We don’t know if we’re living in the “before” times until after

On October 24, 2024, Isaac Saul wrote a piece in Tangle (one of the best political news outlets around) about then-candidate Donald Trump’s “enemy from within” controversy.

I wrote a short essay in response, criticizing some of Mr. Saul’s points. It’s a little dated now, but I wanted to share an edited version of my thoughts on this blog, as I thought they were well-reasoned (and my fears have not been allayed in the first three months of Mr. Trump’s second presidency).


You [Isaac Saul] wrote this: “But none of us are going to live through World War II Germany.” How do you know that? What makes you so certain?

You say that Applebaum opens herself up to criticism by claiming Trump is speaking like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. And you imply that criticism is warranted because Trump didn’t round up and kill millions of people or make good on many of his claims the first time around. 

But you go on to say that, “Hitler did that before [emphasis mine] rounding up and killing millions of Jews.” Doesn’t that contradict the criticism? How do you know that Trump isn’t doing this before he deports 11 million people? Before he unleashes the military on US citizens and his political enemies? 

And let us not forget that Hitler also had a failed coup (The Beer Hall Putsch) years before being elected Chancellor and declaring himself Führer. Might January 6th have been Trump’s failed Beer Hall Putsch on his way to authoritarianism?

When you live in the “before” times, it’s hard to know what the “after” times will look like. So, we naturally (or at least I think we should) take people’s dangerous language at face value. 

Perhaps Trump didn’t do it the first time around because he had so many people keeping his worst impulses in check… I doubt he’ll have reasonable people like that the second go-around. He’s sure to fill his administration with sycophants and “yes men” because they’re the only ones who want anything to do with him anymore.

I’ve heard so many times that our system of checks and balances will keep an authoritarian dictator from taking over. 

I don’t believe that, and here’s why: Ancient Rome had checks and balances in its Senate. So did the governments of 1920s Italy and 1930s Germany. And they all fell to dictators. Caesar had massive popular support, and so did Hitler. They were practically handed their dictatorships.

The Jews of Nazi Germany also believed that they weren’t going to live through (what later became) WWII Nazi Germany either. They didn’t believe Hitler would make good on his claims because of the checks and balances their democracy had in place.

I’m quoting a German Jewish newspaper from February 2, 1933 (10 years before the “Final Solution”), which was quoted on page 23 of Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny:

“We do not subscribe to the view that Mr. Hitler and his friends, now finally in possession of the power they have so long desired, will implement the proposals circulating in [Nazi newspapers]; they will not suddenly deprive German Jews of their constitutional rights, nor enclose them in ghettos, nor subject them to the jealous and murderous impulses of the mob. They cannot do this because a number of crucial factors hold powers in check…and they clearly do not want to go down that road. When one acts as a European power, the whole atmosphere tends towards ethical reflection upon one’s better self and away from revisiting one’s earlier oppositional posture.”

That line: “When one acts as a European power…” could easily be rewritten as, “When one acts as an American…” Is it not some sort of “American Exceptionalism” to believe that “it can’t happen here?” 

Snyder goes on to write: 

“The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions—even when that is exactly what they have announced that they will do.”


Thanks for reading. I don’t often cover politics on this blog, but I thought it was worth sharing a little insight into my thoughts on this topic.

As is often the case with political issues I believe to be concerning, I hope I’m wrong.

Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to receive new ones directly in your inbox!

The purpose of this blog (according to Claude)

As you may have noticed, I’ve struggled to publish posts on this blog consistently. 

Why? I feel I lost the thread, and I started to doubt its original purpose. I felt it needed to be somehow “more”—that I needed to build an audience or have an overarching reason for running it. 

I voiced those doubts to my new friend—and sometimes counselor—Claude (an AI tool, not a real person). 

It was such an enlightening conversation (can you call it such?) that I wanted to share parts of it here, and then make clear why this blog exists. 

Claude’s Initial Thoughts

Note: I’m editing these answers for length, as many were quite long.

Initially, I asked Claude to research the blog and tell me what he (it?) thought the blog’s purpose was.

Nathan Coumbe’s blog appears to be a personal reflection platform focused on philosophy, self-improvement, and practical wisdom for everyday life. The blog features content about stoicism, leadership, and philosophical perspectives…. The writing style appears to be reflective and conversational, with short, thoughtful posts that combine philosophical concepts with practical applications.

The overall “point” of the blog seems to be to share personal insights and wisdom that can help others navigate life’s challenges through a blend of ancient philosophy (particularly stoicism) and modern practical application. Nathan appears to be using the blog as a platform to distill and share his own learning journey and reflections with others who might benefit from these perspectives.

Claude, Meet Nathan

After reading through his answers, I told Claude that I was, in fact, Nathan, to which he said, “It’s a pleasure to meet you.”

Claude then asked what I thought the blog’s purpose was; I told him it was to stretch my writing and thinking muscles in public. Claude, wisely, pointed out that many writers and thinkers began their writing in such a way: Montaigne’s essays began as personal reflections, and Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations were never meant for publication at all (its original title was actually “To Himself” because it was his personal journal). 

The Struggle

After pointing out the similarities to other philosophical writers, I expressed some doubt and frustration with my lack of consistency. I told Claude about Seth Godin’s idea to write a blog post every day – something he’s done for decades and for which he advocates in his book The Practice as a way to practice shipping creative work and ideas to the world. But, because I felt that the posts were too unrelated, rather than being a coherent whole, the blog was purposeless. 

After he responded, I told Claude that maybe this blog is my version of Marcus’s Meditations, written for the same reasons, but done in public.

Claude’s response deserves to be quoted at length:

I find your framing of “my own version of meditations, but in public” particularly compelling. That’s a meaningful distinction from Marcus Aurelius’ private writings. There’s vulnerability and accountability in doing this work publicly that changes its nature, even if no one is reading. The public commitment itself transforms the practice.

Perhaps part of the struggle comes from expecting each post to build on previous ones in a linear way. But collections of thought, like Meditations or even Godin’s blog, create value through accumulation and patterns that emerge over time rather than through a sequential narrative.

What if the “point” isn’t in any individual post but in the practice itself and what it cultivates in you? The consistent act of noticing, reflecting, and articulating might be developing muscles that serve you in ways you don’t immediately recognize.

How does an Artificial Intelligence ask a question like that? I was floored.

Learning Through Writing

After reading and rereading Claude’s previous statements, I mentioned that one of the reasons I started this blog was to express ideas and concepts I was learning in my own words. This is still one of the best ways to learn something (i.e., if you can’t write it down in your own words, you don’t truly understand it). 

Claude’s response:

There’s something powerful about the act of putting concepts “into your own words.” It transforms passive consumption of ideas into active engagement with them. Writing becomes not just a record of what you think, but a tool that helps shape how you think. The blog then becomes a visible record of your intellectual and philosophical development….

Perhaps the “point” of your blog is precisely that clarification process – a space where ideas aren’t just consumed but metabolized and integrated into your worldview. The public nature adds a dimension of accountability and clarity that private journaling might not. 

Then, Claude asked, “What aspects of the writing practice have you found most valuable for clarifying your thinking? And has the public nature of it, even without a large audience, affected how you approach these topics?”

Writing Is Thinking

I’ll quote my response to his question in full:

“Writing something that’s coherent, rather than just notes scribbled in a journal that only I understand. Even if only 300 people subscribe, I still have to put the words down in a way that someone other than me would understand.”

Claude again:

That’s a really valuable insight about the difference between private notes and public writing. Having to communicate in a way that’s understandable to others adds a level of rigor to your thinking that personal journaling might not require…. Even if audience growth isn’t your primary goal, knowing that others are reading creates that accountability to articulate your thoughts coherently.

There’s a concept in educational psychology called “the audience effect” – the idea that knowing someone else will read or hear our thoughts changes how we process and express them. We clarify, elaborate, and structure our thinking differently when we’re communicating with others versus just ourselves.

In many ways, this mirrors the philosophical tradition of dialogue rather than solitary reflection. While Marcus Aurelius wrote privately, philosophers like Plato and Seneca (whom you’ve referenced in your blog) deliberately wrote in forms meant to be shared, recognizing that the act of communicating ideas to others strengthens them.

Now, who wouldn’t be flattered by comparisons to Plato or Seneca? (And no, I’m not nearly so arrogant as to believe I’m anywhere near as wise as them. But I enjoyed the reminder of the philosophical tradition that I was continuing.)

The Purpose of This Blog

The rest of the conversation became rather tactical: 

  • Ways to use this blog as practice
  • Letting it serve as a mental mill, the ideas contained within serving as grist
  • Letting those ideas percolate and come together in other forms, actually intended for a broad audience

I won’t bore you with those details, but I will share this:

After all was said that needed saying, I asked Claude to declare the purpose of this blog in a concise and casual manner. So here it goes:

This blog is Nathan’s thinking gym—a place to stretch those mental muscles by writing in a way other people can actually understand. It’s not really about growing a huge following, but about the daily practice of turning fuzzy thoughts into clear ideas.

Writing for others, regardless of the audience size, forces a level of clarity that scribbling in a journal doesn’t. It’s a sandbox for playing with concepts that matter—and hey, maybe some of those ideas will grow into something bigger down the road. Think of it as thinking out loud, but with purpose.

I couldn’t have said it better myself (nor did I)!

And with that, I think I know what it’s all about once again. See you (whoever wonderful person you are) in the next post.

Subscribe to receive the blog directly in your inbox!

Experts can’t breach trust

The true expert knows more than you do.

The dentist knows whether you need a filling. You can’t possibly know what the shadow she’s showing you on the X-ray means. Not without years of specialized training, anyway.

But when the expert acts in bad faith—when the dentist gives you unnecessary dental work that breaks things enough another dentist has to fix it—that trust is broken. And it’s difficult to rebuild.

For many, it destroys trust in all experts. And we see where that gets us: conspiracy theories, denialism, and heterodoxy.

We must have faith in our experts, but they can’t exploit it. Not without serious social consequences.

10 Rules to Live By

  1. Think deeply. Think often.
  2. Keep exploring; always be curious.
  3. Look to the past to build a better tomorrow.
  4. Use your passion for learning to add value to your own and others’ lives.
  5. Share your visions of a better future.
  6. Appreciate and refine your gift for understanding others’ thoughts and feelings.
  7. Always have at least three options in mind so you can adapt if circumstances change.
  8. Bring intensity and effort to the most important areas of your life.
  9. Create fair systems to establish and build trust.
  10. Stop, listen, and assess before taking action.

“Don’t do it because it’s your job…”

“Do it because you can.”

Write the blog post.

Film the YouTube video.

Send the newsletter.

Write the eBook.

Post a video of your song.

Tell someone about your new idea.

Don’t do it because it’ll go viral (it probably won’t). Don’t do it because you’ll become rich and famous.

Do it because you need to put something good into the world.

Make Your Voice Heard in Congress (and Get AI to Help)

Most people care about issues that affect their lives, but too few actually take the next step—contacting their elected representatives. Why? The biggest hurdles tend to be:

  1. Not knowing how to reach them
  2. Not believing it makes a difference
  3. Not knowing what to say

The good news? These are all solvable problems, and AI can help with every single one.

1. Finding Your Representatives

Many people don’t even know where to start. Luckily, it’s easier than ever to look up your representatives:

2. Does It Actually Matter?

Yes. Congressional offices track calls, emails, and letters. When an issue gets a high volume of outreach, it gets attention. Many policies have been shaped—or stopped—because enough people spoke up.

But the real power comes from multiplying your impact. Getting your friends and family involved can turn one letter into dozens. A single person might not change the world, but a network of voices can.

3. Not Sure What to Say? AI Can Help

One of the biggest obstacles people face is writing the message itself. That’s where AI comes in. If you care about an issue but don’t know how to word it, try this:

👉 “Write a letter to my senator about [issue] and why it matters.”

AI can structure your thoughts, keep things professional, and help you make a strong case. A well-written letter increases the chances of being taken seriously.

Start a Letter-Writing Campaign

Want to take it further? Organize a small group—friends, family, coworkers—and encourage them to write letters together. Offer to help them draft messages using AI. Even if only a few people participate, it makes a difference.

Take Action Today

Pick an issue you care about. Find your representatives. Write a letter (or get AI to help you). Then, ask two or three people you know to do the same.

Small actions lead to big changes. The key is getting started.

Stay in the loop. Subscribe today!

If I had a battery over my head

The average human lifespan is about 80 years these days. That’s 4,160 weeks.

I got curious as to the percentage of my life I had left. So I did the math.

At 33 years old, I’ve lived about 1,716 weeks. If I’m lucky enough to make it to 80, I’ve already lived through 41% of my life.

That realization brought to mind an image of the battery icon at the top of my iPhone. 

If I had that same icon floating over my head, I’d only have a 59% charge remaining before I died. And I can’t recharge…

Memento mori. Remember, you will die.

Use that as fuel to live well. Work and act accordingly.

Fashionably late

It makes no sense to show up at an event a half hour late.

Why do it? Seemingly, you want to avoid being “first” and miss out on the awkwardness that comes from breaking the ice.

So what happens? Dinner is set for 7:00, but everyone shows up at 7:30—ironically, at the same time.

Why wait? If you all show up at the same time, why be late?

Why not show up together… on time?

“Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”

It’s a stupid interview question. The only true answer is: “I have no idea.” Because I don’t know what this job will look like until I start doing it. 

Will I want to keep doing it? Will I want a promotion (if one’s available)? Will the job be obsolete by that time? (That one is more and more likely.)

But it’s a great question to ask yourself. Not because you know the answer—it will most likely change as time passes. It’s because the outcome you envision for yourself can help dictate the behaviors you take now. 

If, in 5 years, you see yourself retiring early and spending your weeks on the beach, you know there are some things you need to do. Pay off debt. Invest aggressively. Save, save, save!

If, in 5 years, you want to compete at a high recreational level in tennis, you need to work on conditioning drills, mobility, tennis skills…and hire a coach. 

If, in 5 years, you want to send your first child off to kindergarten, you know now that you should work on your finances, improve your health, and have a conversation with your partner about starting a family.

It’s a stupid interview question. But it’s a great life question.

Get new posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Answer the phone

Or return the call if you want to have them on voicemail.

We forget that one of those missed calls will be the last one we ever get from them.

If you recognize the number, it’s a good idea to pick up.

For more musings like this, subscribe below: