Who Controls the Past Controls the Future: The Orwellian Playbook of American Authoritarianism
Visitors gathered and brought flowers — including many yellow roses — to the Minneapolis intersection where George Floyd was killed five years ago by police officer Derek Chauvin and sparked the Black Lives Matter movement. But in 2020, some social media posts almost immediately claimed Floyd died of a drug overdose, or that the footage was a “deepfake” hoax. Conservative media figures and online influencers pushed these stories, framing Floyd as a troubled man rather than a victim. NBC News Photo
The Integrity Project
Historians warn, “authoritarian governments in all corners of the world are trying to construct their own version of the past, passing laws that make their versions of history the only ones allowed”, and the United States is not immune to such pressures. In recent years, a wave of political rhetoric and conspiracy theory has sought to recast two defining events in modern U.S. history —the 2020 murder of George Floyd and the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack—in alternative ways that serve partisan narratives. Some elected officials have amplified baseless claims, denied eyewitness evidence, or called for pardons in ways that distort these events.
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed while handcuffed and restrained under the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for over nine minutes—a killing for which Chauvin was later convicted of murder by a jury. The video of Floyd’s “I can’t breathe” pleas went viral, helping lead to Derek Chavin’s conviction for murder. But almost immediately, fringe theories began to surface. Within days, social media posts falsely claimed Floyd died of a drug overdose, or that the footage was a “deepfake” hoax. Conservative media figures and online influencers pushed these stories, framing Floyd as a troubled man rather than a victim. Dr. Winnie Heartstrong, a Republican congressional candidate in Missouri, published a self-styled “investigative report” claiming the arrest video was fabricated: she alleged the “person in the arrest video is neither [George Floyd] nor [former NBA star Stephen Jackson] but rather a digital composite of both men”. This while the official autopsy found Floyd died from “cardiopulmonary arrest” caused by Chauvin’s restraint. Sitting lawmakers, among others, have echoed elements of this narrative.
These revisionist efforts mirror classic propaganda techniques: seizing on fragments of truth (for example, Floyd’s autopsy showed he had illicit drugs in his system) while ignoring the full context of the events (video and forensic evidence of suffocation). Scholars of disinformation note that authoritarians often “mix real accounts” with fabricated claims to create a false narrative that “sticks” in the public mind. This strategy is central to what researchers at the RAND Corporation have called the “Firehose of Falsehood” model: a propaganda technique characterized by a rapid, continuous, and repetitive stream of messages across multiple platforms, without concern for consistency or truth. Its goal is not to convince through evidence but to flood the information space—overwhelming critical thinking and creating enough noise to leave audiences confused, cynical, or apathetic.
Historical regimes employed similar tactics: in the Soviet Union, textbooks and newspapers were constantly rewritten to erase purged political foes and elevate party leaders. In Nazi Germany, the regime blamed the 1933 Reichstag fire on communists by publishing a “Brown Book” of doctored evidence—a fabrication that lingered for decades. Today’s U.S. rhetoric follows a similar pattern—albeit on a far greater scale, enabled by technologically-advanced platforms: high-profile officials deny the authenticity of video footage or demand pardons, aiming to recast Floyd’s murder into an alternate version of events—and in doing so, to assert power over what is remembered as truth. And context is important. The months following Floyd’s death saw the explosive rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, surfacing long-simmering tensions in the United States, potentially fueling a more polarized and less responsible discourse.
But the disinformation surrounding the Floyd murder does not exist in a vacuum. Truth management, it turns out, is a pattern and reflects a larger strategy of power politics.
Recasting January 6th
The January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol was captured live on television and later meticulously documented by multiple congressional investigations and court cases. Ordinary citizens and dozens of policemen witnessed hundreds of Trump supporters storming the building, assaulting officers, and interrupting the certification of the 2020 election. Yet from the outset, alternative narratives surfaced online: many falsely claimed the riot was actually instigated by anti-Trump activists, left-wing agitators, or government agents.
These distortions have been amplified by sympathetic media and social platforms. Conservative cable networks, radio hosts and social media personalities have given airtime to every twist of the alternative-truth story. Tens of thousands of social media posts and videos pushing January 6th conspiracies have been shared among partisan networks. As PBS NewsHour noted, hoaxes and conspiracy theories about January 6th have been “spread by politicians, broadcast by cable news pundits and amplified by social media,” making many Americans distrust even the obvious facts. Michigan State University political scientist Dustin Carnahan warns that in a fractured information environment, “if we’re no longer operating from the same foundation of facts, then it’s going to be a lot harder to have conversations as a country…It will fuel more divisions in our country, and…ultimately [be] the legacy of the misinformation we’re seeing right now”.
In practice, these narratives have had real effects. By rebranding the Capitol siege as a self-inflicted hoax or as the fault of fringe agitators, some Republican officials seek to absolve Trump and his allies of responsibility. In doing so, they echo the same denial tactics used by dictators who rewrite history in real time to shift blame and to delegitimize democratic institutions.
Echoes of Authoritarian Propaganda
The parallels to past authoritarian disinformation campaigns are striking. Totalitarian regimes have long suppressed truth by rewriting the narrative of key events. After seizing power, Joseph Stalin purged Soviet history: textbooks and media were changed to remove rivals (Leon Trotsky’s role was wiped from official accounts) and to cast Stalin as Lenin’s heir. As one historian notes, the result was that history “was completely subordinated to ideology” and continuously “manipulat[ed] and rewrite[n]” by the regime—yielding “lies and manipulation on a mass scale”. In Nazi Germany, the concept of the “Big Lie”—a propaganda technique theorized by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and later employed by the Nazi regime—was famously used to impose false accounts as true narratives: Reichstag fire conspiracies were concocted, and genocide was denied or justified. In one Nazi pamphlet, real facts of communist arrests were mixed with fabricated evidence that communists started the Reichstag fire; this brazen lie “stuck, for decades” as the official version.
Students of history recognize that these tactics are effective—and students of technology understand that, in a digital communications ecosystem, they can be deployed with unprecedented speed and precision. While the mechanics of disinformation remain the same, the scale and velocity of their impact today is staggering. Denying clear evidence of Floyd’s murder or recasting the Capitol riot as a left-wing plot follows a familiar authoritarian script—but the ability to instantly reach millions and mobilize them in support of these narratives represents a dangerous new magnitude of influence.
Authoritarian governments often use “scapegoating” and conspiracy to justify repression. Assad’s regime in Syria, for example, relentlessly blamed all accusations of chemical weapons attacks on rebel “staging” or Western plots. Russian propaganda similarly portrays any criticism of Stalin or the Soviet era as Western conspiracy. North Korea’s government completely controls the narrative of its past and present, promoting a cult of personality that bears little relation to reality. While the American context is different, the effect is similar: false versions of events are promoted to shield leaders and intimidate critics.
In a chilling historical echo, the Oregon GOP passed a resolution calling the events of January 6th a hoax, explicitly likening it to the Reichstag fire—a historical metaphor that GOP leaders likely did not intend, but that punishingly underlines how rewriting a crisis in political terms has precedence in dictatorships. And when political leaders in the U.S. call insurgents “patriots” while insisting nothing grave happened, they are invoking the same apparatus of false narrative that facilitates authoritarianism. Historian Hannah Arendt warned in 1951 that under totalitarianism “masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true.” Today’s information climate shows how even familiar, documented events can be rendered incomprehensible to large segments of the public if politicians push alternate “realities.”
Media Ecosystem and Digital Amplification
None of these conspiracies can gain traction without media and technology to spread them. Cable networks, media outlets, social influencers and partisan news aggregators have formed a vast ecosystem that amplifies revisionist narratives. Cable networks and talk radio often give airtime to fringe theories—for instance, some conservative hosts have devoted entire segments and full episodes to reinterpreting the Floyd case or doubting the Capitol riot’s details. Social media platforms, meanwhile, have become echo chambers. According to analysis by the Factal news platform, the claim that police license plates indicated a “false flag” during the Floyd incident was shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter. In the January 6th context, millions of views were racked up by videos and tweets claiming without evidence that undercover provocateurs created the violence. These narratives gained traction not because they were supported by credible evidence, but because viral, fictional storytelling thrives in an ecosystem where repetition often substitutes for truth.
Networks are bolstered by political figures who champion disinformation. Outside the U.S., freedom watchdogs note that such media-manipulation tactics are key elements of authoritarian playbooks worldwide. In authoritarian countries, “state-owned media” and allied private outlets coordinate messages to drown out dissent. In the U.S., no single party controls the media, but a collection of sympathetic outlets can have a similar effect of normalizing falsehoods among their audiences. Research suggests that concentrated exposure to a partisan narrative makes it “sticky”: once people hear a story repeated on friendly media, they are far more likely to believe it. Here, Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and conservative talk-radio have repeatedly aired talking points that question Floyd’s death and excuse January 6th. These repeat broadcasts, combined with viral social posts, mean that even blatant distortions are hard for many consumers to escape.
Platforms themselves function as reluctant gatekeepers, striving to moderate explicit violence and hate speech without infringing on constitutional protections of free speech. Disinformation researchers note that by the time platforms label or remove a false claim, it has often already been seen by millions. Without editorial oversight, more extreme viewpoints—including those that would have been fringe just a few years ago—now command large followings.
The Digital Era - An Unstable Reality
The intersection of politics and propaganda is not new, but its stakes are ever higher in the digital era. Analyzing the flood of narratives about George Floyd and January 6th, experts warn that debunking each myth is a losing battle if the underlying motive—political control—is not addressed. “If we can’t even agree on what happened,” warns Professor Carnahan, “we risk losing a basis for any democratic discourse”. The active efforts by some U.S. politicians to reframe these events should alarm voters and observers. By drawing clear parallels to the disinformation tactics of authoritarian regimes—from Soviet show trials to Nazi “big lies”—historians and analysts underscore the danger of political forces rewriting the past.
In a functioning democracy, leaders are generally held to account through facts, records, and a shared understanding of reality. But when facts themselves become malleable weapons, the foundation of democracy is at risk. The death of George Floyd and the January 6th attack are no longer uncontested events—they have become battlegrounds over the American narrative itself. How these moments are remembered and taught will shape the politics of the future. Recognizing and countering these revisionist efforts—through demanding evidence, supporting independent media, and educating the public—is essential to preserving truth and thus setting the foundation for preserving a functioning republic.
Learn more about this topic from the editors of The New York Times.
ADDITIONAL NEWS FROM THE INTEGRITY PROJECT
