Your article speaks to a fear I've harboured for a while. Eisenstein has been hoisted on his own petard, so to speak. There is a similar argument for protecting AI as a "person" with "rights" that goes something like this: We created Frankenstein, so they must be part of us. In demonizing him/it, we demonize ourselves.
In Jungian psychology, shadow work must start and end with the Self. Collective shadow work cannot be achieved by any one person; rather, it must be addressed by every individual doing *their own work*. Only by that metric will the collective shadow be addressed. Be wary of those who prescribe otherwise.
I was the editor for a book a dozen years ago that included an article by Eisenstein. Other individuals on the project thought that his article was the "strong" article, the one that should be 'obviously included', presumably because the grammar was the least problematic or they liked what he had to say. But I thought the article was oozing with self-righteousness and narcissistic undertones even though the words were supposed to be a rallying cry for caring for our ecology. To me it just seems like he was screaming at people through his 'earth and unity' message, and it made me feel very uncomfortable to be associated with the project. I was not surprised when these psychological qualities became more obvious during COVID and thereafter.
More division only expanded by this article. We need to find ways to come together and this isn't helpful. Much of what is written about Trump (and Kennedy for that matter) is grossly distorted, taken out of context.... for me I took some time to recheck some of the Trump comments and found them to be distorted. I would suggest the same for all of you. I am considered a liberal and find the continual disparaging remarks whether they are about Kamala or the Donald to be a continuation of this energy. Please do all of us a favor & write, teach or act in a manner that honors all points of view!
which comments were taken out of context? Please provide. Even within context, it is apparent this man is unwell and unfit and bound to hurt people. Protecting people from being hurt (family separation, Muslim ban, ridiculous Covid response) is not division, it is a spiritual act. Defending someone who would hurt others while they still have the (now overwhelming) capacity to do so using spiritual language is not spiritual. Especially just ahead of an election that one could swing one way or another.
Eisenstein needs to read up on his recent Ameican history before he starts cutting Trump and the GOP any slack. The GOP has made racism the heart of its political strategy since Richard Nixon, watching George Wallace's success with outright racism, adopted the "Southern Strategy" of using racism to move southern white Democratic voters into the GOP. The strategy worked. Ronald Reagan followed. The first place Reagan gave a public speech after winning the 1980 nomination was Neshoba, Mississippi, the site of the most infamous acts of violence during the civil rights era, the murder of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. Reagan's speech was about "states rights," the code word that everyone in the south knew was a defense of racism an segregation. Then there was the Willie Horton ad attacking Michael Dukakis during George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign. Trump stands in a long line of GOP presidential candidates who have put racism at the heart of their campaigns.
Eisenstein might also think about why the GOP's wealthiest donors decided in the early 1970s to set up a whole series of pseudo-think tanks (the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, etc.) to crank out reports justifying the wealthier getting ever wealthy. He might remember that one of Trump's very few legislative accomplishment was a massive tax break for the rich.
And Eisenstein might think about why Leonard Leo spawned the Federalist Society and spent untold millions over the next couple of decades building an organization whose stated purpose was to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with right-wing judges, which he succeeded in doing. Or that this same Leo recently told the Financial Times that he hoped to spend $1 billion this fall in order to "crush liberal dominance."
Thank you for getting people to pay attention to Eisenstein's profound confusion. Electoral politics is a very tough arena. We all appreciate having people like Eisenstein to remind us of the importance of spirituality in living our lives. But as his recent statements show, spiritual insight and commitment may blind you to the harsh realities behind how the GOP has gone about seeking to dominate American politics under Trump's leadership.
Thank you. “Spiritual people” (but aren’t we all spiritual?) may wish to stay out of politics, but if they do join in, they should have their ducks in a row and be educated. I also believe that what we are living through is a time when spirituality and politics actually need to come together. Negotiating that terrain is challenging. I am doing this myself. I trust women and women of color and other marginalized groups more than I do men who live with a lot of unrecognized privilege.
When Charles did his Trump rant there were many comments, all supportive of him as the great leader. I was appalled. I had donated money to him early on, but this is the contrarian comment I made:
"Charles -- I hope this gets you off that rarified list you’re on, of top people to listen to. I don’t know where the old Charles went, who I found to be inspirational calling us to the state of consciousness we needed to be in, but I see this writing as the height of pomposity. I find what you say to be dangerous, and I'm saying this in the hope that your fans and followers aren't just blindly influenced by what you say."
What a relief it was when this started getting Likes. It's up to 43 now and they keep coming!
When Charles followed up, posting "Trump and the Tempests of Hate," this was my comment:
"Well, it was getting boring ragging on Trump. How many times to do we want to hear about the same transgressions? All right. We have fresh meat now that Charles has offered himself up. This may be the worst thing I ever have read."
And you also can imagine how much I appreciate the masterful evaluation you are making!
Where Charles is right: No one is inherently evil in their essence. I do believe this. And corollary: There's no benefit to demonizing anyone.
Where he seems to have gone astray: People carry patterns from hurt and trauma--of which Trump had plenty as a young one--that can make them dangerous, especially when they have access to power. Should we try to use caring and empathy to help such people heal and return to their inherent goodness? Sure, but that's a slow process even if you are close to a person.
Meanwhile, don't be a dufus. We have to separate these people, primed to act out hate and tyranny, from access to power!
As a former very close friend of Charles, I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement. "Sometimes contrarianism can be such a strong trait in a person, it bends one into actual bullshit." As a parent, I told my now 18 year old daughter that it is impossible to have integrity if one either reflexively complies or reflexively rebels- both being trauma symptoms, of course. If an authority figure tells you to gas a room full of Jews, you'd better rebel if you want to claim to have integrity. If an authority figure tells you to stay inside at the beginning of a pandemic, when the science is still unclear about how to protect the most vulnerable among us, you'd be wise to comply. To be able to discern when to rebel and when to comply is the trickiest part, the part that requires wisdom. But to be a wise person, you have to be willing to treat your trauma. Charles once told me I "reify" trauma- and maybe I do. But I'd say that until Charles treats the trauma that causes his reflexive rebellion (automatic contrarianism), he's just not going to be capable of taking any sort of stand for integrity, or for that matter, any stand at all.
Thank you for this. It means a lot to everyone else, I think, knowing when someone close to someone who has claimed authority was willing to tell them some truths. And this delineation between rebelling and complying, the need for wisdom and understanding reflexive following versus justified caution, is very helpful.
Thank you for your comments and for your own essay. As a friend or former friend of Eisenstein’s, I hope your words carry extra weight. It’s been astonishing to see how people get caught up in propaganda and where they land. I am now convinced (if I wasn’t before) that being in a privileged group (white, male, etc. & able to jet to and fro for “retreat”) makes it so much easier to bend and equivocate. Very disheartening, and frankly, angering. I think I especially feel the impulse to be angry because I am hearing from Charles: it is not OK to be. Here we are with these fundamentalist and extreme religious men stripping us of our humanity and agency, which will cause (and is now causing) death and suffering for women (and Trans, Queer, brown, Black, migrant humans) And then we have this “blithe spirit” with no clue. Much worse if he has a clue. Much worse.
Just read part 1 and thank god someone is pointing out the dangers of Charles current writing. He has gpne from someone who seemed genuinely heart centred to someone who needs to have therapy and grow up... He is empathising with Trump but not those that he hurts. That is not mature. Thanks for your clarity 🙏
You don’t want to assume cruelty is something Eisenstein is aware of? If so, good point! Misunderstanding and misguided notions, I think, are closer to the root of all our shortcomings.
Thank you for this excellent, clear, eloquent essay! You have written everything I would like to have written, and more! I am deeply disappointed with Charles Eisenstein, whom I used to find refreshing, inspiring. No longer. I am stymied by his change of direction, and even more so by the large number of people who seem ready, willing, and able to follow him like lemmings off a ideological cliff. WTF?
Your article speaks to a fear I've harboured for a while. Eisenstein has been hoisted on his own petard, so to speak. There is a similar argument for protecting AI as a "person" with "rights" that goes something like this: We created Frankenstein, so they must be part of us. In demonizing him/it, we demonize ourselves.
In Jungian psychology, shadow work must start and end with the Self. Collective shadow work cannot be achieved by any one person; rather, it must be addressed by every individual doing *their own work*. Only by that metric will the collective shadow be addressed. Be wary of those who prescribe otherwise.
I was the editor for a book a dozen years ago that included an article by Eisenstein. Other individuals on the project thought that his article was the "strong" article, the one that should be 'obviously included', presumably because the grammar was the least problematic or they liked what he had to say. But I thought the article was oozing with self-righteousness and narcissistic undertones even though the words were supposed to be a rallying cry for caring for our ecology. To me it just seems like he was screaming at people through his 'earth and unity' message, and it made me feel very uncomfortable to be associated with the project. I was not surprised when these psychological qualities became more obvious during COVID and thereafter.
Excellent exposition
Once Chuckie started his RFK JR support I abandoned him.
He does not have a backbone anymore.
He’s in “Bro”-land and he is in everything for himself.
He sold what little of his soul he had left.
Maybe if he apologised for being a creep that might help.
Pay him no mind anymore he’s lost the plot
More division only expanded by this article. We need to find ways to come together and this isn't helpful. Much of what is written about Trump (and Kennedy for that matter) is grossly distorted, taken out of context.... for me I took some time to recheck some of the Trump comments and found them to be distorted. I would suggest the same for all of you. I am considered a liberal and find the continual disparaging remarks whether they are about Kamala or the Donald to be a continuation of this energy. Please do all of us a favor & write, teach or act in a manner that honors all points of view!
which comments were taken out of context? Please provide. Even within context, it is apparent this man is unwell and unfit and bound to hurt people. Protecting people from being hurt (family separation, Muslim ban, ridiculous Covid response) is not division, it is a spiritual act. Defending someone who would hurt others while they still have the (now overwhelming) capacity to do so using spiritual language is not spiritual. Especially just ahead of an election that one could swing one way or another.
Honour Donald Trump? Come on now
Eisenstein needs to read up on his recent Ameican history before he starts cutting Trump and the GOP any slack. The GOP has made racism the heart of its political strategy since Richard Nixon, watching George Wallace's success with outright racism, adopted the "Southern Strategy" of using racism to move southern white Democratic voters into the GOP. The strategy worked. Ronald Reagan followed. The first place Reagan gave a public speech after winning the 1980 nomination was Neshoba, Mississippi, the site of the most infamous acts of violence during the civil rights era, the murder of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. Reagan's speech was about "states rights," the code word that everyone in the south knew was a defense of racism an segregation. Then there was the Willie Horton ad attacking Michael Dukakis during George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign. Trump stands in a long line of GOP presidential candidates who have put racism at the heart of their campaigns.
Eisenstein might also think about why the GOP's wealthiest donors decided in the early 1970s to set up a whole series of pseudo-think tanks (the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, etc.) to crank out reports justifying the wealthier getting ever wealthy. He might remember that one of Trump's very few legislative accomplishment was a massive tax break for the rich.
And Eisenstein might think about why Leonard Leo spawned the Federalist Society and spent untold millions over the next couple of decades building an organization whose stated purpose was to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with right-wing judges, which he succeeded in doing. Or that this same Leo recently told the Financial Times that he hoped to spend $1 billion this fall in order to "crush liberal dominance."
Thank you for getting people to pay attention to Eisenstein's profound confusion. Electoral politics is a very tough arena. We all appreciate having people like Eisenstein to remind us of the importance of spirituality in living our lives. But as his recent statements show, spiritual insight and commitment may blind you to the harsh realities behind how the GOP has gone about seeking to dominate American politics under Trump's leadership.
Thank you. “Spiritual people” (but aren’t we all spiritual?) may wish to stay out of politics, but if they do join in, they should have their ducks in a row and be educated. I also believe that what we are living through is a time when spirituality and politics actually need to come together. Negotiating that terrain is challenging. I am doing this myself. I trust women and women of color and other marginalized groups more than I do men who live with a lot of unrecognized privilege.
When Charles did his Trump rant there were many comments, all supportive of him as the great leader. I was appalled. I had donated money to him early on, but this is the contrarian comment I made:
"Charles -- I hope this gets you off that rarified list you’re on, of top people to listen to. I don’t know where the old Charles went, who I found to be inspirational calling us to the state of consciousness we needed to be in, but I see this writing as the height of pomposity. I find what you say to be dangerous, and I'm saying this in the hope that your fans and followers aren't just blindly influenced by what you say."
What a relief it was when this started getting Likes. It's up to 43 now and they keep coming!
When Charles followed up, posting "Trump and the Tempests of Hate," this was my comment:
"Well, it was getting boring ragging on Trump. How many times to do we want to hear about the same transgressions? All right. We have fresh meat now that Charles has offered himself up. This may be the worst thing I ever have read."
And you also can imagine how much I appreciate the masterful evaluation you are making!
Thank you.
Thanks for this!
You are welcome.
Where Charles is right: No one is inherently evil in their essence. I do believe this. And corollary: There's no benefit to demonizing anyone.
Where he seems to have gone astray: People carry patterns from hurt and trauma--of which Trump had plenty as a young one--that can make them dangerous, especially when they have access to power. Should we try to use caring and empathy to help such people heal and return to their inherent goodness? Sure, but that's a slow process even if you are close to a person.
Meanwhile, don't be a dufus. We have to separate these people, primed to act out hate and tyranny, from access to power!
"Don't be a dufus!" Truer spiritual words were never spoken ;) ... Except: "Stop it!"
As a former very close friend of Charles, I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement. "Sometimes contrarianism can be such a strong trait in a person, it bends one into actual bullshit." As a parent, I told my now 18 year old daughter that it is impossible to have integrity if one either reflexively complies or reflexively rebels- both being trauma symptoms, of course. If an authority figure tells you to gas a room full of Jews, you'd better rebel if you want to claim to have integrity. If an authority figure tells you to stay inside at the beginning of a pandemic, when the science is still unclear about how to protect the most vulnerable among us, you'd be wise to comply. To be able to discern when to rebel and when to comply is the trickiest part, the part that requires wisdom. But to be a wise person, you have to be willing to treat your trauma. Charles once told me I "reify" trauma- and maybe I do. But I'd say that until Charles treats the trauma that causes his reflexive rebellion (automatic contrarianism), he's just not going to be capable of taking any sort of stand for integrity, or for that matter, any stand at all.
Thank you for this. It means a lot to everyone else, I think, knowing when someone close to someone who has claimed authority was willing to tell them some truths. And this delineation between rebelling and complying, the need for wisdom and understanding reflexive following versus justified caution, is very helpful.
Thank you for your comments and for your own essay. As a friend or former friend of Eisenstein’s, I hope your words carry extra weight. It’s been astonishing to see how people get caught up in propaganda and where they land. I am now convinced (if I wasn’t before) that being in a privileged group (white, male, etc. & able to jet to and fro for “retreat”) makes it so much easier to bend and equivocate. Very disheartening, and frankly, angering. I think I especially feel the impulse to be angry because I am hearing from Charles: it is not OK to be. Here we are with these fundamentalist and extreme religious men stripping us of our humanity and agency, which will cause (and is now causing) death and suffering for women (and Trans, Queer, brown, Black, migrant humans) And then we have this “blithe spirit” with no clue. Much worse if he has a clue. Much worse.
Just read part 1 and thank god someone is pointing out the dangers of Charles current writing. He has gpne from someone who seemed genuinely heart centred to someone who needs to have therapy and grow up... He is empathising with Trump but not those that he hurts. That is not mature. Thanks for your clarity 🙏
Calling a spade a spade is something everyone needs to know how to do. And do, when lives are on the line. Thank you.
Bloody right!!!
Well done! When ‘spirituality’ becomes the justification for cruelty, it’s a big NOPE.
Confusion and failure to really listen to those hurt. IMHO. Maybe greed, or “relevance,” but I don’t want to assume.
You don’t want to assume cruelty is something Eisenstein is aware of? If so, good point! Misunderstanding and misguided notions, I think, are closer to the root of all our shortcomings.
The jury is out for me on how much he is aware of.
Thank you for this excellent, clear, eloquent essay! You have written everything I would like to have written, and more! I am deeply disappointed with Charles Eisenstein, whom I used to find refreshing, inspiring. No longer. I am stymied by his change of direction, and even more so by the large number of people who seem ready, willing, and able to follow him like lemmings off a ideological cliff. WTF?
I know. Thank you for your very kind note.