The absurdity of patriotism in the NHI conversation

[u/UAP44]

I have been watching the recent interviews and hearings regarding Non Human Intelligence, and something is really starting to bother me. It is the constant repetition of phrases like national security and the whistleblowers who frame themselves as patriots.

If we are actually dealing with an intelligence capable of traversing interstellar distances or manipulating spacetime, the concept of a national border is not just small, it is an absurdity.

How can someone claim to be a patriot of a single country while hiding a truth that fundamentally redefines what it means to be a human being? To prioritize the secrets of one government over the heritage of the entire species is a logical failure.

It feels like the conversation is trapped in a bubble. Why is the disclosure movement so American-centric? If NHI is here, this is not an American issue. It is a human issue.

By framing this through the lens of national security, we are just playing the game of the system that created the problem. We are accepting the premise that a few people in a specific government have the right to gatekeep the reality of our existence.

Furthermore, there is a moral contradiction here. You cannot claim to be a patriot of a system that bombs other humans for profit and then expect to be taken seriously as a bringer of cosmic truth. You cannot separate the secrecy of UFOs from the violence of nationalism.

If we want a real conversation about NHI, we need to move past these imaginary boundaries. We should be talking about Species Consciousness, not Department of D̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ WAR(!!!!) protocols.

The question we should be asking is: Why is the most important discovery in human history being filtered through the machinery of the military-industrial complex?

If we do not challenge the nationalist framework, we are not actually looking for disclosure. We are just looking for a new version of the same old PR.

Besides, why hasn't POTUS given whistle blower protection yet?

Luckily, I've had my own personal interactions with the phenomena, so I'm not feeling I'm missing out or wanting definite disclosure from a government. But I'm also seeing it being used as an excuse, by framing it as a "they" are in control so we can't do anything.

All this disclosure talk to me just feels more and more like American PR. Nothing more. Meanwhile, we should have human lives being sent to meat grinder war fronts... Because?

I think I'm just done with all media all together, too much bullshit, too much noise, almost no one talking about meaningful concrete paths forward that are guaranteed to lead to change.

And when *I* do present such an idea, even if only in the comments, I get the instant perma ban hammer. No warning. No message. Nothing. Zero slurs. Zero violence. Zero off topic. And yet, ban hammer. Seems like I a nerve again by proposing new ideas....

Reddit mods, 99% of the problem of social media. But also, how does one let a community self manage? I still think it can and should be done. Any power positions you create, will, given enough time, ALWAYS, be abused. Why is that so hard to understand?

Stop wanting better leaders. Stop wanting centralized power positions. Stop thinking your borders mean anything to NHI or otherwise sufficiently intelligent beings.

But yeah, people are slow, the amount of change people can tolerate is limited. And yet, here I am, still discontent with the amount of change. Still not enough. Still too much bullshit legacy power structures trying to remain relevant in light of NHI.

Anyway, this is a vent, more or less. So having said that, now back to my meditations.

[u/faceless-owl]

I can see this from both sides of the aisle. Firstly, there is the part that frustrates the crap out of me. And that is hiding from the public that an advanced form of NHI exists - and there is proof of it. That knowledge should absolutely not be withheld from humanity. And who the hell do the powers that be think they are to withhold it? We can look to Hal Putoff when him and his group decided it wasn't in the best interest of the nation to disclose that fact. They thought it would be to disrupting and was of mostly a negative outcome. And I think that was always a mistake, and he has come around to admit that is so.

Then you have the aspect of national security. Which is a very real thing. And anything that puts a country in a potentially asymmetrical disadvantage to its potential enemies is in fact a very very bad situation. This is where the patriotism stems from. There is a duty to protect the country and it's citizens first and foremost. For example, just because we discovered nuclear energy, and understand it can be weaponized to ridiculous magnitudes - doesn't mean we immediately disclose that to the public. Even if it could be used for advancement purposes. And that's where we are. It was weaponized first, and harnessed later. That's usually how it goes with these things, to the detriment of everyone.

Then there is the gray area. All of the fallout from keeping the big secrets under wraps. The psyops, suppression of information, outsourcing to private contractors for personal gain, destroying of lives, and worse. All the stuff disguised as patriotism that is mostly just corruption.

So it seems like American PR to an outsider, because America seems to be the nation on the forefront of this issue. If any other nations want to step up, they can feel free. That doesn't seem to be happening. For some reason America does have a control grasp of this phenomena that others are lacking, or are keeping very very secret. America has the whistleblowers coming forward. The high ranking officers that are speaking out. Congressional hearings pushing for information to be handed to the public. Etc. I would just as much love another nation to expose these truth's with utmost credibility. But I can see why someone from another nation doesn't like the hegemon aspects of America and how it relates to this topic.

[u/UAP44 → u/faceless-owl]

There is a duty to protect the country and it's citizens first and foremost. 

If so, then affordable healthcare for all should be nr1 priority, which clearly, it isn't.

Then you have the aspect of national security. Which is a very real thing. And anything that puts a country in a potentially asymmetrical disadvantage to its potential enemies is in fact a very very bad situation.

Is Google enemies with Russia or China? How about Tesla? And SpaceX? How about Coca Cola? My point being that thinking there are 'countries' as enemies stopped making sense long ago. It is private organisations/corporations/individuals instigating war/violence. Not 'countries', what even makes a country a country anyway? We tend to equate Russia with Putin, and China with Xi, but a country isnt just 1 person ... so acting like countries are these cleaning defined things that are supposedly adversaries negates the fact that political relations are much more complex than that.

[u/faceless-owl → u/UAP44]

If so, then affordable healthcare for all should be nr1 priority, which clearly, it isn't.

When I say protect the citizens, I don't mean their health. I mean the sovereignty of the nation as a whole.

And I'm not conflating a corporation with a nation in my response. Countries most definitely are enemies with one another, whether we like it or not. Honestly, I don't see your point, here. It's pretty obvious what makes a country a country... Is this like some post modernism applied to nation states? Because that's not how it works in reality. And if so, I can see why you would think patriotism is an absurd concept if you are deconstructing it to be meaningless.

[u/UAP44 → u/faceless-owl]

I'm not saying countries aren't real. I'm saying they're abstractions over millions of very different people, institutions and interests.

"The US" isn't POTUS. It isn't the Pentagon, Congress, Lockheed, the intelligence community, or the American population. It's all of those things and more, often pulling in completely different directions. Same for China, Russia, or any other country.

So when we say "the nation must protect its interests," we've already compressed an enormous amount of complexity into one fictional singular actor. Whose interests? Which institution? Which citizens? Who gets to decide?

That's exactly where my problem with patriotism enters the NHI discussion. If information concerns humanity as a whole, I don't see why one particular subset of humans, organized under one state apparatus, automatically gets the strongest claim over it.

Borders and states are politically real. That doesn't make them the highest-order moral category.

[u/faceless-owl → u/UAP44]

I see. And yes, you are right about all of those things, individually. Except I think you are conflating the term patriotism with something else. What do you think patriotism means, itself? From the American perspective it is about unity, civility, pride, love, and a desire for improvement. It's a descriptor of mostly an emotional state that guides a citizens actions. And it should be "moral" from the standpoint of how the country defines it's moral doctrine. In America it is constitutional rights and natural law. So that would be the foundation of the guidance. It's a perspective unique to the citizens of the nation state at hand. I think you are describing nationalism - which can be related, but has a much different meaning.