Missives from Samsara

Ryan Holiday is one of my favorite writers. I can’t recommend his books enough. Here are some great quotes from a few of his books.

The latest book I have started reading is a book called The Deficit Myth by economist Stephanie Kelton. The book argues in favor of what is called the Modern Monetary Theory. I was vaguely aware of the theory and decided to read the book so I could understand it better. Right off the back I thought about Ray Dalio’s ideas, as expressed in his books about the debt cycle, which I’ve read and enjoyed.

Now, I’ve been playing around with Gemini Pro lately, which gives me access to their latest AI model Gemini 3. So I decided to ask Gemini to explain what Kelton and Dalio might say to each other about the national debt. The results were interesting so I thought I’d share them here. As you’ll see, I asked a few follow up questions. I absolutely love that I can share the thread with others like I am doing here.

To read the thread, go here.

I am reading an interesting book about one of my intellectual heroes, the late Christopher Hitchens. The book’s author, coming from the political left, argues that Hitchens got a lot right, but erred seriously in his support for both the “War on Terrorism” and the Iraq War during the first decade of the 21st century. Hitchens began his intellectual journey as a socialist and by 2004 was oddly all in on Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The author also critically deconstructs some of the arguments Hitchens' made in debates about religion.

A couple points come to mind as I reflect on Hitchens and his thinking. For one, his mistakes make him more—not less—useful to thinkers today. The book emphasizes that studying where Hitchens went wrong sharpens our own judgment. Heroes aren’t templates; they’re case studies. His intellectual courage, eloquence, and range remain valuable, but so do the cautionary lessons that grew from his rhetorical confidence and general arrogance. Additionally, I am reminded that admiration doesn’t require full agreement about everything—especially with complicated figures like Hitch. Indeed, there is no one I likely agree with on everything. In my mind, Hitchens' error about Iraq does not tarnish his overall body of intellectual work. For instance, I love his book god Is Not Great, but thought his attacks on Buddhism to be feeble and a wasted effort.

But none of this diminishes Hitchens' importance. If anything, it makes him more useful. Hitchens shows us that admiration doesn’t always require absolute agreement and that inspiration doesn’t require perfection. For me, he remains a case study in how a thinker can be both brilliantly right and consequentially wrong—and still worth reading, wrestling with, and learning from.

In Diane Ravitch’s memoir An Education, which I am thoroughly enjoying (!), I came across a word I was not familiar with. The word is ‘quisling.’ Chat bots being my new reading companions, I quickly looked it up.

The word is of relatively recent vintage, being coined during World War II. Apparently, a Norwegian fascist named Vidkun Quisling collaborated with the Nazis in his home country during the war. Thus, the word refers to someone who betrays their own country, or own group, by collaborating with the enemy. Benedict Arnold came to mind immediately when thinking about this. Thus, a quisling is a traitor. **Great word! **

Not surprisingly, Quisling was put on trial after the war for a variety of crimes and was found guilty. He was executed by firing squad in October 1945 in Oslo. He was buried in an unmarked grade, and his surname now is equated with treachery. A fitting end, I’d say.

I recently came across Shaka ka Senzangakhona in three different books over the past two weeks, and I found his story too striking not to share. I first came across him in The Narrow Corridor, where the authors discuss his unique military innovations and brutal, but successful leadership. A few days ago, he appeared in General Stanley McChrystal’s book On Character. McChrystal shared a story about how Shaka made his warriors dance on ground covered with sharp needles and if they flinched, they were executed. Finally, in The Birth of the Modern, he was brought up in the context of the history of southern Africa during the early 19th century, when he reigned. I love it when such serendipity pops up in my reading.

Anyway…born around 1787 and dying in 1828, Shaka became king of the Zulu in what is now KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa from 1816 to 1828.

What fascinates me is how he took a relatively minor clan and, through bold military, social and political reforms, built it into a dominant power in his corner of Africa. His success arose because he reorganised the Zulu regiments, introduced new weaponry and tactical formations, and absorbed neighbouring groups under Zulu rule.

At the same time, Shaka’s reign is drenched in blood and controversy. His mother’s death in 1827 triggered a wave of harsh decrees—including mass-executions, bans on planting or using milk, and demands of mourning—that turned many of his own people against him. He was also apparently so paranoid that his heir might depose him, that if any of his concubines became pregnant, he had them killed. Not surprisingly, he was assassinated by his half-brothers in 1828.

In my reading, I’ve found myself wondering: how do we reconcile the visionary-leader and the ruthless-tyrant in one figure? His life makes me think of people like Alexander the Great and Napoleon, who are often idolized, but who both caused tremendous suffering as a result of their military pursuits. I’ll continue to reflect on how each of the three authors portrays Shaka, as successful military leader and cruel tyrant, and invite you to do the same. How does his story challenge our ideas of leadership and legacy? What lessons (or warnings) does his rise and fall offer us today?

General Stanley McChrystal is a fascinating dude. I first learned about him when he was forced to resign by Obama in 2010 because of comments attributed to him and his staff members that were published in Rolling Stone. Leading up to that, I have learned that he was a top rate soldier, which explains why he was in charge of Allied forces in Afghanistan at the start of Obama’s presidency. His military career is undoubtedly honorable and exemplary.

He is also known for the fact that for many years while in the military he only ate one meal a day. Combined with his daily exercise regimen he developed a reputation, even amongst those in the military, as a Spartan.

I am currently reading his book On Character and enjoying it very much. McChrystal is clearly a thoughful guy and not easily pigeonholed. I find myself agreeing with most of his takes on the big issues he discusses in the book. Below are some of his thinking, which I found insightful and wise. The quotes are about religion (1), race (2 & 3), and the Constitution (4).

President Kennedy often gets a lot of props from the American public. There are elements of his presidency that I admire, most notably the fact that his rhetoric was often inspirational. However, I believe he is one of the most overrated presidents in modern history. The obvious arguments have to do with his escalation of our involvement in Vietnam and his slowness to support civil rights. In recent years I have come across other examples that call into question his leadership. Some of these have to do with his behavior towards women (see p. 109 of Brian Lamb’s book The Presidents (where today’s quote is from). Another example is the one mentioned below. During the attempt by the Kennedy team to pass civil rights legislation, when they had LBJ at their disposal–the ‘Master of the Senate'-they preferred not to seek his help. Of course, after Kennedy was assassinated, LBJ got both the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act passed a year later, proving that Kennedy was foolish in failing to enlist his help.