I would have loved to have written something more substantial this week.

Instead, I have spent an unreasonable amount of time coordinating schedules, answering messages, moving things from one calendar to another and wondering whether adulthood is simply project management with higher stakes.

Life is full at the moment.

And mostly not in the aspirational, burgeoning way I would love to claim. The days just seem to reach maximum capacity surprisingly early lately and I’ve been calling it ‘Adulting Pro Max’ to those who have been checking in and as

king how things are going.

There are creative projects moving. Business too. Events to plan. Decisions to make. A small human who requires remarkable amounts of administration for someone unable to complete a sentence.

Somewhere in all of this, I have developed a newfound respect for people who consistently have their lives together.

Or at least create a convincing enough illusion through constant composure and steady disposition.

As a younger person, I assumed competence arrived all at once. You became an adult, received the operating manual and proceeded accordingly.

What I have discovered instead is that most people are improvising. Some are simply doing it with better spreadsheets.

I don’t have a larger point to make.

This is genuinely just an update.

Things are busy. Things are moving. A few opportunities have emerged that I am excited about. Several ideas are beginning to take clearer shape. There is still far more to do than time available to do it. I’m learning to delegate and outsource but that is a whole other test of my strength on its own.

Which, now that I think about it, may be the most adult thing.

Anyway.

A brief note from the middle of it all before I disappear back into the organised chaos.

More soon.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is expecting other human beings to arrive emotionally complete. Every major religion, philosophy, and spiritual tradition eventually arrived at the same conclusion: people come flawed. Every single one. Every person you love will eventually disappoint you, misunderstand you, project onto you, fail you, offend you, or wound you somehow. This is not cynicism. It is reality. The question is not whether people are imperfect. The question is whether they are willing to confront themselves honestly enough to stop making their wounds everybody else’s burden.

I think many people quietly know when they are becoming destructive. They feel it in the moments immediately after they lash out, manipulate, withdraw, lie, betray themselves, or project onto someone else. There is usually a brief moment where the truth becomes visible before ego rushes back in to defend itself. A brief moment where the adult in the room appears and says: this is not who you want to become.

Some people listen.

Some people spend years drowning that voice out.

I remember a French guy I was dating once telling me, in the most brutally French way imaginable, that nobody was coming to save me and that I needed to stop projecting and grow up. Initially, I was offended. But shortly afterwards, I realised he was forcing me to confront something I had spent years trying to outrun: the possibility that some of my suffering was not only happening to me, but also being perpetuated by me.

I then went on to have a life coach who provided the most concise value for money in one sentence: “when you’re tired of suffering, you’ll stop.” My suffering at the time was your typical young adult mental health challenges, the growing pains of socialisation, peppered with a few unprocessed trauma episodes.

But I think adulthood begins the moment you realize that pain and powerlessness are not the same thing.

That realization is uncomfortable because it returns agency to you. And agency is terrifying. It means you are no longer merely the victim of your emotions. You become responsible for what you do with them.

Smiling when you are hurting is a choice. Making a sincere effort to be kind when rage is pulsating through your body is a choice. Pausing before reacting is a choice. Not easy choices. Sometimes brutally difficult choices. But choices nonetheless. I think true regulation begins when you can pause long enough to remember that you still have agency before your emotions make the decision for you.

You must master yourself because yourself is the only thing you truly control. Trying to manipulate outcomes in other people often reveals weakness within yourself. It reveals fear. The same cowardice discussed earlier. The inability to tolerate uncertainty, rejection, discomfort, loss of control, or wounded ego without attempting to force reality into compliance.

Message me

I understand why people numb themselves. Truly. The pain-body is real. Some wounds continue burning long after the original event has ended. The body remembers humiliation, abandonment, fear, grief, rejection, betrayal. Sometimes neutralizing the pain through alcohol, drugs, starvation, overstimulation, sex, work, emotional chaos, or self-destruction feels easier than confronting it directly.

But numbing is still a choice.

And healing, however imperfect and ongoing, is also a choice.

Eckhart Tolle describes the pain-body as unresolved emotional pain that continues living inside people long after the original wound has passed. I think a frightening amount of human behavior can be explained by this alone. People unconsciously recreate, feed, protect, and redistribute their pain onto others because it has become psychologically familiar to them. Entire relationships, identities, and social environments become organized around unprocessed suffering repeating itself.

I think one of the most dangerous things trauma can do is convince people that because they were wounded, they no longer have agency. That because pain feels overwhelming, their reactions become inevitable. But the moment people surrender completely to that belief, they begin constructing identities around helplessness. They start preferring familiar suffering to unfamiliar peace. They recreate chaos because chaos feels emotionally recognizable; it is the stability they know. They become attached to bitterness because bitterness protects them from vulnerability.

Comment

Toxicity becomes home.

And when emotional chaos becomes home, peace can begin feeling suspicious, boring, weak, even threatening.

This is why boundaries matter. Not because people become unworthy of love once they are wounded, but because support without accountability becomes enabling. There are people I deeply love whose pain I understand completely. I can trace certain behaviors directly back to fear, shame, abandonment, humiliation, violence, insecurity/ instability or grief they’ve endured. But understanding someone’s wounds does not obligate you to become their emotional landfill indefinitely. If someone repeatedly and more and more adeptly chooses projection, cruelty, manipulation, deflection, avoidance, dishonesty, or (emotional) violence after becoming aware of it, you are allowed to love them from a distance. You are allowed to leave. You are allowed to stop participating in cycles they are committed to maintaining.

We all also have our own timeline. I can think of several older and wiser people who warned me repeatedly about certain mindset and behavioral flaws I had. At the time I rationalized them away. Then life humbled me. Repeatedly. Eventually the pattern became impossible to ignore. I think most adults in the room have a moment, or a sequence of moments, where reality corners them long enough to force self-recognition. Sometimes it arrives as a collapse. Sometimes as heartbreak. Sometimes as failure. Or repeated failure. Sometimes as loneliness. Sometimes as a quiet realization in the middle of an otherwise ordinary day that you may be getting in your own way.

For me, it is all of the above.

But whether truth arrives loudly or quietly, the one thing you still have is choice.

This might be controversial, but I increasingly think that refusing any relationship to something larger than your own ego can become socially consequential. Whether you call it God, faith, conscience, morality, higher consciousness, or simply responsibility to others, human beings need frameworks that push them beyond self-obsession. Otherwise the self becomes its own closed loop of fear, appetite, resentment, projection, and gratification.

For me, faith matters less as performance and more as orientation. It reminds me daily that my responsibility is not merely to point at what is wrong with other people, but to become more accountable for what leaves me. To become the “man in the mirror,” so to speak. The change I wish to encounter in the world. My efforts to do so may never be perfect but they will always be sincere.

And religious people are not exempt from this work. Some deeply religious people remain profoundly emotionally immature. They use doctrine to justify cruelty, superiority (complex), judgment, control, exclusion, manipulation, even abuse. They use religion to avoid self-confrontation instead of deepen it. Faith without accountability is just ego wearing sacred clothing.

You know at the beginning of Pretty Hurts, when the pageant judge asks Beyoncé what her aspiration in life is, and she answers, “to be happy”? I’ve always disagreed. I have experienced happiness as what I consider to be an unearned gift from God. A fleeting moment where life suddenly aligns long enough for gratitude to wash over you. Moments where everything feels strangely suspended and you look around almost like the slow-motion closing scene of a film and realize, briefly, that things are good. That you are happy. These moments are vivid and all encompassing. And then they end and I live on with the hope to maintain peace long enough until the next moment of happiness visits.

But peace, peace is cultivated. Peace requires maintenance. Protection. Boundaries. Truth. Faith. Purpose. Discipline. A relentlessly conscious decision not to surrender yourself entirely to bitterness, ego, fear, or chaos. Happiness arrives. Peace is something you fight not to lose.

I no longer believe peace belongs only to the naturally calm, the spiritually gifted, or the emotionally untouched. I think peace belongs to people willing to confront themselves honestly enough to stop handing their unresolved pain to everyone around them. People willing to pause before reacting. Willing to tell themselves the truth and bear the consequences with dignity and grace. Willing to choose consciousness over compulsion repeatedly, imperfectly, daily. We all bleed. We all fail. We all hurt people eventually. The question is whether we remain committed to becoming more aware of what leaves us when we do.

Because peace, I am beginning to realize, is not naïveté, passivity, or the absence of pain. It is what becomes possible once you stop organizing your entire life around fear.

Peace.

Get the app

Confidence has become one of the defining aesthetics of modern life. This topic became so weighty, layered, and frankly confronting to write about that the essay kept expanding every time I sat down with it. And truthfully, it probably still could. So I decided to split it into a two-part series. Part II comes next week.

You can see it in the polished certainty people now carry into every room, in every version of themselves presented to the world. There is immense pressure to appear resolved, clear, unaffected. Entire lives are curated around the avoidance of hesitation. Around appearing emotionally intact at all times. But I have felt for some time that what we often describe as confidence is, in many cases, a highly sophisticated relationship with self-protection. Some people do not move through the world calmly because they are at peace. They move through it carefully armoured.

Have you ever watched a child trying very hard to appear older than they are? Trying to sound cooler, smarter, less naïve. You can almost feel the effort radiating off them. And when they lie, exaggerate, posture, or attempt to outmaneuver an adult, there is something strangely transparent about it. Not because children are unintelligent, but because immaturity has tells. The performance itself reveals the insecurity underneath it.

I increasingly think adulthood works similarly.

People who have confronted themselves deeply become the adults in the room psychologically. Perhaps not even morally superior. Simply more internally coherent. More able to remain present without immediately reaching for projection, avoidance, manipulation, emotional chaos, domination, performance, or ego. And once you have developed that kind of discernment within yourself, it becomes very difficult not to recognize its absence elsewhere.

The unsettling thing is that once you become the adult in the room psychologically, you cannot unsee who is still functioning as a child. You begin noticing how many adults are still lying the way children lie. Defending themselves the way children defend themselves. Seeking validation, emotional soothing, distraction, attention, escape. The difference is that adulthood gives people more sophisticated costumes. Better language. Better aesthetics. More convincing masks.

But immaturity, fear and ego always, always leak.

“People can only meet you as deeply as they have met themselves.” So a person who avoids their own shame will punish vulnerability in others. A person terrified of their own emptiness will require performance from everyone around them. This is why so many relationships become emotionally exhausting. Many people are not interacting with reality. They are interacting with defense mechanisms.

The child in the room wants to be perceived a certain way while the adult in the room wants to see clearly. The child performs confidence while the adult cultivates peace. The child seeks intensity and creates chaos because silence feels threatening. The adult can sit still long enough to hear themselves think.

The tragedy is that emotionally mature people often become highly capable of surviving unhealthy dynamics. They know how to contextualize behavior. How to empathize. How to regulate themselves through chaos. How to forgive. How to remain relatively calm while being emotionally mishandled. But this can slowly become its own form of captivity; an emotional hell. Because the unregulated person begins unconsciously outsourcing their emotional responsibility onto the regulated one.

The more self-aware person becomes interpreter, stabilizer, emotional container, de-escalator. They absorb confusion, projection, defensiveness, volatility, resentment, avoidance, dishonesty, because they understand where it comes from. And understanding becomes the very thing that traps them.

There is a thin line between compassion and self-abandonment. I did not always know where it was.

At some point, trauma stops being merely an explanation and starts becoming a responsibility. Unprocessed people do not suffer alone. They distribute suffering. And one of the cruelest social assumptions is that the more emotionally regulated person should simply continue absorbing damage because they are capable of understanding it. As though compassion somehow makes someone immune to exhaustion, disappointment, confusion, or emotional injury; (it does not).

What I am beginning to understand is that many destructive behaviors are, at their core, avoidance behaviors. We might wonder why someone can lie so easily. Why they manipulate. Why they cheat, abuse, project, betray, deflect, violate, gaslight, exploit, self-sabotage, emotionally terrorize others, or refuse accountability even when the damage and its source are obvious. The answer is one we seem to avoid as a society, likely because even very powerful, established people possess this trait.

Cowardice.

Psychological spiritual, emotional. Cowardice.

Some people are so terrified of truth, so incapable of tolerating shame, contradiction, exposure, guilt, rejection, ego collapse, or responsibility, that they begin constructing entire identities around evasion. And eventually the evasion itself becomes destructive. Because reality does not disappear simply because someone is unwilling to face it. It just gets redistributed onto other people.

The truth often sounds like hate to people who are deeply committed to avoiding it. Accountability feels like attack. Boundaries feel like cruelty. Consequences feel unfair. And because they cannot emotionally regulate themselves through discomfort, they begin reacting to truth as though truth itself is violence.

That is where hypocrisy comes from. That is where compulsive lying comes from and that is where abuse comes from.

People become so attached to protecting their ego that they will violate reality itself before admitting fault.

This week, a friend who works in insurance told me about a client who attempted to manipulate a payout process for personal gain. The system flagged the issue almost immediately because the reality is that it’s designed to do exactly that . Instead of taking accountability once confronted, the individual reacted aggressively and made threats to come in today and shoot the place up in response to being exposed. The attempted fraud itself isn't even what stuck, it’s the emotional fragility beneath it. The inability to tolerate being caught. The inability to self-correct poor choices even in light of being caught. The inability to regulate shame, embarrassment, or consequence without escalating into intimidation. It distilled something I keep noticing everywhere: unregulated people often become dangerous the moment reality interrupts the story they need to believe about themselves.

The consequences rarely remain isolated to them. If you are in a relationship with, have a parent or friend who is unregulated or does not process life, you might feel like the broker on the phone with this client who was on the receiving end of insults and attempts at intimidation. Living with this person must feel like an insurmountable challenge at times because they are good at using everything to deflect and project.

This is why self-confrontation matters so much. It is not merely personal growth. It is harm reduction. It is social responsibility.

Healing is not only self-serving. It is ethical. Because wounds spread socially. Through families. Relationships. Friendships. Workplaces. Airports. Entire cultures can become organized around unmanaged fear, ego, avoidance, resentment, and emotional dishonesty; even just the unmanaged baggage of one person can be a causal root of a systemic dysfunction. Eckhart Tolle describes the pain-body as unresolved emotional pain that continues living inside people long after the original wound has passed. I think a frightening amount of human behavior can be explained by this alone. People unconsciously recreate, feed, protect, and redistribute their pain onto others because it has become psychologically familiar to them. Entire relationships, identities, and social environments become organized around unprocessed suffering repeating itself. So processing and not avoiding, is important; crucial.

And yet many people never interrupt the cycle because emotional chaos becomes familiar to them. Toxicity becomes home. Accountability feels like punishment. Peace feels undeserved. Some people do not seek healing. They seek accommodation.

I no longer believe maturity is measured by intelligence, ambition, charisma, aesthetics, social fluency, or the ability to appear confident. I think maturity is measured by how much truth a person can tolerate about themselves without collapsing into blame, performance, avoidance, or cruelty. Some people spend their entire lives protecting the child within them to the detriment of everyone around and often even, themselves.

Others eventually decide to become the adult in the room. And I think that decision changes everything. It changes how you love, how you argue, how you suffer, how you forgive, how you carry power, how you respond to fear, how much pain you distribute onto other people. Peace, I am beginning to realize, is not passive. It is earned. Through self-confrontation. Through accountability. Through learning that pain may explain you, but it does not excuse what leaves you. And perhaps that is why truly peaceful people feel so different when you encounter them. They are no longer spending all their energy trying to protect themselves from reality. They have finally learned how to live inside it.

Eventually, the newness of parenting disappears, you settle into the new life; new identity, and the fog clears just enough for the deeper realization to arrive: this little person is studying you constantly.

Not your words. You.

Your nervous system, along with your breathing. Your tension and your

eye contact. Your patience. Your panic. Your calm.

The truly humbling thing about babies is that they cannot be manipulated by performance. Adults can be reassured with language. Distracted by charisma, social etiquette, polished explanations, carefully managed emotions. Babies cannot.

You cannot finesse someone who is reading your body before they can even understand your sentences.

And I think, in some strange way, we forget how perceptive we once were ourselves.

There is a version of all of us that encountered our parents before language, before social conditioning, before we learned how to rationalise behaviour or explain people away. As babies, we experienced our parents almost entirely through feeling. Through atmosphere, emotional consistency or inconsistency, touch, presence, tension, warmth, unpredictability, softness.

We noticed things we were never meant to consciously carry. The way tension sat in someone’s body. The difference between being held by someone calm and being held by someone emotionally elsewhere. The emotional rhythm of a home became our first understanding of what the world itself felt like.

And yet most of us cannot consciously recall any of this.

That feels merciful somehow. Almost intentional by God’s design. Because what would it mean to remember your parents that intimately forever? To remember your mother’s young adulthood stress before you understood what stress was. To remember the emotional climate of a room before you even understood yourself as separate from it. To remember who made you feel safe and who made you feel unsettled while still depending entirely on them for survival.

I keep wondering whether those early experiences ever completely leave us, or whether they simply disappear beneath language and continue shaping the way we move through the world quietly for the rest of our lives.

I have been reading lately about co-regulation and early childhood development and have been forced to rewire my thinking of parenting. The research increasingly shows exactly this: babies co-regulate. Their nervous systems are deeply intertwined with ours. They learn emotional safety through proximity, responsiveness, affection, consistency, touch.

It moved me deeply because while I didn’t grow up hearing this, as an adult I’ve heard people warning mothers against holding their babies “too much” or being overly affectionate. In fact, this remains some of the most common parenting advice I still receive from older people around me, including many whose parenting and general life advice I genuinely value. And as counterintuitive as it seemed, it kind of made sense: life is tough and it can be brutal, let them get used to it sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, newer research increasingly and decisively points in another direction. A securely attached child becomes more confident exploring the world because safety has already been established internally. Being held, soothed, comforted, emotionally attended to, teaches them that the world is safe enough to explore.

That idea is my new hyper fixation because it means every unresolved thing inside you suddenly matters differently.

Your anxiety matters. Your rage matters. Your emotional unpredictability matters. Your ability to self-regulate matters. Biologically; tangibly. Your child is, in many ways, learning what reality feels like through you.

And that realization is overwhelming sometimes.

I find myself constantly balancing two instincts that seem to pull against each other. The desire to think endlessly ahead and the desire to remain fully present. Parenthood stretches your imagination toward the future in a way I have never experienced before. Now every decision feels consequential. Every financial plan. Every health decision. Every ambition. Every risk. Every hour, especially the ones spent away from your child.

At the same time, children pull you aggressively into the present moment. They do not care about your five-year plan while they are hungry, overstimulated, uncomfortable, or simply wanting connection. They force your attention back into the room.

There is something wholesome about that psychological reorganisation.

I also think parent/motherhood introduces a very specific kind of accountability. Perhaps the most honest accountability there is. For the first time, healing feels materially important to me in a different way. There is a real human being neurologically tethered to me, learning emotional regulation through proximity to my nervous system. If there has ever been a reason to become more honest with yourself, surely it is that.

Don’t get me wrong, I know I have already spent years doing difficult internal work. Processing grief, identity, trauma, pressure, expectation, loss. I have sat in therapy rooms and confronted uncomfortable truths about myself several times over. Then I’d go home and spend a weekend isolated doing it again, until things were completely processed. But I think real self-awareness also comes with accepting that this work does not end neatly. Human beings are ongoing projects. The moment you believe you are fully healed, fully evolved, fully resolved, ego and self-importance has probably entered the room instead of humility, honesty or self-awareness.

I think real healing probably requires a few difficult things from us at the same time:

None of this is neat work. None of it finishes cleanly. But I do think parenthood makes avoiding it much harder, because eventually you realise your unresolved internal world does not stay contained within you. It enters the atmosphere of your home, your relationships, and your children.

Motherhood has made me more resolved. Calmer. Firmer, but softer. More emotionally disciplined. Even more aware of my own patterns and triggers. More serious about rest and presence. More willing to confront and work through unresolved things instead of carrying them indefinitely while appearing fine.

Children do not need perfect parents. They need parents who are emotionally safe enough for honesty, repair, warmth, consistency, accountability, inspiration and softness to exist inside the home.

What surprises me most is that this process has also made me more compassionate toward adults. I think many of us are still living from emotional climates we encountered long before we had language for them. Homes we barely consciously remember still shape the way we move through the world. The narrative memory may fade, yet the body seems to retain somatic fragments of those experiences somewhere deep beneath language. Sometimes a feeling arrives before a thought does, or your nervous system recognises something your mind cannot yet fully explain.

I suppose much of adulthood becomes an ongoing attempt to create emotional safety around ourselves, often without fully realising it. You begin to see it in the people we choose to love, the environments we feel drawn toward, the routines that steady us, and the kinds of presence that allow the body to soften instead of remain guarded. Motherhood has made me realise how early that search for safety begins, and how quietly it continues through the rest of our lives.

Share Theory Of Us

Leave a comment

I have to start this week’s essay off with a massive disclaimer: it feels virtually impossible to attempt, as I will do here, to discuss this week’s themes in real time, as I am, without missing some or other perspective or angle. The current moment is so layered with complexity and the status quo feels like it has a bi-monthly expiry date. That said, we are increasingly being told that we are entering a moment of unprecedented opportunity, particularly here in Namibia.

We are officially (finally) entering the non-renewable space in a big way and conversely but simultaneously, green hydrogen has emerged as one of our most ambitious bets on the future, signalling a willingness to participate in the next global energy economy as a site of production and value creation, contingent on how deliberately that value is structured and retained. At the same time, artificial intelligence is reshaping entire economies in real time. Yet from where we stand, this does not feel like our well overdue arrival. It feels like exposure; a sudden, heightened awareness of how global systems move, and how unevenly their benefits are distributed.

For a young person in an emerging economy, these shifts likely do not read as clear, blue sea opportunity. It feels more like pressure. Pressure to catch up, to find your footing quickly, to extract value from systems that were never designed with you in mind. What we are inheriting is not a frontier. It is a set of conditions, with handicaps pre-embedded.

To come of age in this moment is to exist in two local realities at once. In one, there is momentum: new industries, global attention, the promise of participation. In the other, there is the preexisting structure: socio-economic realities and constraints that predate you, shape you, and rarely shift in your favour, pressures we often fail to account for when discussing opportunity for young people.

Oil, green hydrogen, artificial intelligence, these are not just sectors or technologies. They are signals. Indicators of where power is concentrating, how value is being defined, and who is expected to adapt. The question is not whether opportunity exists. It is how it is distributed, what it demands in return, and who is in a position to meet those demands.

What this leaves us with is a different understanding of systems design, one that extends beyond expression or aesthetics and into the structuring of how value is defined, captured, and distributed within systems that precede you; and how to disrupt these systems.

Design, in this context, becomes a way of working with conditions that are already set, shaping outcomes where control is limited, and constructing meaning and possibility within those constraints.

My personal choice to pursue a path in design in Namibia, in full view, with expectations of me shaped long before I was due to choose a direction, and with more conventional, clearly defined paths always within reach, meant working without a clear framework for what that path could look like, and with very little guidance in a field that remains loosely defined in this context. This has been my lived reality since birth though. The omnipresence of a relatively public gaze, the expectations, the pressure, and the availability of more conventional and socially legible paths have always been there. The contrast between what is expected, what is accessible, and what does not yet exist has been constant. For me it’s been a dizzying pilgrimage that always brings me back to purpose, despite never knowing what is meant to come next; while making it up as one goes.

I get that that is not the average Namibian reality. The weight of visibility and the proximity to more secure, clearly defined alternatives are specific conditions. What is commonly shared, however, is the pressure of charting your own path, of working in spaces that are not fully recognised, and of building culture and concepts that do not yet exist within a society that often favours the familiar. That pressure can be uncomfortable, but it is not inherently the problem.

Rising to opportunity that comes with pressure, and sometimes having to define that opportunity for yourself, is part of creating your own lane. Pursuing purpose is not easy, but difficulty on its own is not the issue. What matters is the context in which that pressure exists.

This becomes visible in how emerging opportunities take shape in practice. In the case of artificial intelligence, access is immediate at the level of use. A young creative in Windhoek can engage with AI tools, produce work, and expand their output in ways that were not previously possible. There is real participation at that level. At the same time, the systems that define these tools are developed elsewhere. Standards are set externally, data is aggregated at scale, and the majority of economic value is captured far from where the tools are being used. Participation exists, but it remains concentrated at the surface.

Even more relevant is the advent of A.I. induced redundancies, promised by several A.I. experts. Interestingly enough, this is one of the phenomenons I thought would take ages to reach our economy. However, I recently witnessed an incident of an entire industry being made redundant and by a local corporate organisation’s choice to go with the A.I. over my industry, the creatives. My people were pissed. And rightly so, and although the particular context was slightly nuanced, this incident was evidence that the theoretical musings of economists, technologists, researchers and academics are becoming our reality, and fast. I am working as we speak on a case study on this incident and I’m thinking of bringing it to you, my audience as a podcast episode. Please share this post if you’d like to see it.

A similar pattern emerges in the scale and visibility of projects like green hydrogen. The ambition is national, the investment is global, and the implications are significant. It is possible to follow every announcement, understand the scale, and recognise its importance. It is also possible to stand close enough to see the infrastructure rise and remain far from the decisions that determine how value is distributed. Proximity creates awareness. It does not guarantee access, although owing to this initiative being a locally designed IP, the gatekeepers are far fewer and far more approachable for negotiation.

Even where opportunity is clearly defined, it is often gated by systems of preparation that are not yet aligned. Roles within these sectors demand specialised technical skills, advanced training, and globally recognised credentials. Local education and training pipelines are still developing in response. The result is a gap in timing. Opportunity arrives before enough people are positioned to participate in it meaningfully. By the time the system is operational, it already knows who it is looking for.

If this is the structure, then hope cannot remain what it once was. It cannot rely on the assumption that opportunity will expand evenly, or that participation will naturally lead to inclusion. That version of hope depends on systems behaving in ways they have not historically sustained.

Hope becomes less about expectation and more about orientation. It is found in the ability to read systems clearly, to understand where value is created and where it is retained, and to deploy accordingly. It requires a willingness to work within constraint, while refusing the relegation of constraint to limitation.

This is where design takes on its full meaning. It is alive in the decisions that shape the fluidity of value, the formation of ideas, and how participation is structured. It operates in the gap between what exists and what is possible. In contexts like ours and like those within most societies, where systems are uneven, design becomes a way of engaging with that unevenness directly, making interventions when scale is limited, and building coherence when none is provided.

There is reason to be attentive to what is emerging. Namibia’s energy ambitions signal a potential shift in how the country is positioned within the global economy. Artificial intelligence is expanding the range of what individuals can produce and access. These are not insignificant developments. They create openings. They introduce new forms of participation. They suggest that the terms of engagement are not entirely fixed. Although we know they never have been, it merely depends who you’re asking.

At the same time, those openings do not resolve the underlying structure. They exist within it. As an African designer, innovator or entrepreneur, it is best to accept that sooner rather than later. The question, then, isn’t just whether the future will be better. It is whether we are able to engage with it effectively.

Hope, in this context, is not a belief in outcomes. It is a discipline. It is the ongoing work of understanding where you stand, what is available to you, and what can be built from there.

I’ve been asked about a skincare routine quite frequently over the past couple of years, so despite not quite being convinced that my skin distinctly warrants this kind of thing, I’ve obliged in the hope of creating a more lighthearted moment amidst the more serious topics I’ve been writing about. I also hope that those of you who have been asking can find some useful information and resources that work for you somewhere in this.

I did notice my skin become less problematic over the course of my pregnancy, so I’ve come up with this honest account of what currently goes on my skin and some additional habits and considerations that I hope you enjoy.

I’ve had far more intricate routines in the past with much more glamorous products. But this rather uncomplicated one is what I’m actually doing now and it seems to work.

Over the past year my routine simplified quite dramatically.

That change of pace largely came down to energy. Pregnancy affected my energy levels quite a bit but it also made me hyper cautious about what I was consuming and putting on my skin. Between fatigue, nausea, and simply not wanting to overcomplicate things, the routine naturally became much simpler.

Full disclosure, I had been doing routine facials, microneedling, lymph drainage and laser fairly regularly at Aesthetic Center Olympia with my friend Dr Latoya Hamutenya (aka Dr. LMH). Most of this was not recommended during pregnancy so I had to scale back immediately upon finding out I was pregnant but before that, discovering the treatments and procedures and how well they enhance the skin was a weekly highlight for me.

I absolutely love going there. Their service and treatments were always an absolute treat and I’m very much looking forward to eventually returning to my full roster of treatments. If you’re in or approaching your thirties, it is a good time to consider these investments into the longevity of your skin health.

So far the only thing I’ve started again is laser for facial hair growth, which I get a bit of on my chin because of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.

For anyone unfamiliar, PCOS is a hormonal condition that several women have. Among other things, it can increase androgen levels in the body, which sometimes leads to things like painful, irregular cycles, acne and excess facial hair growth.

If that’s something you deal with and it bothers you, I genuinely recommend laser. It’s the only thing that has made a noticeable difference for me, although to be honest I’ve never really had a problem with the hair being visible if it’s grown out.

Another thing that changed, partly out of convenience, is that I shifted toward using products that I can easily buy here in Namibia.

Normally I’m a complete Sephora junkie and have skincare products from there stocked up in storage bins.

But I will say, the selection of skincare available locally has improved enormously. Some of the masstige products I had become used to bringing in over the years are now available in Namibia. There is still catching up to do, but things are improving quickly.

I’m also curious to start integrating local Namibian skincare brands as they emerge.

What surprised me most is that this simplified routine has actually yielded really good results. My skin feels healthy and balanced, which is really all I want.

Also, a disclaimer: I’m not a skincare expert. This is simply what I’ve been doing lately that seems to work.

And perhaps more importantly, none of this is necessary in order to be perfectly fine as you are. Skincare is one of those things that can be enjoyable and helpful, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for something that determines anyone’s worth.

Subscribe now

So here is the routine.

Cleanse

In the morning I wash my face with a foaming cleanser.

I’ll rotate between CeraVe Foaming Cleanser and La Roche-Posay Foaming Water. Both clean the skin well without making it feel tight.

I’m not very scientific about it, I just know my skin feels clean afterwards.

Vitamin C Serum

Next comes SkinCeuticals C E Ferulic, rotating in Dr. Barbara Sturm
The Good C Vitamin C Serum during winter as it does a little more heavy lifting when skin gets super dry.

Topical vitamin C has become a daily non-negotiable for me. It acts as an antioxidant, helping to protect the skin from environmental stressors like sun exposure and pollution, while also improving overall brightness and tone.

Over time, I’ve found it makes my skin look more even, a little more radiant, and generally healthier, which is really all I’m aiming for.

Moisturizer

I then do Laneige Water Bank Blue Hyaluronic Gel Moisturizer for hydrating moisture.

Sunscreen

Lastly, sunscreen.

I alternate between La Roche-Posay Anthelios Cream SPF50+ and Fenty Skin Hydra Vizor SPF20.

Living in Namibia, which has one of the craziest UV indices in the world, sunscreen is even more essential even though everyone should use sun protection as it is the biggest anti-aging hack.

Night Routine

Cleanse Again

Same cleanser.

At night it’s mainly about removing sunscreen and/or makeup, as well as the environmental gunk that accumulates on your face throughout the day.

Glycolic Acid Toner

After cleansing I use The Ordinary Glycolic Acid Toner.

My understanding is that glycolic acid gently exfoliates the skin and helps with texture and brightness. I like the feeling of reset it gives my skin after a long day. Most people know by now that it works very well on the entire body as a chemical exfoliant and it triggers collagen production.

Dark Spot Serum

Then I do SkinCeuticals Discoloration Defense, which helps with uneven tone and dark spots.

Overnight Hydration

Finally I apply plenty of the Laneige Water Sleeping Mask.

At night I prefer heavier hydration because the skin repairs itself while you sleep.

One thing you might notice is notably absent from this list: La Mer.

I’ve looked into it and the formula itself is actually quite basic. I’m sure the ingredients are high quality, but I’m not convinced it offers the value the price suggests.

I also have a fairly low tolerance for being duped by fashion and beauty marketing. I say that as someone who studied fashion marketing and has seen from the inside how these industries operate.

The fashion industry itself has a term for people who buy things simply because they are status symbols or trendy, rather than because they are genuinely beautiful, well designed, or well made.

They call them “fashion victims.”

Having studied the supply chains and marketing strategies behind these industries, I make it a point to enjoy beautiful things without becoming one.

A large part of beauty marketing is designed to inflate the perceived value of fairly ordinary products and, quite often, to feed on women’s insecurities in the process. It’s damaging, but it works precisely because it drives sales.

Quite often you are being persuaded to spend excessive amounts of money on something that is, chemically speaking, not very different from products available for a fraction of the cost.

Resisting that sometimes just comes down to remaining grounded in reality and being willing to look at things objectively.

If you can resist the ego boost luxury marketing creates (the subtle suggestion that expensive objects somehow make you more important or complete) something interesting happens: you become much harder to manipulate.

And when you are not constantly spending your resources trying to live up to narratives designed for you, the full value of those resources becomes available to you instead.

That said, none of this is an argument against enjoying nice things. It’s simply a reminder that they should remain what they are: optional.

And then… scent

A true lady is not supposed to reveal what her scent is.

So technically I shouldn’t be telling you this and I especially like the inherently anti-consumerist vibe to that sentiment.

But I will give part of it away.

My base fragrance lately has been Amouage Guidance, which is one of the most beautiful perfumes I’ve ever smelled.

Sometimes I mix it with Replica After the Rain Eau de Toilette, or occasionally Untitled Eau de Parfum by Maison Margiela.

But my secret daily ingredient in that combination has to stay secret.

Sorry.

One extra thing I swear by

Hyaluronic Face Masks

On a good week, I try to use Skin Republic Hyaluronic Acid and Collagen Sheet Masks once or twice.

I keep plenty at home and almost always use one before doing my makeup for an event or dinner. These things make a noticeable difference in creating an immediate supple, plump appearance in your skin.

Other things that probably matter just as much

Hydration

I try to drink a lot of water and often add an electrolyte pack to it.

Especially during pregnancy and now while breastfeeding, hydration feels important. It’s very easy to become dehydrated without realizing it, and I’ve noticed my skin reflects that almost immediately.

When I stay properly hydrated my skin simply looks healthier and calmer.

Cleanliness

Another thing that intensified dramatically while pregnant was my sensitivity to smells and cleanliness.

I was nauseous constantly for a period of time and anything that wasn’t spotless made me miserable. So my environment, especially my bedroom and bathroom had to be immaculately clean. Sheets changed frequently, hair washed regularly, surfaces wiped down.

I was already quite particular about cleanliness before, but this became next level.

And I’m fairly sure my skin benefited from that. OCD can be a positive after all.

Wearing less makeup

Another factor that probably helps is that I’ve barely worn makeup in months.

The Visions Beauty Expo last weekend (which was fabulous by the way) was one of the very few times I’ve worn makeup since giving birth.

While I was pregnant I still wore makeup somewhat regularly, but lately I’m struggling to be bothered.

Diet

During pregnancy my eating was… chaotic.

Now that things have settled down I’m eating healthier again, and I think that contributes too.

Share

Conclusion

What this whole period taught me is that skincare doesn’t necessarily need to be complicated.

A few consistent products, decent hydration, clean surroundings, and reasonably good habits seem to go a long way. Eventually I’ll add facials, microneedling and the rest of my usual treatments back into the mix. But for now, this very uncomplicated routine has really being yielding results, which is all I really ask of skincare.

Sometimes a very uncomplicated routine really is enough.

And sometimes being comfortable in your own skin, pun intended, is the best outcome skincare can offer.

I’m curious to hear about any routine or ritual that might resonate with you toward just feeling good in your skin.

Leave a comment

When design reveals itself, people notice that something works, feels right, or simply makes sense; its impact is felt instantly, even when design itself remains invisible. We recognize clarity, comfort, ease, intuition; the way the world and the things around us seem to cooperate with human life rather than resist it. What often goes unnoticed is that these moments are not accidental. They are the result of deliberate decisions about proportion, structure, behavior, and human experience; the direct outcome of design methodology at work.

A poster communicates effectively because hierarchy guides the eye before conscious reading begins; scale establishes importance, contrast directs attention, and spacing allows information to breathe. A jacket sits correctly on the body because a pattern maker has distributed tension through seams, balanced volume against movement, and anticipated how fabric behaves when a person walks, reaches, or turns. What appears effortless results from precise decisions about grain direction, material weight, proportion, and construction, allowing the garment to move with the wearer rather than against them. A chair feels comfortable because its dimensions correspond to the human body; seat height, back angle, and material response work together to prevent strain over time. A retail space encourages movement because circulation paths, lighting, and sightlines subtly guide navigation without instruction. A mobile application feels intuitive because designers study patterns of human behavior and reduce friction between intention and action.

At this level, design solves immediate problems. It helps people understand faster, move easier, and interact more smoothly with the world.

Friction begins to appear once we move beyond individual objects. A product may function perfectly while still producing undesirable outcomes at a societal level. A system can operate efficiently while reinforcing exclusion, dependency, or unhealthy norms. The real shift in design thinking happens when we stop asking only whether something works and begin asking what the working thing actually means and what it produces.

By this logic, it is equally important to ask: Does this work? and also What habits, behaviors, or expectations does this quietly train people into?
To ask Is this functional? and also Who feels naturally included here, and who must adapt themselves in order to belong?
And to ask Is this desirable? and also What vision of life is being promoted, and is it healthy, fair, or sustainable?

At this scale, design becomes inseparable from how societies organize themselves and from the degree to which accountability, objectivity, and design integrity are applied to that organization. Design stops being about objects and becomes about scrutiny; examining whether systems serve people sincerely or merely operate efficiently.

Critical design theory begins precisely here. At least mine does.

Share

From the perspective of an African creative, this realization feels both intuitive and urgent. Many young designers move fluidly between global conversations where design operates as strategy and local realities where design is still understood primarily as styling, visual enhancement, or the production of individual goods. In many places, design is treated as the final stage of a process rather than the framework that shapes the process itself.

In Namibia, the word designer is often interpreted very narrowly. If you say you are a designer, people usually assume you mean a tailor, a seamstress, or someone who makes logos. These are important crafts, but they represent only a small portion of what design actually encompasses. Design also includes systems thinking, spatial thinking, communication strategy, service design, policy design, and cultural programming.

Expanding this understanding is essential if the field is to realize its full potential. Africans have long demonstrated deep design intelligence in architecture, craft traditions, textiles, settlement patterns, and social systems. What remains is not the creation of talent, but the reclamation and expansion of the domain in which that talent is recognized and applied.

The issue is not a lack of creativity. Cultural material across African contexts is abundant; visual intelligence embedded in craft traditions, some historically extracted and absorbed into Western design standards without attribution or ownership, hybrid identities, and rapidly evolving urban cultures. The opportunity before us is not simply to participate in global design but to revive original design languages and establish genuine proprietorship over the design-led innovation inherent to Africa.

Design thinking begins with empathy and observation; not as permission to lead purely with emotion or generalization. Empathy in design is disciplined. It requires research, evidence, testing, and critical distance. Observation replaces assumption.

Method is often described as replacing instinct, a phrasing that reveals an older cultural bias. Instinct has historically been treated as primitive, something to be corrected by rational systems and formal knowledge. That assumption is increasingly being challenged. Research in cognitive science suggests that instinct, when shaped through experience and supported by healthy cognitive and physiological conditions, can produce decisions that are as accurate as, and sometimes more accurate than, prolonged deliberation. Instinct is in fact, intelligence.

The bias is not neutral. Cultures that value instinct have often been labeled unsophisticated, while cultures that emphasize system-reliant thinking have been framed as intellectually superior. The same logic has frequently been applied to Africa itself; portrayed as intuitive or primitive in contrast to Western traditions that claim methodological clarity.

Yet the reality is more nuanced. Instinct and method are not opposites. Method gives instinct structure; instinct gives method discernment and perception. Design thinking, at its best, operates precisely at that intersection.

Where design thinking informs decision-making, systems tend to feel more coherent. Services become easier to navigate. Communication becomes clearer. Innovation becomes sustainable rather than reactive. Where it is absent, solutions often address visible problems while misunderstanding lived realities. Development becomes something that happens to people instead of something intentionally shaped with, for and by them.

For many African creatives, this produces a familiar contradiction. Designers are trained to think systemically, to research, prototype, test, and refine, yet are invited into processes only at the final stage. A government program is already structured. A building is already planned. A brand has already been conceptually fixed. The designer is then asked to make it look good.

The result is visible everywhere; public campaigns that fail to communicate clearly despite large budgets, urban spaces that technically exist but feel unused or unsafe, public and private sector facilities that solve a problem in theory but not in practice, and institutions that struggle to build public trust despite functional infrastructure.

The problem is not execution alone. Design thinking was absent when foundational decisions were made. Designers decorate conclusions instead of shaping questions and are then forced to carry the stigma of being frivolous creatives. The loss is not merely professional; it is national.

Design is not the reward of development; it is one of its engines.

Leave a comment

History offers a clear illustration of this principle. In fifteenth-century Florence, a relatively small Italian city, a banking family known as the Medicis began deliberately supporting artists, architects, engineers, and thinkers. Their patronage did not appear after Florence had already become powerful; it helped create the conditions that made the city influential in the first place. Painters, sculptors, builders, mathematicians, and philosophers were given the resources and legitimacy to experiment and produce new ideas that were applicable as solutions to fundamental problems.

The result was not simply beautiful art. Architecture reshaped the city, scientific thinking accelerated, financial innovation expanded trade, and Florence became a center of influence far beyond its size. What we now call the Renaissance was not only a cultural flowering; it was a moment in which creativity, systems thinking, and economic ambition reinforced one another.

The lesson is straightforward: when a society takes its creative and design intelligence seriously, it begins to design its own future.

Few places could benefit more from that realization than Namibia at this stage of our development.

In Namibia, this becomes visible in subtle but powerful ways. Youth culture is heavily shaped by Western, particularly African American, cultural references that circulate faster than locally generated narratives. Blackness itself is often framed through external lenses; often associated with struggle, poverty, or impropriety rather than excellence, intellectual achievement, or institutional leadership, although this is a complex cultural circumstance that is both layered and dynamic, with extrinsic and intrinsic historical factors across Black cultures.

Cultural icons celebrated locally are rarely appraised as architects of long-term achievement. They often have to fight to be recognised as such; Gazza comes to mind as I make this point. His contributions to Namibian music, as well as his raw creative talent, his mastery of the art of performance, his consistency and simultaneous evolution over decades are, in my opinion, not given quite enough credit, although his contributions have been impossible to ignore altogether and have been recognised with some career awards. Thinking about Gazza in this context also leaves me inclined to write a separate piece on individuals whose cultural influence allows them to embody the spirit of a nation and function as living symbols, and why we should be discerning about whom we pay attention to. Hit subscribe to receive that newsletter directly in your email when it publishes.

Shifting back to culture, among young men, visibility often gravitates toward figures whose social capital is built on popularity and social dominance rather than contribution; the familiar “Shebeen King” archetype. Charismatic and socially central, yet rarely associated with education, family stability, or purposeful ambition. Among young women, visibility frequently amplifies the “slay queen” archetype, where desirability and attention become primary currencies, even as Namibian women increasingly outperform men academically and professionally. Female professionals, despite demonstrable achievement, are often met with suspicion rather than admiration.

These cultural contradictions are not caused by design itself. If anything, they emerge where conscious social design is absent. Cultural programming, media ecosystems, educational environments, and public messaging are all designed systems capable of shaping aspiration, dignity, and collective self-perception.

Applied deliberately, design thinking can produce narratives that are more honest, more progressive, and more useful to society.

Within an African creative economy, this moment represents possibility rather than deficit. We are not late to modernity; I think we are unusually free to define it. Without rigid historical institutions dictating aesthetic legitimacy, there is space to synthesize heritage, contemporary lived experience, and future ambition into something genuinely new, leapfrogging inherited hierarchies of taste and legitimacy..

Designers and creatives operating here become translators between culture and economy; creativity and policy; imagination and implementation.

Designers learn not only to make objects, artifacts, or products, but to frame problems, map relationships, and prototype possible futures.

The longer I study design, the less it feels like a profession and the more it feels like a way of paying attention; a framework for noticing how things are and processing their meaning. From there, design offers a method for taking that meaning and, through its creative and iterative processes, proposing better possibilities for how things could be.

Completing that loop, however, rarely belongs to designers alone. Designers can observe, interpret, and imagine alternatives, but shaping the world ultimately requires permission and collaboration; from governments, from the private sector, and from society itself.

In that sense designers are not so different from engineers, architects, artists, or writers. Each works through frameworks that translate ideas into reality, though design thinking and human-centered design make that process more deliberate and visible.

This dependence on permission and collaboration is both necessary and limiting. It is necessary because every profession that contributes to society operates within structures of accountability. Yet the creative sector is often excluded from participating meaningfully in those structures. When that happens, designers are invited only at the end of a process and asked to refine appearances rather than influence decisions.

Once you begin paying attention in this way, the absence of thoughtful design becomes just as visible as its presence. It becomes difficult to look at any society, including our own, without asking how intentionally it has been designed, what form that design has taken, and how it might be made more equitable.

Leave a comment

I’m writing from Windhoek, in a season of early motherhood, where I’ve become acutely aware of how much power lives inside the ordinary. Not in the uninspiring ordinary that borders on painfully abstract; on oblivion, but the daily kind. I mean the decisions, rhythms, and repetitions that slowly shape into a person’s thinking, their habits, their understanding of the world, their movement through it and eventually, their legacy. What has been peculiar to observe is how consequential these small, consistent choices are as they accumulate into power, and power, into culture.

Lately, my days move between domestic routine and intellectual restlessness. Between raising a human and returning to questions I’ve been carrying for years. Observations once kept in notebooks are starting to find their way into the world because I’m beginning to understand that clarity can be found through iteration and articulation.

This is where I curate from.

Subscribe now

Design enters first. Then business decisions. Then the logistics of home life: rearranging spaces; editing plans; some personal admin; deep work blocks; a night routine that is no longer summarised by skincare; starting again tomorrow.

Living around leadership comes with some valuable insight early on. One thing I picked up on is that restraint signals authority more reliably than volume could ever. That inkling has remained with me.

Over time, I’m noticing that power and culture move in similar ways. By power, I mean those moments that make it unmistakably clear what is permitted, encouraged, rewarded, visible, and what is deemed worthy in society.

Culture forms when the signals of power settle into habit.

Power sets the terms of a society. Culture is what remains once those terms have been absorbed, interpreted, and practiced across the society layers. Culture can tell power that just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

That is the politics of the ordinary.

I write from the vantage point of someone who understands herself, at the core, as two things: a creative and an African— two vantage points that make the formation of culture difficult to ignore.

What’s more, motherhood makes this impossible to ignore in practice. Children absorb atmosphere long before they understand instruction. They learn rhythm first, and then consistency becomes their education. Instruction happens without words, in the subtext of your habits and lived convictions.

The ordinary day accumulates weight until it becomes part of who your child is—what they are disciplined in, how they think, what they know to reach for instinctively. Without belief, principle, and strong values beneath those repetitions, the person you eventually send into the world is left to improvise their own structure.

What repeats inside a home eventually repeats inside a society.

That is part of why I keep returning to questions of African modernity; as a lived condition more so than in the aesthetic slogan we’ve become accustomed to thinking in.

There is a particular presence Africans carry. An elegant sensibility that holds confidence and modesty in the same breath. You see it in how people move, how they dress, how they command space. It is creative, expressive, soulful, authoritative.

And yet restraint sits alongside it.

To have presence and still choose proportion. To possess style and still choose substance. To be capable of assertion and still know when to exercise restraint. A refusal of performativeness. Power exercised with dignity and an inescapable authenticity.

That was the brand of leadership that formed the atmosphere of my childhood. It took years to articulate what I had already recognized instinctively: the rhythm by which a person of real stature can restrain their expression of power without diminishing it.

Restraint keeps returning as a theme.

Restraint in design, in ambition, in the use of power.

Acceleration is easy. Discipline is harder. It’s where much of the leverage truly lies.

Still, restraint alone does not produce greatness. A culture also needs courage, imagination, conviction, skill, and moral clarity. Restraint gives those things form. It keeps force from dissolving into ego, excess, or noise.

This space is an exercise in refinement. A place to think through culture, capital, fashion, design, motherhood, and daily life while the ideas are still forming. I am learning to release work before certainty arrives; to let thinking remain visible, with the right amount of restraint.

What interests me most is the tension between consciousness and cerebral entropy. Between living by principle and drifting into whatever takes hold.

Entropy appears wherever structure collapses:

in prejudice passed down without thought,

in homes without moral foundation,

in habits left unexamined until they become character,

in societies that mistake disorder for freedom.

At our best, African societies have never been defined by that drift. At our best, there is intention. Moral structure. Discernment. The discipline to observe closely, think rigorously, then move.

So I’m curating from here—

from the everyday terrain where life unfolds,

and from the way that terrain informs cultural design.

You could call it another language for human-centered design: conversations, study, parenting, shaping, pursuing purpose, building, questioning. The ordinary places where ideas collide with reality, and where we decide how those ideas are processed and actualized, individually and collectively.

In the end, culture rarely changes in dramatic moments. It accumulates in ordinary ones.

If you are building something yourself, you already understand how much perspective matters. Where one stands determines what becomes visible.

Your individual agency; your free will, if you will, is your power.

So, if the process of refinement interests you; if disciplined, radically free thinking appeals to you and you are noticing how power, in its many forms, eventually becomes culture, and how wielding restraint can be the most accomplished and sophisticated display of power. Once one knows this, what can one do with it?

I’m curious to hear what you are noticing from your vantage point of ordinary.

Add your thoughts below if you’re inclined. Until next week.

Leave a comment

I replied to an Instagram story. I do this fairly often, in the spirit of thoughtful exchange and with the hope that both people leave the conversation slightly more informed than they entered it. No scoreboard hanging over the chat bubble.

The story I replied to was one of those political infographics designed to provoke a tidy little “gotcha” moment about Barack Obama: a reminder of the drone strike tally under recent US administrations. Libya. Afghanistan. The familiar argument that the “nice” president ultimately did the same hard things as the abrasive ones prior to and following him.

The reply I sent was simply my interpretation of how I understand power. That interpretation comes less from formal political science training and more from years of observing the mechanics of politics from up close, listening and asking questions that my ever-patient father was always generous enough to answer with remarkable ease of insight, detail and clarity. Over time, those conversations and observations have progressively shaped the way I have come to think about politics, the kinds of questions I ask, and the patterns I find myself noticing. These conclusions however, are my own; dad groomed my political mind, but this is my political mind at work.

What followed on the ‘gram with my friend was a long exchange between two politically minded Namibian women trying to make sense of American leadership from where we sit.

Like many online conversations that begin casually, it quickly became a different animal entirely: this night, an attempt to untangle power itself.

Over the years I have developed a simple, quasi-semiotic reading of political power: separate the symbol, the system, and the story people tell themselves about both. Once those three layers are disentangled, political arguments begin to look very different.

And our vantage point in that endeavour matters.

We are not Americans debating domestic politics from inside the empire. We are observers from a country whose history, like much of the African continent, has been shaped by decisions taken in capitals far beyond our borders. When American power moves, its consequences hardly remain neatly contained within Washington nor are they typically intended to. They travel through exchange rates, commodity markets, diplomatic alignments, aid frameworks, and wars that ripple outward into the rest of the world.

From Windhoek, those ripples are not theoretical. They are as dynamic as they are atmospheric.

The Conversation Beneath the Conversation

My friend’s critique was sharp.

Her concern centred on reverence. The pedestal. The way Obama continues to be described as morally exceptional in ways other presidents are not.

Her argument, as I understood it, was simple: an individual leader’s referent power (term used to describe the influence someone has because people admire, trust, or identify with them) can make the actions of a government seem more principled or progressive than they are; casting them in a better light, if you will. In Obama’s case, his charisma and personal story shaped how many people saw his leadership, even if the real-world moral and social consequences of certain decisions ended up looking much the same by the end of his term.

That is a fair observation.

And I think the truth on this topic, as that of most complex subjects, lies in the nuance. There was also a certain irony embedded within the exchange itself. The leadership being scrutinised most intensely in this discussion happened to belong to the president whose governing style represents perhaps the starkest contrast to the current occupant of the office in both tone and substance. In other words, the leader who arguably demonstrated one of the highest degrees of rhetorical discipline, institutional respect, dignified conduct and restraint within the modern American presidency is being re-examined in a debate unfolding during the tenure of a leader whose governing style has been defined by volatility, improvisation, and open friction with the norms that previously structured presidential behaviour. The comparison does not render Obama immune from criticism, but it introduces an interesting contextual irony within the conversation itself.

Yet very early in the discussion I realised that the infographic itself was pulling our attention in the wrong direction.

The current political moment, for the first time in years, has created an unusual opportunity to examine systems instead of personalities. That was the direction in which I tried to steer our discussion.

Because personalities may occupy power, but in a nutshell, structures determine what power can actually do.

In an era of strongman politics, where a leader attempts to cultivate the image of lone heroes or villains, it becomes dangerously easy to forget that power rarely operates through individuals alone. Even when one person appears to orchestrate a performance of authority that contradicts this, the machinery underneath remains somewhat collective and institutional.

The System vs The Man

From where I sit, American presidents do not manufacture American power.

They administer it.

Power, in the simplest sense, is the ability of a state to shape outcomes beyond its borders and maintain order within them. In the case of the United States, that power already exists long before any individual takes the oath of office. It lives in institutions, military capacity, economic reach, diplomatic networks, and the expectations of allies and rivals alike.

The presidency of a superpower carries a set of inherited obligations: maintain alliances, defend strategic interests, protect economic dominance, and project strength across the international system.

These responsibilities are embedded in the office itself.

Leadership, then, is not the creation of that power but the management of it. It is the set of choices, judgments, and signals a leader uses to direct an already existing system. Some leaders handle that responsibility with restraint and clarity. Others treat it as a stage for personal performance. But the machinery they inherit remains largely the same.

If you’re familiar with the design thinking approach, this distinction feels intuitive. Designers learn early that systems shape outcomes more reliably than personalities do. A beautiful interface can hide a flawed architecture or coding; a charismatic leader can captivate while operating inside constraints the public rarely sees.

If we follow that architectural metaphor a little further, the history of power becomes visible not only in institutions and policies, but in buildings themselves. Empires have long expressed authority spatially, constructing monuments designed to communicate permanence, hierarchy, and civilizational confidence. Palaces, parliaments, ceremonial avenues, and monumental government complexes are rarely accidental compositions; they are deliberate spatial narratives about who governs, who belongs, and how power is meant to be perceived. From a designer’s perspective, these structures operate almost like political diagrams. Each column, axis, dome, or elevated platform functions as a part within a larger composition whose meaning emerges only when the whole is taken in at once. It is, in many ways, a Gestalt exercise: the individual elements matter, but the perception of authority ultimately emerges from the relationship between them.

While researching this piece, I found myself drawn to the architecture of empire as a visual language of power. The gallery below collects several buildings that symbolize state authority around the world — a subject I will explore in a future article.

From Symbol to System

Architecture makes power visible. It shows how authority is staged, how hierarchy is spatially arranged, and how legitimacy is communicated through form. But buildings are still only representations of power.

The system that produces them — and sustains them — operates elsewhere.

At some point, the symbolism gives way to the machinery itself.

At one point in our exchange I said something blunt:

The architecture of empire assumes someone eventually will.

It sounds cynical. It is not meant to be. It is simply an acknowledgement that the presidency includes morally ambiguous decisions by design. No serious candidate campaigns on a platform of unilateral geopolitical disarmament. The office presumes participation in global hard power in the same way a central bank presumes responsibility for monetary stability.

This does not absolve leaders from scrutiny.

But it does clarify where scrutiny should be directed.

Having watched a seasoned politician, political scientist, statesman and eventual head of state navigate the realities of governance throughout the years I was old enough to observe, one lesson became impossible to ignore: politics and leadership manifest entirely differently behind closed doors than they do in headlines.

That realization sharpened something I had been noticing for years: power on a social level is rarely about force or tact alone. It is also about perception.

Perception, in this context, is the collective story people tell themselves about who holds authority, who deserves trust, and whose voice carries weight. The way people see a person, an idea, or a moment often determines its real influence. The factors (both intrinsic and extrinsic) that determine that perception, can also determine or even generate, power.

For those who work in fields that quite literally shape how things are seen — designers, artists, editors, consultants, marketers, brand builders — this terrain is familiar in the most practical sense. Meaning is constructed in those spaces. Perception can elevate, legitimize, or dismantle authority.

And then I’ll go further; perception alone is not the whole story.

Influence is the deeper currency. It could be described as the ability to move people, institutions, or public opinion in a particular direction. In other words, when the leader is aware and in control of those intrinsic factors.

The rarest form of influence is the kind that operates without manipulation, coercion, or spectacle.

That is part of what made Obama such a compelling figure. He embodied a form of influence that felt aspirational: composed, articulate, dignified and persuasive without appearing forceful. For many observers, that style suggested a different way power might be exercised on the global stage. Whether or not the system itself could fully accommodate that vision is a separate question, but the possibility alone carried an enormous cultural and sociopolitical weight that will not soon be forgotten by our collective psyche.

AI, Empire, and Bias

A brief methodological aside is useful here.

In the early stages of conceptualising this piece, I experimented with testing how certain political framings might be interpreted. What emerged from that process was less a writing exercise and more a small case study in how systems process power. Prompts that framed the United States in terms of imperial behaviour consistently produced responses that softened the language, redistributed responsibility, or reframed military action as neutral strategic management.

From a design thinking perspective, that outcome is not surprising. Systems reflect the assumptions ingrained in the environments that produce them. Technology, like political institutions, is never neutral infrastructure. It is an artefact shaped by the values, priorities, and blind spots of its designers, the data it is trained on, and the historical narratives that structure that data.

In other words, technology is also political.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly treated as a neutral authority on truth, yet it is trained on archives of language, history, and institutional knowledge produced within an unequal global power paradigm. If empire has shaped the modern world, it has also shaped the datasets and conceptual frameworks that AI systems learn from.

Mentioning AI in a discussion about empire therefore is not a detour from politics but an extension of it, but more on this another time.

Subscribe now

Obama 2008: A Global Moment

To understand why Obama continues to resonate so strongly with many people, we have to return to 2008.

Not nostalgically; historically.

The political atmosphere of that year carried a an exhausted tension. The United States was nearing the end of a decade defined by war, the lingering shadow of September 11, and a financial system that had begun to buckle in real time. The language surrounding American power had grown heavy: Iraq, Afghanistan, recession, collapse. Trust in institutions felt strained. The global mood was fatigued.

Into that climate stepped a relatively young senator with an unfamiliar name and a manner that felt unusually composed. His campaign gathered momentum slowly at first, almost experimentally. University halls filled with students who sensed something shifting. Long-time civil rights organisers stood beside first-time voters. Older Americans who had lived through earlier chapters of the country’s racial history watched with a kind of cautious curiosity.

The campaign’s language travelled easily. Hope. Change. Yes we can.
Simple phrases, but they carried a refreshing new weight of significance far beyond American borders.

Election night unfolded slowly, almost ceremonially. The results arrived state by state, the map shifting a little further each time. But the suspense was not contained within the United States. Screens glowed late into the night across the world — in European capitals, in African living rooms, in university dormitories and crowded bars.

When the outcome was finally confirmed, the reaction travelled quickly across time zones: cheers, disbelief, quiet tears. For a brief moment, the world felt like it was watching the same page of history turn.

Chicago’s Grant Park was the centre of that moment. As Obama stepped onto the stage before the crowd gathered there, the symbolism of the event became impossible to ignore.

A Black man — an “other”— had been elected president of the United States.

The poetry of that moment mattered. Obama for Change captured a yearning already circulating in public consciousness. Many people interpreted it as a promise of structural transformation.

Looking back, what Obama introduced was a change in ethos (tone, posture, and political language) while the deeper architecture of American power continued operating largely as it always has.

Yet that distinction does not diminish the significance of the moment.

Across the world, including among Black communities shaped by histories of exclusion, Obama’s election represented something extraordinary: a Black man occupying the most powerful political office on earth.

It echoes moments like Michael B. Jordan’s Best Actor win at the Oscars this past weekend; one of those cultural flashpoints that sits alongside a lineage of Black “firsts,” ceilings shattered, and excellence recognised in spaces that once appeared structurally closed.

Representation does not dismantle systems overnight. Yet it expands the imagination of what can exist inside them.

For a generation of Black and brown children — whether in Nairobi or New York, Kingston or Katutura — the possibility of occupying spaces of global authority within your chosen domain moved from distant, almost delusional abstraction into something visible.

Why Iran, Why Now?

Which brings us to the present moment.

Why has Donald Trump decided that now is the time to bomb Iran?

The conflict itself is hardly new. American intelligence agencies, diplomatic institutions, and military strategists have spent decades constructing frameworks for managing tensions with Iran.

A sudden escalation raises questions.

History contains examples of leaders facing declining legitimacy who escalate external conflict to rally national unity.

Argentina’s military junta attempted this in 1982 when General Leopoldo Galtieri invaded the Falkland Islands during economic collapse. Britain responded militarily. Argentina lost the war. The dictatorship collapsed soon afterward.

Tsar Nicholas II pursued war with Japan in 1904 while revolutionary pressures were building inside Russia. The defeat accelerated the crisis that produced the 1905 revolution.

Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 also carried elements of diversionary logic, as Iraq faced severe economic strain and internal dissatisfaction following the Iran–Iraq War.

More recently, one could also look at Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea in a similar light, as it occurred amid domestic economic stagnation and declining approval ratings for Vladimir Putin, a move that quickly produced a surge of nationalist support at home.

The centrality of diversionary war theory in the last two examples may be brought into question, and fairly so; such is the aforementioned nuance of this kind of critique.

Political scientists refer to this pattern as diversionary war theory — turning a nation’s attention outward so it stops looking inward.

Sometimes that calculation stabilizes leadership, albeit briefly. Often it produces the opposite.

Then there’s this theory.

Trump may simply be acting out a performance he has rehearsed for years.

One can easily imagine the scene long before the presidency was within reach — a dinner party in New York of the late 80’s, a room full of fellow aristocrats, and the theatrical confidence of someone declaring: “If I were president, I’d bomb Iran.”

Statements like that function well as political theatre.

Once power becomes real, the temptation to prove the performance authentic becomes far more dangerous.

In the language of pop culture, this is the moment when politics begins to resemble an episode of Succession; ego, power and opportunity colliding in unfortunate ways.

I’m not sure I prefer either option.

The Obama Distraction

Another point worth clarifying in this conversation concerns how we evaluate presidential leadership in the first place.

Not all presidencies are created equal.

Assessing a president’s character primarily through whether missile strikes occurred during their tenure reduces an extraordinarily complex office to a single, highly situational metric.

The responsibilities attached to the presidency of the United States exist on a scale entirely different from those attached to the presidency of a smaller nation.

A Namibian president could complete an entire term without ever encountering a strategic scenario in which ordering a missile strike becomes a realistic option. In fact, generally, a Namibian head of state could realistically go into office expecting not to. An American president almost certainly will face that possibility simply because of the global reach and military posture of the state they lead. This does not absolve American presidents of accountability. It places their decisions inside the structural realities of the office itself.

The subjectivity involved in comparing those circumstances is immense. Not that Namibian vs U.S presidential office is what our DM exchange was concerned with, however, I create these parallels, once again, to illustrate the subjectivity and complexity of power dynamics.

… It’s Complicated.

At some point in our exchange I wrote something that clarified my thinking.

The job of power is to manage harm. Admittedly, this framing assumes a certain degree of benevolence in how power is exercised and how we perceive what power is for, but I’m running with that. Within that assumption, power operates in environments where moral absolutes rarely exist and ideal conditions almost never appear. Obama can be historically significant, culturally resonant, and structurally constrained at the same time.

Those realities coexist.

Serious political conversation requires the ability to hold them together without collapsing into hero worship or pure cynicism.

All of this started with a late-night Instagram story reply.

What followed from a casual exchange between two Namibian women turned into something else entirely: an attempt to understand the methodology of power in a world that does not give us the luxury of ignoring it.

Leave a comment

There was a particular moment for me in early pregnancy when reality settled in. Not the dramatic revelation you might imagine, but a subtler reckoning: life was about to expand, and there would be no rehearsal. I simply recognized that I was stepping into something sacred and yet completely unfamiliar.

So I did what I am sure many women do when confronted with that realization: I decided to prepare.

Except, before preparation, I was forced into survival.

My first trimester truly kicked my ass.

I was morning sick quite constantly as the first months of pregnancy progressed. And not the polite version you hear from mothers in reminiscence, but an all-day physical depletion that rearranged any sense of normalcy. The exhaustion was relentless, and alongside the illness came a heaviness of spirit that I had not anticipated. I felt unwell, emotionally low, and disoriented by how little control I seemed to have over my own body.

Pregnancy did not begin as a glowing transition into motherhood. For me, it began with endurance; physical and mental, mostly unfolding from beneath my duvet.

The physical sickness made everything else harder. The emotional adjustment moved slowly. In my experience, life “flashes before your eyes” in early pregnancy . Not in the cinematic sense, but in a forward-facing one. I found myself rehearsing the future: worrying about the unknown, about not feeling ready, about how everything would unfold. I grieved the absence of my biological parents. I processed the full weight of parental responsibility, without an opt-out clause. I reflected, questioned, catastrophized. I cried. Often. I settled into the knowledge that my life was changing permanently while simultaneously feeling unlike myself. And I need to be fully transparent at this juncture: I was not immediately serene or radiant with joy, despite feeling a soft but strong, enduring love forming somewhere beneath the surface. Consciously, I was simply trying to get through the days.

Amidst the spiralling, I had a sobering revelation: if you are truly processing the reality of becoming a parent, the fear is not a flaw — it’s evidence that you understand the weight of what is coming. Whether single, married, or somewhere in between, the responsibility you accept is ultimately yours, alone. You must be prepared to carry it even under the stress test of imagining that you might one day carry it alone. Partners can leave. Partners can be lost. Circumstances can change. A partner can leave you hanging even within the security of marriage. There is no clause that allows you to opt out in the event of any of these unfortunate instances and send the child back. There is no ethical space for resentment either. Parenthood demands acceptance before it offers you even an ounce of reassurance. This was a glimpse into the kind of mental and emotional bombardment I subjected myself to in trying to comprehend permanence.

And then, gradually, it passed.

Enter the second trimester. Energy returned. So did clarity. The terror lifted just enough for anticipation to replace survival.

That is when a different spiral began.

In retrospect, it was driven by confusion as much as care. I threw myself into preparation with visible intensity. Research tabs multiplied. Conversations revolved around motherhood. Lists appeared everywhere. I asked questions, compared opinions, read studies, watched reviews, started reorganizing spaces (very premature nesting), and made decisions with unusual urgency. I was trying, earnestly, to catch up with a responsibility that had arrived faster than my sense of readiness.

Preparation, for me, was first intellectual. Research, reading, comparisons, conversations. I wanted my child to enter a world shaped by care and intention. Maybe even perfection, despite my long-held belief that perfection itself does not exist for man. But if motherhood required discipline, I would approach it seriously.

Very quickly, that intention translated into a an unfortunate personal philosophy:

Import is king.

I convinced myself that the tools of competent motherhood were to be imported. The best prams, the safest sleep systems, the most trusted bottles, the most researched fabrics; surely good motherhood meant sourcing the very best available. I developed a method, too. I would search for an item, add ‘Vogue’ to the query, and work through curated motherhood and lifestyle articles listing the “best of the best” products; translating parenting into the vernacular I knew best: fashion. Laugh if you want, but decisions began to feel informed, almost professional. My peak fashion-girl instincts applied to motherhood too — efficiency, aesthetic, quality: add to basket.

The Vogue → DHL → Namibia pipeline became its own ritual. Parcels arrived steadily and efficiently. Each delivery felt, at first, like confirmation that I was doing something right; finding the right item, the finest niche brand, a stylish and nifty accessory. Preparation became tangible. Measurable. Visible.

I can now own the frivolity of that phase without dismissing the sincerity behind it. I was searching for certainty. Consumerism became my first attempt at answering the question “how to be a good mum?”. Please believe me when I say that in retrospect I don’t know how my judgement failed me so badly, but in the moment moving down a shopping list felt like resolve. Hormones may have played a role, but reducing it to that would be both simplistic and untrue. I believed readiness could be assembled through correct decisions made early enough and by preparing an organised, equipped environment. 10/10 in theory but 2/10 for execution.

For a while, I enjoyed it. The nursery plans, the organization, the renovations, the anticipation; all of it felt hopeful.

Then the nursery stopped feeling joyful.

What began as an act of welcome slowly became overwhelming. I understood the symbolism of creating space; discarding, reorganizing, making room for new life. But emotionally, the idea of preparing a separate room for my child no longer felt aligned with my instincts. I began recognizing what a nursery really represented, and I realized it was not the approach that felt natural for us. The more I pursued perfection, the clearer it became that motherhood could not be designed into existence, at least not by copying best practices shaped by different cultures, contexts, and lives.

Cue trimester three. Pregnancy became a gradual recalibration. My priorities shifted quietly. The focus moved away from constructing a perfect picture, toward understanding my child beyond what could be configured and curated.

Around this time, one of my employees was pregnant as well. Despite my encouragement for her to slow down as her due date approached, she continued coming to work. One day, her water broke there.

Watching her navigate pregnancy alongside me changed something fundamental in me. Her preparation, was direct and uncompromised by excess. Her attention was fixed on one thing: her child would be okay.

When her water broke at work ( about three weeks prematurely), my partner and I went into total shock. We raced her to the hospital; disoriented, panicked and suddenly confronted with a preview of our own inevitable day. It was both our first time witnessing labour up close. It was her third. We were flustered, anticipating chaos.

Meanwhile, she was composed. Focused. Even smiling and laughing at our distress. The contractions were visibly intensifying, but she remained in control, steady in a way that made our panic feel almost theatrical. It was only once we reached the hospital and she was ushered down a corridor we were not permitted to follow that the gravity of it fully settled over us.

That moment was one of the few that served as a turning point and an invitation to be more honest with myself about my fears and anxieties around motherhood.

I began to see how much of my own preparation had been an attempt to manage uncertainty while mistaking that effort for understanding motherhood itself. I had access to abundance, but abundance was not the measure of devotion.

As my due date approached, I released my attachment to superficial perfection. The curated nursery mattered exponentially less. The importance of the best baby gadgets plummeted to zero. I paid closer attention to attachment, safety, regulation, and presence.

Ironically, many items marketed as essential proved unnecessary; many, upon a deeper dive into literature, even discouraged from a developmental, health and safety standpoint. The marketplace of motherhood thrives on urgency. It creates automations, shortcuts and “solutions” that seem somewhat useful intuitively, but in reality, only for the caretaker and not so much the baby. Unfortunately, exploiting the same confusion and misconceptions I began with. In reality, motherhood asks for attentiveness and centring the child’s needs instead. And more times than not, the healthiest approaches and methods are the simple, manual, analog ones.

I overestimated products. I underestimated simplicity. Recognizing the mistake brought me back to truths I already knew, as well as to new ones I am honoured to be learning.

Motherhood has made me more optimistic, not less. I feel increasingly reassured as a relatively young woman still figuring out life while now raising another life. The newfound confidence did not come from getting everything right; it came from realizing that learning itself is the work and like I’ll keep saying, that getting to do this work feels like the highest privilege.

The profound lesson motherhood has offered me so far is this:

A good mother is not the woman who perfectly prepares before her child arrives. She is the woman willing to evolve once the child is here, and never, ever stop learning.

My child does not need perfection from me. He needs presence. He needs calm. He needs faith and stewardship modeled daily; parents who admit when they’ve misunderstood something and continue forward wiser.

This transition has taught me to gear up for a lifetime of showing up each day willing to grow alongside my child.

And if this is the gig of a lifetime, I am deeply humbled that God — and my son — chose me for it. Two months in, I’m learning, I’m growing, and I’m having the time of my life.

Leave a comment