I know nothing about galas, and celebrity culture does not interest me.

So, why do I write about the Met Gala?

Because celebrities have power.

And a good number of celebrities used their power to good-wash Jeff Bezos by attending this year’s Met Gala. That attendance was an act of accepting Bezos and his wife among the respectable do-gooders.

Subscribe now

The gala aims to raise money for the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute. A good cause, involving a bundle of the rich and famous dressed up like scarecrows—in line with the stated costume theme.

Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s co-founder, was this year’s leading sponsor of the gala.

His $10 million donation led to heavy protests and some celebrities deciding not to attend.

Because the 4^th richest man in the world built his fortune on treating his workers “worse than robots,” as a British Amazon worker said.

And, in case anyone may have missed it:

“Worse than robots” means not daring to take a toilet break, living in constant fear of being fired, and having someone monitor your every move — including emails after midnight.

Those who like to call themselves decent find such treatment of others abhorrent.

So, here is my message to all those celebrities who attended this year’s Met Gala:

By attending that event, you good-washed Bezos. You contributed to making his exploitation of other human beings acceptable.

Perhaps you will protest and claim that this gala is a totally different matter. It’s not. Everything you do in front of the cameras is about you exercising your power.

If you are rich and famous, you have power whether you want to or not. It’s up to you how you use it.

Taylor Swift persuaded hordes of young fans to register to vote—a good thing. Gwyneth Paltrow makes her followers buy candles that smell like her (?) vagina—less good. Trump’s celebrity status from “The Apprentice “show propelled him into the White House—disastrous.

In my view, you get off the hook far too easily when it comes to how you use your power. This is my attempt to hold you to account.

By attending the Met Gala, you enabled Bezos’ and his wife’s effort to make us forget what their despicable fortune is built on.

Let me give you some examples of that:

Bezos’ fortune is built on exhausted workers falling asleep on the bus to and from an Amazon depot. His fortune is built on women having to go on a business trip the day after a miscarriage. It is built on people with cancer who are in danger of losing their jobs due to low performance.

And if you really care about the Custom Institute at the Metropolitan Museum, why not donate money to it directly?

Your attendance at the Met Gala looks even less dazzling, considering that so many of you purport to be humanists and support good causes.

Among those who attended was Nicole Kidman, an ambassador for UNICEF, and Beyoncé, who advocates for women’s rights and social justice (the irony).

So, perhaps you will send a thought to the thousands of scared and exhausted people who made Bezos rich the next time you receive an award, hold an eye-watering speech and tell us how much you detest oppression and injustice.

- - - - - - - -

To my readers: Thanks for taking part in my genuine anger!

Subscribe now

LINKS:

See Every Look from the Met Gala 2026 Red Carpet

Britannica: Met Gala

The Met Gala raised a record $42 million as Silicon Valley picked up the tab—and as celebs protested Jeff Bezos’ sponsoring of the event

Amazon treats me worse than the warehouse robots – that’s why I’m walking out

Timed to go to the toilet. Told off for leaning. Monitored for each package completed. As a worker at Amazon, I often feel that we aren’t being treated as people.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos defends company after brutal exposé

Celebrities do have an impact on elections, Harvard study finds

A multitude of excellent people speak on podcasts about the horrendousness of the White House administration. How outrageous. How bad for America. The next catastrophe. One single voice after another, while Trump and his cronies fill their coffers, break friendships and dismantle democracy.

Subscribe now

The two “No Kings” marches led to what I predicted: Absolutely nothing. They seemed to have had no goals, no long-term strategy and were not part of a standing movement.

Hence, as a friend from Europe, the question arises: Where is the resistance? The broad battering coalition?

A common factor behind successful political revolts “is that they succeeded in empowering a fairly broad cross-section of society,” as stated by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in the book “Why Nations Fail.”

Acemoglu and Robinson mention the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 as an example. It was empowered by a broad coalition of merchants, industrialists, landowners and members of the autocracy opposing King James II. None of these groups could have done it on their own. The revolution, among others, led to the Parliament taking control of taxes and property rights, paving the way for the Industrial Revolution.

Another example is from Brazil. In the 1980s, Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party secured support not only from labour unions but also from churches, students’ unions and social movements. As a result, the party contributed to restoring democracy after 21 years of military dictatorship. Furthermore, the Workers’ Party had a strong presence in rural and local communities. By doing so, the movement comprised the whole of the country, not just city elites.

And the latter is something the Brazilian party has in common with the Hungarian Tisza party, led by Péter Magyar, which won by a landslide in the recent elections.

Apart from a string of opposition parties joining ranks behind Magyar, Tisza run a persistent campaign in rural areas. These were usually Orban’s stronghold. In small communities, the party managed to break the spell of pluralistic ignorance: Everybody believed that everybody else was an Orban supporter. When people realised that wasn’t the case, many of them turned their back on Orban and voted for Magyar’s Tisza.

What Magyar, Lula and all the others understood is that you need to put aside your normal battles, be it left-right, church-secular, urban-rural or ethnicity and take on the common enemy. “Something more important is at stake here now.”

Focus on who you can work with, not who you can break down. Put your chest beating tendencies aside. Drop “we and they” and your need to win—all the damn time.

A strong, broad coalition may not be enough, though, to depose an autocratic regime.

The coalition in Hungary’s 2022 election was not united enough.
In Venezuela, the coalition behind Maria Corina Machado won the election in 2024, but was not strong enough to topple the Chavista regime led by now ousted Maduro.

However, a broad coalition is a prerequisite for producing political change in dictatorships and autocracies.

A good example of what happens when you have a fragmented opposition is Iran. The country has gone through uprising after uprising against the Islamic regime—to no avail.

After 47 years in exile, the best the Iranian diasporas can agree on is Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of the dictator the regime replaced. To be fair, the Iranians have only ever experienced brief periods of democracy. Building democratic coalitions is not easy if you have little practice.

That is certainly one excuse they don’t have in America. The November elections may turn Trump into a lame drivelling duck if Democrats win a majority in the House and the Senate. But if Americans had managed to build a broad, battering coalition against Trump by now, there would have been much less hope and much more certainty about that happening.

Imagine if a united opposition had been established during Trump’s first administration? Perhaps all of us could have been spared this orange nightmare.

But Americans didn’t. Therefore, the best time to start is now.

So, to any American with an inch of influence: Stop wasting time on podcast after podcast about “what to do about Trump.” Start talking to each other. Come up with a plan. The world is waiting, and here in Europe, we are gradually losing patience with you.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Hit the subscribe button, and consider what you can do to push back against sinister forces—other than listening to podcasts.

LINKS

How Venezuela’s opposition proved its election win: ‘A brilliant political move’

WHAT HAPPENED IN HUNGARY’S ELECTION? (2022)

How Péter Magyar Defeated Viktor Orbán

Britannica: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

“Why Nations Fail” by Daron Acemoglu and James. A. Robinson

Why Iran’s opposition is fracturing – and how to fix it

How to spot “pluralistic ignorance” before it derails your team

♦️ This is part 1 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 2 here: A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us from Narcissistic Maniacs? Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.

We cannot have a world where people who are lucky enough to have the right to vote use that right to put manchildren in power.

People around the world bit their nails and hoped Americans wouldn’t vote for a flailing, incompetent and narcissistic madman. Americans voted for the madman.

The election of Trump is the worst example, but far from the only one.

It happened in Brazil, it happened over and over in Hungary, Turkey and a string of other countries.

We cannot have it like this.

Yes, I know, many in not-so-democratic countries are pressured to vote for a certain candidate. They are threatened with unemployment, the withdrawal of benefits or even violence. Massive election fraud also takes place. But that is usually not the case the first time these children run for office. The window of opportunity to reject them may be open for years.

Too many voters don’t take that opportunity.

Russians elected Putin again and again until they had no say about anything anymore.

Some of these manchildren are more radioactive than others, from bellicose Putin to the clownish Berlusconi in Italy.

What they all have in common is that they only care about themselves. “Me First” and “Make Me Great Forever.” Still, the crowds cheer them into public service.

We must stop accepting that voters behave like that.

Subscribe now

Where is the uproar?

Nonetheless, the media and public debate treat elections as if voters, by and large, know what they are doing.

“Here are the reasons why people prefer Mrs Blue over Mr Red.” – “This is why people think the Glorious Party is best for our country.”

This pretence goes on despite everybody knowing that uninformed, lazy, short-sighted and easy-to-fool voters are as commonplace and as old a problem as democracy itself.

In America, I noticed some mumbling about better education and more critical thinking the last time Trump won. In other countries, not even a mumbling can be heard. At least nothing that reaches major news channels.

In Britain, “What is the EU?” was one of the most popular search terms after the Brexit referendum. Apparently, millions didn’t have a clue what they voted for. And that would have been equally worrisome if the majority had voted to remain in the European Union.

We cannot have it like this.

But where is the uproar? Where are the campaigns for “Better Voters”?

This is a problem on a scale with obesity, drug addiction and every other public health issue combined. In fact, it is worse, since ignorant voters affect everyone, and every sector, and every corner of society.

This is how bad it is

Let’s compare ignorant voters to another societal problem to show you how bad this is.

Almost every country demands a licence to drive a car, and in most countries, you need to pass a driving test and a theory test. Driving licences were introduced at the beginning of the 20^th century due to the huge number of traffic fatalities.

In other words, societies realised early on they had a huge problem. “People drive and cause fatalities. We cannot have it like that. We must ensure that people have the necessary skills to drive.”

Still, as citizens, we have the right to vote and to make decisions about healthcare, education, policing, energy, transport, air quality, trade, housing, food, water or anything that affects us every day, now and in the future. And we can do that without any training or proof of our skills—whatsoever.

So, what should we do?

The problem isn’t Trump or Orban

To have better voters, we need to stop focusing on the “wrong” leaders or parties and focus on voter skills.

The core problem is not the single candidate or political party. If we hadn’t had Trump and Orban, we could have had Rump and Gorban.

Educating voters is not about making people refrain from voting for him, her or them.

Educating voters is teaching voters how to make sound judgements. To consider longer-term consequences. To realise there are no quick fixes. To spot obvious lies.

To accept that no one is going to save you.

Educating voters is making them ask, “If I were to hire these candidates, what would I need to find out about them?” What background checks and references? “What questions would I ask them at a job interview?”

No matter how bombarded with fake news, upset about immigration, despairing over the cost of living or being told by their priest who to vote for, educated voters would not have voted for Trump.

Furthermore, he, Orban, Bolsonaro and all the others would not have run for office because they knew they wouldn’t stand a chance.

Unskilled voting is as old as Socrates, but it’s solvable.

It is time we, who want to be responsible citizens, take a deep breath and shout out in unison:

“We cannot have it like this”

We cannot let the well-being of our societies be dependent on those who cast their vote for whoever makes them feel good.

We cannot let our common future be decided by people who vote for something they have no clue about.

We cannot accept that millions of voters let themselves be fooled by me-me-me idiots. Whatever political flavour these idiots claim to have.

What we have to accept is that in a democracy, we will find heaps of me-me-me idiots who want power and admiration. Freedom also means freedom for idiots. The solution is not to lock them up, but to stop enabling them. We must learn not to give children power they cannot handle. And for that, we need more educated and better voters—tons of binned MAGA caps, better.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Please share your suggestions on what to do about ignorant voters.

♦️ This is part 2 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible. Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.

A democracy can work fairly well with ignorant voters until the right idiot comes along. And the higher the number of ignorant voters, the more likely that an idiot will become our leader. As happened in America. But Trump is merely one example.

This has happened in so many democracies; it’s about time we accept that ignorant voters are dangerous. The question is what we do about it.

We, as voters, make decisions about our country’s future, our own future, our children’s future —without needing any skills or knowledge whatsoever.

So, what if we introduced a test-based licence to vote? It would not constitute a panacea, but it could prevent the worst of the narcissistic maniacs from ending up in a position of power.

In this article, we will have a closer look at voter testing. What it might look like, and how we could get there.

Several scholars have suggested a test for voters. They agree that a basic understanding of the political system and the principles of democracy must be included in such a test. “Who is responsible for what? – “How do the different institutions relate to each other?” – “What kind of elections do we have?”

However, for the test I have in mind, such questions would only be the starter.

Subscribe now

A test of how to think, not what to know

The larger part of the voter test should focus on critical thinking and how to make better decisions. It would be a test of how to think, not what to know.

Here are some ideas for what to include:

· Simulations: Testees could be asked to simulate as decision-makers at a local council. “You only have money for a new school or upgrading the local sewer plant. What would you choose? How would you defend your choice?”

· Role-play: Put him or her in the role of a manipulator spreading misinformation. What does it take to manipulate people? What to do to avoid being manipulated? Or create some variation of the Cranky Uncle or the Bad News game.

· Awareness of confirmation bias and overconfidence: Give people statements to agree with and give them gradually more disagreeable, nuanced and complex alternatives to choose from.

And to enhance interest, make the questions relatable to people’s everyday lives.

Make the test relatable and worthwhile

Show people that good thinking is not just about voting; it’s about every decision you make.

· Point out the similarities between running a local council and jiggling household finances. ”Fixing the potholes or Meals on wheels? Fixing the porch or meat on weekdays?”

· Show the testee that the qualities you look for in a political leader may be much the same as the ones you look for in a partner or a friend.
”Reliable? Caring? Can handle criticism?”

· Compare voting to interviewing somebody for a job.
“What would you need to know about this candidate to offer him or her a job?” (Hint: something more than “Only I can fix it.”) “Why do they want this job? What is their plan for solving any of the problems the country faces? What have they done in the past? Strengths and weaknesses? Have they learned from mistakes?”

But coming up with ideas for what a voter test could look like is one thing. That is fun. Now comes the hard work. How can such a test be implemented?

Let’s look at some of the hurdles we will encounter.

What about the costs for all this testing?

If there is one objection we will face pretty quickly, then it is “What about the costs?”

This would be one of the easiest objections to refute, because we have a heavy counterargument ready at hand:

What about the costs for ignorant voters? What has and will Trump cost America and the world? What will his wars, tariffs and tax cuts for the already supersonic rich cost? Orban made Hungary the poorest country in the European Union. Erdogan ignited a long-standing economic crisis in Turkey. Brexit has cost the Brits deeply.

Setting up and running voter tests may be a small cost compared to risking a Trump or an Orban 2.0.

Who should put these tests together?

Who should decide on the questions? That seems to be the biggest argument against tests to vote. “The other political party will never accept questions on XYZ.”

But politicians with vested interests must be kept at arm’s length while these tests are being established. Any fishy objections like “We shouldn’t dig too deep into that manipulation stuff, it upsets voters,” will then fall on deaf ears.

Our lawmakers will have the final say, but not until the questions and the procedures have been tested so thoroughly that the stream of but-but-but will have dried out.

And voter tests cannot be rolled out on a grand scale just like that. They should be tried on smaller groups, then at a number of local elections, until it is wise to launch them at the national level.

Testing and trying are the key issues here—and also the solutions.

We need more experimentation

A sad thing about politics is the lack of experimentation. Politicians are so afraid of making mistakes and risking not being re-elected, they dedicate almost zero time to trying out anything. Instead, they employ endless energy defending every little move they make. Or on attacking the other side for their mistakes.

What if politics were more like science? We start with a hypothesis and test it out. If it doesn’t work, we amend it or discard it and come up with something else.

And that is what Franklin D. Roosevelt meant by “bold and persistent experimentation.”

You do not see much of that attitude in today’s politics. But we will never fix anything if we are not willing to find out what works. To be brave enough to encounter a bunch of backlashes before we get it right.

By starting small, trying out several options and learning from mistakes, we could exercise some bold experimentation in voter tests. Even without politicians risking any form of crucifixion.

Now, let’s say we have overcome a stretch of thorny hurdles and deep potholes on our way to launching a test for voters. Still, one big issue remains.

Subscribe now

Mandatory or not mandatory?

Is it wise to make a test to vote mandatory?

If it is voluntary and only those who pass the test are legitimate to vote, won’t that lead to democracy for the few? Where only the most resourceful are willing to do the test?

We could introduce weighted voting, where everyone could vote, but where the votes of those passing a test counted more. But wouldn’t that lead to the same result? A society dominated by an elite?

“My answer: I don’t know — and I don’t think anyone can know. Why don’t we test and try?”

If it turns out that only the educated and already engaged are willing to do the test, then perhaps we should make it mandatory? And since mandatory testing without mandatory voting makes little sense, perhaps we should introduce mandatory voting, too? 22 countries already have.

We need to stop wasting time arguing whether something will work if we have not tried it out.

The world is led by manchildren due to ignorant, lazy and easy-to-fool voters. These manchildren enrich themselves, keep people in poverty and dismantle democracies. They are also good at speeding up the extinction of everything living. It is time to stop squabbling and take action to improve the quality of voting. Or to quote Roosevelt,” Above all, try something.”

------------------------------

But what about the politicians themselves you may ask? More on what should be required to become a politician in my next piece.

Thanks for reading! Please, subscribe.

Subscribe now

Want to find out more?

My main sources for this article:

Voting test

Dambisa Moyo: Across the world, democracy is in crisis. Here’s my plan to save it

Can we help save democracy by requiring voters to pass a test of political knowledge?

This writer also uses driving licence to compare, but conclude that education in school can replace a test to vote. I don’t agree:

Christopher Cowley, Centre for Ethics in Public Life, University College Dublin

Civic education

Civic education sparks connection in the classroom and beyond

Critical thinking in schools

Critical thinking in education

Inoculate Against Misinformation

Critical thinking games

Bad News

Crancky Uncle

How to use Cranky Uncle:

Cognitive Biases and Heuristics

Guide to the Most Common Cognitive Biases and Heuristics

Weighted voting - epistocracy

“Epistocracy is a system in which the votes of people who can prove their political knowledge count more than the votes of people who can’t. In other words, it’s a system that privileges the most politically informed citizens.”

Op-Ed: Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?

Roosevelt - “Looking Forward”

Looking Forward by Franklin D. Roosevelt

Mandatory voting

22 countries where voting is mandatory

Hungary

Eurostat: Actual individual consumption per capita in 2023

♦️ This is part 3 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible. Read part 2 here: A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us from Narcissistic Maniacs? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.

Anyone can enter politics and make decisions that affect millions. And you can do so without any proof of your knowledge, skills or capabilities. You can call a meeting and claim, ‘Only I can fix it.’ If enough people believe you, you will get hired.

Apart from narcissistic maniacs and other exquisite egoists, we have politicians who are not up to the job. They may have good hearts, but that says little about their capabilities.

A friend of mine worked for the government in Sweden. She was asked to write a primer on the European Union for a politician about to assume a high-profile job in Brussels. Her Head of Department sent it back to my friend several times: ‘This is still too difficult for XX.’

What if that Swedish politician had been required to acquire knowledge on the EU and show proof of the ability to handle information before landing that job in Brussels?

What if that person, and everybody else, had to pass a test before being allowed to enter politics at all?

Many have to pass tests to be hired, so why not politicians?

Imagine if politicians in Brussels had to undergo the same rigorous testing as the civil servants who work for them.

Subscribe now

A civil servant in Brussels

To become a civil servant at the European institutions, you need to go through a long and hard selection process.

Many practice for these tests for years, and many fail — I did.

Firstly, you have to pass computerised tests in verbal, numerical and abstract thinking.

Within 90 seconds, you must draw the right conclusions based on a complex statement. ‘What are the conditions for making a complaint to the Ombudsman? In which way are the oceans overexploited?’

Just as quickly, you have to combine different figures and calculate the ratio of the Netherlands’ GDP to that of Finland.

After that, you will be given a multiple-choice test in EU Knowledge or your field of expertise.

And finally, you will do a written test. You will be assessed on how well you can present your ideas in a way your audience will understand.

Politicians, however…

In contrast, politicians in the European Parliament —and any politician—get the job through an arbitrary selection process. Firstly, within their own political parties, and secondly, through elections.

So, without any real demonstration of competence, politicians make decisions on our behalf.

On a grey November afternoon, a lawmaker presses a button—and with it, shifts the course of a country or a continent. They hold referendums on EU membership, make us switch from nuclear to wind and solar, and set conditions for who and how many get to enter our borders.

Locally, politicians decide on how well Granny will be taken care of, how frequently the trams and buses run, and whether your town centre is full of soulless boxes or beautiful and welcoming.

Wouldn’t it be reassuring to know that all our honourable representatives are capable of making sound decisions on the issues that shape our lives? That they didn’t bluff or stumble their way into power? That they can not only read technical reports and scientific papers—but actually understand them, and can draw the right conclusions?

Like knowing that a survey of 100,000 people carries more weight than one with just 1,000. Or understanding that correlation doesn’t imply causation. Watching a lot of TV does not cause an early death. And yes, that they realise, unlike Marjorie Taylor Greene, earthquakes are not caused by climate change.

Wouldn’t it also be reassuring to know that all our lawmakers comprehend statistics? Particularly, since they draw so much on statistics in their arguments. That they understand that a drop in the inflation rate from 6 % to 3 % does not mean lower prices? That they know the difference between average and median?

We demand years of education to become a lawyer or a doctor. A politician seldom has the same palpable impact on an individual as a doctor or a judge has. On the other hand, politicians make decisions about almost everything in our lives, decisions that may affect us for years to come.

So why should they be allowed to do that without any proof that they are up to the job? Why not demand testing similar to that of civil servants in Brussels?

Yes, I know, being able to inspire and persuade is a big part of politics. The same goes for courage, determination and stamina. ‘We shall never surrender,’ Churchill said and lifted the British people through the war.

But the kind of evaluation I am suggesting would only cover the basic requirements. To show that you are fit to enter the race, but not how well you will succeed. It would be like an admission test to a university, something even people of Winston Churchill’s calibre would have to sit.

And no, this wouldn’t exclude less educated candidates — preparation materials should be free and open to everyone.

Subscribe now

Will politicians accept this?

But would any politician agree to this? Some would, especially those confident they would pass. ‘A piece of cake,’ they might say.

We could even start by making it voluntary. Those who take the test could wear it like a badge of honour —and use it as political ammunition. ‘I took the test. What about you, Sam? Not quite up to it?’ After all, politicians often introduce programs as voluntary before making them mandatory, just like they did with child vaccinations or seat belts.

Once we gain enough support both from politicians and the public, the resistance will peter out.

In a previous article, I suggested a test to vote. If that comes to pass, politicians will find it hard to argue against them being tested, too.

Will this work?

Will an evaluation test ‘à la Brussels guarantee’ competent politicians? Who will always make sound decisions? No. But we have a better chance of sifting the potential wheat from the obvious chaff.

------

Yet, we have a worse problem than faltering mental faculties when it comes to politicians. Among those who seek power, we find the ones who should never, ever be granted any power.

Narcissism is much talked about, but few seem to understand what it actually is. Or how dangerous it is. And narcissism in politics is what I’ll talk to you about another time.

Thanks for reading!

Please, subscribe and follow the next episode of 'What should be required to become a politician?'

Subscribe now

Want to find out more?
My main sources for this article:

European Personnel Selection Office

Marjorie Taylor Green

Four tips to avoid being bamboozled by political statistics and data

Our nine-point guide to spotting a dodgy statistic

Vaccine mandates

♦️ This is part 4 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible Read part 2 here: A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us from Narcissistic Maniacs? Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician?

Anyone who has ever worked with a narcissist, and that is most of us, knows what whirl-winding energy suckers they are. While sipping a quiet cup of coffee on a Saturday morning, you may catch yourself rehearsing what to say to your narcissistic boss at Monday’s meeting, how to evade a scolding or whether to accept that boring business trip just to avoid her for a few days. The narcissist has entered your head.

Subscribe now

Narcissists in Politics

Politics is the perfect playground for narcissists, offering them millions of heads to enter. That ensures them a supply of what they are dependent on: Attention. Along with that comes the satisfaction of another prominent urge: Power.

In politics, they can also bring to bear all their charm and manipulation tactics. Their talents for blame-shifting and back-stabbing can find their right elements.

Narcissists have no values or convictions. Hence, as politicians, they are only interested in results that make them look good. They don’t care about hospitals, affordable housing or railways. They break agreements and betray people, often without noticing. Responsibility and consequences are words to be used against other people. They don’t read, they don’t reflect, they don’t listen. As a result, they have very poor judgement.

Narcissists love politics but detest democracy, because the latter puts strains on what they can do.

All of this may sound familiar to you, but one thing is often overlooked when it comes to narcissists.

The narcissist is never alone

The self-serving narcissist who ends up running a country is just the tip of an iceberg.

They are the products of a narcissistic culture. A culture they themselves have helped create, spread and reinforce.

It’s like finding an ant in your house. That ant is never alone. And you probably have a huge and costly problem to deal with.

The man in the White House is the predictable result of an American culture that celebrates narcissism—the race for “success,” the worshipping of fame, the I-am-stupid-and-proud-of-it mentality, the ruthless competition—in short, the me-me-me culture where Jesus and machine guns are a fine combination.

And voila! Out of that hat springs the Orange Man—the leading actor in his reality show called POTUS.*

But Trump is far from the only narcissist ending up in a position of power. It’s quite common. Leaders are more likely to be narcissistic than the rest of the population.

But how exactly does that happen?

The short answer: He or she had cohort after cohort of enchanting enablers.

*POTUS = President Of The United States.

Who are these enablers?

In politics, the obvious enablers are, of course, the voters. I have written about ignorant, enabling voters, so let’s look at other types of enablers. The ones you find within an organisation, be it a company or a political party.

Such enablers come in many flavours, but we can usually distinguish two main groups.

THE EXCUSERS

Firstly, you have the ardent excusers.

They are often idealists, dreaming of a better world, whatever that means to them. However, with strong idealism comes idealising. Idealists put people on pedestals to have objects that can bring about their wonderful world.

And that is what the ardent excusers do.

Hence, they frown upon any hint of criticism of their idols. “You misunderstand her.” “You are too critical of him.”

Before long, the charming facade of the newly arrived narcissist in the office begins to crack. The bullying starts to show itself. So do the terrifying outbursts, the need to have everything their way, the refusal to admit mistakes.

The ardent excuser knows something is wrong but pushes such disturbing thoughts away.

All is well if you pretend hard enough.

The excuses shift to “But she attracts voters.” “She is so capable.”

And the more the facade of the idolised narcissist cracks, the more the excusers double down to avoid their illusion from collapsing like a house of cards. An illusion they have invested so much of their being to uphold.

The excusers become victims of their own consistency. They hide “inside the walls of consistency to protect themselves from the troublesome consequences of thought,” as Robert Cialdini writes in his book “Influence.”

The longer you hang on to that excusing carousel, the more difficult it is to jump off. The excuses move further and further away from the truth, until the excusers hang sideways from the carousel.

Rumours about the narcissist’s sexual assaults are “Nothing but rumours.” Illicit means of funds “Can’t be verified.” Lies become “We all make mistakes.” Making fun of a junior staff member who started to cry is “A bad joke.” Temper tantrums are “Being passionate.”

THE NARCISSISTIC ENABLERS

The other prominent group of enablers are those with narcissistic traits themselves. Like the excusers, they dream of a wonderful world—but with little room for anybody other than themselves.

They are not fully fledged narcissists, but they have self-centred, attention-seeking and thin-skinned tendencies whose moral compasses can swirl in any direction.

The true adults in the organisation have held these people in check, telling the narcissistic Neds and Nancys to act like team players, to let other people shine, so that the whole office can shine together.

But now (finally!) this new guy allows them to be themselves.

Now, the narcissistic enablers understand how underappreciated they have been.

So, when Susan suggests they should consider the results from the Environmental Impact Assessment, the narcissistic enabler leans over, puts on a condescending look and says, “You must understand, Susan, that there are more important issues than the environment.” The real narcissist nods and grunts, “Well, Susan, perhaps you should consider becoming more like Greta? We are looking forward to the pictures of you being chained to a motorway.” The narcissistic enablers do their best to make the laughter sound natural.

There is a pity on Susan, of course, but being nice is so yesterday. And by the way, she is not that good. None of the others is. The narcissistic enablers feel that their shackles are off.

Their walk changes. From cautiously looking to the left and the right, they now stride, telling people to get out of their way.

Don’t come to them with any of that “in this together” nonsense anymore, or the “wider consequences” rubbish.

They are part of the booming band, and don’t you forget it.

Subscribe now

The adults

But what about these true adults I have mentioned?

The true adults have had their doubts about this narcissist from the very beginning, but since they often constitute the minority in any organisation, the majority ignore their objections. “Come on! Look at him. Have you ever seen such talent?!”

And with the narcissist’s booming popularity, drawing the circle of enablers closer, the adults are shut out. It may begin with hints about the adult’s inabilities. That leads to rancid remarks. Followed by ostracism and open bullying. Soon, the adults leave, are being pushed out, or stand alone in a corner, tipping their toes with a mug of lukewarm coffee in their hand.

The true adults may have started their careers because they wanted to create something better. They liked to help people. They made great friends. Now, all that is gone out of the window.

When those adults disappear, the narcissistic party can start.

The narcissistic culture

The party doesn’t last long.

When the narcissists have gathered their cosy circle of yes-saying enablers, love-bombed senior managers, and made sure they get those promotions they are oh, so entitled to, the enablers wake up to the strict rules they must follow.

Don’t criticise the narcissist — not even inadvertently, by mentioning you dislike the colour purple, his or her favourite. “So, purple isn’t good enough for you?!”
Don’t ask inconvenient questions, not even a mild “Why are we doing this?

And always praise. Never, ever forget that. “As Mark suggested — originally an excellent idea of yours, sir...”

Break any of these rules, and you will find yourself in the out-group before you know it.

Some of the ardent excusers may start to get cold feet when reality creeps in, but where can they go? The narcissistic enablers, on the other hand, still believe they are on the winning team. The king or queen of the mountain throws other people under the bus at a whim, but what happens to others will not happen to them. They are too smart.

Before anyone realises what is happening, a transformation has taken place.

Trust is out, fear is in. Next year is out, now is in. Doing the right thing is out, cheating is in. Hearty laughter is out, hurtful jokes are in. Thought-through arguments are out, catch-phrases are in.

A narcissistic culture has been established.

Over time, that culture becomes more and more entrenched.

This is how Ramani Durvasula describes it in her excellent book “Don’t You Know Who I Am?”

Narcissistic and toxic leaders are also masterful at squeezing out dissenting voices.

And she continues … they are able to attract subservient lackeys who keep pumping them up. In this way, toxic leaders end up with toxic colleagues and toxic or brainwashed employees, with everyone joining the delusional chorus of voices to support the regime of the narcissistic leader.

The problem with narcissists is not about a toxic individual coming in and moving out. Enablers let the narcissists in, and once inside, they create a narcissistic culture or strengthen the narcissism that is already there. Unless we see a profound change in the American culture, we can only brace ourselves for the next Trump.

A narcissistic culture­–­­–within his party and beyond––is also why a much less dangerous, but narcissistic Boris Johnson could become prime minister in the UK. And the reason why a populist womaniser like Berlusconi could hold the same position in Italy. Or why a corrupt Sarkozy could be the president of France.

And to clarify: Narcissism is not a left versus right thing. Narcissism can come in any political colour. If anti-materialism and environmental activism are what give the narcissists power and attention, they go for that. They go for anything.

But is it possible to turn this around?

I say yes. As with corruption, it takes many years of hard work, even generations, but it is possible.

A first step in rooting out a narcissistic culture is to prevent new narcissists from getting through the door. That forces the organisation to hire more mature people.

And when it comes to politics, I have suggested that anyone entering politics should undergo testing for mental competence.

Likewise, they should be screened for narcissistic and psychopathic traits.

By the way, there is a strong link between narcissism and psychopathy. As Dr Ramani Durvasula notes, psychopathy can be seen as a more extreme form of narcissism. All psychopaths are narcissists to some extent, though not all narcissists are psychopaths.

Back to screening.

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a widely recognised and reliable tool, often used in hiring processes.

So, why not make it mandatory for politicians?

It’s about time we ensure our leaders are not dependent on admiration, are contemptuous of democracy, fundamentally untrustworthy and cannibalistic—eating anyone for breakfast, and spitting out the leftovers.

And no matter how much they beg, cry or rumble about going to therapy and “fix” their problems, people high in narcissism or psychopathy should never ever be allowed to run for office.

But one test is not enough. That is why politicians should be evaluated for narcissism and psychopathy every time they take up a new position.

And the higher the office, the more rigorous the evaluation should be. Apart from the NPI test, they should even be evaluated by one or more psychologists.

During such a session, the politician would be tested on issues like:

Does he/she…

· fantasise about unlimited power?

· feel they deserve special treatment?

· recognise their responsibility when something goes wrong?

How does he/she…

· deal with others’ emotions? When somebody is sad or afraid?

· handle criticism?

In such a system, the Orange Man wouldn’t have stood a chance.

The question isn’t whether we can keep narcissists out. We do. The question is whether we have the will.

Links

Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Narcissistic Personality Inventory

Pathological power: The danger of governments led by narcissists and psychopaths

Trumps self-admiration

Trump never makes mistakes

A book about narcissism: “Don’t You Know Who I Am?” by Ramani S. Durvasula.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Please consider subscribing to learn more about enablers and what we can do to stop the worst among us from becoming our leaders.

Share

3 things are absolutely certain about the War on Iran.

ONE: Trump has no clue whatsoever about what he is doing.

Wars rarely go according to plan. Ask Bush about the Iraqi war. But usually, there is a plan in place. And a defined outcome.

Here it seems to be neither. Not that any of us should be surprised.

TWO: We can be absolutely sure the his motivations are all about him and him only.

He does not care about the people of Iran. He does not care about the safety of Israelis. He does not care about how many will be killed, whether it is in Iran, the UAE or elsewhere.

He cares nothing about American soldiers. If he calls the families of the fallen, he will probably turn the conversation upon himself. “It’s sad, but what a great thing it is.” (= I am great).

Subscribe now

Why did he start this war?

To “win”? To distract from the Epstein files? To come up with an excuse for claiming the U.S. is under threat, and can thus cancel the midterm elections?

To start a war that he can later end? Hoping to convince the Nobel Peace Prize Committee?

Wanting to get a hand on Iranian oil and make a deal? Needing a distraction from his own health concerns?

To get back at the archenemy, Obama, who signed a deal with Iran?

Any of this or all of it could be true.

Whatever his motivations are, they all belong to a narcissist’s primary needs: Attention and control (money=power=control, “winning”=control, distraction=getting back control).

Here and now. 24/7.

The narcissist is like a sinking boat. But instead of bailing water out, they need a non-stop stream of control and attention to their ego. Otherwise, they will sink.

THREE: What is also absolutely certain is that Trump is not capable of building anything.

Americans have a bad record when it comes to interventions abroad. Afghanistan and Iraq did not become stable democracies—as intended.

But the Orange Moron would not even try. At least, you can say that about him. Building democracy does not concern him. He doesn’t even know how a democracy works. Ending torture is not about him. Peace and stability are not about him, unless it leads to “a deal.” And women’s rights do not belong to his universe.

He can only create chaos. That is what he is good at. You cannot expect anything else from a man whose casinos went bankrupt.

He may declare “victory” in a couple of days or a couple of weeks, leaving Israel to itself and Iran in chaos. Bye-bye, clear up the mess.

We all hope for an end to the hideous Islamic regime, where women have been raped and beaten to death for showing their hair.

The best thing we can hope for with this war is that it has propelled the regime’s inevitable demise.

In the meantime, Trump is occupied with his ballroom.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Thanks for reading! Please subscribe and learn more about why we need to grow up —and stop morons from leading the world.

The Epstein scandal could have been avoided.

A sordid saga could have been limited to a brief notice about a despicable human being no one had heard of, with a few accomplices no one had heard of either, and a handful of victims swiftly taken care of.

That did not happen. Because no one stopped Mandelson, Jagland, Andrew, Chomsky, Musk or the rest of the lovely lot.

They were able to sail through life until they hit an underwater rock called the Epstein files.

But the signs would have been there for decades.

None of them became the sort of person who befriended him.
They already were, much as power corrupts the already corruptible.

These people would always have been hungry for recognition and willing to eat any mouthful of it—no matter if it came from poisonous creatures.

And if their excuse is poor judgement, they have probably shown lots of poor judgement in the past.

If they are “sorry” now that they have been found out, they have likely had similar episodes where they were “sorry” when caught red-handed.

What if the warning signs had been recognised early?

How did they treat those beneath them?

How did they handle criticism? By attacking or seeking revenge?

Was there much “my way or the highway”?

Not always telling the truth? Breaking promises? Playing games?

Any signs of insecurity? Seemed eager to fawn on those above them?

Or on anyone with a tiny bit more prestige than themselves?

For instance, the coworker whose mother had been at a party with David Bowie in 1969?

We often realise when something is wrong with another human being. Sadly, we are also eager to please, thirsty for praise, easily fooled by a charming manipulator—making us push the “BUT” button.

“But he is so competent.” – “But she is so good with people.” – “But a bit of ruthlessness is needed in this business.”- “But, sometimes you need to cut corners.” – “But we all make mistakes.” – “But, he didn’t mean any harm.”

A persistent stream of “BUTS” led to these people landing or holding positions with enough prestige to be picked up on Epstein’s radar.

And that is the big lesson from this affair: Stop excusing bad behaviour.

Most of the people in Epstein’s circle did not abuse any women or underage girls. Still, they were King Jeffrey’s excellent enablers.

And they have likely been excused for bad behaviour and poor judgement for decades, long before they looked into the eyes of the inglorious bastard.

Remember that the next time you have a “But, he is…” at the tip of your tongue.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ 

Thanks for reading!

As President Zelensky has reminded us, conflicts are not about territories; they are about people.

Despite an invasion of international press, we read and hear far too little about the impact this crazy claim on Greenland has on its population.

What we have seen a lot of is speculation about the Orange Moron’s motives. “Is it about minerals, oil, security, or something else?” (It’s about “I want it.”) We have heard podcasts about what might happen if U.S. troops and allies stand face to face in Greenland. Some of the reporting is bordering on macabre entertainment.

But what about the people actually living on that island? “People, don’t sleep, children are afraid, and it takes up all of our time.” That aspect seems to have been lost in the cacophony surrounding this episode of the POTUS reality show.

Territories, resources and state interests are abstractions.

Conflicts impact people. That is what matters. Conflicts are always about people.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Please, subscribe.

To the volunteers at By_Porokhova in Lviv 💛 💙

In November, I spent a few days in their delightful company.

This organisation has made camouflage nets since the Russian invasion in 2022. Nets that save lives by shielding tanks, vehicles and equipment.

On the second floor of an Art Nouveau house in central Lviv, volunteers gather day after day, weaving tirelessly, only interrupted by a scrumptious tea break at midday.

The work may look easy, but I soon discovered it is not. I also have a suspicion that these ladies were particularly quality-conscious: the right mix of colours, a meticulous variety of patterns, neither too tight nor too loose. All to make it look natural.

Each weaver had a technique of their own, distinct from the others, leaving a personal signature on every net, much like a work of art.

On my last day, I was asked to move to another net, “so we can get this one finished.”
I have a long way to go in my career as a camo net weaver. Thanks for bearing with me.

The ceremony in which they roll a finished net together while singing the national anthem is one of my best moments from 2025.

Thank you Olga, Nina, Nataliia, Maria, Anna, Kateryna, Olena, and the rest of the lovely ladies for all you do for your soldiers, your country, and for humanity. Ukraine will win this war.

Merry Christmas to you all 🎄

Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦

Find out more:

By_Porokhova

Subscribe now

I arrived in Lviv on a Friday afternoon. If I had landed from outer space, I would have found it hard to believe that Ukraine is a country at war.

Lovely autumn weather. Restaurants serve champagne and oysters. Youngsters, families and the elderly stroll around the old town. Among them are some overdressed young women, supplemented by insecure young men circulating in overpriced cars. In other words, what you would find in any European city.

Apart from a few reminders. Closed museums and covered monuments. Stacks of sandbags. Pictures of the fallen and the Azovstal banner hanging on the south wall of City Hall.

A soldier walks by with a bouquet of red roses. Who are they for? A girlfriend he hasn’t seen in months?

Bars are full early in the afternoon. With a curfew from 11 p.m., the party starts early.

Thirst and hunger call, and Lviv surely knows how to satisfy those needs. But the service does not come with a smile. Praising their food, wine and bravery helps the matter.” Oh! Thank you!!!” The language barrier puts an end to any further conversation.

For three days, I tap my card around Lviv, and wonder if the local currency, hryvnia, I brought with me will come to any use.

Some of that cash goes to a pair of street musicians sounding like classically trained violinists.

Then I woke up on Monday morning. Was that the air raid alert? Followed by a massive explosion? It was. I go down to the reception. No panic in sight. Some guests head for the basement, while others have breakfast. No power, no Internet.

The hotel staff seem to be remnants from the Communist era who answer questions in as few syllables as possible, while using as few facial muscles as possible, despite good command of the English language. “We don’t know. Sit and wait.” They leave me none the wiser about what has happened.

Subscribe now

Hard rational thinking sets in. “Leaving tomorrow. Do I have enough cash? How long will the battery on my phone last? Can I get a taxi? How long will it take me to walk to the bus station?”

After a few hours, the all-clear signal sounds. To the east, a plume of dense, dark smoke still rises in the distance. A power station?

No electricity means no trams, so I let my feet lead me to the IFAK project* (Individual First Aid Kit) I intend to visit.

The weekend’s relaxed atmosphere has been replaced by muted defiance. Outside a grocery store, people have formed a long queue in the twilight. Families wanting something for dinner that doesn’t need heating. Nobody says a word. A father holds the hand of his little daughter, who stands there like a pink-coated statue.

At night, cafes and restaurants are all open and mostly full. Still no electricity. Cold soups and salads are on the menu. The waiters handle orders with the help of candles. For the first time in decades, I receive a handwritten receipt. Where have they dug up those forms? The Ukrainians must have hidden them in the same communist closet as the deadpan receptionists at my hotel.

I can imagine what this would have been like at home. Where walking a mile through Stockholm due to heavy snow is “The worst thing I have ever experienced,” as a young woman interviewed on TV claimed.

Here in fat&lazy Western Europe, we have been lost in trivial quarrels and luxury problems for far too long.

The war in Ukraine has reminded us of what matters.

The people of Ukraine have shown us who we ought to be, and what we are capable of—if we are willing to take up the call.

I say goodnight to a dark Lviv in the company of the moon, wishing Putin and his cronies an eternal life in burning hell.

*I wrote about the project elsewhere. Sadly, it no longer exists.

This was from my first visit to Lviv in October 2022. I’ll come back to you with a letter from my latest visit in November.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading, and please subscribe!

Last weekend, we witnessed the commendable “No Kings” demonstrations in the U.S. For years, we have watched similar anti-autocracy marches in Belgrade, Budapest and Bratislava, as well as in places such as Tbilisi, Turkey and Thailand.

In the last decade, people in various countries have marched against a string of issues. Be it climate change, Brexit, taxes, immigration, the EU, and the last two years—the war in Gaza.

Why do people attend these demonstrations?

The short answer: to feel that they matter.

There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is a problem if that is their only motivation. It is a problem when claiming to march for a good cause is merely an excuse for self-promotion—though you would probably have to put a gun to some of these protesters’ heads before they admitted that.

Because spraying soup on a van Gogh painting, shouting “Down with the Jews,” waving signs saying, “Defund the police,” doesn’t make you matter. It only gives you a false sense of mattering.

And if there is anything we humans are good at, then it is to chase mattering with the wrong tools, aiming at the wrong ends.

But what does it mean to matter, and why is it so important to us?

In their book “How People Matter,” Isaac and Ora Prilleltensky point out that mattering has two legs: It is about feeling valued AND adding value.

In other words: Feel valued + add value = You matter.

Hence, that protest with numerous selfies, those thousands of likes, or that shouting at opponents will not give you satisfaction. It will only make you thirsty for more of the same. Because it is all about you; it is not balanced by that other leg of mattering—adding real value to other people or to the planet.

And adding value is not something we “should” do to feel good about ourselves. It is a human need.

Or as the Prilleltenskys put it, “We have a profound need to make a difference in the world.”

Subscribe now

The great deceivers

Yet, we are the great deceivers, and the easiest to fool are ourselves. As a result, we pretend that we matter by dedicating our time to things that have no real value, such as self-centred protesting.

You may think that a blue-haired demonstrator and an over-botoxed influencer do not have much in common. They do. They are both motivated by the same intense need to matter. As we all are.

Some try to matter by joining religious cults, the MAGA movement— or both.

(I wonder how many of those who voted for the Orange moron felt they didn’t matter?)

Others work themselves to death to get that promotion. And while doing so, they go bankrupt due to that car, house, watch or whatever.

Becoming a football hooligan or an obsessive supporter of a superficial celebrity are other ways to chase mattering.

In extreme cases, people become mass murderers because they feel they don’t matter.

In 13 out of 15 school shootings, the perpetrator had been bullied or felt excluded, according to research referred to in “How People Matter.”

Not to mention so-called fame-seeking shooters. “My friend said that my face and name would go across the world,” as one of them phrased it.” He said I’ll become famous.”

Then we have the ones who have given up mattering altogether and seek comfort in food, porn, drugs or alcohol.

Take any problem in the world, and you will find that beneath it lies a desperate need to matter.

Thus, the question we should ask ourselves before any other issue is this:

“How can we build a society where everyone contributes meaningfully—and in doing so, truly feels that they matter?”

Subscribe now

Links:

When Fame Breeds Infamy: Shooters Who Want Attention, a Growing Phenomenon

“How People Matter” by Isaac and Ora Prilleltensky

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to make other people matter.

Maria Corina Machado from Venezuela won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.She is a brave and hard-fighting opposition leader and a worthy winner. But please, do not call this award a “right-wing politician’s battle against a left-wing regime.”

Maduro and his gruesome gang are not a leftist problem.

Branding any such self-serving regime as “left” or “right” does not address the problem. Branding them as left or right entrenches the problem.
Left-wingers can curse the right-wingers, right-wingers can curse the left-wingers, and everybody feels good about themselves. All the while, the can is kicked around, making sure the heart of the matter is not addressed: Irresponsibility.

Subscribe now

Peru has had seven presidents from the left, the centre and the right since 2016.

Argentina has experienced one economic crisis after another, with a constant need for international bailouts. That is not a left- or right-wing problem. It is not about whether Kirchner or Milei are in power.

Maduro and Ortega in Nicaragua are left-wing. And they are only looking after themselves, their families and loyalists. As is the case with Trump’s right-wing friends, Bolsonaro in Brazil and Bukele in El Salvador.

What all these mismanaged countries have in common is that nepotism and corruption are the norms. You hire your wife, son or sister. You enrich yourself as much as you can because that is what everybody does.

Add to that a culture of “mañana.” I love Latin America, but sacrificing something today for a better tomorrow is a neglected virtue in this part of the world. Emotions usually run high, rationality and consequential thinking often run low. If you have ever experienced a fireworks party in a “barrio,” you know what I mean.

The people, and especially the poor, deserve so much better, but are also contributing to their own misery, by letting themselves be way too easily swayed by fiery speeches and lofty promises.

So, stop believing that the problem with Latin America’s greedy, short-sighted, or autocratic regimes lies in whether they represent the left or the right—according to your own convictions.

And understand that believing so only contributes to kicking the can of immaturity further down the road.

The problem with politicians in Latin America is their immense irresponsibility, regardless of the ideology or political colour they are dressed in.

Barrio = Neighbourhood.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Please subscribe and learn about immaturity.
Meanwhile, be an adult.

Are you old enough to remember the flaming fallout between Musk and Trump? It happened less than a year ago. But what was the most shocking aspect of that sandbox fight?

That one of the brats is the richest man in the world (next to Putin, perhaps), and the other one is the most powerful man in the free world?

Nope.

The most shocking aspect of that sandbox fight is that no one seemed to ask, “How did we let it come to this?”

These two toddlers have been cheered and crowd-surfed all the way to the top. Still, any sign of soul-searching from all those who participated or enabled it (which is most of us) is totally absent.

Subscribe now

So, what if we face some inconvenient truths?

Our TV channels are rife with reality shows where participants dance, bake and copulate for a few hours of fame. And viewers devour. As they did with “The Apprentice,” where the leading star now runs his ultimate docuseries from the White House.

America is the embodiment of consumerism, celebrity culture and anti-intellectualism. But we, here in Europe, can no longer shield behind the “America is much worse” solace.

Voters in our countries also embrace “Only I can fix it” messages from politicians with limited brains and even more limited hearts. Trump might be the worst, but he is surrounded by a set of global, less orange semi-editions—on the left, and on the right.

Many of us felt above all that. We would never have voted for a Trump-like character. We don’t waste our time on reality shows. But Musk? He was different. Musk was our guy — the brilliant, science-minded entrepreneur who was going to save the planet. Our yearning for such a hero was so deep that we brushed off any warning signs.

This fun nerd planning to colonise Mars forces his employees to work themselves to death, calls them f— idiots and fires them at a whim. We didn’t want to listen to that. Musk was the good guy because that is what we wanted him to be.

Likewise, few asked why this person seems to be uninterested in giving back to the world, despite, at some point, amassing more wealth than the GDP of South Africa. Imagine what he could have done for his country of birth? Fixing the electricity crisis. Make children play football with shoes on. No more shanty towns with open sewers.

The peak of this unbridled adoration came from a man who should know better: Richard Dawkins, who tweeted the following after Musk had bounced around on a stage at one of the Orange Man’s rallies.

“Highly intelligent. The welfare of the world at heart.” My respect for Dawkins collapsed like the dinosaurs under the Yucatán asteroid. And it has far from recovered. How can a scientist, a champion of reason and critical thinking, be so deceived?

My take: Because Musk impressed Dawkins with his knowledge of science and his vision for a fossil-free future. And that is what mattered to Dawkins. Information about Musk’s egregious behaviour was pushed back or ignored. It didn’t fit the narrative.

Dawkins might have been a victim of the halo effect: The tendency to like or dislike everything about a person, even when you don’t know them very well. In Dawkins’ case, “He is intelligent. He knows a lot about science. He must be a good man.”

If this can happen to a famous scientist, who has built his whole career on seeking the truth, — it can happen to any of us. But that is not an excuse. Not for Dawkins. Not for the rest of us.

I don’t have all the answers to “How did we let it come to this?” I can’t imagine anyone has.

One thing I do know:

Subscribe now

We, ordinary people, need to take more responsibility for what happens in the world.

We need to acknowledge that this sandbox fight between two of the world’s most mighty men did not happen due to some abstract “system.” It didn’t happen because of some “they” either.

That sandbox fight was the inevitable result of who we chose to admire and what we chose to ignore.

So, the question isn’t “How did this happen?” It’s “How did we let it happen?”

We need to grow up and take much more responsibility for whom we admire, buy from, work for and vote for.

Some of the sources I used for this article:

Vladimir Putin: how much is Russian president's net worth?

Elon Musk's Wealth vs Countries’ GDP – 2010-2025 Comparison

Is the world’s richest person the world’s worst boss? What it’s like working for Elon Musk

Cape Town business owners concerned about loadshedding

Understanding the Energy Crisis in South Africa

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading!

These last weeks, I have been a walking tornado.

It is not just about the Amazon disappearing, that 46 % of Romanians voted for a clown or starving children in Gaza. Not even the usual suspects—Putin and the Orange man in the White House.

No, it’s about everyone and everything. I should include myself in this rage, but right now I am not capable of any kind of introspection.

I have cared about humanity all my life. Sadly, I am surrounded by a preponderance of people who do not seem to care about anything except the Eurovision, trendy sneakers, and the cheapest flight to Gran Canaria.

Subscribe now

Most people eat, breathe and die without having done anything but contributing to overpopulation, global warming, and making life worse for other creatures.

I have some questions for you.

What makes you think you are entitled to do that?

Furthermore, what will you do to compensate for all the harm you do?

For the vast majority of people, the answer would be “Nothing.”

Let this inconvenient truth sink in: Most people are not just a waste of space. They are a liability.

And if you belong to those who lie on the sofa night after night, munching empty entertainment, or those in the rat race for shallow status and cash they can spend on toys to impress other people with:

What makes you think you deserve any space on this precious planet?

Please consider joining Elon Musk’s colony on Mars.

Right now, I don’t give a damn about any of you.

Perhaps I should just invest in some money laundering shell company and become rich and ruthless? I’ll buy up an enormous area of land and dedicate it to rewilding. The few people I can stand will be invited to ceaseless champagne in my garden of Eden. We’ll celebrate the return of wild salmon, popping another bottle by the babbling brook, not giving a toss about what happens in the outside world. “Don’t come to me and ask for help you damn fools.”

I’ll think about it.

One thing I can see clearly in this fog of fury: If we humans go extinct—at our own doing— it is because we deserve it (I actually managed to include myself in that sentence). Unfortunately, we will take many remote relatives with us in the fall.

And if aliens visit our beautiful planet thousands of years from now, slowly recovering from Homo sapiens’ gluttony, their conclusion will be: “In the whole of the universe, we have seen nothing as bad as this. These creatures called humans must have been the stupidest ever to have existed.”

I could not agree more while I head for a walk, focusing on the wildflowers and the birdsong, trying not to kill any humans with my blue laser stare.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading!

Let’s forget about the damn fools for a while and join me in a toast to everything worth living for.

My comments will be short posts on a topical issue.

In America, it is easy to nod and agree with those upset about the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants.

In Sweden, it is easy to agree with all those pointing out the problems caused by decades of reckless immigration, portrayed in daily reports on mass murders, honour killings and organised crime taking over society. And, yes, nowadays, only the extremes on the so-called left deny the fact that these are imported problems.

In France, the Muslim problem has been on the political agenda for years. The majority of Germans are agitated by violence and terrorism carried out by legal and illegal newcomers. In Britain, they have the same problems —or even worse. In addition, the country struggles with polluted water, decaying housing and massive homelessness.

And many are good at describing and analysing these problems.

But.

However good anyone is at diagnosing a problem, does that mean the same people have the cure?

Sometimes they do. Just as often they don’t.

Subscribe now

You probably agree when someone points out the crime and cruelty of flying people to prisons in El Salvador, but does the same person have the cure for illegal immigration? Is going back to “open borders” a smart solution?

Or you may agree that something drastic has to be done about immigration. But is sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda a good idea? And even if you think it is a good idea, how is that scheme supposed to be carried out?

You may agree that the development of wind and solar energy is marred by hasty decisions and fishy investments. But does that give us no other alternative than nuclear energy?

You may agree that homeless people should take more responsibility for their own situation. But does that mean sleeping rough should be a criminal offence?

You may have applauded when Greta Thunberg screamed “How dare you” at a UN summit, but what roadmap does she have to offer? “Take action now” ???

You may feel shaken by the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza, but what do those “pro-Palestine” protesters want to achieve? Wiping out Israel and all the Jews living there?

My point is not to tell you what to think about any of these issues.

My point is that the next time you nod, smile, and type a “Spot on!” to someone’s savoury diagnosis, pause — before you do the same with their proposed cure.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading!

“It is always a writer's duty to make the world better,” said Samuel Johnson.

I would say it is our duty as human beings to make the world better. It is not a good thing to do. It is our responsibility.

It is our duty to strive for progress and to contribute to the greater good. It is our duty to understand that we are dependent on other human beings and that they depend on us. It is our duty to put ourselves to the best use possible.

People usually don’t leave it to the doctor to take care of their health.

Likewise, we cannot leave it to others to build a lively community, a well-being society or a healthy planet.

Subscribe now

I also believe that taking responsibility is our natural state of being. If you don’t take responsibility for the world around you, you will lead an empty life, because that is not who you are meant to be.

It is not enough to go to work, pay your taxes and raise a family. It is not enough to—perhaps—put your vote in a ballot box every few years.

You may agree with this. Like many of us, you have ideas about how we can make the world better. You also know how important civic engagement is.

But how do we convey that message to others? Especially to characters like Mario and Marion who spend most of their free time on the sofa, munching empty entertainment with their mobile in their hand.

What should we do — in a world of screamers and sleepwalkers?

I have supported numerous campaigns, been a member of several organisations, including a political party, with sweet, sour and savourless experiences.

Civic engagement has never been as rosy as it is portrayed to be. And it is less rosy than it was a decade or two ago. The world has become polarised, dominated by screamers, whether they sound like Donald Trump or Greta Thunberg. Nowadays, the risk is high that you enter a cult-like community, where critical voices are silenced. “People like us don’t have opinions like that.”

But that is no excuse for doing nothing—instead of something.

And that is the message to convey: “Do something.”

Putting your vote in the ballot box now and then is not enough to call yourself a responsible citizen.

Here is my shortlist for somebody, like Mario and Marion, who wants to spend less time on the sofa and take more responsibility for the common good, but don’t know where to start.

Find out what is going on around you:

1. Read and support local news.

2. Visit your nearest library.

3. Learn about what happens at your local council.

Almost every achievement springs out from the fact that people meet – in real life – and do something together. And to meet you need a location. For most people that meeting place is in their local community. That is where responsible and engaged citizens are forged.

And here is another message to send to the disengaged Marios and Marions:

Your vote may not matter as much as you would like to. But the total of what you do, or do not do, matters more than you think.

“Those who fall asleep in a democracy, may wake up in a dictatorship”. That quote is by the German historian Otto Gritschneder, and his words are as relevant as ever.

Trump’s tornado and Putin’s pugnacity have whirled many out of their sleepwalking. “We have something to preserve here, and only we can do it.”

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading, do something worthwhile with rest of your day, and please subscribe!

This is not the article I intended to write. My intention was to write a short, strong and scintillating argument for why we need to vote, and why we should reprimand those who do not vote.

I wanted to show you that if it hadn't been for all those, often lazy, non-voters, we would not have ended up with Trump, Brexit, Erdogan, Bolsonaro or Orban.

I envisioned you, reading and nodding, while also learning a thing or two.

After some research all that went down the tubes.

Let’s look at three of my cocky “we-all-know-that” assumptions. And how they ended up in the bin or the "not-so-sure-anymore" tray.

Subscribe now

My 1^st cocky assumption: “Non-voters determine elections.”

Wrong.

Non-voters determine the outcome of elections much less than we think.

At least according to research from the Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland.

The Swiss–Irish article presented a compilation of research on elections from around the world and concluded that

“…turnout does not matter a great deal, no matter what method, dataset or period of time the authors [other researchers] apply. The various contributions each demonstrate that overall effects are minimal.”

That article is from 2006 and does not take into account the last presidential elections in the U.S. But before that, only 2 elections would have ended differently with a 100 % voter turn-out.

“Of the 13 presidential elections between 1952 and 2000 in only two—those of 1980 and 2000—was the lead of the winning party sufficiently narrow that a different final outcome would have been likely.”

And the trend is the same all over the world no matter the voting system. Low or high voter turnout does not affect election outcomes much. It seems as if those who vote are representative of the population.

Or as the Dutch researcher words it:

“This is exactly why low turnout appears not to matter much: …those who vote fairly well represent the electorate as a whole.”

My 2^nd cocky assumption: “It’s the working class that doesn’t vote.”

Almost wrong.

Working-class people are more inclined not to vote compared to other social classes. But the difference is small. The Dutch article sums it up like this:

“If the overall turnout were to drop from 90 per cent to 10 per cent, the proportion of working class voters at the polls would fall by only 3 percentage points. These findings thus provide no support for the hypothesis that those who are economically worse off will be poorly represented when turnout is low.”

And, yes, higher turnout favours left-wing parties. However, not enough to have a distinct impact on election results, according to the two researchers from Switzerland and Ireland.

“…sometimes the left would benefit from higher turnout, sometimes other parties.”

My 3^rd cocky assumption: “People should always vote.”

Not wrong, but perhaps I should not be so sure about “always.”

What if it is the most ignorant among us who don’t vote? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

The was what the Dutch researcher formed his hypothesis around.

“If voters base their choice on other considerations say, the blue eyes or nice bum of a party leader, … then not voting is a blessing in disguise. “

But the researcher’s hypothesis did not hold up. Non-voters seem to have fairly the same clue about politics as voters have.

However, the Dutch research was based merely on the European Parliament election in 1999. Thus, the researcher thinks it would be wise to have a closer look at this issue. And, as stated in the Swiss-Irish article, much non-voting around the world is due to indifference and ignorance.

Hence, based on these two research articles, it is hard to conclude whether it is the most ignorant who don’t vote, or if non-voters know as much about politics as voters do— which does not say much.

In other words, we cannot be sure whether the “blue-eyes-and-nice-bum” people are overrepresented among non-voters or not. You may find them in equal measure among voters. Justin Trudeau, the ex-prime minister of Canada probably attracted some of them.

Still, I believe people should vote. But, I am no longer as cocksure as I was before reading these articles that everyone should always vote. I will swallow another pinch of humbleness, which will do me good.

And now we have finished the review of my three cocky assumptions. What have we come up with?

Summary

1. Low voter turnout has little impact on election results.

2. Working-class people vote less than others, but not in a significant measure.

3. Non-voters may or may not be more ignorant about politics than voters are.

I ended up with one wrong, one almost wrong and one not-so-sure-anymore.
Can I assume that your results looked much the same?

But despite my wounded ego—and yours, too? 😊 —is not voting still a problem?

Is not voting still a problem?

Since non-voters have little impact on election results, should we brush not voting off as a mere nuisance?

No. Even if it is the most ignorant that don’t vote, the question arises:

Should we leave it with that? Is it acceptable that people are so clueless that it is better they don’t vote?

And even if a non-voter knows as much about politics as the average voter, is it okay that they don’t drag their feet to the nearest polling station?

Should we leave Mario and Marion to their sofas, their baking competitions, and their cat videos?

No. Because not voting is part of a bigger problem. That of disclaiming responsibility.

And responsibility, my dear friends, is what I am going to talk to you about in my next post.

Thanks for reading!

Subscribe now

1. Trump cares about nothing but his own ego. “But it can’t be all about that?” It IS all about his ego. “Does this make me look good? Does this make me feel powerful?”

Subscribe now

2. Trump does not have any values or principles. He is not right-wing, isolationist or anything. Trump is “All About Me.”

3. Trump does not lie —according to him. You do.

4. Trump does not have any strategies. His redolent enablers have.

5. Trump lives in the moment. You gave him fuel, Macron and Starmer, but how long will it last? He needs flattery 24/7. And if you are not there to give it to him, he will draw it from any source he can find. Hint: The Kremlin.

6. Trump has no empathy. I am deeply sorry Mr. Zelensky, but he does not give a toss about starved prisoners of war.

7. Trump does not even care about America. It is “Me first” and “Make ME great forever.” Tariffs are for him. Canada and Greenland are for him. A mineral deal with Ukraine is for him.

8. Trump is always right—according to him. Reasoning with him is a waste of time.

9. Trump does not learn anything. He does not read, reflect or listen.

10. Trump knows very little. He snaps up some idea or phrase out of context and thinks it will make him look great. “Why don’t we nuke them [hurricanes]?”

11. Trump needs to win. Always. He will do anything to bring the message home that he is superior. If he cannot win here and now, he will come after you later.

12. Trump thrives on threats. It is his sweet weapon that often works.

Putin, Xi, Kim and all the other autocrats understand all of this. They have understood it for years. And they know how to use that knowledge to their advantage.

It is time for you to catch up.

Subscribe now

For the first time, I am embarrassed to be Norwegian.

I am embarrassed that our neighbours have taken up loans and contributed much more to Ukraine than my own country has. The Baltic countries, Denmark, Sweden and Finland deserve all the applause they can get.

I am embarrassed that the Norwegian government tries to manipulate us, and the world, with number-magic to make us believe they give more to Ukraine than they actually do.

I am embarrassed that Norway has harvested so much from this war through gas revenues without providing corresponding support.

According to the Norwegian economists, Halland and Mork, Norway has earned “more than the value of all the military and civilian support Ukraine has received from the United States and Germany combined from when the war started through October 2024.”

More than United States and Germany, the two largest contributors, combined!

Subscribe now

And this is what is most embarrassing: Norway has no excuses. The government does not have to choose between giving to Ukraine or letting pensioners freeze. Far from it. We could have given all that extra revenue to Ukraine without taxpayers having to give up a single cup of coffee.

For every missile attack, for every child buried under rubble, I think “Norway could have prevented this.”

I watched a video of an emaciated Ukrainian soldier, newly freed from Russian captivity, crying while eating an apple. And I was thinking “Norway could have prevented that.”

The cause and effect are, of course, not that simple, but my country could have prevented so much suffering. And our government choose not to.

Why does the government act like this?

It comes down to our government and particularly the prime minster, Jonas Gahr Støre. Other political parties pressure the government to give more, but so far to no avail. Why this reticence? That seems to be a mystery.

Is it fear of Russia? Maybe, but that has not been expressed. The prime minister mumbled something about widespread corruption in Ukraine, or that the country lacks the capacity to receive more support. The rumour is that he dropped a comment in a meeting about “If we give more, others will give less.”

It is all lukewarm prevarications and subterfuge. But for what?

We, who cares deeply about Ukraine shake our heads in bewilderment.

The hardest thing to swallow is that Norway could make Ukraine win.

A victory for Ukraine, not just some wishy-washy peace deal, would be the best thing that could happen, not just for Ukraine but also for Europe.

A victory for Ukraine would be a victory for freedom and democracy, for Europe and European values. For Socrates and Shakespeare. For Monet and Maidan. For everything we cherish. For why Ukraine is fighting this war.

A victory for Ukraine would also give Europe a much needed boost in confidence. A victory could make us believe in our own greatness and not just react to whatever happens elsewhere in the world. “This is who we are.” This is what we believe in.” This is what we want to build.”

Norway is not a member of the European Union but very much part of the European family.

What the recalcitrant government doesn’t seem to grasp either: Nothing could enhance my country’s standing in the world more than making Ukraine win. In a post-fuel future, that prestige could come in handy.

Norway could make Ukraine win this war and can afford it. Instead, I and many of my compatriots bend our heads in shame, wishing we had been a bit more like Denmark or Lithuania.