The BBC is spraying disinformation about Monroe Doctrine history in order to normalize Trump’s rejection of doctrinal frameworks entirely. Some reporters mistake this for historical analysis. Here’s an example from Allan Little:

When it was announced by the fifth president of the US, James Monroe, the doctrine that bears his name was widely seen as an expression of US solidarity with its neighbours… But the doctrine quickly became an assertion of Washington’s right to dominate its neighbours and use any means, up to and including military intervention, to bend their policies into alignment with American interests. President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1904, said it gave the US “international police power” to intervene in countries where there was “wrongdoing”. So could it be that President Trump’s re-interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine is simply part of a continuum in US foreign policy?

No.

Little’s piece does something sophisticated and dangerous: it uses a valid critique of American hypocrisy to launder an analytical collapse.

The piece opens with a Pakistani student’s observation from 2002 that the rules-based international order was “partially false”—that the strongest exempted themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, that international law applied with varying rigor depending on identity. This critique is correct. American hypocrisy is real. Guatemala, Chad, Indonesia, Somalia, Iran, Grenada, Panama—the record is damning.

But Little makes a fatal logical leap: because the US violated rules it claimed to uphold, Trump’s rejection of rules entirely is just “more of the same.”

That’s the sleight of hand. The Pakistani student’s critique depends on there being rules to violate. Hypocrisy requires a standard being betrayed. You can only call American intervention hypocritical if there’s a framework against which to measure the betrayal.

Trump’s National Defense Strategy announces there is no standard. It explicitly purges the “rules-based international order,” calling it “cloud-castle abstractions.” It replaces doctrine with “concrete interests first”—the sovereign decides, justification follows.

That’s not Monroe perverted. That’s Monroe rejected.

The difference is categorical: a policeman who takes twenty dollars to look the other way is corrupt. A policeman who announces “I am the law” is something else. The Nuremberg Trials drew this distinction for a reason.

---

Little pulls historian Jay Sexton into his frame, asking whether Trump’s “unpredictability” gives America “a 19th century feel.” Perhaps excited to discuss his expertise, Sexton accepts the premise and speaks about Great Power rivalries from 1815 onward.

Wrong question, wrong century.

Nineteenth-century balance-of-power politics had rules—that’s what made it a “balance.” Monroe created a framework. Roosevelt perverted that framework. Trump says framework? What framework? There’s only me.

It’s like the BBC asking whether Bernie Madoff’s interpretation of retirement savings represents a continuum on Wall Street. Madoff was committing fraud while claiming to invest. The crime isn’t an aggressive interpretation on an infinite slope. The crime is that no interpretation was happening at all. The activity being claimed wasn’t the activity being performed.

---

The interventions Little lists—Iran ’53, Guatemala ’54, Grenada ’83, Panama ’89—were all justified through frameworks. Anti-communism. Protecting democracy. Fighting drugs. The justifications were often lies, but the lies mattered. They created accountability surfaces. You could argue the US was violating its stated principles.

Trump’s “concrete interests first” eliminates the accountability surface. There’s no principle to violate. The justification is generated after the decision—by algorithmic slop if necessary.

Check the simple math. Trump applying Monroe would mean China is the threat to keep out of the Western Hemisphere. That’s foundational to Monroe. Yet the Pentagon was ordered to deprioritize China. The Trump NDS downgrades threats to the hemisphere while prioritizing “credible military options” against American neighbors and allies. China is opening trade with Canada and cementing itself in Latin America, yet Trump targets Canada while ignoring the thing Monroe would have worried about most.

That’s not Monroe extended. It’s Monroe inverted.

Monroe 1823	Trump 2026
Drafted by Adams, debated in cabinet, presented to Congress	Unilateral executive, note-card attention span
Welcomed by regional leaders as solidarity against colonization	Threatening neighbors and allies with military force
Framework to keep external powers out	“Concrete interests first”—no framework, external threats deprioritized
Created predictability by design	Unpredictability by design
Middle power proposing defensive solidarity	Superpower rejecting all constraint
Progressive. Embraced order and institutions	Regressive. Explicit rejection of “rules-based order” as abstraction

Little spends considerable space on Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech, where Carney called for “middle powers” to unite against Great Power politics. Little frames this as a response to Trump abandoning the rules-based order. He doesn’t notice the irony: that’s exactly what Monroe was doing in 1823.

The US wasn’t a superpower then. It was a post-colonial republic barely four decades old, addressing other post-colonial republics, proposing mutual defense against the actual great powers—European empires. Monroe Doctrine was middle-power solidarity against imperial aggression.

Carney is the one who actually calls for a return to Monroe’s original posture. Trump is the empire Monroe organized against. Little cites both without seeing that his “continuum” runs in the wrong direction.

---

The actual American lineage for Trump isn’t Monroe at all if you are familiar with Jackson’s Florida campaign in the 1810s. The future President manufactured security pretexts, delegitimized indigenous governance, deployed overwhelming force, ignored legal constraints. Mussolini studied this playbook for Ethiopia in 1935. Hitler industrialized it for the Sudetenland in 1938. Each iteration refined the template.

What we call this today is decisionism—Carl Schmitt’s theoretical framework that made Hitler’s foreign policy formally unpredictable by design. The sovereign decides the exception. All justification flows from that decision rather than constraining it. This is Trump, who calls it his “weave.”

Little’s piece won’t see this. His 19th-century goggles are what you wear when 1933 is too frightening to face. Trump prefers the misdirection, as he doesn’t want to be recognized: Those teenage Epstein girls were just for massage.

---

Monroe was admittedly very racist, in the typical elite way of 1823—ambient, paternalistic, fearful. He wasn’t choosing a regression to centuries before him when he proposed a way forward. He was creating a progressive framework to be measured against.

Trump in 2025 is also very racist yet inverted to Monroe, consciously regressive. After the documented American genocide. After the Holocaust. After decolonization. After Civil Rights. After the science demolished race theory. After Reagan knew through the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s that he had to launder his racism through dog whistles.

This is the deliberate choice of race-based regression backed by infrastructure to enforce it at scale. The BBC normalizes this hate platform by grounding it in something it is not.

---

Three reasons Trump could never be Monroe, and everyone should stop the precedent laundering:

1. Monroe Doctrine was drafted by John Quincy Adams, debated in cabinet, presented to Congress. Trump doesn’t care about drafts, debates, or separation of powers. He lights fires and focuses on the fire trucks.
2. Monroe Doctrine was welcomed by regional leaders as forward-looking solidarity against past colonial threats. Trump is the threat that Monroe was trying to prevent. Let that marinate.
3. Monroe supported law, order, institutions, procedures, consultation, and predictability. He didn’t reject progress; he built and sold solidarity to regional allies. Trump announces an abolition of frameworks, bullying allies, while wearing Monroe’s corpse as costume.

Criticism of rules is grounds for improvement. Rejection of rules is their total loss—just loss.

The BBC’s “continuum” is a slippery slope fallacy. There’s no slope when discussing Trump and Monroe. There’s a cliff, because Monroe evaporates under Trump.

That’s not precedent. That’s laundering.

Als Amerikaner finde ich es äußerst seltsam, dass Deutsche russische Angriffe auf kritische Infrastruktur erleben, aber versuchen, die Nachrichten auf „linksextreme” oder „Umweltaktivisten”-Bedrohungen zu lenken.

Nehmen wir Juni 2025 als Beispiel. Bundesinnenminister Alexander Dobrindt präsentierte den Verfassungsschutzbericht. Er hält eine große Grafik hoch. Er verkündet selbstbewusst, dass gewaltorientierte Linksextremisten „deutlich auf 11.200 steigen.”

Verstanden? Steigend. Stark nach oben. Von was aus, fragen Sie?

Die Grafik zeigt, dass die Zahl von 11.200 auf… Moment… 11.200 gestiegen ist.

Flach.

Der Mann ist nicht blind, aber er kann nicht „sehen”. Er ist ein Regierungsbeamter, der einen offiziellen Bericht über gefährliche Bedrohungen vorlegt und anderen buchstäblich sagt, sie sollen auch nicht sehen. Sein Bericht zeigt noch immer: rechtsextreme Gewalttaten um 47% gestiegen. Linksextreme Gewalttaten um 26,8% gesunken.

Fakten.

Dobrindt stand vor der Welt und verkündete kaltblütig das genaue Gegenteil dessen, was seine eigenen Beweise zeigen.

Er hält es in seinen Händen, zeigt es hoch, und kann die flachen Linien nicht „sehen” oder rechnen. Noch schlimmer: andere machen mit, lassen ihn Monate später weitermachen und tun so, als hätte der deutsche Sicherheitsminister nicht gerade völlig versagt.

Der Spinnster spinnt

Es gibt Menschen, die von Daten herausgefordert werden wollen. Sie scheuen das Unbehagen des Unbekannten nicht. Sie haben eine Methode für Updates, ein Budget zum Ausgeben.

Es gibt Menschen, die wollen, dass Daten bestätigen, was ihnen Komfort gibt und was sie bereits glauben. Sie suchen wenig oder keine Herausforderung. Sie filtern vor und geizen mit jedem Cent.

Das ist eine nahezu universelle Architektur, eine epistemische Haltung, die als Präferenz für geschlossene Systeme auftaucht. Die Angst vor dem Unbekannten. Das Bedürfnis, vertraute Bedrohungen in vertraute Schubladen zu zwingen.

Dobrindt ist ein besonders schlechter Politiker. Er ist in Deutschland berüchtigt als der Mann, der Kupfer statt Glasfaser wählte und Deutschland auf den letzten Platz der europäischen Breitband-Rankings fallen ließ. Das war bevor er 11.200 und 11.200 betrachtete und einen „deutlichen Anstieg” verkündete. Und das war bevor er russische GRU-Spuren im Berliner Schnee um Infrastrukturangriffe herum betrachtete und erklärte „können nicht die Russen sein.”

Das Muster des Mannes handelt nicht von Fehlern. Es ist seine Funktion. Deutschland braucht offenbar noch immer Politiker, die Feinde als stabil und Bedrohungen als vorhersehbar erklären, unabhängig von der Realität. Linke Gefahr ist Dobrindts gemütliche Schublade. Russische Staatsführung ist es nicht.

1951 hielt Solomon Asch zwei Linien hoch. Eine war offensichtlich kürzer. Als alle anderen im Raum sagten, sie seien gleich lang, machten 75% der Probanden mindestens einmal mit. Danach gaben die meisten zu, dass sie wussten, dass die Antwort falsch war. Sie wollten nur nicht derjenige sein, der anders sah.

Dobrindt hält eine Grafik hoch. Die Linie ist flach. Er sagt „steigt deutlich.” Die Russen greifen an und er sagt „linksextrem”.

Vergangenheit ist nicht vergangen, wenn sie nicht verarbeitet wurde

Jede Kultur hat dieses Architekturproblem. Deutschlands Version ist besonders brüchig, weil sie glauben, hart gearbeitet und es behoben zu haben. Sie scheinen oft zu glauben, sie müssten nicht mehr hinschauen oder zuhören.

Vergangenheitsbewältigung behandelte den Inhalt einer Katastrophe. Und niemand hat offenbar die Struktur angegangen — die kognitive Maschinerie, die sich an falschen Narrativen festklammert und sie gegen alle Beweise hält, weil das Narrativ vollständig tragend ist.

Antisemitismus war in Deutschland so gefährlich, weil seine Lügen zur Infrastruktur wurden. Sobald ein falsches Bedrohungsnarrativ soziale Funktionen erfüllt — Identität, Zugehörigkeit, Erklärung, Komfort — werden alle Beweise zu Rauschen. Die Vorfilterungsschicht lässt widersprechende Daten fallen, bevor sie die bewusste Bewertung erreichen.

Dobrindt hält eine Grafik hoch, die seinen Worten offensichtlich widerspricht. Das System verarbeitet seine Autorität mit seinen Worten und verwandelt seine Beweise in einen Beweis, dass ein Filter funktioniert. Er testet die Maschinerie für ein anderes Ziel. Wenn Sie reagieren, werden Sie als Unruhestifter markiert. Wenn Sie sehen, fallen Sie als Ungläubiger auf, unfähig zu vertrauen, vielleicht versuchen Sie Konflikte zu verursachen.

Es ist nicht nur individuelles kognitives Versagen — es ist Konformitätsarchitektur. Sehen wird zur Abweichung. Die Vorfilterung ist nicht nur intern; sie wird überwacht.

Der Film Stasikomödie kommt mir als Illustration in den Sinn.

Deutsche weigern sich zu „sehen”

Thomas Zimmer, January 21:

The idea that there are no protests in the US and no one is standing up to Trump is proving incredibly hard to kill over here in Germany. It’s become dogma, utterly detached from empirical reality. I wonder if the people who keep talking like that understand they’re perpetuating regime propaganda.

Zwei Tage später: Minnesota hat einen Generalstreik. Hunderte von Geschäften schließen. “The Lotus” sagt Reportern, sie bleiben offen, um Demonstranten aus Respekt und Solidarität zu versorgen. 50.000 trotzen eisiger Kälte, um zu marschieren. Hundert Geistliche werden verhaftet.

Harvards Daten zeigen über 10.000 Proteste im Jahr 2025, was einem Anstieg von 133% gegenüber dem Vorjahr entspricht. Carnegie verfolgt es offen für alle Deutschen sichtbar. Die Beweise sind öffentlich, autoritativ und kostenlos.

Deutsche „sehen” die Zahlen nicht, weil „Amerikaner protestieren nicht” Infrastruktur für sie ist, um ihren eigenen politischen Komfort zu beschleunigen. Es erlaubt Besorgnis ohne Verpflichtung zu verstehen, was als nächstes kommt. Beobachtung ohne Solidarität. Moralischer Komfort beim Zuschauen aus einer Position der Selbstverleugnung.

Neugier würde echte Arbeit erfordern, Aktualisierung. Aktualisierung würde echtes Handeln erfordern. Handeln würde erfordern, ein Risiko des Unbekannten einzugehen.

Deutsche stecken oft in ihrer Vorfilterungsschicht fest. Das Unbekannte ist eine Ausgabe, die sie nicht bereit sind zu tragen.

Fiktionsfunktion: Komfortarchitektur

Dobrindts CSU-Partei setzt auf das Schüren von Hass gegen Phantome der „Linken”, weil die Erben der Nazi-Partei (AfD) ihre Stimmen von rechts auffressen. Eine politische Gefahr zu fabrizieren während man rechtsextreme Daten löscht, ist keine Verwirrung — es ist zynische politische Strategie.

Eine Regierung, die russische Angriffe anerkennt, muss auf komplexe Bedrohungen reagieren. Eine Regierung, die Phantome beschuldigt, kann unendlich Wahlkampf machen.

Nach dem Berliner Blackout schwor Dobrindt, gegen ein Phantom von Linksextremisten „zurückzuschlagen”. Staatsgewalt wurde gegen die sinkende Bedrohung versprochen, während die steigende Bedrohung ignoriert wurde — genau wie der Faschismus in Amerika.

Wenn amerikanische Demonstranten ausgelöscht werden, ist der Aufstieg von Amerikas Hitler so viel angenehmer für Deutsche zu schlucken.

Menschen, die das Unbekannte fürchten, bauen Systeme, um es fernzuhalten. Dann sind sie blind, wenn es in vertrauter Kleidung ankommt.

As an American, I find it extremely odd that Germans experience Russian attacks on critical infrastructure yet try to force the news to report “left-wing” or “environmentalist” threats.

Look at June 2025, for example. Germany’s Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt presented a national security report. He holds up a big chart. He confidently announces violence-oriented left-wing extremists are “rising significantly to 11,200.”

Got that? Rising. Way up. From what, you ask?

The chart shows the number rose from 11,200 all the way to… wait for it… 11,200.

Flat.

The man isn’t blind, yet he can’t “see”. He’s a government official delivering an official report on dangerous threats, literally telling others not to see either. His report still says the right-wing violent crimes were up 47%. That’s a lot. Left-wing violent crimes were down 26.8%.

Facts.

Dobrindt stood in front of the world and coldly announced the exact opposite to what his own evidence showed.

It’s in his hands, he holds it up, and he can’t “see” the flat lines or do the math. Even worse, others go along with it, allowing him to continue months later, and act like the German security minister didn’t just totally shit the bed.

The Spider Spinnst

There are people who want to be challenged by data. They don’t mind the discomfort of the unknown. They have a method for updates, a budget to spend.

There are people who want data to confirm what they find comfort in and already believe. They seek little or no challenge. They preprocess, and pinch every penny.

This is a nearly universal architecture, an epistemic posture that pops up as the preference for closed systems. The fear of the unknown. The need for familiar threats to be forced into familiar boxes.

Dobrindt is a particularly bad politician. He is infamous in Germany as the man who chose copper over fiber, causing Germany to fall to last in European broadband rankings. That was before he looked at 11,200 and 11,200 and declared a “significant rise.” And that was before he looked at Russian GRU footprints in Berlin snow around infrastructure attacks and declared “can’t be the Russians.”

The pattern of the man isn’t about error. It’s his function. Germany apparently still needs politicians to declare the enemies stable and threats predictable, regardless of reality. Left-wing danger is Dobrindt’s cozy box. Russian state warfare is not.

In 1951, Solomon Asch held up two lines. One was obviously shorter. When everyone else in the room said they were the same length, 75% of subjects went along at least once. Afterward, most admitted they knew the answer was wrong. They just didn’t want to be the one who saw differently.

Dobrindt holds up a chart. The line is flat. He says “rising significantly.” The Russians attack and he says “left-wing”.

The Past Isn’t Past When It Hasn’t Passed

Every culture has the architecture issue. Germany’s version is particularly brittle because they believe they worked hard and have fixed it. They seem often to believe they don’t need to look or listen anymore.

Vergangenheitsbewältigung addressed content of a catastrophe. And nobody apparently dug into the structure — the cognitive machinery that locks onto false narratives and holds them against all evidence because the narrative is entirely load-bearing.

Antisemitism was so dangerous in Germany because its lies became the infrastructure. Once a false threat narrative serves social functions — identity, belonging, explanation, comfort — evidence just becomes noise. The preprocessing layer drops contradicting data before it reaches conscious evaluation.

Dobrindt holds up a chart that obviously contradicts his words. The system processes his authority with his words, turning his evidence into a proof that a filter is working. He’s testing the machinery, for a different target. If you react, you’re flagged as a trouble-maker. If you see, you stand out as a non-believer, unable to trust, perhaps trying to cause conflict.

It’s not just individual cognitive failure — it’s conformity architecture. Seeing becomes deviance. The preprocessing isn’t just internal; it’s policed.

The movie Stasikomodie comes to mind as an illustration.

Germans Refusing to “See”

Thomas Zimmer, January 21:

The idea that there are no protests in the US and no one is standing up to Trump is proving incredibly hard to kill over here in Germany. It’s become dogma, utterly detached from empirical reality. I wonder if the people who keep talking like that understand they’re perpetuating regime propaganda.

Two days later: Minnesota has a general strike. Hundreds of businesses close. The Lotus tells reporters they stay open to feed protestors out of respect and in solidarity. Tens of thousands of people brave subzero cold to march. One hundred clergy are arrested.

Harvard’s data shows over 10,000 protests in 2025, which is a 133% increase from the prior year. Carnegie tracks it openly for all the Germans to see plainly. The evidence is public, authoritative, and free.

Germans don’t “see” the numbers because “Americans aren’t protesting” is infrastructure for them to accelerate their own political comfort. It permits concern without obligation to understand what comes next. Observation without solidarity. Moral comfort while watching from a position of self-erasure.

Curiosity would require real work, updating. Updating would require real action. Action would require taking a risk of the unknown.

Germans are often stuck in their preprocessing layer. The unknown is an expense they aren’t prepared to bear.

Fiction Function: Comfort Architecture

Dobrindt’s CSU party banks on stirring hate about ghosts of the “left-wing” because the inheritors of the Nazi Party (AfD) has been eating their votes from the right. Fabricating a political danger while erasing right-wing data isn’t confusion — it’s cynical political strategy.

A government acknowledging Russia attacks must respond to complex threats. A government blaming ghosts can campaign infinitely.

After the Berlin blackout, Dobrindt vowed to “hit back” at a specter of left-wing extremists. State violence was promised against the declining threat, while the rising threat was ignored just like fascism in America.

When American protestors are erased, the rise of America’s Hitler is so much more pleasant for Germans to swallow.

People who fear the unknown build systems to keep it out. Then they’re blind when it arrives wearing familiar clothes.

Hey kids, history is useful. For example, a lot of Nazis today love to say there is no true Nazi, and that they can’t ever be called one credibly, while they plainly do everything they think that a Nazi would.

The accusations against Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino have merit not least of all from the costume history perspective. This is what a Nazi would and did wear.

While no single element exclusively says Nazi costume, the curated combination of elements is unmistakable visual quotation of the SS officer aesthetics. If it wears a kilt, it’s well on its way to being a Scotsman. When seeing a red bearded heavy man with a loud brogue tossing a caber, while in a kilt, if you can’t admit a true Scotsman at some point, you’ve failed 101 logic.

Bovino is displaying an obvious Nazi costume.

We aren’t talking accidental resemblance, because achieving this specific silhouette requires very deliberate tailoring choices that reference very particular historical moment. This is not a generic “military coat.” He even boasts how this unique costuming was less scrutinized under Biden, deploying a Nazi tactic to blame others for failing to stop a rise of Nazism sooner.

It’s actually worse than that, rhetorically, because Bovino went from quietly attending a ceremony in his costume, as if nervously dog whistling, to flaunting himself prominently. He came out of the closet, if you will, under Trump to widely spread awful DHS propaganda videos of this coat with “WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED” Nazi overlays, while leading masked stormtroopers through American cities. The false equivalence of obscure quiet hidden acts with his recent loud violent “Blackshirt” propaganda is actually more damning evidence against Bovino.

Let’s examine the costume uniqueness precisely, like how it might have appeared under 1940s sedition charges.

He flaunts a military-style greatcoat (Mantel) with the characteristic long length, wide shoulders, and dramatic cut associated with German officer coats of the 1930s-40s.

It features the out-of-style double-breasted closure with prominent metal buttons. It’s such a dated/dead design because Nazi SS officer greatcoats featured this exact configuration, typically with silver buttons against black wool.

The exaggerated lapel width is also out-of-style and an absurd-looking detail. It matches the theatrical styling of Nazi officer dress uniforms, designed by SS officer Karl Diebitsch to project absurdist authority and oversized intimidation. The coats literally were designed by the SS themselves, for Hugo Boss’ slaves to produce.

The black trench coat has been associated with mass shooters in America not by coincidence. The Nazi SS had specifically adopted black as their signature color (1932-1939), making black military-cut greatcoats particularly loaded as power projection garment by aspirational terrorists threatening democracy.

This coat’s overall gestalt is a high collar, cinched waist, flared skirt below, which conveys the exact SS officer profile.

Black and white isn’t the only reference. Here is what Bovino looks like in color.

Bovino was the only person among over a dozen federal agents invading Minneapolis while wearing a boxy greatcoat and scarf. Everyone else appeared in standard paramilitary tactical gear, as if a scene from Reagan’s shock troops committing crimes against humanity in Guatemala, Chad, Indonesia or Somalia. The costume of evil isn’t needed. But Bovino chose to propagandize it as Nazi stormtrooper operations through American neighborhoods, after ICE agents executed a 37-year-old mother of three.

Bovino then celebrated the execution by saying “Hats off to that ICE agent. I’m glad he made it out alive. I’m glad he’s with his family” invoking a Nazi hats off to Sippenhaft doctrine of family only for enforcers, orphans for anyone resisting.

The man wears Nazi shaped costume, throws a Nazi shaped salute, leads Nazi shaped paramilitary operations through American cities, celebrates Nazi shaped extrajudicial killing, for a Nazi shaped administration whose DHS account engages with self-identified Nazi sympathizers.

If not a Nazi, why so shaped like a Nazi?