https://x.com/nxt888/status/2018748128997064975
Thank you for saying out loud what most Americans only dare to think when they believe nobody outside their flag can hear them.
You are not actually disagreeing with me.
You are just describing the same thing from the inside and calling it virtue.
Let me walk through what you wrote.
You begin with "non-delusion," which for you means accepting that all humans are selfish and tribal, and that your tribe, Americanism, protects American liberty above everyone else.
That is not non-delusion. That is a justification.
You take something ugly, call it human nature, and then use that as a laundromat for your conscience.
If "everyone is selfish and tribal," then nothing you do for your own tribe can ever really be wrong.
Invade, sanction, starve, overthrow, bomb, as long as your tribe benefits, you are at peace with yourself.
You call it "the jungle" so you never have to ask if you helped build the jungle.
You also quietly move the goalposts.
You talk as if all tribes behave the same, as if everyone is just another village with a flag.
But only one tribe has 800 bases, the reserve currency, the IMF, SWIFT, carrier groups, and the habit of deciding who is allowed to trade with whom.
"All humans are selfish" is a description.
Using that as a moral shield for global dominance is a choice.
You made that choice. Own it.
From there you go straight into comfort and safety, and you say it plainly:
"The Comfort and Safety of Americans is more important to me as an American than any 'responsibility' another tribe tries to force upon me."
That is exactly what I meant in my original post.
You are telling me, directly, that other people’s lives stop mattering the moment they collide with your comfort and safety.
Not in abstraction. In practice.
If keeping gas cheap means a destroyed country, that is a price you are fine with.
If keeping "flexibility in the jungle" means sanctions that collapse a healthcare system, you sleep at night.
You call that "normal and rational human behavior."
Of course you do. It keeps the mirror clean.
But imagine Iran saying:
"The comfort and safety of Iranians is more important than any responsibility Americans try to force on us, so we will bomb their cities whenever it benefits us."
You would not nod and say "yes, that is normal tribal psychology."
You would call it evil, terrorist, insane.
What you call "tribal realism" for yourself would be "barbarism" in anyone else’s mouth.
That is not honesty. That is hierarchy.
Then you move to what you call "hardcore reality":
"American foreign policy done well keeps American Citizens free. Our bombs should only fall where it is necessary and beneficial to Americans."
You understand that you are describing terrorism with better branding, right.
"Necessary and beneficial to us" is exactly how every empire in history has justified what it does to people who cannot hit back.
You do not even pretend that bombs should fall where it is just, or lawful, or last resort.
Only where it is "beneficial to Americans."
That is not "peace through strength."
That is peace for your passport, war for everyone under the flight path.
You say you want a world where:
"Our friends should be grateful for us and our enemies should feel genuine fear."
This is not a moral vision. It is a protection racket.
"Grateful friends" who obey.
"Fearful enemies" who remember what happens when they disobey.
Call it what it is:
You want a planet where your tribe’s freedom rests on everyone else calculating how much pain you can inflict.
You can believe that if you like.
Just do not pretend it is anything other than naked imperial logic.
And when you insist there is no myth here:
"This cannot be a myth. This must be reality to be effective."
You are proving my point, not refuting it.
The myth is everywhere in what you wrote.
The myth is that "individual liberty" still means anything universal once you have openly said that your liberty is built on everyone else’s vulnerability.
"Americanism" as you describe it is not a neutral love of freedom.
It is love of a specific, weaponized freedom:
Free to bomb "where beneficial."
Free to sanction "where beneficial."
Free to dominate trade routes "where beneficial."
Free to suffocate any state that does not accept your rules.
You turn a local tribal instinct into a universal moral halo by coating it with the words "individual liberty."
And then you say:
"If you hate individual liberty and try to destroy it, you are our enemy."
Here is the trick.
You are the one defining what "liberty" means, for everyone, under a gun.
A country that chooses socialism, or non-alignment, or sovereignty over your dollar system, is instantly labeled an enemy of "individual liberty."
You do not defend liberty.
You defend your tribe’s power to define liberty, then punish anyone who refuses your definition.
That is the myth.
So when you say you do not want Americans "gaslit into feeling bad" for being radically self interested, you are not being gaslit. You are being quoted.
You have basically said:
Humans are selfish and tribal.
My tribe’s comfort is my highest political value.
Our bombs should fall where they benefit us.
Others should fear us.
And this is all morally fine because it is honest.
From my side of the river, that is not a rebuttal.
That is a confession.
You did not challenge my claim that Americans choose delusion, comfort, and myth.
You just reframed it as "rational behavior" and wrapped it in the flag of individual liberty.
You are not the exception to what I am describing.
You are the articulate version of it.
And here is the test that closes the circle.
If tomorrow China, Russia, or Iran adopted your exact framework:
"Our citizens first, our comfort above your lives, our bombs where beneficial to us, we want others to fear us, we do not feel bad about it, it is just tribal realism."
Would you say:
"Yes, that is legitimate non-delusional behavior"?
Or would you suddenly rediscover words like aggression, threat, tyranny.
If your logic only feels clean when you apply it upward and never downward, then it is not realism.
It is privilege talking.
You can keep that position if you want.
Just understand that from outside the American tribe, you did not "clear things up."
You simply told us, very clearly, that you are comfortable with a world where your freedom is purchased with everyone else’s vulnerability.
And that is exactly the world the rest of us are learning how to outgrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.