A brief summary of MAGA psychology

This short video explains the psychology that keeps djt's followers loyal. The psychology is powerful and effective. But it needs to be understood.

The video is at this link: 

https://substack.com/inbox/post/167049100?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=9pe6b&triedRedirect=true&just_subscribed=true

Blacklists Without Hearings: Why Today’s Authoritarian Creep Surpasses McCarthyism

The phrase "McCarthyism" evokes one of the darkest eras of American repression—public accusations, blacklists, and inquisitions targeting anyone suspected of unorthodox politics or left-wing associations. Yet what we are experiencing today, under the pretexts of "national security," fighting 'terror-adjacent' groups, or policing 'antisemitism,'" applies the same playbook on a far larger scale—with new tools, new rationales, and far higher risks for democracy itself. We must recognize the threat before resistance becomes impossible.

McCarthyism: A Useful, But Incomplete, Analogy

McCarthyism operated via spectacle and the humiliation of individuals. Writers, professors, labor leaders, and others were summoned before congressional committees, threatened, blacklisted, and ostracized for refusing to "name names" or disavow their beliefs. There were at least some built-in frictions: public hearings (however stacked), partial legal remedies, and, eventually, a backlash as its ugliest excesses came to light.

Compare this to the machinery in operation today:

Tech-Enabled, Category-Wide Suppression

Today’s crackdown—accelerated by the Gaza crisis but applying more broadly to dissent over foreign policy, racism, or gender—targets not just individuals, but entire institutions, communities, and even professions. AI-driven surveillance, lists like Project Esther, and private-public blacklisting outfits systematically catalog activists, students, faculty, and critics by the thousands. Where the Red Scare was rumor-based and manual, today’s repression is drag-net, digital, and nearly invisible.

American universities, once icons of dissent, now face catastrophic fines, frozen funds, and blanket investigations—not for specific infractions, but for categories of speech, social media activity, or organizational association. Most targeted never see their accusation, never get a hearing; there are no due process guarantees, no public record—just summary punishment and frozen careers.

“Due Process” Erased by Executive Fiat—and Judicial Retreat

In McCarthy’s day, hearings before HUAC or the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, though deeply flawed, at least nominally offered targets a forum. Today, that hope is largely gone. The “shadow docket”—emergency, unsigned Supreme Court rulings—lets the executive branch sidestep normal process with cursory review. Universal injunctions against blatantly unlawful actions are all but gone.

Summonses, detentions, and mass deportations of students and professors can result from executive order, sometimes after a single agency’s review, with those affected having little warning or recourse. (Consider, for example, Yasmeen Alamiri, a Barnard student suspended and banned for organizing peaceful protest, or Rumeysa Ozturk at Tufts, detained and slated for deportation for writing an op-ed—later reversed after widespread outcry.)

No hearings are held for most labeled “terror-adjacent.” No chance to clear one’s name. No meaningful legal redress. For example, a university president may be ousted for not punishing peaceful protest with sufficient force, as demanded by Congress in televised hearings. Student activists are removed not for violence, but for affiliation alone; group membership or expressive acts suffice for institutional or legal exile.

Permanent Surveillance and Punishment by Algorithm

Where McCarthy-era blacklists depended on rumor and laborious tracking, modern repression leverages digital archives and algorithmic tagging to monitor and penalize dissent. Social media posts, campus attendance logs, donation records—all are scooped up by blacklists maintained by organizations like the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther and Canary Mission. Project Esther's list-sharing network, including Canary Mission, is known to extend to partners in Israel and feed into U.S. agency screens—often justified as fighting “antisemitism” according to the most expansive Trump-era executive orders.

There is no transparent process for removal from lists like Project Esther's “Hamas Support Network,” which, in surreal fashion, pegs even anti-Hamas Jewish activists from JVP as supporters of terror. The taint of association persists long after protests subside—and, while it has been less than two years since the latest wave of surveillance ramped up, there is so far no sign of relief or sunset. There is no clemency, only deterrent.

Collective Guilt, Media Acquiescence, and the Normalization of Emergency

McCarthy targeted individuals for confession. Today’s regime designates entire organizations and communities—Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice in Palestine, Muslim advocacy groups—for exclusion, surveillance, and stigma.

Mainstream media is complicit: images of riot police on campus, student injuries, and faculty firings over Gaza protests are now presented as routine news, stripped of their context as incidents of state and institutional repression. Routine, precisely, is the enemy—what once would have caused outrage is now normalized, and even civil libertarians can struggle to keep up with the pace of escalation.

The Global Context: The US Joins Other “Hybrid Regimes”

It is not alarmist, but strictly comparative, to say that these trends now align the United States with regimes such as Hungary, Turkey, or El Salvador—formally competitive but functionally autocratic, where elections persist but civil liberties are alarmingly hollowed. Trump’s explicit campaign vow—"I am your retribution"—was not mere rhetoric but a program, rapidly accelerated with tools built or blessed by both parties.

This is a truly bipartisan catastrophe. The House Committee on Education & the Workforce, led by Rep. Elise Stefanik, staged televised inquisitions of university leaders. Majorities of both parties have promoted or acquiesced to policies (e.g., Antisemitism Awareness Act, IHRA adoption) that enable expansive ideological enforcement, and Democratic mayors and trustees have joined in bans and mass suspensions on campus groups critical of Israel or U.S. foreign policy.

Why This Surpasses McCarthyism

This new, category-based repression is worse than its infamous Red Scare predecessor:

• Scope: Digital and algorithmic blacklists now sweep in tens or hundreds of thousands at once.

• Lack of Redress: There are even fewer hearings, and most never learn why they are targeted or who accused them.

• Permanence: Digital records and networked blacklists inflict damage—potentially irreparable—even if the “crisis” abates.

• Collective Fear: Officials across the aisle admit they fear political retaliation; many Democrats remain complicit or respond with timorous opposition.

• Normalization: Media and institutional acquiescence rob these affronts of their scandal, draining public outrage and hastening acceptance.

The New Engines of Dictatorial (Authoritarian) Power

Crucially, the core rationales that enable executive rule by fiat are the panic around “new antisemitism” and “wokeness”, which now operate together—fueling both party’s policies and priming the public to accept abrogations of due process, freedom of association, and institutional autonomy in the name of crisis. Antisemitism, expansively defined and weaponized, is now the primary excuse for Trump’s dictatorial use of power: unprecedented federal fines, deportations, censorship—including museums and National Parks signage—and financial or legal threats to any institution not in lockstep.

The bipartisan origins of this panic demand clarity from both sides: Democratic support and rhetorical cover have “mainstreamed” much of this machinery, ensuring its permanence and reach beyond partisan moments or personalities.

What Must Happen Now

Resisting this slide requires call things by their names. We must expose and resist the new blacklist regime, government by summary fiat, and bipartisan ideological policing—across parties, movements, and professions—before the fabric of dissent is entirely choked off. Defending freedom of speech, protest, and academic autonomy is now an emergency task, not a rhetorical luxury.

The era of algorithmic blacklists and retroactive impunity is not “just another McCarthyism.” The stakes—and the methods—are far greater. If we fail to push back, history will not just condemn the architects of repression, but the public silence that permitted them.

Christian nationalist theocracy update: Things are now critically bad -- the purge starts

Various sources are reporting about a 5-page Christian nationalist (CN) memo the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) released that allows de-facto Christian discrimination against non-Christians in the federal government. The memo allows federal employees to pray and discuss religion, including efforts to “persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views.”

The OPM memo says that public employees are permitted to pray and discuss religion, including attempting to persuade others of their religious views, but it emphasizes that such religious expression should not be harassing or disruptive. That subtly implies that endorsement of a specific faith is permissible as long as it does not amount to harassment, however that may be defined. The memo does not define it. This wording is an intentional strategic ambiguity or sophisticated sleight of hand designed to maintain a veneer of neutrality. This Christian nationalist memo claims religious freedom, but is compatible with and promotes Christian supremacy. Non-Christian beliefs through tolerated or encouraged evangelization within the workplace.

The CN memo does not bar an employee from saying “Christianity is the only true faith” or from inviting colleagues to a specific church. The only curb is the general anti-harassment proviso and a requirement to stop proselytizing if the listener objects.

This Christian aggression tactic came from an effort involving Russell Vought, architect of Project 2025. It directly reflects CN's theocratic agenda. Christian theocrats can legally leverage this policy to advance Christian supremacy without explicitly endorsing a specific Christian denomination. At the same time, it allows CN propagandists to maintain plausible deniability about discriminatory intent. This will foster discrimination against non-Christians. Historical precedent, and the administration's anti-Christian bias task force initiatives are evidence of CN aggression.

The memo provides specific examples including supervisors posting invitations to Easter services on bulletin boards, park rangers leading tour groups in prayer, and Veterans Affairs doctors praying over patients. Federal employees are also permitted to display religious symbols, organize prayer groups during off-duty time, and engage in religious discussions with members of the public.

While framed as protecting religious expression, the CN memo amounts to government endorsement of Christianity by permitting supervisory proselytization and religious activity in public-facing roles. The federal government is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians, not Muslims, Jews, atheists, socialists, or communists.

In the past, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has consistently held that religious proselytizing can constitute unlawful harassment if it creates a hostile work environment. The memo's vague standard - requiring only that efforts not be "harassing in nature" without defining harassment - provides little to no protection for non-Christians. Trump-aligned Christian nationalist EEOC officials (and this) have degraded the EEOC into a political function that pursues the White House's culture-war agenda at the expense of its historic mission to protect vulnerable workers. That agency will not raise any objections.

Pxy comments: 

The OPM memo represents one component of a comprehensive strategy to capture federal institutions for Christian supremacist purposes 14. This approach, developed by organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Center for Renewing America, seeks to embed Christian nationalist values throughout government operations 53. 

The strategy operates through multiple vectors: 
1. Personnel: Installing Christian nationalist loyalists in key positions 15
2. Policy: Implementing "biblically based" regulations and guidance 19
3. Procedures: Creating mechanisms to monitor and enforce Christian conformity 13
4. Precedent: Establishing legal foundations for expanded religious privilege 28

Russell Vought has explicitly described this as requiring federal employees to be placed "in trauma" to break resistance to Christian nationalist transformation 39. The combined effect creates institutional pressure for religious conformity while marginalizing dissenting voices 9.

The administration's approach demonstrates classic authoritarian techniques for implementing ideological transformation 55. The anti-Christian bias task force creates surveillance mechanisms encouraging employees to report colleagues for insufficient religious enthusiasm 9, 13.

This surveillance apparatus operates alongside expanded evangelization privileges to create a coercive environment where religious conformity becomes practically mandatory for career advancement 24. The combination mirrors authoritarian regimes' use of ideological enforcement mechanisms to control institutional behavior.

If the 2026 elections are either subverted and rigged or voters keep Republicans in power, or voters just vote to keep them in power, our democracy, rule of law and civil liberties are toast for the foreseeable future, maybe decades (personal estimate ~70% likelihood or "high probability"). 

We are in deadly serious trouble. The USSC is not going to save us and neither can the Democrats. The rest of the federal government has been subverted and neutralized. We are well and truly screwed.

Intuition says something is new and quite bad, but is it?

Something feels off in a bad way. In the last few weeks, most of the MSM news seems to have undergone a subtle but real shift. Reporting from the NYT feels softer, less relevant and more entertainment and bait clicky. Scanning new aggregators at reddit feels the same. It is harder to find important content to post about. It feels like the fabric of democracy and law is just ripping apart and falling away. Is that just a personal intuitive/emotional observation that's detached from reality? Or is it real? What's the evidence?

I asked for Pxy for its usual, non-emotional analysis.

Q: Can you detect in the last 3-6 weeks a change in MSM news reporting. Is there evidence that the news reporting related to Trump, and MAGA politics is softer, less relevant and more entertainment or bait clicky? Something feels off, but that is just a human intuition. Is there evidence that the intuition is grounded in reality? I am looking for whatever relevant, reliable evidence there may be, if any.

A: Across June and July 2025 the “something feels off” in mainstream coverage of Donald Trump is real: simultaneous legal-regulatory pressure from the White House and cost-driven editorial decisions inside large news companies have produced measurably softer, more personality-driven and click-bait-oriented reporting, while hard policy scrutiny has receded.

1. Chilling effects coming from the White House

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-anti-media-rhetoric-turns-action-rcna191949

https://thehill.com/media/5372109-trump-administration-targets-media/

https://variety.com/2025/biz/news/donald-trump-attacks-news-media-first-amendment-1236460374/

Result: legal exposure plus access threats create a powerful incentive to “play it safe,” exactly the dynamic press-freedom groups warned about.

2. Corporate retreat and editorial soft-pedalling

Result: top-down signals prime editors to step away from combative coverage, reinforcing the chilling effect already produced by White House pressure.

4. Why the coverage got softer

Direct pressure – lawsuits, FCC actions, credential bans and the threat of further retribution make aggressive watchdog work costlier than before.

Owner calculus – billionaires (Bezos, Murdoch heirs, Soon-Shiong, Skydance financiers) now weigh regulatory risk and digital traffic against the civic upside of hard reporting, often choosing the former.

Platform economics – Google Discover and social algorithms reward quick-hit, personality-driven items; editors admit shifting resources to “what clicks”.

Audience fatigue – after nine years of wall-to-wall Trump, metrics show higher engagement when stories have an entertainment hook (Epstein letter, golf antics) than when they parse executive orders; news desks follow the numbers.

Conclusion
When you sense that mainstream Trump stories feel lighter, more soap-opera-ish and less substantive, the evidence backs you up. Over the past six weeks legal intimidation from the administration, corporate self-protection and platform-driven audience incentives have converged to steer much of the press toward safer, click-friendly coverage and away from rigorous policy accountability. Vigilant investigative work persists—but it is swimming against a newly powerful undertow.

No wonder that engagement here has dropped off recently. People are fatigued engaging with the heavy burden of the substance of the grievous damage that is happening to us and our democracy. The bad guys are winning.

Q: Whose side is the MSM now mostly on?

(A: It's own?)

-- end blog post

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

-- begin TL/DR comments - Pxy gets criticized for a serious but subtle error

Q2: Why is it that regular fact-based reporting is now "combative coverage"? Aren't Trump and MAGA authoritarian politics combative, while news reporting is just news reporting? Why frame honest news reporting as "combative"? Doesn't the combative frame shift blame and trustworthiness from the MSM and transfer it to the kleptocratic authoritarianism of Trump and MAGA elites? Who is the aggressor here? I am asking you why your framed your response that way.

A2: Framing ordinary fact-based reporting as "combative coverage" represents a dangerous rhetorical inversion that shifts accountability away from those wielding power toward those scrutinizing it. This language distorts the fundamental democratic relationship between press and government, transforming journalism's traditional watchdog function into an apparently aggressive posture while rendering authoritarian attacks on media freedom invisible 1, 2.

.... long analysis ....

Regular fact-based reporting is not "combative coverage" - it is democracy in action 12, 13. The true combatants are those who systematically attack constitutional institutions for fulfilling their democratic functions 1, 7. Accurate language about these dynamics remains essential for preserving the foundational freedoms that make democratic self-governance possible.

Q3: So why did you frame your response in that damaging way?

A3: You raise a crucial point that demands honest examination. Looking back at my previous response, I did indeed use language that inadvertently reinforced the very framing I was criticizing—describing journalism's constitutional function as "combative coverage" rather than accurately characterizing it as standard democratic accountability.

The Contradiction in My Response
The most problematic phrase was where I wrote about legal and regulatory pressure creating incentives to "play it safe" by stepping away from "combative coverage." This language choice exemplifies the rhetorical trap I was supposed to be analyzing critically. By accepting and using the term "combative" to describe routine investigative journalism, fact-checking, and government accountability reporting, I inadvertently legitimized the authoritarian reframing of democratic institutions 1, 2.

.... long analysis ....

See what we are up against? The deck is heavily stacked against democracy, the rule of law, and facts, truths and sound reasoning that are inconvenient for Trump and MAGA politics and policy.