Two women call Abascal a fascist in viral video but can't say why

They call Abascal a fascist and can't explain why

Why is Santiago Abascal a fascist? The question seems simple enough. In a video circulating on social media, two women were unable to come up with a single argument. One of them, according to the footage, even admitted she was repeating the label because she had heard it from others. The episode has become an example of a familiar phenomenon: the label as a substitute for reasoning. There's no need to define fascism, cite a manifesto, or point to a law. Saying the word is enough.

What was said in the video and why it went viral

The clip that has spread across social media shows two women unable to articulate a single reason when asked to justify the accusation. One responds with circular evidence: he's a fascist because she's heard people say so. The other, according to the account, simply repeats the term. The moment went viral because it captures something bigger than an anecdote: the word "fascist" now works as a conversation-ender, not as an argument.

The reaction was swift. Some argue the episode shows the state of Spain's public debate. Others, on the contrary, point out that a video of two people represents no one. Both things can be true at once. What is beyond dispute is what can be seen in the video: a serious political accusation without a single piece of evidence to back it up.

The label as a mental shortcut: why it's so hard to justify

The mechanism has a name in psychology: cognitive dissonance. A decision is made —not to vote for a party, to reject a leader— and then the brain looks for a justification. If it can't find one, it invents or copies one. He's a fascist is a cheap label: it requires no data, no definition, and can't be rebutted without entering a maze. That's why it's used so often.

The problem comes when someone asks for the argument. That's when the silence, the discomfort, or the change of subject appears. The footage that has circulated describes that moment precisely: the cornered person cuts off the conversation and appoints themselves judge of what can and cannot be discussed. It's not that they don't want to explain: it's that they can't.

The cost of accusing without evidence: from politics to the legal arena

Calling a political leader a fascist is not a harmless opinion. In Spain, case law has been narrowing the scope of political criticism, but an accusation of fascism with no factual basis can cross the line into defamation. Saying a party has authoritarian proposals —that's criticism— is not the same as claiming its leader is a fascist without offering a single fact. The difference between the two is exactly what was missing from that video.

Some argue the label is legitimate because fascism doesn't always show up in a black shirt. That's an argument. But it needs to be developed. And that is precisely what didn't happen.

What peine with Vox and why the episode has legs

The episode can't be understood without context: Vox has been at the center of Spain's political debate for years, and the "fascist" label has become its main tool of erosion. The problem is that, used without arguments, it loses its force. An accusation everyone repeats and no one explains ends up sounding like a slogan.

The footage that has circulated points to a deeper issue: public money funneled to media outlets and its role in building this kind of narrative. It's not a far-fetched theory, but it doesn't stand on its own either. What does stand is the obvious: when you're asked for the argument, you don't have it.

And so we go on. With a word that means everything and explains nothing. With videos that go viral not for what they say, but for what they can't say. If fascism were that easy to spot, there would be no need to ask why.