Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2026

The Addiction of Ignorance, and the Revolution We Should Have Seen Coming

I have definitely written about this before. Many times. 

America has a drug problem nobody wants to talk about honestly. Not fentanyl. Not alcohol. Ignorance. Specifically, the cultivated, deliberate, chosen variety. Selective ignorance. And like any addiction, the longer it goes untreated, the more it takes from you, and the more dangerous the addict becomes to everyone around them. 

What makes it an addiction rather than a simple deficit is the active, continuous work required to maintain it. Psychologists call it motivated reasoning: the cognitive process by which people do not reason toward truth but toward conclusions they have already decided they want. This is not passive. 

People running motivated reasoning are working hard, filtering incoming information, discarding what contradicts the preferred conclusion, amplifying what confirms it. The ignorance in America's current crisis is not a shortage of available information. 

We live in the most information-saturated society in human history. This is a shortage of willingness to receive information that costs something. That is a crucial distinction, and it changes everything about how we diagnose what is happening to us.

We did not stumble into this. We chose it, repeatedly, at every turn where knowing something inconvenient would have cost us comfort, privilege, or the warm bath of tribal belonging. We chose it in churches, in school board meetings, in voting booths, and on social media feeds algorithmically tuned to feed us exactly what we already believed. The addiction metastasized in plain sight.

And it is worth understanding why the social cost of knowing is so high. Social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner established decades ago that human identity is inseparable from group membership. We do not just belong to groups. We are our groups. 

When the group's shared worldview requires the rejection of expertise, accepting expertise becomes an act of betrayal. You do not just change your mind. You lose your people. In communities where the group is the whole of a person's identity and social world, that cost is existential. Ignorance becomes the price of admission, and people pay it willingly, even gratefully, because what they are buying is belonging.

There is a phenomenological dimension here that goes deeper still. Willful unknowing is not a passive state. It is an active, lived experience requiring continuous maintenance. On some level, the person who chooses not to know is aware of the choice. Reality keeps pressing in, and the relief of not engaging it has to be re-administered, reinforced, re-confirmed by the group. That is the addiction structure exactly. The substance is not a chemical. It is the relief of a world simplified to the point where you and your tribe are right, and everyone with credentials and data and uncomfortable questions is the enemy.

I was in high school in the early 1970s when my teacher (I've previously written about my high school Civics and World Problems teacher, the amazing Mrs. Wotton) walked us through what Mao Zedong had done to China with his Cultural Revolution. We sat there, American teenagers, shaking our heads at how stupid those people must be. 

How could an entire society follow a megalomaniac into the deliberate destruction of its own intellectual class? How do you purge universities, persecute doctors, imprison professors, and silence scientists, and have a population that either cheers or says nothing?

We were very smug about that. Very confident it could never happen here.

What we did not understand then, and what the psychology makes clear now, is that Mao's Red Guards were not simply destroying expertise. They were building community through that destruction. The shared rejection of the intellectual class was a bonding ritual. 

The public humiliations, the struggle sessions, the denunciations: all of it created solidarity among participants. You proved your belonging by performing your contempt for knowledge. The crowd that cheers when a professor is fired, when a doctor is silenced, when a library is purged, is not just expressing hatred. It is renewing its membership in the tribe.

Here we are.

Donald Trump did not invent American ignorance. He weaponized it. He handed it a flag, a cross, and a grievance, and told it that everything it didn't understand was the enemy. White Christian nationalism became the operating ideology of a federal government. Not a fringe. Not a protest movement. The government.

The psychological engine underneath that movement has a clinical name: Terror Management Theory, developed from Ernest Becker's foundational work and extended by Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Solomon. When people feel their mortality, their significance, or their cosmological worldview under threat, they do not open up. They contract. They cling harder to the group identity that gives them meaning and to the enemies that justify their fear. 

White Christian nationalism offers exactly the right package for that psychological state: a cosmology, a tribe, a hierarchy, a villain, and a promise of eternal significance to people who feel they have been made small. Trump did not build that. He found tens of millions of people already running that psychological program and gave them permission to act on it.

Agencies gutted. Scientists fired or sidelined. Educators targeted. Health agencies hollowed out in the middle of a century that has already demonstrated what happens when you let preventable diseases find an opening.

And it is worth knowing that much of this ignorance is not organic. It is manufactured. 

Historian Robert Proctor developed the field of agnotology, the formal study of culturally induced ignorance and doubt, after studying how the tobacco industry spent decades deliberately producing uncertainty about the link between smoking and cancer. 

They did not need people to believe cigarettes were safe. They only needed people to believe the science was unsettled. The same machinery runs today on climate research, vaccine safety, election integrity, and pandemic response. Engineered doubt is not a side effect of the information age. It is a product, developed, funded, and distributed with precision.

We are watching infectious disease rates climb back toward numbers we were told we'd never see again, because a meaningful portion of the population has decided that the people who study disease are the enemy, and the people who spread misinformation about it are the heroes.

We are watching professors lose positions. Researchers lose funding. Federal employees purged for the content of their emails and their perceived politics. Libraries challenged. Curricula sanitized.

And we haven't even gotten to the imprisonments and murders...yet.

I say yet with full awareness of what I'm saying. Because if you had described the current state of American governance to me in 1973 in that high school classroom, I would have told you it sounded exactly like what we were being warned about. 

Except we were being warned about them.

The Soviets. 

The Chinese. Cautionary tales on the other side of the world.

The cautionary tale was always us, waiting to happen.

Ignorance is comfortable. Too comfortable. Selective ignorance is ecstatic. 

You get to keep your prejudices, discard inconvenient facts, belong to a community of the like-minded, and feel righteous about all of it. 

The MaGA movement did not recruit stupid people. It recruited comfortable ones. 

It recruited people who found the drug of chosen ignorance, of selective ignorance, more appealing than the cost of knowing things that challenged their worldview.

Fascism does not need jackboots on day one. 

It needs an addicted population that has practiced, for decades, the discipline of not knowing what it does not want to know. That population is ready-made for whoever arrives with the right story.

It would seem we learned nothing from what we studied. Or we have simply...purposefully...forgotten it.

Worse, we were too arrogant to think we needed to remember it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Purpleism opposes all human irritants. Trump has consumed that space so completely everything now runs through him.
That distortion of daily life is itself a Purpleism issue.
Exhausting.
Malignant Narcissism does that



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, January 19, 2026

When Your Standard Applies to Your Opponent — and Then to Your Own Side

Cheers!
Happy national Martin Luther King holiday!
Regardless what our petty POTUS desires, or how bigoted, the flaccidly inflated the ego of our Rumpelstiltskinesque ‘tiny prick’ is in such a petty, small-minded man, while such a big pain to us all.

Remember when people on the right said that if Barack Obama said, it would be dangerous personality-cult rhetoric?

“Democrats love it.
Democrats love what I’m doing.
Democrats love everything I do,”
he said, “Democrats are me.
Democrats love everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”

Conservatives anywhere from the center to the hard right would have rejected that instantly as cultish — elevating a leader above the party, equating the movement with one person, and demanding uncritical devotion. Many still describe such rhetoric in authoritarian states, or in relation to historical fascist leaders. They would be right to do so — that would be cult-of-personality language if someone actually said it.

Although Obama was a decent man overall and never would have said that.

Because that particular quote never happened. It was made up for argument’s sake — and that’s why it was a useful rhetorical hook.

But here’s the twist:

Obama never said that.

Donald Trump actually said that.

On January 6, 2026, in a public statement reported by El País, President Trump said:

“MAGA loves it.
MAGA loves what I’m doing.
MAGA loves everything I do,” Trump said.
“MAGA is me.
MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”

That is not a paraphrase. That is not an embellishment. It is the captioned phrasing from a contemporary news report on his remarks about U.S. policy toward Venezuela.

Why this matters

The crucial rhetorical move in the example you remember — the one about Obama — is that you ask someone to apply a standard first before they know it’s a setup. MaGA is not "Making America Great Again", but diminishing America overall. Trump sees everything in a sense of profit, or more often, profit for HIM. But everything is NOT about profit. See Fareed Zakaria's take from Sunday, January 11, 2026.

The standard invoked by many conservative commentators in the past was, in essence:

“If a leader equates themselves with the movement and claims that the movement loves everything they do, that is cult-like rhetoric.”

That standard makes sense if we value:

  • loyalty to institutions over individuals,

  • accountability over personal elevation,

  • party as a coalition of ideas rather than a personality.

But here’s the twist: when you let someone apply that standard first — thinking they are condemning the other side — they end up condemning a real contemporary example from the current president they support.

That’s the point. Once someone agrees that language like this is inappropriate or dangerous when it is framed as coming from the opposing side, they have implicitly committed to a rule. The next step is revealing that the actual quote comes not from the opposing side, but from their own preferred leader. At that point, the argument is not about policy or party; it is about coherence and standards.

This tactic — getting someone to articulate their own principle first before attaching it to an actual case — does not belittle identity. Instead, it engages the identity in a moment of self-judgment. If someone enthusiastically condemns the made-up Obama quote as cultish and then resists calling the Trump quote the same, they are forced into one of two uncomfortable positions:

  1. They abandon their previously stated principle, which exposes inconsistency.

  2. They apply their principle consistently, which undercuts the emotional or identity investment in the leader.

The tactic works precisely because it leverages a person’s own stated standards against an actual real-world example.

What counts as cult-of-personality rhetoric?

Language of the sort Trump used — equating the base not just with support for policies but with him personally — intersects with political-science concepts of personalist power structures and cults of personality. 

One element scholars look for is identity fusion: when supporters and a leader are described as if they are inseparable, loyalty becomes less about ideas and more about personal attachment. Another is unconditional devotion: the idea that the movement loves everything a leader does, without qualification. Both traits are present in that quote.

This does not mean every supporter is irrational or brainwashed. People can support a movement for many reasons — economic interests, identity politics, policy preferences — without being part of a psychological cult. But when a leader explicitly frames the movement as them and claims total devotion, that moves the rhetoric well outside the norms of conventional party politics.

MaGA functions as a cult-like political movement — more precisely, a personalist, cult-of-personality political formation — even though not every individual MaGA voter behaves like a cult member.

The longer, precise answer matters, so here it is without rhetoric or hype.


What MaGA is not

MaGA is not:

  • a conventional ideological movement

  • a normal party faction

  • a policy-driven coalition

  • a persuasion-responsive electorate

Those models assume shared reality, institutional loyalty, and conditional support. MaGA violates all three.


What MaGA is (analytically)

MaGA fits the political-science model of a cult of personality embedded inside a mass movement.

That has specific, recognizable features:

1. Identity fusion

Supporters do not merely support Trump; they merge personal identity with him.

Trump explicitly reinforces this:

  • “MAGA is me.”

  • “I alone can fix it.”

  • Attacks on Trump are framed as attacks on them.

This is the single strongest cult indicator.


2. Leader supremacy over reality

Facts, law, courts, elections, and even conservative principles are accepted only if they affirm Trump.

When they don’t:

  • they are dismissed as fake, rigged, corrupt, or illegitimate

  • contradiction does not weaken loyalty

  • failure increases devotion

That is cult logic, not political reasoning.


3. Moral inversion

Actions are judged by who does them, not by what they are.

The exact same behavior:

  • is tyrannical if a Democrat does it

  • is justified if Trump does it

  • is denied if Trump does it badly

This is why your Obama→Trump inversion tactic works: it exposes moral relativism anchored to identity.


4. Unconditional loyalty demand

Trump does not tolerate neutral supporters or internal dissent.

  • Critics are “traitors,” “RINOs,” “enemies”

  • Loyalty to Trump outweighs loyalty to party, Constitution, or country

  • Institutions exist to serve him, not constrain him

That is classic personalist authoritarian structure.


5. Institutional capture without legitimacy

MaGA does not seek legitimacy through institutions.
It seeks control of institutions to remove legitimacy constraints.

That is why:

  • impeachments fail

  • jurisprudence is evaded

  • norms collapse without backlash

  • accountability becomes impossible

Cults do not argue their way into power. They outlast and absorb.


So is MaGA “a cult”?

Yes — in the political sense, not the clinical sense.

More precisely:

  • MaGA is a mass political cult of personality

  • Trump is the central identity object

  • The movement is post-ideological, post-institutional, and loyalty-driven

This is why treating MaGA as “misinformed voters” or “angry conservatives” keeps failing.


The crucial distinction

This does not mean:

  • every MaGA voter is irrational

  • every supporter is equally cult-embedded

  • cult dynamics cannot weaken over time

But it does mean:

  • normal political counter-argument will not work

  • fact-checking will not work

  • appeals to norms will not work

  • persuasion fails once identity fusion locks in


Bottom line (clean and defensible)

MaGA is not a normal political movement.
It is a cult-of-personality system organized around Trump, where identity overrides reality, loyalty overrides law, and institutions exist to serve the leader.

Treating it as normal politics is not neutrality.
It is surrender to the structure that allows it to persist.

That is the correct diagnosis — and it explains everything you’ve observed: the elections, the escapes, the control, and the failure of conventional opposition.

if they don't act like a cult member what are they acting like?

Good question — because once you strip away the word “cult,” what remains are several distinct behavioral roles that look different on the surface but still sustain the same power structure.

If they are not acting like classic cult members, they are typically acting as one (or more) of the following:


1. Identity-protective partisans

These individuals are not devoted mystics; they are defending a threatened identity.

What drives them

  • Fear of status loss (cultural, racial, generational)

  • Perceived humiliation by elites or institutions

  • “People like me are being erased”

How they behave

  • Selectively rational

  • Dismiss facts that threaten identity

  • Accept contradictions without distress

They are not following Trump because they believe everything he says.
They are following him because he validates who they think they are.

This is not cult devotion — it is identity defense under threat.


2. Transactional authoritarians

These supporters do not idolize Trump; they use him as a tool.

What drives them

  • Desire for power outcomes (courts, deregulation, revenge, dominance)

  • Zero concern for norms or process

  • Ends justify means

How they behave

  • Fully aware Trump lies

  • Openly admit moral compromise

  • Say things like “I don’t care, he gets things done”

This group sustains autocracy knowingly.
They are clients of power, not believers.


3. Grievance voters

These individuals are animated by anger rather than belief.

What drives them

  • Economic resentment

  • Cultural displacement

  • Desire to punish institutions or “elites”

How they behave

  • Incoherent politics

  • Contradictory positions

  • Support whatever hurts perceived enemies

Trump is attractive because he is destructive, not because he is correct.

This is nihilistic politics, not cult behavior.


4. Information-silo dependents

These are not irrational people — they are operating inside a sealed epistemic environment.

What drives them

  • Reliance on partisan media ecosystems

  • Distrust of all outside information

  • Repetition substituting for verification

How they behave

  • Can reason logically inside the silo

  • Reject all external sources reflexively

  • Treat contradiction as manipulation

They are not worshipping Trump.
They are living inside a closed reality loop.


5. Authoritarian followers (psychological type)

This group exists in every society and activates under perceived chaos.

What drives them

  • Desire for order

  • Discomfort with ambiguity

  • Preference for hierarchy

How they behave

  • Strong leader fixation

  • Obedience over deliberation

  • Moral certainty replacing ethics

They do not love Trump personally.
They love what he represents: command and certainty.


6. Performative loyalists

These individuals signal allegiance publicly without deep internal belief.

What drives them

  • Social belonging

  • Fear of ostracism

  • Community reinforcement

How they behave

  • Repeat slogans

  • Avoid dissent publicly

  • Privately more ambivalent

This is social conformity, not cult devotion — but it still stabilizes the system.


So what ties them together?

Not belief.
Not ideology.
Not policy.

What unites them is alignment to a personalist power system where:

  • Loyalty matters more than truth

  • Identity matters more than consistency

  • Power matters more than legitimacy

Some are believers.
Many are participants.


The precise answer to your question

If they are not acting like cult members, they are acting like:

Participants in a personalist authoritarian system, each playing a functional role — identity defender, power client, grievance vehicle, or conformity enforcer — whether or not they emotionally worship the leader.

That is more dangerous than a pure cult, because it is broader, more flexible, and harder to disrupt.


Bottom line (clean and accurate)

MaGA is sustained not only by cult devotion, but by identity defense, transactional power-seeking, grievance politics, information enclosure, and authoritarian followership.

You do not need everyone to be a cult member to maintain a cult-of-personality system.
You only need enough people playing roles that keep the leader unaccountable.

That is the real structure you are confronting.

Why normal political argument fails against cult-like structures

This gets to a deeper point: treating politics like normal exchange — evidence, reason, policy argument — works only if both sides share a commitment to shared reality and institutions. In a personalist movement where identity is fused with a leader, such arguments often fail because they are not addressing the reason someone supports the movement in the first place.

That is exactly why the Obama-as-tyrant example is so useful rhetorically: it forces someone to articulate a standard about authoritarian language before they apply it to a real example.

And when the real example is one of their own preferred leader, their own principle becomes the mirror of reckoning.

America does not fail because it argues too harshly. It fails when it refuses to recognize what it is facing. A political movement organized around personal loyalty rather than law, identity rather than truth, and power rather than accountability is not just another faction in a democratic contest. It is an authoritarian threat by definition. 

Democracies protect themselves not by pretending such movements are normal, but by insisting that no leader is the nation, no movement is above the Constitution, and no individual is owed unconditional devotion. The choice before America is not left versus right. It is whether the country will defend its institutions against a personality cult that seeks to replace them — or allow itself to be hollowed out in the name of loyalty to one man.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Friday, January 2, 2026

The Americans Made Me Think About Our Own Failures to Protect Democracy

I'm rewatching The Americans. I really liked this show on the first run it had when it premiered in 2013.


Widely hailed as one of the greatest television series of all time, FX’s The Americans is far more than a standard spy thriller. Created by Joe Weisberg, this period drama ran for six seasons (2013–2018) and swept the awards circuit, earning Peabodys, a Golden Globe, and Primetime Emmys for its writing and lead actor Matthew Rhys. 

Set against the high-stakes backdrop of the 1980s Cold War, the series explores the lives of two KGB officers posing as an average American couple in the suburbs of D.C., blending white-knuckle espionage with a profound exploration of marriage and identity.

On the surface, The Americans is a show about the FBI vs. the KGB in the 1980s; at its core, however, it is a complex portrait of a marriage. Created by Joe Weisberg, the acclaimed FX drama follows Philip and Elizabeth Jennings (Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell), two Soviet intelligence officers hiding in plain sight as a married couple with children in Falls Church, Virginia. 

Over six seasons, the series masterfully used the Cold War as a metaphor for the conflicts of matrimony and parenthood, creating a tension that was heightened by their neighbor...an FBI counterintelligence agent.

I'm on the final sixth season, episode one, there is a scene where one of them, the wife, meets with a Soviet general in Mexico. He tells her that they have created a system wherein if the Soviet leadership is disabled, this project, "Dead Hand" will finalize the launch of missiles destroying America if they had attacked.

At that moment, she should have executed him for such a project. But that wouldn't have cut out the cancer in their system. That kind of thing was after all, part of her job, to acquire or eliminate enemies of the Soviet Union. 

He then explains that if Gorbachev attempts to negotiate away this doomsday system in exchange for Reagan’s Star Wars program, elements within the Soviet military would be prepared to remove him from power. In other words, they were willing to overthrow their own legally installed leader simply to preserve their grip on a failing system.

Execution or coup, the method of removal is left unspoken. History would soon prove that such threats were not empty. A failed coup attempt came only a few years later, accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union and setting the stage for Vladimir Putin to take power in 1999, eventually becoming the despotic, aggressively imperial leader we see today.

She should have executed the general in that moment. He is after all, describing himself and his cohorts as criminal. For the fictional world of the USSR in that time period, it would have been the best course of action, and arguably in the interest of humanity. But history and human behavior rarely align with what might be morally necessary. 

She did not execute the General. Instead, the scene slowly allows the music to overpower the Russian dialogue, while the English subtitles keep revealing the message. It becomes clear that Elizabeth Jennings (Russian name, "Nadezhda", played by Kari Russell) understands exactly what she is hearing. She absorbs the full weight of it. 

Yet rather than act for a greater human good, of that of the Soviet, she accepts the general’s orders as a good soldier and chooses loyalty to the system over responsibility to the world. In the series, it is implied by the nature of the series at that stage, that the role of responsibility to a greater good will likely fall to her husband, Philip Jennings (Russian name, "Mischa", played by Matthew Rhys), who has always leaned that direction. Thus, setting up the heightened dramatic conflict between the primary characters, throughout the season's series finale.

Why do I mention all this? Because I really like this show. But further, because it points out a flaw in our system.

Donald Trump. When we realized he was a threat to this country, and others, that should have been enough to end his rise. And yet, it not only did not stop it, it fueled it. When it later time and time again because apparent and paramount that he be stopped or removed, he continued to rise. 

Two impeachments, being fired as POTUS45, convicted of 34 felonies, all did not stop him from becoming yet again, an American president as POTUS47. Both are top rated worst presidents in history.

Yet he remains at this time, so far, president of the United States of America, in a country thoroughly inappropriate for such a man.

So what am I saying here? I'm not making a call to action. Certainly nothing immoral or illegal, or even unconstitutional.

THAT'S how we GOT here in the first place.

What The Americans dramatizes so brilliantly is not simply ideology or geopolitics, but failure. 

The failure to recognize danger when it presents itself. The failure to confront rot when it spreads. The failure of people and systems to act when acting still matters. That is not a Soviet flaw. That is a human flaw. And it is one we, as Americans, have now lived through in real time.

Donald Trump did not rise in a vacuum. He did not endure because of one man’s will alone. He endured because far too many of us underestimated the danger, excused it, normalized it, or convinced ourselves that our institutions were strong enough to absorb anything. They were not. We were not. Inappropriate application of pressure at just the right pressure points and an autocracy rises to near fruition. 

And the price of that collective failure is the reality we are living through now.

I am not advocating violence. 

I am not calling for revenge. 

I am not arguing for anything outside the moral and legal framework of a civilized society. What I am saying, and what this show helped crystallize for me, is that democracies do not crumble simply because something dark appears. They crumble because people hesitate, rationalize, and allow that darkness to keep breathing. Or they simply "follow orders" (See, Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals).

Also check out two very good podcasts: Burn Order and Bag Man. Both make it very clear we've seen this all, before.

But the story does not have to end this way.

If The Americans teaches anything beyond espionage and tragedy, it is that systems can change, people can awaken, and moral clarity, even if it arrives late, still matters. Our responsibility now is not to wallow in despair or pretend none of this happened. It is to be honest about where we failed. It is to refuse complacency. 

It is to reclaim the basic expectations we once held of leadership, truth, and civic responsibility.

That is why I am writing this. Not only because The Americans is great television, but because it reminds us that the line between fiction and history is far thinner than we like to admit. 

Recognizing our part in that story is the first step toward writing a better one.

And despite everything, I still believe we can.

We are evolving…politically, culturally, socially. The Right is changing. The Left is changing. Government and citizens alike are being forced to confront pluralism not as something distant or theoretical, but as a lived reality. It is here, now.

Multiple paradigm shifts compressed into just a few years have created strain and fracture: a Digital–Information Shift, an Economic and Class Shift, a Cultural and Identity Shift, an Institutional Trust Shift, a Technology and Reality Shift.

That strain is real. But fractures do not have to become permanent breaks. We can resolve this…if we choose to do it together. To heal together.

The greatest danger comes from those who want us divided, who refuse to accept a pluralistic America and cling to rigid hierarchy, fear, and a romanticized past instead of a shared future.

They do not define our destiny unless we let them. Our strength has always come from expanding who “we” are.

We are E Pluribus Unum…From Many, One.

We have been pushed to forget that.

It is time to remember.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Thursday, September 11, 2025

Timeline: Heather Cox Richardson and the Roots of Today’s Political Crisis

I posted this yesterday. I gave it to some, directly. But it seems to be too much for some to read an article and this is stunning information, it is important details about how we got this nightmare Trump/MaGA government today. 

Maybe, just maybe this will help, but it's only the surface. I highly recommend reading Heather Cox Richardson's Letters From An American on Substack, where I also reside now.

This is her piece on Substack that is similar to the podcast that got me all fired up on this. “History exposes MaGA: a movement built on denial, not precedent.” - August 20, 2025 - by Heather Cox Richardson

This is the Pod Save America episode that amazed me so much, she doesn't really get going on what I'm concerned with here until about seventeen or so minutes in: Heather Cox Richardson on Donald Trump, MaGA and How We Fight Back. I get it for some, Pod Save America and Crooked Media are pretty liberal, too liberal for some. But everyone should hear this episode and just skip to wherever she is talking. Honestly, deal with it just listen to the entire thing, it's not THAT long and not that liberal orientated as the usual Pod Save America podcasts. 

Someone else I should give a shoutout to on Substack (there's a few, but for now...) Mary Geddry. 


This is what 9/11 should always mean to us: honoring the lives lost, the courage of first responders, and the resilience of families forever changed. It was a moment when Americans of every background stood together, however briefly, in grief and resolve.

But what makes the lies and distortions from Trump and MaGA...so desperate for power they embraced QAnon fantasies to prop up their cause...so corrosive is how completely they betray this spirit. Instead of unity, they spread denial. Instead of truth, they invent enemies. And instead of learning from history, they weaponize it for power...dragging down our Constitution, our freedoms, and America’s reputation with them.

Trump himself spread falsehoods about 9/11:

  • He claimed “thousands in New Jersey cheered” as the towers fell — no evidence supports this.

  • He claimed he “predicted 9/11” in his 2000 book — he did not.

  • He claimed he sent “200 workers to Ground Zero” — no proof this ever happened.

These weren’t slips of memory; they were part of a pattern. Deny facts. Inflate the self. Invent enemies. MaGA has built its politics on this same foundation of lies and grievance, and that is the ultimate insult to the memory of 9/11.

Anyway, in the hope this might make someone read her piece or listen to that podcast, I made a timeline to give you the idea of why this is so interesting, and important to know about. But this only scratches the surface, she will go into it all much deeper with more interrelationships. 

From Military.com: Fear and Uncertainty Followed the Sept. 11 Attacks. What Was Real and What Was a Good Headline?

The main point is that we must come back together as a nation, as a democracy, not as Trump’s toxic, hijacked GOP, but as a cohesive people grounded in truth, decency, liberty, real freedom, and conscience, as our Founding Fathers actually intended.

How MaGA Was Allowed to Fester: A Timeline of Denial

When Heather Cox Richardson wrote that MaGA is “a movement built on denial, not precedent,” she wasn’t talking about something born in 2016. She was pointing to a much longer arc in American history. What we’re living through today has deep roots, going back to Reconstruction and resurfacing at key moments whenever democracy expanded to include more voices.

This is the story of how that denial metastasized into the MaGA movement we know now.


Reconstruction: The Birth of Denial (1865–1870s)

After the Civil War, Black men and poor white men voted for leaders who promised schools, hospitals, prosthetics for veterans, and railroads. It was a vision of government as a tool for public good.

Former Confederates hated it. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibited racial discrimination in voting, and the Department of Justice began prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan. But elite Southerners pivoted: instead of arguing against Black rights openly, they claimed these voters were ushering in “socialism.” Building schools and hospitals, they said, meant stealing tax dollars from hardworking whites.

To counter this vision of government for all, they romanticized the cowboy — a myth of rugged independence and racial dominance that conveniently ignored how much the West relied on federal aid.


The Liberal Consensus and Its Enemies (1930s–1950s)

The Depression and World War II created a broad “liberal consensus”: government should regulate business, provide a safety net, and support global cooperation. Most Americans, including Southerners, embraced this.

But some wealthy businessmen despised it. They wanted deregulation and lower taxes, but their rhetoric didn’t take hold until civil rights cracked the consensus.


Civil Rights and the Southern Strategy (1954–1968)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Eisenhower’s defense of Black students in Little Rock (1957) gave segregationists their opening. Federal protection of equal rights became “socialism.”

The cowboy myth resurfaced with Barry Goldwater in 1964, South Carolina delivering the final push for his nomination. By 1965, the Voting Rights Act protected Black and Brown voters. That gave parties a choice: court these new voters or their opponents. Nixon chose the latter. His “Southern Strategy” courted white supremacists, planting seeds of today’s Republican base.


The Culture Wars and Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” (1970s–1980s)

Facing declining popularity, Nixon demonized feminists and racial minorities. Ronald Reagan doubled down, claiming minorities and women were bankrupting the nation. His infamous “welfare queen” symbolized this attack — a fictional Black woman supposedly living large off taxpayers.

By this point, Republicans had reframed federal programs as handouts for undeserving groups, while championing tax cuts and deregulation for the wealthy.


Delegitimizing Democracy (1990s–2000s)

As women and minorities leaned Democratic, right-wing media blasted them as socialists. After the Motor Voter Act (1993), Republicans increasingly claimed Democrats relied on fraud to win elections.

In 2000, GOP operatives rioted in Florida to stop a recount that might have given Al Gore the presidency. The Supreme Court handed the victory to George W. Bush, further normalizing the idea that Republican power should be preserved at any cost.


The Obama Era and Structural Manipulation (2008–2010s)

Barack Obama’s election was a breaking point. Republicans launched Operation REDMAP (2010) to gerrymander statehouses and lock in control of Congress.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United (2010) decision unleashed unlimited corporate money into politics. In 2013, the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, removing key protections for minority voters.

The pattern was clear: if expanding democracy hurt Republican power, the solution was not persuasion but suppression.


Trump and “Stop the Steal” (2016–2020)

Donald Trump built his brand on delegitimizing elections. Even before 2016, Roger Stone launched a “Stop the Steal” website. A judge had to stop him from intimidating voters.

When Trump lost in 2020, he weaponized that rhetoric into an assault on democracy itself. Fox News hosts admitted privately the fraud claims were false, but pushed them anyway — because outrage meant ratings.


MaGA Today: Confederacy Rebranded (2020s–2025)

In just forty years, Republicans moved from disagreeing with Democratic policies to declaring Democrats illegitimate, to rigging elections, and finally to openly attacking democracy itself.

Gerrymandered maps now guarantee white minority rule in places like Texas, where it takes 445,000 white voters to elect a member of Congress, but 1.4 million Latino or 2 million Black voters to achieve the same.

Trump’s message — that history overstates slavery’s horrors, and that women and minorities must be pushed from the public sphere — is the same argument Confederates made to defend oligarchy over democracy. MaGA is simply the latest mask.


Closing Reflection

MaGA did not appear out of thin air. It is the culmination of more than 150 years of backlash against the idea of multiracial democracy. Each time America expanded its promise of equality, reactionaries branded it “socialism,” resurrected the myth of rugged white individualism, and worked to suppress the voices of those who demanded more.

History shows us this movement isn’t precedent. It’s denial. And denial, left unchecked, has a way of festering into something that threatens the very core of democracy.

Charlie Kirk’s murder does not make him a martyr—despite President Trump’s attempt to sanctify him with talk of a posthumous Medal of Freedom, a travesty for both America and democracy. Nor does it erase the toxic role he played in elevating Trump’s brand of anti-democratic denial into the mainstream. Like Trump, Kirk thrived on division, grievance, and the embrace of authoritarian myths that corrode the very foundations of our republic.

To watch Republicans now twist his death into an indictment of liberals for daring to name fascism for what it is is to see, again, the very denial Heather Cox Richardson warns us about: a refusal to confront the movement’s own legacy of extremism. If America is to pull itself forward, it won’t be by sanctifying those who helped drag us into this nightmare, but by facing the history, understanding how denial metastasized into MaGA, and recommitting to the democratic promise Kirk and his allies worked so hard to undermine.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Monday, September 8, 2025

Watching History Repeat: Nazis, Trump, and the MaGA Comfort of Denial

One of the stranger experiences of our time is turning on a historical documentary and realizing you’re also watching today’s news unfold. Netflix’s recent series, Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial, tells the story of how Germany’s democracy collapsed from within—not in a sudden coup, but step by step. 

Let's start with this rather amazing piece: 

“History exposes MAGA: a movement built on denial, not precedent.” - August 20, 2025 - by Heather Cox Richardson. Or, you can listen to her talking about this on the Pod Save America podcast episode - Heather Cox Richardson on Donald Trump, MAGA and How We Fight Back. This is important history and fascinating stuff we've not heard of before, put into context and it's disturbing. Very much so.

Through propaganda, scapegoating, power grabs, and violence disguised as patriotism, a modern society slid into dictatorship. Director Berlinger has said he intended for the series to be a message to younger viewers and a warning that "normal people can do horrific things".

I put this doc on and was surprised, but not really, to feel I was watching the news today, in America, under Donald Trump's "administration" as yet again, a second failed attempt at being POTUS, or a complete lack of effort thereof. 

Trump's not even trying hard to be an autocrat as just as Hitler was, he's lazy. He uses mob boss mentality of "yesmen" around him to pick up his intent and run with it to please what they think he wants, fearing being put out of his realm of influence, offering ever more plausible deniability and potential atrocities.

It makes more understandable just how things got so out of control under Hitler. No, Trump is NOT Hitler, likely never will, or can be in today's America, today's world. But they thought that back in the 1930s, in Hitler's rise to power.

As I watched, the déjà vu was chilling. The echoes of today’s MaGA movement and the Trump administration were unmistakable. The cult of personality, the disinformation, the rewriting of reality until truth itself no longer mattered—it all felt eerily current. I posted widely suggesting that MaGA supporters watch the series and tell me, honestly, that they don’t see the parallels.

But of course, they’ll find ways not to. That’s the real problem—when people can no longer see reality because they’re looking through a mental lens handed to them by those who don’t want to be seen clearly. They ignore history, and they ignore the present they are immersed in. If they could stand back and see themselves in the sweep of history and culture, they’d be horrified at their place in it.

For decades now, they’ve poured their frustrations into vilifying an “Other”—liberals, progressives, Democrats, “libtards.” Just as has happened in every pre-genocide atrocity, the first step is always dehumanization. Yet they remain blind to the fact that in doing so, they are revealing exactly who and what they have become. It's interesting. MaGA watches this series and rejects it because they cannot see what is happening all around us today with THEIR Trump administration. No, I'm serious.

A Case Study in Denial

If you think I’m overstating how predictable these rationalizations are, just look at how one MaGA-leaning reviewer described Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial:

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA COWARDLY DISGUISED AS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY! I wanted to get away from all the political debacle and tension all over my social media, as after a while it can make your head spin. So I opened up Netflix and I see they have added a new documentary about Hitler and the Nazi’s, I thought to myself “you know what, enough of this Democrat vs Republican, Trump vs Biden, let’s just turn on something historically educational, and see if there’s anything interesting I can learn from this series”, so I start watching… as I’m watching, I start to hear slight remark's and comment's from these “historians”, who start to weave a narrative, attempting to draw similar political circumstances from those times, and reference it to the climate of America today. I let it go in the first episode, and also the second episode. As soon as I got to the third episode I couldn’t believe what I was really watching, it turned into a lecture for us Americans about which party we should vote for ! to even make the comparison of Hitler’s retreat to the Mar a Lago?? I turned it off right at that point. Isn’t it ironic that the same propaganda and fear monger tactics that the documentary tries to educate us about, are the EXACT SAME tactics they used in the VERY SAME series. Thank you DEMOCRATS for RUINING what could’ve been a great show !! AS YOU DO WITH EVERY MOVIE AND SHOW YOU TOUCH.

By the way, the IMDb rating is 7.7.

Now, another perspective:

As a retired historian of modern America who also taught World War II for many years, I have seen dozens of documentaries on the period. This is by far the best. Expertly filmed, the series deftly weaves historical footage with William Shirer's writings and voice (helped by AI--the best application of AI I have ever seen), accounts of the Nuremberg Trials, and is greatly enhanced by the insightful analyses of a number of authoritative historians. Perhaps its strongest feature is the thing that apparently annoys a number of poor reviewers here: the series makes clear that authoritarianism, as Upton Sinclair (and Shirer, among many other prophetic voices) warned, *CAN * happen here. The series makes clear * why this history MATTERS to us today*. It is exceedingly well grounded in the facts and evidence and makes the point again and again of the echoes of history into our own time of frightening rising authoritarianism--in Europe and here in the United States. I cannot recommend it any more highly.

One moment in Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial struck me in particular. Journalist William L. Shirer, who lived and reported from Nazi Germany, remarked that the German people seemed so enraptured by Hitler that “he could say the most ridiculous things, and they would simply agree.”

That observation is as chilling today as it was then. The measure of a demagogue isn’t the brilliance of what they say, but the blind devotion they command. The more absurd the claim, the more loyalty is proven by agreeing to it. When facts no longer matter and allegiance to the leader becomes the highest truth, democracy is already in mortal danger.

How are we not seeing that today with MaGA and their Donald Trump. I mean, with Donald Trump, and HIS MaGA, His GOP?


How MaGA Rationalizes Away the Parallels

When confronted with the similarities, Trump loyalists often reach for familiar defenses:

  • Minimization: “It’s not the same. Nazis killed millions, Trump hasn’t done that.” As if the only valid comparison is genocide, while ignoring the early stages—the corrosion of norms and institutions—that we are living through right now.

  • Deflection: “The real fascists are Democrats.” By turning the accusation around, they avoid having to examine their own movement.

  • Exceptionalism: “This is America—it can’t happen here.” As though geography or patriotism protects us from history.

  • Conspiracy Thinking: “That documentary is liberal propaganda.” Any fact that threatens the narrative is branded “fake.”

  • Idol Defense: “He’s just showing strength. Finally someone is fighting for us.” Authoritarian behavior is reframed as heroic leadership.

  • Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance: For many, it’s too painful to admit they’ve been misled. Easier to mock the comparison as “hysterical” than face reality.


Why Those Rationalizations Collapse

  • Saying “It’s not the same” is willful blindness. History doesn’t repeat as a carbon copy—it rhymes. The warning isn’t that Trump is Hitler, but that authoritarianism follows recognizable steps.

  • “The left are the real fascists” is projection. Protest, accountability, and free speech are features of democracy, not signs of tyranny.

  • “It can’t happen here” ignores that Germans once thought the same about their modern, cultured republic. It did happen there.

  • Branding history as propaganda is the clearest proof of indoctrination. If truth itself can be dismissed, authoritarianism has already taken root.

  • Calling cruelty “strength” and corruption “patriotism” may feel powerful for a moment, but it only disempowers citizens in the long run.

  • Denial doesn’t stop the march of events—it accelerates them. Pretending the parallels don’t exist only buys time for authoritarianism to harden.


The Takeaway

Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial  isn’t just a historical documentary—it’s a mirror. When MaGA insists they can’t see themselves in the reflection, it’s not because the image is unclear. It’s because they’d rather close their eyes.

The question isn’t whether the parallels exist. They do. The question is whether enough of us are willing to recognize them before it’s too late.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT