Regarding the authoritarian mindset and tactics of Benjamin Netanyahu

A NYT article (not paywalled), How Netanyahu Prolonged the War in Gaza to Stay in Power, discusses the steps that Netanyahu took to stay in power after the Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israel.

• Netanyahu deliberately sabotaged ceasefire negotiations to extend the war, viewing it as essential for his political survival. In April 2024, he was reportedly prepared to accept a ceasefire deal but backed down when Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatened to collapse the government. Corroboration: an academic study, Israeli expert analysis, Joe Biden comments 

• He maintained power by appeasing extremist coalition partners who demanded prolonged conflict.  He formed Israel's most right-wing government in its history with convicted extremists. Corroboration: extremists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich put in government, extremist threats to topple Netanyahu if there was a ceasefire

• Netanyahu altered official records and manipulated documentation related to the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack. Corroboration: chief of staff questioned about forgery, Israeli military was ordered to stop documenting war cabinet meetings

• He fired key officials who could threaten his position, particularly those involved in investigations into his alleged corruption. Corroboration: dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara (prosecutor overseeing his corruption trial), firing of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar for refusal to delay Netanyahu's corruption trial

• He used the Hamas war as an excuse to delay his corruption trial proceedings. Corroboration: trial was postponed due to the war, he repeatedly requested trial delays that court rejected

If Netanyahu did that to stay in power and gets away with it, can anyone of the same mindset do the same or similar?

Q2: Is there evidence that Trump has engaged in the same or similar tactics to gain and stay in power?

A2: Trump has employed numerous strategies similar to Netanyahu's approach, with extensive documented evidence supporting these claims. 

1. Prolonging Legal Conflicts for Political Survival

2. Undermining Legal and Security Institutions

3. Institutional Manipulation and Document Tampering

4. Targeting Political Opponents for Retribution

5. Consolidating Executive Power Through "Unitary Executive Theory"

6. Coalition Manipulation with Extremist Partners

7. Attempting to Overturn Election Results

Understanding types of mental responders to different kinds of political messaging & psychological pressure

An interesting question is this: Approximately what % of the American public is more responsive to demagoguery, dishonest speech, crackpottery, irrational appeals to emotions, prejudices and social loyalties, and threats to identity, than the % that mostly responds to facts, sound reasoning and good faith honest speech.

A summary of a long, complex analysis by Pxy indicates that we more or less fit with a bell curve in three groups, HD, MX and HF. About 25% are mostly demagoguery and dishonest speech responders (HD), and about 25% are mostly fact, sound reasoning and good faith honest speech responders (HF). The middle ~50%, Pxy calls them "mixed-conditional responders" (MX), are somehow between the two modes, maybe depending on the issue and cognitive and social load the issue presents, and/or how it is presented.

That raises an interesting question. 

Q: Is there social science research that indicates whether the ~50% MX group (mixed/conditional responders) in your table flip from the HD mode of thinking to the HF mode, or is their mode of thinking a simultaneous mix of both the HD and HF modes? What mode of reasoning in the MX group does the available evidence and expert opinion mostly support?

A: Conditional Reasoning in the “MX” Majority: Flip-Flop or Hybrid Thinking?

Political‐communication, cognitive‐psychology, and neuroscience studies converge on a nuanced portrait of the 40–50% “mixed/conditional responders” (MX) who fall between high-demagoguery (HD) and high-fact (HF) audiences in susceptibility to persuasive messages. Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that MX reasoning is conditional—they may “flip” toward either HD-style heuristic processing or HF-style analytic processing depending on motivation, cognitive load, and identity threats—but that flip occurs against a constant backdrop of simultaneous, low-effort heuristics. In short, both processes run in parallel; shifts in dominant mode, not wholesale replacement, explain MX behavior.

The mind-grouping biology that emerges is absolutely fascinating.  

1. All human minds are basically MX but can be split into three groups mostly HD with some HF, mostly HF with some HD, and mostly MX with a variable but significant mix of HD and HF. Sophisticated political messaging and how it is presented can nudge minds toward either the HD mode or HF mode. 

2. People in the mostly HD group can sometimes be in HF thinking mode, but they are more easily flipped to HD by applying some psychological pressure, e.g., threaten their identity, don't give them time to think, send virtue signals from the tribe or cult, trigger rationality-killing emotions, especially fear, anger or prejudice, etc. Call it level 1 or "low" psychological pressure.

3. People in the mostly HF group can sometimes be flipped to the HD thinking mode with more intense psychological pressure. Call it Call it level 3 or "high" psychological pressure, which are the same as level 1 pressures, but just more intense. 

4. People in the MX group can sometimes be flipped to the HD thinking mode with more intense psychological pressure. Call it Call it level 2 or "moderate" psychological pressure.

If one accepts that assessment as basically correct, one one can see why over the top MAGA demagoguery, lies, slanders and crackpottery is so dominant in MAGA and authoritarian messaging. The more people feel identity threatened, fearful, angry or disloyal to tribe or cult, the more likely they are to default to the evolutionary personal safety mode of HD thinking. That is why demagoguery and dishonest speech is usually (almost always?) more powerful and persuasive than good faith honest speech.

Q: Does all of this make sense to you, or is it gobbeldygook? 

Regarding the history of propaganda: Bloody Mary

Lucy Worsley

Season 2, episode 4 of the PBS history series Lucy Worsley Investigates goes into the details of Catholic "bloody" Queen Mary I and her reputation as a vicious Catholic murderer. History says that she wasn't much different from contemporary Protestant murderers when they were in power in England. Mary was England's first ruling female monarch. Her ruling power was cemented by a pre-nup agreement with the Catholic Spanish Prince Philip. They married in 1554. Her pre-nup barred Philip from power and law-making influence. Philip was heir to the Spanish throne and the Hapsburg Empire.

Anyway, the bottom line is this. Propagandists are nothing new. They have poisoned the public for millennia with their lies, hate, closed-minded prejudices and sanctimonious (religious or secular) lust for power. In Mary's case, since the 1550s or thereabouts.

What was going in in the 1500s is not much different from what is going on in 2025. Same stuff, different century.

Why post this? Maybe some historical perspective would help save us from Trump and MAGA. But maybe not. Regardless, Worsley spins a pretty good yarn. Her historical research seems to be solid. As usual, interpretation is probably bitterly disputed. 

We voted for this, right?

Now that criticism of djt and MAGA policy and tactics are starting to get louder, we are hearing from djt and MAGA elites that we voted for all of this, so go pound sand.* Intuitively and emotionally, that feels lie a bald faced lie. About 90% lie and 10% truth.

* Well actually, "go pound sand" is implied not stated. One always need to stay fair and balanced.

But is that really true? Obviously, that is a complicated question. From its neural network, statistics and pattern-matching point of view, and based on its long, complicated analysis Pxy concluded that Trump's assertion that "we voted for this" is about 5-10% true. Why only 5-10% true? Here's the main reasons summarized, with the entire series of Qs&As at this link. 

Q3: Summarize the main facts or reasons in your two analyses in up to 10 bullet points of 1-2 sentences each (3 sentences if necessary) stating why Trump's and MAGA elites' assertions that "we voted for this" is only ~5-10% true.

A3: Summary: Why Trump's "We Voted for This" Claim is Only 5-10% True

Electoral and Democratic Legitimacy Issues

• Trump won with only a plurality (49.8%), not a majority - meaning over 50% of Americans never voted for his agenda, fundamentally undermining claims of broad democratic mandate.

• Significant voter regret emerged quickly - 25% of Trump voters expressed disappointment or regret, with 47% of moderate Trump supporters showing regret, indicating they didn't get what they expected.

Systematic Deceptive Framing

• Trump explicitly rejected Project 2025 during the campaign but implemented two-thirds of its recommendations - this represents a fundamental betrayal of campaign promises and deceived voters about his actual agenda.

• Deregulation was framed as "freedom" from oppression but actually transferred wealth and power from average Americans to corporate elites [and Christian nationalist elites, IMHO] - voters were told they'd be liberated but instead lost worker protections, consumer safeguards, and environmental protections.

• Trump's rhetoric about defending Christians from "oppression" masked policies that actually empowered religious elites to discriminate - the framing deliberately conflated religious freedom with the right to oppress marginalized communities.
  

Policy Implementation Contradictions

• Economic policies produced opposite effects from campaign promises - Trump's tariff implementation caused market volatility and inflation concerns, with 56% disapproving of his economic management including 20% of his own voters.

• Federal workforce cuts through DOGE affected Trump-supporting areas - massive layoffs contradicted voter expectations that cuts would only target "elites" or opposing political groups.

• Healthcare policies included significant Medicaid cuts despite Trump's promises to leave it "alone" - his "Big Beautiful Bill" directly contradicted campaign assurances about protecting social programs.

Violation of Democratic Consent Principles

• Systematic deception invalidated informed democratic consent - following Sissela Bok's analysis [moral reasoning], Trump's lies about policy consequences prevented voters from making autonomous, informed choices about their governance.

• The deception was "culpable ignorance" - Trump's administration knew the true consequences of their policies but deliberately concealed them - this wasn't accidental misinformation but intentional deception to gain power through false premises.

I agree with that analysis. My personal beliefs before the two main Pxy analyses are reflected in my two complicated questions. 

Q: How persuasive is the analysis and assessment that "we voted for this" is only about 5-10% true --- not persuasive (~0-10%), mildly persuasive, moderately persuasive (~45-55%), mostly persuasive, or persuasive (~90-100%)?