Is This a "World Historical Individual"?

Stephen Miller

It always comes back to the same question: is it historical forces or the individual? Hegel talked about "world historical individuals." Napoleon, Peter the Great, Roosevelt and Churchill would fall into these categories. On the satanic side, you have Stalin, Hitler, Putin and now Trump—who falls into a category all his own. He's a product of history as literally everyone ultimately is, but also something undeniably sui generis by virtue of the fact he is so lacking in any intention but destruction. Trump can best be equated to a huge blob of sludge that emerges into the Gulf of America when an oil tanker sinks. He is less a man or figure than a natural disaster like Exxon Valdez. In fact the words that roll indiscriminately out of his mouth are a Lava or Saliva of World Historical Importance. Sometimes they attain the force of a tsunami when he talks about turning Gaza into another Bedminster, Canada into the 51sf state or sending all troublemakers, aka those who disagree with him, to CECOT. The difference between Trump and Napoleon is that Napoleon's brain exhibited executive functions, which for a while allowed him to function as a leader, while Trump is pure ID.  

read "Pet Buddha" by Francis Levy, Vol. 1 Brooklyn

listen to James Brown and Luciano Pavarotti singing "It's a Man's World"

and listen to "I Love to Love (But My Baby Just Wants to Dance)" by Tina Charles (1975)

and listen to "Band of Gold" by Freda Payne with Belinda Carlisle

and listen to "Twenty-Five Miles From Home" by Edwin Starr