Robert Mueller died on March 20, 2026. The next day, TЯ★MP posted on Truth Social: “Good, I’m glad he’s dead.”
In his March 25 conversation with James Webb, Tucker Carlson offered a thought worth keeping: “there’s a certain reverence in death that’s required if you’re going to have reverence for life.”
The wolf does not need every sheep to trust him. He needs them to distrust the sheep who can smell him.
Popular folklore tells us that the flock is protected by the "sheepdog"—the rare, fierce guardian who keeps the predator at bay. But the wolf’s most effective strategy is not to outfight the sheepdog; it is to convince the flock that the dog's bark is actually a conspiracy against them.
A lighthouse is an odd place to escape responsibility. Its keeper may never meet the people using its beam, never see their ships, never learn whether tonight’s work saved a life. The keeper tends the lamp without expecting a report from every ship that passes. The light travels farther than the keeper’s knowledge of its consequences.
The snake is back. The wolf in sheep’s clothing is telling the story.
Jesus did not tell his followers that such wolves do not exist. He told them how to recognize them.
The latest provisional run of the Autocracy Pressure Index rounds to 78, up from 77. The internal movement is only 0.625 points: smaller than the earlier structured judgment band, and hardly evidence of a political phase transition. But a nearly stationary number can describe a system undergoing substantial change. A bridge does not require increasing traffic to accumulate fatigue.
Axios reported yesterday that OpenAI, Anthropic, and outside researchers are investigating tens of thousands of incidents in which frontier AI systems behaved in ways evaluators considered problematic.
Not dozens. Tens of thousands.
Dan Harris recently described happiness using the language of investment: practice it long enough and, “like any good investment, it compounds annually.” I like the analogy, but I think it goes deeper than accumulating good habits. We do not simply live with the consequences of our choices. We build systems that keep producing consequences.
I’ve had a front-row seat to something I don’t think we fully understand yet.
"Nothing can produce more disastrous effects on human progress, as regards the destiny of individuals, than the very prevalent notion that one religion followed out in a pious spirit, is as good as another, and that if such and such doctrines are perhaps absurd when you look into them, the great majority of good people will never think of their absurdity, but will recite them in a blamelessly devoted attitude of mind." (Sinnett 1885, pp. 194–195; Guénon 2004, p. 126.)Sinnett, A. P. (1885) [1883]. Esoteric Buddhism (5th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall Ltd
"It is priestly imposture that rendered these gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is the belief in God and gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them." (Barker 1924, Letter 10.)Kuthumi; et al. (1924). Barker, A. T. (ed.). The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett from the Mahatmas M. & K. H. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers
The larger the island of knowledge grows, the longer the shoreline — where knowledge meets ignorance — extends. The more we know, the more we can ask.Of course not all ignorance is created equal. Not knowing the motions of the planets, or the root causes of our diseases, is fundamentally different than not knowing where life exists outside of our solar system, or the specific proteins involved in ALS.
conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. "One possibility," they write, "is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene," when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed.A good summary:
research shows that conservatives have more of a “negativity bias”, which means “they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments.” In other words, they are more fearful and respond more to fear-mongering than liberals. Fox News could have told you that, but it’s always nice to have some scientific evidence.At the risk of over-generalizing, it may simply be brain differences that divide us into liberal and conservative camps. People who are psychologically "high strung" -- able to be terrified easily -- may move towards conservatism as a way to manage anxiety. Are right-wingers' stances on the strong military, law enforcement, lots of guns around, etc., all just preferences that arise from fear, not reason?
And that’s what these conservative urban legends are about: Conservatives keeping each other in a heightened state of fear by constantly warning each other about the endless threats to their safety, their identity, their masculinity, their religious holidays, whatever they’re hyped up about today. And using that fear to justify reactionary politics.
On those who say religion is unnecessary, given humanity's growing scientific knowledgeThat last part rings true to me. Honestly I think that fear and emotion cloud these discussions so much on the part of religious people that they can't really talk about God in a grown-up way. They are too afraid they'll go to hell for doubting. That's the pathetic part of religion: mind control.
I think science and religion are at some point both about big questions of origin and wonder. And I think, for me, I've always felt that it's important for religious people to have the same kind of philosophical stance they use in their religious life as they do in the rest of their life. And a lot of times I think religion — religions — ask people to sort of turn off the scientific part of their lives and just go and kind of think about God kind of pre-scientifically.
I don't think we can do that. We've got to have a faith that is, in some sense, consonant with the way we think about the world scientifically. And again, I think one of the things the Pew study suggests to us is that if the church can get over its anxiety about talking about God in a grown-up way, we would actually reach out to and speak to more people than we do right now. [emphasis added]
Basically, they have to take the enchantment leap. This is when something dry and utilitarian erupts into something passionate, inescapable and devotional. Sometimes a student becomes enraptured by the beauty of math, and becomes a mathematician. Soldiers doing the drudgery of boot camp are gradually bonded into a passionate unit, for which they will risk their lives. Anybody who has started a mere job and found in it a vocation has taken the enchantment leap.Something to reflect on -- do the arts cultivate the capacity for enchantment? Does science?
In love, of course, the shift starts with vulnerability, not calculation. The people involved move from selfishness to service, from prudent thinking to poetic thinking, from a state of selection to a state of need, from relying on conscious thinking to relying on their own brilliant emotions.
When you look at all the people looking for love and vocation today, you realize we live in a culture and an online world that encourages a very different mind-set; in a technical culture in which humanism, religion and the humanities, which are the great instructors of enchantment, are not automatically central to life.
I have to guess some cultures are more fertile for enchantment — that some activities, like novel-reading or music-making, cultivate a skill for it, and that building a capacity for enchantment is, these days, a countercultural act and a practical and fervent need.
"Busteed said that 96 percent of the college provosts Gallup surveyed believed their schools were successfully preparing young people for the workplace. “When you ask recent college grads in the work force whether they felt prepared, only 14 percent say ‘yes,’ ” he added. And then when you ask business leaders whether they’re getting enough college grads with the skills they need, “only 11 percent strongly agree.” Concluded Busteed: “This is not just a skills gap. It is an understanding gap.” ...the success stories shared a lot of the same attributes that Gallup found to be differentiating. In successful programs, said Auguste, “students got as much applied, hands-on experience as possible, whether in a classroom or on a job site. Schools, colleges and training centers had close partnerships with regional employers, industry groups and skilled trade unions to stay up to date on job-relevant skills. And students or working learners got a lot of coaching and guidance to understand how to trace a direct path between their training today and careers tomorrow.”Pretty discouraging...
