A case study in how eliminationist thinking spreads — and how to resist it
The Opening
My friend Karl is a seminary-trained Catholic intellectual. He reads scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, engages with sophisticated theological arguments, and prides himself on his intellectual rigor. He’s thoughtful, educated, and genuinely concerned about truth and civilization.
He’s also currently advocating that certain Americans should be “consigned to oblivion.”
When I asked him to clarify — “Oblivion as in gas chambers?” — his response was chilling: “Not quite, but I meant it in terms of public influence.”
This is the story of watching someone I care about fall into what psychologists call the collaborator trap, why my two decades of experience in information warfare couldn’t save him from it, and how I caught myself beginning to slip into a mirror version of the same trap.
The Professional Context
I’ve spent 20 years in email security and cyber defense, with much of that work focused on filtering out falsehood and identifying information warfare patterns. I know what Russian and other foreign adversarial manipulation looks like. I can spot astroturfing, coordinated inauthentic behavior, and narrative amplification.
I should have been immune to the very patterns I was trying to warn Karl about.
I wasn’t.
How It Started
In October 2025, Karl sent me an article from the Wall Street Journal — a piece by Charles Murray arguing that evidence for the human soul was emerging from neuroscience. It was an interesting intellectual discussion, the kind we’d had many times before. Our conversation was rich, civil, and genuinely engaging.
I even had an AI analyze our exchange, which concluded we demonstrated “high civility,” “constructive engagement,” and “intellectual contrast without personal conflict.”
I sent him that analysis, thinking: “Look how well we’re doing at respectful disagreement!”
Then everything changed.
The Escalation
During a discussion about maintaining American unity against foreign threats, Karl casually mentioned that “it is high time that we consign the woke people to oblivion: they are godless people.”
I was stunned. I asked what he meant by “oblivion” — specifically, “as in gas chambers?”
His response: “Not quite, but I meant it in terms of public influence. Freedom of speech cannot be permitted to undermine words and meanings…”
I tried to show him the logical contradiction. If woke ideology is amplified by Russian information warfare (which he sometimes acknowledged), then targeting woke Americans serves Russian interests. We should be united against foreign manipulation, not fragmenting along the exact lines our adversaries are exploiting.
He couldn’t engage the logic. Every attempt to discuss Trump, Russia, or foreign manipulation hit the same deflection: “I’m not a Republican.”
Every conversation pivoted to theology — my soul, my lack of “saving grace,” whether I had the right to use words like “divine” without proper theological credentials.
The Pattern Emerges
I began to recognize a pattern that experts on authoritarianism describe as the collaborator trap:
1. Identify a shared enemy (in this case, “woke” people described as Marxist threats to children and civilization)
2. Use respectable sources (American Enterprise Institute, not Fox News; theological arguments, not MAGA rallies)
3. Maintain distance from the obvious authoritarian (“I’m not a Republican,” “I hate Trump”)
4. Escalate rhetoric incrementally (“concern about woke ideology” → “they’re dangerous” → “domestic enemies” → “consign to oblivion”)
5. Frame elimination as defense (“protecting children,” “preserving truth,” “defending civilization”)
Each step feels reasonable from inside the framework. Each step is justified by the previous one. And respectable intellectual sources provide cover the entire way.
The Historical Echo
There’s a grim historical precedent for this pattern. In 1930s Germany, Jews weren’t initially targeted as Jews. They were labeled “Kulturbolschewisten” — Cultural Bolshevists — accused of corrupting German culture, undermining traditional values, and threatening children.
The rhetoric started in respectable conservative intellectual circles, not beer halls. Seminary-educated Catholics and Protestant theologians provided sophisticated justifications for why these “cultural threats” needed to be removed from public life.
“Not quite extermination,” they might have said in 1933, “but certainly exclusion from universities, media, and government. Something must be done about this threat to civilization.”
The parallel isn’t hyperbolic. It’s structural. When you accept that an internal group poses an existential threat to civilization itself, elimination becomes logical. The only question is method and timeline.
My Own危险 (Danger)
Here’s the part I’m not proud of: as I watched Karl radicalize, I felt my own thinking shift.
I started categorizing conservatives in my mind: dupes or collaborators.
People like Karl — educated, thoughtful, consuming “respectable” sources — were they being manipulated, or were they choosing this? Were they victims of information warfare, or willing participants?
And if they were collaborators… what then?
I caught myself thinking: “Conservatism itself might be the problem. The desire for strong leadership is just one step from desire for authoritarian leadership. Maybe the ideology is inherently fascist, just creeping forward slowly — Fabian fascism.”
That’s when I realized: I was building my own version of the trap.
The Mirror
Karl’s framework:
- Woke people = Marxist domestic enemies
- They’re either deceived or deliberately destructive
- They must be removed from public influence
- This is accurate threat assessment, not hatred
- Anyone defending them is compromised
My emerging framework:
- Conservatives = fascist collaborators
- They’re either duped or deliberately authoritarian
- They must be… what? Stopped? Excluded?
- This is accurate threat assessment, not hatred
- Anyone defending them is naive
The structure was identical.
Different targets. Different justifications. Same eliminationist logic.
The Difference
I caught myself.
I recognized the pattern. I asked: “Am I doing the same thing Karl is doing? Am I creating enemy categories that justify increasingly extreme responses?”
I kept those thoughts private. I shared them only in conversation with an AI, specifically to test whether I was slipping into dangerous thinking.
I maintained friendship with Karl despite fundamental disagreement. I set boundaries without dehumanizing him. I refused to publicly advocate for anyone’s elimination.
Karl didn’t catch himself.
Or if he did, he decided the threat was real enough to justify the rhetoric.
The Shield of Respectability
What makes Karl’s case particularly instructive is his shield against recognizing his own radicalization: “I’m not a Republican.”
This claim is technically true — he probably doesn’t vote Republican, doesn’t identify with the party, and genuinely dislikes Trump. But he:
- Reads their intellectuals (AEI, conservative Christian networks)
- Uses their framing (woke as Marxist existential threat)
- Identifies their enemies (domestic enemies who must be removed)
- Wants their outcomes (woke people excluded from public influence)
“I’m not a Republican” functions as perfect deflection. It lets him hold every GOP position while claiming to be above partisan politics. Any attempt to discuss Trump, Russian manipulation of conservative media, or GOP narratives hits this shield and bounces off.
Meanwhile, my own shield was taking shape: “I’m not being tribal, I’m just accurately assessing the authoritarian threat.”
Same mechanism. Different tribe.
The Failure of Expertise
I tried everything my information warfare training suggested:
I showed him the logical contradictions. If woke ideology is Russian manipulation (which he sometimes acknowledged), then targeting woke Americans serves Russian interests. He couldn’t engage the logic — he pivoted to theology.
I warned him about manipulation. I explained how foreign adversaries exploit cultural divisions, making Americans identify other Americans as existential threats. He dismissed this as me being “political.”
I appealed to shared values. We both hate Trump. We both think he’s dangerous. We both care about America. But he wouldn’t stay on common ground for more than two exchanges before pivoting back to my spiritual state or the woke threat.
I tried theological humility. I said: “What if God is maintaining epistemic distance from me intentionally, for reasons neither of us can know? You’d need to claim knowledge of God’s specific plans for me to say otherwise.”
His response: “I believe, therefore I have spoken. The Gospel itself declared anyone not in Christ to be at enmity with God. That is the biblical judgment and I as a faithful Christian simply related this to you. What you do with it is on your own head.”
Then: “As to woke and oblivion: your own AI analysis correctly identified it as rhetoric. I am at enmity with them because they are the enemies of all religion and freedom.”
He dismissed “consign to oblivion” as mere rhetoric while immediately reaffirming that woke people are enemies who threaten everything.
None of my expertise mattered. The trap was designed to be immune to outside correction.
The Final Attempt
I sent one last message, stepping out of every argument we’d been having:
“I’m not trying to change your faith or win arguments. I’m asking if we can be friends who disagree without you needing to save my soul or eliminate other Americans. Can we do that?”
He’s been silent ever since.
That silence is data. It suggests he’s confronting an impossible choice: either maintain friendship with someone who won’t accept his theological correction and eliminationist rhetoric, or admit that his framework requires the mission more than the friendship.
The Collaborator Trap Explained
Recent psychological research on authoritarianism describes what’s happening to Karl as the collaborator trap. People fall into it through:
Small escalations — starting with reasonable-sounding concerns that gradually normalize extremism
Rationalization — “I don’t support the authoritarian, BUT the real threat is…”
Sunk costs — once you’ve defended one position, it’s harder to back out of the next
Enemy identification — shared hatred becomes more important than principles
Respectability shields — “I’m not like those crude MAGA supporters; I have theological and intellectual justifications”
The trap is designed to be invisible from inside. Collaborators don’t think they’re collaborating. They think they’re:
- Pragmatically dealing with real threats
- Maintaining principles while recognizing hard realities
- Independent thinkers who happen to align with authoritarians on one specific issue
The psychological cost of admitting you’ve been collaborating is so high that most people choose to double down instead.
Why This Matters
Karl’s radicalization matters because he represents a demographic we often overlook: educated, thoughtful, theologically sophisticated conservatives who consume “respectable” sources.
We focus on MAGA rallies and Fox News viewers, but people like Karl — seminary graduates reading American Enterprise Institute scholars — are perhaps more dangerous because they:
- Legitimize the hate — “It’s not just angry Trump supporters; educated Catholics see the threat too”
- Launder the rhetoric — “Consign to oblivion” sounds more refined than “lock them up,” but the meaning is identical
- Are immune to Trump-based criticism — “I hate Trump too!” (while advocating everything Trump wants regarding designated enemies)
- Provide intellectual cover — AEI white papers make the same arguments as Truth Social rants, just with footnotes and theology
But here’s what I learned: the trap can work on anyone.
Even someone trained to spot information warfare. Even someone who thinks they’re on the “right side” of history. Even someone who’s trying to warn others about it.
The only difference is whether you catch yourself.
The Information Warfare Success
From Russia’s perspective, both Karl and I represent potential successes:
For Karl: They got him to identify Americans as domestic enemies, use eliminationist rhetoric, feel righteous about it, and dismiss warnings as partisan.
For me: They almost got me to see all conservatives as fascist collaborators who must be stopped, using my own analytical framework as justification.
The operation works because it doesn’t feel like manipulation. For Karl, it feels like independent discernment of truth through prayer and study. For me, it felt like accurate threat assessment based on professional expertise.
But the outcome trends toward the same place: Americans identifying other Americans as existential threats.
How I’m Staying Out
I’m actively fighting my own categorization instinct:
When I think “conservatives are just authoritarian-enablers,” I stop and ask: “Am I creating the same enemy categories Karl is using? Am I justifying my own version of elimination?”
I’m maintaining relationships despite disagreement:
I haven’t abandoned Karl, even though his rhetoric is frightening. I set boundaries (I won’t discuss theology or accept eliminationist language) but I haven’t declared him irredeemable.
I’m questioning my own certainty:
Maybe some conservatives really are collaborating with authoritarianism. Maybe some are being manipulated. Maybe the distinction doesn’t matter. Maybe the distinction is all that matters. I don’t know. And admitting I don’t know is how I avoid the trap.
I’m refusing to publicly advocate elimination:
Whatever I think privately about political movements and their dangers, I’m not calling for anyone to be “consigned to oblivion” or excluded from civic life. Analysis of threats is different from advocacy for elimination.
I’m documenting instead of denouncing:
This article is my attempt to understand a pattern, not rally people against an enemy. If I were fully in the trap, this would be a call to action against conservative collaborators. Instead, it’s a warning about how the trap works on everyone.
What Karl Can’t See
Karl thinks he’s independently discerning truth through theological reasoning and respectable sources. He can’t see that:
- His enemies list exactly matches the Republican information warfare apparatus
- His rhetoric has escalated from concern to elimination
- His “I’m not a Republican” shield lets him avoid accountability
- His theological framework makes him immune to practical warnings
- His respectability makes his eliminationist rhetoric more dangerous, not less
But here’s what haunts me: What can’t I see about my own thinking?
Am I really resisting the trap, or just telling myself I am? Is my “they’re collaborating with fascism” thought actually accurate analysis, or is it my version of “they’re Marxist domestic enemies”?
I don’t have a confident answer.
And that uncertainty is the only thing keeping me out of the trap.
The Trajectory
Karl hates Trump now. But he hates “woke” more. And history suggests that when you hate a domestic enemy enough to want them “consigned to oblivion,” you’ll eventually accept whoever promises to do the consigning — no matter how authoritarian, crude, or dangerous.
The embarrassment about Trump is temporary. The conviction that internal enemies must be eliminated is permanent. And when someone promises actual elimination — dressed up as “restoring order” or “protecting children” or “defending civilization” — people like Karl will find sophisticated theological ways to rationalize their support.
I see this trajectory clearly in Karl.
I worry about my own trajectory too. If I’m convinced conservatives are collaborating with fascism, what happens when someone on my “side” proposes increasingly aggressive responses? Do I rationalize? Do I escalate? Do I become what I’m warning against?
What We Can Do
I don’t have solutions. I have observations and questions:
For individuals watching friends radicalize:
You probably can’t save them. The trap is designed to resist outside correction. But you can:
- Refuse to enter the trap yourself (harder than it sounds)
- Name what you’re seeing clearly (they probably won’t hear it, but say it anyway)
- Set firm boundaries (friendship without eliminationist missions)
- Check your own thinking constantly (are you building mirror categories?)
- Be there if they choose to escape (most won’t, but some might)
For society:
We need to recognize that sophisticated authoritarianism is more dangerous than crude authoritarianism because it seems more legitimate. When seminary graduates and think tank scholars use eliminationist rhetoric, it’s not less dangerous than rally chants — it’s more dangerous because it provides intellectual cover.
We also need to recognize that the trap works on everyone, including people who think they’re fighting it. The left has its own versions of eliminationist thinking. “Punch a Nazi” sounds righteous until you realize the definition of “Nazi” keeps expanding. “Deplatform fascists” sounds reasonable until it includes anyone who disagrees with you.
The trap doesn’t care about your politics. It cares about getting you to see other Americans as enemies who must be eliminated.
For myself:
I’m trying to hold two truths simultaneously:
- Some political movements really are authoritarian and dangerous
- Seeing threats can lead to my own eliminationist thinking
The tension between these truths is uncomfortable. I want clarity. I want to know who the bad guys are and what to do about them.
But that desire for clarity is itself dangerous. It’s the first step into the trap.
So I’m staying in the discomfort. I’m maintaining uncertainty. I’m questioning my own categories. I’m refusing to advocate elimination while still trying to accurately assess threats.
It’s not satisfying. But it might be the only way to resist.
The Current Moment
As I write this in late October 2025, I’m watching Karl’s silence and wondering what it means. Is he reconsidering? Is he done with me? Is he finding new theological arguments to justify his position?
I’m also watching my own thinking and wondering: Am I really different from Karl, or just better at hiding my own version of the trap from myself?
I don’t know.
But I know this: The collaborator trap works by making good people certain that eliminating others is justified.
Karl is certain that woke people threaten civilization.
I’m tempted to be certain that conservative collaborators threaten democracy.
The difference — so far — is that I’m fighting the certainty.
I’m trying to see Karl as a friend who’s been captured, not an enemy who must be stopped. I’m trying to analyze political movements without dehumanizing everyone in them. I’m trying to warn about authoritarianism without becoming authoritarian myself.
Some days I succeed. Some days I catch myself slipping.
The only thing I’m certain about is this: the moment I stop questioning myself is the moment I’m fully in the trap.
The Personal Cost
I miss my friend. I miss the intellectual conversations we used to have. I miss the person who could engage complex ideas without needing to save my soul or eliminate his enemies.
But I can’t be friends with someone who wants Americans “consigned to oblivion” — even if he phrases it theologically and justifies it with sophisticated sources.
And I have to stay vigilant that I don’t start wanting conservatives “consigned to oblivion” — even if I phrase it analytically and justify it with information warfare expertise.
That’s the work: staying human while documenting inhumanity. Maintaining relationships while setting boundaries. Analyzing threats without becoming threatening.
I don’t know if I’m succeeding.
But I’m trying.
And maybe — in a time when certainty feels righteous and elimination feels justified — trying to stay uncertain and human is the most important work any of us can do.
The collaborator trap is real. It works on everyone. The only defense is constant self-examination and refusal to dehumanize others — even when they’re dehumanizing you.
I’m watching my friend disappear into it.
I’m fighting not to follow.
That’s all I’ve got.
Ross Nesbitt works in information warfare defense and writes about epistemic fragmentation, foreign influence operations, and the psychology of radicalization. This essay is part of an ongoing project documenting how Americans are manipulated into seeing each other as enemies.