And why should we accept this list as a definition? Like Unberto Eco's list, there does not appear to be evidence that it is broadly recognized as a definition

And why should we accept this list as a definition? Like Unberto Eco's list, there does not appear to be evidence that it is broadly recognized as a definition, other than it being frequently being reposted by partisans. In fact, a casual search suggests that the supposed author (From your link, "Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt") is neither a Ph.D nor educated in political science: https://danielmalmer.medium.com/the-long-complicated-history-of-the-14-defining-characteristics-of-fascism-e366412932f https://danielmalmer.medium.com/the-long-complicated-history... so it cannot even be used as an appeal to authority. This seems to be confirmed by the publication from which the list is taken, (note the different spelling of the first name): "Laurence W. Britt is a retired international businessperson, writer, and commentator. He is the author of 'Fascism, Anyone?' (FI, Spring 2003), the most reprinted—and most pirated—article in the magazine’s history." (https://secularhumanism.org/authors/laurence-w-britt/ https://secularhumanism.org/authors/laurence-w-britt/). Interestingly, the author seems to have no footprint online other than his fame through this list, so this guy is, in a non-derogatory sense, a non-entity. [EDIT] More searching turns up a post in which comments purportedly by Laurence Britt (#24) also deny that he has academic credentials and also provides more context (#26) about writing the list: https://www.ryananddebi.com/2004/10/16/laurence-britts-14-points-of-fascism/ https://www.ryananddebi.com/2004/10/16/laurence-britts-14-po...