The Illusionist

Crucially, his demands are part of his sales method. When someone chooses coercion and blackmail as negotiation tactics, their offer itself becomes suspect. Upon closer inspection, the package of demands often turns out to be ill-considered or even hollow — designed more to exert pressure than to provide real solutions. This calls for a different approach: keep the conversation going, but do not bow to blackmail. Stand firm in your principles and do not let fear or threats dictate your actions. Only then can the content of the proposal be assessed for what it really is.

We need only look at the fundamental attitude of the average Palestinian to learn a lesson. They hold on to their core values and do not bow to Israeli blackmail or violence, even as they live among the rubble of what once was a home. So, to the Rotarians in Amsterdam: a Palestinian is not a victim, but a steadfast guardian of principles.

The calculated outcome of wishful thinking can never exceed the quality of its raw material — that is, the quality of thought itself, including all considerations. In fact, it is precisely the lack of quality (integrity) that keeps the relay race of conflicts very much alive.

So far, this man has made enormous efforts and, after many trials and errors, has achieved a lot — but never everything. Now, he and his associates are busy stirring up unrest in Central Asia and Europe: sowing division, pitting people against each other, and openly threatening destruction unless their demands are met.

But this only works if people cooperate. You can also just stand still, push back, or accept that there will be damage — as long as the integrity of your thoughts and actions takes precedence over clinging to ‘something’. That is exactly what Iran is doing, and what Europe should learn. This man harbors a death wish, but you don’t have to play along. His downfall is inevitable, and no one is helped by giving him attention or time through endless negotiations. Let it happen, hold on to intrinsic values; any damage to possessions can be repaired or replaced. Who cares?

According to this man: ‘If Europe (the NATO partners) doesn’t step in to clean up the mess in the Strait of Hormuz, he’ll leave NATO, with all the consequences that entails.’

But he fails to see that, by making such a demand, he has in fact already checked out.

So, dear people, let the man leave NATO. Safeguard the integrity of thought and action, speak to opponents based on mutual respect for differences, and accept damage. That ‘something’ to which Trump attaches so much value ultimately means nothing. Nothing can replace the integrity of thought and action.

Yet, a word of caution is warranted. The advice to simply ‘let it happen’ and not respond may suggest passivity in situations where action or resistance is actually necessary to prevent harm or injustice. Sometimes, it is necessary to set boundaries or intervene, even if that leads to unrest or confrontation. But the definition of right and wrong is always rooted in local culture. The cultural perspective on justice in Amsterdam, for example, should not presume to be universally applicable. That is where the real difficulty lies. Limit your judgments of right and wrong to your own environment, and do not ignore the differences in concepts of justice elsewhere. Sometimes, remaining silent is the wisest course.

Stand tall and don’t worry. These days, people are more willing than ever to talk; add mutual respect to the conversation, and watch prosperity take root. Don’t talk about this man; integrity requires that you not dance on the grave of the ‘living dead’ or laugh at the sad consequences of a bankruptcy. See it as a phenomenon you can learn from — not one you must celebrate.

Suggestions for questions, categorized by their intended effect:

1. About the ‘Icebreaker’ (The external world):

• Do you recognize situations in your own environment where someone stirs up trouble to force you to give up a principle for a temporary solution?
• What would happen if you no longer saw another’s threat as a danger, but as a fact you don’t have to cooperate with?

2. About the ‘Something’ (Inner value):

• What is that ‘something’ in your life that you’re so afraid to lose, that you’d be willing to sacrifice your own integrity for it?
• Can you distinguish between what in your life is ‘repairable property’ and what is ‘irreplaceable value’?

3. About the ‘Bully’ (Self-reflection):

• When was the last time you acted like a ‘little bully’ out of fear of missing out? What did that hunger ultimately bring you?
• Do you dare to stand still when the world around you is shouting that you should run?

4. About the Future (The Prosperity Theory):

• Would you be willing to let a decision take longer if that doubled the quality of the outcome and your peace of mind?
• If AI gives you back the time you previously spent ‘hunting and chasing’, how would you use that newfound quiet?