REWRITING AMERICA'S HISTORY

George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" contains the famous slogan: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." This quote from Orwell's book is intended to mean that those in power manipulate historical records to shape public perception, justify current actions, and dictate future beliefs. By rewriting history, authorities ensure total, long-term control. Even though it seems doubtful that President Trump ever read Orwell's masterpiece, his Executive Order "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which aims to combat what it describes as "ideological" and "divisive" historical narratives in public institutions, appears to be a close fit. Mr. Trump articulated that by advancing his policy his administration would "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and America's greatness." His ideologically driven overhaul intends to remove "divisive" content, specifically targeting history he deemed anti American. His expressed aim is to align museum content with patriotic, traditional narratives in advance of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, with reviews focusing on eliminating subjects covering systemic racism or specific "woke" ideologies. The order instructs V.P. Vance to work with Congress to restrict funding for exhibitions that "divide Americans," and it calls for a comprehensive, 120-day review of all public facing materials, including placard text and digital displays. White House spokesman Davis Ingle remarked that "President Trump is ensuring that we are celebrating true American history and ingenuity instead of corrupting it in the name of left-wing ideology." Mr. Trump's blatant attempt at historical revisionism is candidly designed to expunge our perspective on the academic underpinning of the history we grew up with. He wants to accomplish this by replacing the scientific, more complex, interpretive studies of history with a whitewashed straightforward conventional narrative, by, among other things, erasing the examination of contributions from marginalized or overlooked groups. His approach includes abolishing D.E.I. programs, deleting "racial indoctrination" as a subject from K-12 education curricula, calling instead for "patriotic education." He envisions rewriting every course outline to emphasize a victor's or native's version of history, downplaying or denying abuses by former leaders, recreating myths through a narrative of a glorious past that was destroyed by internal and external "enemies," and removing or replacing monuments and landmarks that do not fit the new, official narrative. Historical revisionism refers to the academic effort of re-examining and updating established historical narratives based on new evidence, perspectives, or evolving contemporary values. Reinterpreting history is a perfectly legitimate endeavor, and one to which historians devote much effort. There is, however, a very big difference between critically and academically re-examining history, and deliberately rewriting or obliterating history to make it conform to what you want it to be. Political ideologues using the "Orwellian method," may use the process to make it conform to their agenda or to deny established truths. They frequently tend to believe that inconvenient facts should not get in the way of a convenient narrative. It might sound inconceivable that Donald Trump's endeavor to reconstruct our historical narrative stems from a comprehensive ideology. However, his approach to governing arguably encompasses elements of "populism" and "nativism," both of which political scientists classify as "thin-centered" ideologies rather than comprehensive theories. "Populism," an approach to governing, not an ideology, divides society into two antagonistic camps: the pure people and the corrupt elite. Its objective is to restore sovereignty to the people and overthrow a, perceived, "broken system." "Nativism" holds that states should be inhabited exclusively by the native population, defend a nation's culture, identity and territorial integrity against perceived threats from outsiders. Populist politics of history generally involve an anti-elitist stance against academic historians. Nativist revisionists tend to frame a nation's history as a story of pure unbroken greatness, while minimizing or denying the contribution of outsiders, cultural change or systemic injustice. They will argue that newcomers "spoil" or "threaten" the existing social fabric, and focus on "adjusting" the country's history to protect the status of the native born population. The Trump administration has adopted elements from both of these doctrines. Donald Trump has certainly not been the only notable national leader to attempt to rewrite history. The phenomenon has cultivated followers in numerous countries, such as China, Russia, Hungary, Poland and Japan. During the past decade, nativist populist ideas have gradually entered the mainstream of political parties across the European Union. As these ideas evolved, attempted state-sanctioned erasure or distortion of historical events tended to follow as well. Major examples include: Holocaust denial - A systematic attempt to deny or minimize the genocide of millions of Jews by the Nazi regime; Denial of the Armenian genocide - Turkish government long-standing refusal to recognize the 1915 systematic killing of Armenians; Rewriting the narrative of the brutal Franco regime - Spain's right-wing and far-right parties are working diligently to re-frame the history of the 1939-1975 Franco regime, challenging historical memory laws and preventing removal of Franco-era symbols. The attempted rewrite of history by political parties is nearly universal, serving as a common tool for power, legitimization, and mobilization of support across different political systems. While particularly prevalent in authoritarian regimes, this manipulation is also endemic to democracies, where parties frequently re-frame past events to suit current political narratives. This phenomenon, often termed "historical negationism," rampant or not, nevertheless refers to illegitimate manipulations of historical facts to fit specific political agendas. The Organization of American Historians has gone on record to submit that under the Trump administration, institutions such as museums and historic parks are now "under assault." The 6,000 member group calls the president's Executive Order "a disturbing attack on core institutions, the public presentation of history, and indeed on historians and history itself." George Orwell's expertly developed description of a dystopian nightmare remains relevant today and implies a clear warning - totalitarianism relies on altering the past to control the present, making objective truth irrelevant. Theo Wierdsma

CHAOS AS POLITICAL STRATEGY

Donald Trump's approach to governance is frequently analyzed through chaos theory, where calculated unpredictability, disruption, and rapid, impulsive shifts are used as strategic tools to manage, dominate, or reshape political environments. This tactic aims to keep opponents off balance, control the agenda, and overturn established norms. President Trump's approach does not model chaos theory in a scientific sense, which is an interdisciplinary field of mathematics and science, but it appears to weaponize chaos in a calculated strategy. Observers argue that his game plan is aimed at ensuring that he remains the center of attention and in charge of the narrative. The constant conflict and perceived fighting against "the establishment " serves to energize his political base. More specifically, as of early 2026, Trump's chaos strategy appears designed to influence the midterm elections by disrupting standard political and electoral operations. These include federalizing elections, aggressively gerrymandering congressional districts, hawkish immigration enforcement, and voter roll purges among others. A by-product, and perhaps even the objective of this calculated strategic approach has been the escalating eruption of ever more confrontational protests across the country. In the September - October 2025 issue of "Mother Jones Daily," it's national voting rights correspondent Ari Bergman writes: "From nationalizing voter suppression to flooding the streets with federal agents, the president and his allies are using all the tricks in the authoritarian playbook to tilt the midterms in their favor." During an episode of the "Politics War Room" podcast, veteran journalist Al Hunt asked an increasingly common question from Democratic strategist James Carville: "Is Trump looking to spark enough protest to justify declaring martial law in 2026, thus suspending the election?" Carville responded that we ought to be concerned about this eventuality and remain on "high alert." The presumed ultimate objective of the administration's chaos strategy is to make use of the National Emergency Act to justify employing the Insurrection Act or declare martial law. The president can declare a national emergency without initial congressional approval. The Insurrection Act is a specific statute allowing military assistance in domestic law enforcement. It empowers the president to deploy active duty military or federalize the National Guard to suppress civil disorder, rebellion, or insurrection in the U.S. It has been invoked about 30 times in our history. The last time was in 1992, during the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of officers in the Rodney King beating trial. Martial Law, rooted in the president's constitutional Article II powers as Commander in Chief, involves a wholesale suspension of civil liberties. When invoked, military commanders can issue orders to civilians, as well as arrest and dispense punishment based on tactical needs of war rather than the civilian laws on the books. The only time this was tried on a national scale was when Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus rights during the Civil War to silence dissenters. Ceta Mitchell, a former Trump lawyer with 50 years of legal experience, who helped him attempts to overturn the 2020 election, ominously predicted that Trump would exercise some emergency powers to take control of the federal elections. However, even if President Trump's presumed strategy works to the extend that he feels justified in invoking emergency powers to respond to ever expanding volatile demonstrations, none of these authorizes him to suspend elections or alter their administration. A president remains in office during martial law. However, declaring it does not allow him or her to extend the term of office or bypass the Constitution. The "Election Clause" - Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution charges state and local offices with that responsibility. It appears that President Trump is beginning to recognize that. Nevertheless, he still believes that, in his mind, his administration has been so successful that he maintains that "When you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election." Since current polling tends to identify significant challenges for his Republican base in November, he has been busy amending his initial strategy. Aside from pressuring Texas to pass a redistricting plan that would add 5 more Republican seats in the House, he has vowed to "get rid of mail-in ballots" and " seriously controversial voting machines" through Executive Orders. As he explains on his own social media platform "Truth Social, " "If we do these two things, we will pick up 100 more seats." No matter where we place ourselves ideologically on the political spectrum, we have to remain vigilant. We could wake up one day to find out that the system we trust and grew up with has strategically been manipulated out of existence. Theo Wierdsma

ALLIANCES IN TURMOIL

In September of 1938, Adolph Hitler issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, demanding it transfers the Sudetenland, a border region, to Germany. He threatened acquisition by force if the country did not comply. This ultimatum led to the "Munich Agreement," in which Britain, France, and Italy ceded the land to Germany in exchange for a promise of peace. Czechoslovakia was excluded from negotiations. After taking control of Sudetenland, Hitler occupied the remaining Czech lands. The Nazis had already annexed Austria in March of that year, and the following year they invaded Poland. This historical context provides a potential framework for assessing President Donald Trump's imperial ambitions, which came into sharper focus after our troops executed "Operation Absolute Resolve," launching airstrikes in Venezuela, assuming control of its oil fields, and incarcerating President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, transferring them to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Trump explains his actions as a reinterpretation of the original 1823 "Monroe Doctrine," which he now re-labeled the "Donroe Doctrine," asserting that he would impose U.S. dominance over the entire Western Hemisphere. His primary objectives appear to be countering European colonization, pushing back against Russia, China and Iran's growing economic and political presence in Latin America, particularly their involvement in Venezuela's oil sector. All countries, from Canada to Argentina would have to yield to Washington; Venezuela would sell oil on terms set by the U.S.; Cuba's left-wing regime would be replaced; And troops could be deployed against the cartels "running Mexico." He simultaneously and increasingly insisted that he would seize control over Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally, "the easy way or the hard way." Mr. Trump's expansionist designs run counter to the rules-based international order established after World War II. Threatening the take-over of a NATO ally would likely be the end of NATO as we know it. NATO is considered the world's strongest and most successful military alliance, combining vast economic power - nearly half the world's - with significant military might and a collective defense commitment (Article 5) that deters attacks. Trump has openly refused to rule out leaving NATO over Greenland. A U.S. attack on the territory could force other members to ban together in active opposition, an obligation under NATO and E.U. rules. The treaty that created NATO did not contemplate an attack by one ally on another. In an attempt to force Trump to back off, at least eight European countries sent troops to Greenland. Mr. Trump was not deterred, and imposed a 10% tariff on imports from those countries. The fast moving situation is reminiscent of "Cold War" brinkmanship, a strategy developed by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in the 1950s, intended to push a dangerous condition to the verge of war to achieve a favorable outcome. Its purpose is opposing forces into conceding by demonstrating extreme resolve. It essentially takes a page out of Hitler's strategic assumptions identified in "Mein Kampf." Another organization with a stake in the outcome of this highly volatile, rapidly escalating, international crisis is the United Nations. Here again, Donald Trump does not seem to care. He considers the U.N. irrelevant. He actually signed an order in January directing the U.S. to withdraw from 31 U.N. entities and 35 other international organizations, citing that they no longer serve U.S. interests. He even invited multiple countries to join his so-called "Board of Peace" initiative, which he described as a "bold new approach to resolving global conflict," an obvious attempt at undermining the U.N.. Permanent memberships are being sold at $1 billion each. Trump is resisting that his claims run counter to international law. He insists that it depends on what your definition of international law is, and that his power is limited by his "own morality." In a jaw dropping letter to Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store he admits that his pursuit of Greenland is personal. He confessed that he is threatening to seize Greenland because he is upset that he did not win the Nobel Peace Prize. "Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace --- I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland." Our descent into the fascist abyss and our disregard for long-term allies has become frighteningly close to President Trump's focused attempt at establishing an imperial presidency. Russian-born New York Times columnist Masha Gessen succinctly judged that Trump's abrupt return to a "spheres of influence" model of geopolitics would be a death blow to the law-based humanistic world order and a gift for Russia and China. By declaring his right to invade and plunder America's neighbors, he has "licensed China's Xi Jinping to seize Taiwan, and Russia's Vladimir Putin to take as much of Europe as he wants to bite off." It may seem trite to perpetually compare Donald Trump's policies and rhetoric with those of Nazi Germany, however, the similarities are intensifying and inescapable. We need to wake up and put a stop to them before it is too late. Theo Wierdsma