Bill Gates’ Advisor Says The Quiet Part Out Loud

I often tell people that I have never met a U.S. service member that I didn’t like.

In my experience, the men and women who comprise our military are honest, polite, hard-working, skilled, dependable, and have common sense. In other words, the best among us. …

This indicates 3 possibilities:

• The military attracts people with a certain type of character.
• The military builds people into individuals who are worthwhile and exude good character.
• A combination of the first two.

The inverse can be said of politicians and bureaucrats—I don’t think I have ever seen one that I liked except for Ron Paul, and former President Trump—who is not even a politician.

In my experience, the men and women who enter politics are dishonest, self-absorbed, parasitic, narcissistic, incompetent, and psychopathic.

This likewise indicates the same possibilities:

• Politics attract people with abhorrent character.
• Politics turns people into abominations.
• A combination of the first two.

Our system incentivizes the worst among us to seek public office and everyone knows it’s broken—even Democrats, though they will never admit it unless it is to their benefit.

Adam Grant, an advisor to Bill Gates and a WEF contributor, recently wrote a piece appearing in The New York Times titled “Elections Are Bad for Democracy.” …

Grant summarized his article in The New York Times in this online post: “The people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it. If we want leaders with integrity, we need to stop elevating narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths. Exploiting others for personal gain is a violation of duty.”

The people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it.

If we want leaders with integrity, we need to stop elevating narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths.

Exploiting others for personal gain is a violation of duty.https://t.co/3XrgNfiQFr

— Adam Grant (@AdamMGrant) August 21, 2023

In the article, he argues that we should ditch the current system of elections that we have for a random lottery system akin to jury selection.

Grant argues that random selection eliminates many of the pitfalls of popular contests, where the victor is awarded with the fame, power, and connections they willingly sought out.

The New York Times featured Grant’s piece in which he argued:

Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically.

“Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.”

When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one.

When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it.

Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well.

And in one of the Haslam experiments, when a leader was picked at random, members were more likely to stand by the group’s decisions.

I want to stress that I agree with Grant—he is right on the money; our current political system attracts the worst our society has to offer. …

However, and this is an enormous however, we have to consider why Grant is saying what he is saying and why his ultimate conclusions are what they are. …

Judging by the company Grant keeps and the organization that he is affiliated with, it is my opinion that Grant wrote this piece not as an ode to liberty and good governance, but to make us less free.

I view Grant’s piece in the NYT as a well-timed and well-placed suggestion for the 2024 Presidential election. …

In other words, he is using the powers of subtlety and suggestion to undermine President Trump’s campaign—a topic near and dear to the likes of Gates, the World Economic Forum, and globalists everywhere.

One of the questions Grant sought to tackle was the issue of competence. How can randomly selected people qualify and prove competent enough to govern?

Through a civics test of course! A test that each citizen would have to pass in order to qualify for this random selection. …My question is who is creating and administering that test?

Moreover, why are other left-wing outlets featuring similar pieces at precisely the same time, is this a coordinated effort to undermine the 2024 Presidential election?

Charlie Kirk took the words right out of my mouth: “NYT: Elections are Bad for Democracy.
Atlantic: Americans Vote Too Much.  NYT: Is Trump Even Eligible for a Second Term? Atlantic: The Constitution Prohibits Trump from Ever Being President.  Are Dems trying to cancel the 2024 election?”

NYT: Elections are Bad for Democracy
Atlantic: Americans Vote Too Much
NYT: Is Trump Even Eligible for a Second Term?
Atlantic: The Constitution Prohibits Trump from Ever Being President

Are Dems trying to cancel the 2024 election? pic.twitter.com/s7FIy9wcmF

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 22, 2023

Donald Trump Jr. didn’t fail to chime in: “Nothing screams DEMOCRACY like “Elections are bad for Democracy” and “ Americans vote too much!” Almost seems like the precursor for whatever games they’ll try to pull this time around to guarantee their hegemony and not democracy!”

Nothing screams DEMOCRACY like “Elections are bad for Democracy” and “ Americans vote too much!”

Almost seems like the precursor for whatever games they’ll try to pull this time around to guarantee their hegemony and not democracy! https://t.co/0nBtvGtkoN

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) August 23, 2023

Author and pundit Matt Stoller points out: “The NYT changed the headline “Elections are Bad for Democracy” but that is what the oped says. Of course, the author is a business school professor at Wharton. And on the board of Lean In.”

The NYT changed the headline "Elections are Bad for Democracy" but that is what the oped says.

Of course the author is a business school professor at Wharton. And on the board of Lean In. pic.twitter.com/GhMtobjUYC

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) August 22, 2023

The World Economic Forum listed Grant’s accolades on the official website of the organization:

Expert on rethinking our assumptions about work, motivation, collaboration, culture, and leadership.

#1 NYT bestselling author of 5 books that have sold millions of copies and been translated into 45 languages, most recently “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know.”

TED talks have been viewed over 35 million times.

Host of the TED podcasts Re:Thinking and WorkLife.

Wrote a viral op-ed on languishing that was the most-read NYT article of 2021 and the most-saved across all platforms.

Served on the U.S. Department of Defense Innovation Board.

Keynote speaking and advising clients include Google, the Gates Foundation, the NBA, and Bridgewater.

Recognized as one of the world’s 10 most influential management thinkers, Fortune’s 40 under 40, and Oprah’s Super Soul 100.

Wharton’s top-rated professor for seven straight years; has over 6 million followers on social media.

BA, Harvard; PhD, University of Michigan. Former junior Olympic springboard diver.