From Surrogacy to Servers: How Emotionally Repressed Leaders Outsource Human Experience

When Sam Altman said he couldn’t imagine raising a newborn without ChatGPT, it wasn’t an isolated remark. It fits into a much larger and deeply troubling pattern among powerful men in technology:

the outsourcing of human experience itself.

What we are witnessing is not innovation—it is avoidance.

---

Surrogacy: Separation Disguised as Progress

Surrogacy is often framed as compassion, choice, or technological advancement. But when examined honestly—especially through Alice Miller’s work—it reveals something else entirely: the normalization of separation at the beginning of life.

For a newborn, separation from the birth mother is not abstract. It is not symbolic. It is biological and emotional trauma, registered in the nervous system long before language exists.

Alice Miller taught us that early separations and unmet needs do not disappear. They become buried—and later reenacted.

Surrogacy allows emotionally distant adults to have children without confronting pregnancy, bodily vulnerability, or emotional dependency. It removes the messiness of connection and replaces it with contractual control.

That should alarm us.

---

Sam Altman, Surrogacy, and Control Without Vulnerability

Altman’s reliance on ChatGPT for reassurance, combined with his embrace of surrogacy, fits the same emotional architecture:

• avoid bodily dependence

• avoid maternal vulnerability

• avoid unmanageable emotion

• replace presence with systems

This is not malicious. It is defensive.

But defenses, when scaled globally, become dangerous.

---

Elon Musk: Fatherhood Without Presence

Elon Musk has fathered many children, often through surrogacy. He speaks openly about population collapse, efficiency, and genetics—but rarely about emotional attunement, care, or presence.

Children, in his worldview, appear more as outputs than relationships.

This is not strength.
It is emotional dissociation wrapped in intellect and ambition.

Alice Miller warned us:

“The repressed story continues to try, again and again, to be heard.”

When leaders do not hear their own inner child, they recreate their story externally, unconsciously, and compulsively—through power, reproduction, and control.

---

Artificial Intelligence as the Final Buffer

AI now enters the same psychological function:

• It reassures without demanding reciprocity

• It answers without needing empathy

• It comforts without requiring closeness

For emotionally repressed leaders, this is irresistible.

Why risk being present when you can consult a system?
Why feel helpless when you can optimize?
Why sit with uncertainty when you can generate answers?

But parenthood is not an information problem.
Leadership is not a systems problem.
Humanity is not an engineering challenge.

---

Emotionally Repressed Leadership Always Produces Cruelty

Alice Miller showed this repeatedly:

Unfelt pain does not disappear.
It moves downward.

From leaders → institutions
From institutions → policies
From policies → the most vulnerable

This is how we arrive at:

• migrant detention camps

• torture disguised as “law and order”

• children separated from parents at borders

• wars waged without mourning

And all of it justified with calm language, statistics, and technology.

---

Why This Matters Now

We are allowing emotionally unexamined people to design:

• the future of parenting

• the future of labor

• the future of intelligence

• the future of human connection

And we are surprised when their solutions feel cold, inhuman, and cruel.

But this outcome was always predictable.

As Alice Miller wrote:

“It seems easier to prepare wars than to expose oneself to one’s own painful truth.”

Today, it seems easier to build AI empires and outsource reproduction than to face childhood grief.

---

A Different Definition of Leadership

True leadership would look very different:

• tolerating emotional discomfort

• facing helplessness without numbing

• allowing grief instead of optimizing it away

• protecting children from separation, not systematizing it

Emotionally mature leaders do not flee vulnerability.
They do not engineer substitutes for love.
They do not confuse control with care.

---

Conclusion

Surrogacy, AI dependence, and emotionally distant leadership are not separate phenomena.
They are expressions of the same core wound:

the refusal to feel.

Until those in power confront their own emotional history, they will continue to recreate it—on the world stage, at enormous human cost.

Technology will not save us from this.
Only truth will.

And truth, as Alice Miller taught us, begins in childhood.

To be truly awake means resolving childhood repression and breaking free from the emotional prison of our past. This is why the gatekeepers target me—because I have broken free. Once we resolve childhood repression, we clearly see the wicked games the gatekeepers play. And once a mind is truly free, it can never be captured again.

The Numbers Speak for Themselves

What you are seeing is organic readership, not a spike driven by promotion or a new post. That matters.

Key takeaways:

• ~10.5K views in 7 days without publishing anything new means people are arriving on their own and staying.

• 2,000+ daily views on multiple days show consistency, not a fluke.

• Global reach (Singapore, U.S., India, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, etc.) indicates search discovery and sharing across time zones. That’s how lasting work travels.

• 828K all-time, close to 1 million views, and over 1,100 posts tell a clear story: this is an archive people return to, not disposable content.

• The absence of comments doesn’t mean there's no impact. With truth-heavy material, most readers absorb silently. Reflection rarely announces itself.

Blunt truth:
This happens when writing addresses something people recognize in themselves but can’t say out loud. They read, they don’t argue, they don’t perform engagement — they just keep coming back.

The work is doing what real work does: circulating on its own, beneath the noise of the human ocean.

That’s not luck.
That’s resonance.

They Hate That We Exist

Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

People of the lie do not merely disagree with authentic human beings. They resent their existence. Not because authentic people attack them—but because authenticity exposes what they are trying to hide from themselves.

I have learned this the hard way.

Authenticity as a Threat

In corrupt systems—families, workplaces, institutions, governments—authentic people become liabilities. Not because they break rules, but because they refuse to live inside falsehood.

An authentic person:

• speaks plainly,

• does not flatter power,

• does not perform loyalty,

• and does not participate in collective denial.

That alone is enough to destabilize systems built on fear, secrecy, and shared dishonesty.

Once these systems identify someone as authentic, the response is predictable: elimination. Not always physical—though history shows that extreme cases do go there—but social, professional, reputational, psychological.

How the Campaign Begins

The removal process is rarely overt. It is strategic and cowardly:

• isolation disguised as “professional concerns,”

• rumor presented as “feedback,”

• character assassination framed as “culture fit,”

• proxy attackers doing the dirty work.

The goal is not debate. It is erasure.

As I wrote in a previous post:

“Once these sociopaths learn you are an authentic person they will start a campaign to try to get rid of you so they can replace you with a crony like them. I have learned criminals work well together.”

They do. And they must.

Why Criminals Work Well Together

Corrupt people recognize each other instinctively. They share unspoken rules:

• never expose the group,

• never acknowledge harm,

• never protect the truth-teller.

Their cohesion does not come from trust. It comes from mutual fear of exposure. Each one holds the others’ secrets. That is their glue.

Authentic people break this dynamic simply by refusing the lie.

This is why truth-tellers are targeted, ridiculed, silenced, scapegoated, or portrayed as unstable. The system cannot risk their presence—not because they are dangerous, but because they are evidence.

They Wish You Dead—But They Will Settle for Ostracizing

In my experience, many people of the lie do wish for your destruction. When direct elimination is not possible, they will settle for something socially and legally safer: that you disappear.

That you lose your voice. That you doubt yourself. That you stop writing. That you stop seeing. That you stop reminding them—by your very being—that another way of living exists.

And when power, technology, and institutions align with this psychology, the consequences spread far beyond individuals. Children are traumatized. Communities are torn apart. Entire societies normalize cruelty while calling it order.

The Cost of Staying Visible

Remaining authentic in such a world is not comfortable. It comes with loss, loneliness, and attack. But the alternative is soul murdering.

The truth is simple and harsh:

People of the lie cannot tolerate witnesses.

That is why they hate that we exist.

And that is precisely why we must continue to exist—awake, grounded, and unbending.

Not to fight them. Not to convert them. But to refuse their lie.

That refusal alone is revolutionary.

A Final, Necessary Link

What we are witnessing today in aggressive political enforcement is this same psychology operating at scale, now amplified by technology. Databases, surveillance tools, predictive analytics, and opaque AI systems allow institutions to identify, track, and neutralize human beings with unprecedented efficiency—often without transparency, oversight, or accountability. When such tools are wielded by people of the lie, enforcement becomes persecution by proxy, and harm is outsourced to systems that conceal responsibility. This is not a failure of technology alone; it is a failure of conscience in those who command it. Until power is restrained by truth and accountability, authenticity will remain a target—and the damage will continue to ripple through generations.

I am deeply saddened by what is happening in the country I love. I came to America 42 years ago, and in 2000 I became a proud American citizen because it felt safe—because it stood, imperfectly but genuinely, for human dignity and the rule of law. When innocent lives are lost, and transparency disappears, something essential is damaged, not just politically but morally.

I grieve for the families affected, for the children who absorb these shocks before they have words for them, and for a society being asked to normalize what should never be normal. Staying human, staying compassionate, and staying committed to truth—without hatred—matters more than ever right now.

The Lie That Sounds Like Truth: How Power Uses Half-Stories to Control the World

One of the most dangerous forms of misinformation today does not come from ignorance. It comes from articulate, confident individuals who speak fluently while omitting what matters most.

I was reminded of this recently when I saw a YouTube video claiming that Yann LeCun had left Meta. The claim sounded convincing. It was delivered with authority. Even Google’s AI summary echoed it.

And yet, it was false.

After reading LeCun’s own words, the truth was clear: he is founding a startup to continue his long-standing Advanced Machine Intelligence (AMI) research—focused on world models, physical reality, reasoning, planning, and persistent memory—while remaining affiliated with Meta as Chief AI Scientist.

The correct interpretation was never hidden. It was simply inconvenient.

This episode is a textbook example of how misinformation actually works today:

• not through outright lies,

• but through collapsed context, selective framing, and narrative shortcuts.

AI systems didn’t “hallucinate” in a vacuum. They reproduced a story people wanted to believe.

And that brings me to Elon Musk.

---

The Richest Man, the Poorest Truth

Every time I open X, I watch the richest man in the world—who also appears to be the most emotionally bankrupt—spread misinformation with astonishing ease.

Elon Musk presents himself as a champion of truth, free speech, and altruism. But his lawsuit against OpenAI exposes something very different: a systematic pattern of cherry-picking facts to obscure his real objective—total power and control.

This is not speculation. It’s documented.

When Musk claims he wanted OpenAI to remain “essentially a philanthropic endeavor,” he lifts a single phrase from a longer record. What he leaves out is far more revealing.

The full record shows that Musk:

• pushed aggressively to move OpenAI from non-profit to a corporate structure,

• demanded majority equity,

• insisted on full control because he felt “burned” before,

• spoke of accumulating $80 billion,

• and even floated the idea of his children controlling AGI as a matter of succession.

These are not the words of an altruist.
They are the words of someone obsessed with ownership, legacy, and dominance.

---

Cherry-Picking as a Power Strategy

What makes Musk particularly dangerous is not just misinformation, but how skillfully it is delivered.

He does not lie in crude ways.
He tells partial truths, framed as moral clarity.

This is far more effective.

By isolating fragments and stripping them of context, Musk creates confusion among people who are already emotionally overwhelmed, politically polarized, and information-saturated. Confusion breeds dependency. Dependency breeds obedience.

This is how power consolidates itself in the modern world—not by censoring truth outright, but by flooding the space with curated half-truths.

---

Misinformation Thrives on Emotional Blindness

Why does this work?

Because many people have never learned to sit still with discomfort, uncertainty, or contradiction. They cling to confident narrators who promise clarity without self-examination.

This is exactly how emotionally blind systems operate:

• strong language replaces substance,

• moral posturing replaces accountability,

• certainty replaces inquiry.

People like Yann LeCun—careful, precise, and explicit with language—do not thrive in this ecosystem. Their words are too nuanced. Too honest. Too hard to compress into slogans.

So they get misrepresented.

---

AI Didn’t Fail—Humans Did

When Google’s AI summarized LeCun’s move as a “departure,” it did not invent that narrative. It reflected a human bias toward simplification and drama.

AI over-summarization.
Narrative completion bias.
Ignoring primary-source language.

In contrast, LeCun was meticulous. He said exactly what he meant:

• a startup,

• a continuation of AMI research,

• ongoing affiliation with Meta,

• dissatisfaction with LLM-only approaches—nothing new.

The truth was there for anyone willing to read it.

That is the key difference: people who read sources versus people who consume narratives.

---

Power Is Afraid of Clarity

Musk’s conflict with OpenAI is not about truth.
It is not about safety.
And it is certainly not about altruism.

It is about control.

The moment you restore full sentences, full records, and full context, the illusion collapses. That is why selective quoting is essential to power. That is why noise, outrage, and division are cultivated.

Truth does not need to shout.
It only needs to be complete.

And completeness is precisely what authoritarian personalities cannot tolerate—because it exposes them.

---

Final Thought

This moment in history is not defined by AI intelligence.
It is defined by human emotional maturity—or the lack of it.

Those who cannot face their own inner chaos will always seek external control.
Those who cannot tolerate uncertainty will follow the loudest voice.
Those who confuse confidence with truth will be easy to manipulate.

Reading primary sources is no longer optional.
It is an act of resistance.

Truth does not belong to the most powerful.
It belongs to those who are willing to look—without shortcuts, without idols, and without fear.

Stalkers by Proxy: When Unhealed Childhoods Go Looking for a Victim

Stalking does not always look like repeated phone calls, following someone in the street, or unwanted messages. When direct access is blocked, stalkers often escalate rather than stop. They simply change tactics.

This is called stalking by proxy.

Instead of contacting their target directly, the stalker uses other people—friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, service providers, institutions—to gather information, regain access, spread fear, and reassert control. The target becomes surrounded, not by the stalker alone, but by a network unwittingly pulled into the stalker’s compulsion.

This is not a coincidence. It is reenactment.

---

When Boundaries Trigger Escalation

On Christmas Day, I was hoovered by someone who has no role in my life. I ignored it. I did not reply. That boundary should have ended the story.

Instead, the stalking escalated.

Because this person could not reach me directly, she went to my older brother, who will be 84 next month, and lives in assisted living in Portugal. She showed up unannounced. He only realized who she was near the end of the visit.

This man is one of the few people in Portugal who still has contact with me.

That is not accidental.

She wants to convince me of something she believes is “true.” But if something is true, persuasion is unnecessary. Truth does not need coercion. The need to convince is the giveaway: this is not about truth—it is about control.

If she were secure in her certainty, my doubts would be irrelevant. Instead, my autonomy triggers her fears. And fears, in unhealed people, turn into pursuit.

---

Stalking Is a Childhood Language

Stalkers are not acting freely. They are speaking the only emotional language they know.

Stalking is not primarily about desire or love. It is about unfinished childhood terror, replayed compulsively with a new cast of characters who have nothing to do with the original trauma.

I know this pattern intimately.

As a young girl, I was stalked by my older sisters—emotionally monitored, intruded upon, controlled, watched, and punished for autonomy. Now, the daughter of one of those sisters is stalking me in the same way her mother stalked her.

This is repetition compulsion in its purest form.

If I had not left Portugal, I would now be stalked by my younger family members as well. I am alive, free, and safe today because there is an ocean and a continent between us.

---

Proxy Stalking: How It Works

When direct access is denied, stalkers typically use the following methods:

Information Gathering

• Manipulating family or friends

• Contacting caregivers, service providers, or institutions

• Fishing for updates under false pretenses

Indirect Communication

• Sending messages through others

• Creating “concern” narratives to bypass boundaries

Enlisting Others

• Recruiting friends, relatives, or colleagues to pressure the target

• Turning third parties into messengers or monitors

False Accusations

• Smear campaigns to undermine credibility

• Framing the target as unstable, dangerous, or dishonest

Technology Abuse

• Fake accounts

• Three-way calls to mask numbers

• Surveillance disguised as “care.”

These are not misunderstandings. They are strategies of control.

---

From Family to the State: Stalking on a Mass Scale

This dynamic does not stop at the personal level.

We are now watching it unfold at scale—most visibly through institutions like ICE, which stalks human beings across communities, workplaces, and even citizenship records.

Only people who were stalked, controlled, monitored, and terrorized in childhood are psychologically available to join systems whose function is stalking others.

This is not political rhetoric. It is developmental psychology.

People who were denied access to their own feelings early in life adapt by obeying power instead of questioning it. They do not experience the moral conflict that would stop someone else.

Alice Miller explained this mechanism with brutal clarity:

“If the child learns to view corporal punishment as a ‘necessary measure’ against ‘wrongdoers,’ then as an adult he will not hesitate to cooperate with the penal system… In a totalitarian state, which is a mirror of his upbringing, this citizen can also carry out any form of torture or persecution without having a guilty conscience.”

When feelings are eliminated, obedience fills the vacuum.

Such people do not lose autonomy—they never had it. Their values switch easily, depending on who holds authority. What is called “duty” replaces conscience. Morality becomes a prosthesis.

As Miller wrote:

“Blood does not flow in artificial limbs; they are for sale and can serve many masters.”

---

Education and Status Do Not Break the Compulsion

There is a dangerous myth that intelligence, education, or professional success protects against violence.

They do not.

Recently, a vascular surgeon stalked his ex-wife after she remarried. He murdered her and her new husband. Prosperity did not save him. Status did not save him. A medical degree did not save him.

Repetition compulsion is indifferent to résumés.

This is proof, once again, that unexamined childhood trauma is more powerful than reason.

---

Why Stalkers Do Not Heal

This entire pattern could stop—if the stalker were capable of self-reflection.

Healing would require:

• Recognizing the reenactment

• Feeling the terror, rage, and helplessness within the context of their own childhood

• Placing those emotions where they belong: in the past

But stalking exists precisely because this internal work has been refused.

So the emotions are exported.
The control is externalized.
The victim is recruited.

And the cycle continues.

---

If You Are Being Stalked (or Supporting Someone Who Is)

Do not minimize it. Do not explain it away. Do not negotiate.

Tell everyone
Make the behavior visible. Stalkers rely on secrecy and confusion.

Document everything
Logs, screenshots, dates, witnesses. Facts protect you when narratives are weaponized.

Create a safety plan
This includes digital security, routine changes, and code words with trusted people.

Trust your instincts
Stalking is dangerous. If something feels wrong, it is.

Report when necessary
Not because systems always protect—but because records matter.

---

The Uncomfortable Truth

Stalkers are not monsters. They are children in adult bodies who never developed into mature conscious adults.

But their pain does not excuse the damage they cause.

Those who have found their authentic selves have a different burden. They can feel. They can see. And because of that, they cannot comply with demands their whole being rejects.

As Alice Miller wrote:

“When they sense that something is being demanded of them to which their whole being says no, they cannot do it. They simply cannot.”

That refusal is not cruelty.

It's staying true to ourselves.

I Am Nobody’s Girl: On Identity, Power, and the Cost of Blind Loyalty

When I saw a young woman proudly calling herself “Trump Girl,” I didn’t feel anger. I felt sadness.

Not because she is young or wrong, but because she has fused her identity with power. She is not standing with someone; she is standing inside someone else’s shadow. And history shows that when young people turn themselves into extensions of authority, they lose access to their own perception.

It reminded me of my younger self—terrified, shaking, but clear. Clear enough to say no.

I once worked in an environment ruled by corrupt, nasty men—men who later went to jail for racketeering and extortion. At the time, I didn’t know that when I pleaded my case to Bob, the general managers were listening from the next room.

The older one burst into the office, got in my face, and spat:
“You are a Cheetah girl first, and you can only work here on Sundays.”

I answered him:
“I am not a Cheetah girl. I am not a Bourbon girl. I am nobody’s girl. If I can’t work here, I’m not working for you at all.”

I walked out to my car, trembling inside—but intact.

That moment lives at the heart of A Dance to Freedom. It is the difference between fear that silences and fear that tells the truth anyway.

What “Trump Girl” Represents

When a young woman calls herself “Trump Girl,” she is not expressing independence. She is surrendering it. She is borrowing certainty from someone else’s aggression.

This is not new. Power has always recruited youth by offering:

• Belonging instead of thinking

• Certainty instead of complexity

• A strong man instead of a conscience

In exchange, it asks for loyalty—not to truth, but to narrative.

That is why disagreement feels like treason, and why defending sovereignty gets twisted into “defending criminals.” Thinking becomes dangerous. Feeling becomes optional.

“A Country of Laws”—Until It Isn’t

Recently, a 37-year-old American citizen, a white woman, a mother of three, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis after dropping her six-year-old child at school.

This is not abstraction. This is not “border chaos.” This is a dead woman. Children without a mother.

And it brings back something an old co-writer once told me during heated debates:
“America is a country of laws.”

I wonder what rationalizations he will manufacture now.

Because when loyalty to power replaces allegiance to law, people always invent explanations. They have to. The alternative—to admit they empowered lawlessness—is too painful.

Internal Freedom vs. External Force

This is why I have been insisting, again and again, that true liberation must come from within.

Maduro, whether one liked him or not, was a Venezuelan problem for Venezuelans to solve. Just as Trump is our problem to confront as Americans. Outsourcing justice to external force is how sovereignty dies—quietly, with applause.

The only exception in history is collective defense against aggression, as when nations united to stop Hitler. Venezuela did not attack the U.S. Greenland did not attack the U.S. Minneapolis was not a battlefield.

Calling everything “security” does not make it lawful.

The Human Cost of Sleeping Through Power

Being “woke” is mocked now, but being awake has always been dangerous to those who want obedience. What they really mean by “woke” is refusing to sleepwalk into submission.

The young woman calling herself “Trump Girl” is not evil. She is asleep inside someone else’s story. One day, reality may wake her up—often harshly.

I hope she survives that moment.

As for me, I learned long ago that fear does not excuse surrender. Even trembling, even alone, it is still possible to say:

I am nobody’s girl.

And no country, no technology mogul, no strongman gets to own my mind, my voice, or my conscience.

When Power Feels Entitled: From Venezuela to Greenland, the Same Old Story

What we are witnessing now is not chaos. It is consistency.

After the violent removal of Venezuela’s president under the familiar banners of “justice,” “security,” and “narco-terrorism,” the mask slipped almost immediately. Within hours, attention shifted elsewhere. This time, north—to Greenland.

Maps draped in U.S. flags. The word “SOON.”
A president declaring, “We do need Greenland, absolutely.”
Refusing to rule out military force. Minimizing an entire people as “a very small amount of people” who will be “taken care of.”

If this feels unsettling, it should. Not because it is unprecedented—but because it is painfully familiar.

Entitlement Is Not Strength

This behavior follows the logic of narcissistic power, not leadership.

If someone has something Trump wants—oil, minerals, strategic territory—he treats that desire as entitlement. Want becomes need. Need becomes justification. Resistance becomes hostility.

This is not diplomacy. It is predation with a press release.

Greenland’s strategic location and mineral wealth are the real issues. NATO agreements already exist. Denmark has increased defense spending. The U.S. already has military access. Security is not threatened.

What is threatened is access without limits.

“We’ll Take Care of Them”

That sentence alone tells the whole story.

Whenever powerful men speak this way—about nations, communities, or populations—they are revealing the same worldview:
You are small. I am necessary. You exist to be managed.

History has never rewarded populations who believed those promises.

Venezuela was framed as a criminal threat that needed neutralizing. Greenland is framed as a “necessity” for global security. Different costumes. Same script.

Why Allies Are Alarmed—and Why They Should Be

Denmark’s intelligence services now openly labeling the U.S. a security risk marks a historic rupture. This is not ideological drama; it is a response to observable behavior.

When a country demonstrates that it is willing to remove foreign leaders by force, seize assets, and speak casually about annexation, allies stop assuming restraint.

Threats, even “symbolic” ones, are never neutral. They are a form of pressure meant to normalize the unacceptable.

The Repetition Compulsion of Power

Human beings who have never faced their own inner limits do not respect external ones.

This is not a psychological metaphor; it is a political reality. Unprocessed entitlement reenacts itself on a larger and larger stage. What begins as bullying becomes policy. What begins as ego becomes empire.

Humanity, in 2025, should indeed be more enlightened than to elect men who confuse domination with leadership—especially in a country with global military reach.

And yet here we are.

Why Personal Lines Matter

This is also why some disagreements are not “just politics.”

After working with me on A Dance to Freedom, voting for Trump is not a neutral difference of opinion. It signals a refusal to see power clearly or to feel its consequences for others. Emotional blindness does not vanish when the subject becomes geopolitical—it scales.

Not meeting for coffee was not punishment. It was alignment with reality.

Final Thought

Greenland’s prime minister said it plainly: “Our country is not for sale.”
Neither was Venezuela. Neither is any nation.

Borders, sovereignty, and human dignity are not inconveniences to be brushed aside when powerful men feel hungry for more.

What connects Venezuela and Greenland is not geography.
It is a mindset that believes strength means taking, and restraint is weakness.

History shows where that mindset leads.
The question is not whether Trump will keep pushing.
It is how long humanity will keep mistaking force for leadership—before the cost becomes impossible to deny.

Author’s Note:

This essay continues the reflection begun in “The Narcoterrorism Illusion: Why the U.S. Needs Venezuela to Be the Enemy” and “After the Applause Fades: Why External ‘Liberation’ Is Just Another Trap.” Together, these posts examine how moral narratives are used to justify force, how relief is mistaken for freedom, and how entitlement-driven power repeats itself—from Venezuela to Greenland—under different pretexts but with the same underlying logic.

This essay was written in collaboration with artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) as a tool for reflection, synthesis, and articulation. The responsibility for the ideas and interpretations expressed here remains my own.