that staying silent starts to feel like complicity.
Over the weekend, an essay started making the rounds titled "Dump Your Matcha and Fight Fascism, Bitch"—a hyper-emotional tirade in which the author accuses the wellness industry of complicity in white supremacy, genocide, and fascism. Her logic? Some influencers didn’t post about Palestine, others expressed concern over the death of a conservative media figure (rest in peace, Charlie), and the rest were apparently too busy nostril breathing to dismantle systemic oppression.
She accuses the entire wellness world of silence, complicity, and proximity to the alt-right—drawing a direct line from matcha lattes to moral decay. She implies that people engaging in wellness practices like juice cleanses or cold plunges are upholding violent, systemic power structures through their silence. That’s a hell of a leap to say the least.
The comment section looked like a scene from The Crucible. A pile-on of “Yes queen!” and “THIS.” No one seemed to be stopping to ask: Wait, is any of this actually true?
Part of me gets it. I used to eat this stuff up too. I was born and raised in a very liberal part of California. I have a degree in “Women’s and Gender Studies.” I sat in rooms with people who believed the same things this writer does, and for a long time, I believed some of it too. Not necessarily because I was brainwashed—but because it was all I was ever taught.
But the thing is, when you think critically, ask good questions, and apply objective reasoning, it becomes very hard to keep playing along. The cracks in the logic become too loud to ignore. That doesn’t make me a right-wing nutjob. It makes me someone who’s seen both sides and chooses reality over dogma.
I’m writing this because I can’t sit by while words are stripped of meaning and thousands of vulnerable minds get infected by emotional parasites masquerading as political clarity.
So let’s take her advice. Let’s talk about fascism. Let’s talk about what words actually mean. And let’s talk about how these kinds of emotionally manipulative, historically illiterate and all-around embarrassing essays don’t just make people dumber, they erode our ability to think clearly as a society.
Before we start throwing it around, let’s actually define the term.
Fascism is a political ideology rooted in authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent. It demands conformity, elevates the state over the individual, and eradicates political opposition.
Fun fact: Benito Mussolini—the literal founder of fascism—started out as a socialist. He was the editor of the Italian Socialist Party’s newspaper before flipping to fascism. His move from collectivist ideology to authoritarian nationalism should make you pause, especially when you see self-proclaimed social justice activists now parroting the same tactics! Rigid ideological conformity, censorship, punishment of dissent, and glorification of "the collective good" over individual freedom.
In other words, the people screaming about fascism often mimic it more than they realize.
If you don’t know who this person is, you have no business discussing fascism.
if everyone's a fascist, no one is —
The word has lost its teeth. And not because it's outdated, but because people like this author have turned it into a catchall insult for "anyone who disagrees with me."
She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities.
But the ugly truth these people don’t seem to want to face is that fascism thrives on forced conformity. And that's exactly what she (and many others) are demanding.
When you insist that everyone perform the same grief, speak the same politics, and obey the same moral framework—or else—you are describing the very foundations of authoritarian rule.
So let’s be clear: the insistence that silence is violence, that neutrality is complicity, that individual sovereignty is fascist, and that failing to speak your language of politics makes you a threat to democracy, is not resistance. That’s called tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control).
bad ideas spread like parasites —
Andy Norman wrote a book about this, actually. It’s called Mental Immunity and I highly recommend checking it out, if you haven’t already. Because this is bigger than one dumb essay. The problem is that thousands of readers consume these essays like gospel. They think this is political thought. They believe the rhetoric because it sounds passionate, and they’re not equipped to recognize how manipulative it is.
And the more they share it, the more it becomes a social script. A ritual. A collective chant that requires no scrutiny. That’s how ideological parasites work. They don’t require you to think. They just require you to repeat. And repeat they do.
In that regard, this type of writing is structurally fascist—not in intent, but in effect. It creates purity tests. It silences dissent. It demands ideological obedience. And worst of all, it teaches people that emotional correctness matters more than factual understanding.
This isn’t new. George Washington literally warned us about it.
— George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
Usurpation doesn’t always come from the state. It often begins in culture. In language. In peer pressure and manipulated emotion. In rewriting norms under the guise of moral urgency.
Let’s zoom out for a sec.
The United States was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism: individual liberty, decentralized power, freedom of speech, and protection of dissent. Our system isn’t perfect, but it is designed to make authoritarianism hard.
So when self-appointed moral authorities call for collective outrage enforcement, demand ideological uniformity, and vilify individuals for expressing concern about a fellow American's murder, they're not defending democracy. They’re undermining the philosophical architecture that makes democracy possible in the first place.
Much of this confusion stems from the author’s complete entanglement in identity politics, where every issue must be filtered through race, gender, privilege, or class. Mourning a white man becomes white supremacy. Not mentioning transphobia in your self-care content is now a political act of violence.
I don’t know who needs to hear this but identity politics isn’t about truth. It’s about emotional leverage. It turns every issue into a contest of who is most aggrieved. It pathologizes difference and turns disagreement into oppression. It is, by design, hostile to open dialogue. And fascism? Well, fascism is allergic to open dialogue.
Now, many of you don’t know me. I’m sure some of you will read this and assume I must be some far-right talking head, or a conservative troll. But funny enough, I fought my way out of ideological capture. I studied all of this. I lived inside it. I know how the logic works—and more importantly, how it fails.
So when I speak on this, I’m doing it because I actually understand what it means to think this way, and more importantly, why it needs to be challenged.
“wellness is a pipeline to fascism” — come on
To go back to the piece, the author suggests that wellness content is a pipeline to the alt-right. Her proof? Mothers who are skeptical of pharmaceutical companies.
I didn’t think this needed to be stated, but questioning corporate influence over medicine isn’t fascist. Neither is seeking nervous system regulation, grounding, or bodily autonomy. In fact, bodily autonomy is one of the first things actual fascists try to strip from citizens.
These people (wellness influencers or wellness-seekers the author writes about) aren’t building a pipeline to fascism. They’re building a moat around their sanity. To be fair, some probably are building an audience rooted in the wellness industry, but that doesn’t imply fascism either, and is probably a separate conversation about what it means to have a personal brand in 2025.
Speaking of personal brands, let’s take a look at hers.
line-by-line hypocrisies —
She says influencers were silent about global violence
Yet she never calls out Hamas or mentions any violence committed against civilians in Israel. Selective outrage is her entire operating system.
She says silence equals complicity
But silence about what? Who determines the mandatory talking points? Is there a handbook? A hotline? Because demanding speech under threat of cancellation is not free society behavior.
She says mourning Charlie Kirk is white supremacy
No. Mourning someone who was murdered is human. And if your version of empathy only applies to people who agree with you, you are not empathetic. You are tribal.
She says influencers crying over Charlie are upholding fascism
In reality, demanding conformity and punishing deviation is textbook authoritarian behavior—on her part.
She says wellness should be redefined as collective liberation
No. That’s what politics is for. Wellness is about sovereignty. You don’t get to repurpose someone’s coping mechanism into your political mascot.
She says the wellness industry is as dangerous as Big Pharma
And yet, she wants to politicize it. She wants to institutionalize it. That is how industries become corrupt in the first place.
The real threat to democracy is the one you can’t see. It isn’t pilates moms. It isn’t green juice. It isn’t people who didn’t share your infographic on social media.
It’s the erosion of meaning. The cheapening of words like "fascism" and "genocide" and “white supremacist” until they mean nothing at all. The normalization of emotional coercion as discourse. The ritual shaming of people who choose silence over virtue signaling.
It’s the idea that you’re either loud or evil. That if you don’t use your platform exactly the way they tell you to, you’re dangerous.
That is the precursor to real authoritarianism. And the fact that it's being championed by people who claim to be fighting it, is an epic punchline. If only I could laugh. Or maybe laughing is all we can do at this point?
want to actually fight fascism? start here:
Stop demanding obedience
Stop punishing nuance
Stop redefining words to fit your narrative
Stop silencing people for not parroting your beliefs
Stop enforcing political performance as moral purity
If you're doing any of that, you're not resisting fascism. You're helping it grow.
Read a book. Sit with yourself.
Not everything you feel needs to be projected. Not every silence is oppression. Not every disagreement is fascism.
We need better thinkers. Not louder ones. We need people who understand context, not just vibes. We need less performance and more principle.
"She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities."
No, she is exposing selective empathy and how that is clearly rooted in systemic racism. Why can people stomach watching thousands of children torn to pieces and starved to death for two years but then cry when one man is shot? There’s a clear explanation that lies in the colour of their skin and who people deem to be deserving of life.
“When you insist that everyone perform the same grief, speak the same politics, and obey the same moral framework—or else—you are describing the very foundations of authoritarian rule.”
So we’re in agreement then that the administration revoking visas for those speaking out in support of Palestine or those who have made light of Charlie Kirk’s death is demonstrating the government’s authoritarian rule and the foundations of fascism? To fight fascism you say we need to “stop silencing people for not parroting your beliefs” but that’s exactly what the government is doing - on a much more serious level than someone on Substack.
It means nothing to say the US “was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism” - that is not the reality now. So I’ll take your advice and stop to ask “wait is any of this actually true?”.
This piece gives me hope. I wouldn't have the energy to try to talk some sense and middle ground to emotionally charged people. As someone else commented, the people who most need to read it probably won't. Unfortunately I feel there's less and less space for actually discussing ideas, and points of view. Morals are so turned upside down. While the reality is more about multiple shades of grey, people continuously force it into a black and white, that's why the puzzle will never come together. I feel some relief to know that some people like you have the energy to talk through this, because I don't.
"She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities."
No, she is exposing selective empathy and how that is clearly rooted in systemic racism. Why can people stomach watching thousands of children torn to pieces and starved to death for two years but then cry when one man is shot? There’s a clear explanation that lies in the colour of their skin and who people deem to be deserving of life.
“When you insist that everyone perform the same grief, speak the same politics, and obey the same moral framework—or else—you are describing the very foundations of authoritarian rule.”
So we’re in agreement then that the administration revoking visas for those speaking out in support of Palestine or those who have made light of Charlie Kirk’s death is demonstrating the government’s authoritarian rule and the foundations of fascism? To fight fascism you say we need to “stop silencing people for not parroting your beliefs” but that’s exactly what the government is doing - on a much more serious level than someone on Substack.
It means nothing to say the US “was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism” - that is not the reality now. So I’ll take your advice and stop to ask “wait is any of this actually true?”.
This piece gives me hope. I wouldn't have the energy to try to talk some sense and middle ground to emotionally charged people. As someone else commented, the people who most need to read it probably won't. Unfortunately I feel there's less and less space for actually discussing ideas, and points of view. Morals are so turned upside down. While the reality is more about multiple shades of grey, people continuously force it into a black and white, that's why the puzzle will never come together. I feel some relief to know that some people like you have the energy to talk through this, because I don't.