Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, and the ABSOLUTE END OF THE WORLD
8/23/18, 8:10 pm EDT
By John Corry, photo from PoliticusUSA
On Tuesday, President Donald Trumps’ former lawyer (ish) Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight federal counts including five counts of tax evasion, one count of falsifying submissions to a bank, and two counts involving campaign finance violations, which Cohen said in court was “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” (meaning Trump). The same day, former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud.
This news has very unpredictably started a firestorm amongst political pundits and anyone even remotely interested in politics for that matter, as the post-2016 fear-mongering is entered into a new stage. This is not to de-legitimaze any of the worries or the fears that people have regarding Donald Trump or the state of the world right now, or especially the country (America), only that there is much more to think about here than mere political gossip (which seems to be about the only thing mainstream media gives a crap about anymore). Some examples would include of course economics and how it relates to our current situation, psychology, and quantum physics.
You do need a degree to read a book; you do need emotions to justifiably freak out over something (but, like, doesn't we alls have the emotionals? #IFEELMoreThanYouSoIHaveTheRightToJudgeYouForHowYouFeel ). The uncertainty and the impatience at the legal process has led many to once again assume that this has something to do with Mueller Russia investigation, despite it literally having nothing to do with that, and despite the fact that if you were one of those people who read that last sentence and assumed that I was saying that the Mueller investigation is totally bonkers, you’ve, by now, with Absolute certainty, stopped reading (i did not say that, by the way: there’s just no evidence yet to see that it’s relatable (to the Manafort/Cohen thing)).
Regardless of who Trump may or may not be, or of his personality characteristics, or what we have yet to know, Absolutely, regarding what he may-or-may-not have done regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election which saw him voted president. The country, and any country, for that matter, is FAR more than just one man (or woman), and my worry here is that people have turned the concepts of politics and educated arguments into folly for personal entitlement.
I don't want to hit or not hit Trump too hard or not hard enough here, because I don't think that's a legitimate complaint: he might have his cons, he might have his pros, but what my concern is is what those pros or cons have to do with the bigger situation, which is: how people interact with one another, and whether or not we're-
It's important to recognize relevant factors that are:
-Hilary Clinton was one of the most disliked candidates in all of American history (yes, so was Trump, but the for the complete opposite reason: Clinton was fake and people don’t like fake people, Trump was personally honest, and when people are personally honest, anybody can find something to dislike about them (and I'll happily admit that Trump has A LOT of dislike-able qualities)).
-The world has exponentially since the turn of the century, far more than in any twenty years in recorded history (except for maybe 1930-1950, however I’d argue 2000-2020 for two reasons: technology, and (see next point >)).
-The world apparently has yet to move on or learn from the atrocities of the twentieth century.
And that last point may be the important one, though clearly not more important than whomever's ass Trump was tapping back in '94: people are dehumanizing people now more than ever, and so evidently completely unaware of what may have been the most potent lesson potentially learned from the aforementioned “atrocities of the twentieth century” (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Armenian Genocide, Stalin, Mao, Apartheid, Vanilla Ice, Rwanda, things of those natures):
Any and all dehumanization leads to doom. Plain and simple. This is because The Intellect can only understand itself on an individual level through the understanding that that individual's understanding of itself is necessitated solely by the fact that it is not alone. The Intellect is a circle: it started with a slight deviation from the line that is primacy and has since grown into what it is now: self-sufficient, but still confused as to what it actually is, the general consciousness through which it here exists (in humans) for the most part still thinking in terms of Absolutes and two-dimensional concepts rather than the subconscious dualistic thinking the intellect strives to infer from reality, and, eventually, requires (or else rescind back to one-dimensional primacy).
I understand Dehumanization as the preference to understand what people do as more defining of they’re characters than the knowledge that nobody knows absolutely any individual human being. If you know psychological history, a person barely know herself on an individual level, let alone anyone else; it could take a lifetime to know one’s true intrinsic nature, and thus any apperception of the nature of another human being's Absolute individuality is necessarily objective, which may be the only way humans can perceive reality, but is only half of Full-Reality, the other half being the subjective that that actual person (the one I am now hypothetically perceiving) in understanding, and is so capable of understanding in a way in which I am not (because I am not that person). 'Full-reality' is equally subjective as it is objective, but humans cannot perceive reality fully because we (like: being alive and all) are in reality.
Technically speaking, I find the ‘other’ of any 'Full-Reality' to be simply that which I don’t know, and how that pertains to the understanding of Full-Reality by any individual consciousness is steeped in constant self-realization and critique, not to mention acceptance.
It is Anti-Reality (or: anti-capital (concept of capital), for you ‘capitalists’ out there (I love you)) to think one knows everything (hence why so many entrepreneurs emphasize an ability to react to a constantly changing world), or to do so based on a preface of ‘fighting for the TRUTH!’ because you know the truth and nobody else does. (Again: it doesn’t take much reading to realize (Plato, Jung, Frued, Sowell) that nobody ‘knows’ THE ‘truth’; the understanding that any Absolute general ‘truth’ lies beyond human understanding, and must be so striven for is arguably what started Western civilization in the first place (and so the beginning of the relative downfall of poverty and slavery), and it was certainly at least something the American founding fathers had in mind when they RUINED THE PLANET-)
The truth is BIG, it is complicated; nobody with their salt has ever proclaimed absolute knowledge of 'THE truth', only that the quest to find it is at least as ‘important’ (meaningful) as the concept 'truth' itself.
Human nature is such that it cannot always fully know what it is doing (Objective/Subjective Full-Reality). With the advent of the Internet, and the relative mis-education of most Americans regarding history and meaning (or: most of us were taught events, because to teach thought is to risk going against what any parent may ‘think’, as if they didn’t forfeit that right when they said raising their kids was better left totally to the ‘professionals’ so that they could spend more time at dinner parties anyway), as politics becomes more of a thing, many people accidentally misconstrue dehumanization for either ideological/collective strength or an inherent human need for dogmatization.
Because politics necessarily must have more to do with judging groups than it does individuals or else run the risk of losing its necessary-for-its-own-definition affinity for power (politics is essentially just collectivized power; or, more to the point: the quest to understand and put into civilized action that potential for collectivized power this understanding of ‘politics’ is necessary for any civilized society given than power is inevitable (both in the individual and in the society), and yet still so misunderstood (Nietzsche is relatively not that long ago (and is still widely misinterpreted when it comes to this subject: the will to power is inevitable, the entirety of analytical psychology is based on the idea of a subconscious, and if you don’t believe any of your points have the potential for a subconscious application, you can… get about the fuck outta here))).
Trump is a lackey, or: the way the role of the president was originally thought.
George Washington was not this all-powerful ideological figure everyone rallied behind because he had great ideas, they rallied behind him specifically because he didn’t have ideas, but was so known by the people with the ideas as someone who wanted what was best for the country and so listened to many of those when they told him that there’s such a thing as a subconscious (and yes, that was a burn on Trump).
Despite his shortcomings, that was why many people voted for Trump in 2016, and why, no matter what happens, things need to change, but can only change over time (it’s been over 230 years since George Washington was president, and we’ve been on quite the downward slope to where we are now since starting like, immediately after him). This of course doesn’t challenge the fact that Trump is one of the most divisive presidents in history, but neither does that challenge the fact that just because he’s divisive doesn’t mean it’s any more moral for you to be, or to ignore the fact that on at least some EXTREMELY deep subconscious level, you aren’t naturally prone to divide or accidentally dehumanize in any way (which you are), similar to Trump’s or not.
If Trump is impeached, that continues a chain reaction of the furthering of extremities regarding political rhetoric (necessarily divisive because one cannot talk politics without collectivizing (and that includes collectivizing emotions (ironically enough (occasionally)))), and will so spell doom if Democratic leaders and liberal thinkers continue to ignore the reality here-
That the quest for truth was never perfect, it was never meant to be, it is the role of the idea of government (and so the constitution of power) to curb these abstractions of thought inevitably for this realization (in other words: to put them into focus), and that this was the case long before Trump or the Internet
It’s the quest for truth that so constitutes the reality that can be known by current Intellect as ‘truth’.
As the rhetoric of Dehumanization in the name of ‘democracy’ picks up post-these new revelations (meaning Cohen and Manafort) and the possibility of the guy who beat us in the game having CHEATED US!, so will the inability of individuals to recognize the Subconscious and how it may relate to the political (and so, potentially: power (remember: still misunderstood (Hitler was indeed a human (I know, I know: it's tough, but it's true)))), and so will the Dehumanization become the only measure by which power may judge ‘the quest for truth’, that power being inherent in the idea of intellect and of life itself (as far as we now know (or as far as I can now tell)), and be that power from something human or from any other source.
Just because you're ‘right’ doesn't make you any more or less of a human: being a human is a fact (DNA) unless you want justify your will-to-power that is the idea that you deserve life more than anyone else.