In the past year, I learned valuable lessons about the joy of not picking a side.
I was visiting Germany during the European Football (Soccer) Championships. I watched Germany play very well and win a few games until they met Spain in the last 16 elimination round.
Germany lost, and a whole nation felt cheated when a German shot on target was blocked by the hand of a Spanish defender deep in the box.
Most commentators agreed that in 9 out of 10 cases, a game-winning penalty would have been given. But it wasn’t. We were furious and upset. What started as a party ended in bitter disappointment and frustration.
Nothing new here. That’s soccer. That’s the pain of strongly identifying with a losing team.
A week later or so, four of us met again to watch the final. It was Spain vs England. So we all sat down with chips and drinks, and one asked:
“Which team shall we support?”
None of us was particularly fond of Spain. But England is Germany’s soccer arch-rival (amongst Brazil, Argentina and many others)
Soccer fans are like elephants—they have fantastic long-term memory.
In no time, the 1966 World Cup finals in Wembley came up. The Germans were cheated in the final. That was the last and only time England won the World Cup. I was four but talked about it as if I were there.
Since then, I have lost count of how often England has been kicked out of tournaments by Germany. And Germany won the title three times after that. Yet, the English were still considered arch-enemies (and cheaters)
That’s just the crazy soccer culture in Germany, where it is treated more like a religion than a sport.
I didn't verify it, but I heard that bad soccer team performances in Germany always led to a change of government in the following elections, while success didn’t.
The Americans don’t have a significant soccer culture. I guess they go mad during the elections instead.
So we couldn’t agree on whom to support, and I suggested:
“How about we support no team and simply enjoy the game, and may the better team win?”
The others looked at me in disbelief.
“What? Not choosing a side? You can’t do that. It will be so boring. You HAVE to choose a side watching sport; otherwise, there is no point.”
That’s how I grew up and how I was conditioned. I have played many competitive sports all my life, and I have played them to win.
Anyway, my son and I decided not to choose a team.
It was one of the best and most enjoyable sports events I have ever watched. I soon realized that I had double the fun and no frustration.
When the Spanish did a great combination and showed off their skills, I was in awe and enjoyed it. And when the English did the same, I enjoyed it too.
When the Spanish scored, I was happy. When the English scored, I celebrated, too. It was awesome. I enjoyed the skills and athleticism of both teams, and it was such a rich experience. My assessment of the game was also unbiased and, therefore, much more accurate.
In the end, the better team won. Spain.
I had a similar experience watching the Tour de France a year ago.
My cycling friends have organized a fantasy game during the Tour de France for many years. Each player gets a budget and puts together his team to score points. This is a serious competition, and much is at stake—our cycling expertise and pride.
But there was no fantasy game last year because both organizers were on holiday. So, for the first time in many years, I watched the Tour without worrying about “my team” performing well, which was so enjoyable.
In the past, when a breakaway escaped and made it to the finish to decide the stage winner, I was only interested if one of my riders was in it but would get frustrated if he didn’t win. If none of my riders were in, I feverishly hoped the peloton would catch them. If not, I was frustrated. If they did catch them, but none of my nine riders won (which happens a lot), I would get frustrated.
Very rarely, one of my riders won, and I felt satisfied for a few hours, only to get frustrated again the next day. How insane!
But this time, I enjoyed every stage and was in awe of the riders' different tactics and strengths and how one of them managed to get it perfect for a very prestigious win. I was happy with whoever won because they were outstanding and deserved it.
So now I try to apply this approach to politics and even life.
Not taking sides, not expecting a particular outcome, and " just watching the game” is fascinating, very educating, and hugely entertaining.
Life can be very entertaining if we consider it that way. All we need to do is disidentify from it and see ourselves just as a player in the game—or an actor in our own movie. The plot unfolds in real-time, and we do not know how it continues or how the story ends.
Who needs Netflix?
The dramas around us provide endless fascinating entertainment if we watch them without attachment or expectations.
Take the American elections, for example.
I am happy Kennedy is out because I despised him slightly less than the other two, so I got somewhat attached, hurt, and worried when they didn’t treat him fairly, which is mad if you think about it.
It’s not like I know the guy; he certainly doesn’t know me. I can not even vote for him. And any ideas that he would be better for me or the world are just that - silly ideas based on whatever fantasies. There is no way of knowing which of these candidates will make my life better or worse.
It’s all mental.
There sits this worried old fart somewhere in Australia, just one of 8 Billion people, and he can’t help himself but pick a side in the US elections. As if that matters one bit. Why do I give a fuck? It only winds me up.
So, thankfully, I am “neutral” now, and man, I enjoy the show.
So far, it was the best elections show ever, with real-life assassination attempts, laser-beamed supporters, cheating moderators and all sorts of shenanigans going on.
Were the assassination attempts meant to succeed or just tactical to drive Trump into a bunker? Maybe. Who else is involved? What’s the next twist? Will Trump finally be killed? Or perhaps a Trump supporter loses his marbles and shoots at Harris?
Would I care much if one of them dies? Genuinely care? I don’t think so. For me, they are just pixels on a screen or ink on paper. Why would I care if they die?
How is that different to someone dying in a Netflix drama?
“But they are real people and it is a real death. In Netflix dramas no-one really dies.”, some might argue, possibly a bit shocked.
But hundreds of thousands of people die every day somewhere and go unnoticed by me. Yes, if I know someone and like someone, death is tragic and sad because I lost someone I care about.
But I don’t know Trump. I know of him. I know digitally transmitted images of him and assume a particular personality, which differs hugely depending on which channel I watch or whose news I read. I think I know Trump, but in reality, the real Mr Trump is as anonymous as the 100.000 other people who die every day.
People passionately love or hate a fabricated digital persona they have never met.
I don’t know for sure, but I think only humans do that in all creation. Only humans manage to be so completely separated from reality that they live 99% of their lives in an illusionary mental world of their own, creating and feeding it from within themselves.
I don’t care anymore who wins. Whoever it is, life will go on, and people will be ruled, manipulated, and cheated as they always have been.
And we can go further down that rabbit hole.
Why do I care about people being ruled?
I don’t want to be ruled, tax-robbed, and told what to do. I don’t care about most of them because, as demonstrated above, I do not even know them.
No, I only care about them because I need them to feed my illusion of social change and get what I want—more freedom, less tax, and more competitive markets for fairer prices.
Lately, however, I have much doubt that social change happens like that.
For example, who doesn’t want less taxes?
Shouldn’t most of us agree on that? I mean, it is a no-brainer because what we get in return is a joke.
Many people pay 30% or more of their income in taxes. If both are working, a couple, depending on the circumstances and country, pays between $30.000 and $60,000 in taxes per year. And these are not high earners.
That is a lot of money for not much.
What do we get in return for $30.000? A few roads and other infrastructure, an army, a school, a dysfunctional health system and a few more lacklustre services. Taxes are the worst deal when it comes to value for money. But I digress, sorry.
I think we would find a vast majority in the population that would all agree that less tax is good. Christians would agree with Arabs, emancipated caring Karens would agree with privileged old white folks, Blacks would agree with Asians and Jews with atheists.
And yet, it is not happening. The taxes never come down despite this alliance of so many different people.
So maybe this is just another big “democratic” illusion.
The idea is that, yes, we can evoke social change if we get engaged and involved. So pick a party and a candidate, and if you fight hard enough against the other party and candidates, you get lower taxes.
It is the same age-old
But only if you pick sides. Any sides.
Forget about social change through political activity.
Withdraw.
Accept defeat.
You are wasting your energy getting involved in fighting a rigged system where you can never win.
See reality as it is.
Don’t be stupid; don’t be naive.
But don’t be bitter and angry about it either.
Be smart.
Walk your talk on your own level.
Be the change you want in your circle.
Live a happy life with what you have been given.
And yes, it is not fair.
But who said that live is fair? It isn’t.
But don’t join the fight for fairness.
Another trap, another trick to get you engaged and recruited and to steal your energy for a cause that is then exploited by the very few at the top.
I read somewhere that in the 1970s, a single working man (or woman) could support a house and a family with four kids in America.
Since then, technological help in the form of machines and computers made the economy much more efficient. Now, we should only have to work 20h a week to support a house and four kids.
But it is the opposite.
The vast majority of people are getting robbed.
What happened to democracy, freedom, rights and social change whenever we want it? What happened to the American dream were everyone can make it if they only work hard enough?
Big fat carrots.
I don’t think there is any way out on a social or political level. Yes, a few changes here and there happen, but no one is fucking happy.
We have our moments, of course. But that’s it. Moments of happiness in a sea of dissatisfaction, grumbling and complaining. Being eaten up by the unfairness of it all.
I don’t think the unfairness will ever stop.
We have to look elsewhere for true happiness.
And I know that looking inside ourselves and truly understanding how we work and what we really are is a promising and satisfying way, perhaps the only one that brings lasting happiness that is independent of the circumstances around us.
And it starts with disidentification.
With not picking sides.
We need to be acutely aware of what is happening in our daily lives in the here and now rather than indulging in elections or other fantasy games about how powerful we are if only we could unite against the elites.
Non-participation is the only logical answer for a rigged system. The more I contemplate and practice it, the lighter and happier I feel.
It can feel unbelievable—I don’t have to take sides anymore. It’s okay not to care.
I keep caring for real people I know and who benefit from it. That caring has nothing to do with winning or losing—it just feels natural, normal, and good.
Dropping all the artificial, purely mental caring about things feels like freedom.
For those who are interested, I wrote more about this a few weeks ago:
Take care. Be free. Now.
PS: I want to apologise for grammar and spelling errors in my articles. I could bore you with about five different reasons why they happen, but this won’t change anytime soon, sorry. I hope you can live with it.
Before realizing you're picking sides, you need to be able to merely observe yourself. You see, everyone observes, yet few learn to be observed, and even fewer learn to observe themselves. Once you hack it, self-observation can be very enlightening. "Oh, you poor thing. Your wife isn't in the mood and you're hopes for afternoon delight are dashed. Let's throw ourselves a pity party in response." The observer might chuckle at the observed's plight. The observer watches and learns how the observed suffers over silly indignities and self-hatred. Over time, the observer teaches the observed to recognize the tension that exists in the gap between your expectations and reality. However righteous the expectation, you cannot thrive in the gap. And if you get what you want, you are exuberant and elated, but this too can be a trap. You start expecting everything to go your way, making the next failure even more devastating. The magic is in managing the gap. If you invest a lot of passion in your preferred outcome, you apply more tension to the gap. Incidentally, this is how dialectical materialism works. You set up a thesis (everyone should make $50k a year) and an anti-thesis (capitalism in inherently unfair) and wait for the Marxist to come along with the synthesis (take over the means of production and give everyone daily rations). You set up the game and you exploit the gap. In the end, they own nothing and are happy, and you own all their stuff and you're even happier.
Wolves pick sides. Chimpanzees pick sides. Meerkats pick sides. The behavioral predisposition to identify with a group and to "other" individuals outside the group is hardwired, and evolved in mammalian ancestors. The particular side we "choose" or are born into is culturally and environmentally determined. It takes tremendous discipline to overcome that urge. Very few people can do it. I have done it with sports, just like you, even though I was a die hard sports fan as a kid. Once I realized that it was simply a job for these athletes and they would easily switch teams for more money, I no longer chose sides in sports. However, I still do choose sides when it comes to the way a person thinks. My side is people who can think on their own two feet,. I "other" the sheep who can't or don't.