Embrace of Socialism Highlights The Difference Between Being Educated and Being Informed

There is a significant difference between being educated and being informed. To become educated, one merely has to fulfill the requirements of a specific degree-granting institution; upon doing so, one receives a doctoral degree--but it is a dangerous fallacy to confuse being educated with being informed, because education far too often involves being indoctrinated with false narratives. In contrast, being informed means thinking with an open mind, consuming information from objective sources while considering information from subjective sources with skepticism, and then synthesizing the acquired information to base opinions on facts and logic.

Our politics, our schools, and our media outlets have far too many educated people and far too few informed people. Educated people often spew ideas that Vladimir Nabokov would correctly dismiss as "poshlost." One such idea is that socialism is good. 

In an August 6, 2025 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled "The Scholar Who Saw Zohran Mamdani Coming in 2003," Daniel Shuchman noted that over 20 years ago Alan Charles Kors foretold the circumstances under which socialist ideas could take sway in the West:

Mr. Kors lamented that socialism has yet to be held accountable for the scale of its crimes: "No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents and more orphans than socialism with power." The failure to acknowledge and come to terms with this reality in the West, he believed, eventually would allow socialism to resuscitate itself, even with millions of skeletons hiding in plain view.

Zohran Mamdani, the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, has proposed government-run grocery stores as a hallmark of his campaign. This is a perplexing platform because, as Mr. Kors reminded us in his paper, socialism's "collectivization of agriculture alone led to untold suffering" and the starvation of millions...

As Mr. Kors noted, wherever socialism was implemented, "its vision of the abolition of private property, economic inequality, and the allocation of capital and goods by free markets, culminated in the crushing of individual, economic, religious, associational, and political liberty."

It is demonstrably false that Mamdani is promoting some form of "democratic socialism" that can be distinguished from the socialism that failed in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and elsewhere. The socialism that failed in those countries advertised itself as "democratic socialism" before showing its fangs and true nature after its leaders had full control of the power levers. Socialism starts with a utopian dream and ends with a dystopian nightmare; informed people understand this, but educated people often have been indoctrinated to believe in the dream while ignoring the inevitable nightmare.

As I noted in a 2021 article, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov--who had firsthand experience with socialist tyranny while living in the former Soviet Union--laments the Western embrace of socialism. The contrast between how an informed person like Kasparov speaks and how educated Leftists speak is profound:

Asked to expound upon the difference between America and the Soviet Union, Kasparov begins by stating, "The problem with Americans is you take things for granted. You keep forgetting the wise words of Ronald Reagan...that freedom is a fragile thing that is never more than one generation away from extinction." Kasparov adds that when he lived under Soviet tyranny, "We knew America had problems. Again, there is no perfection in this world! Compare this country to any other place on the planet and you will not find a place that offers more opportunities for people of all races, genders. That is why people like me are getting so concerned when self-criticism turns into self-flagellation." He rightly calls it "nonsense" to assert that America was built on evil, and he adds, "I know that a lot of people may feel uncomfortable with what I am saying, but I speak on behalf of millions and millions and millions of people from Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, other places who look at America and they are confused and scared and don't understand why this great power is in retreat." 

America is not evil, and it is not courageous or "speaking one's truth" (what a vacuous phrase that is!) to call America evil. America is not perfect, but America is--in the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln--"The last, best hope of Earth." It is courageous to speak that truth in a time and place where speaking truth can get you canceled. I applaud Garry Kasparov, and I hope that his message plays a role in helping to reverse the deplorable trend of American self-flagellation that has become a badge of pride to some but is in fact a badge of ignorance and shame.

Kasparov concludes by noting that the free world is at war with tyrannical forces and regimes, whether or not we understand and accept that challenge--and it is a fight to the death. He wisely notes that America did not end the war in Afghanistan and we certainly did not win the war; we retreated. We must be eternally vigilant to build a better world not only for ourselves but for our children.

The New York mayoral campaign is not just of local significance. New York City is the largest city in our country, and is a symbol of what our country represents (or should represent): a melting pot of different ethnic groups and religious groups living side by side while enjoying the unparalleled freedoms and opportunities that exist only in America. Free countries like America build fences to keep out illegal immigrants, while tyrannical countries build fences to prevent people from leaving. It would be an unspeakable tragedy if New York City became a bridgehead for implementing the socialist nightmare on our shores. 

It may seem overwhelming to confront the hordes of educated people who promote socialism and the "useful idiots" who blindly follow them, but two years ago in the wake of Hamas' mass casualty terrorist attack against Israel--and the outpouring of "progressive" support for Hamas--I outlined the methods for combating the self-proclaimed "progressives":

1) Don't vote for self-proclaimed "progressives." We need to vote the self-proclaimed "Squad" and all of their allies out of Congress (and out of any other elected offices) as soon as possible.

2) Don't contribute money, time, or any other support to organizations that are founded on Marxist, anti-democratic principles. If you do a little research, it is not difficult to identify these organizations, and it is also helpful to understand that most of them use the same catchphrases/terminology that provide great warning signs of their true nature/goals.

3) Fight against the infiltration of pseudo-intellectual nonsense into the education system. No reasonable person is saying that slavery should not be taught about in the schools, or that racism should not be discussed--but the notion that entire groups of people can be classified as oppressed or oppressors (or racists or antiracists) should be consigned to the dustbin of discredited concepts. 

4) If you went to college, urge your alma mater to sign up with Universities United Against Terrorism. My undergrad alma mater Excelsior University signed up after I contacted the university president; shamefully, my law school alma mater University of Dayton has not signed up. Make it clear to colleges, corporations, and charities that you will redirect your contributions away from institutions that lack the moral clarity/courage to condemn Hamas and toward institutions that display moral clarity and courage. 

The self-proclaimed "progressives" are defiant, loud, and strident, but they have not taken over society--yet. It is our duty to make sure that they never do while also being aware that our society is not perfect and while working toward improving our society in the areas where it falls short of its foundational ideals.

Harvey Mansfield Laments the Decline of Higher Education, and Succinctly Summarizes the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive

The June 1-2, 2024 edition of The Wall Street Journal includes an interview titled The Long View of Higher Ed's Decline. Harvey Mansfield, the subject of the interview, may go down in history as the last conservative professor at Harvard. The entire interview deserves careful study, but two of Mansfield's points should be emphasized:

1) The combination of lowered admission standards and grade inflation throughout our higher education system has had a negative impact not just on the quality of college education but also the competency of the work force; when objective standards are discarded, excellence is no longer desirable or even measurable.

2) Mansfield provided a succinct summary of the difference between a liberal in the classical sense (an all but extinct species now) and the progressives who have taken over the Democratic Party: a liberal acknowledges America's flaws, but considers America to be redeemable and is proud to be an American; a progressive has a "loathing for his country. It goes beyond embarrassment to real dislike of America, and in a way, therefore, of themselves, because after all they're Americans."

Conservatives are often labeled "anti-intellectual," but an essential part of the intellectual life is the search for objective truth, and the willingness to engage in robust debate is part of that search. If you are so convinced that you have discovered the absolute truth that you are no longer willing to even listen to opposing views then you are not an intellectual, no matter how many college degrees you have. The extent to which progressives deride the value--or even the existence of--objective truth is jarring, and their unwillingness to consider opposing views is a major threat to our way of life: it has become commonplace for Left-controlled colleges to either refuse to let conservatives speak, or else to enable "protesters" to disrupt conservatives who are allowed to speak.

Three years ago, I noted that Critical Race Theory has infiltrated our education system to disastrous effect: 

If you are not familiar with Critical Race Theory, it is not difficult to find the source material and understand its Marxist, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-American underpinnings. Here is a good summary from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, a 2001 book from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: "Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law." 

I graduated from law school and passed the Ohio bar exam, which means that I am quite familiar with both the strengths and limitations of our justice system. I know from firsthand experience that our system is flawed, but that it is also the best such system in the world. I do not want to replace it with a system based on a Marxist theory that seeks to undermine "the liberal order...legal reasoning...and neutral principles of constitutional law." Those sound principles that Critical Race Theory seeks to subvert and destroy are what separates this country from such failed and failing states as the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba. 

Proponents of Critical Race Theory recklessly assert that without Critical Race Theory we cannot have a fair and honest reckoning with our past. That is false, but very much in keeping with the narrow, binary thinking of the proponents of Critical Race Theory: according to them, everything is either racist or antiracist, so if you oppose Critical Race Theory then you must be a racist who refuses to acknowledge evil acts and suffering that are woven into U.S. history. I reject such binary, simplistic, and incorrect thinking.

The undermining of "the liberal order...legal reasoning...and neutral principles of constitutional law" is a foundational principle for self-proclaimed "progressives," including those who conducted violent insurrections on college campuses targeting Jews in general and Israel in particular. It is neither a surprise nor a secret that Iran is funding these campus insurrections; the fact that self-proclaimed "progressives" gladly take money from an Islamist theocracy that persecutes not only Jews but also women, homosexuals, and other minority groups demonstrates that the insurrections are not about justice for Gaza (or justice anywhere) but rather about destabilizing and overthrowing American democracy. The self-proclaimed "progressives" are deluded enough to be believe that they are fighting the evils of colonialism, which makes them the proverbial "useful idiots" serving Islamists who could not care less about--and, in fact, oppose--the "progressive" agenda.

As Mansfield noted, the decline of higher education results in a general societal decline. We see this in the work force in general, and in particular in the Left-dominated media outlets that shape public opinion in ways that threaten our freedom and our way of life. 

Perhaps nowhere is the general societal decline more evident than in our government. Former World Chess Champion turned political activist Garry Kasparov astutely noted that the United States used to be about striving for excellence, but recent Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils. We see that yet again in this election cycle, with Republican Donald Trump--whose character flaws are well-documented--facing a Democratic Party in search of an identity and a competent candidate: first the Democratic Party attempted to prop up an obviously senile (in the practical if not clinical sense) Joe Biden, and after that misguided effort failed they anointed Kamala Harris, whose pronouncements and policy positions align with the morally bankrupt "progressive" agenda that is a major threat to Western civilization. This election is not about excellence and it is not about saving democracy; it is about choosing the lesser of two evils, and hoping that in four years both parties will present us with better options.

Appeasement and Isolationism Are Dangerously Misguided Ideologies

Speaking about the infamous 1938 Munich Agreement in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to give part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Otto Strasser--an early member of the Nazi party--told historian John Toland in the 1970s, "He (Hitler) would have broken every promise, every signature, because these are not obligations for him. He had no moral connections. He was the most amoral man I ever have seen. And I believe this was one of the reasons for his success."

Chamberlain's inability or unwillingness to recognize Hitler's true nature set the world on a path toward oblivion. Chamberlain declared that he had delivered "peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time." Winston Churchill, who later became Prime Minister and helped lead the Allies to victory over Nazi Germany during World War II, retorted, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."

The main reason that history repeats itself is that very few people learn and apply the lessons that history teaches. One might think that the Jewish people, who suffered so greatly during the Holocaust in the wake of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, would have learned the lesson that appeasement is not an effective policy toward countries and terrorist groups that openly state their genocidal goals, but--sadly--Israel has often chosen dishonor over war. For example, in 2011, Israel foolishly released more than 1000 terrorists in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli solider illegally kidnapped and held captive by the terrorist group Hamas. More than a decade later, Hamas is still launching terrorist attacks not just against Israel but against Jews worldwide. Israel's appeasement strengthened and emboldened Hamas, other terrorist groups, and Hamas' sponsor state Iran.

Many world leaders have been far too slow to understand or accept the danger posed by Vladimir Putin, whose grandiose goal to build a Russian Empire is very similar to Hitler's goal to conquer Germany's neighbors to provide lebensraum ("living room") for the so-called master Aryan race.

On March 10, 2015, I wrote Garry Kasparov Lambastes West's "Weak" Response to Vladimir Putin's Tyranny, quoting Kasparov's warning about the dangers by Putin: 

We have been facing this problem for quite a while. And so many mistakes have been made. These mistakes created an impression for Putin and his cronies and also his clients like Assad and others in the world. Iranian Ayatollahs. The West is weak. The West is not willing to get engaged. So the West will give them anything they want. Before we talk about the right strategy, what the leaders of the free world must do, let's talk about what they must not do. You cannot project weakness. Yes, I know that America will never consider seriously boots on the ground in Ukraine. Why are you talking about it? Why do you say publicly that you will not do that?

I concluded my article with these prophetic words: 

Hitler took whatever he could take through negotiation and then sought to conquer the rest through war. Putin's Russia and Iran's jihadist regime are following that same blueprint today. Hitler did not have legitimate grievances nor could he be reasoned with or placated. Hitler had strategic goals and he made those goals very clear in his writings and in his speeches. The world was foolish to ignore his words.

When will the West wake up to the dangers posed by today's tyrants, who also speak quite clearly about their ultimate goals? When will a modern-day Winston Churchill or Harry Truman emerge?

Neville Chamberlain was wrong about Adolf Hitler and Chamberlain's mistakes precipitated World War II. President Obama is wrong now about Putin's Russia and about Iran. We can only hope that the consequences of President Obama's mistakes will not be as severe. 

We now see those consequences every day in the form of headlines about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, resulting in immense suffering and loss of life. President Joe Biden, who funds the PLO's "Pay for Slay" program to kill Jews and whose defining moment is the triumph of the Taliban after his retreat from Afghanistan, is unlikely to enact policies to mitigate those consequences and curb the impact of Putin's tyranny. 

Appeasement and isolationism are two sides of the same tarnished coin. The United States should not appease tyrannical regimes, nor should the United States pretend that what happens in other parts of the world is of no consequence to the American people. Declaring that "war is not the answer" may sound great, but the reality is that in many instances there is not a peaceful way to deal with tyrannical regimes. Non-violent non-cooperation is a very effective strategy for dealing with injustices within a free, open society: it worked for Mahatma Gandhi's followers in opposition to the British, and it worked for Dr. Martin Luther King's followers in opposition to American discrimination against Black people. However, as I noted in Violence, Non-Violent Non-Cooperation, and Human Nature, "Gandhi's public assertion that European Jewry should accept without resistance whatever fate Hitler's executioners delivered is not only absurd but it is obscene. As Rabbi Shmuley Boteach explains, 'What Gandhi failed to realize is that when dealing with moral or at least somewhat humane governments, nonviolent resistance has its place. But when dealing with murderous barbarians such as ISIS or the Nazis, no level of nonviolent resistance will ever change their minds. Gandhi's philosophy would only guarantee that they take over the world.'"

Appeasement was a fatally flawed strategy in 1938, and it remains a fatally flawed strategy today. War is awful, but--as Churchill sagely noted--dishonor followed by war is even worse. If Putin's Russia, Iran, and other tyrannical regimes are not stopped today, it will become more costly (both in terms of human suffering and money) to stop them later.

Arab/Islamic Terrorism, Buoyed by Support from Self-Proclaimed "Progressives," Continues to Take Lives in Israel

Yesterday, axe-wielding terrorists murdered three Jews in Israel, causing 16 children to become orphans. At least four other people were injured in the attack. One of the 16 orphaned children, a six year old boy, was with his father (Yonatan Habakuk, age 44) and saw his father killed while fighting the terrorists. As is always the case, Palestinian Arabs celebrated the murders, and flooded social media outlets with calls for more attacks against Jews. The harsh reality is that this is not about a political dispute or about "land for peace"; this is about Arab/Islamic terrorism that seeks to kill Jews worldwide and to destroy Israel. 

Witnesses heard the terrorists scream "Allahu Akbar," the rallying cry long-used by Arab/Islamic terrorists when they attack Jews. The terrorists believe that God is on their side--and they know that self-proclaimed "progressives" support them every step of the way. It is said that love is blind; the Left's love affair with Jew-murdering terrorists is blind to a host of awful truths, including that the Palestinian Authority's support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues the trend of Palestinian Arab support for tyranny. 

The silence of the "Squad" and other self-proclaimed "progressives" about terrorist attacks targeting Jews is something that all voters should remember on Election Day. A vote for any "Squad" member or sympathizer is a vote supporting antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and is a vote expressing support for Arab/Islamic terrorists killing Jews; that may be a harsh reality for many to accept--particularly for left-wing Jews--but it is the truth, and we see numerous examples of the consequences of elections. For example, newly appointed White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has a long and well-documented history of antisemitism/anti-Zionism. The so-called moderate inhabiting the White House is either not as moderate as some of his supporters hoped/expected, or he feels powerless to resist the lobbying from the self-proclaimed "progressives" who dictate their demands to him; either way, the results are the same, and those results are not good for the United States, let alone for victims of terrorism.

Mort Klein, CEO of the Zionist Organization of America, issued a statement expressing his outrage at Jean-Pierre's appointment: "As a child of Holocaust survivors and as an American Jew, I am both appalled and frightened that Biden has chosen as his principal deputy press secretary, Ms. Jean-Pierre, who has shown essentially antisemitic hostility toward Israel and is willing to lie about and vilify Israel and Jews to promote her ugly Israelophobic agenda. Americans should be deeply concerned that this outrageous, incomprehensible anti-Israel, pro-terrorist and pro-Iran appointment indicates the dangerous direction the Biden administration is going to take against America’s greatest ally Israel and U.S.-Israel relations." 

Garry Kasparov correctly lamented that America used to be about striving for excellence but that the last two Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils. I echo his call to reject both the American Left's embrace of socialism and the American Right's embrace of Donald Trump, and I hope that our country can provide leadership to the Free World instead of embracing mindless slogans and destructive ideologies.

What Will Amnesty International and Misguided Media Members Learn From Russia's Ukraine Invasion?

My previous article discussed the origins, likely outcome, and consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine while imploring the West to confront autocratic nationalist Vladimir Putin before it is too late. The top priority now must be to stop Russia and restore Ukraine's freedom, but it is not surprising that many people are focused more on the "blame game" than solving the crisis; it is easier--and less risky--to blame others for what is going wrong than to figure out how to solve the problem, let alone muster the courage to take the difficult but necessary steps to deter and repel Russian aggression. We should not focus on the "blame game" to the extent that we fail to take needed actions now, but understanding how we reached such a disastrous state of affairs could help us avoid similar problems in the future.

In America, regardless of the issue or problem, Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats, and socialists seek to dismantle capitalism. Partisan rhetoric fires up the "true believers" but does not solve anything. For a long time, Garry Kasparov has provided insightful commentary on a wide range of issues. He laments the American Left's embrace of socialism while also noting that America used to stand for striving for excellence, but now our Presidential elections have devolved into a choice between the lesser of two evils; one consequence is that, as Kasparov has repeatedly emphasized, every U.S. President since Ronald Reagan has fallen short in terms of long-term strategic planning regarding the Soviet Union and Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine happened in the wake of a long, pathetic line of Presidents whose failures to confront Putin emboldened him to invade Ukraine. That being said, it is not a coincidence that Putin started the first major ground war in Europe since World War II just a few months after President Biden orchestrated a chaotic, disastrous, and humiliating American retreat from Afghanistan. Autocrats respect power and they have contempt for weakness. This problem began long before President Biden took office, but it is fair to say--to put it mildly--he has not yet done enough to solve the problem.

In addition to the poorly conceived strategies of multiple Presidents, we are also seeing the tragic results of the lack of responsible media coverage of world events. Objective truth matters. The rule of law matters. Arguing otherwise is not only a threat to our education system, but a threat to our freedom and way of life. The sad reality is that many mainstream media outlets no longer believe in or try to investigate objective truth, preferring to tell their personal "truth" as they believe it and feel it to be.

I have written many articles about biased media coverage, particularly pertaining to Israel and antisemitism. One might wonder why I focus on that issue in general and those topics in particular, and the answer is that biased media coverage has a major impact not only on the targets of the bias, but also on the people and issues that are swept under the rug while the media attacks its chosen targets.

When media outlets indulge their bizarre obsession with berating Israel with false accusations of apartheid and genocide this is not just an attack against Israel: it is an assault on objective truth, and it shows contempt for the rule of law. When media outlets pretend that terrorists are "freedom fighters" and that a democratic government lawfully fighting terrorists is committing war crimes this causes lasting harm; all of that energy misdirected toward delegitimizing Israel could have instead been focused on the depredations committed by Vladimir Putin during his reign of terror for years prior to his invasion of Ukraine.

Mideast history is often described in a biased, one-sided way, and it is often portrayed as complex, but the facts are not hard to research, and the facts contradict the narratives that are told by many media outlets. For example, it is easy to prove that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was not founded by or for Palestinian Arabs. Egyptian President Gamal Nasser, aided by the Soviet Union, created the PLO in Cairo, Egypt in 1964 not because he cared about Palestinian Arabs, but rather as a means to aggrandize and consolidate his power within the Arab world. Note that when the PLO was founded, Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan controlled Judea/Samaria (widely referred to as the "West Bank," a neologism intended to replace the ancient, Jewish names for these areas with a clumsy geographic term that does not accurately describe a river bank). What "Palestine" was the PLO created to "liberate" in 1964? Since Arab countries controlled Gaza, Judea, and Samaria when the PLO was founded, it is obvious that the PLO was created not to "liberate" "Palestine" but to destroy Israel. The PLO was financed by the Soviet Union, and worked closely with other terrorist organizations, including the IRA. The PLO has consistently partnered with the world's worst, most depraved tyrants; for example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Palestinian Arabs cheered and the PLO allied itself with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. 

Fast forward to today. Who supports the PLO now, and who does the PLO support? Many of the same bad actors are still connected decades after the PLO's founding: Russia (the successor state to the Soviet Union) supports Iran and Syria, and also provides funding to Palestinian Arab terrorist groups, including the PLO. President George W. Bush has been mocked for speaking of an "axis of evil," but he spoke the truth: there are evil governments and evil organizations that pose a critical threat to freedom and democracy.

When Amnesty International and self-proclaimed progressives falsely term Israel an apartheid state, media members have a responsibility to research and then report about the legal definition of apartheid, and then clarify why it is incorrect to hurl that accusation against Israel. Media members have a responsibility to research the true history of the PLO, and the PLO's connections to autocratic regimes and other terrorist organizations.

When the media attacks Israel it not only weakens the Mideast's lone bastion of freedom and democracy, but it cheapens the meaning of words like apartheid and genocide, and it takes the focus away from the evil governments and evil organizations that are fomenting terror and war. 

When you see the horrifying reports of Russian attacks and atrocities in Ukraine, never forget that far too many of the politicians and media members who could have stopped this tragedy from happening were instead focused on promulgating a vile antisemitic/anti-Zionist agenda. How much better off would everyone, including Ukrainians, be if the U.N., Amnesty International, and media organizations had not spent so much time, energy, and money targeting Israel with false allegations that are unsupported by any evidence?

We should not only cry for Ukraine and fight against Russia's invasion, but we must insist that our politicians, self-proclaimed human rights organizations, and media members focus their energies and efforts in more productive directions. I am not naive enough to believe that the answer to this article's title question is that Amnesty International and misguided media members will voluntarily mend their ways; we all must demand that organizations and individuals place the highest value on objective truth and the rule of law, and reject the notion that each person and group has an equally valid "personal" truth. Good and evil exist, and woe to us as a species if we are unwilling or unable to recognize the difference between the two.

History Demonstrates That Military Action, Not Words, is the Only Way to Stop Tyrants From Conquering and Killing Their Neighbors

"As always when it comes to stopping dictators, with every delay the price goes up. Western leaders have protested over the potential costs of action [in] Ukraine at every turn only to be faced with the well-established historical fact that the real costs of inaction are always higher. Now the only options left are risky and difficult, and yet they must be tried. The best reason for acting to stop Putin today is brutally simple: it will only get harder tomorrow."--Garry Kasparov, 2014

The reality about Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that the West can use military means to stop Vladimir Putin now--which will not be easy, but is necessary--or the West can use military means to stop Vladimir Putin later. That is not a message that anyone wants to read, hear, or think about, but it is the sad, grim truth. Autocratic nationalists do not voluntarily stop conquering and killing their neighbors; they stop conquering and killing their neighbors when a superior military force stops them from conquering and killing their neighbors. Think of Napoleon, Hitler, or any other autocratic nationalist: as Khan Noonien Singh aptly put it in the original Star Trek episode "Space Seed": "Such men dare take what they want."

The West underestimated Hitler's ambitions and Nazi Germany's military might; the West thought that Hitler could be appeased with small bites of territorial "apple," not understanding that Hitler intended to consume the whole apple, and then take the orange grove as well.  

Putin received his training and indoctrination in the Soviet Union, but he is not trying to resurrect the Soviet Union per se; he is an autocratic Russian nationalist who has a grandiose belief about Russia's history and a grandiose plan for Russia's future. If he is not stopped militarily, he will conquer by force every region, territory, and/or country that used to be under Soviet control so that he can create (or, from his perspective, restore) a Russian empire--and, like previous autocratic nationalists, he will not stop there, because he cannot stop there: autocratic nationalists live not to rule, but to conquer, and their empires inevitably grow or collapse, but such empires typically are not capable of prolonged stability. 

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov opposed the Soviet Union's oppression, and since the collapse of the Soviet Union he has been warning about the dangers of Putin's autocratic Russian nationalism. In 2015, Kasparov prophetically declared:

We have been facing this problem for quite a while. And so many mistakes have been made. These mistakes created an impression for Putin and his cronies and also his clients like Assad and others in the world. Iranian Ayatollahs. The West is weak. The West is not willing to get engaged. So the West will give them anything they want. Before we talk about the right strategy, what the leaders of the free world must do, let's talk about what they must not do. You cannot project weakness. Yes, I know that America will never consider seriously boots on the ground in Ukraine. Why are you talking about it? Why do you say publicly that you will not do that?

...Many talk about Clinton's presidency as a great success. I wouldn't doubt certain achievements in economy. But geopolitically, it was the greatest disaster among all because it's not about the final position. The game is still on. In 1992, America was all powerful. It could design the world map the way it wanted. In 2000, al-Qaeda was ready to strike. So what happened in these eight years?

Eight years of complacency, of doing nothing. Nobody formulated policies for Russia, for Soviet Union, for Islamic terrorism. It requires a global vision. The same way as Winston Churchill, Harry Truman had these policies designed in 1946, in 1947. The Marshall plan. There were plans. Plans they learned from World War II and they knew that to oppose Stalin and to oppose Communism, they needed to come up with a grand strategy and also leadership.

When I hear about potential dangers of confronting Putin today, my first question is, "Is he more dangerous than Joseph Stalin in 1948?" For 11 months, American and British planes had been supplying West Berlin besieged by Stalin's troops. And Joseph Stalin didn't shoot a single American plane. Why? Because Harry Truman already used nuclear weapons. And Stalin, as every good dictator, had an animal instinct. He knew where he could be repulsed. So he knew that Harry Truman could not play a game. It happened in 1962, when Khrushchev recognized that he pushed JFK to the ropes. And Ronald Reagan. And don't tell me that the Soviet Union in 1981, 82, 83, was less powerful than Putin's Russia today.

Here is what Kasparov says now: "Putin's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 ended any reasonable doubts as to his nature and threat. Any attempts to negotiate with Putin since then were corruption, cowardice, and cynicism. He should have been isolated instantly. Instead, here we are."

The West did not stop Putin in 2014, and Putin took advantage by annexing Crimea; that was Putin's first bite out of Ukraine, and now--emboldened by the West's timidity--Putin has decided to eat the rest of the meal. Russia's invasion of Ukraine will likely end with a "cease fire" that results in Putin having outright control of significant portions of Ukraine, and exercising indirect control (via a puppet government) over the rest of Ukraine. Putin will declare victory but also say that the battle to restore Russian glory is not over. The West will foolishly breathe a sigh of relief after direct, open combat in Ukraine ends--and, in the not too distant future, Putin will set his sights on his next "meal." America did not confront Hitler until he already controlled most of Europe. Let's hope that America and the West do not make the same mistake with Putin.

Garry Kasparov on Risk Taking, Being a Champion, and the Differences Between Capitalism and Socialism

Last week, in Garry Kasparov Laments the American Left's Embrace of Socialism, I cited some of the former World Chess Champion's brilliant thoughts and observations about socialism's flaws. I found another Kasparov interview that is also brilliant and timely. Kasparov did a wide-ranging interview with Patrick Bet-David in which he spoke about risk taking, what it takes to become a champion (a subject that has always intrigued me), and the differences between capitalism and socialism. 

The Kasparov/Bet-David video lasts 72 minutes, but the investment of that time to watch the video is well worth it. Time is our most precious commodity, and time well spent yields lasting dividends. Put another way, the saying "You are what you eat" is true on many levels. The food that you put in your body is the fuel that determines how efficiently and effectively your body works; it is also true in a broader sense that you are what you consume: if you put nonsense ideas in your head then you will have a confused mind. 

We are dealing with an epidemic of confused minds that have consumed nonsense. 

When I read Garry Kasparov's words or hear him speak, I know that I am consuming material that strengthens the mind and spirit.

Asked how he maintained dominance over the chess world for 15 years, Kasparov replied, "If you challenge your own excellence, you will never run short of opponents." Kasparov explained that there is no such thing as playing a perfect game. The loser made the last mistake, but the winner also made mistakes, and the smart winners--the champions--learn from those mistakes. In Habit, Attitude and Promises to Yourself, I cited words of wisdom from John W. Scott's book Step-by-Step Basketball Fundamentals (Prentice Hall, 1989), including this gem by Sydney J. Harris: "A loser is afraid to acknowledge his defects; a winner is aware that his defects are part of the same central system as his assets, and while he tries to minimize their effect, he never denies their influence."

Kasparov mentions that working hard is a talent, and the combination of that talent with other talents produces a champion. That reminds me of a quote from Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Famer Harry Gallatin; he was asked how he became a great rebounder, and he replied that he was blessed with the talent to work hard. I was struck by that notion of working hard being a talent, and I never forgot it.

Many people talk about risk, and they try to figure out how to eliminate risk. Kasparov has a different perspective: "Taking risks is risky. Not taking risks is riskier." Kasparov understands that it is not possible--or desirable--to live a risk-free life, and there are benefits to taking risks. Of course, risks must be calculated accurately, and balanced with potential benefits, but the notion that it is possible to eliminate all risk--for example, to live in a COVID-19 free world, which some politicians appear to believe to be a realistic goal--is foolish. 

It is disappointing--and concerning--that within living memory of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. there are so many people who are trying to implement socialism in America. Kasparov quotes Winston Churchill: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Comparing the free world countries to the countries dominated by totalitarianism, Kasparov declares, "We had an experiment: China gave us a virus; America gave us a vaccine." Kasparov has emphasized in previous interviews that he is not saying that China intentionally created COVID-19, but rather that COVID-19 emerged from a dictatorship that is unwilling or unable to create an effective vaccine, while in contrast America--a country so reviled by the self-proclaimed "progressives" in our midst--produced a life-saving vaccine in record time.

Asked to expound upon the difference between America and the Soviet Union, Kasparov begins by stating, "The problem with Americans is you take things for granted. You keep forgetting the wise words of Ronald Reagan...that freedom is a fragile thing that is never more than one generation away from extinction." Kasparov adds that when he lived under Soviet tyranny, "We knew America had problems. Again, there is no perfection in this world! Compare this country to any other place on the planet and you will not find a place that offers more opportunities for people of all races, genders. That is why people like me are getting so concerned when self-criticism turns into self-flagellation." He rightly calls it "nonsense" to assert that America was built on evil, and he adds, "I know that a lot of people may feel uncomfortable with what I am saying, but I speak on behalf of millions and millions and millions of people from Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, other places who look at America and they are confused and scared and don't understand why this great power is in retreat." 

America is not evil, and it is not courageous or "speaking one's truth" (what a vacuous phrase that is!) to call America evil. America is not perfect, but America is--in the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln--"The last, best hope of Earth." It is courageous to speak that truth in a time and place where speaking truth can get you canceled. I applaud Garry Kasparov, and I hope that his message plays a role in helping to reverse the deplorable trend of American self-flagellation that has become a badge of pride to some but is in fact a badge of ignorance and shame.

Kasparov concludes by noting that the free world is at war with tyrannical forces and regimes, whether or not we understand and accept that challenge--and it is a fight to the death. He wisely notes that America did not end the war in Afghanistan and we certainly did not win the war; we retreated. We must be eternally vigilant to build a better world not only for ourselves but for our children.

Garry Kasparov Laments the American Left's Embrace of Socialism

Some American socialists insist that their brand of socialism is completely different from the socialism that tyrannized the Soviet Union and still tyrannizes China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and far too many other countries today. "We just want to make people's lives better and create a safety net for the less fortunate," these American socialists insist.

Those who understand history--and those who lived under socialist oppression--know better, as I discussed in Petr Izmailov's Story is a Cautionary Tale About Marxist Theory in Practice.

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov was raised in the USSR but he educated himself about socialism's flaws and he recently did a brilliant interview explaining those flaws. The entire interview lasts less than 90 minutes and is well worth your time, but if you only have five minutes then fast forward to around the 55 minute mark and listen to him explain why the socialism advocated by Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is just as evil and dangerous as the socialism that enslaved Kasparov's home country. Among other things, Kasparov points out the hypocrisy of people who protest police brutality in the United States but turn a blind eye to the horrors taking place in China and so many other totalitarian dictatorships. Although Kasparov does not mention it directly, the warm feelings that the American Left has for leftist dictatorships are nothing new, and date back for several decades (all the way back to Stalin's regime, in fact). American socialism is not about improving the lives of the less fortunate; it is about destroying the American way of life, and replacing it with a system that has failed every single time that it has been implemented--and failed in ways that caused profound misery and suffering.

During the interview, Kasparov states that he supports any country that has democratic values, and he emphasizes that this is why he supports Israel. Contrast Kasparov's take on Israel with the hateful rhetoric emanating from the American Left, including the false accusations that Israel practices apartheid. 

Kasparov does not mention Critical Race Theory by name, but Critical Race Theory embodies the ignorance and hypocrisy that Kasparov discusses. It is important to become educated about the Marxist underpinnings and implications of Critical Race Theory. Once you understand the founding principles of CRT, and the goals of its followers, if you still support the precepts and goals of CRT then the burden is on you to explain/prove that you are not against democracy (both in this country and in other countries around the world, including Israel), and the burden is on you to explain why you act as if America is an evil country while ignoring the evil taking place on a massive scale in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and many other totalitarian countries. 

Put simply, I would say to any supporter of CRT, "I agree that the history of the American slave trade and racism should be taught in schools. Why do you want to suppress media coverage and education about the slavery, oppression, and genocide that is happening in the world right now? Why do you pretend that America is irredeemably racist and evil while ignoring the racism and evil taking place right now in countries that, not coincidentally, are sworn enemies of America and American values?"

No intelligent person can take seriously an ideology or a movement that attacks America but then is silent about China's atrocities. Many media members anoint various athletes and entertainers as so-called social justice warriors. Enes Kanter is a real social justice warrior, an NBA player who has bravely spoken out against the oppression in his native Turkey and also about Chinese oppression of Hong Kong. The NBA has repeatedly proven that its slogan "The NBA Cares" should be renamed NBA Cares About Profits as it rakes in Chinese sponsorship money while ignoring China's brutality. 

Kasparov laments that for young Americans the Cold War is ancient history that has been misunderstood, if not forgotten. He correctly states that America is not perfect, but no country is perfect, and he disagrees with the awful notion propagated by the American Left that America is fundamentally evil.

During the interview, Kasparov made a very insightful comment about the sad state of American political discourse. America used to be about striving for excellence, he explained, but the last two Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils. Kasparov rejects both the American Left's embrace of socialism and the American Right's embrace of Donald Trump, and he implores our country to get back on the path of providing leadership to the Free World, which he notes was a bipartisan goal from 1945-1991. Kasparov asserts that during that period Democrats and Republicans disagreed about methods but not goals, but that since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the two parties no longer agree about goals, which has set America adrift and threatens our leadership role in the world by damaging our moral authority. 

I would add that President Biden's defining moment--the triumph of the Taliban--exemplifies the failure that Kasparov astutely identified, and that has been authored by both political parties for the past 30 years or so. Kasparov calls out the hypocrisy of both the Democrats and the Republicans: the Democrats blame President Trump for signing a deal with the Taliban (but ignore that the collapse happened under President Biden's rule) while the Republicans blame President Biden for the collapse of Afghanistan under President Biden's rule (but ignore that President Trump signed a deal with the Taliban). 

Hopefully, America will regain its footing both domestically and abroad, and once again strive for excellence instead of being mired in mediocrity, extremism, and divisiveness.

Jerzy Kosinski on Chess

After surviving the Holocaust and escaping from behind the Iron Curtain to freedom in the United States, Jerzy Kosinski wrote two non-fiction books under the pseudonym Joseph Novak before embarking on a very successful career as a novelist. Kosinski is best known for his novels The Painted Bird and Steps, which won the 1969 National Book Award.

In a 1988 lecture at the Smithsonian Institution, Kosinski touched on a variety of subjects, including chess. Chess was a big part of the Jewish-Polish culture in which Kosinski grew up in the 1930s and 1940s. Kosinski lamented the rise of television as an opiate for the masses and dreamed of a future in which widespread participation in chess would benefit society as a whole:

Imagine a time when chess really is a sport not just for masters but for the masses--a time when boxers or wrestlers are no longer considered fun to watch and when chess is a Las Vegas-style event. Kids would notice. They would learn how to play it from television or the Internet. They could play with other people on video games or by themselves on computers. Playing against a computer could even help to raise their game. Perhaps the game that my father used to call a great Jewish game could become a national game. And the result would be a new generation of people who would know how to concentrate.

Concentration means focusing. It means making good choices. It means spirituality. It means knowing who you are, looking at yourself as if you were a chessboard, and assessing the options you have in life. Do you move to the left? Do you go to the right? The game of chess could open up other worlds--of creativity, of big business, of politics, of Wall Street--all of which require a similar level of concentration. 

That brings me to the end of my private fantasy: that one day kids everywhere will be masters of concentration, not slaves to a television set.

Kosinski's vision is quite prescient. When he wrote those words, the internet was in its infancy and the use of chess computers as a serious training tool had only just begun. Now, the ubiquity of internet chess and the extraordinary strength of chess computers have given rise to a record-setting group of young chess phenoms. One of those phenoms, World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen, has the right combination of skills, charisma and youth to lift chess to unprecedented heights. Carlsen is a magnificent player who is more balanced emotionally than Bobby Fischer, who created a short-lived chess boom in the 1970s that quickly went bust after he relinquished his World Championship title and went into a two decades-long seclusion.

Kosinski is right that chess can and should play a role in elevating our culture. Perhaps Carlsen as an active World Chess Champion and former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov--who is doing great work to promote chess in the schools worldwide--will fulfill the vision that Kosinski so eloquently described more than a quarter century ago.

Garry Kasparov Lambastes West's "Weak" Response to Vladimir Putin's Tyranny

In a December 2014 Reason.com interview, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov did not mince words when asked to assess the West's policies concerning Russian dictator Vladimir Putin:

We have been facing this problem for quite a while. And so many mistakes have been made. These mistakes created an impression for Putin and his cronies and also his clients like Assad and others in the world. Iranian Ayatollahs. The West is weak. The West is not willing to get engaged. So the West will give them anything they want. Before we talk about the right strategy, what the leaders of the free world must do, let's talk about what they must not do. You cannot project weakness. Yes, I know that America will never consider seriously boots on the ground in Ukraine. Why are you talking about it? Why do you say publicly that you will not do that?

I could give you many examples where they violate the simplest rules of negotiation. The secret letter from Obama to the Ayatollahs, without mentioning the fact that it's an insult for Sunni allies. It's the first time that the United States and the free world had a great chance of creating a Sunni coalition to stop Sunni terror. Then stabbing them in the back by writing a letter to the Ayatollahs. By the way, they never responded. And now, at the time when the nuclear deal is about to be reached or not. He's asking them to help with ISIS. ISIS will probably be destroyed. You need more planes, maybe some soldiers, material resources. ISIS is not a global threat, it's very local. For the sake of Iranian cooperation, this relatively small issue to put at stake the global cooperation of Sunnis and also the non-proliferation policies, that's exactly what you're not supposed to do.

Kasparov's harsh and accurate words are particularly meaningful and timely considering the race to stop Iran's jihadist, expansionist regime from building nuclear weapons; this is vitally important, yet President Obama seems oblivious to the danger and downright hostile when anyone (most recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) points out just how catastrophic it would be if Iran builds nuclear weapons. The Middle East is ablaze with jihadist extremism and Iran is fomenting much of it. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a menace to the entire world. The damage that President Obama has done in abandoning America's allies and failing to stand up to tyrannical dictatorships will not be easy to fix.

This problem predates President Obama, though. Kasparov is equally unimpressed by Bill Clinton's administration:

Many talk about Clinton's presidency as a great success. I wouldn't doubt certain achievements in economy. But geopolitically, it was the greatest disaster among all because it's not about the final position. The game is still on. In 1992, America was all powerful. It could design the world map the way it wanted. In 2000, al-Qaeda was ready to strike. So what happened in these eight years?

Eight years of complacency, of doing nothing. Nobody formulated policies for Russia, for Soviet Union, for Islamic terrorism. It requires a global vision. The same way as Winston Churchill, Harry Truman had these policies designed in 1946, in 1947. The Marshall plan. There were plans. Plans they learned from World War II and they knew that to oppose Stalin and to oppose Communism, they needed to come up with a grand strategy and also leadership.

When I hear about potential dangers of confronting Putin today, my first question is, "Is he more dangerous than Joseph Stalin in 1948?" For 11 months, American and British planes had been supplying West Berlin besieged by Stalin's troops. And Joseph Stalin didn't shoot a single American plane. Why? Because Harry Truman already used nuclear weapons. And Stalin, as every good dictator, had an animal instinct. He knew where he could be repulsed. So he knew that Harry Truman could not play a game. It happened in 1962, when Khrushchev recognized that he pushed JFK to the ropes. And Ronald Reagan. And don't tell me that the Soviet Union in 1981, 82, 83, was less powerful than Putin's Russia today.

Harry Truman was a strong President, as was Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are not strong Presidents; they have convinced our enemies that America is weak and it will take a lot of work to disabuse America's enemies of that notion.

After Neville Chamberlain's cowardly appeasement of Adolf Hitler, Chamberlain declared that he had ensured "peace for our time." Chamberlain also said something that is eerily reminiscent of the rhetoric used by those who support President Obama's inaction while the world burns: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing." Instead of challenging Hitler early when Hitler's Nazi Germany was not at full strength, Chamberlain preferred to make broad concessions to Hitler, believing Hitler to be a reasonable man who had legitimate grievances that could be resolved through negotiations. Chamberlain did not think that it was worth it to fight Hitler or even to make preparations to fight Hitler merely to help "people of whom we know nothing." That short-sighted attitude persists today. Why should America intervene in far-away conflicts? Why should America care if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Isn't it true that by "imperialistically" dictating to other countries America creates enemies where none previously existed? That kind of thinking is what led to World War II and what made the Holocaust possible. Even 60 years ago, conflicts involving "people of whom we know nothing" quickly threatened the very survival of an America that felt safe because of being shielded by two big oceans.

Hitler took whatever he could take through negotiation and then sought to conquer the rest through war. Putin's Russia and Iran's jihadist regime are following that same blueprint today. Hitler did not have legitimate grievances nor could he be reasoned with or placated. Hitler had strategic goals and he made those goals very clear in his writings and in his speeches. The world was foolish to ignore his words.

When will the West wake up to the dangers posed by today's tyrants, who also speak quite clearly about their ultimate goals? When will a modern-day Winston Churchill or Harry Truman emerge?

Neville Chamberlain was wrong about Adolf Hitler and Chamberlain's mistakes precipitated World War II. President Obama is wrong now about Putin's Russia and about Iran. We can only hope that the consequences of President Obama's mistakes will not be as severe.

Garry Kasparov Implores the West to Stop Vladimir Putin Before it is Too Late

Since retiring from competition, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov has focused his formidable intellect on international politics. Earlier this year, Kasparov offered a very blunt evaluation of Vladimir Putin: "Evil, pure evil." While many world leaders are either unable or unwilling to face the danger that Putin represents, Kasparov understands that language is important and that Putin's conduct regarding the Ukraine is a war, not an "incursion." Kasparov declares, "As Russian troops and armored columns advance in eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian government begs for aid from the free world it hoped would receive it and protect it as one of its own. The leaders of the free world, meanwhile, are struggling to find the right terminology to free themselves from the moral responsibility to provide that protection."

Kasparov then cuts through all of the rhetoric emanating from so-called leaders who are in fact afraid to take a meaningful stand:

This vocabulary of cowardice emanating from Berlin and Washington today is as disgraceful as the black-is-white propaganda produced by Putin's regime, and even more dangerous. Moscow's smoke screens are hardly necessary in the face of so much willful blindness. Putin's lies are obvious and expected. European leaders and the White House are even more eager than the Kremlin to pretend this conflict is local and so requires nothing more than vague promises from a very safe distance. As George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay on language right before starting work on his novel 1984 (surely not a coincidence): "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." The Western rhetoric of appeasement creates a self-reinforcing loop of mental and moral corruption. Speaking the truth now would mean confessing to many months of lies, just as it took years for Western leaders to finally admit Putin didn't belong in the G-7 club of industrialized democracies...

The U.S., Canada and even Europe have responded to Putin's aggression, it is true, but always a few moves behind, always after the deterrent potential of each action had passed. Strong sanctions and a clear demonstration of support for Ukrainian territorial integrity (as I recommended at the time) would have had real impact when Putin moved on Crimea in February and March. A sign that there would be real consequences would have split his elites as they pondered the loss of their coveted assets in New York City and London...

As one of the pioneers of the analogy I feel the irony in how it has quickly gone from scandal to cliché to compare Putin to Hitler, for better and for worse. Certainly Putin's arrogance and language remind us more and more of Hitler's, as does how well he has been rewarded for them. For this he can thank the overabundance of Chamberlains in the halls of power today--and there is no Churchill in sight."

Kasparov's ominous conclusion foreshadows what will happen next if President Obama and other Western heads of state do not display much more resolve in the face of Putin's aggression:

As always when it comes to stopping dictators, with every delay the price goes up. Western leaders have protested over the potential costs of action [in] Ukraine at every turn only to be faced with the well-established historical fact that the real costs of inaction are always higher. Now the only options left are risky and difficult, and yet they must be tried. The best reason for acting to stop Putin today is brutally simple: it will only get harder tomorrow.

Garry Kasparov and Peter Thiel: Only Technology Can Save the World from Tyranny

How do dictators maintain and expand their power? Garry Kasparov, the former World Chess Champion who is now a political, educational and human rights activist, says that dictators control the natural resources within their realms and/or they have something of value to trade for such resources in order to sustain their countries. Kasparov fervently believes that the best--indeed the only--weapon to defeat such dictators is the proper use of technology to lessen the value of the resources controlled by these dictators. That, Kasparov asserts, is how the West defeated the Soviet Union during the Cold War. "Progress," as Kasparov summarizes it in one word. Dictatorships restrain creativity and ingenuity and hence they cannot fuel progress in the long term.

Kasparov is very pessimistic about the approach being taken by liberal democracies. He feels that progress has stagnated and that dictators like Russia's Vladimir Putin are taking advantage of this to become more powerful and more dangerous. In a fascinating discussion with entrepreneur Peter Thiel, Kasparov talks about his "technology thesis" and about how much resistance he meets when he brings this up in front of a variety of audiences ranging from Google executives to Obama administration officials (Kasparov has a very low opinion of President Obama, who he calls a "community organizer" who can "deliver a great speech" but is not capable of actual, meaningful leadership in terms of identifying real problems and proposing viable solutions). You can watch the entire Kasparov-Thiel discussion here, including their visit to the famous Marshall Chess Club (Thiel is a strong Master level player):



Some of the most fascinating--and disturbing--exchanges happen near the end of the video. At one point, Kasparov asks Thiel if he can foresee an "optimistic scenario" for the world's future. Thiel mentions a vision of a world that is saved by technological progress that fuels the development of liberal democracy, whereupon Kasparov scoffs, "Let's wait for Martians to save us. That's more realistic than what you described." While Kasparov believes that technological progress is indeed the solution, he is very pessimistic that this solution is going to be applied in time.

Thiel shares Kasparov's concerns--and it is disconcerting, to say the least, that two of the most brilliant people on the planet strongly believe that human society is racing headlong into the apocalypse. What Thiel expects to happen is a worldwide depression in which the value of all currency is completely destroyed; Kasparov believes that this has already begun and he agrees that it is the most likely apocalyptic scenario. Other Thiel scenarios include a devastating World War--possibly precipitated by a rogue power detonating a nuclear weapon--and a worldwide shift to the left politically, resulting in government confiscation of private wealth.

A major challenge is that, as Kasparov mentions, for the United States it is a great tragedy to lose even one soldier, while the United States' enemies do not place such a high value on the worth of one person's life. How can liberal democracies defeat such enemies without stooping to their level? Thiel quotes Osama bin Laden: "We will win because we value death more than you value life." Education and progress are the best weapons against tyranny, which is why one of the first things that any despot does is imprison and/or kill members of the intelligentsia; scientists, artists, writers and philosophers are the people who dictators fear the most.

After a wide-ranging conversation about the challenges that liberal democracies face to survive in the modern world, Thiel asks Kasparov what keeps him going since Kasparov has such a pessimistic view of what the future holds. Thiel notes that most people tend to give up at some point if they are sure that things will turn out badly. Kasparov responds, "It is against my nature. I am an optimist by nature and I still believe that this world has a purpose." That belief keeps Kasparov fighting but while he may harbor optimism in his heart his mind understands that human society faces grave and possibly fatal challenges: "A lot of people will keep asking questions," he responds when Thiel suggests that questioning how we got into this mess is the first step toward getting out of it. "And there will be very few to provide answers."