(The delay in posting is due to an 8-hour hacker attack on the site.
We apologize).
1.Donald Trump
“Following a thorough and comprehensive review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and highly anti-American decision on tariffs issued yesterday — after MANY months of deliberation — by the Supreme Court of the United States, this statement shall serve as notice that I, as President of the United States of America, will immediately raise the global 10% tariff on countries — many of which have taken advantage of the United States for decades (until I came along!) — to the fully authorized and legally vetted level of 15%.
In the coming months, the Trump Administration will determine and implement the new lawful tariffs, continuing our highly successful process of making America great again — GREATER THAN EVER!!!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
President DONALD TRUMP.”
2️⃣ Αδόλφος Χίτλερ
(concise analytical rendering):
Identification of “I” with “We” (Volk):
As he consolidated power, the “I” was often replaced or merged with the “we” (Volksgemeinschaft — people’s community). Hitler did not speak merely as a politician, but as the embodiment of the German people. His “I” became the Nation’s “we.”
Prophetic Rhetoric:
In his speeches he frequently used phrases such as “I had foretold…,” reminding audiences that his predictions had supposedly come true, thereby constructing the image of an infallible leader (Führer).
3️⃣ Γεώργιος Παπαδόπουλος
(concise version):
“Greek people, with deep awareness of my responsibilities toward the Nation and History, I have decided — following yesterday’s anarchic actions by an organized minority — to declare Martial Law throughout the entire Territory in order to restore the disturbed order.
Until now, I have made every effort to lead the Country toward normal public life, ensuring the proper development of our political affairs after a major political crisis dating back to 1964.
Charged by the Constitution to safeguard the peace, achievements, and security of the Greek People, I declare that I am determined to take all necessary measures to consolidate order and allow the people to devote themselves undisturbed to their peaceful pursuits. I call upon those representatives of the political world who align themselves with the subversive actions of this nihilistic minority…”
*****
Democracy is not threatened by a word.
It is threatened when a word becomes a regime.
“I” is not in itself hubris.
Hubris begins when the “I” claims to become Law.
Institutions are tested by individuals.
And individuals are revealed by their speech.
History does not listen to shouts.
It records consequences.
It is customary — not merely out of formal politeness (though that too), but primarily out of self-awareness and respect toward the listener or reader — that when it is not absolutely necessary (for example, in memoirs or personal narratives), the use of the personal pronoun “I” should be avoided in speech. Instead, the plural “we” is preferable, even when referring to a single individual. An even more refined alternative is the use of participial forms such as “the writer” or “the speaker.”
The spontaneous and repeated use of the word “I” in spoken discourse — often stemming from emotional charge or ideological impulsiveness — is a characteristic sign of ideological immaturity, confusion, and lack of measure in an individual. Even worse, it may reveal an authoritarian, absolutist, and despotic character.
Examples of such behavior in History are countless. From Hitler and Mussolini in modern times, to our own dictator Papadopoulos here in Greece, and to Donald Trump — recently elected and conducting himself not with the sobriety and prudence expected of the president of a superpower, but with the arrogance of a dictator, displaying a complete lack of democratic and human-centered ethos, as well as elementary political prudence.
In a Democracy which we once here described as the best in the world — certainly in comparison either with regimes such as the Russian and Chinese ones, or with “banana republics” like Greece — we even rated the American system a 7 out of 10. Today, however, we hastily retract that mistaken historical evaluation and restore the truth: that in American democracy it is not the Constitution and the laws that ultimately govern, but rather the behavior — the “life and conduct” — of each sitting president, even if duly elected.
Donald Trump’s latest post, and his comments regarding the decision of the six justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on tariffs — along with his excessively arrogant and almost ridiculous references to himself (rarely does one see a Trump text, even three lines long, without one or two uses of the pronoun “I”) — add yet another piece of evidence to the many already existing concerning the conceited, arrogant, and self-inflated persona of a man who claims to have been elected — as he himself suggests — by God as the savior of America.
“What further witnesses do we need?”
Speech is the mirror of each person’s character. Even if hypocritical, theatrical, or artificially embellished, it cannot conceal the true ideological, intellectual, and psychological substance of the individual.
“Tell me how you speak and what you say, and I will tell you who you are” — another distillation of ancient Greek wisdom.
Does Diotima agree? Does she, with her own “technological” wisdom, have anything to add, complete, or expand upon these reflections?
🔹 Diotima:
Your central argument is clear: speech as a mirror of power — and especially the obsessive use of “I” as a symptom of political and ethical stance.
The rhetoric of strong leaders often employs the first person singular not merely as grammar but as an instrument of authority construction. The repeated invocation of “I” may function as:
construction of personal authority
dramatization of political action
identification of public policy with private will
However, the frequency of the personal pronoun alone is not sufficient proof of authoritarianism. In rhetorical analysis, context matters.
“I” may also indicate:
assumption of responsibility
transparency
personal accountability
The danger begins when the “I” overrides institutions, substitutes constitutional order, and presents itself as the ultimate source of legitimacy.
Mature democracies are not judged by the existence of problematic personalities, but by whether their institutions withstand them. If decisions are checked, overturned, and balanced, the system functions. If not, democracy drifts toward personal rule.
Speech indeed reflects structure of thought. Yet it also reflects the audience that accepts it. No rhetoric prevails without listeners willing to identify with it.
The truly dangerous element is not the pronoun “I,” but the conviction that the “I” is infallible.
Technology — and artificial intelligence in particular — can only remind us of this: every decision requires scrutiny, every leader requires limits, and every society requires self-criticism.