History’s most shocking atrocities are defined less by their authoritarian leaders and more by the 'giant blob of enablers' who facilitate them. The current political climate demonstrates this, where professionals and politicians abdicate their expertise and principles to avoid conflict, becoming complicit in the process and allowing destructive ideologies to gain power.

Showing mercy to disabled enemy combatants is tactically superior for three reasons: it encourages adversaries to surrender rather than fight to the death; it yields valuable intelligence from prisoners; and it establishes a standard of conduct that protects one's own captured soldiers from reciprocal brutality.

In global conflicts, a nation's power dictates its actions and outcomes, not moral righteousness. History shows powerful nations, like the U.S. using nuclear weapons, operate beyond conventional moral constraints, making an understanding of power dynamics more critical than moralizing.

In disagreements, the objective isn't to prove the other person wrong or "win" the argument. The true goal is to achieve mutual understanding. This fundamental shift in perspective transforms a confrontational dynamic into a collaborative one, making difficult conversations more productive.

The only historically effective method to resolve deep-rooted religious and ideological conflicts is to shift focus toward shared economic prosperity. Alliances like the Abraham Accords create tangible incentives for peace that ideology alone cannot, by making life demonstrably better for citizens.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

Evaluate political ideologies based on their historical potential for large-scale harm ("amplitude"), not just a leader's current negative actions. A socialist path, historically leading to mass death, may pose a greater long-term threat than a leader's immediate, but less catastrophic, authoritarian tendencies.

Many leaders focus on having the correct analysis. However, true leadership requires understanding that being right is useless if you can't persuade and influence others. The most successful leaders shift their focus from proving their correctness to finding the most effective way to communicate and achieve their goals.

When meeting an influential person with opposing views, effectiveness trumps the need to be 'right.' The best strategy is to suppress personal indignation and identify a shared interest. Propose a policy or idea within that common ground that they might be receptive to and champion as their own.