Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2026

Two Moments That Changed How I See Authority

There are experiences that don't announce themselves as formative while they're happening. You don't feel the ground shift. You just notice, months or years later, that you are standing somewhere different than you were before -- and you trace it back.

Two things happened to me in the late 1970s at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington that I have written about separately over the years. A book I couldn't finish. A church I couldn't get out of fast enough. I've been thinking lately that they belong together, because they were teaching me the same lesson from opposite directions.


The Book

Picture the young man who would read that memoir.

I was a parachute rigger in the Strategic Air Command, working with B-52 bombers at a nuclear alert base in Spokane, WA. Fairchild AFB. I had a secret security clearance. I also had the longest hair on the base -- kept in something approaching regulation shape by a daily application of Dippity-Do hair gel, worn under my service cap until I got home and showered, mostly to wash off the JP-4 jet exhaust from packing drag chutes all day, partly to get my hair back to something resembling human. That annoyed my friends to no end as they had gotten $50 ticket for hair out of regs and had to -- and this really annoyed them -- pay for the haircut. 

To put this in perspective, I got awards for my work in the survival equipment shop, the parachute shop, which came with a three-day pass (not attached to the weekend -- WHY?), I received a Good Conduct medal. I wasn't a rabble rouser, but I questioned authority. At least internally. I got away with a lot. How? I read the manual. Literally. I knew what I could get away with and how far to go. When questioned, I'd state the regs and, I was always right (or I wouldn't do whatever it was). 

Think, when higher ups give you grief, and you say, "Fine, I'm packing these chutes 100% by the T.O." Technical Manual, which they knew would take forever. I wasn't a wise guy. I had a sense of humor, I was likeable. I made other people look good. I played the game. I think when I got out of the service, it broke our Shop Sergeant's heart, seriously. He told me he saw me as a son. I miss the guy. But I wasn't staying in. I got out and went to college.

When I turned twenty-one I bought my first legal handgun -- a Walther PPK/S .380, from a department store in Spokane. Great firearm. I'd had a .357 Magnum since I was eighteen, acquired from a friend in circumstances that were not exactly textbook legal (see The Teenage Bodyguard, an award winning screenplay). But the Walther was mine -- properly. The older gentleman in a suit looked at me across the store counter at -- a young guy, hair tool long for regs -- and said he didn't believe I was actually in the service. I showed him my USAF ID with security clearance. He said, "Okay, I believe you. But, how--? He spent a moment marveling at the hair while he completed the paperwork.

That was who picked up Westmoreland's book. Not a naive kid. Not a credentialed analyst. A young man who read the newspaper, watched the evening news, carried a concealed weapon legally, worked with nuclear weapons delivery systems, and had been listening for years to his older brother's friends -- seven years his senior -- who had come back from Vietnam with stories that often bore little resemblance to official accounts. 

Not My Lai level atrocities, but close enough to the edges of things to make a person skeptical. The Pentagon Papers had been public for several years by then. I hadn't read them cover to cover, but I had absorbed what they meant: that military leadership had been systematically misrepresenting the war to the American public while privately knowing better.

So, when I picked up General William Westmoreland's memoir when it came out, A Soldier Reports (Doubleday, 1976), I came to it with genuine respect. He was the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968. Whatever you thought of the war, the man had carried an enormous burden. I gave him every benefit of the doubt a young reader could give.

I signed up Vietnam era service. Delayed enlistment until there was a job opening for Law Enforcement. September 1975. That summer the war ended. I got all the war benefits on the G.I. Bill but they eventually recategorized me, Post Vietnam Era. 

So I got into Westmorland's book. And for a while, it worked. He wrote with authority and precision. He knew things I didn't. He was, by any measure, a subject matter expert.

But somewhere somewhere around the midway point, something shifted. The book began to construct a world I didn't recognize.

Westmoreland's argument, laid out with great confidence and considerable detail, was essentially this: the military had a sound strategy; the war was winnable; what went wrong was the failure of civilian leadership, the interference of politicians, the distortions of the press, and the damage done by the antiwar movement. 

The military, he contended, had been betrayed from within and from without. Victory had been stolen.

I remember the feeling of reading that and thinking: but I was there for this. Not in Vietnam -- but alive, paying attention, reading the news, talking to guys who just came back from there, mostly -- messed up guys. I knew about the body count metrics that Westmoreland had built his entire strategy around, already widely exposed as manipulated and strategically meaningless. I knew that the same Pentagon Papers documenting civilian failures also documented military leadership providing falsely optimistic assessments to Washington while privately knowing the picture was far darker. I knew what those B-52s I worked with had been doing over North Vietnam and Cambodia. I knew the guys who had worked on them other there. I worked with them every day.

Westmoreland wasn't lying in the way a con artist lies. I don't think he was cynical. I think he genuinely believed his version. That was almost scarier. He had taken the enormous complexity of a failed war -- a war with deep strategic contradictions, moral catastrophes, and institutional failures at every level -- and recast it as a story in which he and the military were the heroes, and everyone else was the villain. He hadn't written history. 

He had written mythology, dressed in the uniform of history.

I didn't have a word for it then. I do now. It's the stab-in-the-back thesis -- the same narrative structure that German militarists used after World War I, blaming civilian betrayal for military defeat, which fed directly into the conditions that produced Nazism. Applied to Vietnam, it became the founding myth of a certain kind of American right-wing grievance politics that is still very much with us.

What I knew, in my bones, before I had any of that language, was simpler: this doesn't add up, and he's asking me to forget what I already know in order to accept it. I wondered about the leadership above me at the time in the service, who were the same guys who were in Vietnam.

I put the book down.

That was when I discovered a theory. Conspiracy theory. Now when you have a theory of a group doing something unknown openly, and they are doing something bad, it may well be a conspiracy. They happen. Usually, they are uncovered for a variety of reason. One I noticed in the military. It doesn't run perfect, except through a lot of effort and determination. That's doing good things. If those were bad things? Different animal altogether. 

THAT'S what the conspiracy theorists of today don't seem to comprehend.

I started studying not the conspiracy itself, but the nature of conspiracy thinking. Rather than diving into Westmoreland's specific claims and trying to refute them one by one -- which is the rabbit hole -- I started asking: how does this kind of argument work? What are the structural features that tell you something has gone from analysis to mythology? My older brother, encountering the same kind of thing, tended to defer to the expert. I went the other direction. Trust but verify. I became interested in the architecture of false certainty. 

Also, it explains a lot about how I think. How I later ended up at university getting a psychology degree as what my department advisor professor had said (and I questioned him on this, but he thought about it and said that, yes, he was sure), I was one of the top psychology undergrads at any university in the nation. Damn. I mean, cool.

Anyway, that mental divergence has shaped everything I've written about politics since.


The Church

About a year or two after I set down Westmoreland's book, I was at the base gym as my friend in the shop with me and I did daily. One day racquetball. Next day, weightroom. We'd gotten friendly with the equipment room attendant over borrowing equipment from the gym (don't remember now, what?) -- the usual slow accumulation of gym friendship, guy talk, nothing remarkable. We made one another laugh. He seemed, cool. Normal. Mostly was.

Then one day he asked if I wanted to come to his church. He said I could bring my wife. My friend could come too (he begged off immediately). He also said later, I could bring my gun.

That last part was odd enough that I decided to actually bring it, obviously to carry concealed -- the Walther PPK/S -- which I was legally entitled to do. Something about the invitation had put me on alert without quite articulating why. Go to church -- with a gun. Not the old Slovak Catholic church I had grown up going to, had been head altar boy at. 

He picked us up at my house and drove us out of Spokane on a Sunday morning, his wife with him, my wife and me in the back of his, what passed back then for an SUV. We crossed the state line into Idaho. I got nervous and asked about it. He said not to worry -- no concealed carry permit required in Idaho, and where we were going it wouldn't be an issue. Crossing the state line was only peripherally on my mind, why were we leaving the STATE?

But still. I held a secret security clearance. I worked with nuclear weapons delivery systems. I was crossing a state line carrying a weapon, heading to an unknown location. The math on that was not comfortable. Being in the service changes things legally for a military person. Breaking any law with a secret clearance is worse, with nuclear weapons clearance, much worse. he didn't have that. It never occurred to me about that disparity, honestly, until right now -- as I write this.

The compound was in the hills of Idaho. Locked gate. He had to call on a phone out of a box by the gate. Someone came down, unlocked the gate, let us drive and, locked the gate, and followed us up. We saw a traditional church with a steeple. A well in the center of the property. Several men in grey uniforms designed to look just different enough from Nazi uniforms that you technically couldn't call them Nazi uniforms -- except for the salute, which was identical. When I noted the resemblance, they were offended. "We're not Nazis!" (no, neo-Nazis, maybe)

The name of the organization was the Church of Our American Christian Heritage. I'll never forget it. I have since learned to treat any church name containing the words "American" or "Heritage" as a yellow flag. A church that has all the answers is another. I'm reminded of the last episode of The Boys, on Amazon Prime, where head sociopathic superhero Homelander has gone off the deep end and started the "Democratic Church of America." With Homelander himself as head, not as leader, literally as -- God.

But I digress... 

Their national leader had come up from Georgia specifically to speak that Sunday. He didn't know my wife and I were there as complete outsiders. Newbies. He didn't filter himself. He let loose -- a full accounting of their beliefs, their grievances, their vision of a purified nation, their contempt for nonwhites, their specific disgust at Vancouver, B.C., which apparently represented for him a kind of living offense against nature and civilization. The old ladies of the congregation were the most virulent true believers in the room.

Let me be clear about Vancouver, British  Columbie, Canada. I've been there and Victoria, on Vancouver Island since I was a kid, with my family. I love it there. Love Canada, like a cousin, or a brother even. I was OFFENDED, right off. 

My wife spent the entire service sitting close to me, gripping my sleeve hard enough to nearly tear it from the shoulder, occasionally leaning close to whisper urgently: Get us out of here. 

I heard my sleeve rip twice by the shoulder seam. Once in church, once as we were headed out of church.

The older woman in the back surrounded us and oh my God, I'd never met old people, anyone that racist. The national leader came up and introduced himself. Big smile. He apologized for cutting loose like that. He was just told we were new. 

I smiled and shook his hand and said, "No, I'm glad you did. Good to hear exactly what you believe." I braced myself for his reading my meaning, if not sarcasm. I mean, I was being honest. The next second was interminable. Then he broke into a huge smile (it worked). He had decided he liked us a LOT.

We got out as soon as we could. Services were over. We all made out goodbyes, and my "friend" drove us home. We made small talk along the way, did all we could to keep him and his wife at ease -- he talked about getting together again. He dropped us at home and drove off smiling and waving. 

The next day I considered reporting him and his group to the base authorities. They needed to know about this. I told my racquetball friend in the shop that day. He said he'd drop by after work at my house. 

When he stopped by that afternoon, he had thought about it. He got me alone and talked to me about what he had come up with. He did his best to talk me out of telling anyone on base anything. I wasn't having it. 

Until. He pointed something out, reasonably and chillingly. "They picked you guys up here yesterday morning?" "Yes." "They dropped you off -- here." "Yes." "So Those people know exactly where you both live. And when your wife would be home alone?" "Uh, yeah..."

I never went back to that window at the gym to get equipment. Neither did he. From then on, we brought our own. We never spoke to him again. Not long after, we noticed he wasn't around the gym anymore and we wondered about that, for a very long time.


What They Had In Common

It was a general construction of an alternate history -- of a war. They were a quasi-military white nationalist congregation in the Idaho hills. On the surface, very different things.

But the underlying structure was identical.

Both were communities of people who had taken real grievances -- about the war, about social change, about lost certainty -- and converted them into a sealed explanatory system that could not be falsified. In both cases, the complexity of the actual world had been replaced by a story with clear heroes and villains. In both cases, outside information was not evidence to be weighed -- it was enemy propaganda to be rejected. In both cases, belonging to the group meant accepting the story, and the story protected the group from reality.

The difference was one of degree, not of kind.

Westmoreland's version was respectable, credentialed, published by Doubleday, reviewed in major newspapers. The Idaho congregation's version came with grey uniforms and a compound with a well and a sheriff who wouldn't come onto the property. They passed newsletters about their grievances; there was no internet back then to help a subculture such as they were explode upon the American psyche. 

But they were running the same cognitive operating system. Wounded certainty, calcified into mythology, defended against all comers.

I didn't know then that I was watching the seedbed of what would eventually become the American political landscape of the 2010s and 2020s. The stab-in-the-back Vietnam narrative fed directly into a politics of grievance and betrayal that never fully went away. The Christian nationalist militia movements of the inland Northwest were not anomalies -- they were early iterations of something that would eventually find mainstream political expression. 

I didn't know at the time about the confederates who after the Civil War had migrated up to the Pacific Northwest and made a new home free of the government for the most part in the east of Oregan, the east of Washington state, and in Idaho. Especially in the back hills, the back roads, the roads less travelled certainly by government officials. 

My late older right wing MaGA brother now gone about a month (miss ya big guy, sad as our interactions were this last decade of the Trump infection), had moved years ago to Home, across Puget Sound via the Narrows Bridge, the other side of Highway 16 from Gig Harbor. It's a community on the Key Peninsula and borders the waters of Carr Inlet, an extension of Puget Sound.

He had told me that those citizens who had enough of the "bullshit of Tacoma government" had moved there and called it "Home" because it wasn't Tacoma, it was, home.

What protected me about this kind of mind worm dynamic, I think, was not superior intelligence or education -- I was a young enlisted man without a college degree, smelling of JP-4 jet fuel exhaust by mid-morning after packing B-52 drag chutes, with my longish hair shellacked under my service cap, "white walls" of shaved skin surrounding my ears to put on a good show for the annoying "lifers", but not so much the "career enlisted" (who we differentiated, as they were just trying to get through to retire one day but not thoroughly "ate up" like some old codgers were). 

What protected me was a combination of things: a grandmother who taught me that books demanded honesty, and to finish one when you started it; an older brother's friends who told me what Vietnam actually looked like from the ground; a willingness to trust my own perception when it told me something didn't add up; and the crucial decision to study the form of bad thinking rather than just the content of any specific claim.

You cannot fact-check your way out of a mythology. The mythology has already inoculated its believers against facts. 

What you can do is recognize the architecture -- the sealed system, the designated enemy, the unfalsifiable narrative, the group that has all the answers -- and decline to enter.

I learned that from a book I couldn't finish and a church I couldn't leave fast enough.

Both were trying to sell me a story in exchange for my grip on reality.

I kept the grip.


Related posts: - A Book I Couldn't Finish – And How It Taught Me About Truth, Authority, and Conspiracy Thinking (January 2026) - Church and Guns (May 2016) - Conspiracy Theories – Incompetence More Than Insight? (April 2014) - America's Dezinformatsiya and компрометирующий (August 2019)


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

JZ Murdock is a filmmaker and author based in Bremerton, Washington. His novel Death of Heaven was honored with the New York City Big Book Award for Horror. His film Pvt. Ravel's Bolero has been lauded worldwide with many international festival awards. The film companion book is forthcoming.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi.

Monday, April 20, 2026

Confusing a Noun With a Nation: The Tartaria Conspiracy and What a Real Historical Debate Looks Like

Over the last twenty years, something has shifted in the way people relate to history, institutions, and information itself. The internet democratized access to knowledge in ways that are genuinely remarkable, but it also democratized the production and distribution of misinformation at a scale no one was fully prepared for. Social media algorithms reward engagement over accuracy. Short form video is perfectly engineered for the "look at this shocking thing they don't want you to know" format. And a generation of people who have every reason to distrust institutions, governments, and official narratives have sometimes allowed that healthy skepticism to curdle into something less discerning.

The result is a certain kind of content now making the rounds, and if you spend any time on Substack, TikTok, or YouTube you have probably seen it. It follows a recognizable pattern. An earnest, emotionally burdened narrator describes their lonely journey into forbidden archives. Old documents are cited with great drama. A shadowy network, usually the Freemasons, is implicated in the suppression of some vast, lost civilization. A donation button appears at the bottom.

In full transparency, I am a Freemason and former Senior Warden of my lodge, though I have stepped back from active participation in recent years. Make of that what you will.

Why This Matters Before We Even Begin

Conspiracy theories have always existed. But they used to be contained, passed around in photocopied newsletters or late night radio. Now they have Substack pages, TikTok channels, and monetization strategies. They are packaged with emotional sophistication, genuine archival images, and a narrative structure designed to make the reader feel like a courageous truth-seeker rather than a consumer of a product.

I am not writing this to mock anyone. I am writing this because critical thinking is a skill, and like any skill it atrophies without practice and improves with use. When I encountered the following article recently, I felt compelled to respond not just to the author, but publicly, because the methodology it employs is worth examining carefully. Not the conclusions alone, but the method. Because the same method gets applied to topics far more consequential than old maps.

This is what that looks like, and this is how to think through it.


The Article That Started It

I will not quote the article I encountered, here, nor will I name its author. I have no interest in making anyone a target. What I do have an interest in is the method, because we need critical thinkers posting publicly. We just need those critical thinkers to think critically and appropriately. That is the only fair way to do this.

My First Response

I posted the following comment:

The emotional framing here is doing a lot of heavy lifting for very thin evidence. Every document cited is real, but none of them say what the author claims.

"Tartaria" was a standard European geographic label for Central Asian and Mongolic peoples for several centuries. It appears on old maps and in old books for the same reason "Christendom" does: it was the vocabulary of the era, not proof of an erased superpower. The 1865 Freemasons' Magazine reference to overthrowing "the Tartars" describes anti-Qing sentiment in China. The Manchu Qing dynasty literally were the Tartars in question, and their history is extensively documented and widely taught. The "General History of China" passages about Tartarian kings and dual-language seals describe the Qing conquest of China in 1644, one of the most well-documented political transitions in Asian history. The theater production was a popular adventure romance using exotic settings, the same way Hollywood westerns use "the frontier." None of this is hidden. All of it is in open, searchable archives.

The rhetorical trick throughout is: word appears in old document, therefore civilization was erased. That's a non-sequitur wrapped in grief-lit prose designed to make you feel like a courageous truth-seeker. Notice it ends with a donation button.

Actual suppressed history exists and deserves serious investigation. This isn't it.


His Response: Find Me a Book

The author replied:

"If you say so… In future friend, if you want to discredit or prove me wrong, then do that. All you've voiced is your opinion, without any evidence; so why don't you find me a book, published before the 19th century that corroborates your claim. You won't find one, because I've looked… but I challenge you to prove me wrong. I would love you to prove me wrong… So yes, find me that book!"

This is a recognizable debate move worth naming clearly. He dismissed the entire substance of my response as "just opinion," then issued a challenge that shifted the burden of proof onto me while ignoring that I had been addressing his own cited sources. He also moved the goalposts: we were discussing specific documents he had cited. Now I needed to produce different documents entirely.

Still, the challenge was fair enough to meet directly. I replied:

I want to be clear that I had no intention of being dismissive or abrasive, and if it came across that way I apologize. That genuinely wasn't my goal.

I also want to address your challenge fairly, because it deserves a direct answer rather than a dodge. Jean-Baptiste Du Halde's Description of the Empire of China, published in 1735, covers the Manchu Qing dynasty in exhaustive detail, the very people your sources call "Tartars," as a historically continuous, well-documented civilization whose conquest of China in 1644 left an enormous paper trail across both European and Chinese scholarship alike. That's well before the 19th century.

As for the claim that my response was opinion without evidence: I addressed your own cited documents in their historical context. The General History of China and the Freemasons' Magazine passages you highlighted describe the Qing conquest and administration, events that mainstream history has never erased or hidden. Engaging directly with your sources isn't opinion, it's the most honest form of response I could offer.

I'll leave it there. No hard feelings either way.


His Response

He came back with something more substantive. He had pulled up Du Halde's General History of China on archive.org and run two word searches: one for "Tartar," which returned 20 results, and one for "Qing," which returned 0.

His argument, reproduced in full:

"Brother I'm of the opinion that if they meant Qing, they'd have written Qing… And Jean Baptiste Du Halde describes the Tartars in detail? Have you read the book you quote because I have friend… Have you any pages to back up your claim that he called them Qing? From his own period works please. I'm sorry to be blunt brother but we have to be honest; it says Tartars and not Qing, if it meant Qing, it would say that and not Tartars. We need to get past 'it says Tartars but they didn't mean that' because how do you know? It seems more illogical to assume thousands of authors, travellers, geographers, historians all got it wrong, and us, in the modern era are the only people to get history right. It's bonkers really…"

This is actually the strongest version of the argument and it deserves a serious answer.


What the Search Result Actually Proves

Here is what his own search demonstrates, and why it confirms the mainstream historical account rather than undermining it.

"Qing" was the dynastic name, the political designation for the state and imperial house. "Tartar" and "Manchu" were the ethnic labels European writers consistently used for that same ruling class throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Du Halde using "Tartar" in abundance and "Qing" rarely is exactly what any historian would expect from a Jesuit scholar writing for a European audience in 1735.

Consider a parallel: a European writer of the same period describing England might write extensively about "the English" and "the Protestant crown" without once using the term "House of Hanover." That doesn't mean the House of Hanover didn't exist or was erased. It means the writer used ethnic and cultural descriptors rather than dynastic nomenclature, which was standard practice of the era.

The Manchu ruling class renamed themselves from Jurchen to Manchu in 1635. To European writers, "Tartar" remained the established catch-all for the peoples of Central and Northern Asia, connecting readers to the existing European conceptual framework built around the legacy of Genghis Khan. "Manchu" was the more technically precise term that Jesuit missionaries in Beijing were beginning to learn through direct contact. "Qing" was the dynastic name for official state and political contexts. All three referred to the same people from different angles: one ethnic and general, one ethnic and specific, one political and dynastic.

If anything, a manuscript from 1735 using "Qing" as its primary descriptor for the people rather than the state would raise authenticity questions among historians, not settle them. It simply would not match the established vocabulary of the Jesuit missions of that period.

I've run into similar terminological confusion myself in reading history going back two thousand years, and my son, an independent researcher who works at the intersection of philosophy, physics, and historical inquiry, has encountered it going even further back, into the Sumerians, the Ubaid culture that preceded them, and as far back as Göbekli Tepe, circa 9500 BCE. I've helped him with some of that work. Terminology, labeling, and what names meant to the people using them versus what they mean to us now is a consistent challenge across all of recorded history. It is not evidence of erasure. It is the nature of language across time.

My final reply in the thread:

That search result actually confirms the point rather than countering it. "Qing" was the dynastic name, the political designation for the state and imperial house. "Tartar" was the ethnic label European writers consistently used for that same ruling class throughout the period. Right? Du Halde using "Tartar" in abundance and "Qing" rarely is exactly what any historian would expect from a Jesuit scholar writing for a European audience in 1735. I've run into similar issues and confusion in reading history going back 2000 years or so, and my son is an independent researcher who works even further back than that, into the Sumerians and the Ubaid culture that preceded them, going as far back as Göbekli Tepe around 9500 BCE. I've helped him with some of that work. Terminology, labeling, and what names meant to the people using them versus what they mean to us now is a consistent challenge across all of it. If anything, a manuscript from that era using "Qing" as its primary descriptor would raise authenticity questions, not settle them. The terminology differed by context, not by the people being described. Which brings us back to where we started: nothing was erased. The history is extensive, consistent, and hiding in plain sight under the vocabulary of its own era. What looks like a hidden secret on an old map is really just an old dictionary. "Tartar" is the ethnic label, "Qing" is the political name, one describes a people, the other a government. The conspiracy theory survives entirely by confusing a noun with a nation. But it does make for fun. For some. Not so much for others.


What This Exchange Illustrates

I want to be clear about something before closing. The author of the original piece is not stupid, and his readers are not stupid. The emotional architecture of this kind of content is sophisticated, and it targets something real: a genuine hunger to understand history more fully, a healthy skepticism toward official narratives, and a desire to feel like a participant in something meaningful.

Those instincts are not wrong. History is genuinely full of erasures, suppressions, and inconvenient truths that took decades or centuries to surface. The history of colonized peoples, of women, of the working class: these are all areas where the official record was curated by people with power and interests. Skepticism is healthy. It is the foundation of good historical inquiry.

The problem with the Tartaria theory is not that it asks questions. It is that it mistakes vocabulary for evidence. It sees the word "Tartar" on an old map and leaps to a coordinated global conspiracy rather than the far simpler and demonstrably accurate explanation: that this was the word people used at the time for a real and well-documented group of people whose history is sitting in plain sight in any decent library.

The rhetorical method employed in the original article is also worth examining on its own terms, independent of Tartaria specifically, because it appears across many conspiracy theories of the past two decades:

The burden of feeling. The opening section is not an argument. It is an emotional landscape designed to establish the narrator as a suffering truth-seeker. Once you have sympathy for the narrator, you are more likely to accept their conclusions.

The appeal to real documents. Every source cited is real. This is important. It is far more persuasive than fabricated sources, and it creates the impression of rigorous research. But citing a real document is not the same as reading it correctly.

The non-sequitur as argument. The central logical move throughout is: this word appears in an old document, therefore a civilization was erased. That is not a conclusion that follows from the evidence. It is an assumption smuggled in as a conclusion.

The goalpost shift. When challenged directly on specific documents, the response was to demand a different document entirely, then frame the inability to instantly produce it as proof of the original claim.

The monetization layer. The piece ends with a donation request. This does not make the author dishonest, but it is worth noting that the emotional investment the reader has been encouraged to feel is also financially useful to the author.

None of this means the author is acting in bad faith. It is entirely possible to believe deeply in something and still employ these methods without recognizing them as methods at all. But recognizing these patterns is essential to navigating the information environment we now live in.

The Qing dynasty ruled China from 1644 to 1912. Their history is one of the most extensively documented in human civilization. Nothing was erased. The record is enormous, consistent, and hiding in plain sight under the vocabulary of its own era.

That is not a conspiracy. That is just history being history.

And as I said in the thread: it does make for fun. For some. Not so much for others.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Massive Apologies. I just realized this link above in previous
blog articles had a broken link in it. That has been rectified.
Also, that I have changed from ChatGPT to Claude.
I use ChatGPT (at times also, Copilot)
more like a glorified Google search.


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.

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Did the U.S. Ever “Upgrade” the Soviets’ Nuclear Warning System to Make the World Safer?

One of the more compelling questions people ask about the Cold War is this:

When it became clear in the 1980s that the Soviet Union’s nuclear missile detection systems were less reliable than America’s, did the United States or its allies step in and help them modernize? After all, if one superpower’s radar made mistakes, the entire world could be destroyed by accident. Wouldn’t it make sense to upgrade everyone’s system for the sake of humanity?

Or was it actually preferable to leave the Russian “bear” more in the dark than its Western counterparts?

It turns out that the answer is both simple and deeply revealing about how nuclear deterrence really works.

Short answer: No — the United States did not share early-warning technology with the USSR.
But that does not mean nothing was done.


A Dangerous Problem: The Soviets’ Fragile Early-Warning System

By the early 1980s, the Soviet Union lagged behind the United States in several critical areas of nuclear early warning technology. Their system depended on aging ground radar and a still-developing satellite constellation. The risk this created wasn’t theoretical — it was terrifyingly real.

The most famous incident was in 1983, when a Soviet satellite reported multiple incoming U.S. nuclear missiles. Only the judgment of a single officer, Lt. Colonel Stanislav Petrov, prevented a potential retaliatory launch. Petrov decided that the alert didn’t “feel” right and concluded it was likely a malfunction — which it was.

In a rigid command structure that expected obedience over intuition, his hesitation arguably saved civilization.


Why the U.S. Didn’t Just Hand Over Better Technology

Even knowing the danger, the West was never going to provide the Soviet Union with American early-warning hardware, software, or intelligence methods. The reasons were obvious at the time:

• Early-warning systems were among the most classified military technologies on Earth.
• Sharing them would expose strategic capabilities — and weaknesses.
• The Cold War was still adversarial; mistrust was foundational, not accidental.
• Each side believed its strategic advantage depended on technological secrecy.

So while it might feel morally logical to “upgrade” the other side for humanity’s sake, inside Cold War logic it was never a realistic option.


What We Did Instead: Reducing the Risk of Mistakes

Rather than giving technology, the United States pursued something arguably more important: reducing misinterpretation.

During the 1980s, several critical steps were taken:

1. Modernized Direct Communication

The 1971 U.S.–Soviet “Hotline” was upgraded so leaders could clarify misunderstandings quickly and reduce panic-based decisions.

2. Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers (1987)

These were established in Washington and Moscow to create direct, trusted channels for clarifying potential military concerns before they spiraled.

3. Missile Launch Notification Agreement (1988)

Both sides began notifying the other in advance of missile tests.
This meant that when radar systems suddenly saw something rising into the sky, there was less reason to assume the end of the world had arrived.

These measures didn’t improve Soviet radar, but they lowered the chance that bad radar information would start World War III.


Real Cooperation — But Only After the Cold War

Ironically, real U.S.–Russian cooperation on nuclear security bloomed only after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Programs like Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction helped secure warheads and dismantle aging nuclear stockpiles. In 1998, the U.S. and Russia even agreed to establish a joint missile data-sharing center to reduce accidental escalation (though it was never fully implemented as intended).

Notably, even then, cooperation focused on data sharing and safety, not on handing over America’s core early-warning technology.


The Lesson: Deterrence Is Built on Fear — and Fear Needs Safeguards

The nuclear balance of the Cold War was not really about military might. It was about psychology. Deterrence worked because both sides believed they had to remain alert, dangerous, and capable.

Trust was never assumed. Cooperation had to be built carefully — not through sharing sensitive capabilities, but by building systems that prevented misunderstandings from becoming extinction-level mistakes.


The Bottom Line

• No, the U.S. did not give the Soviets better missile detection systems.
• Yes, both sides recognized the danger and took serious steps to prevent disaster.
• And the greatest successes weren’t technological gifts — they were agreements that acknowledged human error and built systems to keep panic from ending the world.

In other words: We didn’t share our eyes, but we did learn how to talk to each other — and sometimes, that was enough to keep civilization alive.

Where things stand today under Putin in the past few years:

• No, the U.S. and Russia are not meaningfully cooperating on shared missile-warning data right now.
• The formal frameworks that once encouraged transparency and communication have largely broken down.
• Russia suspended key participation in New START, ending routine data sharing and inspections.
• The long-planned U.S.–Russia Joint Data Exchange Center never truly became operational in practice.
• Geopolitical tension, Ukraine, and sanctions have further shut down cooperation.
• Russia has instead been modernizing its own warning system independently (new radars and satellites).

Bottom line: Unlike the late Cold War and early post-Cold War era, today there is minimal trust, little data exchange, and almost no active risk-reduction cooperation between Washington and Moscow. This makes the international nuclear stability environment more fragile than it has been in decades.

Good times... right?

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!




Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Friday, October 17, 2025

🪷 The Four Wise Monkeys: How a Buddhist Lesson Became a Global Symbol

For most people today, the three monkeys — one covering its eyes, one its ears, one its mouth — are a quaint little meme, an emoji, or a tourist carving. “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” Simple, almost trite.

But behind that familiar pose lies an ancient Buddhist principle that once defined the boundaries of moral discipline, spiritual clarity, and even political wisdom.
And originally, there weren’t just three monkeys — there was a fourth.


🕉️ Where It All Began

In early Buddhist teaching, long before the carving at Nikkō, monks were taught to guard their senses — eyes, ears, tongue, and body — as gateways to the mind. One of the oldest written versions of this concept appears in Sanskrit:

“Na pāpakaṃ paśyet, na pāpakaṃ śṛṇuyāt, na pāpakaṃ bhāṣeta.”
Do not see what is evil, do not hear what is evil, do not speak what is evil.

These weren’t rules about ignorance. They were about awareness.
To “see no evil” meant not to invite darkness into your thoughts.
To “hear no evil” meant to avoid gossip and corrupt speech.
And to “speak no evil” meant mastering one’s own tongue — because in Buddhism, words themselves are actions, capable of wounding or healing.


🇨🇳 The Confucian Thread

As Buddhism spread through China, its moral focus interlaced with Confucian philosophy. In The Analects, Confucius advises:

“非礼勿视,非礼勿听,非礼勿言。”
Do not look at what is improper. Do not listen to what is improper. Do not speak what is improper.

This fusion of Buddhist self-discipline and Confucian decorum created a moral framework emphasizing restraint, balance, and inner harmony — a triad later visualized in Japan through a clever pun.


🇯🇵 From Words to Monkeys

When these teachings reached Japan in the 8th century through the Tendai school of Buddhism, the phrase was translated using the verb ending -zaru — meaning “not to do.”

But zaru sounds identical to saru, the Japanese word for monkey.
So, as Japanese artisans often did, they transformed a linguistic accident into art.

Thus were born:

  • Mizaru – “see not” 🙈

  • Kikazaru – “hear not” 🙉

  • Iwazaru – “speak not” 🙊

The three monkeys first appeared carved into the stable of Nikkō Tōshō-gū Shrine in the early 1600s. They were not jokes, nor mere decorations — but a moral parable carved in cedar.


🙈 The Forgotten Fourth: Shizaru

Later, a fourth monkey appeared: Shizaru, “do not do.”
Sometimes shown with arms crossed or hands covering its body, this figure completed the ethical circle — Right Action.
It symbolized restraint in behavior, in contrast to the first three, which dealt with perception, hearing, and speech.

Together they mapped perfectly to the Buddhist Threefold Purity:

  1. Pure in body

  2. Pure in speech

  3. Pure in mind

…and by adding Shizaru, they included purity in action as well.

MonkeyMeaningDomain
MizaruSee no evilPerception
KikazaruHear no evilAttention
IwazaruSpeak no evilSpeech
ShizaruDo no evilAction

This was not superstition; it was practical psychology long before the word existed — a system for protecting the mind by filtering what it absorbs and what it releases.


🌏 From Parable to Pop Culture

When Western travelers saw the carvings centuries later, they took the image literally — “see no evil” as “ignore what’s wrong.”
And so a symbol of moral awareness became, in translation, one of moral blindness.

In time, the three monkeys came to represent either:

  • Naïve avoidance (“don’t see what you don’t like”), or

  • Stoic wisdom (“guard your mind from corruption”).

The meaning depended entirely on who was holding the lens.

Even Gandhi later adopted the image — returning it to its original moral form — as a guide to truth and non-violence.
Today, the monkeys survive everywhere from carved wood to emojis, reminders of a spiritual idea reduced but never destroyed.


🧘‍♀️ What They Still Teach

At their heart, the monkeys are not hiding from the world.
They are disciplining perception — choosing which energies to let in, and which to send out.

Their message fits modern life more than ever:
In an age of endless screens, outrage, and noise, to “see no evil” might simply mean turning off the feed that poisons your peace.

Keep your senses clean, your speech kind, your actions measured —
and your mind will follow toward liberation.

That’s the wisdom carved in wood four centuries ago,
and still quietly waiting to be seen.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT


Monday, September 29, 2025

Better Sooner Than Too Late: Why Bullies Like Putin or Trump Must Be Neutralized

It is often said that history does not repeat, but it rhymes. The phrase is usually credited to Mark Twain, though its exact origin is uncertain. Still, the wisdom rings true. Events may not copy themselves exactly, but the patterns come back in new forms, offering warnings to those willing to listen.

In the 1930s, Hitler tested Europe one step at a time. He met hesitation and delay, and each time he gained more ground. Appeasement was meant to preserve peace, but instead it gave him space to grow stronger. By the time the world realized the danger, the price of resistance had multiplied beyond measure.

Today, Vladimir Putin follows his own pattern of probing and pushing, destabilizing neighbors and daring the world to stop him. At home, figures like Donald Trump show how a leader who disregards rules and laws can corrode democracy from within. Both are bullies in different arenas. Both thrive when their abuses are tolerated. 

And both remind us that silence or delay is not safety, it is surrender. When despots and demagogues behave like spoiled children with the world’s most dangerous toys, silence is not safety. We must neutralize their tactics, raise the political and economic costs, and deny them the power to make aggression pay. 

Those steps should be taken by accountable national leaders working with allies, and by citizens of those nations within their nations, not by those narcissists who trade spectacle for statecraft. 

Insist on firmness that is principled, lawful, and collective, so the bully cohort across our nations and world learns that provocation never pays.

The Danger of Delay

Putting up with bullies always leads to more of the same. Each unchallenged act teaches them that their behavior works. They see hesitation as weakness, never as maturity. What looks like restraint to us looks like an invitation to them. Delay does not buy peace, it buys time for the aggressor.

Neutralization Over Tolerance

Neutralizing aggression does not require reckless escalation. It requires consistent, sharp, lawful responses every time.

  • Intercept and escort intruding aircraft, and make the evidence public.

  • Expose propaganda with facts before it takes root.

  • Answer cyberattacks and hybrid operations with defenses and proportionate countermeasures.

  • When civilians or allies are directly threatened, act firmly under clear rules of engagement.

The principle is simple. Every act of aggression must cost more than it gains.

Why This Matters

Democracies cannot afford to mirror the lawlessness of their challengers. But they also cannot afford to let violations slide. The path forward is principled firmness. Bullies are not stopped by words or patience. They are stopped when their tactics fail every single time.

The Choice Before Us

We face the same dilemma today that others faced in the 1930s. Do we delay and appease, or do we act early and firmly? Doing nothing may feel easier in the moment, but it stacks up danger for the future.

The stakes are high: national sovereignty, democratic freedom, and the credibility of institutions at home and abroad. Leaders must have the courage to act sooner rather than later. Citizens must demand it of them. Better sooner than too late.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT




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

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Different Country, Same Danger: Trump’s March Toward Autocracy

Yes, yes, we do not compare people to Hitler. It's done to death. But, when there is real similarity, to deny is to support that autocratic mimic's efforts. 


We HAVE GOT to see history clearly and learn from it. Just as those seeking power and the demise of democracy have done. More correctly, as those who they surround themselves with, have done. 

This, is chilling. Here’s a breakdown of how far Trump has gone in following Hitler’s “strife → savior → power” playbook, and where he’s stalled or succeeded so far:


1. Creating/Exaggerating Crisis → Success

  • Hitler: Versailles humiliation + Depression.

  • Trump: Constant crisis framing — “American carnage,” border “invasion,” “rigged elections,” “deep state.”
    ✅ Trump has succeeded here. His base now sees perpetual crisis as reality.


2. Scapegoating Enemies → Success

  • Hitler: Jews, communists, “traitors.”

  • Trump: Immigrants, minorities, media, Democrats, FBI/DOJ, anyone disloyal.
    ✅ Trump has nailed this. His followers largely view his enemies as America’s enemies.


3. Claiming Sole Savior Role → Success

  • Hitler: “Only I can restore Germany’s greatness.”

  • Trump: Literally said: “I alone can fix it.”
    ✅ He has locked in the “cult of personality” that makes him irreplaceable to MAGA.


4. Eroding Institutions → Partial Success

  • Hitler: Weakened Reichstag, courts, press immediately.

  • Trump:

    • Attacks free press (“enemy of the people”).

    • Pressured DOJ, military, intelligence agencies.

    • Packed Supreme Court & lower courts with loyalists.

    • Tried to overturn the 2020 election via state officials, courts, VP.
      ⚠️ Partially successful. He weakened trust in institutions, but didn’t dismantle them entirely.


5. Exploiting Emergencies → Failed/Setback

  • Hitler: Reichstag Fire gave him emergency powers.

  • Trump: Tried to make Jan. 6 and “stolen election” his Reichstag moment. Failed because institutions, courts, and military did not obey.
    ❌ This is where he failed outright. He’s still trying to reframe Jan. 6 as patriotic, though.


6. Consolidating Power → In Progress

  • Hitler: Eliminated rivals, merged powers into Führer.

  • Trump:

    • Purges GOP of critics (Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc.).

    • MAGA loyalty test dominates Republican primaries.

    • Project 2025 openly lays out a plan to purge government employees and replace them with Trump loyalists.
      ⚠️ Not yet total control, but he’s reshaped the GOP into a personalist party.


7. Becoming “Savior of the Nation” → Pending

  • Hitler: Built Third Reich myth of restoration.

  • Trump: “Make America Great Again” already functions like a nationalist myth. If he wins again, he’ll likely frame it as a total restoration, with fewer checks.
    🔜 This is the unfinished step — it depends on winning back the White House.

Trump has been highly successful in steps 1–3 (crisis, scapegoating, savior role), partially successful in steps 4 & 6 (eroding institutions, consolidating power), failed in step 5 (no “Reichstag Fire moment”), and awaiting step 7 (final consolidation as “national savior”).

He is further along than most Americans want to admit — but not yet unstoppable.

Want a closer look? A comparison of Hitler's efforts?

Timeline of Hitler’s rise to absolute power, focusing on how he fostered strife, then cast himself as the “savior,” and a parallel to how Trump operates. Here’s a clear outline:


Hitler’s Path to Total Power (General Timeline)

1919–1923: Exploiting Chaos & Fear

  • Post–WWI Germany in economic ruin, humiliation from Treaty of Versailles.

  • Hitler joins German Workers’ Party, turns it into the Nazi Party.

  • Tactic: Scapegoats (Jews, communists, “November criminals”) for Germany’s problems.

  • Parallel to Trump: Constantly identifies enemies (“deep state,” immigrants, media, Democrats) as the reason for America’s decline.

1923: The Beer Hall Putsch

  • A failed coup attempt in Munich. Hitler jailed, writes Mein Kampf.

  • Learns that seizing power violently won’t work—better to use legal means, then subvert them.

  • Parallel: Trump’s Jan. 6 insurrection attempt — a failed coup — followed by a pivot to working through elections, courts, and loyalists.

1924–1929: Building a Movement

  • Uses propaganda, rallies, and fear messaging to grow Nazi base.

  • Nazi representation in Reichstag still weak.

  • Parallel: Trump’s rallies, social media, and MAGA branding build a cult-like movement even before broad electoral success.

1929–1932: Capitalizing on Crisis

  • Great Depression devastates Germany.

  • Hitler promises to restore pride, jobs, order.

  • Nazis surge to become the largest party.

  • Parallel: Trump uses crises (economic fear, immigration surges, pandemic chaos) to present himself as the only solution.

1933: Entry into Government

  • Appointed Chancellor (not majority support, but elites thought they could “control” him).

  • Quickly consolidates power using propaganda and street violence.

  • Parallel: Trump elected without majority vote in 2016, enabled by elites who believed they could “manage” him.

1933: Reichstag Fire & “Emergency”

  • Reichstag fire (blamed on communists) allows Hitler to suspend civil liberties.

  • Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act give him near-total authority.

  • Parallel: Trump portrays protests, crime, or elections as crises requiring extraordinary powers. Claimed 2020 election “stolen” as a pretext for extraordinary measures.

1934: Elimination of Rivals

  • “Night of the Long Knives”: purge of party enemies and skeptics.

  • Death of President Hindenburg → Hitler merges offices of Chancellor & President, becomes Führer.

  • Parallel: Trump’s purges of dissenters in his party, loyalty tests, pushing out officials who contradict him (e.g., military, DOJ, election officials).

1935–1939: Total Control & “Savior” Status

  • Hitler presented as Germany’s savior — restored pride, rebuilt military, expanded territory.

  • By now, opposition crushed, democracy dead.

  • Parallel: Trump frames himself as the only one who can “Make America Great Again,” dismisses opposition as enemies of the people, and works to dismantle checks and balances.


Core Pattern (Hitler → Trump)

  1. Create/Exaggerate Crisis → Germany’s humiliation / America “in decline.”

  2. Scapegoat → Jews, communists / immigrants, minorities, Democrats.

  3. Claim Sole Savior Role → Only Hitler / Only Trump can fix it.

  4. Erode Institutions → Undermine parliament, courts, press / undermine Congress, courts, media.

  5. Exploit Emergencies → Reichstag fire / Jan. 6, “stolen” election, migrant “invasion.”

  6. Consolidate Power → Dictatorship / “unitary executive,” loyalists in every branch.

Trump hasn’t achieved full autocracy — but he’s already succeeded in reshaping the GOP into his personal tool, undermining trust in institutions, and convincing millions that only he can save America. 

The danger is not that he will repeat Hitler step for step, but that he will deliver his own version of a broken, undemocratic America. The warning signs are here. The choice to stop it is ours.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



Compiled with aid of ChatGP