Turning Point or Police State

The world faces with existential threats that could determine the survival of nations, civilizations, humanity and all life on Earth. A rising tide of fascism, combined with economic insecurities, cultural anxieties, climate chaos, and the potentially ruinous force of AI threatens to reshape societies in ways that prioritize control, hierarchy, and exclusion over equality and sustainability.

I think it behooves us to explore the psychologies of meaning, identity development, transactional dynamics, and behavioral conditioning, and examine the cultural and ideological underpinnings of our polycrisis, the better to find pathways toward resilience and survival. Let’s examine right-wing authoritarian tendencies, the seductive narratives of fossil fuel industries and masculinity, and fragmented political ideologies.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Bob Altemeyer, the Canadian-American social psychologist who first coined the term and its meaning in 1981, defined a right-wing authoritarian (RWA) as someone who exhibits: 1. a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives; 2. a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities; 3. a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

Recent studies indicate that the roots of the right-wing authoritarian personality are mostly down to genetics, a conclusion that comes from twin studies. That said, education levels are also a factor, with a four-year undergraduate education found to lower RWA scores by approximately 10%.

Research comparing RWA with the Big Five personality traits has found that RWA is positively correlated with conscientiousness and negatively correlated with openness to experience. People low in openness to experience tend to prefer clear, unambiguous moral rules and are more likely to support the existing social order insofar as it provides clear guidance about social norms for behavior and how the world should be. People low in openness to experience are also more sensitive to threats (both real and symbolic) to the social order and hence tend to view outgroups who deviate from traditional social norms and values as a threat to ingroup norms and values. Conscientiousness is associated with a preference for order, structure and security, hence this might explain the connection with RWA.

In his writings, Altemeyer sometimes refers to right-wing authoritarians as "authoritarian followers" to emphasize that he is not speaking of authoritarian leaders, which is the more commonly understood meaning of "authoritarian." Altemeyer refers to authoritarian leaders by the term "social dominator," and he has written extensively on the relationship between authoritarian followers and social dominators.

Right-wing authoritarians tend to accept what their leaders say is true and readily comply with their commands. They believe that respecting authority is an important moral virtue that everyone in the community must hold. They tend to place strict limits on how far the authorities can be criticized, and believe that the critics are troublemakers who do not know what they are talking about. RWAs are extremely submissive even to authority figures who are dishonest, corrupt, and inept. They will insist that their leaders are honest, caring, and competent, dismissing any evidence to the contrary as either false or inconsequential. They believe that the authorities have the right to make their own decisions, even if that includes breaking the rules that they impose on everyone else.

The "leader" is somebody whom the authoritarian believes has the moral right (if not legal right) to rule his society. Right-wing authoritarians are highly submissive to authority figures whom they consider legitimate, and conversely can be very rebellious towards authority figures they consider illegitimate. An example of the latter is American conservatives' attitude towards President Obama. Though legally their president and had won the election legitimately, many American conservatives felt he had no moral right to be president. An aspect of this attitude was the "birther" movement, espousing the conspiracy theory that Obama was actually born in Kenya and had used a forged birth certificate to qualify himself for office.

Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto created the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale, which describes people who crave power over others. Bob Altemeyer has used the SDO scale to study the relationship between authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders. Authoritarian followers are attracted to domineering leaders. This is measured in one of the items on the RWA scale: "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." They are more likely to obey and approve of the leader's unethical actions than a low-RWA. And likewise, social dominators seeking power like to appeal to authoritarians because their loyalty is easy to acquire and hold if the SD just tells them what they want to hear, and they are gullible and will turn a blind eye to his indiscretions.

Social dominators differ from authoritarian followers in several important ways. Both personality types demand loyalty from others, but RWAs usually reciprocate that loyalty whereas SDs have a tendency to betray their followers when it suits them.

Social dominators lack the irrational thinking patterns common to RWAs, such as compartmentalized thinking and hypocrisy. They might often spout contradictory and illogical things in order to manipulate their RWA followers, but they are usually aware of the bad logic in their arguments, they do not care as long as it gets them what they want. Social dominators are also more self-aware than RWAs. For instance, RWAs often do not realize how abnormally prejudiced they are, whereas SDs often do (and are comfortable with that).

The aggression of RWAs is mainly motivated by fear and by sanction by authorities, whereas the aggression of social dominators is motivated by a general desire to dominate others. Altemeyer has found that today in America, SDs are more hostile to racial minorities than RWAs, because racism has become less socially acceptable and even illegal, and RWAs to an extent want to conform to this norm even if it clashes with their natural ethnocentrism.

Altemeyer believes this relationship explains why autocratic countries tend to have oppressive, highly hierarchical societies, where women, LGBTQs and religious minorities are oppressed; and higher levels of corruption. Generally speaking, autocratic rulers hold power through the support of a smaller fraction of their citizens than leaders in democratic countries do. Under these circumstances, appealing to RWAs is an effective strategy because their loyalty is easy to acquire and hold. By contrast, leaders in democratic countries (such as France and Canada) need to build a broader support base among the citizens to hold onto power, and RWAs are too few in number to form a sufficient base. The democratic leader is forced to consider the desires of centrists and liberals, and such citizens demand tolerance, liberty, and low corruption.

In some of his writings, Altemeyer thinks of a right-wing authoritarian as someone who submits to the established authorities in society, whereas a left-wing authoritarian submits to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment. This distinction is one of circumstance, not personality. He asserts the Nazis were left-wing authoritarians before they rose to power, and after they took power they became right-wing authoritarians.

Research has shown that, since the 1960s, American voters who prefer authoritarian leadership styles are more likely to support Republican candidates. Supporters of Trump were more likely than non-Trump-supporting Republicans to score highly on authoritarian aggression and group-based dominance. Furthermore, many left-leaning authoritarians have become less engaged with politics and voting.

A study by Monmouth University found that 40% of people who voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election scored in the highest quartile on the RWA scale. By contrast, only a negligible number of Joe Biden supporters scored that highly. The same study found that those Trump supporters who scored highly on the RWA scale were more likely than other Trump supporters to endorse conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the election was rigged by the Democratic Party.

They generally have a conservative economic philosophy, are highly nationalistic, oppose abortion, support capital punishment, oppose gun control legislation and do not value social equality. The RWA scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist attitudes, religious orthodoxy and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps.

In The Authoritarian Dynamic, Karen Stenner argues that RWA is best understood as expressing a dynamic response to external threat, not a static disposition based only on the traits of submission, aggression and conventionalism. Stenner is critical of Altemeyer's social learning interpretation and argues that it cannot account for how levels of authoritarianism fluctuate with social conditions.

Authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom and diversity. They are more willing to suspend constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights. They are more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals and report that punishing such people is satisfying for them. They tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities and homosexuals. However, as Stenner argues, authoritarians will support programs intended to increase opportunities for minority groups, such as affirmative action, if they believe such programs will lead to greater societal uniformity.

In roleplaying situations, authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In a study by Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future entitled the Global Change Game. Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.

In 2017, the “new regality” theory suggested a reinterpretation of RWA in the light of evolutionary psychology. Regality theory agrees that authoritarianism is a dynamic response to external threats, but rather than seeing it as a psychological aberration, regality theory posits that authoritarianism is an evolved response to perceived collective danger. The tendency to support a strong leader when faced with common existential threats has contributed to Darwinian fitness in human prehistory because it helped solve the collective action problem in war and suppress free riders. It is argued that regality theory adds a deeper level of analysis to our understanding of authoritarianism and avoids the political bias that the research in the authoritarian personality and RWA is often criticized for.

In 2019, Ronald Inglehart combined RWA with his theory of postmaterialism, arguing that both reflected the tendency of insecure environments to produce individuals whose worldview values conformism over self-expression. Interesting…for more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

The Psychological Allure of Fossil Fuels and Petro-Masculinity

The fossil fuel industry’s enduring grip on society is not merely economic but deeply psychological, tapping into primal needs for security, identity, and belonging. Carl Jung’s concept of archetypes can illuminate this phenomenon. The industry’s narrative of “petro-masculinity” evokes the archetype of the Hero, casting oilmen and their supporters as defenders of freedom, independence, and prosperity. This archetype resonates with collective unconscious desires for mastery over nature and the preservation of a nostalgic, idealized past—epitomized by the American Dream of suburban homes and economic self-reliance. The fossil fuel narrative, with its promises of jobs and energy security, taps into these archetypal images, making it psychologically compelling even in the face of environmental devastation.

Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development highlights the identity crisis at play. For many, particularly white, conservative men, the fossil fuel industry represents a stage of identity versus role confusion, where traditional roles tied to resource extraction and economic dominance are threatened by renewable energy and climate activism. The industry’s narrative of “petro-pride” and “petro-patriotism” reinforces a collective identity rooted in strength, independence, and resistance to change. This identity is further solidified by political figures like Donald Trump, whose “drill baby drill” rhetoric and mockery of renewable energy appeal to a sense of generational continuity and cultural superiority.

The Crisis of Masculinity and Authoritarian Control

Thom Hartmann’s analysis of toxic masculinity reveals another psychological dimension of fascism, where figures like Trump, Elon Musk, and Andrew Tate exploit economic and social anxieties to redefine masculinity as control. From a Jungian perspective, this phenomenon reflects a Shadow archetype—a distorted, destructive version of masculinity that emerges when societal pressures suppress healthier expressions of strength and leadership. The “manhood trap” promotes a hyper-masculine identity that rejects equality and embraces authoritarianism, appealing to young men grappling with existential uncertainty in a rapidly changing world.

Viktor Frankl might say that young men, facing job losses from AI and economic precarity, seek meaning in hyper-masculine ideologies that promise control and dominance. The “tradwife” movement and attacks on reproductive rights, such as the push to repeal no-fault divorce laws, reflect a desperate attempt to restore a perceived lost order. These ideologies provide a false sense of purpose, masking the underlying anxiety of a world where traditional roles are eroding. Frankl would argue that redirecting this search for meaning toward compassion and service could counter these toxic narratives.

Erikson’s stages of development are relevant here. The crisis of intimacy versus isolation is evident in the incel forums and Proud Boys gatherings, where young men, unable to form meaningful relationships in a society that feels alienating, turn to authoritarian figures who validate their grievances. The GOP’s embrace of fetal personhood and restrictions on women’s rights further exacerbates this crisis, reinforcing a hierarchical worldview where men dominate and women are relegated to subservient roles. This regression to earlier developmental stages, where identity is tied to power rather than connection, threatens social cohesion and fuels fascist tendencies.

The Exquisite Corpse of Political Fragmentation

Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious suggests that societies can fall into destructive patterns when shared myths (such as the American Dream or petro-masculinity) go unchallenged. The failure of political groups to see the “bigger picture” reflects a collective Shadow, where fear and self-interest override cooperation and empathy.

Frankl’s existential perspective highlights the danger of this fragmentation. When groups focus solely on their immediate concerns, they lose sight of the broader meaning needed to unite against existential threats. The absence of a shared purpose leaves societies vulnerable to fascist narratives that exploit anxiety, as Hannah Arendt warned: “Existential anxiety always leads to fanaticism, of one sort or another.” Frankl would advocate for a unifying vision that connects individual struggles to a collective fight for survival, emphasizing values like justice and sustainability.

B.F. Skinner’s behaviorism offers a lens on how societal inertia is reinforced. The fossil fuel industry’s positive reinforcement—through jobs, economic promises, and patriotic narratives—conditions individuals to prioritize short-term gains over long-term survival. Similarly, the GOP’s reinforcement of toxic masculinity through media, policy, and cultural icons like Trump and Musk conditions young men to equate strength with dominance, perpetuating a cycle of aggression and control.

Alfred Adler’s inferiority-superiority complex explains the appeal of these narratives to those feeling marginalized by economic and cultural shifts. The promise of restoring “greatness” or traditional gender roles compensates for feelings of inferiority, driving support for fascist ideologies that offer a sense of superiority over others. This dynamic is evident in the MAGA movement’s appeal to white, conservative men and the “tradwife” movement’s promise of racial and gender hierarchy.

Sigmund Freud’s concept of the id, ego, and superego highlights the tension between primal desires (id), rational thought (ego), and moral constraints (superego). Fascism exploits the id’s desire for security and dominance, overwhelming the ego’s capacity for critical reflection. The superego, shaped by cultural narratives like petro-masculinity and religious hypocrisy, fails to provide a moral counterbalance, allowing authoritarianism to flourish.

Humanity’s Chances of Survival

Humanity’s survival hinges on overcoming these psychological barriers. The fossil fuel industry’s grip, rooted in archetypal narratives and reinforced by economic and cultural conditioning, must be countered with alternative sources of meaning. Frankl’s emphasis on finding purpose through collective action, such as transitioning to renewable energy and embracing intersectional justice, offers a path forward. Erikson’s call for generativity suggests that societies must foster new identities tied to sustainability and equality, moving beyond nostalgia for a fossil-fueled past. Adler’s focus on community feeling points to the importance of fostering a sense of shared humanity to counter inferiority-driven fascism.

The current wave of fascism, driven by economic insecurity, cultural anxieties, and technological disruption, poses a profound threat to humanity’s survival. By redefining masculinity, fostering intersectional solidarity, and replacing fossil fuel narratives with sustainable visions, societies can resist authoritarianism. The economic rise of renewables, coupled with growing awareness of climate impacts, could shift cultural tides. However, this requires confronting political fragmentation and embracing a unified purpose. Humanity’s chances of survival depend on our ability to integrate these psychological lessons, fostering resilience through meaning, identity, and cooperation. If we fail, the consequences are dire—a world of surveillance, inequality, and environmental collapse. But if we succeed, we can redefine our collective narrative and maybe, just maybe, ensure that civilization and the species itself endures, in a more just and sustainable future.