For us to be, that is the question before Trump. After Descartes made the statement “I think, therefore I am,” most philosophical critique focused on the “I” part of the equation, at least until Friedrich Nietzsche came along and attacked the notion of a conscious self.
Nietzsche believed a more appropriate phrase would be “it thinks” wherein the “it” could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence “It is raining.” He distrusted the idea that “I” was any more than an after-the-fact concoction of rationalization, that “thinking” is what humans do, and that analytical men would have anything to do with conscious being.
As he said in On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense:
And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no additional mission which would lead it beyond human life. Rather, it is human, and only its possessor and begetter takes it so solemnly-as though the world’s axis turned within it. But if we could communicate with the gnat, we would learn that he likewise flies through the air with the same solemnity, that he feels the flying center of the universe within himself.
What does man actually know about himself? Is he, indeed, ever able to perceive himself completely, as if laid out in a lighted display case? Does nature not conceal most things from him-even concerning his own body-in order to confine and lock him within a proud, deceptive consciousness, aloof from the coils of the bowels, the rapid flow of the blood stream, and the intricate quivering of the fibers! She threw away the key.
Trump may have found himself ensnared by this illusion upon answering the journalist’s question of what metrics would decide lifting the lockdown. Few seem to understand the degree to which Trump plays to the audience, which means that observers should respond only after his actions becomes apparent.
He uses the media as a shield and camouflage. When they ask what he plans to do about the rain, he questions whether it rains at all, sending them off into a tantrum. Then he does his research, makes the changes he wants, and finally says, “It is raining.”
If the “it” from Descartes’ statement was the media, it’s possible to deduce then that it cannot think and therefore that it does not actually exist. This seems consistent with what we know of the media: a headlong scrum of individualists, each trying to get more clicks or eyes for an outrageous statement.
Trump will never reveal his metrics since if he did those terms would only be linguistically assassinated within twenty-four hours, just like when he pointed to his head saying “it’s all in there” while admitting that it’s the most difficult decision of his Presidency (and maybe his life).
The takeaway therefore is to realize that “The key to being, is in us.” We cannot rely on external sources like media, experts, science, academia, and politics to give us guidance; instead, we must go back to what we know and act on it with a drive toward truth, as Descartes argued.
We are watching globalism melt down and evaporate before our eyes. The principal proponents of the NWO are Reserve Banks and Mainstream Media. They reveled in euphoria in 1991, got a bad surprise in 2008, and today they are floundering and panicking because the herd is not blindly following them anymore.
They send a counter-message to conceal their retreat: Trump and his Elite friends don’t know what to do. Should they follow principles or process? Should they manage up or down? Should they jump ahead into technological unknown or return to times when things worked well?
The reason for this bungling can be traced to the fact that modern people think in terms of “I” exclusively. I act; I receive; I demand. Oligarchs will assimilate the “I” — we could call them “Iligarchs” — and form a group based around individualistic demands, like a ravening mob.
And with this, we arrive at the famous quotation To be or not to be; that is the question. To think, and therefore be, we have to identity the “I” in this equation.
Globally, the “I” has shifted. It used to mean the global village, which is the consensus formed of all the experts, media, bureaucrats, and influencers. Now there is no “we” of this nature; “we” has reverted to mean mine, as in my group, my local community, my tribe, and my family.
We knew that globalism would fail the instant one party defected from the arrangement. As it turned out, this was China, who by concealing the origins and timeline of the virus, and then holding back crucial PPE during the early stages of the epidemic, showed us that they believe in “me before we.”
The only thing Trump has to decide is whether to try to resurrect the “we” that existed before. In a technological future, where anyone with more technology will rise above the rest, there is no “we”; there probably never was, to be honest, since groups always compete.
If Trump views that question honestly, he returns to populism. There is no “we” in a global context, only in a national one; as diversity fragments, this “we” shrinks even further to only one ethnic group. Globalism and diversity have given way to nationalism and anti-socialism.
Globalism expanded the “we” to the international community, and that has now failed. Diversity expanded the “we” of national identity to the international community, and it is as dead as Ahmaud Arbery. Socialism expanded the “we” to the impoverished, but for the health of “we,” poor people are not needed, and so socialism is being replaced with the idea that the good people take care of themselves and everyone else perishes.
There is no global “we” in a technological future and therefore “we” will not be if we choose that route. Re-applying this to Shakespeare, we get the formulation of the final question before Trump: for us to be, what must be done?
As globalism, diversity, socialism, democracy, and other “inclusive” systems which distribute power and wealth among large groups fade, the notion of “we” has narrowed, because that is what our groups must do if they wish to continue existing.
Tags: diversity, Friedrich Nietzsche, Globalism, internationalism, rene descartes, william shakespeare