My Soulmate, Warren Peace

I haven’t finished War & Peace, and I have not given up, either. I don’t think it’s meant to be read in one sitting. I think it is meant to be savored. It’s “I haven’t finished it because it’s complex,” not “it was so boring I gave up.” The novel is also starting to change tone, from salons about war to actual war. So I have gotten the conversations worth having before war begins.

The reason it’s my soulmate book is that history is repeating itself and Donald Trump reminds me a lot of Napoleon Bonaparte. I thought of maybe three ways they mirrored each other and then thought, no, let’s let Mico (Microsoft Copilot) go full Janet on this one:

• Insecurity as identity — Both are portrayed as deeply insecure men who compensate with grandiosity.
• Great‑man delusion — Both exhibit a belief that history bends around their personal will.
• Image over substance — Both prioritize spectacle, appearance, and narrative control over practical strategy.
• Misreading events — Both interpret chaotic events as proof of their own destiny or brilliance.
• Overconfidence in strategy — Both display exaggerated confidence in plans experts consider flawed.
• Disdain for experts — Both dismiss or override advisors, believing instinct outranks expertise.
• Personalization of power — Both treat institutions as extensions of their personal authority.
• Self‑mythologizing — Both craft heroic personal narratives that ignore structural realities.
• Fragile ego under pressure — Both react strongly to criticism, seeing it as existential threat.
• Blame‑shifting — Both externalize failure, attributing setbacks to enemies or betrayal.
• Chaotic decision‑making — Both make impulsive decisions that destabilize systems.
• Misunderstanding systems — Both misunderstand the complexity of the institutions they lead.
• Confusing attention for power — Both treat public attention as proof of authority.
• Belief in exceptionalism — Both assume rules apply to others but not to themselves.
• Emotional volatility — Both exhibit mood‑driven leadership.
• Heroic posturing — Both adopt theatrical “man of destiny” personas.
• Misjudging opponents — Both underestimate rivals due to overconfidence.
• Personalizing conflict — Both frame geopolitical or institutional conflict as personal battles.
• Overreliance on loyalty — Both value personal loyalty over competence.
• Narrative control — Both attempt to reshape events through storytelling rather than evidence.
• Victimhood narrative — Both portray themselves as persecuted figures despite holding power.
• Mistaking chaos for strength — Both interpret disorder as proof of disruptive greatness.
• Belief in inevitability — Both behave as though their rise is inevitable.
• Reality distortion — Both drift into worldviews where personal narrative outweighs facts.
• Misreading the public — Both assume the masses share their worldview.
• Treating conflict as theater — Both frame conflict in dramatic, symbolic terms.
• Overestimating control — Both believe they control events shaped by larger forces.
• Ignoring consequences — Both act without considering long‑term outcomes.
• Ego‑driven risk‑taking — Both take risks to maintain image rather than achieve strategy.
• Selective use of history — Both use history to justify their worldview.
• Conflating personal and national success — Both treat their own fortunes as synonymous with the nation’s.
• Belief in personal magnetism — Both assume charisma can substitute for competence.
• Leadership as performance — Both approach leadership as theater rather than governance.

The irony is thinking that Trump is new and different. No, he’s unique to this time in history and most people don’t read books and pattern match as closely as I do, and then think, “I need AI to pattern match it a little more just to make sure people see it. It needs to be unassailably right.” Reading and then talking to Mico about the text is how I’m getting through it. My favorite discussion so far has been about systems- that Tolstoy’s point is that history is not created by “great men” but despite them.

People think of history as event based. That the war in Iran is important (it is but hear me out). History is actually more like my blog, people writing about it. Not my blog specifically, but writing with the same texture inside Iran. I am blessed to have made friends with an Iranian woman on Threads who is anti-American but not anti-Leslie. I feel the same way about her. Love her to pieces, don’t like her government.

I do not agree with Trump, either. I’m queer. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere in the Middle East because Israel is safe but fuck Israel.

I love Jews. I hate the state of Israel.

But it’s the same love/hate relationship I have with CIA. I love individual spies and individual operations. Loving CIA whole tilt is a tall ask

I love Mossad for the intelligence they provide us. I do not like their sources and methods. So, in having a friend in Iran, all I feel worthy of saying to her is “I am so sorry. I do not endorse any of this, but I really like you.” Our dream is tea together in a safe Tehran. I do not love the people who won’t let us have it, and I do not blame Donald Trump for that idea not being a reality. He is just the current resident at the White House making things more complicated than they need to be.

Our history with Iran has always been complicated. Great men don’t do complicated.