#002266 – 12 de Agosto de 2025

Meio século passou e ainda estou vivo.

Death In Transit preview

The captain was laying on his back on the floor. They hadn't seen much of him since they'd started the trip but Jesper recognized him all the same. A little tubby. Hair thinning up top. Thick, unruly mustache and a few days of stubble. He was breathing. His lips had turned blue and his eyes looked like they were bulging a bit.

“Damn!” Jesper said.

“Quiet! Please! I've never done this with a human before,” Nassadra said. She ripped the captain's shirt open and pulled an instrument out of her bag. She injected him with something and then pulled out a complicated looking device.

“God, I hate this part,” Jesper said quietly. He had to stay. He knew he did. No one else had run into the fray. He looked around the cabin, trying to find anything that might ... help in some way.

He found a button for the public address system. He pressed it.

“This is Jesper. Don't rush the control room. Nassadra is trying to save the captain from ... I guess a heart attack? If there's any additional qualified medical personnel aboard, please make your way to the forward compartment. Otherwise, stay out.” He pressed the button again to stop broadcasting.

---

“Proximity alert,” the ship said.

“What?” Nassadra said. She pulled the cloth off her head and sat up.

“Proximity alert.”

“What's that?”

“Unidentified vessel is coming close to us.”

“Call them.”

“Unknown command. Please consult the ship's manual which can be located —“

“Shut up!”

---

A voice came over the channel.

“Don't you worry about us. We're here to take something that's ours. If you cooperate, you won't have a bit of trouble, Sanders.”

“This isn't Sanders. This is his first officer. Sanders is indisposed and he didn't say a thing about having a visitor mid-trip. Break away immediately.”

“No, I don't think we're going to. You'd better cooperate.”

The call disconnected.

Jesper turned on the PA.

“We're being boarded by pirates. Anyone who doesn't feel up to fighting should lock themselves in the passenger compartment. If you can fight, I may need your help. Until this situation is over, don't do a shipwide broadcast.” He turned the PA off and set a passcode to lock out the ship controls.

Juan made his way to the back.

“Yeah, you should probably go with them.”

“I'm going for my knives,” Juan turned back and gave him a disgusted look. “Don't get in any fights without me, pretty boy.”

Death In Transit is now available across ebook stores including Smashwords, Kobo, Amazon, Apple, Barnes & Noble, Everand, Thalia, Vivlio, and Fable.

Not sure yet? Read more about the cast in the announcement post.

WolfCast Home Page – Listen, follow, subscribe

Wolf In Wool is finally available on your favorite podcasting platforms. Happy to have you reading, and it’s a superior way to be in my head. But sometimes, it’s fun to listen too.

I’ll still include a link so you can listen here if you prefer the simplicity of wolfinwool.

In either case. Thank you and happy to have you on my journey.

—

---

#podcast #wolfcast #confession #essay #story # journal #poetry #wyst #poetry #100daystooffset #writing #story #osxs #travel

Je viens d'installer ChromeOS Flex sur mon vieux Thinkpad T450s (Lenovo). Une installation d'une simplicité désarmante et, surtout, d'une rapidité stupéfiante. Par ailleurs, ce système, beaucoup plus que sur Linux – du moins pour les distributions comme Ubuntu et celles qui en dérivent (Mint, Zorin, PopOs, etc.) –, a porté un sacré coup de jeunesse à cet appareil quasi moribond. Pour rappel, le T450s date de 2013. Ça fait donc plus de douze ans que je l'utilise au quotidien, comme ordinateur principal, d'abord, puis comme appareil secondaire par la suite. D'aucuns prétendent que l'informatique ne cesse de booster la consommation de produits toujours plus révolutionnaires par leur prétendue nouveauté. Avec cette installation, je fais mentir les statistiques… – Un tutoriel complet sur l'installation de ChromeOS Flex sur un vieil ordi.

Pour rappel, Chrome OS est une système informatique développé par Google depuis une quinzaine d'années. Cela a donné naissance aux Chromebooks, des ordinateurs portables souvent utilisés dans le milieu de l'éducation aux États-Unis. Réputés bon marché, ils fonctionnent comme un terminal, toutes les applications se déployant autour du navigateur Chrome. Un cas typique d'un usage Web Base. Quelques années plus tard, ils ont fait un bon de géant en intégrant le Play Store, c'est-à-dire la possibilité d'installer des applications Android comme sur les téléphones et les tablettes. Cela a eu pour effet de multiplier les applications, même si plusieurs d'entre elles ne sont pas optimisées pour fonctionner sur des écrans supérieurs à onze pouces.

Les Chromebook ont continué à évoluer, notamment avec la mention “Plus”. Celle-ci certifie que les constructeurs respectent le cahier des charges de Google en matière de performance. Ainsi, on peut trouver des Chromebooks bon marché, utiles pour effectuer des tâches bureautiques et naviguer sur le Web, et des Chromebooks plus performants permettant d'effectuer des opérations plus lourdes, voire plus complexes, notamment des applications Linux.

L'avantage des ordinateurs tournant sur ChromeOS réside dans leur simplicité. Un Chromebook démarre en quelques secondes, il n'a pas besoin d'antivirus et son offre logicielle s'avère complètement gratuite. En revanche, vous ne pouvez pas utiliser un Chromebook en dehors de l'écosystème de Google avec lequel il s'avère intrinsèquement lié. Un autre inconvénient – mais en est-ce vraiment un ? – c'est que les usages sans connexion sont limités à la bureautique.

Vous commencez peut-être à vous demander pourquoi je parle des Chromebooks alors que je n'en possède pas. Tout simplement parce que Google a lancé un autre système basé sur ChromeOS : ChromeOs Flex. C'est celui que j'ai installé sur mon vieil ordi et, franchement, j'en suis très satisfait. Certes, Flex ne permet pas d'accéder au Play Store de Google (bien qu'on puisse toujours bidouiller un truc, mais c'est à nos risques et périls). En revanche, contrairement à ce que d'aucuns racontent sur le Web, il est possible d'installer des applications Linux. En tout cas, moi je l'ai fait. Comme quoi il ne faut pas croire tout ce qu'on raconte.

• Un article détaillé de François Charron sur ChromeOS Flex

Si vous souhaitez un ordinateur qui démarre au quart de tour, qui n'aura jamais de problème de sécurité et qui se met à jour sans que vous vous rendiez compte, alors vous devriez essayer ChromeOS Flex. Comme vous le savez sans doute, avec le Chrome, vous avez la possibilité de transformer n'importe lequel site Web en application. C'est ce que je qualifiais ci-dessous de Web Base. Certes, les Chromebooks ne sont pas sans limitations, et ils ne sont pas faits pour tout le monde. Mais vous vous laisserez peut-être gagner par leur simplicité… En terminant, le fait que votre vieil ordi soit certifié par Google (voir le lien vers la liste ci-dessous) vous permettra d'avoir l'esprit tranquille, car vous vous assurez que tout fonctionne bien, les commandes du clavier, l'écran tactile, la caméra, etc.

---

Des informations tirées du site de Google sur ChromeOS et ChromeOS Flex :

• ChromeOS Flex
• Chrome OS
• ChroseOS Flex : liste des ordinateurs certifiés

---

Daniel Ducharme : 2025-11-28 Mots-clés : #chromebook #culturenumérique #Google #informatique #ordinateur #technologie

Det er bra Mahmoud Farahmand tar til orde for et “flomvern” mot ytre høyres ønske om etnisk rensing, eller “remigrasjon”, som de nå kaller det. Det er viktig at Høyres justispolitiske talsperson er klar i talen her. Samtidig er Faramands argumenter gyldige for flere som han selv argumenterer for å sende ut av landet. Det bør kanskje lede til ytterligere refleksjon.

Vi har sett mange drøye saker de siste årene der mennesker som har blitt norske har blitt deportert eller truet med deportasjon etter lang tid i landet, ofte for feil de ikke selv har begått. I fjor ble for eksempel Sara Temurvitsj Valieva truet med utkastelse til Iran og separasjon fra sin to måneder gamle baby fordi foreldrene gav feil opplysninger til UDI da hun var tre år gammel. I fjor ble Zarina Saidova deportert til Kashakstan fordi moren oppgav feil opplysninger da hun selv var barn. Dette er utslag av politikk som dessverre har hatt bred støtte på Stortinget.

Vi har foreldelsesfrister for mange grove forbrytelser, men ikke for brudd på utlendingsloven. Lovlydige og hardtarbeidende nordmenn deporteres til land de ikke lenger kjenner, fordi de store partiene har drevet en overbydelseskonkurranse i å være strengest i innvandringspolitikken. Målet har vært å imøtegå og nøytralisere de mest innvandringskritiske. Men for hvert skritt man går for å komme dem i møte, tar de et nytt skritt mot høyre. I USA, Tyskland, Danmark og mange andre land har ytterliggående høyrepartier nå nådd til det punktet der de åpent argumenterer for massedeportasjoner og de facto etnisk rensing.

“Når mine barn spør meg ved middagsbordet om jeg er norsk, svarer jeg ja, jeg er norsk. Jeg har ikke noe annet hjemland eller annen nasjonalitet. Dette er landet mitt. Hva gjør vi med de som er i min kategori?”, spør Faharamand. Svaret bør være enkelt: folk i denne kategorien kalles nordmenn. Lager vi et B-lag av folk som aldri kan være sikker på om de egentlig får bli i landet, vil integreringen kollapse.

Det er dessverre her slaget står nå: ved sin omfavnelse av “remigrasjon” viser ytre høyre sitt sanne ansikt (som aldri har vært spesielt godt skjult). De ønsker seg et etnisk rent land. Det er en av de farligste idéene i menneskehetens historie, som har ført til ufattelige grusomheter, og den må avvises kontant av en samlet norsk offentlighet.

E’s family threw me a surprise birthday. I cried in private after.

Aunque no quería saber nada de los sueños, al paso del tiempo le pareció curioso que en varias ocasiones soñó que era Bruce Lee. No es que estuviera peleando. Simplemente era Bruce Lee, sentado en el sofá y pensando que era como el agua.

V Brčálníku žil kanec jménem Prdévo. Smrděl po bahně a prdu tak silně, že i kapradí mělo slzy v očích. Nejradši se celý den rochnil v bahně a kumuloval si tam svoje bahenní prdy.

Měl obrovskou prdel. Tak obrovskou, že když byl celý zahrabaný v bahně, trčela ven jen ta prdel jako maják pro zvědavé sebevrahy.

---

🧓💦 Dědci na koupeli

Jednoho dne přišli k Brčálníku koupat své unavené, mechové prdele. Koupali se, cákali, smrděli a ani si nevšimli, že kousek od nich trčí kančí zadek velikosti kuchyňského stolu.

A pak to přišlo.

Dědek Šnorchle prdnul. Nenápadně. Nevinně, ale trochu nešikovně.

A to probudilo Prdéva.

---

🐗💨 Kanec vyráží

Kanec vyrazil z bahna, jako když se probudí démon z prdele světa. Celý byl obalený blátem, jen ta jeho gigantická prdel se leskla na slunci.

Zařval. Zafuněl. A rozběhl se směrem k dědkům, přičemž z každého kroku vylétl bahenní pšuk v sérii: prp—prp—PRRRP.

Dědci nejdřív zpanikařili. Když kanec vyrazil, dědci šli do kolen.

První dědek se pokusil utéct, ale jeho prdel zatočila později než zbytek těla — narazil bokem do stromu a odrazil se zadkem zpátky do vody.

Druhý dědek skočil do bahna a pokusil se dělat mlhu. Jeho prdel vystřelila tak chaotický prd, že sám sebe ztratil v prdelní mlžné cloně.

Třetí dědek se prostě schoval za vlastní prdel. Dřepnul si a přitiskl hlavu mezi půlky.

Ale pak si vzpomněli na něco zásadního:

Mají také prdele. A ne malé.

---

💥 PROTIPRDNÝ ÚDER

Dědci se seřadili, otočili se zadky směrem ke kanci a spustili protiprdný úder.

To nebylo prdění. To byl orchestr. Každý dědek pustil tón své kategorie:

První dědek si stoupl široce jako tank, natáhl půlky a vypustil BRRRRBLP, který rozkmital hladinu Brčálníku a převrátil jednu rybu.

Druhý dědek zvedl prdel vysoko jak lampu a pustil dlouhej, pevnej prd, co zněl jako stará trumpeta.

Třetí dědek vypustil tak rychlý série-metrický prd, že to vypadalo, jako když někdo střílí hrášek z kulometu: prp-prp-prp-prp! Bahno se začalo třást a žába v dálce upadla pod hladinu.

Když tyhle tři prdy vyrazily současně, vznikla prdelní tlaková vlna, která kanci ošlehla chlupy na zadku dozadu, a na dvě sekundy to vypadalo, že ho dědci fakt přeprdi.

Kanec se ale zastavil, široce se rozkročil a roztočil svou obří prdel, jako kdyby startoval mlýnek na sádlo.

Pak ji prudce vychýlil do strany a spustil bahenní prdelní torpédo.

Torpédo letělo vzduchem jako hnědá kometa, přesně mířené, hutné a s přesahem, kterému se těžko uhýbá.

Jeden dědek to schytal do zad, druhý do tváře, a třetí jen stihl zařvat „NE DO PR—“, než ho to celého opláchlo jak tlaková myčka smradlavého bahna.

---

🏃💨 Ústup dědků

Po chvíli bylo jasné, že kanec má větší zásobu paliva. Dědci začali couvat, prdět jen symbolicky a nakonec utíkali směrem k vesnici, kde je bezpečí, mech a pivo.

Prdévo zůstal stát u Brčálníku. Taky byl zmožený.

Tak si prostě sedl… a začal poklidně, rytmicky prdět do vody, jako by si tím zapisoval deník.

A dědci si zapsali do kroniky:

„Pokud prdel rotuje, je pozdě na veškeré nápady.“

In the glow of our screens, we scroll through carefully curated lives, viral sermons, and heated theological debates—all before our morning coffee. Social media has fundamentally changed how we practice faith and care for our mental wellbeing, creating both unprecedented opportunities and unexpected challenges.

The Double-Edged Sword

Social media offers remarkable benefits for faith communities. Distance no longer separates us from daily devotionals, worship services stream live to those who are homebound, and believers across continents can pray together in real time. During the pandemic, these digital connections became lifelines for isolated individuals seeking spiritual community.

Yet these same platforms can distort our spiritual lives in subtle ways. The comparison trap affects not just our bodies and careers, but our faith journeys too. We see others' mountaintop moments while wrestling with our own valleys, wondering why our prayer life doesn't look as vibrant or our faith doesn't feel as certain. The highlight reel of someone else's spiritual life can make our everyday discipleship feel inadequate.

When Faith Goes Viral

Social media's attention economy rewards controversy over contemplation. Nuanced theological discussions collapse into soundbites, and complex questions of faith get reduced to shareable graphics. The algorithm doesn't prioritize depth—it prioritizes engagement. This creates an environment where outrage spreads faster than understanding, and performative faith can overshadow authentic spirituality.

The pressure to project a certain image affects religious leaders and everyday believers alike. Pastors feel compelled to build their personal brand, while congregants curate their spiritual personas for an invisible audience. This performance anxiety can leave us disconnected from the very peace and authenticity our faith is meant to provide.

The Mental Health Toll

The intersection of social media and faith can create unique mental health challenges. For those already struggling with religious anxiety, the constant stream of spiritual content can intensify feelings of inadequacy or fear. The echo chambers of social media can reinforce unhealthy religious perspectives, whether that's toxic positivity that denies real suffering or doom-scrolling through apocalyptic interpretations.

Cyberbullying takes on particular sting within faith communities. Believers who ask questions, express doubts, or hold minority positions can face harsh judgment from those who claim to follow teachings of love and grace. The anonymity of online spaces sometimes brings out the worst in people who might be kind face-to-face.

Finding Balance and Boundaries

Navigating this landscape requires intentionality. Here are some practices worth considering:

Create sacred offline space. Designate times and places that are screen-free for prayer, meditation, or worship. Let your spiritual practices be fully present rather than documented for social consumption.

Curate your feed mindfully. Follow accounts that nourish rather than drain you. If certain voices consistently leave you feeling anxious, inadequate, or angry, it's okay to unfollow—even if they're saying things that are technically true.

Practice digital sabbath. Regular breaks from social media aren't just good for mental health—they're spiritual disciplines that create space for deeper reflection and genuine rest.

Engage with discernment. Not every theological debate requires your participation. Sometimes the most faithful response is to keep scrolling.

Seek real community. Digital connection supplements but cannot fully replace embodied community. Prioritize in-person relationships where you can be known beyond your online persona.

Authentic Faith in a Digital Age

The goal isn't to abandon social media entirely or to demonize technology. Rather, it's to approach these tools with wisdom, recognizing both their potential and their limitations. Social media can be a powerful tool for encouragement, learning, and connection—but it cannot replace the slow, often unglamorous work of spiritual formation.

True faith develops in the quiet moments that never make it to Instagram, in the persistent showing up even when we don't feel inspired, in the relationships where we're seen at our worst and loved anyway. It grows through doubt and questions as much as through certainty, through failure as much as success.

Moving Forward

As we navigate this digital landscape, we might remember that every generation of believers has faced new challenges to authentic faith and mental wellbeing. The medium changes, but the core practices remain: prayer, community, service, rest, and the ongoing work of becoming more fully human and more deeply connected to the divine.

The question isn't whether social media affects our faith and mental health—it clearly does. The question is whether we'll engage these platforms with intention, creating boundaries that protect our peace and practices that deepen our spiritual lives. In an age of constant connectivity, perhaps the most countercultural thing we can do is to occasionally disconnect, choosing depth over breadth and presence over performance.

Your faith journey doesn't need to be Instagram-worthy to be real. Your mental health matters more than your follower count. And the most meaningful spiritual work often happens in the spaces between posts, where no one is watching except the One who matters most.

after Basil Bunting

Poetry? You work for me. You don’t have hobbies. Your time is mine.

This guy — what’s your name? — he works all night. He sleeps here.

What do you do? Poetry in your lunchbreak? We don't do lunchbreaks.

Poetry's finished. We can do it in a microsecond — that clever shit maybe three.

They're making Inception 2, I told them to. Now that's art.

I've been to space, Mars next — I’m building the future.

What's a poet ever done? Lefties, gays. The trans agenda. I'm telling governments to lock 'em up.

El Salvador — let ‘em rot. Or shoot them – quicker.

Listen up, all leave's cancelled. We've got new crap to do. Blame this prick.

What you write is shit. Man, your fucking face. Man, man, epic roast man.

You think you're smart? I didn't even write this. Now get back to work.

I spent most of today in bed, choking on my own loneliness. As I mentioned in NO LONGER WORTH ANYONE’S TIME, I am officially no longer worth anyone’s time anymore. I have to forcefully wedge myself into peoples’ space and time, and figuratively ask them, “Hey, do you have a moment?” I had really hoped that I would be able to find some friends to hang with at my church, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not involved in any kind of service at church, and I’m not going to join something just because I need friends, because I don’t think God would be the biggest fan of that. And, welp, I kind of tried to make friends in faith, because I long for deep relationships that have faith at the heart of it. But it’s been a couple months, and I’m still really lonely, and I don’t really get the sense that anybody is open or willing to become friends with me.

Two things that has recently changed with me is:

1. I’m no longer self-confident

2. I’m not funny anymore

I’m not confident in myself anymore because God has shown me time and time again that I shouldn’t be confident in myself, but in Him. But I have yet to grasp what being confident in God really means. For example, I used to believe that I could achieve X, Y, Z with my own ability. But now, I’m unsure about everything. “Well, maybe I could achieve X, Y, Z if God allows, but I’m not even sure if that’s what He wants, and…” is what’s been running through my head.

I’m not funny anymore. I used to crack a lot of crass jokes, and I just kind of stopped doing that, especially around church people, because I know God doesn’t like that. But that was kind of my entire humor repertoire, and I guess I haven’t reinvented myself yet. Every conversation used to be a little minigame for me to get people to laugh, and I’ve lost that playfulness too. So I’m not funny anymore.

In either category, I’ve regressed, and it shows in my life. Some days, I can’t bear to look myself in the mirror because I can’t stand the sight of myself, because it reminds me of the entire being that I am, which I find disgusting and unbearable to be even reminded of. Socially, because I spend so much of my time coding, I’ve become an omega autist, and I have trouble making conversation with people, much less cracking jokes, and making people happy.

So today, I spent a lot of time choking on myself in bed. If I still drank, I would have drowned myself in alcohol. I’m past that, so I didn’t do that, but I instead reflected on how little anyone cared about my existence. And I don’t say that lightly. My life is currently possessed by a quietness, stillness that reflects my social isolation. My phone mostly rings with Slack messages from people at work telling me to do something, and a whole lot of ads. When I get back to my apartment from work, I compulsively turn on something like Youtube or music just to fill the silence. It’s hard for me to bear the silence.

Today I felt bodily pain while lying in bed and reflecting on my aloneness. Something hurt. I don’t know what. Maybe it was my heart. I wondered if I should cut myself with the razor blades I use to shave. If I started, I didn’t think I would be able to stop myself from going all out and giving myself a serious injury. I shivered, thinking about the ramifications of it. I would have to pay for a visit to the ER, trashing my bank account. I would have to give people at work and church some bullshit excuse on why I had a huge bandage on my wrist that everyone would see through. I would have yet another addiction to deal with. The thing that really stopped me was having to explain it to everyone. It would make me ashamed to the core. It’s just weak and lame, that whole cutting yourself thing because you hate yourself. I wouldn’t want to show myself around them again.

Some people tell me stories about how people around them are compelled to come to church because of the manner in which they live their life. They possess a hope and joy that is unknown in this world, and like a moth to a flame, people are drawn to it, and want to know why. Every time I hear a story like that, I’m cut to the core, because I know that the way that I’ve lived my life, and how I live right now, nobody will do that looking at me. I’m completely useless to both people and God. Writing was the only thing I was ever talented at, and I think I’m getting worse at that too. So I’m on the way to becoming a human dumpster.

This blog is a pretty honest reflection of my internal dialogue. Who would read this and see Christ? I’m despaired and who I am, and what I’ve become. I don’t know if I can change, and I am forcing myself to hope, because I have decided to hope.

Yeah anyways, I crashed out and fell asleep in a state of depression. I woke up, and went to church, because they had dinner for people. Everyone there was new to the city, like me, and didn’t have anywhere to go, like me. I was hoping to talk to the people a little more, but our head pastor ended up giving a long talk, which I liked too.

This is the gist:

1. God doesn’t have a special someone prepared for you in marriage. There are multiple options He usually opens up to you, and you have free will in the matter. If you’re ready for marriage, and you’re awake to the signs He’s giving you, you’ll find it. The key here is that you must first give God control over your marriage, trusting that He’ll show you someone, rather than you finding something yourself.

2. Youth is a time of venturing off the beaten path, and throwing stuff at the wall, seeing what sticks. Continually question, and try new things even if people tell you you can’t do it.

This is what I realized:

1. I need to let God take the wheel on marriage, my dreams, and friendships.

Because I don’t want to be forever alone, I must therefore marry. I don’t have any dreams of my own, mostly because I’ve given up on them, waiting for God to show me something. I don’t have friends in this new city. In all these things, I must give God full control, and continually pray for His guidance in these things. That God might prepare me to play my part in a loving marriage, that He will give me vocational calling, and that God will show me who to make my deep friendships with. I must pray with expectance, and unrelenting hope, because I know that God is listening to my every word of my prayers.

I’ve half given up on making deep faith-based friendships/relationships at church because everyone’s so busy with their own thing. But I’m also just hedging my expectations against disappointment, and I decided that I would stop doing that. I also feel bitter and rejected even though nobody’s actually rejected me (I’M SUCH A LOSER) that I just want to distance myself from them because I’m a petty bastard. I hate myself for even considering in hoping for friends, because it feels so impossible that it’ll happen that I feel like an idiot for hoping. But for God, this is a simple task. I also hate asking for help, from anyone, even God. It makes me feel incompetent, weak, and useless. If someone stabbed me in the arm, I would tourniquet myself, and take an Uber to the ER. I wouldn’t ask for help unless I was literally bleeding out.

I’m such a sensitive bitch and I can’t stop myself. I’m so stupid and I hate myself for it. (x10000000000000000)

I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself I hate myself

I’m

s

u

ch

a

bitch

#personal

There are passages in Scripture that nourish the mind. There are passages that encourage the heart. And then there are passages like John 15 — passages that anchor the entire soul.

This chapter does not whisper. It does not suggest. It does not hint.

It speaks with the weight of eternity. It speaks with the tenderness of love. It speaks with the urgency of a Savior whose hour has come.

John 15 is not written during a calm afternoon beside the sea. It is spoken in the tense, holy quiet of the Upper Room — the night before the cross, the night of betrayal, the night Jesus pours His heart out to those He loves. And in that moment, He gives His disciples a picture that would carry them through persecution, separation, ministry, suffering, and the mission that would reshape the world:

“I am the vine; you are the branches.”

Seven words — and an entire lifetime of meaning.

Let’s walk deeply through this chapter, slowly and thoughtfully, allowing each truth to settle in the spirit, because this chapter is not just meant to be read. It is meant to be lived.

=====================================================================

The True Vine

When Jesus calls Himself the true vine, He is doing more than offering a metaphor. He is establishing reality.

He is the source. He is the sustainer. He is the giver of life.

Branches do not live off their own strength. Branches do not bear fruit through willpower. Branches do not thrive through effort.

They thrive through connection.

This is Jesus gently dismantling the illusion of self-sufficiency. He is telling His disciples:

“Stop trying to carry what you were never designed to carry alone.”

We were created to draw our strength, clarity, direction, and life from Him. Not from success. Not from people. Not from culture. Not from self-effort.

Only from the Vine.

=====================================================================

The Father as the Gardener

Jesus introduces the Father as the gardener — a role of precision, involvement, and love. Gardeners do not watch from a distance. They study, examine, tend, and cultivate. They know the difference between what is growing and what is draining. They know which branches need support and which branches need trimming.

A gardener’s touch is intentional. It is personal. It is careful. It is purposeful.

Jesus explains two main actions of the Father:

1. He removes what is dead.

2. He prunes what is alive.

To the untrained eye, pruning looks like loss. Something is cut away. A branch is trimmed. A piece is removed.

But pruning is not subtracting — it is preparing.

The Father prunes because He sees fruit that has not yet appeared. He cuts away distractions because He sees potential. He removes what cannot remain because He sees what you are becoming.

Pruning means God is close. Pruning means God is committed. Pruning means God sees more in you than you see in yourself.

=====================================================================

The Call to Abide

If John 15 were reduced to one word, it would be this:

Abide.

Abiding is not visiting Jesus. Abiding is not checking in occasionally. Abiding is not consulting God when convenient.

Abiding is remaining. Staying. Dwelling. Rooting. Resting. Leaning. Living connected.

Jesus is saying:

“Stay with Me. Don’t wander from where your strength comes from.”

The world teaches independence. Jesus teaches connection.

The world teaches “do it yourself.” Jesus teaches “remain in Me.”

A branch disconnected from the vine does not die immediately — but it loses life immediately. The fruit may look the same for a little while, but the source is gone. Slowly, the strength drains. Slowly, the fruit withers. Slowly, the branch becomes dry.

This is Jesus warning His disciples — and us — that disconnection always leads to decline, even when the decline is delayed.

Abiding is the antidote.

=====================================================================

“Apart From Me You Can Do Nothing”

These words are not harsh. They are honest. They are freeing.

Jesus is not belittling human ability; He is revealing spiritual truth. Humans can accomplish many things. They can build, create, organize, gather, and achieve.

But nothing eternal — nothing that transforms hearts, nothing that glorifies God, nothing that produces spiritual fruit, nothing that carries into eternity — happens apart from Him.

This truth dismantles pressure. You don’t have to force fruitfulness. You don’t have to manufacture results. You don’t have to push yourself into spiritual exhaustion.

Your one task is to remain connected. Fruit is the natural outcome of abiding.

=====================================================================

Fruit That Endures

Jesus speaks not just of fruit — but of much fruit. Not just visible fruit — but lasting fruit.

This fruit is not measured by worldly standards. It is not applause. It is not success. It is not achievement.

The fruit Jesus desires in us looks like:

• compassion that moves toward others • patience that stands firm • faith that does not collapse under pressure • joy that survives the storm • peace that outlasts uncertainty • humility that reflects the heart of Christ • kindness that transforms relationships • endurance that refuses to quit • love that looks like Jesus’ love

This fruit grows slowly, quietly, deeply — the way a vineyard develops across seasons. And it grows in anyone who abides.

=====================================================================

“As the Father Has Loved Me, So Have I Loved You”

This may be the most overwhelming sentence in the chapter. Jesus lifts the curtain on divine affection and reveals something unbelievable:

The same love the Father has for the Son — that eternal, perfect, holy love — is the same love Jesus gives to His disciples.

Not similar. Not lesser. Not partial.

The same.

This is not a love earned by performance. It is not a love maintained by perfection. It is not a love given reluctantly.

It is given generously, fully, endlessly.

This love is the atmosphere in which abiding happens. It is the environment where fruit grows. It is the reality that carries believers through seasons of doubt, grief, change, and growth.

=====================================================================

Obedience and Joy

When Jesus connects obedience with love, He is not adding conditions. He is protecting joy.

Obedience keeps the heart open. Obedience keeps darkness from seeping in. Obedience keeps intimacy unhindered. Obedience keeps the connection clear.

Jesus wants His disciples to obey not to burden them — but to bless them. Not to restrict them — but to free them.

Because He promises:

“My joy will be in you, and your joy will be full.”

His joy — placed inside you. His joy — sustaining you. His joy — filling the places the world could never reach.

=====================================================================

Love One Another

At the center of the chapter, Jesus gives a command that will define the entire Christian movement:

“Love one another as I have loved you.”

Not “love when convenient.” Not “love when they deserve it.” Not “love the easy people.” Not “love until it costs you.”

Love as He loved — fully, sacrificially, faithfully.

Jesus raises the standard even higher:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

The next day, He would define this love on a cross.

=====================================================================

“I Call You Friends”

This revelation changes everything. The disciples are not merely followers. They are not servants kept at a distance. They are not observers of a holy man.

They are friends.

Friendship with Jesus means: • access • transparency • purpose • revelation • closeness

Jesus treats His disciples as partners in the unfolding story of redemption.

“I have told you everything the Father told Me.”

This is relationship at its most intimate.

=====================================================================

“You Did Not Choose Me”

These words give strength to every weary disciple:

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you.”

Chosen. Appointed. Purposed. Planned. Sent.

Jesus does not choose based on capacity. He chooses based on love. And He appoints based on calling, not qualifications.

The fruit that comes from your life is not accidental — it is intentional. It is part of the assignment God planted in you before you understood it yourself.

=====================================================================

The World’s Response

Jesus tells the truth plainly: The world may resist you because it resisted Him first.

Not everyone will understand. Not everyone will celebrate. Not everyone will agree.

But rejection does not redefine identity. Opposition does not rewrite purpose. Misunderstanding does not cancel calling.

The disciple draws belonging from the Vine — not from the world.

=====================================================================

The Spirit Will Come

Jesus ends the chapter with reassurance: The disciples will not be left alone.

The Helper — the Spirit — will come. He will guide. He will comfort. He will strengthen. He will testify. He will empower.

The One who walked beside them would soon live within them. And the connection they had with the Vine would continue through the Spirit’s presence.

=====================================================================

The Invitation of John 15

What does Jesus ask above all?

Abide.

Remain connected. Remain surrendered. Remain faithful. Remain rooted. Remain in love. Remain in obedience. Remain in joy. Remain in Him.

Because everything flows from the Vine.

You are chosen. You are loved. You are appointed. You are called. You are seen. You are strengthened.

And you are invited — not once, but daily — to abide.

=====================================================================

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

Douglas Vandergraph #Jesus #Faith #BibleStudy #John15 #Hope #Encouragement #ChristianInspiration #SpiritualGrowth #AbideInChrist #DailyPrayer

The safehouse stank of cordite and betrayal. My contact lay slumped over the table, a single bullet hole between his eyes—too neat for amateurs. “Well, scheisse,” I muttered, flipping the bloodstained dossier. The pages were coded in a cipher even my scarred hippocampus couldn’t parse. The window shattered. No gunshot—just the phut of a suppressed round embedding itself in the wall beside me. I dove behind the couch, palming my Walther. “You’re getting sloppy, Schakal,” a voice purred from the shadows. Vienna accent. Her. My ribs ached where she’d slipped a stiletto last time. “Missed you too, Liebling,” I growled. The lights died. Game on.

#Scratch

The Ritual

#nsfw #glass

Meredith knows she crossed a line in the grocery store. It sticks with her. It’s not her best moment in life. The look on that woman’s face—how righteous she was, how powerful her voice was when she spat “bitch” at Meredith’s thin lips.

She drives home sick with herself. She’s not stupid. She knows this is the shape of rot: a wealthy white woman summoning rage she doesn’t deserve just to feed her own secret hunger. It’s cruel. Dangerous. It should shame her more than it does.

But guilt is not enough to kill the heat. So Meredith decides: no more collateral damage. She will cage the monster where it belongs—in her house, in her blackout room, in the glow of her screens. In her gooncave and sanctuary. So over time, she slowly and systematically cancels plans to spend more time with porn.

She cancels her Saturday brunch. Her tennis lesson. Her hair appointment. She tells the HOA vice chair she’s “under the weather.” She stocks the fridge with water and protein shakes. She builds a home gym. She bolts the doors, pulls every blind tight, silences her phone. She tells herself she will break herself of the habit of provoking real women in the wild. She refuses to live up to the reputation of being a Karen. She will wring the hunger dry in private—drown it in pixels until it can’t crawl out into daylight anymore.

She was ready to take things deeper. She was ready to try something to make her devotion stronger than ever.

She’s read about devotional gooning before—the pagan twist, the occult nonsense whispered on anonymous forums: chants, candles, mirrors, sigils drawn in sweat. She’s always rolled her eyes at it.

But this time? Why not? She has nothing to lose. Her polite self is already half-dead. She’s just a shell now. A facade that pretends to be a Karen to maintain appearances, but her mind is always elsewhere now. Her gooncave. The only part of her world where she feels alive.

So Saturday at dusk, Meredith, still fully nude from a full day of gooning, drags an old antique mirror from the basement. She lays out candles in a wide circle, downloaded from a grainy imageboard guide. She sits naked and cross-legged in front of the flickering glass.

The ritual begins as planned, a deliberate descent into her goonstate, the only place where her polished exterior dissolves into raw need. Her goon room is a cocoon of blackout curtains, the air thick with the scent of melted wax and her own arousal. Her bare pale skin catches the flicker of candlelight as she arranges the circle of candles around the old basement mirror, each flame lit with a whispered invocation: Goddess. Mother. Skin. Curve. Thigh.

Her laptop glows and flickers with eagerness, open to her curated altar of black porn—an endless stream of raw, unscripted intimacy that makes her pulse throb. The mirror reflects her small, unremarkable frame, but tonight, it’s more than a reflection; it’s a portal, a conduit for the devotion she’s chasing.

She sits cross-legged on the hardwood, knees spread, the cool floor grounding her as she begins the mantra she’s pieced together from shadowy forum posts: Make me pure for them. Make me need them more than air. Make me useless for anything else but this.

Her voice is soft at first, barely audible over the muted moans from her screen, but it gains strength with each repetition, syncing with the rhythm of her fingers tracing slow circles around her clit. The porn flickers—sweat-slicked black bodies moving with unapologetic abandon—and she mirrors their energy, her hips rocking slightly, her breath hitching. The candles cast long shadows, and in the mirror, her reflection seems to blur at the edges, as if her body is softening, melding into the ritual’s pulse.

As she chants, the room feels heavier, the air pressing against her skin like a warm hand. Her fingers move faster, slick with her own wetness, and the mantra spills out louder, more desperate: Make me pure for them.

The words aren’t just sounds anymore; they vibrate in her chest, her throat, her core, as if they’re rewriting her from the inside. The porn loops—a black woman’s thighs trembling, a man’s grip firm and unyielding—and Meredith’s mind locks onto it, her senses narrowing until the screen, the mirror, and her own body are one. She feels a strange pull, like a current tugging at her navel, drawing her deeper into the ritual. Her reflection in the mirror shifts subtly—her watery blue eyes seem darker, her pale skin almost shimmering, as if absorbing the candlelight. She doesn’t question it; it feels right, like she’s finally aligning with the goddesses she worships.

The chant becomes a low, continuous hum, her voice blending with the porn’s audio, and her fingers plunge deeper, chasing the edge she’s been teasing all day. The room grows warmer, the candles burning brighter, their flames stretching unnaturally tall. Her mantra falters, words slurring into moans as the pleasure builds, a molten coil tightening in her belly. She’s not just masturbating now; she’s offering herself, her body a vessel for something larger. The mirror pulses, or maybe it’s her vision swimming, but she swears her reflection moves independently for a split second—her mirrored self smiling, lips fuller, skin richer, eyes gleaming with a knowing she doesn’t possess. The sight sends a jolt through her, and she comes hard, a violent wave that arches her back and forces a cry from her throat. Her inner walls clench around her fingers, each pulse flooding her with ecstasy that feels too big for her body, as if it’s spilling out into the room, into the mirror, into the flames.

She doesn’t stop. The orgasm only fuels her, and she keeps chanting through the aftershocks, her voice hoarse: Make me useless for anything else but this.

Her fingers move again, slower but relentless, and the ritual takes on a life of its own. The air hums with a low frequency, like a distant storm, and the candles flare, wax dripping in patterns that look almost deliberate, like sigils. Meredith’s mind feels untethered, her thoughts dissolving into the rhythm of her mantra and the porn’s endless loop. She’s not just watching now; she’s inside it, her senses saturated with the scent of sweat, the sound of skin on skin, the taste of her own salt on her lips. Her reflection in the mirror grows stranger—her blonde bob seems longer, curlier, her frame fuller, as if borrowing curves from the women on her screen. She’s too lost to care, her body trembling, her thighs slick, her chants now a wordless drone.

Her mind fades—time frays in the goon cave. She edges again, then cums again, each repeated climax pulling her deeper into a trance. She’s pushing her body into complete overstimulation for the ritual. The mirror slowly transforms into a void.

Her tantric ritual begins to manifest, but she’s too far gone to fully realize what she is seeing. Her reflection is barely recognizable. It’s only a shadow of black skin and liquid eyes that don’t belong to her staring back. The candles burn low, wax pooling around her, and the room feels alive, the walls pulsing faintly in time with her heartbeat.

She’s chanting without thought, her fingers moving mechanically, her body a conduit for something she can’t name. The porn plays on, but it’s distant, a backdrop to the mirror’s pull. She feels weightless, like she’s dissolving, her pale self eroding into something else, something that belongs to the goddesses she’s summoned. Her voice cracks, her mantra fading into gasps, and exhaustion finally claims her after her 10th orgasm in a row. She slumps forward, forehead resting against the mirror’s cool surface, her fingers still inside, her body spent. Sleep takes her. Her last thought a faint echo: Make me pure.

Some chapters of Scripture confront you. Some challenge you. Some reshape your understanding.

But John 14 does something different — it reaches directly into the places where fear lives, where anxiety whispers, where uncertainty grows, and where the human heart feels fragile. It speaks into the moments when life doesn’t make sense, when your strength feels thin, and when you need more than explanations — you need hope.

This chapter is Jesus becoming the voice your soul needs when life becomes overwhelming. It is Jesus speaking comfort before the crisis, peace before the storm, and clarity before confusion.

This is the night before everything breaks loose. This is the night before the cross. This is the night when the disciples feel the weight of things they cannot understand.

And into that moment — a moment soaked in fear — Jesus speaks words that have carried believers for centuries.

Let’s walk through this chapter slowly, honestly, and deeply. It is a message for every troubled heart, every anxious mind, and every searching soul.

---

The Room Was Heavy — But Jesus Was Steady

Before the beauty of John 14 can be understood, you must see the emotional scene happening in the upper room.

Betrayal has been announced. Denial has been predicted. Jesus has spoken of going somewhere they cannot follow yet.

Everything suddenly feels unsafe. The disciples feel blindfolded. The future feels frightening.

The men who confidently followed Jesus for years now sit in a room unsure of what the next hours will hold.

And Jesus — fully aware of their fear — speaks first to their hearts, not their circumstances:

“Do not let your hearts be troubled.”

He isn’t ignoring their pain. He isn’t avoiding their fear. He is guiding their focus.

“Believe in God; believe also in Me.”

This is the foundation of the entire chapter. Jesus calls them — and calls you — to shift trust away from circumstances and into His character.

Your heart may feel troubled, but He says:

“Look at Me. Trust Me. Anchor yourself in Me.”

---

A Place Designed Just for You

Then Jesus unveils one of the most comforting truths in Scripture:

“In My Father’s house are many rooms… I go to prepare a place for you.”

Not a symbolic place. Not an abstract state of existence. Not a poetic metaphor.

A real place. A personal place. A prepared place.

Heaven is not a mystery to God — it’s home. And Jesus is not building a city; He’s preparing a room with your name already known.

This means: • You are wanted. • You belong. • Your future is intentional. • Eternity is not random — it is prepared.

When life feels unstable, John 14 steps in to remind you that heaven is already settled.

---

Thomas Speaks Our Questions — Jesus Speaks the Answer

Thomas, honest as always, says what everyone else is thinking:

“Lord, we don’t know where You are going, so how can we know the way?”

He is confused. He wants direction. He wants clarity.

And Jesus responds with the most defining identity statement in the New Testament:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Jesus doesn’t point to a path. He is the path.

He doesn’t describe truth. He embodies truth.

He doesn’t offer life. He is life.

This statement cuts through spiritual confusion with surgical precision:

Access to God is not found in religion, effort, rituals, or human goodness. Access to God is found in Christ alone.

You don’t have to “find your own way.” There is one way — and He knows your name.

---

Philip Wants to See the Father — Jesus Reveals the Deepest Truth of Heaven

Philip expresses a longing that echoes through every human heart:

“Lord, show us the Father.”

This is hunger. This is desire. This is the cry for intimacy with God.

Jesus answers with breathtaking clarity:

“Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

This means:

• Jesus is not God’s messenger — He is God made visible. • Jesus is not God’s representative — He is God’s expression. • Jesus is not God’s spokesperson — He is the very heart of God revealed.

If you want to know God, look at Jesus. If you want to understand God’s love, watch Jesus love. If you want to understand God’s will, watch Jesus act.

Jesus makes the invisible Father unmistakably visible.

---

The “Greater Works” Promise — Jesus Believes in What You Will Become

Then comes the promise that stretches faith and reshapes identity:

“Whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these…”

How is that possible?

It’s not about surpassing the miracles of Jesus. It’s about expanding His reach.

Jesus ministered within a specific region. But through the Spirit, His followers would carry the Gospel across nations and centuries.

This is Jesus saying: “I am going to multiply My work through you.”

You are part of that multiplication. Every time you love, forgive, teach, encourage, serve, or share truth — you are doing the work of Christ in the world.

Jesus doesn’t see your limitations. He sees your potential through His Spirit.

---

The Holy Spirit — The Gift That Changes Everything

Then Jesus makes a promise that transforms the Christian life forever:

“And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper… the Spirit of truth… to be with you forever.”

This is not God dropping by occasionally to see how you’re doing. This is permanent residence.

The Holy Spirit becomes: • Your guide • Your comforter • Your inner strength • Your counselor • Your reminder of truth • Your advocate • Your helper in weakness

You are not walking alone. You are not fighting alone. You are not praying alone. You are not growing alone.

God Himself — through His Spirit — walks with you, lives in you, and strengthens you daily.

---

Not Left As Orphans — A Promise for the Abandoned

Jesus then speaks directly to one of the deepest human fears:

“I will not leave you as orphans.”

This is tenderness. This is compassion. This is Jesus healing the fear of abandonment.

You are not spiritually orphaned. You are not forgotten. You are not left behind.

He continues:

“I will come to you.”

He comes to you in moments of fear. He comes to you in moments of pain. He comes to you in moments of confusion. He comes to you in moments when you feel like you’re losing control.

You never face anything alone — not even for a second.

---

The Peace the World Cannot Manufacture

The final words of John 14 strike a chord that resonates through centuries:

“Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you. Not as the world gives…”

Worldly peace says, “You’re safe when everything feels safe.”

Jesus’ peace says, “You’re safe even when nothing feels safe.”

Worldly peace depends on external conditions. Jesus’ peace depends on His presence.

This peace steadies you. Strengthens you. Holds you together. Protects your heart. Guards your mind.

You cannot manufacture this peace. You can only receive it.

And Jesus freely gives it.

---

How John 14 Speaks to You Today

This chapter is more than theology. It is instruction. It is motivation. It is truth. It is comfort. It is clarity. It is hope.

John 14 invites you to:

Trust Jesus beyond your fear.

Believe your future is already prepared by God.

Walk confidently because Jesus Himself is the way.

Look at Jesus to see the heart of the Father.

Remember that God believes in your potential.

Lean daily on the Holy Spirit within you.

Let Jesus’ peace anchor every anxious part of your heart.

And above all…

Know that you are never alone — not for a moment.

This is the power of John 14. It is heaven speaking peace into human trouble. It is Jesus speaking clarity into confusion. It is God Himself speaking love into fear.

---

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

Douglas Vandergraph

#faith #John14 #GospelOfJohn #ChristianEncouragement #peace #HolySpirit #hope #motivation

Brandon Monk knew something had gone terribly wrong the moment the judge called his hearing. The Texas attorney had submitted what he thought was a solid legal brief, supported by relevant case law and persuasive quotations. There was just one problem: the cases didn't exist. The quotations were fabricated. And the AI tool he'd used, Claude, had generated the entire fiction with perfect confidence.

In November 2024, Judge Marcia Crone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sanctioned Monk £2,000, ordered him to complete continuing legal education on artificial intelligence, and required him to inform his clients of the debacle. The case, Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., joined a rapidly expanding catalogue of similar disasters. By mid-2025, legal scholar Damien Charlotin, who tracks AI hallucinations in court filings through his database, had documented at least 206 instances of lawyers submitting AI-generated hallucinations to courts, with new cases materialising daily.

This isn't merely an epidemic of professional carelessness. It represents something far more consequential: the collision between statistical pattern-matching and the reasoned argumentation that defines legal thinking. As agentic AI systems promise to autonomously conduct legal research, draft documents, and make strategic recommendations, they simultaneously demonstrate an unwavering capacity to fabricate case law with such confidence that even experienced lawyers cannot distinguish truth from fiction.

The question facing the legal profession isn't whether AI will transform legal practice. That transformation is already underway. The question is whether meaningful verification frameworks can preserve both the efficiency gains AI promises and the fundamental duty of accuracy that underpins public trust in the justice system. The answer may determine not just the future of legal practice, but whether artificial intelligence and the rule of law are fundamentally compatible.

The Confidence of Fabrication

On 22 June 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York imposed sanctions of £5,000 on attorneys Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca. Schwartz had used ChatGPT to research legal precedents for a personal injury case against Avianca Airlines. The AI generated six compelling cases, complete with detailed citations, procedural histories, and relevant quotations. All six were entirely fictitious.

“It just never occurred to me that it would be making up cases,” Schwartz testified. A practising lawyer since 1991, he had assumed the technology operated like traditional legal databases: retrieving real information rather than generating plausible fictions. When opposing counsel questioned the citations, Schwartz asked ChatGPT to verify them. The AI helpfully provided what appeared to be full-text versions of the cases, complete with judicial opinions and citation histories. All fabricated.

“Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions,” Judge Castel wrote in his decision. “The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court's time is taken from other important endeavours. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents.”

What makes these incidents particularly unsettling isn't that AI makes mistakes. Traditional legal research tools contain errors too. What distinguishes these hallucinations is their epistemological character: the AI doesn't fail to find relevant cases. It actively generates plausible but entirely fictional legal authorities, presenting them with the same confidence it presents actual case law.

The scale of the problem became quantifiable in 2024, when researchers Varun Magesh and Faiz Surani at Stanford University's RegLab conducted the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. Their findings, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, revealed that even specialised legal AI systems hallucinate at alarming rates. Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research produced hallucinated or incorrect information 33 per cent of the time, providing accurate responses to only 42 per cent of queries. LexisNexis's Lexis+ AI performed better but still hallucinated 17 per cent of the time. Thomson Reuters' Ask Practical Law AI hallucinated more than 17 per cent of the time and provided accurate responses to only 18 per cent of queries.

These aren't experimental systems or consumer-grade chatbots. They're premium legal research platforms, developed by the industry's leading publishers, trained on vast corpora of actual case law, and marketed specifically to legal professionals who depend on accuracy. Yet they routinely fabricate cases, misattribute quotations, and generate citations to nonexistent authorities with unwavering confidence.

The Epistemology Problem

The hallucination crisis reveals a deeper tension between how large language models operate and how legal reasoning functions. Understanding this tension requires examining what these systems actually do when they “think.”

Large language models don't contain databases of facts that they retrieve when queried. They're prediction engines, trained on vast amounts of text to identify statistical patterns in how words relate to one another. When you ask ChatGPT or Claude about legal precedent, it doesn't search a library of cases. It generates text that statistically resembles the patterns it learned during training. If legal citations in its training data tend to follow certain formats, contain particular types of language, and reference specific courts, the model will generate new citations that match those patterns, regardless of whether the cases exist.

This isn't a bug in the system. It's how the system works.

Recent research has exposed fundamental limitations in how these models handle knowledge. A 2025 study published in Nature Machine Intelligence found that large language models cannot reliably distinguish between belief and knowledge, or between opinions and facts. Using the KaBLE benchmark of 13,000 questions across 13 epistemic tasks, researchers discovered that most models fail to grasp the factive nature of knowledge: the basic principle that knowledge must correspond to reality and therefore must be true.

“In contexts where decisions based on correct knowledge can sway outcomes, ranging from medical diagnoses to legal judgements, the inadequacies of the models underline a pressing need for improvements,” the researchers warned. “Failure to make such distinctions can mislead diagnoses, distort judicial judgements and amplify misinformation.”

From an epistemological perspective, law operates as a normative system, interpreting and applying legal statements within a shared framework of precedent, statutory interpretation, and constitutional principles. Legal reasoning requires distinguishing between binding and persuasive authority, understanding jurisdictional hierarchies, recognising when cases have been overruled or limited, and applying rules to novel factual circumstances. It's a process fundamentally rooted in the relationship between propositions and truth.

Statistical pattern-matching, by contrast, operates on correlations rather than causation, probability rather than truth-value, and resemblance rather than reasoning. When a large language model generates a legal citation, it's not making a claim about what the law is. It's producing text that resembles what legal citations typically look like in its training data.

This raises a provocative question: do AI hallucinations in legal contexts reveal merely a technical limitation requiring better training data, or an inherent epistemological incompatibility between statistical pattern-matching and reasoned argumentation?

The Stanford researchers frame the challenge in terms of “retrieval-augmented generation” (RAG), the technical approach used by legal AI tools to ground their outputs in real documents. RAG systems first retrieve relevant cases from actual databases, then use language models to synthesise that information into responses. In theory, this should prevent hallucinations by anchoring the model's outputs in verified sources. In practice, the Magesh-Surani study found that “while RAG appears to improve the performance of language models in answering legal queries, the hallucination problem persists at significant levels.”

The persistence of hallucinations despite retrieval augmentation suggests something more fundamental than inadequate training data. Language models appear to lack what philosophers of mind call “epistemic access”: genuine awareness of whether their outputs correspond to reality. They can't distinguish between accurate retrieval and plausible fabrication because they don't possess the conceptual framework to make such distinctions.

Some researchers argue that large language models might be capable of building internal representations of the world based on textual data and patterns, suggesting the possibility of genuine epistemic capabilities. But even if true, this doesn't resolve the verification problem. A model that constructs an internal representation of legal precedent by correlating patterns in training data will generate outputs that reflect those correlations, including systematic biases, outdated information, and patterns that happen to recur frequently in the training corpus regardless of their legal validity.

The Birth of a New Negligence

The legal profession's response to AI hallucinations has been reactive and punitive, but it's beginning to coalesce into something more systematic: a new category of professional negligence centred not on substantive legal knowledge but on the ability to identify the failure modes of autonomous systems.

Courts have been unanimous in holding lawyers responsible for AI-generated errors. The sanctions follow a familiar logic: attorneys have a duty to verify the accuracy of their submissions. Using AI doesn't excuse that duty; it merely changes the verification methods required. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) requires attorneys to certify that legal contentions are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law.” Fabricated cases violate that rule, regardless of how they were generated.

But as judges impose sanctions and bar associations issue guidance, a more fundamental transformation is underway. The skills required to practice law competently are changing. Lawyers must now develop expertise in:

Prompt engineering: crafting queries that minimise hallucination risk by providing clear context and constraints.

Output verification: systematically checking AI-generated citations against primary sources rather than trusting the AI's own confirmations.

Failure mode recognition: understanding how particular AI systems tend to fail and designing workflows that catch errors before submission.

System limitation assessment: evaluating which tasks are appropriate for AI assistance and which require traditional research methods.

Adversarial testing: deliberately attempting to make AI tools produce errors to understand their reliability boundaries.

This represents an entirely new domain of professional knowledge. Traditional legal education trains lawyers to analyse statutes, interpret precedents, construct arguments, and apply reasoning to novel situations. It doesn't prepare them to function as quality assurance specialists for statistical language models.

Law schools are scrambling to adapt. A survey of 29 American law school deans and faculty members conducted in early 2024 found that 55 per cent offered classes dedicated to teaching students about AI, and 83 per cent provided curricular opportunities where students could learn to use AI tools effectively. Georgetown Law now offers at least 17 courses addressing different aspects of AI. Yale Law School trains students to detect hallucinated content by having them build and test language models, exposing the systems' limitations through hands-on experience.

But educational adaptation isn't keeping pace with technological deployment. Students graduating today will enter a profession where AI tools are already integrated into legal research platforms, document assembly systems, and practice management software. Many will work for firms that have invested heavily in AI capabilities and expect associates to leverage those tools efficiently. They'll face pressure to work faster while simultaneously bearing personal responsibility for catching the hallucinations those systems generate.

The emerging doctrine of AI verification negligence will likely consider several factors:

Foreseeability: After hundreds of documented hallucination incidents, lawyers can no longer plausibly claim ignorance that AI tools fabricate citations.

Industry standards: As verification protocols become standard practice, failing to follow them constitutes negligence.

Reasonable reliance: What constitutes reasonable reliance on AI output will depend on the specific tool, the context, and the stakes involved.

Proportionality: More significant matters may require more rigorous verification.

Technological competence: Lawyers must maintain baseline understanding of the AI tools they use, including their known failure modes.

Some commentators argue this emerging doctrine creates perverse incentives. If lawyers bear full responsibility for AI errors, why use AI at all? The promised efficiency gains evaporate if every output requires manual verification comparable to traditional research. Others contend the negligence framework is too generous to AI developers, who market systems with known, significant error rates to professionals in high-stakes contexts.

The profession faces a deeper question: is the required level of verification even possible? In the Gauthier case, Brandon Monk testified that he attempted to verify Claude's output using Lexis AI's validation feature, which “failed to flag the issues.” He used one AI system to check another and both failed. If even specialised legal AI tools can't reliably detect hallucinations generated by other AI systems, how can human lawyers be expected to catch every fabrication?

The Autonomy Paradox

The rise of agentic AI intensifies these tensions exponentially. Unlike the relatively passive systems that have caused problems so far, agentic AI systems are designed to operate autonomously: making decisions, conducting multi-step research, drafting documents, and executing complex legal workflows without continuous human direction.

Several legal technology companies now offer or are developing agentic capabilities. These systems promise to handle routine legal work independently, from contract review to discovery analysis to legal research synthesis. The appeal is obvious: instead of generating a single document that a lawyer must review, an agentic system could manage an entire matter, autonomously determining what research is needed, what documents to draft, and what strategic recommendations to make.

But if current AI systems hallucinate despite retrieval augmentation and human oversight, what happens when those systems operate autonomously?

The epistemological problems don't disappear with greater autonomy. They intensify. An agentic system conducting multi-step legal research might build later steps on the foundation of earlier hallucinations, compounding errors in ways that become increasingly difficult to detect. If the system fabricates a key precedent in step one, then structures its entire research strategy around that fabrication, by step ten the entire work product may be irretrievably compromised, yet internally coherent enough to evade casual review.

Professional responsibility doctrines haven't adapted to genuine autonomy. The supervising lawyer typically remains responsible under current rules, but what does “supervision” mean when AI operates autonomously? If a lawyer must review every step of the AI's reasoning, the efficiency gains vanish. If the lawyer reviews only outputs without examining the process, how can they detect sophisticated errors that might be buried in the system's chain of reasoning?

Some propose a “supervisory AI agent” approach: using other AI systems to continuously monitor the primary system's operations, flagging potential hallucinations and deferring to human judgment when uncertainty exceeds acceptable thresholds. Stanford researchers advocate this model as a way to maintain oversight without sacrificing efficiency.

But this creates its own problems. Who verifies the supervisor? If the supervisory AI itself hallucinates or fails to detect primary-system errors, liability consequences remain unclear. The Monk case demonstrated that using one AI to verify another provides no reliable safeguard.

The alternative is more fundamental: accepting that certain forms of legal work may be incompatible with autonomous AI systems, at least given current capabilities. This would require developing a taxonomy of legal tasks, distinguishing between those where hallucination risks are manageable (perhaps template-based document assembly with strictly constrained outputs) and those where they're not (novel legal research requiring synthesis of multiple authorities).

Such a taxonomy would frustrate AI developers and firms that have invested heavily in legal AI capabilities. It would also raise difficult questions about how to enforce boundaries. If a system is marketed as capable of autonomous legal research, but professional standards prohibit autonomous legal research, who bears responsibility when lawyers inevitably use the system as marketed?

Verification Frameworks

If legal AI is to fulfil its promise without destroying the profession's foundations, meaningful verification frameworks are essential. But what would such frameworks actually look like?

Several approaches have emerged, each with significant limitations:

Parallel workflow validation: Running AI systems alongside traditional research methods and comparing outputs. This works for validation but eliminates efficiency gains, effectively requiring double work.

Citation verification protocols: Systematically checking every AI-generated citation against primary sources. Feasible for briefs with limited citations, but impractical for large-scale research projects that might involve hundreds of authorities.

Confidence thresholds: Using AI systems' own confidence metrics to flag uncertain outputs for additional review. The problem: hallucinations often come with high confidence scores. Models that fabricate cases typically do so with apparent certainty.

Human-in-the-loop workflows: Requiring explicit human approval at key decision points. This preserves accuracy but constrains autonomy, making the system less “agentic.”

Adversarial validation: Using competing AI systems to challenge each other's outputs. Promising in theory, but the Monk case suggests this may not work reliably in practice.

Retrieval-first architectures: Designing systems that retrieve actual documents before generating any text, with strict constraints preventing output that isn't directly supported by retrieved sources. Reduces hallucinations but also constrains the AI's ability to synthesise information or draw novel connections.

None of these approaches solves the fundamental problem: they're all verification methods applied after the fact, catching errors rather than preventing them. They address the symptoms rather than the underlying epistemological incompatibility.

Some researchers advocate for fundamental architectural changes: developing AI systems that maintain explicit representations of uncertainty, flag when they're extrapolating beyond their training data, and refuse to generate outputs when confidence falls below specified thresholds. Such systems would be less fluent and more hesitant than current models, frequently admitting “I don't know” rather than generating plausible-sounding fabrications.

This approach has obvious appeal for legal applications, where “I don't know” is vastly preferable to confident fabrication. But it's unclear whether such systems are achievable given current architectural approaches. Large language models are fundamentally designed to generate plausible text. Modifying them to generate less when uncertain might require different architectures entirely.

Another possibility: abandoning the goal of autonomous legal reasoning and instead focusing on AI as a powerful but limited tool requiring expert oversight. This would treat legal AI like highly sophisticated calculators: useful for specific tasks, requiring human judgment to interpret outputs, and never trusted to operate autonomously on matters of consequence.

This is essentially the model courts have already mandated through their sanctions. But it's a deeply unsatisfying resolution. It means accepting that the promised transformation of legal practice through AI autonomy was fundamentally misconceived, at least given current technological capabilities. Firms that invested millions in AI capabilities expecting revolutionary efficiency gains would face a reality of modest incremental improvements requiring substantial ongoing human oversight.

The Trust Equation

Underlying all these technical and procedural questions is a more fundamental issue: trust. The legal system rests on public confidence that lawyers are competent, judges are impartial, and outcomes are grounded in accurate application of established law. AI hallucinations threaten that foundation.

When Brandon Monk submitted fabricated citations to Judge Crone, the immediate harm was to Monk's client, who received inadequate representation, and to Goodyear's counsel, who wasted time debunking nonexistent cases. But the broader harm was to the system's legitimacy. If litigants can't trust that cited cases are real, if judges must independently verify every citation rather than relying on professional norms, the entire apparatus of legal practice becomes exponentially more expensive and slower.

This is why courts have responded to AI hallucinations with unusual severity. The sanctions send a message: technological change cannot come at the expense of basic accuracy. Lawyers who use AI tools bear absolute responsibility for their outputs. There are no excuses, no learning curves, no transition periods. The duty of accuracy is non-negotiable.

But this absolutist stance, while understandable, may be unsustainable. The technology exists. It's increasingly integrated into legal research platforms and practice management systems. Firms that can leverage it effectively while managing hallucination risks will gain significant competitive advantages over those that avoid it entirely. Younger lawyers entering practice have grown up with AI tools and will expect to use them. Clients increasingly demand the efficiency gains AI promises.

The profession faces a dilemma: AI tools as currently constituted pose unacceptable risks, but avoiding them entirely may be neither practical nor wise. The question becomes how to harness the technology's genuine capabilities while developing safeguards against its failures.

One possibility is the emergence of a tiered system of AI reliability, analogous to evidential standards in different legal contexts. Just as “beyond reasonable doubt” applies in criminal cases while “preponderance of evidence” suffices in civil matters, perhaps different verification standards could apply depending on the stakes and context. Routine contract review might accept higher error rates than appellate briefing. Initial research might tolerate some hallucinations that would be unacceptable in court filings.

This sounds pragmatic, but it risks normalising errors and gradually eroding standards. If some hallucinations are acceptable in some contexts, how do we ensure the boundaries hold? How do we prevent scope creep, where “routine” matters receiving less rigorous verification turn out to have significant consequences?

Managing the Pattern-Matching Paradox

The legal profession's confrontation with AI hallucinations offers lessons that extend far beyond law. Medicine, journalism, scientific research, financial analysis, and countless other fields face similar challenges as AI systems become capable of autonomous operation in high-stakes domains.

The fundamental question is whether statistical pattern-matching can ever be trusted to perform tasks that require epistemic reliability: genuine correspondence between claims and reality. Current evidence suggests significant limitations. Language models don't “know” things in any meaningful sense. They generate plausible text based on statistical patterns. Sometimes that text happens to be accurate; sometimes it's confident fabrication. The models themselves can't distinguish between these cases.

This doesn't mean AI has no role in legal practice. It means we need to stop imagining AI as a autonomous reasoner and instead treat it as what it is: a powerful pattern-matching tool that can assist human reasoning but cannot replace it.

For legal practice specifically, several principles should guide development of verification frameworks:

Explicit uncertainty: AI systems should acknowledge when they're uncertain, rather than generating confident fabrications.

Transparent reasoning: Systems should expose their reasoning processes, not just final outputs, allowing human reviewers to identify where errors might have occurred.

Constrained autonomy: AI should operate autonomously only within carefully defined boundaries, with automatic escalation to human review when those boundaries are exceeded.

Mandatory verification: All AI-generated citations, quotations, and factual claims should be verified against primary sources before submission to courts or reliance in legal advice.

Continuous monitoring: Ongoing assessment of AI system performance, with transparent reporting of error rates and failure modes.

Professional education: Legal education must adapt to include not just substantive law but also the capabilities and limitations of AI systems.

Proportional use: More sophisticated or high-stakes matters should involve more rigorous verification and more limited reliance on AI outputs.

These principles won't eliminate hallucinations. They will, however, create frameworks for managing them, ensuring that efficiency gains don't come at the expense of accuracy and that professional responsibility evolves to address new technological realities without compromising fundamental duties.

The alternative is a continued cycle of technological overreach followed by punitive sanctions, gradually eroding both professional standards and public trust. Every hallucination that reaches a court damages not just the individual lawyer involved but the profession's collective credibility.

The Question of Compatibility

Steven Schwartz, Brandon Monk, and the nearly 200 other lawyers sanctioned for AI hallucinations made mistakes. But they're also test cases in a larger experiment: whether autonomous AI systems can be integrated into professional practices that require epistemic reliability without fundamentally transforming what those practices mean.

The evidence so far suggests deep tensions. Systems that operate through statistical pattern-matching struggle with tasks that require truth-tracking. The more autonomous these systems become, the harder it is to verify their outputs without sacrificing the efficiency gains that justified their adoption. The more we rely on AI for legal reasoning, the more we risk eroding the distinction between genuine legal analysis and plausible fabrication.

This doesn't necessarily mean AI and law are incompatible. It does mean that the current trajectory, where systems of increasing autonomy and declining accuracy are deployed in high-stakes contexts, is unsustainable. Something has to change: either the technology must develop genuine epistemic capabilities, or professional practices must adapt to accommodate AI's limitations, or the vision of autonomous AI handling legal work must be abandoned in favour of more modest goals.

The hallucination crisis forces these questions into the open. It demonstrates that accuracy and efficiency aren't always complementary goals, that technological capability doesn't automatically translate to professional reliability, and that some forms of automation may be fundamentally incompatible with professional responsibilities.

As courts continue sanctioning lawyers who fail to detect AI fabrications, they're not merely enforcing professional standards. They're articulating a baseline principle: the duty of accuracy cannot be delegated to systems that cannot distinguish truth from plausible fiction. That principle will determine whether AI transforms legal practice into something more efficient and accessible, or undermines the foundations on which legal legitimacy rests.

The answer isn't yet clear. What is clear is that the question matters, the stakes are high, and the legal profession's struggle with AI hallucinations offers a crucial test case for how society will navigate the collision between statistical pattern-matching and domains that require genuine knowledge.

The algorithms will keep generating text that resembles legal reasoning. The question is whether we can build systems that distinguish resemblance from reality, or whether the gap between pattern-matching and knowledge-tracking will prove unbridgeable. For the legal profession, for clients who depend on accurate legal advice, and for a justice system built on truth-seeking, the answer will be consequential.

---

Sources and References

1. American Bar Association. (2025). “Lawyer Sanctioned for Failure to Catch AI 'Hallucination.'” ABA Litigation News. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/litigation-news/2025/lawyer-sanctioned-failure-catch-ai-hallucination/

2. Baker Botts LLP. (2024, December). “Trust, But Verify: Avoiding the Perils of AI Hallucinations in Court.” Thought Leadership Publications. Retrieved from https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2024/december/trust-but-verify-avoiding-the-perils-of-ai-hallucinations-in-court

3. Bloomberg Law. (2024). “Lawyer Sanctioned Over AI-Hallucinated Case Cites, Quotations.” Retrieved from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/lawyer-sanctioned-over-ai-hallucinated-case-cites-quotations

4. Cambridge University Press. (2024). “Examining epistemological challenges of large language models in law.” Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-forum-on-ai-law-and-governance/article/examining-epistemological-challenges-of-large-language-models-in-law/66E7E100CF80163854AF261192D6151D

5. Charlotin, D. (2025). “AI Hallucination Cases Database.” Pelekan Data Consulting. Retrieved from https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

6. Courthouse News Service. (2023, June 22). “Sanctions ordered for lawyers who relied on ChatGPT artificial intelligence to prepare court brief.” Retrieved from https://www.courthousenews.com/sanctions-ordered-for-lawyers-who-relied-on-chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-to-prepare-court-brief/

7. Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. 1:23-CV-00281, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (November 25, 2024).

8. Georgetown University Law Center. (2024). “AI & the Law… & what it means for legal education & lawyers.” Retrieved from https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/ai-the-law-what-it-means-for-legal-education-lawyers/

9. Legal Dive. (2024). “Another lawyer in hot water for citing fake GenAI cases.” Retrieved from https://www.legaldive.com/news/another-lawyer-in-hot-water-citing-fake-genai-cases-brandon-monk-marcia-crone-texas/734159/

10. Magesh, V., Surani, F., Dahl, M., Suzgun, M., Manning, C. D., & Ho, D. E. (2025). “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 0:1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12413

11. Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01461, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (June 22, 2023).

12. Nature Machine Intelligence. (2025). “Language models cannot reliably distinguish belief from knowledge and fact.” https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-025-01113-8

13. NPR. (2025, July 10). “A recent high-profile case of AI hallucination serves as a stark warning.” Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512/ai-courts-lawyers-mypillow-fines

14. Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2024). “AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries.” Retrieved from https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucinate-1-out-6-or-more-benchmarking-queries

15. Stanford Law School. (2024, January 25). “A Supervisory AI Agent Approach to Responsible Use of GenAI in the Legal Profession.” CodeX Center for Legal Informatics. Retrieved from https://law.stanford.edu/2024/01/25/a-supervisory-ai-agents-approach-to-responsible-use-of-genai-in-the-legal-profession/

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk