Showing posts with label autocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label autocracy. Show all posts

Saturday, September 12, 2026

9/11: Ignorance Was the Failure Then. It Can't Be Our Future Now

I wasn’t going to talk about this as I’ve written before online about my experience on 9/11/2001. 

But I’ve now heard several people on TV this week, today, being interviewed about their experience that day and I found it curious.

At 5:56AM, on 9/11 I was on the Bainbridge Island ferry, Tacoma, headed into Seattle’s Coleman Dock terminal. The M/V Tacoma has a maximum capacity of 202 vehicles and up to 2,500 passengers.

My wife was at home with our youngest watching TV.

I was sitting in the open area chairs at the point of the ferry when she called. She told me while they were watching TV a plane flew into one of the twin towers in NYC. I asked some questions, she answered.

I am not and was not a journalist. I am not and was not a journalist. I am a military vet, USAF. I did hold a secret level clearance for nuclear weapons. But I was a technical writer and had studied the Soviet Union for decades. In the 1990s I began to notice similarities between active measures by the KGB against America and others (certainly the UK who taught us a lot during WWII and the ABC coalitions about the Soviets).

My comment was that we were potentially and technically in a state of war now, with someone who had just attacked us. Though it’s still “possibly” and accident.

A few people sitting yards away from us, next to my friend I whom I sat with on the ferry sometimes, looked at me nervously and I could see them looking away, but leaning slightly in my direction.

A commercial passenger plane simply does not accidentally fly into the largest building in NYC. But still, it could be an accident. Accidents DO happen. But the coincidence here was remarkable to the point of ridiculousness.

And then she exclaimed aloud. I asked what happened.

She was silent.

Then she said while we were talking, another plane had flown into the other tower.

That was when I said, “Then we are technically and definitely at war with someone. We have just been attacked, twice. We just don’t know yet who attacked us. But it was an attack.”

I had said that louder than I meant to, but also louder because others needed to know, though not unreasonably. After I said it, I felt I should announce it. And yet, I did not. Information? Panic? On a passenger ferry? I was unsure the protocol. So I lowered my voice. Enolugh had heard me to look into it if they were curious enough and I was sure they would hear all about it once they arrived at work.

I looked at my friend next to me who had a very worried look on his face.

I looked around the large cabin and I could see people looking at me from yards away with concerned but questionable looks on their faces.

Were they wondering, ‘Was this guy on the phone nuts?’

I quieted down and considered my wife, our child home sick that day, my son at school, my position on a ferry and the tall building for work I was headed into and began to feel a little exposed. And worried.

I considered our house in the back of Suquamish, Washington, on a couple of forested acres in the woods just off Bainbridge Island. It is the small town where Chief Si'ahl of the Duwamish tribe—Seattle’s namesake, is buried.

I told her there was nothing to worry about as she was safe where she was, my older son (who has a different mother) was safe at school.

She asked if I was safe. I did not feel safe. I looked around the skies out the large ferry windows and saw nothing. I thought about the building I was headed into, not Seattle’s tallest but still a 16 floor building that stuck up higher than surrounded buildings and felt I was lying as I told her, “I’ll be fine, I’m sure I’ll be safe.” She asked me to turn around and come home. But I said I need to at least go into work to see how things were.

I ended up spending the day then many of his headed home a little early out of respect for our frightened families at home. Someone pulled a TV on a cart into our area at work and we had the news on all day.

During that day there were USAF fighter jets flying low over our building.

On the way home there was a Coast Guard RHIB—Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats (sometimes RIBs) with a mounted .50cal. that followed us to port and remained there for some time every day going back and forth. It was a relief that first day or two but then began to be concerning, worrisome.

Why do I mention all this?

Because I was informed and aware when the planes hit, and I'm not saying that to brag. I've been hearing people talk this week about how clueless they felt in the moment, how they didn't know what was happening.

One person said that when the first plane hit, he was stunned but aware, and when the second one hit, he knew it was Al Qaeda. He was a journalist who'd been stationed in Afghanistan not long before.

My point is simple.

I find it strange that so many people didn't know, at least fairly quickly, that we were under attack, or even ask themselves who was doing it. I find that unsettling.

By the second strike, and certainly by the Pentagon and Flight 93 (where the passengers themselves refused to let the terrorists finish what they started), there was no way this was an accident.

This wasn't rocket science. But it was a learning curve. Now we know. Europe had warned us for years how, if not this kind of attack could happen, we should be more prepared. We ignored them. We were America. Protected by vast oceans on either side. An anachronist view.

This wasn't rocket science. But it was a learning curve.

Now we know. We just weren't looking for it—we didn't think it could happen here.

We were wrong. Ignorance was the failure then. We cannot afford it now.

And yet we have an administration that doesn't fear ignorance—it depends on it. That's not incompetence.

That's autocracy. 


Saturday, August 15, 2026

Trump Countdown Clock: Days Until Our Trump/GOP National Nightmare Ends

 

End of Trumpism, End of MaGAism
End of Toxic Conservatism in Power
End of this Toxic Republican Party
End of America's stupid experiment in Authoritarianism
Someone posted to this that we need action, not just dates.
True, this is merely something to shoot for. Sooner if possible.
But it helps to have a goal. A date. A time.
And then shoot for sooner.
Merely waiting for this to be over, does NOTHING.
Act.

Our national nightmare, on the clock...

Term's End
— — —
until noon, January 20, 2029
The Indictments
— — —
until DOJ leadership no longer answers to him, January 21, 2029

In this tine of "Corporate Thought" meaning no morals, no ethics, profit over all else, disinformation, post-truth, toxic conservatism, etc., our government no longer functions correctly due to having been set up with a consideration that people would not stoop as low as we have seen today's American conservatism and Republicans have. 

Thus, we bow need corrections.

Here's a rundown of the institutional reforms that necessary in a post Trump-era of toxic GOP governance and the current SCOTUS (and some conservative judges) have pushed, organized by branch. 

Presidency / executive power

  • Codify limits on the pardon power for self-dealing or obstructing investigations into the president's own conduct
  • Close the "major questions doctrine" and emergency-powers loopholes that let presidents bypass Congress via executive order
  • Strengthen the Impoundment Control Act so a president can't unilaterally withhold appropriated funds
  • Clarify and narrow presidential immunity after the Trump v. United States ruling, since critics argue it created near-blanket immunity for "official acts"
  • Restore independence of inspectors general and agency heads (FBI, DOJ, intelligence community) with for-cause removal protections that can't be gutted by executive order
  • Tighten the Hatch Act and anti-nepotism/emoluments enforcement with real penalties

Congress

  • Restore the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by Shelby County v. Holder
  • Pass federal redistricting standards to curb partisan gerrymandering
  • Reform the filibuster for voting rights and basic governance bills (budget, debt ceiling)
  • Tighten conflict-of-interest and stock-trading rules for members of Congress
  • Restore and strengthen congressional oversight tools (subpoena enforcement mechanisms with teeth, since agencies currently can just ignore them)
  • Campaign finance reform addressing Citizens United, likely via a constitutional amendment given the Court's current posture

Supreme Court / judiciary

  • 18-year staggered term limits for justices, ending lifetime tenure
  • A binding, enforceable ethics code (the current one has no enforcement mechanism)
  • Some form of court expansion or jurisdiction-stripping on specific issues, though this is the most contested item even among reform advocates
  • Stricter recusal rules tied to financial disclosures
  • Reversing or legislating around specific rulings (Dobbs, Trump v. United States, Chevron's overturn in Loper Bright) through statute where possible

Broader democratic guardrails

  • Insulate election administration and certification from partisan interference (building on the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022)
  • Statehood or representation reform for DC and territories
  • Independent redistricting commissions as a national standard
I wish us all well going forward once sanity returns and corporate thinking is back under control.

Power to the people, not power to only the powerful few.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Monday, July 27, 2026

Mike Johnson Is Doing Putin's Job for Him

Given how thoroughly Mike Johnson and his MaGA Republicans have crippled American governance in service to Trump, how differently would Putin actually guide them -- because from where I sit, the overlap is nearly total.


This is worth taking seriously as political analysis. Here's how I'd frame it:

Putin's known strategic wishlist for America:

Russia's two long-standing strategic goals are dominion over Ukraine and the weakening of U.S. power, especially in Europe -- both embedded in its ambition to undo the post-Cold War order. More specifically, Putin knows his military can't defeat NATO conventionally, but he can create enough division from within its ranks to fracture trust across the 32-member alliance. 

And beyond Ukraine, his goal is to regain the position of the Soviet Union of his youth: control over Eastern Europe, most of Central Europe, and at least parts of Southeastern Europe -- in a Europe largely abandoned by the United States. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace + 2

So the script Putin would hand an American Speaker would look something like this:
  • Abandon Ukraine or force humiliating terms on Zelensky
  • Hollow out NATO's credibility, especially the Article 5 mutual defense commitment
  • Create internal American chaos that consumes all political oxygen
  • Erode trust in democratic institutions, courts, press, elections
  • Alienate European allies so they can't coordinate against Moscow
  • Keep America turned inward on culture war and grievance politics
  • Weaken the intelligence community's ability to counter Russian ops
Now compare that to what Johnson is actually delivering:

Europeans have been taken aback by Trump's refusal to commit additional assistance to Ukraine and the pressure placed on Kyiv to accept Russian demands, including the formal ceding of sovereignty over seized territory and the abandonment of NATO membership aspirations.

Putin himself pointed out that Trump's national security strategy doesn't name Russia as a direct adversary, asking pointedly:

"How can you prepare NATO for a war with Russia if the main member of NATO doesn't consider us an enemy?"

That's Putin not complaining -- that's Putin gloating publicly.

On the domestic chaos front, Johnson's tenure has been marked by few legislative accomplishments and a series of internal splits that consistently stymied his party's own agenda.

The House Republican conference is so consumed by factional performance politics that basic governance has become nearly impossible -- which is exactly the kind of dysfunction that makes America look weak and ungovernable to the world.

Where would Putin change the script?

Honestly, very little.

If Putin were actually advising Johnson, the additions would be marginal -- maybe push harder on dismantling the intelligence community's Russia-tracking capacity (DOGE cuts to the IC have already helped here), perhaps push for formal U.S. recognition of Russian territorial gains in Ukraine, and encourage more friction with the Baltic states specifically.

But the core program -- institutional erosion, NATO skepticism, Ukraine abandonment, culture war distraction, authoritarian executive consolidation, media delegitimization -- is already running.

Putin wouldn't need to issue new instructions so much as send a thank-you note.

The uncomfortable conclusion: the gap between "what Putin would want" and "what Trump/Johnson/MaGA are doing" is so narrow it barely constitutes a gap.

It's the kind of convergence that doesn't require a conspiracy to explain -- it just requires shared interests in weakening the liberal democratic order, for very different stated reasons.

They don't need to be coordinated to be useful to Moscow.

Any more than those under Trump need a direct call to his illiberal, or illegal actions. They know what he expects. It's what they telegraphed to him for selection. It's what they were hired to do. 

It's also how the Mafia worked. It's how criminal organizations work.

It's Why RICO was created to deal with that criminal universe.

They just need to keep doing exactly what they're doing.

This isn't rocket science. It's not complicated. 

They're not even any longer trying to hide it, any of it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Monday, May 4, 2026

The Autocrat's Playbook: Trump - From Immigrants to Iran

A documented record of who Donald Trump has attacked, in what order, and what it means


Verblendung (German): the state of willful blindness in which a person or a people becomes so captivated by a figure or ideology that they lose the capacity to see what is plainly in front of them. Not mere ignorance. Not deception imposed from outside. The kind of blindness you choose, and then forget you chose.

There is a question worth asking plainly: when you line up everyone Donald Trump has attacked since his first term in office, what do you see? Not what his supporters say you see, and not what his critics fear you see. Just the list, in order, with the facts.

What you see is a pattern. And patterns, unlike individual events, tell you something true about intent.

First Term (POTUS 45, 2017 to 2021): Establishing the Template

The first term was about identifying who could be attacked without serious political cost. Trump started with groups that lacked political power, were easy to demonize, and whose suffering would be invisible to his base.

Muslims came first, via travel bans targeting majority-Muslim nations. Then asylum seekers and migrants, through the family separation policy, zero tolerance prosecutions, and children held in detention facilities that a federal court later described as barbaric. Then Mexico, threatened with tariffs and accused of sending rapists and criminals. Then NATO allies, threatened with abandonment unless they paid more. Then Iran, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew the nuclear deal in 2018 before ordering the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Then China, via a trade war. Then the press itself, declared the enemy of the people.

The template was simple: pick a target, remove their legal protections, and see what happens. Nothing serious happened. So he came back.

Year One of POTUS 47: The Targets Expand Inward

Undocumented Immigrants

On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, Trump signed executive orders expanding expedited removal nationwide, suspending refugee resettlement, and instructing agencies to detain people to the fullest extent possible. ICE was given permission to raid schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Agents in unmarked vehicles, wearing plainclothes and face coverings, began conducting door-to-door enforcement in immigrant neighborhoods based on what internal documents described as apparent race.

Legal Immigrants and Asylum Seekers

The administration then retroactively made over a million people illegal, including those who had used official government programs like CBP One appointments and Temporary Protected Status. People who had done everything the right way were reclassified as undocumented overnight. In May 2025, with Supreme Court permission, the administration revoked the protected status of 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants in what advocates described as the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history.

International Students and Foreign Nationals with Political Views

The administration revoked the visas of hundreds, possibly thousands, of international students across dozens of states. Many were arrested, detained, and deported or threatened with deportation not for any crime but because of their political speech, particularly support for Palestinian rights. The First Amendment was treated as a privilege that expired at the border.

U.S. Citizens

This is where the pattern became impossible to dismiss as immigration enforcement. By October 2025, ProPublica had confirmed at least 170 American citizens detained by ICE. The detainees included elected officials, disabled adults, children receiving cancer treatment, Puerto Ricans, and Indigenous people. The deportation of U.S. citizens from the United States is illegal. It happened anyway.

The administration announced plans to strip citizenship from 100 to 200 naturalized Americans per month. The DOJ directed prosecutors to pursue denaturalization cases. An executive order attempted to revoke birthright citizenship from U.S.-born children of immigrants, a right enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Elected Officials and Protesters

Protesting near an ICE operation became grounds for arrest. Accompanying an immigrant to a scheduled court hearing and asking officers to produce a warrant became grounds for arrest. Asking the Secretary of Homeland Security a question became grounds for arrest. These things happened to members of Congress. The message to everyone less powerful was obvious.

The Foreign Wars: Seven Countries and Counting

While the domestic crackdown accelerated, the military campaign abroad expanded at a pace that broke all modern records. Data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project documented 622 air and drone strikes across seven countries in 2025 alone.

Somalia (February 2025 onward)

The U.S. conducted more strikes in Somalia in 2025 than under the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations combined. Both al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia remained intact and active by year's end, with al-Shabaab gaining ground and advancing toward the capital.

Yemen and the Houthis (March to May 2025)

Under Operation Rough Rider, Trump ordered more than 1,100 strikes on Houthi positions, spending over a billion dollars in a matter of weeks. Human Rights Watch documented a strike on the Ras Isa port in April that killed more than 80 civilians and called for a war crimes investigation. A ceasefire brokered by Oman ended the campaign in May. By July, the Houthis had resumed attacks on shipping.

Iraq (March 2025)

A U.S. strike in al-Anbar province killed Abdallah Malli Muslih al-Rifai, identified as a senior ISIS commander, in coordination with Iraqi and Kurdish authorities.

Syria (December 2025)

Following an ISIS attack in Palmyra that killed two U.S. soldiers and a translator, the U.S. struck 70 ISIS positions across Syria on December 19. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called it a declaration of vengeance.

Nigeria (December 25, 2025)

On Christmas Day, Trump ordered what he called powerful and deadly strikes on alleged ISIS affiliates in northwestern Nigeria's Sokoto State, framed explicitly as protecting Christians. Nigerian officials disputed the characterization. Terrorism experts questioned whether ISIS even operated in the targeted region. Hegseth marked the occasion with: Merry Christmas. More to come.

Latin America and the Caribbean: The Boat Strikes (September 2025 onward)

Beginning in September 2025, the U.S. carried out at least 45 strikes on vessels alleged to be drug trafficking boats in Latin American and Caribbean waters. Monitoring group Airwars documented 151 people killed. The United Nations rejected the legal basis for the strikes, calling them unlawful extrajudicial killings. The Trump administration described drug trafficking as a form of armed attack on the United States.

Venezuela (January 3, 2026)

U.S. Special Forces raided Caracas overnight and abducted President Nicolas Maduro in an operation called Operation Absolute Resolve. At least one U.S. missile struck an apartment building in the port city of Catia La Mar, killing an 80-year-old woman as she slept. Trump described the attack as successful and perfectly executed. Legal experts and lawmakers from both parties called the operation illegal under U.S. and international law. Trump invoked what he called the Donroe Doctrine, a rebranding of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, and declared that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.

Iran (June 2025 and February 2026)

In June 2025, the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan during active diplomatic negotiations. In late February 2026, joint U.S.-Israeli strikes were launched in what Trump described as major combat operations aimed at regime change in Tehran. The Iranian Red Crescent documented at least 201 killed in the initial wave. Iran launched a counterattack on the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Trump has already threatened to strike again.

The Countries Threatened But Not Yet Struck

Greenland and Denmark were threatened with military annexation. Denmark's prime minister warned that a U.S. attack on a NATO ally would collapse the entire alliance. Mexico has been threatened repeatedly over cartel activity, with reports that drone strikes inside Mexican territory were seriously considered. Cuba and Colombia were targeted with threats after the Venezuela raid. The list is not shrinking.

The Conclusion the Record Demands

He is not fighting enemies. He is manufacturing them.

Every escalation follows the same logic: identify a target that a portion of the public will not defend, attack them, normalize that attack, then expand the definition of who qualifies as the enemy. Undocumented immigrants became legal immigrants became visa holders became naturalized citizens became U.S.-born citizens became elected officials became protesters became anyone who asked a question. Abroad, terrorist groups became sovereign nations became a NATO ally in Greenland.

The violence is the point, not the means. A leader genuinely focused on security, drug trafficking, or nuclear threats would use diplomacy, law enforcement, and coalition building. Instead, each solution maximizes spectacle, cruelty, and personal political benefit. Deporting children receiving cancer treatment. Bombing a sleeping 80-year-old woman. Striking Iran during active diplomatic negotiations. These are not policy failures. They are features.

He has successfully inverted the law. Following the law now gets you arrested. Breaking it is called strength.

The domestic and foreign violence are the same project: a unified assertion that the executive branch may use lethal force against anyone it designates an enemy, with no court, no Congress, and no international body having the authority to stop it.

The word autocrat is accurate. But what the documented record describes is what historians call the consolidation phase. The dismantling of courts, oversight, civil rights protections, press freedom, and citizenship itself. The use of military force against civilians at home and abroad. The imprisonment of political opponents. The targeting of allies. This is not where authoritarianism peaks. This is where it accelerates.

The fact that large portions of the American public oppose these actions is, in this framework, not a constraint. It is the next problem to be solved.

Consolidation does not stop on its own. It stops when institutions, allies, or the public make the cost of continuing higher than the benefit. That is where history currently sits.

Sources: Al Jazeera, Council on Foreign Relations, Vera Institute of Justice, American Immigration Council, ACLU, ProPublica, Airwars, Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, Wikipedia 

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Friday, January 9, 2026

The New Normal: When Repetition Turns the Unthinkable Into “Everyday Reality”

There is a quiet phenomenon reshaping politics, technology, media, and even global stability. It is not a law. It is not a vote. It is not a constitutional crisis announced on television. It is something subtler, and in many ways more corrosive:

The ability to turn the outrageous into the ordinary simply by doing it often enough.

Shock fades.
Reaction weakens.
Standards collapse.
And suddenly, what should be unthinkable becomes “just how things are now.”

This is not theoretical anymore.
We are living inside it.


When Illegality Becomes a Trial Balloon — and Then Becomes Policy

In the United States we saw this transformation begin domestically. Actions that would have once triggered emergency hearings, legal interventions, and bipartisan condemnation were floated casually, repeated constantly, and eventually treated as debatable policy instead of obvious violations.

Using the military against Americans.
Sending National Guard forces into states uninvited.
Openly threatening governors.
Mocking the rule of law.
Defying court orders.
Treating constitutional restraints as annoying suggestions rather than binding law.

These are not slips of the tongue.
They are test balloons.
They are conditioning exercises.

Say it once and people are horrified.
Say it ten times and it becomes “controversial.”
Say it fifty times and it becomes “politics.”

Normalization weaponized through exhaustion.

And now something even more alarming is happening:

Donald Trump is no longer limiting that normalization of illegality, cruelty, and authoritarian impulse to American borders.

He is exporting it.


From Domestic Abuses to International Projection

The United States has always had outsized influence on the world stage. Traditionally, that influence has been (at least aspirationally) tied to democracy, law, diplomacy, and restraint.

Trump has replaced that with something else entirely.

He has begun exporting:
• his domestic lies
• his contempt for democratic constraints
• his “strongman” performance politics
• and his willingness to abuse systems simply because he can

…into international affairs.

Case in point: Venezuela.

Whether the headline is:
– threats of force
– unilateral action without transparency
– disregard for international process
– or backroom bravado wrapped in patriotic chest-beating

…it is the same behavioral pattern we watched develop domestically.

Trump says “we’ll run Venezuela.” 

Translation: Trump thinks he’ll run Venezuela. How do you know it’s either a lie or delusion? When Trump says he’ll “run” anything. 

History shows he only breaks what he touches.

Test the limits.
Ignore precedents.
Rebrand recklessness as strength.
Rely on spectacle over strategy.
Assume accountability will never arrive.

This is not diplomacy.
This is destabilization masquerading as leadership.

And it does not merely target other governments. It threatens civilians, migrants, dissidents, political prisoners, and entire populations—people who do not get a vote in our politics but pay the price for our political theater.

Authoritarian style is now an export product.

That should terrify anyone paying attention.


Meanwhile: The Technology Version of Normalized Dysfunction

Parallel to this political normalization is the technological one.

We now live in a world where systemic failure is treated as charming.

News programs lose expert guests mid-sentence because of failing remote tech.
Economists freeze on screen.
Doctors vanish during breaking news.
Connections collapse live on-air.
Networks scramble like amateur livestreamers.

And we all shrug.

This would once have been unacceptable. It would have been called embarrassing. It would have resulted in sweeping upgrades and accountability.

Now?
We laugh.
We meme it.
We accept it.

We have normalized incompetence.
We have normalized low standards.
We have normalized the idea that even institutions responsible for informing the public can be held together with duct tape and prayer.

And while that seems harmless, it isn’t.

Because when the infrastructure of reliability disappears, authority collapses with it.

And into that vacuum steps chaos.


Lower Expectations = Easier Control

There is a psychological truth at work here:

People who expect reliability, competence, legality, and stability push back when it disappears.

People who have been trained not to expect it?
They adapt downward.

They normalize failure.
They accept outrage fatigue.
They begin to believe that nothing can be better, so why fight?

That is the true danger of normalization.

Once people give up on expecting standards, they stop defending them.

And that is when powerful people stop pretending to care about limits at all.


None of This Is Accidental

“New normals” are not natural evolutions.

They are engineered.
They are repeated into existence.
They are pushed until resistance breaks.

Domestically.
Technologically.
Internationally.

We are now watching a political figure who has already conditioned a nation to tolerate behavior once considered unacceptable — now applying that same “shock until numbness” strategy beyond our borders.

That does not just reshape America.
It reshapes the world order.


Where This Leaves Us

We do not have to accept:
• domestic authoritarian trial balloons
• government by threat and intimidation
• exporting lawlessness to international policy
• media treating dysfunction as inevitable
• technology lowering standards while pretending it is progress

The unthinkable only becomes normal when enough people stop reacting.

We didn’t just normalize glitchy Zoom interviews — we’ve normalized failing tech everywhere. Cell service that drops calls. Coverage worse than countries with fewer resources. Streaming services that glitch or lock us out. 

And that’s before even getting into email phishing, fraud schemes, ransomware attacks, hospitals being held hostage, and nonstop attempts to steal money or blackmail people. We didn’t just get more relaxed — we accepted a level of dysfunction and danger we never should have.

Decades now of software being released before it was fully vetted, fully debugged, etc. AI? May help with that now. Oddly, in that it's also now arguably our greatest threat.

Individuals and systems threaten us, defraud us, break on us and, we just...shrug?

Relaxing was good. Lowering expectations this much, not so much.

The world has seen what happens when toxic capitalism, dysfunction, abuse and authoritarian behavior stops being confined and becomes contagious. 

History is not subtle about where this road leads.

The danger is not the outrageous act.
The danger is the moment society stops...flinching.

Because once that happens?
Anything can be justified.
Anywhere.

And that is when democracies, societies fail, not with a dramatic collapse…
…but with yet another mere shrug.

Interesting times people...

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!





Saturday, January 3, 2026

Special Edition: Chaos as a Governance Strategy — and What It Keeps Us From Seeing

On January 3, 2026, news outlets reported that the United States carried out a major military operation in Venezuela that struck key locations in Caracas and elsewhere and resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, according to statements from the U.S. administration. President Trump announced that they had been flown out of Venezuela and were en route to the United States to face prosecution. 

This represents the most direct U.S. military action in a Latin American capital since the 1989 Panama intervention. Reuters+1

The U.S. government has characterized Maduro as responsible for narco-terrorism and narcotics trafficking, and the Justice Department has indicted him on related charges. Trump and his advisors indicated that this intervention was rooted in those allegations and framed as part of a broader campaign against drug networks. The administration also suggested future involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector. The Guardian+1

The Venezuelan government, international legal scholars, and several foreign governments have condemned the operation as a violation of international law and national sovereignty. Although some Republican lawmakers have praised the operation, others — including Democratic members of Congress — have raised serious questions about its legality, particularly regarding whether Congress had any formal role or authorization under the U.S. Constitution. Wikipedia

This dramatic escalation did not emerge overnight. In mid-2025, the Trump administration expanded military pressure on Venezuela, including airstrikes against vessels the U.S. alleged were linked to narco-trafficking via operations in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, and deployed significant naval assets to the region. The administration designated groups tied to the Maduro government as foreign terrorist organizations and authorized the Pentagon to use military force against specified drug cartels — moves that were highly controversial and raised legal scrutiny at the time. Council on Foreign Relations+1


Why This Matters: The Promise and the Peril

1. Legality and Domestic Process

Under U.S. law and the Constitution, the power to authorize war or major military engagement rests with Congress. Historical debates over executive military actions without congressional authorization — such as in Iraq, Kosovo, or Libya — are long-standing precisely because they test the balance of powers. The legality of the Venezuela operation is already being questioned, and many foreign governments have condemned it as violating international norms that prohibit forceful regime change without Security Council approval. Wikipedia

Regardless of political perspective on Maduro’s governance, the precedent of unilateral military action without clear legal authorization sets a significant constitutional and diplomatic marker.


2. Likely Scenarios in Venezuela’s Future

Removing a long-standing authoritarian leader does not, in itself, create stability. Instead, it opens a series of plausible outcomes, many of which have historical analogues in other nations that experienced sudden leadership disruption:

Scenario A — Fragmentation and Internal Power Struggles

Political factions within Venezuela — including Maduro loyalists, opposition forces, and regional strongmen — could compete for control. When a ruler who controlled state mechanisms for more than a decade is suddenly removed, no clear successor or unified transition process may exist. This kind of power vacuum historically leads to:

  • competing militias or armed groups gaining influence,

  • breakdowns in security and governance at local levels, and

  • heightened risk of internal conflict.

Similar dynamics have occurred in Libya and Iraq after sudden regime change, where the absence of stable succession structures contributed to prolonged unrest.

**Scenario B — Foreign Influence Escalates

Venezuela’s strategic importance — especially its vast petroleum reserves — attracts interest from multiple global powers. Over the past decade, Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba maintained political or economic links with the Maduro government, while Latin American neighbors navigated competing pressures. With the central authority suddenly removed, outside states could intensify their influence, seeking to shape the next governing configuration. Congress.gov

In such cases, external actors with different geopolitical agendas can deepen divisions and fuel proxy rivalry inside the country.

**Scenario C — Economic Turmoil Deepens

Venezuela was already facing severe economic collapse, hyperinflation, and infrastructure deterioration long before any military action. Political disruption — especially involving military strikes in urban centers — risks exacerbating:

  • shortages of basic goods,

  • breakdowns in public services,

  • displacement of civilians,

  • refugee flows to neighboring states.

This creates a humanitarian crisis alongside political instability, with real consequences for ordinary people.

There's still people in Venezuela who support Maduro.
There's still people in America who support Trump.

That tells us what, exactly?

It tells us that even obvious failures can still keep loyal followers when identity, fear, propaganda, and grievance politics do their job.


3. The Geopolitical Ripple Effects

A U.S. military operation of this scale in Latin America — involving strikes on territory and the capture of a sitting head of state — invites diplomatic pushback from other nations and international bodies. Countries such as China and Russia have already criticized actions in Venezuela as violations of sovereignty. Such international responses carry consequences for global alliances and regional stability. Wikipedia

The reaction from regional organizations, neighbor states, and global powers will shape international norms about the use of force, diplomatic engagement, and conflict resolution.


4. A Moment of Decision for U.S. Policy

The Venezuela episode poses fundamental questions for U.S. foreign policy:

  • Should military action against another country’s government be used as a tool against criminal networks?

  • What are the long-term implications of replacing diplomacy and sanctions with direct military intervention?

  • How do constitutional processes factor into decisions of war and peace?

These are not partisan questions; they are structural ones about how a democratic republic conducts itself on the world stage.


Conclusion

The reported U.S. operation in Venezuela marks an escalation with far-reaching consequences — legally, regionally, and geopolitically. What happens next in Venezuela will depend on how local political factions respond, how neighboring states act, and whether international actors push for a negotiated, peaceful transition or a more fractious struggle for control.

The removal of a long-entrenched leader is a pivotal moment. Without stability mechanisms, inclusive governance structures, and multilateral support, the risk of prolonged turmoil — not the promise of peace — is high.

As the United States heads into a pivotal election year, we are doing so under a president who has repeatedly demonstrated an autocratic style of governance — one who concentrates power in the executive, marginalizes congressional authority, disregards international norms, and treats military force like a political instrument rather than a last resort. 

The Venezuela operation is not just about one country; it is a reflection of how power is being wielded here at home. Voters are being asked a fundamental question this year: do we want a presidency defined by unilateral action, chaos governance, and erosion of democratic guardrails, or do we want a nation anchored in constitutional process, stable leadership, and respect for the rule of law? 

The stakes are not abstract. They are immediate, they are global, and they are ours to decide.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!





Tuesday, December 23, 2025

“I Agree With Some of His Stuff” Is NO Longer a Serious Argument

One of the most common defenses I hear from Trump supporters—especially those who do not identify as hardcore MAGA—is this:

“I don’t like everything about him, but I agree with some of his stuff.”

At one time, that argument might have carried weight. It does not anymore.

Trump is old, exhausted, and increasingly irrelevant. His ideology was tired and anachronistic before he even began. What remains is not leadership, but the attempt to dance around an obvious reality: his toxicity, and his supporters’ insistence on retaining him at any cost, so long as that cost is borne by others.

That bargain was always unsustainable. Power built on grievance and loyalty eventually turns inward. As we are now seeing, many of those who believed they were exempt are discovering they are not. They, too, are being harmed by the system they defended.

This outcome was predictable. It was inevitable.

That is how autocracy works.

In ordinary democratic politics, partial agreement is often sufficient. Voters regularly support candidates whose policies they only partially endorse. That is the nature of compromise in a pluralistic system.

But that logic collapses when the central issue is no longer policy, but the survival of democratic norms themselves.


Policy Disagreements vs. Systemic Threats

Disagreements over taxes, regulation, immigration levels, or foreign policy priorities are normal and healthy in a democracy. They presume a shared commitment to the system in which those disagreements are resolved.

Trump is no longer controversial primarily because of policy positions. He is controversial because he has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of elections, attacked the independence of courts and the press, demanded personal loyalty over institutional loyalty, and normalized the idea that power should not be constrained by law when it conflicts with his interests.

When those are the defining characteristics of a political figure, “agreeing with some of his stuff” becomes irrelevant.

We do not excuse a structural threat by citing selective alignment. No one would seriously argue that Watergate was acceptable because they liked some of Nixon’s policies. Some actions disqualify the framework itself.


Vagueness Is Not Neutrality

“I agree with some of his stuff” is also a deliberately vague phrase.

It avoids specificity. It avoids accountability. It avoids weighing benefits against costs. When pressed, it often dissolves into grievances, cultural resentment, or a desire to punish perceived enemies rather than articulate concrete policy goals.

That is not a policy argument. It is an emotional alignment.

Vagueness in this context is not moderation. It is evasion.


In a Democracy, Means Matter as Much as Ends

A constitutional democracy is defined not only by outcomes, but by how power is exercised.

When someone says they like the results but are willing to overlook the methods, they are implicitly rejecting the constraints that protect everyone, including themselves. Rule of law, independent institutions, and peaceful transfers of power are not inconveniences to be bypassed when they become frustrating. They are the system.

Tolerating anti-democratic means in exchange for preferred outcomes is not pragmatism. It is instrumental authoritarianism.

Democracies do not survive that bargain.


This Argument Had an Expiration Date

There was a brief period early on when one could plausibly claim policy agreement while assuming democratic guardrails would hold.

That window closed when election outcomes were rejected, courts were attacked as illegitimate, political violence was rhetorically normalized, and loyalty to one individual was elevated above loyalty to the Constitution.

After that point, continued support ceased to be ambiguous.

Repeating “I agree with some of his stuff” now is not a sign of nuance. It is a refusal to grapple with what has become unmistakably clear.


Responsibility Follows Foreseeability

Supporters are not responsible for everything a leader does. They are responsible for what they knowingly enable.

Once a pattern of behavior is established, continued support implies acceptance of foreseeable consequences. That is a basic ethical principle, not a partisan one.

At this stage, no one can reasonably claim ignorance of what Trump represents or how he governs.


“I agree with some of his stuff” is not a serious argument when the question is whether democratic norms, constitutional limits, and the rule of law are optional.

At this point, the statement does not function as justification. It functions as avoidance.

The American experiment depends on the idea that no leader is above the system, and no grievance justifies dismantling it. If that commitment is negotiable, then democracy itself is already being traded away.

And then there's his Chief of Staff's comments about him... 

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles may have given up the game

Donald Trump is not a good guy. So what does that say about those who support and love him?


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!




Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Thursday, December 11, 2025

The New Appeasement: What If We Treated World War II the Way We Handle Aggression Today?

There is a hard truth many leaders in the West do not want to face:

If this cautious, incremental, risk-averse mindset had guided the democracies of the 1930s and 1940s, we would be living in a very different world today. We would not be talking about defending democracy in Ukraine. We would be talking about how democracy died a lifetime ago.

Hesitation always extracts a price. Caution, when elevated into a governing principle without forward motion, becomes paralysis. Moral clarity, delayed long enough, stops being clarity at all. It curdles into complicity. Caution is defensible only when it leads to action. When it does not, it becomes an accomplice.

A World Afraid to Act

What has defined the last three years of Western policy toward Russia is not strategy. It is fear.
Fear of escalation.
Fear of economic disruption.
Fear of political backlash at home.
Fear of provoking a cornered dictator.
Fear of the unknown if Russia actually loses.

This is not the mindset of a global coalition committed to defending freedom. It is the mindset of leaders who want stability more than justice, comfort more than courage.

Imagine this posture during World War II.

If 2025 Mentality Had Guided 1941

Picture a United States and Britain debating whether to send outdated tanks to the Soviet Union because better ones might “provoke Hitler.”
Picture leaders arguing that striking German industrial sites would be “escalatory.”
Picture endless meetings about whether bombing rail lines carrying Jews to death camps might “worsen the situation.”

This is the world we would get under today’s doctrine of careful steps, incremental supply, and never doing anything that might upset a dictator.

Hitler counted on that.
Putin counts on it now.

Comfort Over Courage

In today’s Europe and America, political leaders often frame caution as wisdom.
They talk about “avoiding World War III.”
They talk about “managing escalation.”
They talk about “strategic patience.”

But patience for whom?
Patience for what?

Because what Ukraine experiences every day is not patience. It is destruction.
What Russia experiences is not fear. It is opportunity.

Western caution is not slowing Russia. It is giving Russia room to adapt, reorganize, recruit, and push forward. It is giving Russia time to turn a temporary invasion into a permanent occupation.

In the 1930s we had a word for this. It was called appeasement.

History Does Not Reward Cowardice

The truth is simple.
When democracies fear doing the right thing more than they fear the triumph of authoritarianism, the authoritarians win.

This is not about starting a war with Russia.
It is about preventing Russia from rewriting the map of Europe by force.
It is about preventing the collapse of the basic principle that borders cannot be erased by tanks.
It is about preventing a world where democracies tiptoe around dictators while dictators do whatever they want.

If that principle dies, we do not just lose Ukraine.
We lose the 20th century.

The Hard Lesson From WWII

The democracies eventually won World War II.
But not because they were cautious.
Not because they managed risk.
Not because they calibrated support in small increments and waited to see if Hitler got upset.

They won because they finally decided that survival of free society required courage.
The willingness to act.
The willingness to take risks.
The willingness to accept sacrifice.

Today the West has convinced itself that courage is reckless, that decisive support is too dangerous, that standing firm against a nuclear-armed dictator is irresponsible.

But the alternative is not peace.
The alternative is the slow death of the international order that has preserved peace for eighty years.

We Are At a Historical Fork

When future generations ask what happened in this era, they will ask one question above all others:

Did the democracies stand up when it mattered, or did they hide behind excuses while another autocracy trampled its neighbor?

Because history is clear.
Freedom survives when free nations choose courage.
Authoritarianism spreads when they choose fear.

Right now, too many Western leaders are choosing fear.
And that choice, if allowed to continue, will not just cost Ukraine. It will cost us all.

The West keeps telling itself that caution is strength.
But caution in the face of aggression is not strength. It is surrender in slow motion.

If this is the posture we adopt when a nuclear-armed dictator redraws borders by force, then what exactly is the red line? What principle are we still willing to defend? How many democracies must fall before we remember that deterrence is not built on fear. It is built on the credibility that free nations will act when it matters.

Ukraine is not asking us to fight their war.
They are asking us not to be cowards in ours.

History will not judge us by how carefully we tiptoed around Vladimir Putin.
It will judge us by whether we chose courage while we still had the chance.

Because if we wait until the cost of defending democracy becomes unbearable, the lesson of WWII will repeat itself in the worst possible way:

We will find ourselves fighting a much bigger war, against a much stronger tyranny, at a far higher price, all because we failed to stop it when it was still possible.

Courage is cheaper than regret.
We need to start acting like it.

We NEED to end this, and NOT in Russia's, in Putin's, favor. What do we not get about NOT rewarding this kind of behaviors?

While this is not World War II, it is our moment in history, and we cannot allow Putin to repeat the mistakes the world once paid for in blood. IF we do, it's just pushing down the road, a repeat, more death, when only one is really called for. 


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



Compiled with aid of ChatGPT




Monday, October 27, 2025

I Wrote This Dystopian SciFi Long Before Trump. I Wish I Hadn’t Been Right

America’s descent was already fiction — until it wasn’t. It was fake, it was fun, it was fiction, until it wasn't. 

It imagined a United States that willingly hands itself — mind, body, and soul — to a charismatic media figure named Peter Masters.

Cover art by Marvin Hayes

In 1990, I published my first short story in a horror quarterly magazine, a dystopian sci-fi story titled “In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear.” 

I've written about this story before.

Its title is an homage to Isaac Asimov's first autobiography, "In Memory, Yet Green".


Asimov and this autobiography in particular, had a profound impact on me. I read his science fiction as a kid in the 1960s. I read his autobiography in the late 1970s while I was in the USAF. He said in his book that the great Golden Age science fiction writers had been military technical writers. I was in the military at the time but later worked my way up to a Senior Technical Writer, in my case, in some of the top IT companies and departments in the Pacific Northwest. 

I was also deeply affected by other authors of my youth like Ray Bradbury for his prose, and Harlan Ellison for his at times acerbic view of the world, who turned me onto the concept of being a speculative fiction writer.

My reason for writing this here today has to do with Donald Trump and the state of America. In Trump we've seen a mentally deficient man, an emotional dwarf, a sociopath, a narcissist, an autocrat by the nature of his personality and childhood, who has brough this mental illness to our public at large.

But in my sci fi story, the protagonist, is an intelligent man, a friend of our main character, Peter Masters, who never had to become President to take over. Because in his case, he is just that intelligent. 

Unlike Donald Trump (now, regarding him as POTUS...this on Substack).

He doesn’t need to take over America through politics. 

He becomes something far more dangerous:

The center of all attention and without being obnoxious.

Peter’s rise begins as entertainment — a talk show. Trump, as a TV show host who eventually fails.

Then Peter takes over total control of America's social media. Then full control of all media, all surveillance, all public information, all narrative.

The public cheers as he takes power piece by piece. Sound familiar yet?

Democracy doesn’t fall — it evaporates.

Now does this sound familiar?


The Villain Wasn’t a Politician. He Was a Celebrity.

Peter is mentally unstable — brilliant, yes — but unstable. Trump plays that kind of a character on TV and in the White House. But he is a vapid man, a petty man, a mental midget who is a one trick pony.

Both men's delusions are treated as genius.
Their propaganda feels like patriotism.
Their narcissism is packaged as salvation.

They become the nation’s brain, and Americans celebrate losing their own.

Meanwhile…

  • Science bends to conspiracy

  • Citizens are distracted into submission

  • Children are groomed to accept surveillance as safety

  • The wealthy expand power through entertainment rather than governance

And America’s allies?

Canada and Mexico do everything they can to distance themselves from the madness. Why? Because they are physically closest to US.

Keep in mind:

I wrote this around 1985, 40 years before Donald Trump declared that he alone could fix America.


The Road to Autocracy Isn’t Lined With Armored Tanks — It’s Paved With Infectious Media

Trump isn’t a genius engineer like Peter Masters. A salvation and an embarrassment for us.

He’s not inventing new technology — he’s exploiting existing weakness:

📺 The attention economy
🚨 The dopamine loop
📢 The fear machine
❤️ The parasocial bond

Autocrats don’t need votes when they have followers.

They don’t need laws when they have disbelief in law.

They don’t need a coup when millions decide the Dear Leader is democracy.

Peter and Trump both rise by corrupting the question:

“Who should lead?”
becomes
“Who makes me feel something?”


In Fiction, I Called It Propaganda. In Reality, It’s Primetime News.

Peter seizes control by promising:

  • Safety

  • Simplicity

  • Spectacle

Trump promises the same thing — packaged in grievance, nostalgia, and revenge.

It’s the same populist trick:

“Only I can fix it.”

Translation:

“I must control everything.”

And too many Americans cheer.

Because the high of certainty feels better than the burden of truth.


The Scariest Part of the Story Wasn’t the Villain

The scariest part was that everyone in America…

welcomed him in.

They asked for it.
They begged for it.
They surrendered freely — as long as the TV stayed entertaining.

Just like now.

We didn’t need fictional monsters to show us how fragile democracy is.
We only needed to meet a man who knows how to sell.


A Warning I Never Wanted to Come True

When I wrote “In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear”, it was meant as satire — a cautionary tale about:

  • unchecked charisma

  • mentally unstable leaders

  • tech-driven culture collapse

  • propaganda as national identity

In 2025…
It feels like a documentary filmed ahead of schedule.

Art imitates life.
But sometimes life — horrifyingly — catches up.

And as history keeps reminding us:

Democracy doesn’t end when people lose their rights.
It ends when they stop caring that they’re losing them.


If my old story suddenly feels like today’s headlines…

That’s not science fiction.

That’s America trying to warn itself.

I wish us all the very best. But that will require Donald Trump receiving a destiny that is far, far from that.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT