466 - Brad Thor: How to Start Carving Out Time For Your Dream

Transcript

The nation's favorite car buying site, Dundeele Motors, is home to the largest range of new and premium used cars from all of Ireland's trusted car dealerships. That's why you'll find Brady's Mercedes Benz on Dundeele. Visit the Brady's Mercedes Benz showroom on Dundeele to find your next car. Dundeele Motors, for confident car buying and deals to feel great about from all of Ireland's trusted car dealerships. Visit Dundee.ie today. This isn't your average business podcast, and he's not your average host. This is the James Altiger Show on the choose yourself network. Today on The James Altucher Show. We could see now that for many young people, democracy is just like an empty sound. So I keep hearing all the time at my presentations very often from young people, what's the difference? United States or China? So, it's a new race now. It's a high-tech race. So, what's wrong if China wins? I mean, why should we bother about, you know, about the ideology and about free market and and about democracy? And, I thought it would be very important to go back and just to look at the history of this great country and the history of the free world and to explain, so, why these values are indispensable and how to actually bring these values to the 21st century. How to connect them. So, I feel like what's great about your essay and these ideas is that for you, it's not some academic theory. You grew up in authoritarian regime. And you were totalitarian. And and and you were greatly affected by it. And again, just to take it a little more personal level, in your first world chess championship match with Karpov, it was often portrayed as Karpov being a representative of the communist Soviet regime and you being portrayed as sort of the the young up and coming potentially dissident challenger. And rightly so. Are you ready? Alright. Rolling? So excited once again to have Garry Kasparov. I I have to start off the interview this way. He's former best chess player in history, was world chess champion for 16 years, was the number one ranked chess player when you retired. Right? You were Yeah. You were 20 years. Yes. Yes. Yeah. For for for 20 years, you were number 1 in the world. I've personally gone through 100 of your games. I feel like it's always weird sitting across the table from you because I've had your games on the table in front of me so so many hours of my life studying them, but now we're here to talk about something different. We're talking about your your this new collection of essays. You have one essay, but you helped organize this collection. It's, the it's called the fight for liberty, defending democracy in the age of Trump. There's many great essays in here. Yours is one of them. It's divided up into, first principles about essentially what is a liberal democracy, threats where you wrote an essay, and solutions. But we were just talking before the podcast began, what you really wanted to call the book. Yeah. The original title that we wanted to to put on on on the cover was Federalist Papers 2.0. And, I think this title could reflect the whole idea of the book. Yeah it's it's it's a bit self promoting so and you know maybe why why would you say that self promoting that's not that is but it comes you know just let let me start with the with with with the organization review democracy initiative that I helped to to to for to form, almost 2 years ago, in the beginning of 2017. As the many, many similar projects, it was a reaction to Trump's elections and the recognition that something was wrong. And it's not just because Trump was elected, but the fact is that you had 2, candidates from major parties, having combined negative rating of 120%. Yeah? And, also, that the whole process, I don't want to repeat, you know, just follow Trump saying it was rigged, But definitely, the the that's the something was wrong with the system that could end up with TrumpHillary elections. And also, Trump's phenomena was not, you know, unique for America. We could see the similar effects, in Europe, and the polarization that that helped, nationalist forces to to to take the the, the front front seat So so so so in in local politics. So so to unpack that a little bit, you know, the the world and and Yuval Harari brings this up in Sapiens. The world's been sort of heading towards globalism. Open trade, friendly relations, more democracy. But you're saying that, this nationalist trend has been in part Russia's under underpinning it in part because, as long as there's dissent and these countries are not working together, he has more economic power and other power. Yeah. But it's not just nationalist trend. It's it's more like Spain in 1936. You have nationalists on one side and socialists on the other side. So this is you could see that the, the very, radical factions, that typically, you know, just belong to the fringes and never had much to say for national politics, they all of a sudden, you know, were running the show. And it's, again, it's not America only. It's you look at the the UK. When, Brexit campaign that succeeded, at least in the referendum, I still hope that there's a chance it will it will be reversed. It brought Jeremy Corbyn, a backbencher socialist, who was sitting there for 30 years doing nothing. And all of a sudden, he's a leader of of of a labor party and who knows, could be a next prime minister of the United Kingdom. You see Germany with Delinquency, the former communist on one side, and the rise of Neo Nasser's AFD on the other side. You look at France, Marie Le Pen, everybody talks about her, but also Melenchon, far left candidate, made nearly 20% in the 1st ballot of presidential elections. So combined, 2 radical groups, got more than 40% in the 1st ballot of the elections. So so so so looking at that, why why is every government going to extremes? Where's the middle? It used to be part of the The middle middle has been has been the center has been decimated because it seems to me that the, the mainstream politicians, they failed to respond to to obvious challenges. It's a long story, but, you know, we we should probably, you know, just look at the at the immediate outcome of of this polarization. Because it's if if we do nothing now, if we if we if we don't find sort of the right arguments and and a new concept, sort of vision for the future, we we are facing a serious threat that that these the polarized forces will will tear apart, democratic institutions. Because on one side, you have a threat, to, to liberal values that comes from the from the far right. But on other side, you have a threat to market economy coming from far left. And combined, you know, they they, they could have, such a powerful political hurricane that could can wipe out all all democratic constructions that had been erected over the last couple of 100 years. So so, you know, I and I I missed the second half of your intro intro, which is that, you know, after you retired from chess, you you attempted to run for president of Russia. You you you, were were in protest. You were arrested and beaten by the Russian police. You finally left Russia as it rather than go in for to be investigated. And, you know, what kind of triggered your it's like this transformation from and and it was all along. I mean, you you know, back even in the eighties, you were sort of representative of this new, presence against the old Soviet order. But what what sort of triggered the the change for you to fight so much for this? Look. As you just mentioned, you know, I was quite active politically even in the late eighties, during Gorbachev Perestroika, and, I thought at that time that, as very young, world champion, I could, help rally people, behind this, newly born democratic movement, and I had big expectations for my country, for Russia. I thought that, you know, from one point, Russia could, could play a vital role in in changing the world and making, making it better. Okay. Alas, you know, it's, it didn't work out the way I I thought it could. And, and for me and millions and millions of my competitors was a great disappointment. So, when, KGB came back to power with Vladimir Putin in the year 2000 and I've been warning ever since that while Vladimir Putin was our problem, it would be everybody's problem. As with every dictator, when I knew I I read enough history books to know that when dictator runs out of political opposition and enemies inside his own country, he goes elsewhere because he needs new challenges. He has to defy, other powers. And what's his goal? Stay to stay in power. It's just it but it's it's it's it's not, it's not just necessarily, you know, a, a traditional imperialist imperialistic policy, you know, just to conquer other countries. It's not a traditional, totalitarianism of the 20th century like you had Stalin or Hitler. There was no there's no ideology behind Vladimir Putin. It's more like a mafia. It's, it's it's it's all about, staying in power. And to stay in power, you have to prove every day that you are indispensable. So so Vladimir Putin would say to you, there is an ideology. The US keeps abandoning these, you know, there there are these, revolutions. Hopefully, democratic regimes take over, then the US pulls out and abandons the new regimes, and Russia goes in to help. Yeah. But That's their that's their supposed ideology. That's an ideology. It's it's again, it it's it's it's opportunism. But, you know, it's just you know, let me try to go back, you know, just because it's it's we I think we moved to to geopolitics, and I wanna go back to the domestic, issues and back to the book. And then we'll we'll we'll we'll cover we'll cover Vladimir Putin. Don't worry. So We're do whatever you wanna do. I'm not going to be shy, you know, talking about Vladimir Putin and and his cronies and agents and lobbyists around the world, including this this country, of course. So going back to the beginning of 2017, as I said, there were many initiatives. And I got few of my friends, you know, some of them I call them the refugees from Wall Street Journal, like, Brett Stevens or Max Boot. Those who just, it's conservative intellectuals who couldn't stand, you know, Donald Trump and the so called never Trumpers. And and they thought that, you know, that something had to be done. So just you have to preserve the ideas that they believed in, you know, and just, they left, of course, GOP, and and they were looking for some new, you know, new engagements. So there were some moderate democrats here in New York, and, so we got together and we came up with the idea of Renew Democracy Initiative, how to bring together intellectuals from both sides. And, to find sort of the to find a foundation for for so for, for renewed renewed democracy. Because we could see now that for many young young people, I mean, democracy is just like an empty sound. So what is that? So why it's good? So, I I I keep hearing all the time at my at my presentations, very often from young people. So so what's what's the difference, United States or China? So it's the it's a new race now. It's it's more computerized race. It's the it's it's it's a high-tech race. So what what's wrong if China wins? I mean, why should we bother about, you know, about the ideology and about free market and and about democracy? Does it, you know, for us any any, bright future? And, I thought it would be very important actually to to go back and just to look at the history of this great country and the history of the free world and to explain so why these values are indispensable and how to actually bring these values to the 21st century, How to connect them. So that was the idea of the book. That's why we thought about Federalist Papers 2.0 because it's an attempt to actually to bring this the the the work of the founding fathers to the 21st century and to show the connection. That's history. It's it's it's not a science. It's not math or physics. But I believe that in history, 2+2 will end up with 4 as 4. But it's not, you know, may not be straightforward. It could be a little bit crooked. But at the end of the day, it's still 4. And, what we know from history that is, the only free world was able to to create these wells and just to move the world forward. And, when you look at innovations, breakthrough innovations, they all I mean, let Memphis says, all came from the free world. And, there were many challenges to the free world, whether it came from communism or from fascism, but it all ended up with the free world dominating. And it's important for us to understand why. And this book hopefully, you know, could help readers, especially young readers, to understand, so how the past, present, and the future connected. So so I I would say in your essay, you you brought up a point that kind of changed my mind on something. So in general, I don't think or I haven't thought the US should get involved in too many, you know, wars or regime changes or whatever. But you bring up the fact that democracies don't go to war against each other. And Never, by the way. Right. And so that that almost from a a a financial and a peace perspective, it's better for the United States to get involved early to to make these things. See, it's look. It's it's it's not about that you have a choice. I mean, that's the it's when we say globalization, we think globalization comes up only, you know, just it's it's with trade or, with, you know, tourism. Globalization means everything. I mean, bad guys also use globalization, you know, to spread their influence. And it means that, you know, whatever happens in Syria, whatever happens in Indonesia, whatever happens in Africa somehow can affect you because we all are connected. So this is the the Okay. But how could something in Syria affect me? Let's just Okay. Play it out. Perfect. Okay. Let's, you know, let's let's not talk about UFOR, but just about democracy as a whole. Okay. Syria. So, there was an uprising against against, against Assad. And it's as in as in in every other Arab country during Arab Spring, it was very secular at the beginning. So Assad, you know, cracked on this. So and there was the military resistance. But, obviously, you know, when you just put you know, when when you force peaceful protest into the military resistance, you have radical elements. Naturally, in Syria, it ended up with more Islamic radicals actually, you know, jumping in the into the resistance and creating the pocket of of of this military confrontation that were filled with all sorts of bad guys coming from different can different places. So, Assad was doomed. And in 2013, being desperate, he used chemical weapons. So, Obama made a very made a very strong statement saying Assad, I had to go. And in 2013, he had a very good chance of actually, you know, fulfilling his promise using force. At that time, very limited force, just, you know, basically just to destroy Syrian Syrian, military aviation. So still, the asset's capacity to use chemicals. And also it will be very powerful message. Probably few few missiles could do the job. And could Syria come in in in into chaos? Maybe. But we should look at the at the at the outcome of of inaction because Obama wavered, he was waiting for the free for other countries to join him. Nobody wanted to do anything. Europeans look for Syria as is far away, especially Germans. They said, no. No. No. No. No one involved in fine. Vacuum doesn't, stay for too long. America walked away. Putin came in. And Putin immediately realized that's that's an ideology. Let me emphasize going back to the beginning of our conversation. It's he's not an importantist. So he saw a chance not only to prop up Assad, which is very important because American president said Assad must go. Putin said, Assad would stay. And it was a chance for him to prove both to his cronies in Russia, but also to his lobbyists and agents around the world that he was so powerful that he would defy American president and to to prop up that such a monster like Assad. But he also saw another opportunity By using chemical weapons, but also carpet bombing, Syrian cities like Aleppo, he could start pushing refugees. The refugees had no way other way to go but to to Turkey and then to Europe. And what's happening with this, millions of refugees, you know, fleeing into Europe? It helped Putin natural allies, far right. Now the outcome of of of these, exodus of refugees from Syria to Europe, especially to Germany where Merkel received yeah. She probably had no choice. So she didn't want to interfere in Syria. She had to help refugees in Germany. She accepted 1,000,000 Syrian Syrian refugees. The result, 94 Neo Nazis in German Bundestag. If the came out of of of nothing. First time in history, the Neo Nazi party could succeed without any economic hardship. Typically, you know, the fascism is on the rise when people are suffering, unemployment, long lines. Germany's economy is thriving. But all of a sudden, every it's now the 3rd, probably soon the 2nd largest party in Germany. One electoral success after another. The only reason, refugees. So that's that's it. How it's connected? It this is this way. And by the way, having, you know, 94 Neo Nazis again, sir third largest faction in German in German parliament, and and it it it keeps arising in in the local elections in Germany means that navy is getting weaker. So that's why it's it's and it it it helps Putin to spread his influence. And eventually, you know, it affects it affects you also. Because even if you don't have refugees in your country, it's it's a card that can be played. There were no Syrian refugees in the UK. But Brexit, one of the idea look at the refugees. They're not coming to UK. Most of the people who coming to UK, they they typically, they were, immigrants from from British Empire. Nothing to do with Europe or Syria. But, again, the image, the refugees. And in America, Trump also played this card. The the Syrian refugees is is just it's it's the number is just it's it's so meager. It's it's totally irrelevant when you look at number of immigrants in America. But the and the fact is that you saw the pictures, and it's easy to to to convey the message to to to to the public that, oh, the refugees are coming. It's probably the pictures are are bit are taken from Macedonian border, from Hungarian border, just somewhere in Europe. But the fact is that the refugees are coming. It's helped people like Trump and and and and forces, that aligning with him in Europe, and, of course, Vladimir Putin to spread chaos around the world. So so what's what does Putin gain by this destabilization, though? Like, what what, how does Russia gain? How does Russia gain in in prominence? You just you you mix 2 things. You said Putin and Russia. Russia doesn't gain. Russia is losing because any country that is run by a dictator, you know, is is is losing historically. So it's because then you have to recover from from from the years years of lost opportunities and and destroyed economy and endemic corruption and, of course, wars, that that that could turn even your closest friends, like, for instance, Ukrainians into your enemies for generations. But for Putin, Putin doesn't care. It's, he runs Russia like a lot of mafia boss. It's all about guaranteeing those who loyal to him, full, remuneration. So just an ability to to steal in Russia, to keep money elsewhere, in the free world. And now, you know, he recognizes that since economy is no longer playing into his hands, and the whole overall situation looks shaky, he needs to show his strengths by defying the free world. And, the fact is that he could, win. That's, you know, that's what is being presented in by Russian propaganda. Brexit. You look at the Putin's allies in Europe. You look at Italy where just, you know, pro Putin parties, they form the government. So and, you look around Europe, and especially now the United States where Putin pretended, for, you know, for some reasons that's that's that Trump was his creation, and there were high expectations of Russian propaganda that Trump could lift sanctions and, and play, play by Putin's tune. So so when you look at, like, when when you were rising up, you know, you had, Brezhnev and kind of old Soviet politics and compare that with Putin. What's do you see similarities? Do you see differences? They had an ideology you can argue. They they it's there are differences, and that's that's that's why I think it's just we we it would it took time for the free world to recognize the threat because it was not it it didn't look like the Soviet Union. I I think it's also psychologically. It's it's it's more difficult to understand that you have an enemy if you don't have the, like, demarcation line. We're the Berlin Wall, and it was a physical border, so free and unfree will. Now there are no there's no Berlin Wall, and there are no walls though somebody wants to build another. But it's just it's it's but it's the division is not geographical. It's not, it's not just by walls, but it's it's by by the split within within, the society. It's sometimes within families. And, Putin's strength is that he doesn't have to sell you an ideology. Because when you sell an ideology, like a communist ideology, fast ideology, or any ideology, you have to actually argue for it. Because, you know, you you tell me, oh, you know, I want to nationalize all the factories. I want to nationalize land and means of production. I'm saying, no. No. It didn't work out. So we we started debate. A lot of people, you know, they they could actually, you know, move away because they they could see that your position is vulnerable. Now Putin's Putin's policy is is is far more effective. He doesn't sell you any ideology. Basically, he sells you doubts. That's why I always call him merchant of doubt. And it's it's very, you know, it's it's it's far more successful and and more effective because basically you say no. It's, you know, this it doesn't work. Look, you know, look at the problems. And people look at the problems. So it's like, you know, for instance, you know, you want to come up with a new product on the market. So say toothpaste. And your product is lousy. So you can try to pretend that your product is good but you basically could say, oh, look at this one, look at Colgate, look at this one, it's they all have problems. Try something new. You don't say how what is good or bad, it's just just something new. And Putin Putin's propaganda machine that is probably best funded in the world, there are 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of dollars being spent both domestically and outside of Russia, keeps, you know, telling people that every single relative, you don't know the truth. It's one of my my most popular tweets was about about exhausting critical thinking. So it's not about, you know, trying to to tell you think this way, but it's about just, you know, demolishing your ability to think critically. It's and and by the way, it's it's it's so easy now because there's only one way to tell the truth and, zillions of ways to lie, especially if you have access to so many, channels of social media. So so two questions from that. One is, do you think that kind of technique is hitting US politics? Obviously, you do to to some or to a great extent. The other is, you know, Russia's the the only the 10th greatest economic power right now in terms of GDP. It's 15 times smaller than the US. Why why is he getting so much influence? Like, who cares about about Russia? And I know that might be the most naive question in the world. But No. No. Do you no. No. It's it's it's it's the right premises. So Russia is economically weak. Russia is militarily weak. Okay. Set aside the nukes, of course. So it's a pale shadow of the Soviet Union when you just, you know, look at the country that Harry Truman faced or JFK or Ronald Reagan. Russia today, doesn't have the same capacity, militarily or economically. So or even politically when you look just around the world and the the coalition that Soviet Union could build in the fifties sixties seventies. And today's Putin's Russia is sort of a pariah state, but it just, you know, it its political influence has been greatly reduced. But if if if you are at a war, you can easily lose the war even if you have overwhelming advantage if you don't recognize you're at war. Putin's main advantage is he is fighting the United States. He is fighting the free will. And if you just don't believe me, just, you know, find someone who speaks Russian and just, you know, asks to to him or her to spend one day listening to Putin's state, state TV, it's 247 anti American propaganda. And it's it it it it it it has never you know, it it's it's it was not seized even at a time when Obama was desperately trying to build the bridges and, look for a set and just try to sort of to to find common ground with Putin. Because, for Putin, defying America is is is one of the key elements of of his domestic propaganda to to demonstrate his strengths. And, he can spend enough money for hybrid wars. Yes. He doesn't have the same army just to to confront NATO. He doesn't have to. But he has enough, you know, military capacity to to to help Assad and just to take over Syria because America walks away. So it's not it's not that difficult to win the war when the opposite side, which is much more powerful, doesn't want even to recognize it because it sounds bad. Well and you and you point out, and the other essayist here point out that America always getting involved in these other countries is not necessarily you know, there's a debate. What what is our democratic principles? Like, do we get involved in other regimes, or is that imperialist? Do do we try to enforce change when it's not necessarily on the surface our battle? The American public doesn't necessarily the American public sort of leans isolationist. We don't wanna necessarily go to war. We saw Vietnam. It was a disaster. We weren't very good at Afghanistan. It's a disaster. Iraq's a disaster. So it's unclear what the results are for us. Yeah. But it's the it's again, let's, you know, start with this with with, with the current position at the geopolitical chessboard. So you can just, you know, get out of everywhere. So is this you can say, okay. We don't care, so we just you know, we want to live in a world, you know, where just, you know, it's being ruled by by goodwill of other people. What would happen? So you left you're leaving Syria now. And, basically, you know, America abandoned Syria even just, you know, before Trump. So So Syria, the Arab Spring we abandoned we abandoned Egypt. Are you better off now? Are you better off? No. But it was hard to justify staying there. Are you better off now? This is this 500,000 people dead in Syria, 13,000,000 refugees. The neonators in in Europe are on the rise. That's a result of you walking away. So by the way, you said Afghanistan was a failure, but 911, you know, happened after 8 years of America doing nothing. So God forbid, there was no no second 911. Probably one of the reasons, because the bad guys have been busy fighting American troops elsewhere. Yes. Every American soldier is dying, you know, overseas, bad news. What about 3,000 people more than 3,000 people killed in a in one day? It's more than than the entire Japanese fleet killed killed at Pearl Harbor. But you could argue it's because Americans funded Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan back in the day in the early nineties. Yeah. But look. It's it's it's it's it's early eighties. Early eighties. We're talking about early eighties. And this was not Osama bin Laden. They were just it was a cold war. You now I mean, do we want to go all how far far back do we want to go? To Stalin, to Hitler, to, I don't to to FDR, to, I don't know, to, William Jennings Bryan, McKinley, Lincoln. So it's but look. It's just things are connected. But, you know, after 1991, the situation in the world has changed dramatically. There was no more Soviet Union, the end of the cold cold war. America was a dominant political, economic, and military force. So in 1992, basically, America could reshape the world the way it wanted without even shooting one bullet, without sending a soldier, just basically, you know, pushing one way or another. So what's what's happened? Oh, by the way, one of the one of the big achievements of Clinton administration was to make sure Ukraine would be denuclearized. In 1994, under American pressure, Ukraine gave up its entire nuclear arsenal to Russia. I again, I I understand the rationale behind this idea. Well, why they do that? No. Because it's it's look. From the American perspective, from the UK, because John Major was also cosignatory of this of this so called Budapest Memorandum. It's it was a it was a it was a good move to make sure that the the Soviet nukes that have been spreading in in in 4 former Soviet republics, Russia, Proppa, Ukraine, and a little bit in Belarus and Kazakhstan, they could be, concentrated in in one place, in Russia only. Because otherwise, you know, you have just, you know, the threat of proliferation. So it was it was good. But the Budapest memorandum guaranteed Ukraine territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes. By the way, Ukraine's, nukes, you know, the the combined number was was bigger than China, UK, and France combined. 2,000 nuclear warheads. That's what Ukraine gave to Russia. And US president with with, British prime minister and with Russian president signed this guarantee. People say to them, oh, it was it was nonbinding. Yes. It's nonbinding, but you understand if Ukraine kept even part of these nukes, Russia would never go to Crimea. So it's the, and in 90 from 1992 to the year 2000, America failed to to offer a vision. So what's the what's the new concept of the world? Because, you know, if you don't offer any idea, so how to live in the future, somebody else will. And 2,001, America was attacked. It's the worst attack in American history. And it by the way, it's it's it's not an attack that could be prepared for one day or 2 days. Many years took it took many years to prepare. And, obviously, you know, it was a result that America missed quite a few opportunities to eliminate bin Laden because, again, I understand the rationale. People don't want to be involved in conflicts. The language of deterrence is a rough one. The language of appeasement is a soft one. So so your your your point is if they had a coherent or cohesive vision that might have overridden the desire to not be involved in these conflicts. So what would what would have been and you talk about this here and particularly in solutions, but what what would what would be that vision that would have kept the world going? Firstly, though, it's just it's again, we should recognize a simple fact. There are different countries in the world run by, you know, by different people and different political systems, and, many of them actually, majority of them do not share our view our our values. So, more than 60% of people today lived in the countries that run by authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. And by the way, we are facing now unprecedented streak, of of democracy losing its ground. For certain consecutive years, if you look at the freedom index, provided by by Freedom House, whether it's political, economic, or free or freedom of speech, it's it's on decline. And as by the way, that's also probably result of America, not being growing more isolationist and, thinking that you can stay away and you can be protected by 2 oceans. But, you know, you live in a world that is just, you know, it's if you walk away, your enemies will not, you know, leave you leave you, in peace because for them, confronting America is the main justification of their political existence. What else they can offer to people? Putin has nothing to offer. Al Qaeda or, Islamic State. You look at all these organizations. The confrontation is the only justification for them to survive politically and to have followers because they the the the the entire concept of of the of the dictators or terrorist groups is based on the fact that they are opposing the free world. So that's why this confrontation is inevitable and with those who say we don't want America to be global policeman. Yes. Fine. Now what about life without policemen on the beat? So we we we see the outcome, and and I'm not telling you that, you know, you just have to start, you know, sending troops all over the place, but you just need a concept and and a vision. So how to try to reduce the influence of the bad guys because, you know, more more people being killed, more blood being spilled, more, refugees being pushed away. And it's it creates more chaos. And chaos, by the way, it's it's, counterproductive for, for prosperity. Europe and United States, the free world, lived in peace for 70 for 75 since 1945, so for, more than, 7 decades. And that's, I believe, one of the reasons why people, you know, could enjoy, you know, the beauty of life, and they could see the the steady improvement of their lives and all this, the technology worked in our audience for us just to to make our lives more entertaining. We the, the average the the the lifespan, you know, keeps keeps growing. So we we we we are enjoying lives without recognizing that we have to pay price for that. And it's and, now we also have the forces that are trying just to to to, push us back. And unless we fight, it's you know, we'll we'll we'll never succeed. And and, for those who said, oh, Putin, you know, could do limited damage. Yes. It's, you know, reminds me of my conversation with Bill Maher. So 3 years ago when more than 3 years ago when he's his studio, when I was, I was trying to to raise the awareness about Putin's threat, and he was very dismissive as many many in the in in this country saying, okay. It's not a big deal, and he said, quote unquote, wake me up when he takes all of Poland. Okay. I jumped on my chair saying, you know, the last time we heard this phrase or similar phrase was the beginning of the greatest disaster in human history, so the World War 2. And, of course, after 2016, Bill has changed his his his his his mind, his views, and he's now he's going after Putin, after Trump. And at one point, you know, I couldn't help teasing him on my Twitter saying, okay. It seemed that Putin decided to skip over Poland and went straight to Wisconsin. So so for those for those who thought that A lot of Polish people there too. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's for the for those who thought that Putin would stay, you know, would stay, in Syria, in former in in his so called, near abroad, in the former Soviet republics, or in Eastern Europe, I mean, they underestimated the fact that I mean, what could stay what what could stop Putin of trying to actually influence American elections. He did it in Europe and many countries. And dictators I said dictators never ask why. It's always why not. And, the outcome, you could see it. So and you think it's the end of the story? No. It's not the end of the story because, you know, it's it's whatever happens with Trump in in in the remaining 2 years or, you know, whatever time is left for him in the office, I mean, he could do tons of damage for this country. But it's not just damage for America. It's damage for the free world. Because the moment president of the United States undermines the alliances, insults American allies, and basically, you know, walks away from from traditional values by by by ignoring them or just bust or or blasting them and at the same time praising dictators around the world. That's, you know, that's a damage that cannot be simply repaired, you know, just, by by electing the right man next next, you know, at next elections. Because for many people in the world, you know, it's just it it's it's it it would take time for to to recover, confidence in the in the United States. So one of the solutions mentioned in your book of essays is that more countries need to be involved potentially in NATO, like like a Japan, like in Israel, like some of these countries that have liberal democracies, not just in Europe, but outside. And that would give that feeling of coalition. I mean, the big criticism against w going into Afghanistan and Iraq is there was no real coalition. That's probably why Obama backed out of Syria. And and, again, that's what's what Trump is sort of bringing up as well. What's the chances that maybe some of these liberal democracies join in the fight so Americans don't feel like we are the only policeman there? But, look, it's it's coalitions are important, but every coalition is a leader. So this is so far, you know this is the American leadership, as as as it used to be in in in during the Cold War or, you know, just going back to the to the World War 2, America played also a vital role of defeating Nazism. And, I think it's it's it's it's a very it's it's getting more and more complicated because look what's happening in Syria now. Kurds fought bravely against ISIS. They helped, to defeat ISIS almost, you know, just to to destroy ISIS. 8,000 Kurdish, men died fighting this battle. Now America is walking away, leaving curse, you know, between the hammer and the hot place. We have Assad and ISIS in one place, and then you have Erdogan who just, you know, who is dreaming about, or having another bloodbath for Kurds. So how can you convince these people that America, you know, is going to be serious? So this is it's not about one off. I think it's about vision. It's about coming back with an idea. So what do we want to achieve? World our world in 5, in 10, and 15 years. Late John McCain talked about legal democracy, and I I I I fancied this idea just, you know, because I I came up with something similar, at the same time. It's just bringing together democracies in the world. So, I mean, recognizing the fact that today, United Nations is nothing else but catwalk for dictators. Because it's just it's it's a lip service. That's they they they pay for for UN resolutions. But at the end of the day, it's, you know, it's it's for them to promote their agenda and once, once every year to gather in New York and to, to brag about about, their their rule. And, United Nations that has been formed in 1945 to preserve world peace and to make sure that Soviet Union and United States would not enter it's it's the nuclear Armageddon. It's this organization, was not built to solve conflicts. It was more like freezing conflicts. And now we're relying on the organization that is just it's spreading corruption and, both political and maybe not only political. And and, and it's it's you cannot have any any meaningful document there. I mean, just you look at the UN Human Rights Council with countries like Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela. It just it's it's it's it's absolute joke. So this I think that this this the, the, this commission had, last year, 21 resolutions condemning Israel, and one resolution condemning Syria, one for North Korea, one for, for for, I think, for Cuba or Venezuela. So it's it's it's all about, non democratic countries, having, very powerful say in the organization that supposedly should help us to improve wealth for for better. So what's the what's the first step? What's the first step that someone should do? That let's say Trump the president should that the United States should do or some countries should. What's the first step to start? Let's see. The first step going back to America, it's still the first step is here. So because America is is the leader of the free world. So this is if you don't recover, so the, America's strengths, 1st domestic strengths and international strengths, nothing will happen. So you cannot expect Europe divide so badly divided Europe to to to take a lead. Or, you know, you can you can talk about Japan, Australia, maybe Brazil. So this is, Mexico, Canada. But at the end of the day, it's about United States, so, reinventing itself as a global leader with a vision for for the world. And, that's that's that's why, you know, we had our new organization and this book. So just explaining that it's it's the the process of re rekindling the spirit of democracy must start here. And, also, the fear that you just brought brought up, the connecting the dots between what's happening and Brexit and Germany and France and the US, I think, you know, everybody's motivated a little bit by fear, and I think that goes hand in hand with vision. Yeah. But it's also yeah. It's it's it's it's what we discussed at the beginning of our conversation is that, political center has been decimated. So it's it's not that, you know, is is we want to preserve status quo. Status quo is just, you know, it's it's not going to work, for young people because they always wanted to to have something dynamic. But it's about, you know, rebuilding, the foundation for for stable democracy that could inspire people to do great things. Like, for instance, you know, conquering the the, conquering the space. So I think it's very important that we we help public to recover the spirit, the spirit of exploration, spirit of innovations, and also engagement. So one of the most quoted, phrases, from presidential inaguals, it's most likely, it's it's JFK's ask not what the country can do for you. Can you imagine any politician today saying that? Just just it's it's the end of your political career because, you know, that's exactly what people want to hear. No. No. I want to know what country can do for me. So it's it's not the other way around. So when you go back to the sixties, you know, there was just, you know, country was rallying behind this space program because it was important. And people even didn't recognize that the the, side effect of this of this space program could actually have tremendous tremendous positive effect for their lives, like GPS, ARPANET that later, you know, was transferred in Mhmm. Transported in Internet. So it's it's very important that, you know, the the the nations the nation can move forward, by just, you know, seeing so having some confidence in the future. I think now we just the effect is is is is the opposite. So people are afraid of the future. So that's why they always look for defensive options. And that's why you can have demagogues, whether coming from the from the far right or from far far left, that are just trying to to rally support, telling people that we had something in the past, something great that we're we're missing, whether it's, you know, crazy nationalist ideas or utopian socialist ideas that never worked. So I feel like a lot of this what's great about your essay and these ideas is that for you, it's not some academic theory. You grew up in authoritarian regime, and you were Authoritarian. That's just the theory. And and and you were greatly affected by it. Like, and and again, just to to take it a little more personal level in your first world chess championship match with Karpov, it was often portrayed as Karpov being a representative of the communist Soviet regime and you being portrayed as sort of the, the young up and coming potentially dissident challenger. And rightly so. Rightly so. Although you were a member of the communist party because you had to be. Yeah. That's the system. But yeah. But I How how true was that that betrayal though of of, you know, that dichotomy of communism versus the the young the young youth. It's the it's not about For you in that match. Don't forget, you know, which is when I played Karpov, my first match, it was, it's the, like, you know, you can say the Soviet Union was pregnant with changes because Gorbachev was just, you know, under political rise. But nobody knew that then? I think it was just in the beginning. 8 84. 84 really knew that it's just, you know, this the the, the hereontocratic regime, you know, was just about to fall because you you needed just just biologically. You needed new people to take over. And, and there were expectations. They all get it. It's it's it was not, you know, it was not, writing on the wall. But still, you know, I, I remember when I won, and I was 22, and I was half Armenian, half Jewish, coming from the deep south of the Soviet Union versus Anatoly Karpov, Russian, representing the establishment. For many people and I hear even today when I meet these people, you know, around the world, even in this country. So they say, oh, for us it was, you know, like a signal. If Karpov could be beaten by Garry Kasparov, that's a chance for country to change. Because Russia, as many nondemocratic countries, is a country of symbols symbolism. So that's why the Karpov, Karpov loss and my victory, it's, that was so symbolic. I even I even couldn't understand the importance of the symbolism, but now, you know, 30 34 33 years later. So I could I could feel that, you know, that's that was my big contribution. By simply winning at the chessboard to, raise the not even confidence, but to to give a hope for millions and millions and millions of people in the Soviet Union that wanted to change our country, great hope that it could happen. And it did. I mean, I was in 11th grade, and even I we felt it here, you know, you winning in that way. And, you know, and and this this segues a little bit. You had a very interesting strategy in the very first match. You kind of realized what was happening, and and you extended a long period of draws. You you made it so that every game, was was was ending in the draw. It's not just possible until he tired out, and then the match was canceled. It's not about it's not about the tired outlook. He tired yeah. He got tired out, but but match was closed not because I made draws, but because I I I began winning. So I I won 3 games. How many draws were there, though? Oh, the it's the after game 9, I was trailing 4 to nothing. So with this day, then I made 17 draws from game 10 to game 26. So I lost game 27. It was 5 to nothing. I needed only one one one win to sort of to wipe me out, so to win the match because that's the the rules were the 6 wins. We're scared. Draws were not covered. Okay. Yeah. I I was not scared. You know? So I I knew I was doomed, but I wanted to fight. And while making all these draws, I learned a lot. It's like, you know, just, like, my my training session. So I I'm making draws. You know? I just I I got, you know, more and more engaged, so I learned more about Karpov and about, you know, the way he played. And so and, and I think he just you know, he he thought it would be almost automatic, so he, you know, he failed to win game 31. He was close. I won game 32, which was, you know, just for me, big relief. At least, you know, I won one game. And then Karpov tried very hard. For the next 16 games, he tried very hard. He couldn't win a single game. I won 2 games, 47, 48. And then so the authorities, they recognized that the match was already you know, it's in question. I was still trailing 5 to 3, but it's just, you know, the the momentum was on my side, and I looked much stronger, my fresher, and very energetic. So, yeah, like, I I, you know, just I could feel blood. So it's the and, going back to these matches, I think that's what's important is that you understand so that you are in trouble, and you have to adjust your strategy. Yeah. I do kind of a meta thinking about Exactly. Exactly. It's it's now it's very important that you have a right strategy again too, but you also have a goal. So this is you could you you know what you want, you know, just long term, but it's very important to survive now. So sometimes, you know, just, you know, you can you got a very great ideas about the future. You can start making long term plans. But if you get mated going back to chessboard, you know, at, you know, at at in in 2 moves, nothing is going to happen. So sometimes you just have to make sure that, you know, you stay in the game. So and, again, I, I think that this match was very important, for me as, not not just to be to become a world champion, but also to it, sharpen my character because I I realized that, you know, this this no situation is desperate. I mean, if I could survive losing 5 to 5 to nil when my opponent needed only 1 one win to finish me off, and my opponent was the world champion, and I survived and came back 6 months later and beating beat him and became world champion. So not no situation is desperate. So because the odds at that moment, they were the the worst one can imagine. So I'm I'm gonna fast forward to the Carlson Corona match of last year, but I promise I will tie it all together and say How many of your listeners know Carlson Coronado? No. No. But what's interesting is, you know, Carlson basically it almost as if he arranged for the match that the initial part of the match to end in a draw, so they move into the blitz games where he was significantly better than Fabiano. And you were critical of that saying it was kind of he should have fought harder in that original match. But why didn't he why wasn't it good for him to do the meta thinking where he was even with Fabiano in tournament play, but he knew he could crush him at blitz play? It is it's the it's I mean, let's be let's let's let's not, you know, misinterpret my words. So it's this, I I think I I was very clear saying that, the the strategy was good for Magnus and bad for chess. It's it's it's I mean, Magnus was there to play the world championship match and to defend his title under the rules. But it was pretty bad impression on general public, especially in game 12, the last game of the match, where Magnus has a tremendous position, serious advantage. He could push and I see. And he decided to actually to offer a draw because he knew that then it would go to to a rapid chest and blitz chest where he was much stronger in Caruana, which by the way, I've been saying it from game 1. I said it is those 6 six technically is a tie and then they move to the tie breaks. 6 six is Bengals victory. So that's why Caruana had to do absolutely everything to win in in in classical chess, not to not not not to leave everything for the rapid or blitz. And Magna's decision was practical from his perspective. But either the way it, you know, it's it was viewed by millions of people who watch the game. And I could check I I also watch the game, and, I could I could hear people almost cursing because they just didn't understand how the strongest player in the world could walk away after, you know, after reaching reaching out such a great position. And they just don't want to hear the arguments about, world championship match. It's all it's all about winning. I mean, I understand these arguments, and that's why I say it was good for Magnus. But we just have to recognize that this the the match, played a very dubious role for promoting game of chess since, you know, a lot of people got really frustrated. Because because they wanted to see what that 12th game maybe would've been like. Exactly. It's it's look. It's it's there's always a contradiction. The world championship match is not about playing your, you know, the most beautiful to chess. It's about winning. So it is and, people just you know? And and I also said it. You know? People don't remember, you know, these these these just they they keep forgetting. So the the, the whole scenario of the game or a match, all that remember the results. So for instance, you know, I have been watching, soccer World Cups since 1970 when I was 7. And in 1970, Brazil crushed Italy in the final, 4 to 1. Beautiful match. Pele scoring goal just in the beginning of the match. Phenomenal. In 1994, Brazil faced Italy in in this country, another World Cup. Brazil won in penalty shootout after scoreless draw draw 0. So at the end of the day, it's a 2 World Cups of Brazil. Who remembers now so that is that's 1970 was a beautiful match, and 1994 was just, you know, very dull game. Pele became one of the most famous people on the planet. Yeah. But it no. Yes. Exactly. But still in 94, it was another, you know, people say, oh, Brazil won 5 World Cups. 5. And one of them was 1970, one was 1994. So it's it's I think that's that's Magnus' view is as who who who cares today? I won another match, so I'm, you know, I'm the world champion. It's my it's my 4th title. So because he keeps counting. So he says, Gary at 6, now I want to get 7, so good luck. So but that's that's the way he he he thinks, and I, as a professional player, I cannot blame him for that. All he has to know, I'm I I worry is about the image of the game because it's just it's people still expect a lot from the from these from these matches, especially now when you have so many people watching them online. It's not like, you know, when I play Karpov, you had, you know, maybe couple of 1,000 people in in in a big Moscow hall, and then, you know, then you had maybe some radio stations, but people couldn't watch it live. No? Just, you know, you can watch it on your phone. So and and it's not just to watch. You can actually follow the computer line. So you can understand exactly what's happening. So that's why sometimes you, you know, you you are even more experienced, than than than than, the world champion because you have you have such, you know, such great help coming from from engine, which is much stronger than Magnus Carl's. So so bringing it back to to this, what's what's you've done so many things. You've you've pursued so many different avenues, and you've fought you've you have fought for a long time for, democracy around the world, democracy in Russia, you know, to the point of attempting to run for president. What's what's next for you? How do you continue this We keep running for president. I mean, this is it's I don't want people just, you know, just to get the wrong picture about Putin's Russia. Running him for president in Russia means, you know, making a statement because you you cannot get into the ballot. You cannot raise money. You cannot have Right. You couldn't you couldn't, rent the room to to announce. It's it's all about, you know, it's all about demonstrating that, that that Putin's Russia, was anything but democratic. And by the way, it was 2007. Those years I called vegetarian because for protesting against Putin, you could end up in jail for 5 or 10 days. Now we do 5 or 10 years. If you went back, would you be in trouble, you think? The trouble is just it's understatement. So but I don't want to to to find out whether it will be just arrest or worse. Look. Most of, my, my, friends and allies who who marched with me and and who were part of the, the protest movement, they're either in exile as myself, in jail, or dead like Boris Nemtsov. I mean, it's it's it's it's it's a dictatorship that, that eliminates any potential threat, even sometimes imaginary threat to to to, to its rule inside Russia. And as we know, it's, Putin's reach is not limited by Russia. So many many of his political opponents, you know, they were they were hunted and and killed even even outside of, of our country. So so what as you continue this fight, which you're obviously doing with this book, what what's the next steps for you? What do you think are the next steps in general? It's it's it's, you know, it's somehow, you know, I'm using my experience, you know, from, coalition building in Russia because I I thought it would be important, to should bring people, you know, just from different political, quarters to fight against Putin's regime and just having a simple goal to fight for free and fair elections. Say, okay. We have many differences, but let's let's leave the differences aside and and debate them when or if we're elected to the parliament. And that's that's this movement was, you know, quite a threat for for the regime. That's why they they use harsh methods to to to destroy it, and, and, it it it couldn't succeed. One of the reasons also that the the world didn't want Putin and Putin's regime to go. It's just everybody look for status quo, for so called stability, flexibility as once Obama said, in relations to Putin. But, now in America, I I I have the same feeling that it's very important for people from both sides of the of the political aisle to recognize that there's a there's a threat that, everything could, you know, could end up, as just as a disaster if you have a choice between between, say, Trump and someone coming from the far far left. And, it's very important that it's it's not just be being involved in in in a political process now, but actually explaining why we should rebuild the system. I mean, I have, well, strong views about about the overall reform because I think that's you know, it's with all due respect to the great achievements of the founding fathers and the system that they they they designed that had been working for nearly 2 and a half 2 and a half centuries, you know, every mechanism gets rusty. And we could see that now that's the certain, you know, certain elements of the system, they have to be revisited. It's the I think the electoral college is a problem. It's a long term. It's not going to happen now, but it's just, I think it's just the, the the, certainly, you know, things, you know, that's, that have been established there, like, the Supreme Court nominations, you you know, having, you know, your, life tenure. It's, you know, things are different. It's in in, 1800. What was the average lifespan? 40? 40 something? Yeah. Maybe 4, you know, upper class, 50. Now people can leave 80 plus. So that's just and second amendment of the constitution. So how many people you could kill in in in in 2 minutes in in 1787? Maybe 1? Now you could, you know, in in in 2 minutes, you can you can you can put down 500 people. So it's so it's it's I'm not telling you that we have to change all these things, but it's very important we start looking at at at at every element of this political system and recognizing that somehow instead of offering us stability, they just, you know, they create more problems. Two party system, this doesn't work anymore because parties grew too big. And it's just it's and and when parties are growing too big and you have gerrymandering, so what happens at every local elections is that you have to to have to take care of the challenge, primary challenge coming either from the right or from the left. So which means, you know, you you you you're pushing the political life, you know, further to the fringes. And it's, you know, it has inevitably, it has an effect to to to the national politics. It's there are so many problems, but, you know, we have to go back and just to recognize that while America is facing all these challenges, when you look at American history or history of Europe or just history of the world, it's still, you know, it's it's, the most advanced democratic country in the world. Whatever people say, you know, pointing out the problems. That's why I I strongly oppose those from the right or from the left saying the system is rigged, as I said in the beginning. I don't want this to say it's not rigged. It's imperfect. But this no. We don't live in a in a world it's we're not in heaven. So that's it's everything is relative. So when you look at the American history, and that was one of the ideas of the book, is there are many bumps there. But it you know, it's about improving your, you know, just your social life, your political life. It's there there are steady improvements. Yes. We there there are many things in the past, but they have been gradually just, you know, pushed pushed aside. We still have a lot of people in this country that just, you know, just don't believe, you know, in these things that we we think are just, you know, that they're very natural, and it's just our traditional values. But more and more people are joining, though, this joining joining the majority that is just is is is pushing for the future. And, and, it's you know, while while we're trying to improve life here and and to help to rebuild, the free world and just, you know, bring back its, the the the the belief that it's it's it's it's the only way for for for humanity to move forward, I I think it's important for us to learn learn from history. And, and I'm, you know, I'm quite happy just to to be part of this project because it's it's somehow it's it's it unites people, you know, that's that's typically, we're opposing each other, fighting for, for important things, you know, like gun control, abortion rights. But just recognizing that right now, it's it's not about these issues, but it's about preserving the foundation of the republic, preserving the framework. First amendment, don't forget. That's that will help us to actually continue this healthy debate in in in the future without, you know, us just being, held hostages by radicals on either left or right. Well and I think, you know, for me, I read the book. I felt like some beliefs I held dear were starting to crumble as I read this because I I realized the importance of, again, from this book, from from your essay in particular, the importance of, oh, there is benefit to being involved in certain situations that it's hard to exactly see what the outcomes are, but but but the outcome is important. And I didn't quite understand that before. And I think the other thing is it's helpful to to to develop your skepticism. Like, even if we believe in the primary principles, let's take a look at the second amendment, take a look at the way the electoral colleges, to wait take a look at the way the supreme court is structured and say, okay. The foundation is is still there, but we may need to look at where it might have gotten rusty. And I think that's skepticism, which is this book is almost a book about skepticism in in some way, in a meta way, and I think that's, an encouraging encouraging thing. But I highly recommend the book because it gave me a really much deeper rather than just, rather than just this is what's happening now. It gave me a real deep understanding of how the dots are connected around the world and and and the potential dangers to, democracies. And, thank you for for writing and and putting together and starting this this conversation. I'm glad we've been able to to talk again. Thank you so much for inviting me. And, again, that's the I think the, the, the bottom line is that, globalization means that we're all connected. And, and, pretending that you could isolate yourself from the rest of the world is just it's it's a great disservice for for for this country, for you, for your family, for your friends because we are you know, we cannot, you know, separate ourselves from what's happening in the world. And somehow, even maybe, it's it's you you think it's a mystery, but we're being affected. And, we should be proactive. Maybe just it's it's it's it's about my my style, chess style, my dynamic styles. But I believe that, you know, it's a time where we just you know, proactive position is the only way to shape the world. Because if you don't want to be proactive you will be subject for manipulations. And it's very important just you know just a thought quick thought about it as the the social media. We keep saying social media social media social media And just we we we almost I think we've forgotten that the original concept was social network. So and you see the difference between social network where we are just, you know, we we are newsmakers, so we we are connected. And social media, where all of a sudden, we are just, you know, subjects for manipulations. Right. Just like passively receiving media. Exactly. So I think it's very important for everybody to recognize that he or she could play a very important role. But it's it's about being engaged. I remember when people, you know, after 2,016 elections, they kept talking about 80,000 votes that decided the elections. It's a disaster. Hillary won the popular vote in the country, and it's just it's all over again. And I kept saying the problem was not 80,000 people who just, you know, decided the elections. The biggest problem is 90,000,000 people who didn't vote. So I think it's very important that that's that's one of the ideas of the book is actually to to give people the sense of that's of of of this urgency. You have to be engaged. You can change things. And for me, someone who was born and raised in a communist country and someone who fought Putin's regime for the right to vote and just to have free and fair elections, Seeing people who are just, you know, are not involved. And by having these rights, those rights, to to participate in democracy, makes me feel really annoyed. And I want them just to to get back to to to sort of to, to the original ideas what does that's that empowered them at first place. But don't you think many people are getting engaged by just this mindless fighting? I'm on this side. You're on that side. So we hate each other. And they just there's this mindless arguing all day long on on social media. No. Look. It's it's yeah. It's it's it's I think it's inevitable. But it's it's still for me, it's if you have more people being engaged, I think it's just it's it's, they will start inevitably, many of them. Some of them will stay, you know, fighting this having fighting these petty fights. But many of them will start, you know, just reading serious books, serious articles. Because, you know, it's it's people just have a little self respect. So this is not all of them will be wasting their time for just, you know, throwing mud at each other. So they'll try to understand what's happening. I still believe in the wisdom of the crowd. But you need bigger crowd. We need bigger numbers. Because the moment you have more people engaged, so this is the you could see that the radicals losing because they represent a small part, part of our society, whether on the right or on the left. But they are very loud. They they they're motivated. They have an idea. So that's why it's very important to fight them with with with the with with this wisdom of the crowd, with with a massive, population that it's just, you know, just doesn't want things to go one way or another, so it was radical, left or right. But still, you know, it's too passive. And I hope that, you know, this is people will will will will recover the passion, passion for innovation, passion for exploration, and passion for, you know, personal engagement in the future. Well, again, I think they could they could start learning that passion reading this book, Fight For Liberty, Depending Democracy in the Age of Trump. This was put together by you, but as essays from, Ted Koppel is a familiar name. Tyler Cowen is a a friend of mine, a friend of the podcast. So many other great people, Richard North Patterson, Nate and Sharansky. So many great essayists, so many great essays. Not everybody's saying the same thing, which is the a great point is that skepticism can come together to form, a kind of not quite consensus, but a a belief that we need to to move forward, and here's how. And and this is a great book describing it. So thanks once again for for everything you do and for winning in 1985. I played through every game as it was happening. Thank you. Thanks, Gary. Thank you. Thank you. The nation's favorite car buying site, Dundeele Motors, is home to the largest range of new and premium used cars from all of Ireland's trusted car dealerships. That's why you'll find Frank Keane BMW on Dundeele. Visit the Frank Keane BMW showroom on Dundeele to find your next car. Dundeele Motors, for confident car buying and deals to feel great about from all of Ireland's trusted car dealerships. Visit Dundee. Ie today.