grandecrepe

I wanted so much for President Trump to put America First. That’s what I believed he would do. All I heard from his speech tonight was WAR WAR WAR. Nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans. Nothing to reduce our near $40 trillion in debt. Nothing to save Social Security, which goes bankrupt in just a few years. Nothing to lower the cost of insurance. Nothing to address jobs for Americans. Nothing about education for our children. Nothing about our children’s future. Nothing for America’s future. I’m so beyond done. I pray for our military and their families. I pray for innocent people all over the world. I pray for peace and prosperity for all.

This is my geopolitical sanity check. —I support Ukraine and their fight against Russian aggression. —I stand with the Iranian people and their fight for freedom from the Islamic regime. —I support Israel and their fight against all the barbaric terrorist groups seeking their destruction. You don’t even have to be fully pro any of these sides I support. You can have questions, uncertainties and even doubts. But the moment you start supporting Russia, the Regime or the terrorists—I genuinely think you’re insane.

Let’s be real here. Europe has spent decades freeloading on American security. Even now, with every NATO member finally hitting the 2% GDP target in 2025. But beyond the financial contributions, the real rupture is philosophical and the Iran crisis has shown a spotlight on it. Europe worships process. Endless committees, consultations, and “predictability.” Macron actually calls it a virtue. For Trump, this is paralysis as his style is to articulate a threat, fix a target, and act. The Americans are men of conviction and purpose. Europe on the other hand lives by bureaucratic liturgy and in high-minded abstractions. Sure, Americans might make mistakes when acting. But Europe never considers what the costs of not acting actually are. Just look at how their nations are doing on various fronts, especially on the border crisis, and you see the same cancerous rot that undergirds their foreign policy approach play out domestically. It's the same problem on a different scale. Iran is currently holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, choking 20% of global oil and spiking prices past $100 a barrel. Meanwhile, the regime is bleeding from strikes, its nuclear ambitions are still alive despite degraded capability, and its proxies are firing missiles at allies and oil tankers. If this isn’t a clear and present danger to the global economy - of which Europe is a part - then I don’t know what is. Yet when Washington asked to use European bases to finish the job - bases the US has defended for generations, the response was hesitation and hand-wringing. The US did strike from RAF Fairford, but only after warnings that British soil could become a “legitimate target.” If you cannot agree that a theocratic regime with eschatological ambitions who have shown no restraint in hitting out at Gulf countries and threatening the world’s energy jugular is an enemy worth confronting, then what, exactly, are we allies about? Europe loves to preen about being tough on Russia. They issue condemnations and speeches and slap sanctions that hardly work to cripple the Russian economy. Now here was a chance to do something concrete: let the Americans use the bases they already pay for, help clear the Strait, and actually degrade the Iranian war machine that arms Moscow’s proxies. Turmp didn’t ask for boots on the ground or any kind of more offensive action. All he wanted was permission to operate from the infrastructure America has underwritten for decades. They couldn’t even manage that. So can you blame the Americans for seeing NATO for what it is? A paper-tiger alliance that expects Washington to bleed and pay while Brussels and London convenes and deliberates. If Europe refuses to treat Iran as the threat it is while happily letting American power keep the Strait open and the lights on, then the alliance is already dead. Trump is simply stating the obvious and the Americans are becoming very reluctant to subsidize the European delusion any longer.

与沉迷“叙事控权”的人沟通，沟通效果往往自动打折。 所谓“叙事控权”，并不是人们依据“事实本身”行动，而是依据“对事实的解释”行动。这是对“解释权”的占有，谁掌握了叙事，谁就更容易左右他人的理解、判断，甚至情绪与行为。 举个简单的例子：A做了一件让B不喜欢或无法理解的事，这件事本身未必有问题。但如果B与他人叙述时，将这件事改成另一版本，在那个版本里，B永远是对的，A总是错的，那么结局往往就不只是误解，而是对A的否认甚至攻击。这就是典型的叙事控权。 这种操作在现实中常被运用，特别东大的宣传。在某些公共事件中，一个人出事之前，往往先在叙事层面被彻底重塑与否定。一旦舆论定型，事实反而不再重要，结论已经先行。 而容易被叙事控权裹挟的人，通常并非坏，只是缺乏足够的批判性思维，更倾向于立场先行。一旦接受了某种解释框架，情绪反应几乎是自动触发。你以为那是自发的愤怒，其实更像是被叙事按下开关后的“条件反射”。 在日常生活中，叙事控权同样随处可见。比如人际关系里的“叙事操控”：通过否认他人来抬高自己，削弱对方的价值、情感与存在感，从而增强自身的道德优势或话语权，这与“煤气灯效应”如出一辙。再比如“自我叙事”：典型的受害者叙事，将一切归因为外界：环境、他人、命运，却拒绝自我反思，久而久之，人便困在自我建构的受害框架中，难以脱身。 叙事控权的可怕之处，在于它不是一次性的冲击，而是缓慢、持续的侵蚀。日积月累之下，它会削弱人的判断力，让情绪乃至幸福感高度依赖外界定义；最终，人会在不自觉中失去主体性，滑入一种看似有序、实则混乱的被动状态。

张雪的故事适合拍一部电影，有导演想拍的话，我投资1000万日元。打水飘也无所谓。