And vice versa: the destruction of personal identities (as well as family or other “core” identities) will cause the destruction of nationhood.
Are you sure that you got me?
I think so. Another double entendre: for to get you:
1 to understand
2 to defeat or overcome
I meant the former
Since I think I understand You,rather then overcome You, it is just the beginning
Beginning are initial moves to set mood, position, and atmosphere, in order to get to a credible way to seek a superior point from whence, debatable and different positions can be brought to line. The way to get to this line, Kant be important thing, and not whether one position or the other is
the superior attained goal.
The reason is, that what matters most is the way to get there, the recipe, were it to be lost.
So far.its.still debatable whether.one or the other is of.more primary concern: mind over matter, or the other way:
If you don’t mind, it won’t matter
It’s actually a tripartite meaning, the last meaning of ’ to get’ is to receive, being a more literal form of gaining more then merely understanding,
-to literally receive something.
to artistic license. 
Yeah, thats why it was qualified as an inverted aphorism.
To editing license.
It is a way of saying, that it’s to early to call, because the differences between party, and platform (Trump) have yet to be worked out.
When liscensciousness is approached , it becomes a boundary situation of interpreting what incursion entails, so licenses are based on prerogative and affirmation of rights and powers.
But it’s all so conflated,Wendy, right now, and that fuels the fire, like being cooked in its own fat.
It’s not conflated. Trump and his citizen supporters wish to save the USA. Everyone else wishes to see the destruction of the USA. Trump has no friends in politics, no governmental gang protecting his back. Trump’s on his own, he just doesn’t realize how alone he is in Washinton, DC.
The majority of the USA’s citizens support him though and when they put together rallies to support him, their numbers will be more revealed.
Then he should read ‘The Prince’, if success is his goal. One can catch up on their reading, instead of watching irritating liberal media and playing golf.
Le Petit Prince?
The Prince, Machiavelli. (Le Petit Prince is good, too 
)
I’m sure, Trump has read The Prince. It’s required reading in business school. That, along with a pile of war strategy books including The Art of War and Clausewitz’s On War, are among the first things you have to read when beginning business studies.
Perhaps more relevant than a 16th century political treatise is the material our current leaders and advisers have studied. Wolfowitz, for instance, was a student of Leo Strauss and Clinton was mentored by Carroll Quigley. Then there’s the fact that an inordinately large number of British and Australian leaders have been card carrying Fabian Society members.
Strauss is considered by many as a Jewish Machiavelli. He thought the hoi polloi too dumb to rule themselves and stressed the need to fake religion and nationalism to gain the support of the masses. Quigley was an insider to the group many see as the NWO ruling elite. He championed rule by oligarchs. Quigley had direct access to the personal records of many of them most powerful people and wrote extensively on what they were doing and how they were doing it. The Fabian Society believe in socialism for the controlled masses. They strive to bring this about by constant small steps so as not to trigger a backlash.
One of the other things they teach in business schools is to know the difference between the ‘official’ power structure and the ‘real’ power structure. Anyone who thinks Trump (Bush, Obama or Clinton etc) have power are confusing the ‘official’ with the ‘real’ structure.
The people we vote for are not leaders; they’re merely our managers. We’re allowed to vote only because it doesn’t change anything of substance. Clinton deregulated the banking system, Bush gave the richest more tax breaks, Obama handed trillions of dollars to the the banks yet we still believe there’s a difference? Really? Bush instigated two wars, Obama expanded them and bombed six countries yet the left and the right fight each other over who’s allowed in the ladies toilets or whether you should be forced by law to use certain pronouns.
This thing we call “democracy” is Stauss 101; pure Machiavelli. Let the people think they have power and control then they’ll blame each other for their losses and suffering generation after generation. Look at us. The left blame the right… millennials blame baby boomers… women blame men… the goy blame Jews… religious people blame gays… black blame whites…
Sixty years ago, MLK, said people should be judged by their character, not by the colour of their skin. Today, that’s completely reversed. Today we judge people solely by the colour of their skin, their religion, their sex, their age etc and NOT by their character. This is no accident. It is the proverbial Machiavellian ‘divide and conquer’ routine. It’s what Machiavelli would have told his Prince to do.
So, no. It’s not Le Petit Prince. 
Oh.
Brilliant.
What all is required to understand someone’s character?