Who Is Dr Robert Malone?

Saviour, Traitor, Transhuman Puppet, A Born Self-Confident Freedom Leader Or A Man With A God-Complex?

This is long (probably full lengths only in the browser), but my severe accusations about the man’s character deserve proper and thorough investigation and evidence. So don’t rush it. Pick a good time and settle back.

I said it before, but for my new readers, I say it again: “I do not choose the topics I write about. They choose me.”

That’s why each of my articles is different and new. If you loved my rant about Malone a few days ago, I am afraid you won’t get the same again. So you can stop reading right now if that’s all you want. I don’t want to waste your time.

Instead, you will get mostly a very clinical, sometimes slightly sarcastic, cold analysis of Marones's character, sprinkled with small outbursts of anger about how stupid he thinks we are.

Ironically and unbelievably, even more than last time, he (they - him and Jill) deliver all their self-damaging character assassinations themselves. It is hard to say if it was caused by a complete lack of self-reflection, out-of-control arrogance, God-complex or deliberately and consciously kneeling to their new overlords.

“The Moraltiy Complex” reads like a character suicide, in my opinion.

But, of course, only from the “freedom movement” point of view. It is probably precisely the Substack required to convince the new, globalist transhuman-appointed regime to hire him. More betrayal of his dissident followers was requested, and a total submission to the postmodern transhuman narrative theory required.

The U-turn is mind-blowing.

But first things first.

A few days ago, triggered by his Substack, I wrote, “Fuck You, Dr. Robert Malone”, and was blown away by how it resonated so far with thousands of people. After only three days, it almost matches my so far most-read and liked article, Stupid People, in popularity. And the comments, shares and restacks keep coming in. Thank you, everybody, for engaging with this topic.

I did not expect that. I accidentally hit a raw nerve there.

But then, it isn’t such a big surprise as the guy wrote his own “Betrayal Substack” right there. All I needed to do was cobble it together and express my outrage.

And then he backs it up with an even more eye-opening Substack about who he really is, or, maybe more accurately, who he turned into to achieve his new objective, almost like a shape-shifter. He considers himself a high-agency transformational leader and concludes at the end:

…because high-agency transformational leaders often achieve that which they seek.

After finishing this article, I concluded that his man is an outright dangerous delusional narcissist based on his writings and conduct. All that matters to him (them) is me, me, me. This article is about himself (themselves) and how capable and amazing they are. It reads like a job application for the new but still globalist transhuman regime.

He finishes the article with a quote by C.J. Lewis

Every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different than it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing into a heavenly creature or a hellish creature […]

There is no doubt in my mind that he is convinced he is turning into a “heavenly creature.” Leaders like that, narcissists with a God-complex, are incredibly dangerous when they get too much power. Beware of this man.

Of course, this is only my instinctive and partly professional assessment. Each of us will draw our conclusions.

I base my assessment on three pillars: my professional background, my spiritual background, and my instinct and gut feeling, which have guided me very well through the last five years.

I am a trained psychotherapist and Hakomi therapist; character assessment is a big part of that. Over the past twenty years, I have also intensively read and studied spiritual leaders, and I practice meditation and self-enquiry daily.

Through both my psychotherapy training with weekly personal and group therapy sessions and my spiritual work, I got great insight into my own ego structure, including the narcissistic and psychopathic parts I, like most people, have to a certain degree.

As one of the critical commentators wrote, “It needs one to recognize one,” accusing me of not being different from Malone. He is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I have these traits but am acutely aware of them. Malone is acutely and unbelievably ignorant about his narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies.

Many will protest now and say: “Malone a narcissist? Maybe. But a psychopath? Never.”

Unfortunately, most people’s idea of a psychopath is shaped by extreme versions of it from Hollywood movies and MSM, like serial killers. They think this character trait is the exception rather than the norm. They couldn’t be more wrong. In its much weaker non-violent expressions, it is rampant everywhere in our society. It is often expressed quite differently from what most people expect.

In Hakomi character theory, the psychopathic character has two expressions: the better-known tough-generous type and the lesser-known charming-manipulative type. I think Malone is both, but mostly the latter.

What all psychopathic character types have in common, to the surprise of many, is a victim mentality at the core. A psychopath has a profoundly hurt and injured self from early childhood and developed these strategies to protect himself or herself from the perpetrators that caused the injury. Therefore, they feel like victims who defend themselves, and this is used to justify, depending on the degree of the injury, almost every cruel, harsh or manipulative act against others.

The “victim response” against his early critiques and attackers (suing Breggins) raised the first red flag for me and made me suspicious. In my opinion, a robust and balanced man doesn’t need to run to the courts to “defend his reputation” or restrict comments to paying subscribers.

Anyway, each of us has to decide about his character, which seems very hard to grasp for most people. However, as I learned from the many comments, something in him irks people mightily and makes them distrust him instinctively, without much evidence. But we got a lot of evidence in the past few days - from the man himself.

Who would know Dr. Malone better than Dr. Malone himself and, of course, his wife, Jill? To compensate for injured self-love, it is the hallmark of a narcissist to over-compensate in a need for public adoration and love.

Let’s hear what the man says and judge him based on that.

Why do I feel entitled to judge him? With great power comes great responsibility; if he gets things wrong, we will suffer the consequences.

I am sick and tired of our leaders in general and their narcissistic, selfish abuse of the mandates they have been given by trusting people to better their lives.

Why pick on him? I don’t only pick on him.

I frequently criticize so-called dissident leaders and influencers who disappoint me and make me feel betrayed. For example, I wrote about Dr. McCullough, the No. 1 sell-out here and here. Very popular Trump-cock-sucker Jeff Childers is also trying very hard to get my attention.

Some commentators said I am ungrateful because both Dr Malone and Dr McCullough were instrumental in turning the mass formation psychosis around.

I fully agree, and I am very grateful for what they did at the time. But that is in the past. They were rewarded for it numerous times. They got famous for it and, in my opinion, couldn’t handle it.

In my opinion, we have a new, much less obvious mass formation psychosis going on right now, and both support it. It is called Trump-Mania, and Trump will fix it.

I know many of you will believe in Trump, and I might be proven wrong, but I am convinced that even if he wanted, he can’t. The system is too far gone, and the transhuman globalists are too powerful. As you will see below, Malone himself just converted to their ideology.

And Trump is in their pocket, as I have written before, months before he was elected, in Trump Reveals He Is Pro-Israel And Pro-Globalist.

This opinion brings me no joy. I wish nothing more but that I am proven wrong and that Trump puts the deep-state bureaucracy and the globalists in their place. But until then (if it happens), let’s not be stupid and naive and watch carefully.

Ok, let’s dig into it, shall we?

Let’s start with Jill, the quiet ghost behind the big man.

We don’t talk a lot about her, do we? It is always him despite him making no secret that she is part of it, as in the first sentence of his latest article:

Sometimes, someone will ask me how Jill and I accomplish everything that we do.

That wasn’t the simple original quote I was after (“Behind every successful man is a woman”), but I couldn’t find it anymore on Google Images. Interestingly, it has been replaced with all sorts of weird and crazy variations. Anyway, this will do.

So, who is Jill? We should also ask that if we ask, “Who is Malone”? I think they come in a team, and my hunch is that she had a lot of input in that last article. I just felt that needs to be acknowledged to understand the man better. I have zero knowledge about her at all. She is like a ghost in the background to me, but she matters. Anyone?

Then, the title:

The Morality Paradox

Immediately, what comes up for me is this: For a true leader who knows his true self and, with it, his ego self intimately, morality will never be a paradox, something that can flip-flop or change with intellectual considerations.

A true and “good” leader must have a solid spiritual (not religious - beware of that) foundation and know who he is. From that foundation, all speech and actions flow spontaneously, without intellectual considerations, and a deep ethic and morality, based on first do no harm, is given and flows naturally. It will never be a paradox. Being “shifty” and “evasive” are not part of their psychological makeup. That’s why we instinctively trust them and instinctively don’t trust those who don’t have it, which, sadly, is the norm these days.

I know. I am setting a very high bar for Mr. Malone; millions of our leaders don’t pass it. But that’s precisely why we are in this ethical and moral mess right now. Someone who knows his true self and ego self will be very watchful about his or her ego temptations. And even more importantly, she or he will show great humility.

I find humility in all great spiritual masters and leaders who are spiritually (not religious) based. Sadly, once again, only Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind. Nelson Mandela, maybe? Surely, there must be some others. Help me out if you can in the comments.

Next, the photo. A picture says more than a thousand words.

There are no coincidences. Everything is chosen, mostly unconsciously.

What does this photo express to you? Humility?

There is, in my opinion, the narcissist right there, bathing in the attentions and adoration of the crowd and the smiling females taking photos. He looks so pleased with himself, doesn’t he?

And so in charge and competent.

There are not one but two screens, with adoring listeners at his feet. I see a benevolent, patriarchal-looking father figure with a biblical beard looking down on his flock. Humility, I see none.

But as I said, that’s just me with my biases, history, and psychological responses. I am not saying whatever I say here is the “truth” about this man. I am sure there are many who love and adore the man as he stands there.

As my mother used to say: “There is a lid for every pot.”

And no, I checked myself. I am not jealous, as some commentators suggested. I do not want what he has or want to be him—not one bit. I admit that the only thing I would love to have is his many paying subscribers.

But I also understand that this is not possible as long as I write as I write. To be successful in this world, we have to rub shoulders, make moral and ethical compromises, and try not to offend people.

Over the years, I have had thousands of subscribers, but I tend to lose most again because something I write always offends somebody, and egos are fragile.

I am terrible at writing in a style that is not offensive and will please most subscribers. And I don’t want to be a leader in action or “thought.” I want people to think and act for themselves because I believe that this insane and intense “leadership, influencer and “follower” culture” is at the core of our vastly eroding democracy and freedom.

Over the years, people have been trained into good puppy dogs that consume and work and let a few do all the thinking and ruling.

But I also get other great rewards from my writing, so I am becoming increasingly content with how it is. Sorry, I digress, back to the Malones.

Jill and Robert have chosen to send this image as a message, and that’s how he likes to come across: a loved and admired leader “above”. Not only physically but intellectually as well. Most of the article talks about what a high-achieving, high-agency alpha leader he is.

But there is more to it. His technological and intellectual expertise is also communicated. He sells himself as biblical and patriarchal but also modern and “high-agency,” smart and intelligent.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that. We all sell our persona to some extent, consciously and unconsciously. We all want to matter, get ahead and be liked. But do you trust this behaviour of selling yourself?

As rightly pointed out many times by

C.J. Hopkins

, GloboCap's dominance has turned everything into a commodity, even our character and image, especially for public figures. These days, it’s all images, perceptions, and stories with no real substance anymore.

The words

Sometimes, someone will ask me how Jill and I accomplish everything that we do. That is, travel about a third of each month, broadcast on TV and podcasts, write this substack, write books, write articles for other journals, garden, take care of our 20 horses, birds, dogs, and the farm, maintain a certain level of fitness, all the while taking care of our bodies and eating right

Message: We are high achievers. They do not mention (in this post) that they have the finances to employ people to run the farm and probably other services, but they are undoubtedly very industrious.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. That is the American Way of Life—work hard to get ahead. It is also a requirement for any government job he likes to get, so he is sending the right message. Does that make him a good, trustworthy leader? Maybe.

It is a lot, and we aren’t perfect. Things often fall through the cracks, emails get missed, […] ..most of the time, we work hard, don’t slack, and we work long hours. We do it because we enjoy it.

Okay, that's believable. But maybe also because we are “ambitious” and “want to get ahead”? That is left out.

Then, they write mostly negatively about “being goal orientated.”

Goal-oriented people are often rule followers. This is why so many physicians fell into the COVIDcrisis narrative. […] It can be taught, but also requires certain character traits, such as compliance with rules, attention to detail, self-control, the ability to work long hours, and a commitment to the long-term goal - whatever that may be.

I am lost to the exact logic and correlation between focusing on a goal and following rules. I trained and worked as a goal-setting life coach for several years, helping people define, set, and achieve personal goals.

The following rules didn’t feature at all, so why do they mention it? I believe we are getting “narrative-d” to create a certain character they like to dress themselves in.

They want to be seen as rule-breakers, dissidents, agents of change - not rule followers.

In my biased assessment, they want to distance themselves from being “only” goal-orientated people, often a synonym for “ambitious people”.

They make it clear that they are much more than mere rule-following, goal-oriented people:

Jill and I also consider ourselves to be high-agency.

That sounds very dynamic and sophisticated to me, no doubt. But also a tick elitist. What is high-agency, you may ask.

High-agency is a trendy new term coined by Eric Weinstein. A search on Pubmed revealed no scientific or case studies that used the term as described by the popular press and media. This is no surprise, as the psychology profession is full of paradigms that typically materialize from their dogmas. Those paradigm shifts outside that dogma are rarely embraced and often denigrated, along with those who propose them. […]

Wow - it is not only a trendy new term or idea; it is already a whole “paradigm shift”, seemingly created by one man: Eric Weinstein.

I can’t help but feel they want to manipulate the “narrative” even more in their favour.

I had no idea that one man could create " paradigm shifts " so quickly and single-handedly. But English is my 2nd language, so I must have misunderstood the term. Let’s look it up “paradigm shift”:

noun A radical change in thinking from an accepted point of view to a new one, necessitated when new scientific discoveries produce anomalies in the current paradigm. (Source)

Hmm, that's not precisely what they refer to. Quite the opposite, as they admitted that “there are zero scientific research or case studies” on it. It is also not a radical change because, as they later described it, it “contains” goal-setting. It is just an extension, and to call it a paradigm shift seems like a huge exaggeration.

So, why am I nitpicking this? Because it sends several underlying pretentious messages:

“We are using cutting-edge paradigm-shifting methods.”

“We are still dissidents - we are way ahead of the dogmatic psychological profession that denigrates us for using that cutting-edge stuff.”

Then, they use an AI bot to define “High Agency”.

Message: AI is good and nothing to worry about. Transhuman philosophy.

AI bot “Brave” tells us that

High Agency refers to an individual’s ability to shape their own destiny, bend reality to their will, and exert control over their life and work. It involves recognizing that the limitations and constraints imposed by others are merely stories, and that one has the power to rewrite those narratives.

It can’t get any more postmodern than this.

“Bend reality to their will” and limitations are “merely stories” that one has the power to rewrite. Translation: Our opinion and truth are just a story that they can overwrite with their will. Thanks, but no. I do not consent.

This is the philosophy that gave us wokeness, trans-gender acceptance, and 5th-generation psyop - all based on the belief there is no underlying truth; everything is just a story we believe that can be changed on pure will and so forth.

This is right out of the WEF transhuman playbook of Israeli Yuval Noah Harari telling us that all we are is “hackable animals.”

The cognitive dissonance for them must be pretty mind-bending.

On the one hand, they sign up for godless transhuman philosophy; on the other hand, they are making their Substack followers believe that they are God-fearing, homesteading, conservative, good-old Christians.

Or is the latter just old news, and they have moved on, entirely focusing on getting that job and showing the new globalist regime that they are totally on board with it?

Just asking.

If they get that job, maybe they won’t need the Christians anymore; perhaps they won’t need the Substack anymore, either.

Just speculating.

And maybe they don’t need their old, very close friends anymore either?

Like Mattias Desmet, who just recently dissected the transhuman Harari and blamed the underlying rational-materialistic worldview for the transhuman soulless life all around us.

They definitely seem to be using their new paradigm-shifting superpowers to bend the will of the new administration to hire him.

But maybe I am just jealous, too paranoid or confused and read too much into this.

Let’s examine their new “reality-bending” superpowers. By signing up for “high agency,” they acquired many outstanding attributes.

People with High Agency are characterized by their:

1. Authenticity: They stay true to themselves, unapologetically pursuing their goals and values.

2. Intentionality: They set clear goals and take deliberate action to achieve them, rather than simply reacting to circumstances.

3. Proactivity: They don’t wait for opportunities to arise; they create their own, often finding innovative solutions to overcome obstacles.

4. Discipline: They prioritize their goals and make sacrifices to achieve them, demonstrating self-control and perseverance.

5. Resourcefulness: They adapt and improvise, leveraging available resources to overcome challenges and achieve their objectives.

6. Orthogonal Thinking: They challenge conventional wisdom, asking questions that look at problems from unconventional angles and finding novel solutions.

7. Resilience: They bounce back from setbacks and failures, using them as opportunities for growth and learning.

Like a coin, there are always two sides to anything. This sounds great if you want to get things done quickly and without asking anybody else. Applied to your own life, it might be a good tool to have.

But in public service? Affecting the destiny of millions of people? To me, it doesn’t sound overly democratic. But that’s just me.

“Unapolgetically pursuing their goals”

“Set clear goals” (I thought that was oh so old paradigm?)

“Creating their own opportunities.” (Doesn’t sound like serving the people)

“Very self-controlled and disciplined.” (Head-in-the-sand, no-matter-what?)

“Challenging conventional wisdom” (Like common sense?)

“And finding novel solutions” (Like vaccinating the whole world with an untested substance and smearing and prohibiting common sense treatments?)

“Bouncing back from setbacks and failures” (like doubling and tripling down on their novel solutions?)

Of course, this is a highly subjective assessment, but I do not want a leader with those attributes.

It sounds creepy and lacks positive human qualities like love, compassion, grief, understanding, communication, consent, etc. This, for me, is creepy transhuman and robotic ideals based on a postmodern soulless philosophy by a programmed AI robot. And it is will-based with the individual at the centre. What can go wrong?

But the Malones love it.

Why wouldn’t anyone work to become more high-agency? To pursue their goals and values at all costs- full speed ahead? High-agency people work to reinvent a narrative given to them to change outcomes. They get things done. They set out to do the impossible.

At all cost? Full speed? As a democratic leader?

Sorry, I am running out of polite words: Fuck off, will you?

They go on endorsing and explaining and selling the “high agency” narrative, which is nothing else but transhuman postmodern philosophy repacked in a new term.

They also suddenly love billionaires and quote Jeff Bezos as a high agency buddy.

They show fancy graphs and rebrand the “useless eaters” as “working bees”, and you guessed right, the working bees are all low-agency people. Not on the same level as them. I am not kidding:

Low-agency people accept the narrative; they are complacent and tend to outsource decision-making to others.

Do we now? We “outsourced” the decisions to be coerce-injected and locked away in our houses. Fuck you, Malone.

But even the Malones realise that this old, repacked postmodern narrative theory can lead to unethical and morally questionable behaviour.

High-agency may be great for getting things done, but there can be a morally repugnant element to the behavior and characteristics of high-agency people. This element deserves closer examination. People who exhibit high-agency characteristics, whether learned as an adult or instilled since childhood, tend to ignore ethical mores. They just charge ahead, disregarding obstacles, including ethical concerns. They often operate from within a utilitarian framework; in other words, one in which the ends are believed to justify the means. High-agency behaviors can also lead to a decrease or loss of empathy because the need to achieve an objective becomes a higher priority than taking other’s needs into account when making decisions. The deterioration or loss of empathy can lead to sociopathic behavior.

Not saying? I think we just witnessed that over the past four years.

And gullible and stupid people just voted in another sociopathic president - not that there was any alternative except making a no-vote statement.

Many people who hire talent based on high-agency behavior profiles claim that it is essential also to identify those who exhibit integrity in addition to high-agency.

I can’t see how this is possible - postmodern high agency and integrity simultaneously. They exclude each other. Integrity means

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change

Integrity is based on knowing and living your more profound truth. It is lightyears away from seeing everything as a narrative that can be changed and bent whenever necessary. In my opinion, they have no clue what they are talking about. They are throwing catchy new terms around to please postmodern-inclined people and might impress their awe-jawed fans.

But the truth is, integrity is an easy trait to mimic. Who doesn’t know that person who goes to church each Sunday and yet has a history of abusiveness, unethical business, or political practices?

So true.

Who doesn’t know people who pretend to be Christians and sign up for utopian transhuman philosophies?

Or people who pretend to be dissidents and fight authoritarian overreach and then suck up to them to get a job?

Or people who pretend to be against vaccines and then endorse and refuse to criticise appointed pro-vax mainstream doctors because they will be colleagues soon?

It never stops to amaze me how so-called intelligent people can have such an utter lack of self-reflection.

It is incredibly hilarious how they describe these high-agency pitfalls but are blissfully ignorant about themselves. We are zooming in on something called a God-complex. “We, the Malones, can do no wrong.”

When combined with talent, this “can do” attitude means that high-agency people understand that the world needs to believe that they are people of high integrity. It is a character trait that, at least on a resume, is important.

I can’t believe what I am reading here. Can it get any more cynical?

“The world needs to believe that they (we) are people of high integrity”.

They are not saying, “We have integrity."

In the narrative-based postmodern world, that’s not needed anymore. It is enough if we convince people “to believe we have integrity. " Integrity is also not required to be executed in real life. As long as it is on the resume and believed, all is sweet with the high-agency people.

Fuck me.

And yet, manipulative behaviors are often employed by those with a high-agency behavior pattern. Unfortunately, those with high-agency profiles can be very good at camouflaging such tactics.

If people are stupid enough, definitely. But anyone with two brain cells left can see through all your gibberish and feel how shifty and insincere you are.

The truth is that high-agency people are highly desired in business because they can inspire others, motivate others, get people to buy into their new narrative, and create change and opportunity.

In a fucked-up Globocap society, no doubt. No integrity or morality is needed anymore in our “new normal” transhuman society, where everyone becomes God, shaping and bending their own narratives, meaning, do what they want “unapolligetically” no matter the cost and with full speed ahead.

Sound lovely.

Finally, the jump to “We, the Malones, are a different breed of high-agency people, of course. We are morally super-clean.”

First, the “careful preparation”, excuse me, “narrtive bending”.

Not all people with high-agency behavioral profiles choose to go down this path. […] Many very independent thinkers and doers have high agency, and in many cases, they just have prioritized different elements in their lives, such as freedom of action and thought or independence from a bureaucratic system.

Ok. Here we go. Still, suggesting they are dissidents who seek “independence from the bureaucratic system” (while begging to be employed by the same system) can effectively use postmodern high-agency power against the said system. Is it kind of like double agents infiltrating the system to beat it with its own powers?

Mr. Malone never lacked self-confidence and self-belief, didn’t he? I guess high-agency superpowers help.

High-agency people are often transformational leaders.

Hear, hear.

Unfortunately, transformational leaders are often prone to narcissistic tendencies, which can lead to a cult-like following.

Not saying? But that wouldn’t be you, right?

It is the ability of the high-agency person to manipulate others while setting aside any moral qualms in their quest to achieve an objective that can make them dangerous to be around.

Hmm

Determining whether a high-agency person is worthy of trust and support can become a constant high-stakes guessing game until sufficient time has elapsed and experience accumulated.

Let me break it to you. More than “sufficient time” has elapsed for me. Thanks to your insightful Substack, I can now make a very informed decision.

I fucking don’t trust you one bit. Your persuasive narrative-bending powers somehow didn’t work on me.

And that’s despite being a very low-agency person who " outsources its decision-making” to people like you. Maybe you have to tweak “the narrative” a bit more and use more fancy words. Or whatever.

“But hang on”, he says. “You can trust me. I am not one of them bad high agency people. I am a good one.”

For myself, I am high-agency much of the time, but I temper that with a high moral compass.

It is so lovely of you to reassure me about that, Robert.

But, firstly, I came to the spontaneous conclusion that “your narrative” is full of horse shit, that you are blind as a bat about yourself, and that I don’t trust you, no matter what new narrative about yourself you throw at me.

I saw enough, and I heard enough.

Secondly, if someone has a high moral compass, it is not assessed by the person himself but by others who observe what you say and do. And that doesn’t look like a high moral compass to me.

You just promised all sorts of great things would happen for six months to your “followers” if they voted for Trump and then redacted it all in one big swoop and performed a “reality calibration.”

You did that to get in Trump’s good books and to try to buy yourself a job with the votes of your followers.

And you now side with the people you apparently fought against, and you refused to criticize pro-vax mainstream people because you don’t want to jeopardize your own job prospects.

Do you call that integrity and a high moral compass?

Maybe it is in your new postmodern worldview where you just bent this narrative to your liking.

But how stupid do you think we are?

You are too clever for your own good, Mr. Malone and just shot yourself into the kneecap - twice - and told the whole world who you really are. A self-disillusioned fraudster with a God complex. That’s at least what I think you are. Get lost.

“But hang on, you don’t understand me. I am not only of highest moral standard, I am also humble and don’t allow my followers to adore me as the God-like figure I am.”

However, I am human; I recognize how easily a conflict of interest can seem like a moral imperative.

He will make an excellent politician. He already talks like one. “A conflict of interest can seem like a moral imperative.” Let me break it to you. In the world where I grew up, a conflict of interest is a moral imperative.

In myself, it is why I reject the adoration sometimes displayed towards me.

Visible in the photo you chose for this article.

I recognize how easily it is to manipulate others, how easy it could be to fall into support for developing a cult of personality around my actions and narrative, and I chose not to do so.

I also know it when I see it.

Do you? In yourself? Maybe there is hope, then. Let’s hear about your self-reflection.

Recently, I have become aware of a person whom I consider a friend who has chosen to barrel down this path towards fame, and it fills me with sadness. I watch from afar the cult-like behavior of the followers that are being actively cultivated, and I grieve for my friend. My trust in this friend as a person may have been misplaced.

Not saying.

Yes, such behaviour is straightforward to spot in other people, isn’t it?

Other-reflection is a breeze.

Self-reflection, facing our ego's ugly, unconscious sides, is almost impossible without proper spiritual work. Or deep psychological work with an outstanding, highly alert and no-bullshit therapist (very rare). And even then, the narcissistic personality responds extremely poorly to classic psychotherapy.

This only leaves the third way to know ourselves: The suffering our narcissistic actions will unavoidably cause us. The slow and painful learning through suffering.

And he is already sensing it.

We all face so many tests, so many trials and tribulations, and in some cases, the crucible of time (and transient fame) can either transform a person into porcelain or decisions made and paths chosen may compromise integrity and soul. Such is life.

The fall comes after the arrogance. Sometimes, we want something that we are not ready for to please our ego or somebody else’s ego.

Fame and power are enormous temptations for the ego, inflating it beyond comprehension, and not many can handle them with humility and grace. The ego needs a solid spiritual foundation, knowing who we really are and what really matters.

To me, sadly, the man failed dramatically. But I don’t matter. The new regime will love him, of that I am sure.

As an ordinary human being, I wish him luck and peace. He will be humane again when reality and life disillusion him from his superiority complex. Maybe some Christians can pray for him?

I don’t hate the man; I don’t think he is a bad person. That doesn’t mean he can’t do a lot of damage.

Therefore, as a leader, I don’t want him. Full stop.

The road to hell is plastered with “good meaning“ but self-ignorant people, and he doesn’t seem to have the right advisors around him who have the skills to break it to him. The opposite appears to be the case.

But there is always the possibility that I am deluded and paranoid and live to eat my words. Time will tell.