Dictatorology: Competitive Authoritarianism vs. Classical Tyranny

It feels like modern corrupt dictators like djt just aren't up to snuff compared to the mass murdering old ones. Has the venerated craft of tyranny degraded in modern times since ~2000? Pxy analyzes it like this: 

Q1: Analyze and comment on Trump's route to tyranny. He seems like a different kind of tyrant than Alexander, Tamerlane, or Catherine. He seems less academic and more attuned to modern techniques to accumulate power and wealth. Is he fundamentally different, e.g., a talented sociopathic narcissist? 

A1: The academic analysis of Donald Trump's approach to accumulating and wielding power reveals a fundamentally different kind of authoritarian leader compared to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, and Catherine the Great. While these classical tyrants relied on traditional education, military conquest, and institutional manipulation, Trump has pioneered what scholars identify as a distinctly modern form of "competitive authoritarianism" that leverages digital technologies, financial systems, and psychological manipulation techniques unavailable to previous generations of strongmen. 

The academic analysis of Donald Trump's approach to accumulating and wielding power reveals a fundamentally different kind of authoritarian leader compared to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, and Catherine the Great. While these classical tyrants relied on traditional education, military conquest, and institutional manipulation, Trump has pioneered what scholars identify as a distinctly modern form of "competitive authoritarianism" that leverages digital technologies, financial systems, and psychological manipulation techniques unavailable to previous generations of strongmen.

Psychological Profile: The Narcissistic-Authoritarian Complex
Clinical Assessment by Mental Health Professionals provides crucial insights into Trump's psychological makeup that distinguishes him from historical tyrants. A comprehensive study published in 2024 argues that Trump's leadership "exhibited characteristics commonly associated with authoritarian mob bosses," emphasizing his "reliance on loyalty, personal connections, and a disregard for institutional checks and balances". This represents a departure from the intellectually sophisticated tyrants of history who combined brutality with genuine scholarship.

Research examining pathological narcissism found that "self-centered antagonism and indifference to other people predicted intended vote for Trump over and above salient demographic variables". The study revealed an eight-level hierarchy of narcissistic traits, with Trump's appeal concentrated in the "antagonistic and indifferent aspects of narcissism". This suggests that unlike Alexander's charismatic leadership or Catherine's intellectual sophistication, Trump's power derives from his ability to channel society's darker psychological impulses.

Digital Age Manipulation Technologies
Social Media as a Weapon of Tyranny represents Trump's most significant innovation compared to historical strongmen. Academic analysis of Trump's Twitter usage revealed his "systematic use of name-calling ('fake', 'illegal'), glittering generalities ('greatness'), and plain folks appeals to cultivate a combative, relatable persona". Quantitative analysis of 43,913 tweets showed his preference for "emotional punctuation (exclamation marks: 12,458), negative vocabulary (529 pejorative terms), and algorithm-optimized timing".

Algorithmic Amplification allowed Trump to bypass traditional gatekeepers entirely. Studies found that "most Republican candidates, regardless of gender, mimic the Trump brand rife with populist themes", demonstrating how his digital techniques have become the template for authoritarian politics. Unlike historical tyrants who needed to physically conquer territories, Trump could spread his influence instantly across global networks.

Financial Empire Integration: Modern Kleptocracy
Unprecedented Monetization of Political Power distinguishes Trump from historical tyrants who separated their personal wealth from state resources. Analysis shows that "since the early days of his reelection campaign, he's more than doubled his net worth to about $5.4 billion". Research documents how "the Trump name has powered more than $10 billion of real estate projects, a multibillion-dollar valuation for his money-losing social-media company, more than $500 million in sales from just one of his crypto ventures."

Competitive Authoritarianism vs. Classical Tyranny
Academic Framework for Trump's System identifies his approach as "competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent's abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition". This differs significantly from the absolute monarchies established by Alexander, Tamerlane, and Catherine, who eliminated opposition entirely rather than manipulating democratic processes.

Research on Trump's authoritarian techniques identifies his use of "politicizing independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandizing executive power, quashing dissent, scapegoating vulnerable communities, corrupting elections, and stoking violence". These represent technological updates to classical tyranny methods, adapted for democratic systems with constitutional constraints.

Institutional Subversion Rather Than Replacement marks another key difference. Where historical tyrants built new institutions from conquered territories, Trump works to "gradually authoritarian reconversion of democracies to make them insensible to individuals and groups that differ from their conservative normative ideal". Academic analysis shows he employs "a political strategy of gradually authoritarian reconversion" rather than the sudden institutional transformation typical of classical tyrants.

Psychological Differences from Historical Tyrants
Lack of Intellectual Sophistication emerges as a crucial distinction. While Alexander studied under Aristotle, Tamerlane consulted spiritual advisors, and Catherine corresponded with Enlightenment philosophers, Trump's approach shows little evidence of systematic intellectual development. Research on his communication patterns reveals "simplified language, repetition, and adversarial narratives" designed to "fuel polarization and in-group loyalty".


Q2: How do relatively modern tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Putin fit into the tyrant mindset or paradigm?

A2: Main take-away: Hitler, Stalin and Putin all operate from the same tyrannical template—​a recognizable “technology of rule” that fuses a narcissistic‐authoritarian psyche with mastery of the dominant information tools of their day, a legitimizing ideology, a loyal coercive apparatus and a carefully engineered cult of personality. What differs is the historical setting and the media they weaponize, not the underlying logic of power.

Dictatorship updates 2: Authoritarian ideology crushes rationality; What djt wants

Sometimes it is hard to tell cynical demagoguery from honest irrational crackpottery. An excellent example is reporting about a recent "secret meeting" among federal judges to discuss the possibility of djt provoking a constitutional crisis. Right off the bat, one can argue that the premise of the meeting is stupid. Whether people know or believe it or not, the US has been in a constitutional crisis starting the day djt was elected to office in 2016. Of course, that depends on how one defines the concept. 

For some, the rise to power of djt and MAGA constituted a constitutional crisis. But that gets easily dismissed as irrational alarmism, socialism, Hunter's demonic laptop, etc.

But the main point here is different, If the reporting is accurate, during that meeting John Roberts is reported to have dismissed a federal judge's concern that djt and his MAGA thugs were openly defying and ignoring federal court orders. Federal Judge James Boasberg, who blocked djt’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, expressed concerns about the administration’s open defiance of court orders. If it is true, and it is, that alone really does constitute an actual constitutional crisis.   

Roberts’ response to that legitimate concern is just about equally concerning. He blithely dismissed Boasberg’s legitimate fear by saying that djt’s interactions with him had been “civil and respectful,” including a public acknowledgment during a joint congressional address. How the hell does djt’s alleged civility and respect to Roberts personally translate to respect for federal court orders? It doesn’t. It can’t because it is beside the point. It is irrational.

 

So, two options. First, Roberts is truly so loyal to Trump and the unitary executive concept that he blindly, unknowingly conflated Trump being nice to him amounting to Trump respecting the separation of powers. Call it cognitive capture or cult loyalty. Second, Roberts is a cynical demagogue deflecting from Boasberg's fact-based expression of a constitutional crisis. Only one of those two can be basically true, and there are no other rational options. Call it kleptocratic authoritarianism?

Is there any way to determine if Roberts suffers from cognitive capture from kleptocratic authoritarianism? Of course there is. Roberts was made chief justice in 2005. His public track record is huge. It is crystal clear that Roberts staunchly supports kleptocratic dictatorship under the legal fiction called the unitary executive theory. During his time on the USSC bench, Roberts systematically installed the unitary executive theory as a legal reality. That was not accidental. It was deliberate constitutional engineering to build a kleptocratic American dictatorship.

Since joining the Court, Roberts wrote every single major opinion that expanded presidential power. As chief justice, he strategically assigned himself the most consequential cases when voting with the majority. That ensured his vision shaped the constitutional landscape and crated what djt now is, a dictator and kleptocrat. Some key opinions expanding presidential power are shown below.

Bottom line - Germaine’s ~95% confidence level (~5% uncertainty): Roberts’ dismissal of Boasberg’s a factually accurate constitutional crisis was a cynical strategic deflection using insulting irrationality, not genuine belief, to deflect from the crisis. 

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Trump posted a short AI-generated video apparently entitled "No one is above the law" with Obama and djt in the Oval Office. The video shows Obama being arrested by FBI agents while a smiling djt looks on with great pleasure. Here's a screen shot.

Frightening fact: Tens of millions of adult Americans still support djt.

How online MAGAlandia keeps the echo chamber clean and reports fake reality

Over at American Thinker (AT), a hard core MAGA site, the owners have figured out an effective way to keep the echo chamber squeaky clean without banning or blocking people who criticize. They simply require people to pay to comment. Other MAGAland websites are either getting rid of comments or doing the same thing that AT has done. In the case of AT, here is the gatekeeper language:

To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99

Media Bias | Fact Check assessment of AT

Hm, $6.79/month? Not worth it, but a review of the

comments shows no pushback against the article discussed below

There's lots of praise for Gabbard, lots of criticism of Obama 

I asked Pxy to fact check an AT article that discusses a bombshell report, Gabbard’s ODNI bombshell: Obama central figure in Russia hoax. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released this report regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

Q: Assess and comment on the veracity of this article https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/gabbard_s_odni_bombshell_obama_central_figure_in_russia_hoax.html. Just analyze the entire article as a whole.

A: Bottom-line: The American Thinker piece is largely false and highly misleading. It cherry-picks language from newly declassified e-mails, ignores the difference between manipulating vote tallies and conducting influence operations, omits contrary findings from every major bipartisan investigation, and relies on a source with a demonstrable history of publishing retracted election-fraud stories.

ICA = intelligence community assessment

For context, some real information:

1. The Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that Russia “directed extensive activity” against U.S. election infrastructure and ran an influence campaign favoring Trump.

2. The Mueller Report documented “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference, including the GRU hacks and the Internet Research Agency social-media operation.

3. The House Intelligence Committee (2019 minority and majority reports) also upheld the ICA’s core judgments.

None of those investigations depended on the Steele dossier. None implicated Obama in any wrongdoing or hoax.

This is what MAGA online politics looks like these days. They paywall their comments to keep the echo chamber squeaky clean. What % of the rank and file actually believe this kind of MAGA demagoguery and lies is unclear. Pxy estimates:

The evidence suggests that approximately 50-70% of Trump voters would be receptive to pro-MAGA reporting that portrays mainstream investigations (like those into Russian interference) as fabricated "hoaxes." This estimate aligns with the high rates of election fraud beliefs (67-69%) and the substantial minority who embrace broader conspiracy theories (25% for QAnon, 61% for replacement theory).

Q: Did AT get it right to report that the whole idea of any Russian interference in the 2016 election was a hoax created by Obama and based on fabricated evidence, or might there be reason to suspect that AT's reporting on this matter is a wee smidge inaccurate?

Dictatorship updates; The MAGA police state; The MAGA anti-science state

Police state: A police state is a political system in which government institutions exercise a significant level of control over civil society and liberties. In a police state where there is typically little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive, with internal security and police forces playing a significant role in governance. Merriam-Webster defines a police state as: "a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"

An Al Jazeera article argues the US is now a police state or close to it. djt and the authoritarian MAGA thugs now running government are talking and acting like we are a police state. For example, Tim Walz referred to ICE as “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” US Homeland Security rejected his “dangerous rhetoric”, asserting a pack of blatant, insulting lies and slanders: “While politicians like Gov. Walz fight to protect criminal illegal aliens, ICE officers will continue risking their lives to arrest murderers, kidnappers, and pedophiles.” The article points out that most of the people ICE is abusing and kidnapping (~68%) have no criminal record.

Federal courts: The assertion that the US is at least close to a police state has significant factual support. First, federal court oversight is weak to non-existent. djt and MAGA thugs not only ignore court-ordered restraints and orders, they openly attack and insult the judges who issue them. The USSC is a staunch supporter of a unitary executive, essentially a legalized dictator. It further weakened federal court power over djt in its June 2025 Trump v. CASA decision. That fundamentally weakened judicial oversight of illegal government actions. That 6-3 ruling has so far removed federal court power to issue restraining injunctions. So, federal courts are mostly out of the picture. The time is probably coming when they will be almost completely out of the picture, being nothing more than a fig leaf.

Political opposition: Second, the Democratic response so far has been a matter of profound dysfunction and strategic paralysis. Strategic incoherence in the party has led to no unified opposition strategy. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's support Republican for spending bills drew fierce criticism from within the party, but Republicans got what they wanted. So, the Democrats are completely out of the picture for the time being, maybe for many years.

Republican Party complicity: Finally, House Republicans passed legislation that defunds enforcement of court contempt orders against the administration. If passed by the Senate and signed by djt, that would further weaken consequences for ignoring federal court rulings. That proposed law is an unprecedented legislative assault on judicial enforcement powers. House Oversight Chairman James Comer explicitly stated the committee's role as ensuring Trump can implement his agenda efficiently. In essence, congressional oversight has collapsed. Clearly, Republicans are now enablers. So, congress is completely out of the picture for now.

 

Who or what is left to protect us and our civil liberties? Big corporations? Hell no. Powerful Christian nationalist theocrats? Double hell no. Police forces? It doesn't look like it. The MSM? Bwahahahaha! -- of course not. 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

An article that Salon published, Why MAGA hates science so much, discusses the matter. Reasons for the anti-science attitude are not surprising or new. But the topic is nonetheless worth revisiting from time to time. 

Most MAGA elites and rank and file reject scientific consensus on climate change, public health, and certain areas of biological science. A lot of it stems from the clash between Christian nationalism dogma and empirical science that contradicts it. Young Earth creationism and biblical literalism clash with scientific findings on evolution, human-caused climate change, and reproductive biology. Some research indicates that about 4% of evangelical clergy and 16% of Black Protestant clergy accept human evolution from non-human life forms. Almost 80% of evangelical Protestant clergy reject human causes of climate change, quadruple the rate of mainline Protestant clergy. That is hard core anti-science belief.

In general, MAGA sees science’s secular, evidence-based framework as a major threat to its worldview, wealth and power. The movement intentionally conflates religious doctrine with political identity. Demagoguery with dishonest speech asserting threats to political identity is the single most effective way to deceive and persuade people.

The article also asserts that science’s emphasis on human equality, e.g., universal access to healthcare and education, directly challenges MAGA’s support for systemic inequities, including racial discrimination and wealth concentration. Billionaires and political elites seek to monopolize advantages for themselves while denying basic protections, e.g., vaccines and climate change action, to marginalized groups.

In short, MAGA’s anti-science agenda is an intentional, calculated undermining of fact-based governance. The implications are broad and anti-democratic. False anti-science beliefs undermine civil liberties, public health, and America's global economic standing and power.


Q: Is belief in and reasonable respect for established science inherently mostly pro-democracy, while anti-science attitudes are inherently mostly authoritarian and/or kleptocratic?