42 Insights on Trump, America, & Masculinity
An apology & follow-up on my recent post.
Prologue: A Few Preliminary Reflections
I wrote most of this a few days ago, and in the days since then I have been doing more research, deliberately seeking wisdom on what is happening—especially looking at sources that seem to provide fairly balanced, grounded perspectives rooted in historic context. I’ve especially appreciated the writings of Timothy Snyder. This research is leading me in a direction of being more deeply, freshly attuned to the dangers posed by Donald Trump—dangers I was acutely aware of 8 years ago when I wrote this and this.
It’s fascinating to notice how my worldview has shifted in those 8 years. Though I chose not to vote for Trump (or anyone) in 2024, I slightly favored Trump over Harris. Notably, I believe the overreaches of the Covid years, the excesses of woke-ism, cancel culture, encroachment on individual liberties, consolidations of power, ~warmongering, departures from historic family values, & other factors have left me far less trusting of the American left & the Democratic party than I used to be.
I could not bring myself to vote for Trump due to seeing him as low-integrity in key ways, though I have harbored hopes that the team around him—RFK Jr., Tulsi, Elon, & others—would help steer MAHA/MAGA in favorable directions. I have hoped that Trump’s heart may open toward higher possibilities. I still hope and pray for this, as I am always aspiring to hope and pray for the best for all beings.
That said, there are various signs I find unsettling, such as Trump’s treatment of Ukraine, disrespect for democratic norms, self-labeling as ‘king,’ stretching of executive power, appointing of loyalists, territorial-expansionist rhetoric (e.g. Greenland), alienation of allies, disdain for checks and balances, and persistent vilification of ‘enemies’ & bogeymen. All of this is indeed troubling, and we would be foolish to ignore it.
If I rewrote the following piece now, it would probably come out differently—but I feel it’s worth publishing anyway, as it may provide a valuable window into my ever-evolving meaning-making. I may write more on these topics soon—or I may step back from it. Let’s see.
I pray for the best for all of us. God be with us. Amen.
42 Insights on Trump, America, & Masculinity
[Epistemic status: Fairly speculative armchair contemplations. I am a man expressing thoughts. It’s not easy to make sense of a lot of these matters. My meaning-making is ever-evolving. Please hold all of this lightly.]
Somewhat unsurprisingly, my recent post on ‘why Trump triggers men’ received some significant (hostile) pushback. I appreciate the people who were relatively civil in their responses, giving me some good food for deep contemplation and further research.
I apologize for all the ways my post was unskillful. Admittedly it was not particularly nuanced. I still consider its core psychological insight to be valuable, but my delivery of this insight could’ve used more care and subtlety.
I believe I succumbed somewhat to my shadow-tendency to be a bit of a provocateur. I find it valuable to play the trickster and push buttons sometimes. I sometimes feel like I’m writing sticks of ‘shamanic dynamite’ and lobbing them into the ethersphere to see what happens—but maybe this subject is too radioactive for that type of approach.
I’m sorry for being rather brash and clumsy on that one. I tend to say what’s alive for me in a fairly unfiltered way much of the time. It’s never my intent to hurt anyone.
42 Insights.
It felt important to write a follow-up to clarify some things and add further nuance. I’m gonna do this in the form of a list of 42 clarifications & insights.
Though I have tried to be balanced, some of this is probably gonna ruffle a few feathers as well—but hey, this feels important so here goes nothin’:
As I stated, my piece on ‘why Trump triggers men’ was a transcript of a video I made. This video was ~not premeditated. I had no script. It was a spontaneous riff on a point I found interesting. Naturally it wasn’t overly nuanced; it was intended to be a short, punchy riff on what I still consider an important psychological insight about (unintegrated) power. Perhaps I should have kept it to myself, though I don’t really regret posting it, as it generated fruitful discussion and shifted my own inquiry process in substantial ways.
If you’d like to read a deeper piece I wrote pre-election reflecting on the shadows of Trump, Harris, the American right, and the American left—and why I chose not to vote in the election—read that here. You might also find this one interesting too.
As I stated in ‘Why Trump Triggers Men,’ there are many reasons why Trump triggers people. I clearly stated I did not want to collapse all that complexity down to a single point. I simply stated that I was pointing out part of the picture. I probably should have called the piece ‘One Reason Why Trump Triggers Men.’
I’ll be the first to acknowledge that much of Trump's behavior over the years has seemed immature, petty, bullying, abusive, self-aggrandizing, and not something we want to be passing on to young men as any sort of emblem of ‘mature masculinity.’ As I stated in my piece, Trump certainly has his shadows, and I am not here to claim he is trustworthy or wholesomely integrated. I do agree that in some ways he can be seen as embodying the ‘dark masculine’ or ‘wounded masculine’—and many who adore him and feel empowered by him are likely also playing out some (father) wounds around masculinity.
I do find it interesting to ponder whether a certain amount of (integrated/alchemized) ‘dark masculine’ energy is needed to ‘fight fire with fire’ in our shadowy age of political tomfoolery. Embodied power seems important for catalyzing certain types of change, and certain forms of embodied power seem to primarily come online through alchemical shadow work. Many New Age Mr. Nice Guys have open hearts and beautiful ideas, but do they have the spine, the teeth, the balls, and the determination to actualize their will and build real, grounded projects? A question worth asking. I am not saying all men must become the same type of man, either. Many shades are needed. Yet I remain a fan of Jordan Peterson’s notion that we need dangerous men who choose not to be dangerous—i.e. shadow-integrated men who wield embodied power for good.
Having acknowledged Trump’s sizable shadow, I have sometimes seemed to sense a change in him that may have taken place since he first ran in 2016. Losing in 2020 was at least somewhat humbling for him, I believe. And getting shot in the head seemed to affect him too. I personally sometimes feel something coming through in his more recent speeches / press conferences that feels more human—and dare-I-say even vaguely fatherly or grandfatherly or presidential. I actually found his inauguration speech to be inspiring and unifying—he spoke of a possibility of uniting people of all backgrounds and ending war globally.
Personally I do find it important to try to compassionately contact the humanity of Donald Trump—to resist pigeonholing him as a purely narcissistic caricature. If you listen with an open mind to his interviews with Rogan or Theo Von, for example, you’ll likely see a different side of him. People close to Trump often report many favorable things about him. RFK Jr. recently said Trump has kept all his pre-election promises to RFK regarding his involvement in the administration. The picture simply is not as black-and-white as many want to make it—and that goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum.
I believe all human beings are like complex Dostoevsky-novel characters—patchwork tapestries of many threads. I see that in Trump too—and I believe people have the capacity to change. And I believe that in his own way he is genuinely endeavoring to do right by his nation and the people who voted for him. We’ll see what happens.
Though at the same time, I don’t think we’ll ever agree on what has happened or who Trump is. In many ways he is the ultimate Rorschach test, as I articulated here and here. Part of what I was pointing out in ‘Why Trump Triggers Men’ was that we do have a certain degree of sovereign choice in how we relate to this Rorschach blot—and if we want, we can let his appearance in the collective consciousness be activating for us rather than disempowering. We can let him be a catalyst that ignites us to charge toward our own heart’s North Star with renewed vigor.
I do see where people are coming from with concerns about Trump’s ‘autocratic’ or ‘authoritarian’ tendencies. A charitable interpretation is that he seems to be fiercely determined to make good on what he promised the American people—something I’ve ~never seen from a politician. Perhaps iron-willed leadership is needed now in the flailing, confused West. Regardless of widespread pontificating, no one actually knows what will come of this—and I always recommend being open to miracles and best-case scenarios. Remember the story of the Chinese farmer.
It’s important to remember that the people voted for this: For a strong-willed president; for increased border security; for deporting illegal immigrants convicted of violent crime; for focusing on the urgent challenges in America’s homeland; for cutting out unnecessary government spending; for ending unnecessary wars; for making America healthy again; and so on. I’ve never seen a president ‘hit the ground running’ like this and seem so committed to following through on what he said he would do.
It is appalling that the US government is $36 trillion in debt. This is an abomination. Tens of millions of Americans support (and voted for) cutting the wasteful inefficiencies of our bloated behemoth of a bureaucracy. This is decades overdue and urgently needed.
Elon Musk is also a complex character. Though I used to be a Musk fanboy and glorified him 8 years ago on my ‘Existential Risk’ rap album, I’ve become more disillusioned with his transhumanist bent over time. I personally believe his conscious intentions are largely good—though yes, the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions. I’m not his biggest fan but I can acknowledge he is one of the greatest entrepreneurs and cost-cutters of our time.
Trump bringing in Musk to help eliminate government inefficiencies—making good on yet another promise he made prior to being elected—seems like a smart move to me, especially considering they’ve stated they will not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. It seems like one of the saner things a politician could do at this stage of American history—bring in a pair of highly-trained ‘outside eagle eyes’ to identify the leaks in an ultra-bloated bureaucracy that ~most everyone knows is not functioning well.
That said, I do understand why some people are concerned about the richest man in the world (Musk) suddenly having seemingly tremendous power to make sweeping changes to the US government. They’re definitely employing the Silicon Valley “move fast [and break things]” ethos here. I haven’t seen evidence of any major damage caused by this (yet) but I can understand people’s concern. I am something of a ‘wild card’ with a gambling streak and seem to have a higher risk-tolerance than most people, so I guess I may be more open than most to a bit of a shake-up. For better or worse, Americans voted to roll the dice.
As such, I generally support Trump and Musk cutting ‘waste, fraud, & abuse’ in our preposterously indebted and inefficient dinosaur of a government. It’s refreshing to see something significant happening—time will tell where this leads. I genuinely sense that Trump and Musk are aiming to help the nation through these actions. That said, my biggest concern is that in their speed, they will eliminate many valuable and competent people, thereby weakening our government’s capacity to respond intelligently to domestic or international situations. We’ll see what happens.
Many people seem to reactively project the most bad-faith intentions onto Trump and Musk—two guys who could just be lounging in retirement on a beach but instead are ostensibly endeavoring to make a government that uses tax dollars more wisely. When I see such extreme reactivity from people, this is what leads me to believe that many men (and others) are simply triggered by seeing powerful men being powerful—because it reflects to them their own un-actualized will. This perennial pattern can be plainly observed in the gargantuan quantities of ‘haters’ of so many of the greatest athletes, artists, geniuses, and entrepreneurs. It’s vastly easier to bitterly throw stones from the courtside than it is to get in the game.
America has been in decline for decades. Every American can sense that we’re in strange times as a country. The people viscerally sense that change is needed. For better or worse, Trump, Musk, Vance, RFK Jr., Tulsi, and company are shaking things up. It remains to be seen what the outcomes of many of these changes will be. Yet, why not pray for the best? Why not look for the gifts and the good intentions in what they’re doing? Why jump to the conclusion that they’re wrecking the country, or implementing fascism, or creating a Christian ethno-state, or just trying to enrich themselves? Where is the actual evidence for that?
Trump took a literal bullet to the head for his country and kept going. That’s not something you do if you’re only in it for your own ego or your own wealth. The guy’s almost ~80. He’s a famous billionaire. He doesn’t need more money or status. Why not remain open in good faith to the possibility that he actually cares about America and is genuinely trying to serve its people? Why not allow the possibility that this is at least part of his actual motivation?
Yet I still see people on the American left comparing Trump to Hitler. For me such statements do not compute. You cannot compare someone who has never thrown anyone in a concentration camp to someone who literally murdered millions of people after locking them in concentration camps. This is an absurd comparison that makes the left look foolish, bad-faith, and desperate to smear Trump. Sure, some of Trump’s (rhetorical) tactics may resemble Hitler’s, but you have to realize that Hitler is primarily remembered as a genocidal psychopath. Comparing Trump to Hitler risks trivializing the Holocaust and dilutes the term “fascism,” making it a partisan attack rather than a rigorous analysis.
Trump may be the most hated man on Earth right now. Imagine the weight of that continuous firehose of hatred. It’s astonishing that he’s even able to function—let alone function with tremendous speed and clarity at 78 years old. The man is a machine. It’s worth having some compassion for him and appreciating his sheer resilience and will.
It’s key to understand that Trump has been subject to one of the largest smear campaigns in history, aimed at painting him as a fascist Hitler-esque devil. There are shady and entrenched power-interests on the left that have done everything they can to attack and discredit him. Yes, they have made many legitimate points about him, but they’ve also often presented a heavily distorted, one-sided picture. These powers on the left—the New York Times, much of academia, CNN, MSNBC, and many more—are not simply high-and-mighty ‘freedom fighters’ as their virtue-signaling paints them to be. The true picture is much more complex. Yes, there’s massive corruption on the right as well, but the way the left hides its slimy shadows beneath so many layers of self-righteous virtue-signaling often strikes me as extra-unnerving.
The left continuously attempts to paint Trump and Musk as cartoon-villain caricatures, yet no man can be reduced to his shadow. As Solzhenitsyn put it, “But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” These are complex men, and there’s a lot more to their story than a baldfaced power-grab. We all have shadows and skeletons in the closet. Yet humans perennially love to project their own shadow onto ‘those evil ones out there.’ That’s not to say that there are not evil people who need to be condemned and prosecuted. Yet the picture is rarely as black-and-white as people—especially bought-and-sold newspeople—make it out to be.
One of the strongest critiques of Trump’s administration is that—though he is taking a number of steps to address inflation and economic duress—he arguably has not presented any plan that can truly address the ‘cost of living crisis’: the now-enormous wealth gap in America; the crumbling middle class; the deep struggles & ‘debt slavery’ of the working poor; the nearly 1 million homeless people in the USA; the rising trend of Americans living in their cars; the inability of many Americans to afford to buy a home or start a family. This is one of the monstrous challenges of our time, and I wish there were easy answers.
I was a fan of Bernie Sanders back in 2016—and I still find plenty of resonance with his messaging—because he seems to be one person on the left who has continually emphasized this ~most-central issue that direly affects ~hundreds of millions of Americans. And though it’s unclear if his proposed solutions could work, at least he is proposing ways to address the roots of unconscionable wealth inequality.
What many on the left do not understand is that, if you suddenly impose huge taxes on the rich, many of them will simply leave the country and find ways to evade the taxation. Any real solution must address this point.
If the American left has any hope of building a coherent movement that can defeat likely-candidate J.D. Vance in 2028 and replace MAGA/MAHA, this is the core issue they would be wise to focus on: The issue that unifies ~hundreds of millions of Americans who are feeling the acute pain of the crumbling ‘American dream.’
Unfortunately, strong evidence suggests that the DNC sabotaged Bernie in 2016. This suggests that the true shadowy powers controlling the Democratic party are not actually interested in addressing the deep roots of what ails America.
Instead of focusing on the ‘cost of living crisis,’ the American left continues to shoot itself squarely in the foot by endlessly raging about their caricatured version of Trump. This is not a winning strategy. “This guy sucks—we’re not him” is not a compelling or unifying vision of a strong American future.
The left also continues to be preposterously fixated on the ever-mutating mind-virus of ‘intersectional identity politics.’ The left simply must wake up and realize they’re digging their own grave by placing such a focus on abstruse identity-fixated ideologies.
When what you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail: When you indoctrinate yourself into an identity-politics lens, everything you look at suddenly starts to seem like a ‘problematic injustice against a special-interest group.’ Far from unifying anyone, in 2025 these identity-fixated ideologies primarily amplify division by conditioning people to fixate on surface-level differences. An issue with DEI policies is that they encode this fixation into law, ensuring that this remains a dominant consensus reality-tunnel.
Any deeply internalized perspective tends to become experiential. Ideologies become self-fulfilling prophecies. By obsessively telling themselves and anyone who will listen that we are in a world bursting with identity-related problems, the left actually creates, magnetizes, and perpetuates a collective reality-tunnel where that seems to be the case. If they don’t snap out of it, they’ll keep losing. People are tired of this never-ending, self-perpetuating, disempowering frame. A large percentage of these apparent issues would arguably be solved if we simply forgot surface-level group-identity categories altogether and just focused on our shared humanity.
And let’s be clear: There is a baby in that bathwater. I’m not saying that all social-justice concerns have always been bullshit or anything like that. I believe there have been plenty of legitimate victories over oppression in the last centuries of American history. These movements do hold important insight, and I believe there are still plenty of (systemic) injustices that are worth fighting against. Especially when you expand your lens and examine our global history of imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism.
But here’s the thing: It’s gotten to the point where some leftists are against the use of the word “woman” in various contexts. Other ‘problematic’ words include “field,” “lame,” “master,” “crazy,” “powwow,” “man up,” “spirit animal,” “you guys,” “mankind,” “pioneer,” and “brave.” Not to mention the endless hubbub around gender-pronouns or the common insistence that “all white people are racist” and “it’s not possible to be racist against white people.” (Ideas recently found to be prominent in various [now-defunded] branches of the US Department of Education.) This type of stuff has now been conflated with ‘social-justice activism’ in general, and people are understandably tired of it.
Again, if the American left wants to have any prayer of defeating MAGA/MAHA in 2028, they need to set aside the obsession with identity and focus on the core unifying issue of a dire ‘cost of living crisis’ that is tangibly weighing on hundreds of millions of people as a daily reality. Even an issue like reversing ecocide does not have that much unifying power because it is not viscerally felt by most people. The thing feared most by the wealthy (parasitic) elites of the world is the rise of a true movement of solidarity among the global working poor.
Here it’s also crucial to note the American right’s fixation on a different—and probably even more pernicious—form of identity politics. Right-wing strongmen like Trump often look for a scapegoat or bogeyman to point to as the cause of a country’s problems. In the US and Europe, we’re seeing the rise of dangerous rhetoric that demonizes (illegal) immigrants. This is not a black-and-white topic, as I do personally believe that high-volume illegal immigration is a real issue that Americans and Europeans can be rationally concerned about. The rub, though, is that 1) the vast majority of (illegal) immigrants are good people; 2) the right ignores the deeper historic causes of global inequality and migration; 3) this type of rhetoric can easily mutate into racist mob mentalities; and 4) this rhetoric tends to distract from the deeper economic injustices that are a much larger cause of the masses’ woes. We must keep our eyes open to the dangers of this rhetoric.
To return to the original subject of Trump triggering men, my main point was that many men are triggered by those who reflect to them their own unintegrated power. Many men would rather (unconsciously) become 'haters' than do the hard work of actualizing their own creative will and mission in the world. While I have issues with Trump and Musk, what I do recognize in these guys is the expression of iron-willed determination and mission-driven purpose—qualities I feel ~billions of modern men would benefit from embodying more fully.
I want to be clear that it was never my intent to reduce masculinity to these narrow qualities, or to hold these guys up as pinnacles of sacred masculinity. Far from it. I was making a point about one particular “man-on-a-mission” quality these guys embody.
There is basically no limit to the number of wonderful qualities that could be considered part of healthy masculinity. If you want to get a sense of my expansive, integral vision of (meta-)masculinity, give this recent piece of mine a read, and join my community & newsletter for men:
And with respect to all this political stuff, I still believe that—as I wrote about here and here—“we will find many of the solutions we are looking for outside of traditional politics. Maybe they’ll trickle into mainstream politics over time. But when I really reflect on this, I simply do not see a beautiful path forward for Earth that is primarily driven by politics.”
Yet within the domain of politics, my general hope is that we can look toward pragmatism and the ‘transcendent center,’ which GPT nicely defines as, “a higher synthesis that transcends the ideological divides of left and right in American politics, seeking common ground in shared values such as liberty, justice, and human dignity. It emphasizes the need for collaboration over division, where both progressive and conservative perspectives can inform a holistic approach to governance—recognizing the importance of individual freedom and responsibility alongside collective well-being. This unifying center calls for pragmatic solutions to complex issues, acknowledging the legitimacy of different viewpoints while striving to address the root causes of societal challenges, such as economic inequality, cultural polarization, and global instability, through a spirit of empathy and mutual respect.”
Thank you for reading and considering. I hope this has been valuable in some way. “No mud, no lotus.” May these ‘interesting times’ bear fruit for all of us. I wish the very best for you and yours, and for all beings on Earth and beyond. God be with us.
With Love,
Jordan
P.S. Feel welcome to reply to this email or DM me on Substack with any thoughts you have. I’m open to them. I’m unfortunately not able to open the comment section to the public on this post because I’ve decided to add some bonus content below for paying supporters of my work. Alternatively you can also get the Substack app and hop into my free community chat there where I’ll likely start a discussion around this post.
Epilogue I: Valuable Nuance
A public commenter named Wyeth Austin left a valuable comment on my original ‘Why Trump Triggers Men’ post. I feel it’s worth including his comment here to add some worthwhile additional perspectives to this discussion:
Hey Jordan, thanks for the thoughtful response. There is so much to say about Trump but I will try to keep it as succinct as possible: read his biographies (“Trump: The Biography”, “Trump: The Art Of The Deal”) in them you will find that Trump’s entire life philosophy revolves around this idea of being a “winner” and “being the best”…so naturally you can assume based off this, and the self-aggrandizing comments he makes daily that his consciousness is operating from a heavily egocentric orientation.
In psychological terms (I come from a psychological background) one would say he is narcissistic. You can also find countless accounts online of psychologists giving sound reasoning alluding to Trump’s narcissistic nature. This isn’t something the liberal media just says to slander Trump. There’s truth to it.
The kicker for me is the fact that Trump was documented to have lied/distorted facts over 30,000 times during his presidency. If you listen to his speeches it becomes clear that he just rambles and spitballs and will say virtually whatever will make him and his campaign look good. He has never once spoken intelligently on any topic relating to politics, government, economics, etc.
For me personally, when someone is documented to have lied that many times, and when their speeches don’t ever sound intelligent in any way, I simply can’t trust a word that comes out that person’s mouth.
He can say all of these seemingly noble things, he can speak of ending war and making America prosperous again…but it just doesn’t hold any merit because…look who is saying them. Someone who was documented to have lied 30,000 times in a 4 year span. Someone who lost an election and couldn’t handle the idea of “losing” so he said the election was stolen. Someone who provoked a clearly unjust attack on the capitol building. Someone who has been involved in numerous fradulent business practices his entire life. And much more.
You say I don’t know Trump’s true motivations, and I admit I can’t know them in their entirety…but judging by his character, his history (again read his biographies)…you can come to understand far more than you might assume about his motivations and what is driving him.
I would also highly recommend diving deep into developmental psychology. Don Beck’s “Spiral Dynamics”, Dr. Susanne Cook-Greuter’s “The 9 Stages of Ego Development”, Ken Wilber’s “Integral Psychology”…these books are synthetic pieces of the works of the entire field’s history, with emphasis on adult psychological development. Wilber’s “Trump and a Post-Truth World” is also exquisite when it comes to explaining the current political state of the world in developmental terms.
Developmentally speaking, Trump and the Republicans operate from a primarily ethnocentric and nationcentric level of development, as many Republicans are quite obviously racist, and the entire party’s orientation stems around national interest (often with ethnocentric undertones) and advancing what is perceived best for America, which often comes at the expense of other nations.
The Democrats operate from a slightly higher altitude, still heavily nationcentric but also embodying a greater level of worldcentrism as well. A good example of this is the Democrats being so gung ho on climate change, which, if you hear the opinions of virtually any scientist, is a very real issue that humanity faces. Trump and the Republicans mostly deny the issue of climate change entirely, Trump removed America from Paris Climate Agreement, which represented a unification of many nations invested in cleaning up our carbon footprint, yet Trump and the Republicans left it so they could continue with their fossil fuel emissions, which will give them money in the short-term, but will erode the environment all the more in the long term. It is a hallmark of lower levels of maturity to prioritize short-term gain over long-term vision. Trump has basically no long-term vision at all. I could give many, many more examples of Trump and the Republicans rejecting worldcentric orientations for a more narrowly-minded interest (think about the fact that Trump is so heavily anti Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)
Of course, there is plenty of distortion and corruption on both sides, and both sides need to be called out. But my qualms with your perspective Jordan (not in this post but some of your others) is that you paint the parties as falsely equal, when they are not. The reality is that Trump and the Republicans are fundamentally less mature, less conscious, and more selfish and express a more narrow-concern in their political orientations and philosophy than the Democrats do. This doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong, and everything the Democrats do is right…but it does paint a picture as to where people are coming from and what their interests are. Would you rather support the side that expresses a greater concern for all people and life? Or would you rather support the more narrow and contracted side?
And about the oligarchy stuff, yes America has long been quite oligarchical, but with Trump it is getting way, way, wayyy worse. Do you not see a problem when the world’s 3 richest men (Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg) are all standing by Trump’s side at his inauguration? Musk alone has gotten 70B+ richer since Trump’s election. Musk, who isn’t even American, now has a quite influential role in government simply because Trump put him there. He wasn’t elected! That’s a freaking oligarchy!
And regarding the damage Trump is doing, it is happening on many levels. Firstly, his character and narcissistic nature is setting an atrocious example to the people of America and to the world on how a leader ought to act, the youth will be particularly affected by this. He has gradually eroded what the nation comes to consider “Truth” evidenced by his 30,000 lies in his first campaign, his denial of basic science (climate change for example)…and many of his recent flurry of executive orders are unconstitutional (he tried to take away birth-right citizenship, like wtf?)…and he also signed an executive order yesterday that essentially says “only the president can say what the law is” (a clear power grab lol). These are the most extreme executive orders but to me, it seems he is wielding as much power as possible as he can within his position, and my hunch is that he is trying to erode the power of the other branches of government. I could go on and on about more examples…the fact he seems to be siding with Putin and autocrat Russia more and more (Ukraine was not even invited to the peace talks and Trump recently falsely claimed that Ukraine started the war, which is a very very dangerous lie to tell)
Anyway, I know I am biased but I know enough to not trust a narcissist. Narcissists talk out of their ass and if you can’t see that with Trump then I just don’t know what else I can say. I was deeply irked when you seemed to be validating Trump through this post and giving him too much praise in your other posts. It is a very dangerous thing to do, when he so clearly represents a contractive and repressive force in the world when consciousness so deeply yearns for freedom, transcendence, and liberation.
I’m sure if we had a call we would agree on far more than it might seem, and I may take you up on that…but I couldn’t let these comments about Trump slide. I had an angry and patronizing tone in the first comment because that’s how I genuinely felt. I was angry and I wanted to communicate that! Some of the comments on here are thoughtful, but too nice.
Anyways, just want to say again I appreciate your work Jordan but I hope you think more before you praise Trump again, and I hope you think more about what type of impact this might have on your readers.
Epilogue II: ChatGPT Adds Nuance
I ran this ‘42 Insights’ piece through GPT and got some interesting results that add some solid nuance to this discussion. Be aware that research has shown GPT to have a left-leaning political bias. Here are 7 prompts I gave it and its responses to me:
Me: “analyze what seems correct vs less correct in this piece i wrote”
GPT:
This piece of writing has several points that seem correct or insightful, but there are also aspects where the reasoning could be questioned or nuanced further. Here’s a breakdown of what seems solid versus where it could be reconsidered:
What seems correct:
Acknowledging complexity: The writer recognizes the complexity of the situation and admits that their original post may have lacked nuance, which is a self-aware and constructive approach. This willingness to update their views based on feedback is commendable.
Exploring human complexity: The idea that people (including Trump) are multifaceted, with both light and shadow, is a valuable insight. Acknowledging the possibility of change in people, including someone like Trump, makes the piece more grounded in a humanistic view. The quote from Dostoevsky about people being like "patchwork tapestries" adds depth to the idea of complexity in individuals.
Critique of political extremes: There’s a valuable critique of both the left and the right's tendencies to reduce people or movements to cartoonish extremes. This can be a valid criticism of modern discourse, where complex figures like Trump or Musk are often depicted in overly simplified, black-and-white terms.
Personal reflections and vulnerability: The writer demonstrates humility by acknowledging their provocations and missteps. This personal reflection and the openness to criticism are positive qualities, especially when tackling such a charged subject.
Questioning the narrative around Trump and Musk: The critique that Trump and Musk, despite being polarizing, are often unfairly vilified by the media and that the reactions to them are sometimes more emotionally charged than fact-based is a nuanced point. The writer raises valid concerns about the way the media simplifies these figures into caricatures.
Areas to be cautious or reconsider:
Idealization of Trump: While it’s fair to acknowledge the human complexity of Trump, the suggestion that he’s "genuinely endeavoring to do right by his nation" could be more critically examined. Trump's actions, rhetoric, and policies have generated significant harm to many groups, and the belief that he is purely "doing good" without acknowledging his history of questionable behavior can be problematic. The writer’s optimism about his post-2020 transformation could be an over-simplification, considering the continued controversial actions and rhetoric Trump has used in recent years.
Romanticizing political figures: The piece repeatedly idealizes Trump, Musk, and others, without sufficiently acknowledging the real harm or controversy surrounding their actions and policies. For example, while the writer criticizes the DNC for allegedly sabotaging Bernie Sanders, they provide little critical insight into the negative impacts of Trump's policies, such as on marginalized communities, immigrants, or the environment. A more balanced critique of both sides could offer a fuller perspective.
The "shadow" and the "dark masculine": The writer raises an interesting point about the potential need for "dark masculine" energy in politics but risks romanticizing potentially harmful behaviors by framing them as part of a necessary or productive energy. The idea of "dark masculine" in the context of politics should be handled carefully, as it can easily veer into justifying harmful actions under the guise of strength or toughness. The writer might need to clarify what they mean by "integrated" or "alchemized" dark masculine and avoid framing it as necessary for progress, as that can inadvertently endorse toxic traits.
Simplification of the left's critique of Trump: The comparison of Trump to Hitler is indeed extreme and not well-founded, but the broader critique of the left’s approach to Trump should be more nuanced. For instance, the left's critique of Trump's authoritarian tendencies is not merely a product of hysteria; there are legitimate concerns about his undermining democratic norms, the erosion of trust in institutions, and his rhetoric surrounding violence and division. While it’s good to challenge extreme comparisons, the more substantive critiques of Trump’s leadership style should be acknowledged with equal weight.
Undervaluing systemic critiques: While the writer emphasizes the need for political figures to address the "cost of living crisis," which is indeed a central issue, they underplay the systemic nature of the problem. The rising wealth gap, increasing inequality, and the struggles of working Americans are deeply rooted in capitalist structures, and while individuals like Trump and Musk may have solutions, their actions often serve to exacerbate these problems, not alleviate them. The lack of an in-depth critique of the system, particularly the economic model they champion, weakens the argument.
Overemphasis on individual change: The piece presents a strong focus on the idea that Trump, Musk, and other powerful figures can change or are doing good, but this risks placing too much emphasis on individual redemption and transformation, rather than addressing the structural issues that lead to their power and influence. A more systemic analysis of why such individuals rise to power and how their policies impact different communities would offer a more comprehensive perspective.
Conclusion:
While the piece offers some valid insights, especially around the complexity of individuals and the need for more nuanced political discourse, it can come across as overly sympathetic toward figures like Trump and Musk without fully addressing the negative impacts of their actions and policies. Additionally, the discussion of "dark masculine" energy and the idealization of political figures could be explored with more caution, as it risks romanticizing potentially harmful behavior. A more balanced, critical approach would provide a clearer picture of the issues at hand.
Me: "Trump's actions, rhetoric, and policies have generated significant harm to many groups" -- unpack this with objective evidence and examples
GPT:
Unpacking the statement "Trump's actions, rhetoric, and policies have generated significant harm to many groups" can be explored through a variety of objective examples, drawing from the effects of policies, public statements, and decisions made during his administration. Below are several areas in which these impacts have been documented:
1. Immigrant and Refugee Communities
Family Separation Policy (2018): Under the Trump administration, the "zero tolerance" policy led to the separation of thousands of immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. This policy faced significant backlash from human rights organizations and the public due to the emotional and psychological harm caused to families. Reports indicated that over 5,000 children were separated from their families.
Evidence: A report by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general showed widespread issues with the handling of these separations, including insufficient record-keeping and inadequate reunification processes.
Muslim Ban (2017): Trump's executive order banning travel from several predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) was widely criticized as discriminatory and harmful to both individuals and families.
Evidence: Various courts ruled that the policy was discriminatory, and it was met with protests and opposition from human rights organizations, who argued that it violated constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom.
2. LGBTQ+ Rights
Transgender Military Ban (2017): Trump issued a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, reversing an Obama-era policy that allowed them to serve openly. This policy caused harm to transgender service members and those who sought to enlist.
Evidence: A study by the Palm Center found that the ban would affect thousands of transgender service members, many of whom faced uncertainty and distress regarding their futures in the military.
Rollback of Transgender Rights (2020): Trump's administration rolled back protections for transgender individuals in healthcare, reversing the 2016 Obama administration policy that prohibited discrimination in healthcare on the basis of gender identity.
Evidence: The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other health organizations condemned these moves, asserting that they would harm the health and well-being of transgender individuals by limiting access to appropriate medical care.
3. Racial Justice and Relations
Charlottesville (2017): After the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump was widely criticized for stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" in reference to the violent clashes between white nationalists and counter-protesters. This statement was seen as equating white supremacist groups with anti-racist demonstrators, and it was condemned by many civil rights organizations.
Evidence: The Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil rights groups pointed to this as an example of Trump's rhetoric emboldening white nationalist and far-right groups.
Response to Black Lives Matter Protests (2020): Trump’s response to the George Floyd protests included calling for "law and order," deploying federal agents to cities, and labeling protesters as "thugs." His rhetoric often vilified Black Lives Matter activists and social justice movements.
Evidence: Reports indicated that his administration's handling of protests escalated tensions, with law enforcement often using excessive force in response to peaceful demonstrations. There were widespread reports of injuries and arrests, as well as the targeting of journalists covering the protests.
4. Climate Change and Environmental Policy
Paris Climate Agreement Withdrawal (2017): Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement was a major policy shift that undermined global efforts to address climate change. Critics argued that this move would harm future generations, particularly marginalized communities that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as low-income communities and people of color.
Evidence: The withdrawal was met with significant opposition both domestically and internationally. Studies suggest that U.S. non-participation in the agreement might lead to increased global warming, with disproportionately negative effects on vulnerable populations worldwide.
Rollbacks of Environmental Protections: Throughout his presidency, Trump rolled back numerous environmental regulations, including those on air and water quality, public lands, and wildlife protection.
Evidence: A 2019 report from the Center for Biological Diversity highlighted 100 environmental regulations reversed by the Trump administration, many of which were aimed at reducing the harmful effects of pollution on low-income communities and communities of color.
5. Healthcare and Public Health
Attempts to Repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Trump’s repeated attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act were seen by critics as harmful to millions of Americans, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, low-income individuals, and marginalized groups who benefited from expanded access to healthcare.
Evidence: Studies showed that millions could lose health coverage under proposals to dismantle the ACA. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the "American Health Care Act" would result in 24 million people losing insurance coverage.
6. Economic Inequality
Tax Cuts (2017): Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was criticized for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy and corporations, with many arguing that it exacerbated economic inequality. Critics argued that the tax cuts did not lead to significant benefits for the middle and lower classes, while adding to the national debt.
Evidence: A study by the Tax Policy Center estimated that by 2027, the top 1% would receive 83% of the benefits of the tax cuts, while middle-income households would see only marginal benefits.
7. Public Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Delayed Response to COVID-19: Trump’s administration was criticized for its delayed and fragmented response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many health experts and critics argued that his rhetoric, downplaying the severity of the virus, contributed to a slower national response, leading to unnecessary deaths and hardship, particularly in communities with less access to healthcare.
Evidence: Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted that early testing failures and mixed messages from the federal government led to preventable outbreaks. Additionally, Trump's statements, such as suggesting disinfectants could be used to treat COVID-19, were widely condemned by medical professionals.
These examples illustrate how Trump's rhetoric and policies have affected various communities, particularly marginalized and vulnerable groups. While supporters of his administration argue that his actions benefited the country in certain areas (e.g., tax reform, deregulation, and economic growth prior to the pandemic), critics argue that the negative consequences for these groups outweigh the perceived benefits.
Me: list the 7 most provocative and earth-shattering and insight-bringing prompts i could give you to help you analyze me based on the piece of writing i wrote -- then go ahead and actually analyze me according to those exact prompts based on the piece i wrote
GPT:
Here are seven provocative and insight-generating prompts that could deepen the analysis of your writing:
How does your writing reflect your internal relationship with contradiction, especially regarding the tension between personal admiration for Trump and critique of his broader impact?
In what ways does your expression of "provocateur" or "trickster" tendencies indicate underlying fears or desires for validation, and how does this affect your interactions with both your audience and your own sense of self?
How does your acknowledgment of Trump’s complexity mirror your own internal processes of integrating or reconciling contradictions, particularly in the realms of identity, power, and morality?
What does your response to the political left's portrayal of Trump say about your own engagement with ideological purity and the human tendency to categorize figures as either "good" or "evil"?
How do you navigate the balance between holding personal, complex views on controversial topics and the inherent need to communicate or position those views within a polarized context (i.e., the public space of social media or political discourse)?
In terms of personal growth, how do you see the relationship between unfiltered self-expression (especially in your writing and public statements) and the desire for deeper inner integration or maturity?
What do you think your shifting stance on Trump—from initial criticism to cautiously optimistic soft spot—reveals about the process of re-evaluating deeply ingrained judgments and the potential for personal transformation or spiritual awakening?
Analysis based on these prompts:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Heart of God ❤️🔥 to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.