Blog note: My invite list

This is my current invite list. If you don't put the ":disqus" after whatever Disqus assigns to your account (or you change it to), the call won't work.

1

@disqus_GCHC27FxPX:disqus

@SvdH:disqus

@ellabulldog:disqus

@e_monster:disqus

@jbmoorpark:disqus

@disqus_h4VMvWkHKU:disqus

@roam85:disqus

@newestbeginning:disqus

@disqus_2WLwBzuGTJ:disqus

@disqus_fR0TSz3rla:disqus

@BestInMod:disqus

@amytalk:disqus

@epicureanpariah:disqus

@disqus_cVSBvWF8Zb:disqus

@disqus_acdYWH93ek:disqus

@larrymotuz:disqus

@ausvirgo:disqus

@KidChaos_74656:disqus

@disqus_D0gqaX8WRE:disqus

@disqus_VyZaxprCcp:disqus

2

@dcleve:disqus

@NomoremisterWiseguy:disqus

@disqus_E1KLACY6oS:disqus

@Blueflower0:disqus

@suzieseller:disqus

@Jenny231:disqus

@disqus_91ei8YG4OJ:disqus

@guymendez:disqus

@homebuilding23:disqus

@vkcmo:disqus

@Alexthekay:disqus

@disqus_1Jjgee5bqr:disqus

@disqus_ix4TzGA9m3:disqus

@TopCatDC:disqus

@okpulot_taha:disqus

@imperatormachinarum:disqus

@Cats_Paw:disqus

@Adina_Efimovna:disqus

@heatrocc:disqus

@dash12345:disqus

3

@disqus_53LNX3Us2Q:disqus

@flyingjunior:disqus

@Meepestos:disqus

@km234:disqus

@disqus_ZxBIBupCJD:disqus

@guy_mendez:disqus

@disqus_8nQILL8Lja:disqus

@disqus_fAOjGxR18w:disqus

@disqus_QrOme5x4pq:disqus

@Thundersrealm:disqus

@FunGussy:disqus

@jnfrcrpic:disqus

@jaegirl:disqus

@disqus_rq4oCqeARr:disqus

@disqus_g9Sxbb2tL2:disqus

@skeptistics:disqus

@brmckay:disqus

@Avantiman:disqus

@dgunther123:disqus

@dntkch:disqus

@davideisemann:disqus

@disqus_mkwzdumS7o:disqus

@enlyghten:disqus

@disqus_ceIQpt8HDd:disqus

@disqus_rFxGwbDGog:disqus

@lostonarig22:disqus

@disqus_kW88wbUzMt:disqus

@JPBunny:disqus

4

@disqus_diKJ0EZ6xj:disqus

@jamie_bobini:disqus

@jnfrcrpic:disqus

@disqus_kXuJ5xzklT:disqus

@Kieran13:disqus

@guy_mendez:disqus

@KipSmithers:disqus

@disqus_vDsBtBJWlh:disqus

@Meepestos:disqus

@vkcmo:disqus

@disqus_ZHnAbibTCy:disqus

@unclepatrick:disqus

@pithywititude:disqus

@disqus_oe08Kvu5Da:disqus

@Peter1491:disqus

@pwod:disqus

@ravenssong:disqus

@lantanalane:disqus

@TheOriginalSnowflake:disqus

@sophiasadek:disqus

@Stardust4U:disqus

@strontidog:disqus

@indiananights:disqus

@guymendez:disqus

@PTreeFan1:disqus

Daoist politics

 (Post by Dan T)

“How do Daoists deal with political and other kinds of threats?”

Germaine asked me that question over on another side of the world. I told him that’s a hard question and I’d put some thought into it.

So here we go. I’m usually very fond of quoting Zhuangzi. But for this one, I ended up sticking with Tao Te Ching. I quote extensively here, with brief commentary of my own. The translation is by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English. 

Daoism is decidedly anti-tyranny: 

Leading yet not dominating, 

This is the Primal Virtue.

(Tao Te Ching, 10)

Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao, 

Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe. 

For this would only cause resistance. 

Thorn bushes spring up wherever the army has passed.

(Tao Te Ching, 30)

Good weapons are instruments of fear; all creatures hate them. 

Therefore followers of Tao never use them.

(Tao Te Ching, 31)

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone. 

When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done. 

When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds, 

He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order.

(Tao Te Ching, 38)

And like Christianity in its earliest forms, it doesn’t aspire to political power:

The highest good is like water. 

Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive. 

It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.

(Tao Te Ching, 8)

It doesn’t advocate active resistance to tyranny. It counsels a more counter-intuitive path:

Yield and overcome; 

Bend and be straight; 

Empty and be full; 

Wear out and be new;

(Tao Te Ching, 22)

The softest thing in the universe 

Overcomes the hardest thing in the universe. 

That without substance can enter where there is no room. 

Hence I know the value of non-action.

(Tao Te Ching, 43)

But I don’t think there’s a promise that these tactics can magically defeat tyranny. In one sense, there’s a confidence that tyranny will defeat itself:

Whatever is contrary to Tao will not last long.

(Tao Te Ching, 55)

Force is followed by loss of strength. 

This is not the way of Tao. 

That which goes against the Tao comes to an early end.

(Tao Te Ching, 30)

And yet we know through experience that tyranny is actually pretty durable, especially on the time scale in which we as individuals live our lives. And that more often than not, when one form of tyranny collapses or is overthrown, it is just replaced by another tyranny. IMO, Daoism does not offer a solution to that problem. Rather, it offers an attitude toward unsolvable problems–basically, stoic acceptance:

The universe is sacred. 

You cannot improve it. 

If you try to change it, you will ruin it. 

If you try to hold it, you will lose it.

(Tao Te Ching, 29)

There is no greater sin than desire, 

No greater curse than discontent, 

No greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself. 

Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.

(Tao Te Ching, 46)

The world is ruled by letting things take their course. 

It cannot be ruled by interfering.

(Tao Te Ching, 48)

Accept disgrace willingly. 

Accept misfortune as the human condition. 

What do you mean by “Accept disgrace willingly”? 

Accept being unimportant. 

Do not be concerned with loss or gain. 

This is called “accepting disgrace willingly.” 

What do you mean by “Accept misfortune as the human condition”? 

Misfortune comes from having a body. 

Without a body, how could there be misfortune? 

Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things. 

Love the world as your own self, then you can truly care for all things.

(Tao Te Ching, 13)

So in one sense, Daoism offers a political programme. But I can’t say it offers a means to achieve that programme, at least on a timescale any individual is likely to find useful. Instead, it offers a shift in perspective: Politics won’t save us. Likely nothing will save us. Maybe there’s nothing to be saved from. Maybe the problem is our expectations, and not that the world doesn’t meet them. Maybe we might as well drop everything and orient ourselves toward that which is nourishing and sustaining and eternal. It won’t change anything, but it could change everything.

Postscript: None of this means a Daoist can’t be politically active. But I don’t think the default position would involve anticipating notable political success.

Democracy dying, theocracy rising: Christian nationalist IRS voids critical pro-democracy law

Various sources report that the IRS will no longer enforce the Johnson Amendment in any meaningful way. The Johnson Amendment prohibited religion from advocating for political candidates during regular religious services. That was the qui pro quo for religion getting all those juicy tax breaks from the IRS. Well, now religion has its cake and gets to eat it and all of us too. What was the reasoning the IRS asserts? 

The Christian nationalist "rationale" for this is pure cynical, insulting bullshit. The IRS says that religious endorsements are just like "a family discussion concerning candidates." The greedy, morally corrupt Christian nationalist theocrats that run the IRS argued this:

“Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.”

The Johnson Amendment, named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, was enacted in 1954 as part of the Internal Revenue Code. It prohibits all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from "participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The amendment was created to prevent tax-deductible contributions from being used to support political campaigns, ensuring that charitable organizations remain nonpartisan in exchange for their tax-exempt status.

So, exactly what, if anything, might violate the "properly interpreted" law? Not anything of major importance. Churches can theoretically still lose their tax exempt status if they (1) buy newspaper, television or radio ads that oppose or support candidates that God opposes or supports, (2) distribute campaign materials to the general public, or (3) host public political rallies or campaign events. Given the fact that the IRS is now controlled by Christian nationalists, the chances of any Christian church losing its tax exempt status is almost zero no matter how blatantly it violates the law. Before this, the IRS very rarely used the Johnson Amendment to revoke tax exemptions from any religious group. Tax break revocations were extremely rare.** Now revocations will be non-existent. 

** How rare? Pretty rare. Apparently only 1 religious group, a televangelist, lost its tax exemption since the Johnson Amendment's creation in 1954.

What about Islamic Mosques and Jewish Temples? Higher odds of loss of tax breaks, but still very low.

Estimated benefits to Christian theocracy 

The bottom line: The Christian nationalist IRS has put its finger on the scale of elections to heavily favor Christian nationalist candidates and theocracy at the expense of secular candidates and democracy. How heavily in favor? This heavily:

Summary of benefits estimate: Gutting the Johnson Amendment is worth about $42.6 billion in free advertising for Christian nationalist theocrats and Republican candidates and ~150,000 to ~800,000 added votes in the next election, but with this caveat:

Q6: Considering human society, human behavior, psychology and sociology, will the impact on added votes for Christian or theocratic candidates increase as religious political advocacy in religious services is normalized and society comes to accept this as normal? Also consider social science evidence that indicates that when social safety nets in democracies weaken, as they now are in the US, church attendance and religiosity tends to increase.  

A6: Executive Summary: The IRS's reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment represents far more than a simple policy change—it triggers a normalization process that will progressively amplify Christian nationalist voting power through multiple reinforcing mechanisms. As religious political advocacy becomes routine and social safety nets continue to erode, both the frequency and effectiveness of Christian political messaging will increase dramatically, creating a compounding effect that could generate millions of additional votes for Christian nationalist candidates over the next decade.

Phase 1: Initial Acceptance (2025-2026) The normalization of religious political advocacy follows a predictable three-stage pattern identified in political science research. Initially, political endorsements from pulpits will be socially stigmatized by the broader population—77% of Americans currently oppose church political endorsements. However, this opposition will gradually weaken as explicit political messaging becomes routine.

Phase 2: Activation and Mobilization (2027-2028) As prominent religious leaders achieve electoral breakthroughs through their political advocacy, other clergy will observe their success and join the movement. This creates a bandwagon effect where religious leaders face social pressure within their professional networks to make political endorsements.

.... very long analysis .... 

Conclusion: .... The democratic implications are profound. This development threatens core principles of religious freedom, church-state separation, and pluralistic democracy. .... The window for effective response is limited. As religious political advocacy becomes normalized over the next several years, reversing this trend will become increasingly difficult.

Q7: Is obliterating the separation of church and state a core Christian nationalist theocratic goal?

A7: Yes, Eliminating Church-State Separation is a Core Christian Nationalist Theocratic Goal 

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that obliterating the separation of church and state is indeed a core Christian nationalist theocratic goal. This is not a peripheral or incidental objective but rather the central organizing principle of multiple Christian nationalist movements that seek to transform American democracy into a Christian theocracy. 

.... long analysis ....

The entire Q&A thread with Pxy is at this link.

Q: In the power struggle that will follow the death of djt, what major faction/mindset is most likely to come out on top, (1) autocrats with a new dictator-kleptocrat, (2) oligarch-kleptocrats running a plutocracy, (3) Christian nationalist theocrat-kleptocrats, (4) some combination of two or all three of those, or (5) pro-secular democracy forces?

The Christian nationalist IRS 

just obliterated the wall

Classless political messaging

GOING CLASELESS

A recent comment by Ron triggered another deep dive down another Pxy rabbit hole. This time it is about political messaging that intentionally omits any reference to or suggestion of class. The core point is this. Do not refer to groups like the "top 1%", "working class" or "lower class." Those labels run contrary to core values that most Americans adhere to, e.g., (i) we are all equal under the law, (ii) equality in dignity, (iii) equal opportunity in life choices and jobs, and (iv) social mobility without class barriers. 

The reality is that class differences are real in America. However, poll data indicates that most Americans are resistant to identifying with a class. When pressed most Americans say they are middle class, even if they are not. Research on belief in American exceptionalism, indicates that the US is unique among developed nations because it lacks a major working-class political party. In European countries class consciousness usually drives political movements. By contrast, American political culture emphasizes individual opportunity and social mobility over class solidarity. 

Instead of referring to classes, Ron proposes referring to groups by functional language that does not invoke any class. Instead, refer to groups by what they do, financiers, or where they do it, Wall Street executives. This functional approach resonates with American ideals of equality and meritocracy. As the Ron correctly notes that people have different capabilities ("What they can do on an IQ test, or in lettuce field, or in a boardroom is not equal"), but they remain equal as citizens under the law.

One study of political messaging suggested that values-based framing often outperforms policy-specific appeals. When progressive candidates frame their policies using traditionally conservative values like patriotism and family, they gain support among moderate and conservative voters. A classless approach could similarly broaden appeal by avoiding the cultural markers that divide Americans. Some research indicates that despite populist movements' emphasis on class warfare, Americans don't actually organize politically around traditional class lines.

Some populist communication research indicates that the most effective messages focus on specific grievances and solutions rather than class identity. Economic populist messaging that emphasizes fairness and opportunity tends to outperform both class-based appeals and appeals to threats to democracy.

Concrete, Specific Language

Studies demonstrate that concrete messaging outperforms abstract appeals. Instead of vague class categories, use specific occupational descriptions: 

"Factory workers and retail employees" vs. "working class"
"Office managers and teachers" vs. "middle class"
"Food service workers and cashiers" vs. "lower class"

Emphasize Shared American Values
The research confirms that values-based framing is more effective than class-based appeals. Focus on:
Work ethic: "Americans who work hard every day"
Community service: "People who serve our communities"
Economic contribution: "Workers who keep our economy running"

Low cognitive load: Concise messages are more memorable and have greater impact. Simplicity trumps complexity. KISS.

SOME EXAMPLES 

"The top 1%" 

Professional categories:
"Americans like surgeons and finance executives"
"Professionals such as doctors and investment managers"
"People doing specialized work like medical specialists and Wall Street executives"

Functional Descriptions:
"Americans earning from specialized services"
"High-skill professionals in finance and healthcare"
"Specialists managing major businesses"

Geographic and Functional Combined:
"Americans working in financial centers and major hospitals"
"Professionals in Wall Street firms and medical centers"

"The Middle class"

Working class or manual labor and service jobs:

What they do:

Americans working in factories and warehouses
People in construction, manufacturing, and maintenance
Service workers in restaurants, retail, and hotels
Skilled trades professionals like electricians and plumbers
Americans earning hourly wages in physical jobs

Examples:
"Americans who build our infrastructure and serve our communities"
"People working in factories, restaurants, and construction sites"
"Workers who maintain our buildings and serve our food"

Middle class or professional and management workers:
What they do:
People working in offices and professional services
People in management, education, and healthcare roles
Professionals in finance, technology, and administration

Americans with college degrees working in specialized fields:
Employees in government, schools, and corporate headquarters
Americans working in offices and professional services
People managing businesses and teaching in schools
Professionals in healthcare, finance, and technology

"Lower class or poor" 

Americans struggling to meet basic needs
Describe by situation:
Americans working multiple jobs to pay rent
People in minimum-wage service positions
Workers in food service, retail, and personal care
Americans whose jobs don't provide health benefits
People working part-time without steady hours

Messaging examples:
"Americans working in food service and retail for minimum wage"
"People whose jobs don't pay enough to cover basic expenses"
"Workers struggling to afford rent and groceries"

It takes time and effort to be careful about effective messaging. As always, most everything about politics comes back to cognitive biology and social behavior and context.