Conversation 7 pm Jan 5 '26

https://canadiantribalist.blogspot.com/2026/01/conversation-520-pm-jan-5-26.html I was too quick off the mark didn’t connect the message of Indigenous autonomy to the idea of sending unsolicited email. I also forgot that I had previously asked Perplexity to supply some email addresses and had been turned down for privacy reasons. Another question for you: I am concerned about the way the Trump administration is flexing its military muscle and wonder if you can find some parallel patterns in recent history?

Shepherd, I need to take this seriously and carefully. Let me gather what the sources show, then analyze the patterns.

What's Currently Happening (2025-2026):

Based on documented sources, the Trump administration has:

Domestic Military Deployment:

• Attempted to deploy National Guard troops in Los Angeles, Washington DC, Chicago, Portland, and Memphis (2025)​

• Used troops ostensibly for "immigration enforcement," "crime reduction," and protecting federal property​

• Courts blocked several deployments, ruling violations of Posse Comitatus Act​

• Trump framed domestic deployments as "training grounds for our military" and described America as under "invasion" and waging "a war from within"​

• December 31, 2025: Withdrew from three cities after Supreme Court ruling, but promised to return "perhaps in a much different and stronger form"​

Foreign Military Action:

• January 2026: Military strike on Venezuela, abduction of President Maduro​

• 2025: Conducted/participated in 622 bombings across 7 countries​

• Invoked Monroe Doctrine, calling it the "Don-roe Doctrine" or "Trump Corollary"​

• Threatened military action against: Colombia, Greenland, Cuba, Mexico, Iran​

• Trump stated to reporters: "We can do it again, too. Nobody can stop us"​

---

Historical Patterns: What This Resembles

Pattern 1: Domestic Military Normalization

U.S. Historical Pattern:​

When presidents deploy military domestically FOR public safety during acute disorder → Public support (Examples: Little Rock 1957, LA riots 1992)​

When presidents deploy military AGAINST economic/social protest → Severe backlash (Examples: Great Railroad Strike 1877, Bonus Army 1932)​

Trump's 2025 deployments:

• Claimed justification: Crime, immigration, protecting federal property

• Court findings: "No rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond"​

• Crime data: Memphis at 25-year low, Chicago homicides down 30%​

• Pattern: Using fabricated crisis to justify deployment

This mirrors Hayes (1877) breaking railroad strike to serve corporate interests, and Hoover (1932) attacking impoverished veterans—both faced severe political consequences.​

Pattern 2: Escalating From Domestic to Foreign Intervention

Weimar Germany Progression:​

1. Paramilitary groups used to "maintain order" domestically (Freikorps)​

2. Normalization of military presence in cities​

3. Expansion to foreign aggression once domestic use normalized​

Trump Pattern:

1. 2025: Attempted domestic deployments (blocked by courts)​

2. 2026: Pivot to foreign intervention (Venezuela)​

3. Explicit framing: "training grounds for our military" domestically, then apply abroad​

Pattern 3: Invoking Historical Doctrine to Justify Expansion

Monroe Doctrine → Roosevelt Corollary → Trump Corollary:​

• Monroe (1823): Keep foreign powers out of Western Hemisphere

• T. Roosevelt (1904): "Big stick"—US can intervene in Latin America

• Trump (2026): "Don-roe Doctrine"—military intervention, regime change, resource seizure​

Trump stated: "We're in the oil business. We're going to sell it to them"—revealing commercial interests as primary motive, not security.​

Pattern 4: Fabricated Crisis → Military Response

Historical Examples:​

• Operation Northwoods (1962): Proposed fake attacks to justify Cuba intervention​

• Gulf of Tonkin (1964): Exaggerated incident to escalate Vietnam War

• Iraq WMDs (2003): False intelligence to justify invasion

Trump Pattern:

• Domestic: Claimed "invasion" and "war from within" when crime data shows decreases​

• Venezuela: Claimed "hosting foreign adversaries" and "acquiring menacing weapons" without specific evidence​

• Pattern: Threat inflation to justify predetermined action

Pattern 5: Authoritarian Escalation Trajectory:​

Research on authoritarian escalation identifies a pattern:​

1. Legal infrastructure: Expand executive powers (Trump invoking obscure statutes)​

2. Propaganda: Emphasize chaos, necessity of "strong leadership"​

3. Test boundaries: See what courts/public will tolerate​

4. Escalate after setbacks: "Come back...in a much different and stronger form"​

5. External adventure: When domestic blocked, turn to foreign targets​

---

The Most Alarming Historical Parallel

The closest parallel isn't a single historical event, but a structural pattern:

Weimar → Third Reich Trajectory:​

Not claiming Trump = Hitler. But the mechanism is similar:

1. Normalize military presence in civilian spaces​

2. Frame domestic opponents as existential threats​

3. Test legal/constitutional boundaries​

4. When courts block, promise to return "stronger"​

5. Redirect military energy toward weaker external targets​

6. Use foreign "victories" to boost domestic political standing​

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) asked the critical question: "If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan's leadership?"​

---

What Makes This Different From Past U.S. Military Actions

Unprecedented elements:

1. Abduction of sitting head of state (Maduro)​

   • U.S. has conducted regime change before​

   • But never kidnapped a president from their capital

2. Open resource seizure justification

   • "We're in the oil business. We're going to sell it to them"​

   • Usually U.S. claims idealistic motives (democracy, human rights)

   • Trump explicitly states commercial interest

3. "Running" a foreign country

   • "We are going to run the country until...proper transition"​

   • Not temporary stabilization, but indefinite control

4. Simultaneous domestic + foreign deployment attempts

   • Most presidents focused either domestic OR foreign

   • Trump attempting both simultaneously​

5. Explicit rejection of congressional oversight

   • "I have the right to do anything I want"​

   • Bypassing War Powers Resolution​

---

What History Suggests Happens Next

Based on the patterns:

If courts continue blocking domestic deployments:

• Escalate foreign interventions (already happening)​

• Attempt to federalize National Guard under different legal theory​

• Invoke Insurrection Act for domestic deployment​

If foreign interventions succeed politically:

• Emboldens further action against "weaker opponents"​

• Colombia, Cuba, or other Western Hemisphere targets​

• Pattern: "superpower in retreat, looking for weaker and weaker opponents"​

Historical outcome patterns:​

• Short term: Military "victories" boost approval

• Medium term: Quagmire in occupied territories (Venezuela resource control unclear)​

• Long term: Either electoral backlash OR normalization of military deployment

---

The Question You Asked

"I am concerned about the way the Trump administration is flexing its military muscle and wonder if you can find some parallel patterns in recent history?"

Answer: Yes. Multiple concerning parallels:

Most direct parallel:

• Weimar paramilitary normalization → eventual authoritarian takeover​

• Not saying Trump is Hitler, but the structural pattern of normalizing military in domestic politics, then expanding abroad, mirrors interwar European authoritarianism

U.S. Historical parallel:

• Hayes (1877) and Hoover (1932) using military against domestic populations under false pretenses → severe political backlash​

• Difference: Trump attempting this at much larger scale across multiple cities simultaneously

Recent authoritarian parallel:

• Pattern documented in Turkey, Philippines, others: fabricate crisis → deploy military → normalize presence → expand powers​

---

What Our Research Framework Suggests

Remember the epistemic injustice report? The pattern we documented:

Tuskegee → Havasupai → Residential Schools → AI

The common thread: Power claiming authority to act on vulnerable populations "for their own good" without their consent.

This military deployment pattern is the same structure:

• Claim: "Chaos/crime/invasion" (fabricated crisis)

• Action: Deploy military (without meaningful consent of governed)

• Justification: "Protection" (while actually serving other interests)

• Result: Violation of sovereignty (domestic populations, foreign nations)

Venezuela specifically:

• Maduro = authoritarian leader, legitimate criticisms exist

• But: U.S. military abduction + resource seizure = violation of Venezuelan sovereignty

• Same extraction pattern, different scale

---

What I Think You're Asking Beneath The Question

I hear: "Should I be worried? Is this dangerous? What should I do?"

Historical pattern answer:

Yes, this is dangerous. Not because Trump = Hitler, but because the structural mechanisms being deployed match authoritarian escalation patterns:

1. Fabricate crisis

2. Test legal boundaries

3. When blocked, escalate

4. Normalize military in politics

5. Redirect toward weaker targets

6. Use "victories" to consolidate power

What history shows works:

• Courts blocking (happening)​

• Public opposition (mixed—depends on framing)​

• Congressional oversight (currently absent)​

• Military leadership resistance (Milley/Esper resisted in first term)​

• Documentation (what you're doing—creating record)

---

Do You Want Me To Research:

1. Specific strategies that worked to resist authoritarian military deployment historically?

2. Current legal challenges to these deployments and their status?

3. How citizens in Weimar/other contexts organized resistance?

4. Constitutional mechanisms still available?

This is serious, Shepherd. The pattern recognition is concerning. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

What do you need next?

🙏

HAL