If you want a distraction from any Sunday gloom, here is a poll for you.

His niece, Mary Trump, says he doesn’t have a single good quality. And she has known him all her life. I agree, but what is the absolute worst thing about him?

Or do you think it’s something else? Write a comment.

Perhaps the orangutan story will cheer you up:

* Trump was a prominent leader of the “birther” movement. It pushed the false claim that President Obama was not born in the United States and pressured Obama to release his birth certificate.

In response, comedian Bill Maher made a joke suggesting that Trump was the offspring of his mother and an orangutan from the Brooklyn Zoo (same hair). Maher then challenged Trump to prove his “claim” wasn’t true.

The orange man responded as expected: Taking it seriously and suing Bill Maher.

“My parents were very fine people! Very fine people!!” Trump later withdrew the lawsuit.

Thanks for taking part!

Subscribe now

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 Moron’s 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?

And of course: 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, validation 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 hus 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, the Moron 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.

What can we, ordinary citizens, learn from this sordid saga?

That the people in Epstein’s circle could have been stopped.

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.

In other words, the signs would have been there for decades.

It was predictable but not inevitable that these people ended up in the Epstein files.

What if the warning signs had been recognised early?

Did they deflect blame or claim credit?
Did they admit error?
Did they show empathy?
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”?

Any temper tantrums? Followed by playing the victim?

Did they walk their own talk?

Or did they leave the heavy lifting to somebody else?

Lots of charm, little substance?

Not always telling the truth? Breaking promises?

Betraying people? 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 know 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 another lesson from this affair: Stop excusing bad behaviour.

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 few 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.

Most of them 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 shook hands with the inglorious bastard.

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

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ 

Thanks for reading! Please, subscribe to read more about why immaturity is the root cause of all our problems.

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.

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 thinking about what to say to Madam Narcissistic boss at the Monday meeting. You also contemplate how to edit a coming report and evade the scolding you received last time you gave her some bad news. And that boring business trip you said yes to was just to avoid her for a few days. The narcissist has entered your head and consumes more and more of your energy.

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. And 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 Orange 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 positions 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.

Who are these enablers?

I have written about “stupid voters,” so let’s forget about the voters for now and look at enablers 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 well-meaning and gullible, but also eager to get results. In politics, that means winning elections. To begin with, the excuses may sound like “She isn’t that bad, look how people flock around her.”

Before long, the charming facade of the narcissist 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. Then the excuses shift to “But she attracts voters.” “She is so capable.”

And the longer you hang on to that excusing carousel, the more difficult it is to jump off. So, you make another excuse and another one. 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. 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, but now (finally!) this new guy allows them to be themselves.

Now they understand how underappreciated they have been. How stupid and incompetent the others are. How easy it is to get promoted if you behave in the right way and say the right things. Just do as the real narcissist do.

They are part of the booming band!

Since these enablers are not complete narcissists, they feel guilty for letting down people they have worked with for years, but brush that aside. Being nice is so yesterday.

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.

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, he or she draws their circle of enablers closer, shutting the adults 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 sycophants, love-bombed senior managers, and made sure they get those promotions they are entitled to, the enablers wake up to the strict rules they must follow.

Rule number 1: Don’t criticise the narcissist. Not even inadvertently by mentioning how much you dislike the colour purple—the narcissist’s favourite. ”So, purple isn’t good enough for you?!”

Rule number 2: Don’t ask inconvenient questions. Not even a “Why are we doing this?”

Rule number 3: Always praise. Never, ever forget that. No matter what you say. “As Mark suggested, originally an excellent idea of yours, sir/madam…”

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 become prime minister in Italy. Or a corrupt Sarkozy, the president of France.

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. In Sweden, it took 70 years to root out the corruption in the army after the Napoleonic wars in the 19^th century.

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.

As I have suggested before, anyone entering politics should undergo testing for mental competence.

Likewise, they should be screened for narcissistic and psychopathic traits. It’s not too much to ask that we ensure our leaders are not self-absorbed, entitled, contemptuous of democracy, fundamentally untrustworthy and cannibalistic—eating anyone for breakfast, and spitting out the leftovers.

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a widely recognised and reliable tool, often used in hiring processes. 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—ideally by one or more psychologists. And the higher the office, the more rigorous the evaluation should be.

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

There is, by the way, 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.

Will there be anyone left?

But if we are able to weed the narcissists and the psychopaths out of politics, will there be anyone left? Aren’t all politicians self-serving and narcissistic?

I don’t think they are, but too many are.

The problem is that good politicians have to compete with heaps of “charismatic” narcissists who convince voters they are their guy.

There might be a dip in the recruitment if we weed these idiots out, but down the road, we will see more mature people entering politics. The ones who are not hungry power-grabbers but who have a wholehearted wish to make things better. The ones who need some persuasion to enter politics.

Or as Abraham Maslow put it, “The safest person to give power to is the one who doesn’t enjoy power.”

That is a person who understands that the job is about service, about daring to make unpopular decisions, about cooperating with people you don’t like, about taking responsibility for things you could not possibly avoid, about admitting mistakes and correcting the course.

Such persons know they are entitled to nothing.

Links

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 subscribe, and learn more about why immaturity is the world’s core problem.

What was the most shocking aspect of the sandbox fight that took place before our eyes?

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 ask ourselves some inconvenient questions?

What if we had not been so eager to embrace a man providing us with status-enhancing electric cars and lift him up as a champion of sustainability? We were so eager to have such a hero that we disregarded all the signals.

This fun nerd wanting 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’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?

And then you have the Orange. Where to start?

We have, of course, all those who voted for him, once, twice, or thrice. We have the millions who didn’t bother to vote. We have the ones with grievances over the cost of living, and believed the Orange man would do something he has never done —help other people.

Not to mention all those calling others racist for being concerned about immigration, or those busy cheering “Queers for Palestine.” They drove many voters into the verbal vomit of the Orange.

He became the good guy to millions of Americans because he made them feel good about themselves.

Subscribe now

But what about the rest of us?

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.

We too bought luxury cars and pretended to save the planet. What more can you ask?

Voters in our countries also embrace “Only I can fix it” messages from politicians with limited brains and even more limited hearts.

Our TV channels are just as 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.

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:

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 happened due to our culture and our mentality. And since we created it, we are the only ones who can change it.

We need to stop being seduced by “He is famous.” - “She gets things done.”- “He is one of us.” -“She says it as it is.” - “He has made a fortune.” Or - “He is intelligent,” like Richard Dawkins did.

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!

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 our beloved narcissistic maniacs and their dubious moral compasses, we have politicians who are not up to the job. A good heart says little about your capabilities.

A friend of mine worked as a civil servant 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.’

But what if you had to pass a test before entering politics?

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

One group that is rigorously tested before landing a job, is the civil servants in Brussels.

Subscribe now

A civil servant in Brussels

To become a civil servant to 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 multi-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 toward wind and solar, and set conditions for whom 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 soul-less 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 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 realize, 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 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. So are courage, determination and stamina also matter. ‘We shall never surrender,’ Churchill said and lifted the British people through the war.

But the kind of evaluation I am suggesting would cover only the basics. It would be like an admission test to a university, justified, even for people of Winston Churchill’s calibre.

Subscribe now

Politics, only for the educated?

Would such testing exclude less educated candidates? No, anyone could do these sets. And as with the civil servants in Brussels, you should be offered preparation tests and be able to practice as long as you need to.

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 such an evaluation test ‘a 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 its implications. What are the actual consequences? 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

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.

A democracy can work pretty well with stupid voters until the right idiot comes along. And the higher the number of stupid voters, the more likely that such an idiot will become our leader. As what happened in America.

In most countries, you have to pass a test to get a driving licence. And those licences were introduced to curb the number of traffic accidents.

Set that against voting, where we make decisions about our country’s future, our own future, our children’s future without needing any skills or knowledge whatsoever. One voter can, of course, not cause the immediate damage one driver can. On the other hand, our total vote impacts everyone and almost everything in our lives.

So, what if we introduced a test-based licence to vote? It would not constitute a panacea, but imagine the number of traffic deaths without the driving licence requirement. Similarly, a test to vote could prevent the worst of the narcissistic maniacs from ending up in a position of power. A number of scholars have come up with the same idea, among others, the economist Dambisa Moyo.

However, the test I have in mind would be different.

A basic understanding of the political system and the principles of democracy must be included in a voter test. “Who is responsible for what? How do the different institutions relate to each other?” But such questions will be just a 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. I want 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 variance 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.

Make the test relatable and worthwhile

Show people that good thinking is not just about voting, it is about every decision you make. And why not bring some humour into the test? Being a responsible citizen involves having a good laugh.

Also, make the test relatable to people’s everyday life:

• 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?”

• 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.”)

• 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?”

But coming up with a list of suggested questions is one thing. Much more tricky is who should decide what to put in.

Who should put these tests together?

Who should decide on the test 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.

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

And testing and trying are the key issues here.

We need more experimentation

A sad thing about politics is the lack of testing. Politicians are so afraid of making mistakes and risking not being re-elected they dedicate almost zero time to test and try 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. Brave enough to encounter a bunch of backlashes before we get it right.

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

Having rambled through all these considerations about what, why and how, 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. 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 stupid 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.”

What about the costs?

What about the costs for all this testing?

My counterargument: What about the costs for unskilled voters? What has and will the Orange toddler cost America and the world? What will his tariffs and promised tax cuts for the already supersonic rich cost? Orban has made Hungary the poorest country in the European Union. Erdogan ignited a long-standing economic crisis in Turkey. Brexit has cost the Brits deeply.

What about politicians?

This was my third article on what to do about ignorant, lazy, short-sighted and easy to fool voters. Or what I call stupid voters.

So what about that other leg a democracy stands on, the politicians themselves? As I mentioned in the beginning, a democracy can work even with stupid voters until the right idiot comes along. Such an idiot now sits in the White House.

We cannot have it like that. People around the world cannot be dependent on whether millions of Americans vote for a narcissistic maniac or a sane person. And America is not alone. Voters around the world put manchildren in power—again and again.

However, even the best voters imaginable cannot achieve much without good candidates to vote for.

A huge problem is that anyone can become a politician with no proof of his or her skills, knowledge or character. If voters are obliged to pass a test, so should politicians. But a much tougher one, of course.

Many politicians do an excellent job, dedicating their time to create better lives for all of us. Unfortunately, the good ones have to compete with a large number of idiots. And by idiots, I mean immature, self-serving people with infantile needs who often cannot manage their own lives. They are not fit to be in charge of anyone or anything.

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/democracy-crisis-plan-trump-brexit-system-politicans-voters

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

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/10/can-we-help-save-democracy-by-requiring/

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

https://www.ucd.ie/cepl/publicoutreach/covid-19pandemic/askaphilosopher/shouldwetestpeoplebeforeweallowthemtovote/

Civic education and critical thinking in schools

https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/news/civic-education-sparks-connection

https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/news/critical-thinking-education

Critical thinking games

Crancky Uncle:

https://crankyuncle.com/book/

Bad News:

https://www.getbadnews.com/en

How to use Cranky Uncle:

Critical thinking

Confirmation bias and overconfidence effect:

https://thinkingispower.com/guide-to-the-most-common-cognitive-biases-and-heuristics/#h-confirmation-bias

Inoculate against misinformation:

https://thinkingispower.com/inoculate-against-misinformation/

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.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brennan-epistocracy-20160828-snap-story.html

Roosevelt - “Looking Forward”

https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/rooseveltfd-lookingforward/rooseveltfd-lookingforward-00-h-dir/rooseveltfd-lookingforward-00-h.html

Hungary

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240619-2

Mandatory voting

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/22-countries-voting-mandatory

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

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.

Millions of American made sure that the destiny of Ukraine and Palestine, the world economy, the climate and much more depend on a maniac who was called the dumbest student ever by his teacher.

We cannot have it like this.

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

People vote for maniac manchildren — again and again.

In Brazil, a pastor and Bolsonaro supporter told the BBC that “We'll vote for Bolsonaro because he is God.”

In Hungary, people may not believe Victor Orban is god, but they have voted four times for that egg-shaped Putin-enabler eager to turn down democracy and enrich himself.

In Turkey, Erdogan envisions a new Ottoman empire while strengthening his one-man rule. He has won three presidential elections, and before that, he was elected prime minister three times.

We cannot have it like this.

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.

Subscribe now

Some of these manchildren are more radioactive than others. What they all have in common is that they only care about themselves. “Me First” and “Make Me Great Forever.”

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 any more.

We must stop accepting that voters behave like that.

Where is the uproar?

Nonetheless, the media and public debate treat elections as if voters, by and large, know what they are doing. Despite the fact that everybody knows that stupid, uninformed voters are as commonplace and as old a problem as democracy itself.

“Here is a ranking of the issues voters are most concerned about.”

It’s like drunk drivers demanding wider lanes and fewer curves.

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

In America, I noticed some mumbling about better education and more critical thinking the last time Trump won. In other countries, there isn’t even a mumbling. 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.

Still, no uproar or fierce debate about it.

And what should we do?

First of all, we need to agree that this is a problem on a scale with obesity, drug-addiction and every other public health issue combined. In fact, it is worse, since stupid voters affect everyone, and every sector, and every corner of society.

This is how bad it is

Let’s compare stupid voters to another societal problem to show you what I mean.

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 do something. 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 health care, education, policing, electricity, 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.

But we cannot have just any kind of debate about the problem of stupid voters. We need to have the right focus.

The problem isn’t Trump or Orban

We need to stop focusing on the “wrong” leaders or parties.

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

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

Educating voters is teaching them 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?”

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

Stupid 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. To not give children power they cannot handle.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading!

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.

Treat them as the bastards they are.

More correctly, this is what the psychologist Abraham Maslow said:

“The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave towards them as if they were bastards. That is the only realistic way to treat bastards.

If one smiles at them and assumes that trusting and giving them the keys to the pantry is going to reform them suddenly, then all that will happen is that…they will become contemptuous of the weak whom they will see as spineless, unmasculine sheep to be taken advantage of.

I have found that the best thing for me to is to break their back immediately….to make them jump, even to clout them on the head … [to] show very clearly who is boss. …Then and only then could I teach them that it is possible for a boss, a strong man, to be kind, gentle, trusting and so on.”

Maslow’s words ring true more than ever. We, who aim to be well-meaning, democratic, reasonable human beings, must understand there is a time for everything. Right now, the world has an abundance of bastards. It is time to treat bastards as the bastards they are.

Whether they sit in Washington, Moscow, Teheran, Beijing or Caracas.

__________________________________________________

Source: Maslow on Management

Thanks for reading! Drop a comment om anything about bastards or about Maslow. Hit the suscribe button.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment