Mayor Frey called it “shocking” that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis.

Shocking? It’s not shocking.

That’s like saying it was a shock when Trump put up Andrew “concentration camp and genocide” Jackson’s portrait in the White House.

Trump in 2016 said he could murder someone on 5th Avenue, and he meant back then what he has been doing now. He campaigned in 2024 explicitly on using the military domestically. He’s been threatening the Insurrection Act for a year. The 11th Airborne is on standby in Alaska because the military has been getting signals for a decade that they will be used to setup a dictatorship.

The shock was available many, many years ago. Everything since has been the obvious, slow end of democracy.

The last piece was the budget. That’s why Venezuelan oil being seized by America and sold for billions means Trump has no hurdles left.

What’s Already Built

Did you know the concentration camps exist already? ICE plans are headed towards 100,000 beds, to hold political opponents to Trump. Warehouse facilities are being snapped up, designed to hold 10,000 people each, with poor ventilation, inadequate plumbing, and built for things not humans. Notably, already 48% of current detainees have no criminal record, a percentage that is expected to go way, way up.

The troops are deployed. National Guard already rolled into DC, Memphis, and 19 states to prove they would. “Rapid response forces for civil disturbances” were created by executive order. The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy prioritizes domestic political operations over foreign threats. Venezuelan oil seized by the military and sold with profits going to a bank account in Qatar for the President, means zero accountability.

You read that right. The American military invaded Venezuela to seize assets and create independent funding to enable their shift to domestic violence, bypassing any and all Congressional oversight.

The legal architecture is in place. DOJ investigating elected officials for public statements. Courts being ignored when inconvenient.

The Historical Base Rate

I looked at authoritarian cases since 1900 where an elected leader attempted Trump-like consolidation.

Mussolini, Italy	1922-25	Consolidated
Hitler, Germany	1933-34	Consolidated
Franco, Spain	1939-75	36 years, died in bed
Pinochet, Chile	1973-90	17 years, never convicted
Marcos, Philippines	1972-86	14 years, then military split
Orbán, Hungary	2010-present	Consolidated
Putin, Russia	2000-present	Consolidated
Erdoğan, Turkey	2014-present	Consolidated
—
Kapp Putsch, Germany	1920	General strike, 4 days
Nixon, US	1974	Elite defection
Gandhi, India	1977	Called election, lost
Poland	2015-23	Electoral defeat before full capture
Bolsonaro, Brazil	2023	Military refused

Success rate once security services are aligned and no elite defection occurs within 18-24 months: over 80%.

We’re six months away from a lock into the wrong pattern.

The cases where consolidation failed: Kapp Putsch (1920)—general strike shut down the economy in 4 days. Nixon (1974)—elite defection when Goldwater said he’d be convicted. Marcos (1986)—military split plus mass mobilization. Gandhi (1977)—called an election and lost. Poland (2023)—electoral defeat before full capture.

The pattern: elite defection plus mass mobilization, or genuine electoral loss before the system is fully captured.

The Window

The 2026 midterms are in 10 months, so it’s the next six that really matter.

The administration already attacked election infrastructure—purging voter rolls, restricting poll access, limiting election authority independence, gerrymandering maps the Supreme Court allows.

If 2026 elections are compromised, the historical base rate says American democracy is over. The Trump regime ends only when he dies, or the military splits, or the economy collapses so badly the elite defects.

Franco ruled for 36 years and died in bed. Pinochet held power for 17 years and was never convicted. Orbán is at 14 years and counting. Hitler committed suicide.

The window is the next six months.

Because after Trump reaches capture, the base rate for recovery drops to single digits until something breaks catastrophically.

What Closed Windows Look Like

Mussolini consolidated in roughly 18 months. Hitler in about 14. In both cases, people who could have acted earlier said it was “too soon” to panic, then “too late” to resist.

The people performing shock at each predictable step—the mayors, the pundits, the institutional voices—are telling you they won’t act. Their role apparently is to narrate the closing of the window, not to keep it open.

The question is whether anything remains that will stop fascism now, given a historical record is not encouraging about what that something might be.

What stopped it before: general strikes, elite defection, military splits, mass mobilization sustained long enough to matter, or world war.

What didn’t stop it: public statements and lawsuits that get ignored, faith in institutions already captured.

The window is nearly closed.

As a long time advocate and expert in cyberattacks, I call bullshit on Venezuela operations.

150 aircraft. City-wide blackout. Substations reduced to rubble. Over 40 dead. All this just to arrest one guy and his wife at a known location, after months of constant expensive CIA surveillance.

This is the most obnoxious attack I’ve ever studied in forty years, including Hegseth’s flaccidly failed Houthi attacks, clearly disproportionate and (I’m not a lawyer)… apparently illegal. Someone wanted to destroy infrastructure and prevent it being used again. Were they expecting the contract to rebuild, or expecting to sell it?

Calling this precision is like reclassifying a gold-plated toilet as a disposable cup when taxpayers complain about cost. Throwing records of billions wasted into a shredder doesn’t make anything better. We all saw the gold-plated toilet, right?

And when did the NYT turn into a laundry for dirty government tricks?

Cyberattack in Venezuela Demonstrated Precision of U.S. Capabilities

Oh did it? I see the debunked atomic bomb theory of victory. American politicians (i.e. military-industrial-congressional complex) want everyone to buy into expensive new technology and ignore what actually happened on the ground. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what compelled Japan to surrender in WWII. But Americans apparently are still being treated by the NYT as suckers for a “clean tech” narrative. Their false “demonstrated precision” story serves the same function today as 1945.

Let me explain, for those not inside cyberattack circles, because this is some disturbing revisionism by the NYT.

Back in 2019 the NYT told us that Maduro was lying about US cyberattacks – no evidence, just poor maintenance. The largest power outage in the country’s history. At least 43 deaths. Infrastructure decay.

Now in 2026 the NYT says US cyberattack “demonstrated precision of capabilities” because 150 aircraft pounded the city into rubble in a loudly claimed American demonstration of might.

The same paper that dismissed Maduro’s 2019 accusations as paranoid dictator propaganda is now laundering the actual 2026 attack as a technical achievement.

You can’t use over a hundred planes to bomb critical infrastructure and frame it as a multi-domain demonstration of “precision, reversible” cyberattacks.

More to the point, you can’t heavily bomb a city’s power grid to serve an arrest warrant and call it light police work.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Criteria

Test	Standard	Source
Military Necessity	Force must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. Less destructive alternatives must be unavailable or impractical.	Hague Conventions; Customary IHL Rule 14
Distinction	Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects. Attacks may only be directed at military objectives.	Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, Art. 48, 51-52
Proportionality	Expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.	Additional Protocol I, Art. 51(5)(b), 57
Precaution	All feasible precautions must be taken to minimize civilian harm. Advance warning must be given unless circumstances do not permit.	Additional Protocol I, Art. 57-58
Humanity	Weapons and methods that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited.	Hague Convention IV; Additional Protocol I, Art. 35

Jus ad Bellum Criteria (Right to War)

Test	Standard	Source
Just Cause	Use of force requires self-defense against armed attack or UN Security Council authorization.	UN Charter Art. 2(4), 51; Chapter VII
Right Authority	Only legitimate authorities may authorize military force. Unilateral action without UNSC approval is presumptively unlawful.	UN Charter Art. 39-42
Right Intention	Force must be used for stated legitimate purpose, not territorial gain, regime change, or resource acquisition.	Customary International Law
Last Resort	All reasonable peaceful alternatives must be exhausted before force is employed.	UN Charter Art. 2(3), 33
Proportionality (ad bellum)	Overall harm caused by intervention must not exceed harm prevented. Scope of force must match scope of threat.	ICJ Nicaragua v. United States (1986)
Reasonable Chance of Success	Military action must have reasonable prospect of achieving its stated objectives.	Just War Theory; Customary IL

Applied: Operation Absolute Resolve (Venezuela, January 3, 2026)

Test	Assessment	Result
Just Cause	US claims law enforcement action on narcoterrorism indictment. No armed attack by Venezuela. No UNSC authorization. “Inherent constitutional authority” is domestic legal theory, not international law.	FAIL
Right Authority	No UN Security Council authorization. No congressional declaration of war. Executive action only.	FAIL
Right Intention	Trump stated US will “run the country” and rebuild oil infrastructure. María Corina Machado (democratic opposition leader) dismissed. Openly stated resource/regime objectives far beyond any law enforcement claim.	FAIL
Last Resort	Trump claims phone call to Maduro offering surrender. No evidence of exhausted diplomatic channels, sanctions review, or international negotiation.	FAIL
Military Necessity	Objective: arrest one man at known, surveilled location. Method: 150 aircraft, city-wide blackout, infrastructure destruction. Less destructive alternatives clearly available given intelligence penetration.	FAIL
Distinction	Civilian power grid deliberately targeted. Substations serving residential areas destroyed. “Lights of Caracas were largely turned off” per Trump.	FAIL
Proportionality (in bello)	40+ killed including civilians. 3+ million affected by blackout. Hospitals, water systems, communications disrupted. Ongoing infrastructure damage 12+ days later. Military kidnapping of Maduro.	FAIL
Precaution	No advance warning to civilian population. Operation conducted at 2 AM to maximize surprise. Media (NYT) warned to suppress information.	FAIL
Proportionality (ad bellum)	Scale of intervention (invasion-level force) vastly exceeds stated threat (criminal fugitives). Precedent: any nation can now militarily extract foreign leaders under domestic indictments.	FAIL
Reasonable Success	Maduro kidnapped, yet stable transition cancelled and regime apparatus uncertain, with Maduro’s own replacement now president.	UNCERTAIN

Venezuela wasn’t political intercourse with other means; it was intentionally and unnecessarily overwhelming force dressed up as law enforcement dressed up as cyber precision. That’s three layers of misdirection and disinformation.

Note on “Law Enforcement” Framing: The Trump administration blows tens of millions to rebrand defense into a “War Department,” demands bombing civilians in small boats be seen as a “Drug War,” and now wants to call bombing critical infrastructure “law enforcement with military support” under a theory of inherent presidential authority that no international body recognizes. International law does not permit military operations in sovereign territory to execute domestic criminal warrants. Even the Noriega invasion (1989), widely condemned as illegal, had trigger events and threats, OAS consultation, congressional notification, and a treaty basis that Venezuela entirely lacks. Rebranding defense to war, announcing unilateral intention to go to war, and then retroactively calling it all “law enforcement” doesn’t change legal character under IHL or the UN Charter.

Soviet propaganda called Molotov’s bombs “bread baskets” for the hungry, to invade Finland; Trump calls his infrastructure bombs “law enforcement” for drugs, to arrest one Venezuelan in a well-known location. Same propaganda technique, same function: euphemism as war crime laundering.

Sources: Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols (1949, 1977); UN Charter (1945); Hague Conventions (1899, 1907); ICJ Nicaragua v. United States (1986); ICRC Customary IHL Database; Rome Statute of the ICC (1998).

An author named John Mac Ghlionn wants you to believe that America should “take Greenland, whatever the cost.”

That sounds crazy, and when you read the piece you realize this guy isn’t thinking clearly, if at all. Who is he? Who knows, but The Hill should know better than to float his disinformation.

To make his “whatever cost” Lebensraum-sounding annexation swallowable, he coats his argument with a saccharin list of historical precedents that he probably assumes nobody will correct him on.

After all, who has two thumbs and actually studied history, let alone the ethics of military intervention? Without further ado, allow me to explain how very wrong, so incredibly wrong, all his examples are.

Diego Garcia: “Negotiation and Agreement”

Ghlionn writes that the US “built Diego Garcia into a major military hub through negotiation and agreement rather than force.”

Dude. Agreement? Not even close. This is horse shit. It was seized by force and has been the subject of much protest.

The U.S. lost control of its Ethiopian stations for spying on the Middle East and as a side-effect, between 1968 and 1973, the British government forcibly expelled every single inhabitant of the Chagos Islands. Over 1,500 people had their identities wiped out. Officials killed their dogs. They loaded families onto cargo ships and dumped them in Mauritius, where many died in poverty. The UK cynically reclassified the permanent population as “no permanent population” to avoid legal obligations.

Indian Ocean military operations relocated there, without room for negotiation. Anyone registering the .io domain today is sending money to the UK government for islands they forcibly and illegally stole.

Yes, it was illegal. In 2019 the International Court of Justice ruled British administration illegal and called for decolonization. In 2024, the UK finally agreed to cede sovereignty to Mauritius.

“Negotiation and agreement” basically states the opposite to reality, which was ethnic cleansing.

Yeah, this level of wrong is how we are supposed to buy into the invasion of Greenland. Sure. Ok.

Iceland: “Diplomatic Finesse”

Ghlionn claims the US “gained long-term access to Iceland during World War II because the island mattered more than diplomatic niceties.”

Come on. Again? I’m going to need a bigger shovel.

What actually happened was Britain invaded neutral Iceland on May 10, 1940, the same day Churchill became Prime Minister. I mean, Iceland had declared neutrality and Britain occupied it anyway. Then the US showed up to replace British forces in July 1941 (months before Pearl Harbor) while still officially neutral. Notably, America was so neutral that it could force 40,000 troops onto an island of 120,000 people.

This was clearly the military occupation of a neutral country during war. Calling that military to civilian ratio diplomatic access is weak propaganda.

Okinawa: “Negotiation, Despite Local Resistance”

What is this guy smoking? Describing Okinawa as a “negotiation” insults both the dead and the reader’s intelligence.

The Battle of Okinawa killed over 12,000 Americans, 82,000 Japanese military personnel, and somewhere between 40,000 and 150,000 Okinawan civilians. We are talking about possibly a quarter of the island’s population, dead. The US administered Okinawa as an occupied territory all the way to 1972.

Alaska: Inverted Causation

Ghlionn writes that America “purchased Alaska to keep Russia away from its doorstep.”

This is a grade school level mistake. Every kid supposedly learns that Americans considered the purchase foolish. “Seward’s Folly” am I right? The sale kept nobody away from anything, because Russia was already leaving and even America didn’t want it, really.

Even more to the point, Russia had initiated the sale. They were overextended after the Crimean War, feared losing Alaska to Britain in a future conflict, and needed money. Russia wanted out. America begrudgingly stepped in, persuaded by Russia.

Panama: Omission as Technique

Ghlionn acknowledges the US “backed Panama’s break from Colombia.” Ok, but again this was NOT negotiation. Roosevelt himself bragged about it:

I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate, and while the debate goes on the Canal does too.

He took it. His words. No negotiation.

And “backing” had a bitter end. When Colombia’s Senate rejected the canal treaty in August 1903, Roosevelt dispatched warships to both coasts of Panama. A French lobbyist named Philippe Bunau-Varilla, of course with financial stakes in the canal company, met with Panamanian separatists at the Waldorf-Astoria and wrote them a $100,000 check to revolt. Colombian generals arriving to suppress the rebellion were literally tricked onto a train car to be separated from their troops. When Panama declared independence November 3, 1903 the US rushed to recognize it within three days. The canal treaty was signed fifteen days later, conveniently not by any Panamanian, but by Bunau-Varilla, the French lobbyist.

The New York Times called it “an act of sordid conquest.” The New York Evening Post called it “a vulgar and mercenary venture.”

In 1921, the US quietly paid Colombia $25 million as “reparation”, less any actual admission of guilt than a bribe to open Colombia’s oil fields to Standard Oil.

You can see how someone might be foolish and think “if Roosevelt did it we can park some warships near Greenland and pay a random French dude to sign it over” but that is most definitely not how anything works, and it still isn’t even close to an example of successful negotiation.

Take territory through force, then pay off the victim when you need something else from them. Makes the whole “negotiation” framing even more absurd.

The Hill Technique

Ghlionn also mentions Louisiana (Napoleon wanted to sell) and Gibraltar (British conquest in 1704) as if they help his case. They don’t.

This is a propaganda piece, and not a very good one. It attempts to establish a series of false precedents, then presents a controversial position as simply following the falsely established pattern.

Did I mention the history presented is false?

Ghlionn’s historical examples unfortunately do not appear to be mistakes. They are load-bearing lies, fabrications. Remove his false history and you’re left with a man advocating that America should annex another country’s territory “whatever the cost”. Stripped of its pseudo-scholarly veneer, that is simply an argument for bat shit crazy imperialism. Or I believe the precise term is Nazi Lebensraum.

The editors at The Hill, if they even exist, published this guano.

They should be asked why.

And again I have to ask who is this guy? According to his various bios, a “psychosocial researcher” with an unnamed doctorate from an unnamed institution. His usual beat is culture war chumming for outlets like Brownstone Institute, Epoch Times, and Townhall. Nothing suggests he has any expertise in history, military affairs, or geopolitics, which might explain why every historical claim in his Lebensraum propaganda piece is so wrong.

Looking at you The Hill. Or should we now call you The Shill?