Long social media rants are hardly rare occurrences for President Donald Trump, but on Thursday, he posted a particularly striking ― and lengthy ― tirade against several right-wing personalities who have expressed their disagreement with his actions on Iran.
Using words like “losers,” “nut jobs” and “troublemakers,” he targeted once-close allies like media personalities Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Trump also called them “low IQ,” “nasty” and “crazy,” and attacked their looks and intelligence as he lashed out in response to their criticism of the war in Iran.
This kind of public outburst can feel troubling and disproportionate to the situation, but there’s a term that may help explain it: narcissistic collapse.
I often find myself agnostic about the rationality or irrationality of a lotta Trump's seemingly deranged statements. I will say that I detected a fair degree of calculation and awareness of the terrain in his baiting of Candece Owens, especially his degradation of her physical attractiveness relative to Brigitte Macron, even if the only point was to amuse himself by provoking a few fireworks in reply.
And I guess Trump is now the highest-level celebrity spokesperson for the Sandy Hook parents? Or at least he knows that's what hurts the worst for Alex Jones.
Tucker had a video up where he dog-whistled "It's okay for Trump to mock Jesus, but if he had tried to mock Rabbi Schneerson[screen shows photo of DJT paying homage to Schneerson at some event], that wouldn't be allowed. Boy, sure goes to show ya who has all the power in this country, huh."
Based on half-baked cultural theories I won't go into now, I actually don't think his Schneerson scenario is an entirely surefire prediction. I also don't think it's too anal-retentive to postulate a difference(as Carlson did not) between "mocking" a revered figure, and "hubristically making yourself synonymous with" a revered figure. Just for starters, the former assumes the target is a bad guy to be attacked, the latter that he is a good guy to be emulated.
He also postulated holocaust memorialization as central to the "civic religion" of America, on which I think he was on slightly firmer ground, at least insofar as that memorialization has been hijacked by militaristic zionism and allied interests to push their own agenda. Trump likely woulda been in hotter water had he posted inappropriate cartoons about that genocide in particular.
I'll also say that if Trump is determined to re-orient his foreign-policy into a neo-con position, it makes total sense that he'd try and turn his followers against Tucker, Candace, and that whole gang.
I have been thinking about how sometimes Trump appears crazy like a fox. He appears foolish, chaotic and unstable but it seems to serve a strategic purpose by creating confusion; keeping rivals off balance; dominating the attention cycle; and shifting blame or narrative frames. Its about performing irrationality to gain advantage. I can argue someone can be emotionally unstable, impulsive, or grandiose and still deploy these traits in ways that advance their goals
Narcissists cand often appear chaotic but still be selectively strategic They can be rational is some domains and distorted in others. Their unpredictability becomes a tool. They can rage and be cunning at the same time; and they can look unhinged to outsiders but be perfectly logical to themselves. For them. the logic is "Anything goes that protects my ego.
For me, when he says he is unaware of an action or has never heard of something, he is lying.
The alternative must be that he is unaware of anything.
I think that is what he wants you to believe.
Take the example of Project 2025, also called the Manual for Leadership. On the campaign trail Trump said he never heard of it. Yet much of his governing is copied off its very pages.
Thanks @Gramps49, that looks thoroughly reasonable.
Meanwhile, I want to know what blackmail Trump is afraid of? I don’t doubt for a moment that he has secrets, but what’s the relevance here? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqxdg17yr2wt
I think 'narsissistic collapse' could be right, but it could also be wishful thinking that the end of trump is near.
Pet-peeve-related tangent/
Gaslighting means to psychology manipulate a person over an extended period to the point that the person questions or doubts their own perception of reality, their own memories or the like. The point of gaslighting is to make the person subjected to the manipulation think they’re losing their sanity.
Trump’s narcissism may play out in calculated and strategic ways, including propagandizing ways, but I don’t see it as gaslighting.
I think 'narsissistic collapse' could be right, but it could also be wishful thinking that the end of trump is near.
Pet-peeve-related tangent/
Gaslighting means to psychology manipulate a person over an extended period to the point that the person questions or doubts their own perception of reality, their own memories or the like. The point of gaslighting is to make the person subjected to the manipulation think they’re losing their sanity.
Trump’s narcissism may play out in calculated and strategic ways, including propagandizing ways, but I don’t see it as gaslighting.
/tangent
Yeah, Trump's way more into forcing his minions to abase themselves by performatively repeating obvious falsehoods like the inauguration crowd business right at the start of his first terms, but also about his physical health
Not sure @Nick Tamen . His doubling down on lies and misrepresentations, even when exposed, seems to underpin the MAGA loyalty. It’s not classic gaslighting but it seems to be in similar territory. He keeps the credulous credulous. Maybe I’m wrong? Maybe the loyalty is instant? I can’t really get into the MAGA mindset.
But it seems reinforcing, puts to sleep any questions they might have.
I seem to remember something in cult reprogramming that folks do become aware but can’t easily escape. They can begin to doubt their sanity.
The Guardian has a piece just up speculating that Trump's antipathy towards Leo XIV might be rooted in his youthful membership in the church of Norman Vincent Peale, who apparently was against Kennedy becoming president on sectarian grounds.
And that's about the only evidence presented, apart from the long-known story about Fred Trump being arrested(for reasons unknown) at a presumably anti-Catholic klan rally in the 1920s. It all seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and I'm pretty sure if Leo XIV had declared Trump the greatest leader in human history, Trump would love him to pieces for it.
I don't think trump is gaslighting individuals, I think he's gaslighting us all. Fear, confusion, cruelty, manipulation.
I think he’s being manipulative, or trying to be. I think he’s trying to spread fear. And I think he’s trying to convince people to buy into things that aren’t true.
But what he's doing, or trying to do, isn’t gaslighting, because he’s not trying to make us question or doubt our own sanity, and that’s the defining mark of gaslighting. What he’s doing is more akin to manipulative propaganda.
I don't think trump is gaslighting individuals, I think he's gaslighting us all. Fear, confusion, cruelty, manipulation.
I think he’s being manipulative, or trying to be. I think he’s trying to spread fear. And I think he’s trying to convince people to buy into things that aren’t true.
But what he's doing, or trying to do, isn’t gaslighting, because he’s not trying to make us question or doubt our own sanity, and that’s the defining mark of gaslighting. What he’s doing is more akin to manipulative propaganda.
My understanding would be...
STUDENT A: There are thirteen planets in our solar system.
STUDENT B: Really? That doesn't sound correct.
SA: Of course it's correct. How can you be so ignorant?
SB: But in science class last week, the teacher said there were eight.
SA: No. I was there too. And I remember, he said there were thirteen.
I think that up until the last line, SA is simply lying. But the last line puts him into gaslighting territory, because he is trying to get SB to question the reliability of his own mental faculties, in this case, his memory.
(Assuming the teacher said thete are eight planets, and SA knows the teacher said there are eight planets.)
the long-known story about Fred Trump being arrested(for reasons unknown) at a presumably anti-Catholic klan rally in the 1920s.
The "presumably" is unnecessary. In the 1920s the Klan was vehemently anti-Catholic.
Indeed. But I couldn't recall if the article had actually mentioned that as being the specific purpose of the rally, so didn't wanna go beyond what they had reported.
Upon re-checking it, they did mention that the rally was specifically against Irish Catholics.
@stetson, on its own, your example still isn’t necessarily gaslighting per se. Gaslighting involves conduct over an extended period of time.
In your example, SB might simply say “I guess I heard wrong” or “I guess I remembered wrong.” Gaslighting is intended to go beyond “I guess I heard wrong” or “I guess I remembered wrong”; it’s intended to have the target say “I’m completely losing my sanity.”
Gaslighters are manipulative and controlling, comfortable belittling and insulting others. They are accomplished at denying, lying, and projecting. And sometimes, if they’re lucky enough and skilled enough, they make it to the White House. When they do, the horrors that are usually visited on an individual are instead visited on an entire nation.
Yeah, I’m afraid I still think that’s using “gaslighting” is a way that stretches the meaning of the term in an unhelpful way. What Trump and some other politicians do is unquestionably intended to manipulate, but I still think it’s something not quite the same as gaslighting.
@stetson, on its own, your example still isn’t necessarily gaslighting per se. Gaslighting involves conduct over an extended period of time.
In your example, SB might simply say “I guess I heard wrong” or “I guess I remembered wrong.” Gaslighting is intended to go beyond “I guess I heard wrong” or “I guess I remembered wrong”; it’s intended to have the target say “I’m completely losing my sanity.”
Well, a hardcore materialist-reductionist would say that the differnce between an isolated synaptical snafu and an interconnected lifetime of synaptical snafus is one of degree, not of kind, and hence so the moral difference between the two forms of epistemological con-jobbery.
But, yes. From the point of view of the perpetrator's intent, when one guy lies to the other guy about what the teacher said on one occasion, he is probably not trying to get his victim to doubt his ongoing apprehension of everything.
Joe Rogan showed up at Trump's human be-in to cheer on easier medical access to psychedelic drugs.
I assume some of the big pharma firms are gonna do well on this, 'cuz I don't see doctors sourcing the medication from the local hippie botanist down in the valley. Also "an end to the war on psychedelics" was an explicitly promised part of the MAHA agenda, proclaimed by RFK jr himself.
Apparently, ibogaine is the holy grail this time around. Easier access is expected to benefit Texas, which has invested a shitload o' cash into its research and promotion. This per The Guardian.
Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana has said that Trump's spat with Leo 14th is a "distraction", while clarifying "I love the president like a taco."
Either an accidentally suggestive choice of metaphor, or I assume Kennedy is trying to send a message to Trump that he needs to walk away from this particular so's-yer-mother debate.
But the latter would have to mean that Trump can interpret TACO as constructuve advice. Maybe, since the general perception of a chicken-out tendency on his part probably helps him with image management somewhat.
(I'm still personally of the opinion that Trump vs. Leo is just a higher-venue version of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown in '92. Which would, in fact, make it an easy fold for Trump, since he can always find another equally entertaining target to blast on Truth Social.)
I assume some of the big pharma firms are gonna do well on this, 'cuz I don't see doctors sourcing the medication from the local hippie botanist down in the valley.
Looking into the American companies involved with ibogaine, they seem to me like mostly start-ups that are publically traded on the stock market but haven't yet garnered their own wikipedia pages. At least one of them has a weird pun as its name.
And if I'm understanding the wikipedia page on the drug's legality in respective nations, some places are currently more liberal than the USA, some places less. Trump being Trump, I'm guessing that somewhere in his mind, he's thinking that pushing the research forward will soon result in America dominating the market for the future pharmaceuticals.
Comments
I think the pit is bottomless.
Just watched the relevant clip from The Daily Show. Jon Stewart also thinks it looks like Jon Stewart.
Sounds very plausible to me.
I often find myself agnostic about the rationality or irrationality of a lotta Trump's seemingly deranged statements. I will say that I detected a fair degree of calculation and awareness of the terrain in his baiting of Candece Owens, especially his degradation of her physical attractiveness relative to Brigitte Macron, even if the only point was to amuse himself by provoking a few fireworks in reply.
And I guess Trump is now the highest-level celebrity spokesperson for the Sandy Hook parents? Or at least he knows that's what hurts the worst for Alex Jones.
Tucker had a video up where he dog-whistled "It's okay for Trump to mock Jesus, but if he had tried to mock Rabbi Schneerson[screen shows photo of DJT paying homage to Schneerson at some event], that wouldn't be allowed. Boy, sure goes to show ya who has all the power in this country, huh."
Based on half-baked cultural theories I won't go into now, I actually don't think his Schneerson scenario is an entirely surefire prediction. I also don't think it's too anal-retentive to postulate a difference(as Carlson did not) between "mocking" a revered figure, and "hubristically making yourself synonymous with" a revered figure. Just for starters, the former assumes the target is a bad guy to be attacked, the latter that he is a good guy to be emulated.
He also postulated holocaust memorialization as central to the "civic religion" of America, on which I think he was on slightly firmer ground, at least insofar as that memorialization has been hijacked by militaristic zionism and allied interests to push their own agenda. Trump likely woulda been in hotter water had he posted inappropriate cartoons about that genocide in particular.
Narcissists cand often appear chaotic but still be selectively strategic They can be rational is some domains and distorted in others. Their unpredictability becomes a tool. They can rage and be cunning at the same time; and they can look unhinged to outsiders but be perfectly logical to themselves. For them. the logic is "Anything goes that protects my ego.
I think 'narsissistic collapse' could be right, but it could also be wishful thinking that the end of trump is near.
The alternative must be that he is unaware of anything.
I think that is what he wants you to believe.
Take the example of Project 2025, also called the Manual for Leadership. On the campaign trail Trump said he never heard of it. Yet much of his governing is copied off its very pages.
Meanwhile, I want to know what blackmail Trump is afraid of? I don’t doubt for a moment that he has secrets, but what’s the relevance here?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqxdg17yr2wt
Gaslighting means to psychology manipulate a person over an extended period to the point that the person questions or doubts their own perception of reality, their own memories or the like. The point of gaslighting is to make the person subjected to the manipulation think they’re losing their sanity.
Trump’s narcissism may play out in calculated and strategic ways, including propagandizing ways, but I don’t see it as gaslighting.
/tangent
Yeah, Trump's way more into forcing his minions to abase themselves by performatively repeating obvious falsehoods like the inauguration crowd business right at the start of his first terms, but also about his physical health
But it seems reinforcing, puts to sleep any questions they might have.
I seem to remember something in cult reprogramming that folks do become aware but can’t easily escape. They can begin to doubt their sanity.
Here, far away in the UK, people are afraid they won't be able to meet their energy bills - an effect directly attributable to donald trump.
Look at his effects on the stock markets and oil prices. Every time he speaks they jump.
Hey, I made a little money in the market during this past month. I should not complain, but I do.
[/quote]
Hey, I made a little money in the market during this past month. I should not complain, but I do.[/quote]
I'm sure you gave it to a good cause.
And that's about the only evidence presented, apart from the long-known story about Fred Trump being arrested(for reasons unknown) at a presumably anti-Catholic klan rally in the 1920s. It all seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and I'm pretty sure if Leo XIV had declared Trump the greatest leader in human history, Trump would love him to pieces for it.
But what he's doing, or trying to do, isn’t gaslighting, because he’s not trying to make us question or doubt our own sanity, and that’s the defining mark of gaslighting. What he’s doing is more akin to manipulative propaganda.
My understanding would be...
I think that up until the last line, SA is simply lying. But the last line puts him into gaslighting territory, because he is trying to get SB to question the reliability of his own mental faculties, in this case, his memory.
(Assuming the teacher said thete are eight planets, and SA knows the teacher said there are eight planets.)
Indeed. But I couldn't recall if the article had actually mentioned that as being the specific purpose of the rally, so didn't wanna go beyond what they had reported.
Upon re-checking it, they did mention that the rally was specifically against Irish Catholics.
In your example, SB might simply say “I guess I heard wrong” or “I guess I remembered wrong.” Gaslighting is intended to go beyond “I guess I heard wrong” or “I guess I remembered wrong”; it’s intended to have the target say “I’m completely losing my sanity.”
Peter Wehner
Well, a hardcore materialist-reductionist would say that the differnce between an isolated synaptical snafu and an interconnected lifetime of synaptical snafus is one of degree, not of kind, and hence so the moral difference between the two forms of epistemological con-jobbery.
But, yes. From the point of view of the perpetrator's intent, when one guy lies to the other guy about what the teacher said on one occasion, he is probably not trying to get his victim to doubt his ongoing apprehension of everything.
He will be reading 2 Chronicles 7:11–22
I assume some of the big pharma firms are gonna do well on this, 'cuz I don't see doctors sourcing the medication from the local hippie botanist down in the valley. Also "an end to the war on psychedelics" was an explicitly promised part of the MAHA agenda, proclaimed by RFK jr himself.
The divine blessing of a wise king - interesting choice …
I am the Lord thy God ...
(In the current 'negotiations')
It means that, in his opinion, they tried to get a little bit too clever.
If Trump reckons Tehran are being “a bit too clever” then they could by any reasonable comparison be pretty dim indeed.
Either an accidentally suggestive choice of metaphor, or I assume Kennedy is trying to send a message to Trump that he needs to walk away from this particular so's-yer-mother debate.
But the latter would have to mean that Trump can interpret TACO as constructuve advice. Maybe, since the general perception of a chicken-out tendency on his part probably helps him with image management somewhat.
(I'm still personally of the opinion that Trump vs. Leo is just a higher-venue version of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown in '92. Which would, in fact, make it an easy fold for Trump, since he can always find another equally entertaining target to blast on Truth Social.)
Looking into the American companies involved with ibogaine, they seem to me like mostly start-ups that are publically traded on the stock market but haven't yet garnered their own wikipedia pages. At least one of them has a weird pun as its name.
And if I'm understanding the wikipedia page on the drug's legality in respective nations, some places are currently more liberal than the USA, some places less. Trump being Trump, I'm guessing that somewhere in his mind, he's thinking that pushing the research forward will soon result in America dominating the market for the future pharmaceuticals.