Tremendous Exclusive Achievement for "The Degeneration of the Nation": Special Interview with U.S. President Trump

I attribute my dream scoop and first as an independent journalist to the luck of cats. It all started at 3 AM Washington time and 10 AM Israel time. Trump and I woke up at the same hour - he in rage to tweet and I from a pleasant feline nap to practice bird-catching. Since all of America was asleep, I pounced on the easy prey on Twitter with the skill of an apex predator in the urban space - and the rest is history. Thus I extracted the secrets from the most important person in the world and wrested from him the ideological foundation that drives him - and exposed him naked and bare

A great Torah scholar teaches clowns (Source)

Hello, and thank you for dedicating time to a cat from Israel. During the last U.S. elections, an election poster was published in the ultra-Orthodox world calling to support you under the headline: "Trump - meshugene [Yiddish for crazy] but one of us". What do you think about accusations of you being crazy?

You Israelis should understand, because you go crazy over the expression "the landlord has gone crazy". Ever since Hamlet's madness or Agnon's mad dog geh geh [reference to S.Y. Agnon's story "The Lady and the Peddler"], madness has been an expression of a liminal political state. In the relationship with the world, the U.S. for the first time is in the position of the weak in the system, despite being stronger than any specific rival, just as happens to Israel vis-à-vis the Arab world. In such a situation, of asymmetric confrontation (and against the U.S. every confrontation is asymmetric), as you know, the idea of "going crazy" means moving from a linear response, which rivals build upon, to a non-linear and unexpected response. Just like the quiet you have in Lebanon - not because you won (you lost!), but because you surprised the enemy. And this - by the very fact that you went into an illogical and disproportionate battle that you couldn't win.

Excuse me for the direct question, but I'm an insolent cat from Israel. You use all kinds of expressions like "liminal", "state" and even "idea", but aren't you an idiot?

What does it matter if I'm an idiot. Idiot is not an essentialist category, as the left thinks, but a construction. Even if I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot in a certain system that perceives me as an idiot, meaning I'm a structure of an idiot.

Are you claiming that you're a structure of an idiot?

The question of meaning - as Wittgenstein understood - is not a question of essence, but of behavior in a system. What's the meaning - and even the usefulness - of an idiot? Let's say: a useful idiot. We're talking about the U.S. here, for heaven's sake. This is the largest imperial system in history. Even the smallest state in the U.S. is a much more complex system than the entire Roman Empire. In short, I'm not an idiot, I'm an American. And I know that many Europeans think it's the same thing (including many Democrats, who are much more European than Republicans, and therefore lose). My idiocy is driven by patterns I didn't create, or invent, or maybe I'm not even aware of, because it's culture. American culture is a culture of idiocy - and surprise: it's the most successful culture in the world. So maybe you should focus on patterns, instead of my IQ, or vocabulary, okay? Understand that a limited vocabulary is a certain way of perceiving the world, which is sometimes more efficient and successful than a broad vocabulary and sensitivity to nuances. Contrary to what Obama thought, presidency is not about sensitivity to nuances. It's about being the elephant in the china shop. I think big, roughly, and thus make America great again. Thinking small is not the American way. We're bad at literature - and strong in cinema. Unlike Obama who wanted a sensitive elephant dancing like a ballerina. I'm an elephant, I'm fat, I have a big mouth, I like to eat, and I'm a bulldozer driver, not a roller skater. When you have weight you don't need to keep balance. Do you understand the judgment of intellectuals? If I were doing exactly the same things exactly, and even much crazier, but talking like an intellectual, like some Obama, they wouldn't call me an idiot - but a genius. They would think of me as a genius smarter than them. And more than that - if for one moment I do a bit of name-dropping, they would immediately be willing to assume in retrospect that I'm a genius who fooled them into thinking I was an idiot all along. My most distinguished critics would be the first to rush to write articles to reveal my true face - as a genius actor. So who's the idiot here? And what's the meaning of idiot anyway?

So if you're not an idiot, can you explain to me the trade war with China, for example?

Yes, of course. Chinese culture, for thousands of years, has been a culture of optimization. Everything they do is better, more efficient, more harmonious, stable, balanced, according to the Dao. In contrast, American culture since the days of the first settlers, and actually even since the initial Columbian movement, is a culture of exploration. We discover, invent, conquer the West, fly to the moon, check other possibilities at a high cost - for the whole world. The whole world snickers at the terrible healthcare system in the United States, which spends many times more than other places, but all global medicine is built on the exploration enabled by the American system because of the psychic differentiation we have here, meaning (if we explain to idiots. You understand that this is a construction?) everyone hitchhikes on the enormous expenses of the FDA and the American pharmaceutical industry and innovative treatments developed there for a small segment of the population with massive funding. The whole world benefits from the exploratory research of American medicine, and then mocks it for its lack of optimization. You get it? That's why my leadership conducts experiments, checks new directions, and then the wise guys come and claim it's far from optimal. Well, geniuses! As if they hadn't heard that optimization mathematically comes at the expense of exploration, and vice versa, that it's a zero-sum game. And today when there's acceleration in the world, exploration is a thousand times more important, because it's no longer exploration in space, but in time. Not the Wild West - but the Wild Future. And then the Chinese come, and steal our exploration and try to shift the world to the path of optimization (which is ultimately the communist idea as opposed to the capitalist one - it's no coincidence that there was communism in Chinese culture! Communism is optimization in central planning). That's why I act from disruptive logic in the Chinese space, because optimization is more efficient only when playing by the expected rules, but in chaotic uncertainty situations, like regarding the future - the American way will win. America is not a place - it's time. It's the future. And Chinese culture has no concept of future at all. Read the Dao De Jing, Confucius - the aspiration is for homeostasis. I, on the other hand, understand the system differently - as proven in dynamic systems theory in physics, a system is most fertile when it's on the edge of chaos - and that's where I aim. And Democrats are simply afraid - not of me, but of the chaotic nature of reality itself. Of the fact that they're losing control of the future, after thinking it was in their pocket. They thought the transition to the future was a sidewalk, paved with good intentions, and are unable to tolerate a liminal and associative state. Because the fact that everything in America today is measured in money - it's not an insurance certificate, because money detached from hard value is actually a particularly chaotic thing - look at the stock market. Money - is a crazy thing. That's why I love so much - money, money, money. Just like I love driving Democrats out of their minds at 3 AM. So what did you say - awake?

But it seems you think about everything in simplistic terms (unlike intellectuals. Who think precisely in simplistic concepts!). Everything from your perspective is reduced to money. Don't you understand there are other things in the world besides money?

No, no, you don't understand. This is exactly what I'm trying to teach the world, this is exactly the structure I want to construct in the world: there is nothing in the world except money. Thinking needs to be entirely business-oriented. Because this is the thinking of peace. This is the plane on which I want the world to operate: the economy. That's why I'm willing to make a deal with North Korea like with North Vietnam. This is Kissinger's wisdom: to make a hollow peace agreement that we won, and simply exit a war that can't be won, and then in the end the economy will win. That's exactly how we won the Cold War too. That's why I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. The world thinks I'm a stupid American, but the world must deal with me in my stupidity, namely in the language of money, dollars are what talk. This is the language game, there's no private language! And once this is the plane: I've already won. The winner is the one who determines the plane of battle, the field. I want a trade war with China, and not a cold war with Russia. I want the end of ideologies - everything is business, everything is a deal, this is the depth of the art of the deal (did you read? Doesn't matter. But did you buy the book? Did you hear about it? Did you promote it? There you quoted the name - and promoted!). That's why I so despise Muslims. Because they're the last ones who still have an ideology! With Putin the kleptocrat I get along excellently. And Obama - with those polite Chinese nuances, and with that ideology - phooey! Nothing has value that doesn't have a price. Including women. My demeaning and instrumental and objectifying attitude towards women doesn't stem from hatred of women, or from some libidinal sexual desire. But from my need to turn everything into money, and the thing that most threatens this - is sexuality, and subjectivity, and love. I want objects. Preferably expensive ones. I want to buy my wife. I don't want real breasts, but silicone, because it translates more directly into money. And I don't want to understand my partner, just as I don't want to understand the other. I don't want to understand the world, but to construct the world. Not to be some wise guy like Obama, who understands the complexity, who tries (and fails of course) to speak in the language of other cultures - I want the language game that I choose. I act from within my world, not inside the world - that's exactly the American idea. So let them say it's narcissistic. And that I'm narcissistic too. That's also what they said about Andrew Jackson, who is my model, and one of the greatest presidents. And what's the proof of that? That he's on the 20 dollar bill. After all, if I paid you enough hush money, say a billion dollars, wouldn't you be willing for me to grab you by the pussy, little kitty? So now all that's left is to haggle. I may be a bad haggler, but that's exactly what draws others to haggle with me, and now it only remains to set the price. And even if you end the interview now, in protest, everyone will think it's because whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.