How do you convince terrified people to face their worst fears?

Julius Caesar mastered this in 58 BC with a framework so powerful, it's still taught in leadership courses today.

Here are his 7 tactics…🧵

Rome’s Darkest Hour:

• Caesar had just won his first major victory (vs. Helvetii)

• His 5-year command hung by a thread

• German tribes threatened Roman allies

• His aristocratic officers sought to flee from Ariovistus's army

• The whispered M-word: mutiny

A perfect case study in crisis leadership.

Caesar's Opening Move: Converting Fear into Fighting Spirit

• Calls full war council (unprecedented - includes lowest ranks)

• Directly confronts fear, ignores excuses

• Uses shame as a tactical weapon

• “Why do you despair of your own courage or of my competence?

Key lesson: Address the emotion, not the rationalization.

Fear masquerading as logic.

Cato never wore a crown, yet corrupt Roman officials TREMBLED at his name.

Rome’s most unyielding senator revealed a paradox of power that’s been hiding in plain sight for 2,000 years... 🧵

1. Make disagreeable choices with conviction

While Roman senators wore purple-trimmed togas to flaunt status, Cato entered the Senate with simplicity, dressed in a plain tunic.

When Caesar offered him a lucrative provincial post to get him out of Rome, he refused.

Cato did not budge, his statements held true integrity.

Even his enemies had to admit it: Cato could not be bought.

When both Caesar and Pompey tried to draw him into political alliance through family marriage offers, he rejected them. Every refusal amplified his independence.

2. Stand firm in the face of mockery

The Roman elite mocked Cato for his simple lifestyle and stubborn principles.

Plutarch records that Cato never responded, he simply kept living the same way. This unnerved his rivals.

Caesar even wrote a pamphlet titled "Anti-Cato", an entire essay meant to discredit him. That’s how much his integrity stung.

In 54 BC, Caesar faced impossible odds in Britain.

His response revealed 3 principles that can separate a world historical conqueror from a forgotten also-ran... 🧵

1: Adaptability wins. Be the Fox.

Caesar's legions were struggling against British charioteers who were riding up and down the field around like Indo-European warlords. (They used effective hit-and-run tactics). So, Caesar didn't stick to Roman doctrine. Instead, he innovated.

His heavy infantry was outmaneuvered, so he adapted his cavalry tactics:

He ordered them to fight in loose formation, to maintain gaps between riders, thereby dispersing the momentum of the chariots in useless pass-throughs. It's kind of wu-wei.

Then, his enemies refused open battle.

He changed his strategy:

- Burned villages in "King" Cassivellaunus's territory.

- Destroyed British grain fields that were ready for harvest.

They eventually came out to fight, and exposed themselves to defeats on the battlefield.

Great leaders evolve fast (and Caesar was faster than most)

2: Information Gluttony

Before landing, Caesar meticulously gathered intelligence about Britain's geography, tribes, and politics.

But then, he kept gathering intel after arriving. He discovered, for instance, that the Britons practiced family wife swapping, a fact which your average grug might consider just weird and useless, but you never know when that kind of information might come in handy. Caesar loved the details.

He loved studying their technology too: besides the chariots, he was particularly struck by a special kind of light raft the Britons used to navigate rivers. This technology proved decisive later in the Civil War, when a historic flood crippled supply lines during the Battle of Ilerda.

Caesar also learned about the family feuds of the various tribes in the coalition opposing him. It wasn't gossip, it was crucial intel.

When British tribes united under Cassivellaunus, Caesar knew their weaknesses and internal rivalries. This knowledge proved decisive:

This is what they said about Cato the Younger.

Before he faced off with Julius Caesar,

Cato was the worst nightmare of crooked Roman elites and the bureaucrats who protected them.

To DOGE and other anti-corruption crusaders:

Here are some lessons from your founding hero 🧵

As a young man Cato was elected Quaestor.

Duties consisted of accounting and paperwork.

For most ambitious youths, this bookish role was just a stepping stone, a formality.

"Don't piss anyone off" was the going wisdom.

But Cato used it to take on Rome's most powerful men.

Here's how Cato prepared himself:

1) ABANDON LUXURY

Cato inherits $$ at age 16—Enough for a life of elite mediocrity in his lavish household.

Instead, moves out and studies intensely. Philosophy, law, religion.

It's his "sigma grindset" phase.

He trains himself to travel everywhere on foot, and be indifferent to heat and cold.

Emperor Julian gets unlimited power, has one goal: Kill Christianity and restore the old gods.

20 months later, he is dead.

His legacy?

One dead goose, several humiliations, and a nickname that stuck:

“Julian the Apostate.”

His lessons on how (not) to revive a religion:
🧵

Context: 4th c. AD.

The old ways are dying.

The traditional paganism of Rome and Greece of Homer, Plato, Caesar, Aurelius – is losing its edge.

Despite decades of persecution – thousands of martyrs burned, crucified, and fed to lions — Christianity is booming.

In 313AD, Julian’s uncle Constantine shocks the Empire: He legalizes Christianity, then becomes Christian himself.

Over the next 40 years, Christianity goes from an outlawed cult to Rome’s de facto official religion.

But the old ways endure.

Not everyone bows to the new god.

America needs Education reform. BUT

Great Books is for Losers.

If you think they (or concepts like "the Canon") provide the solution for restoring American education, you might be a loser too.

Some highlights from my latest piece for the American Mind. 🧵

1/ A list of Great Books is not what forged men of the great ages of the past

2/ The famous programs are new innovations that have largely assimilated the US post-war liberal paradigm

@ProfEricAdler has characterized this curriculum as "Plato to NATO"

It's focused on "ideas" "critical discussion" and many other watered-down things