Kerassential is an all-natural serum formulated specifically for enhancing the health of nails and skin. It combines potent botanical extracts and essential oils, creating a product that not only treats existing issues but also helps prevent future complications. This holistic solution reflects a growing trend toward natural wellness in personal care.

Key Ingredients of Kerassential The effectiveness of Kerassential lies in its carefully selected ingredients, each serving a vital role:

Tea Tree Oil: Renowned for its antifungal and antibacterial properties, tea tree oil is effective in combatting nail fungus and bacteria, making it essential for maintaining nail health. Lavender Oil: This oil not only provides a soothing aroma but also promotes skin healing. Its antibacterial characteristics help alleviate skin irritation. Lemon Oil: With its brightening properties, lemon oil helps improve the appearance of both nails and skin, combating discoloration while providing an invigorating freshness. Eucalyptus Oil: Known for its anti-inflammatory benefits, eucalyptus oil enhances circulation and assists in treating fungal infections and irritations. Vitamins A and E: These vitamins nourish and protect the skin and nails, contributing to their strength and elasticity. They also serve as antioxidants, fighting free radicals. Benefits of Using Kerassential When you choose Kerassential, you're not just addressing superficial concerns; you're investing in comprehensive care that yields numerous benefits:

1. Strengthens Weak Nails Kerassential works deep within the nail layers to provide essential nutrients, helping to reduce breakage and promote stronger growth.

2. Hydrates Dry Skin The nourishing oils in Kerassential hydrate the skin, alleviating dryness and providing a smooth appearance, even in harsh weather conditions.

3. Prevention of Infections With its antifungal and antiseptic properties, Kerassential actively helps prevent infections, making it a must-have for anyone prone to such issues.

4. Improves Aesthetic Appeal Regular application of Kerassential can lead to visibly healthier nails and skin. Users often report brighter, smoother, and more resilient surfaces.

5. User-Friendly Application Kerassential comes with an easy-to-use applicator that allows for precise application. A little goes a long way, making it both practical and economical.

How to Use Kerassential for Best Results Maximizing the benefits of Kerassential requires a consistent routine. Here’s a step-by-step guide to using it effectively:

Cleanse: Start with clean nails and skin. Use a gentle cleanser to remove any dirt or previous products. Apply: Place a few drops of Kerassential directly onto the desired area, whether it’s nails or skin. Massage: Gently massage the serum into the skin and nails until fully absorbed. Frequency: For optimal results, apply Kerassential daily. Regular use helps maintain health, prevent issues, and improve appearance. Customer Testimonials Positive feedback from users highlights the real-life effectiveness of Kerassential. Here are a few experiences:

Jessica L.: “I've struggled with brittle nails for years. Kerassential has transformed them; they're stronger and beautifully polished!” Michael T.: “This product has relieved my athlete's foot faster than anything I've tried. I’m thrilled with the results!” Linda G.: “My skin feels incredibly hydrated and soft. The scent is delightful too. I love this product!” Comparing Kerassential to Other Products Here's a brief comparison of Kerassential with other common nail and skin treatments available in the market:

Product Name Key Features Advantages Disadvantages Kerassential Natural oils, Vitamins Antifungal, hydrates skin Requires consistent use Nail Fungus Cream Antifungal agents Quick acting May contain harsh chemicals Moisturizing Lotion Hydrating formula Immediate hydration Lacks antifungal properties Cuticle Oil Nutrient-rich oil Softens cuticles Limited to cuticle area only Conclusion Kerassential stands out as a versatile and effective solution for

In Summary: * I heard President Trump's Address to the Nation tonight, all 20 minutes of it, and learned nothing new. He touted the economic successes of his Administration during this, his first year in office. As one who follows the news closely, and his frequent posts on his Truth Social platform, I was aware of everything he spoke about tonight. There was nothing new nor alarming revealed. So I should sleep easy tonight.

Prayers, etc.: * My daily prayers

Health Metrics: * bw= 220.35 lbs. * bp= 140/84 (66)

Exercise: * kegel pelvic floor exercise, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * 05:50 – toast & butter * 06:35 – 1 banana * 07:00 – 2 blueberry muffins * 09:00 – noodles w. cheese sauce * 11:00 – home made meat & vegetables soup * 12:00 – beef chop suey, egg drop soup, Rangoon * 17:00 – bowl of soup.

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:30 – listen to local news talk radio * 05:40 – bank accounts activity monitored * 06:00 – read, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials * 12:00 – watch old game shows and eat lunch at home with Sylvia * 17:20 – tuned into the Xavier Sports Network to listen to the Radio Call of tonight's NCAA men's basketball game between the Creighton Bluejays and the Xavier Musketeers, opening tip is minutes away. Let's Go X! * 19:25 – Creighton won, final score: Bluejays 98 – Musketeers 57 * 19:30 – President Trump's address to the nation is coming up in half an hour. Shall work on my night prayers until then. Depending on the content of his speech, I'll ready myself for bed after that.

Chess: * 17:05 – moved in all pending CC games

Twenty-eight percent of humanity, some 2.3 billion people, faced moderate or severe food insecurity in 2024. As the planet careens towards 10 billion inhabitants by 2050, the maths becomes starker: agriculture must produce more nutritious food with fewer resources, on degrading land, through increasingly chaotic weather. The challenge is compounded by climate change, which brings more frequent droughts, shifting growing seasons, and expanding pest ranges. Enter artificial intelligence, a technology that promises to revolutionise farming through precision, prediction, and optimisation. But as these digital tools proliferate across food systems, from smallholder plots in Telangana to industrial megafarms in Iowa, a more nuanced picture emerges. AI isn't just reshaping how we grow food; it's redistributing power, rewriting access, and raising uncomfortable questions about who benefits when algorithms enter the fields.

The revolution already has numbers attached. The global AI in agriculture market reached $4.7 billion in 2024 and analysts project it will hit $12.47 billion by 2034, growing at 26 percent annually. More than a third of farmers now use AI for farm management, primarily for precision planting, soil monitoring, and yield forecasting. According to World Bank estimates, AI-powered precision agriculture can boost crop yields by up to 30 percent whilst simultaneously reducing water consumption by 25 percent and fertiliser expenditure by similar margins. These aren't speculative gains; they're measurable, repeatable outcomes documented across thousands of farms. Some operations report seeing positive returns within the first one to three growing seasons due to significant cost savings on inputs and measurable increases in yield. Yet the distribution of these benefits reveals deep fractures in how agricultural AI gets deployed, who can access it, and what trade-offs accompany the efficiency gains.

When Machines Learn to See

Walk through a modern precision agriculture operation and you'll encounter a dizzying array of sensors, satellites, and smart machinery. AI-powered systems analyse soil moisture, nutrient levels, and crop health in real time, adjusting inputs down to individual plants. This represents a fundamental shift in farming methodology. Where traditional agriculture applied water, fertiliser, and pesticides uniformly across fields (wasting resources and damaging ecosystems), precision farming targets interventions with surgical accuracy.

The technology stack combines multiple AI capabilities. Convolutional neural networks process satellite and drone imagery to identify stressed crops, nutrient deficiencies, or pest infestations days before human scouts could spot them. Machine learning algorithms ingest decades of weather data, soil composition analyses, and yield records to optimise planting schedules and seed varieties for specific microclimates. Variable-rate application equipment, guided by these AI systems, delivers precisely measured inputs only where needed. The approach enables what agronomists call “prescription farming,” treating each section of field according to its specific needs rather than applying blanket treatments.

The results speak clearly. Farmers adopting precision agriculture report water usage reductions of up to 40 percent and fertiliser application accuracy improvements of 85 percent. Automated machinery and AI-driven farm management cut labour costs by approximately 50 percent. Some operations report profit increases as high as 120 percent within three growing seasons. These efficiency gains accumulate: reducing water use lowers pumping costs, precise fertiliser application saves on input purchases whilst reducing runoff pollution, and early pest detection prevents losses that would otherwise require expensive remediation.

Agrovech deployed AI-powered drones to scan large operations systematically. These autonomous systems carry advanced imaging technology and environmental sensors capturing moisture levels, plant health indicators, and nutrient status. A pilot programme reported a 20 percent reduction in water usage through more accurate irrigation recommendations. The drones didn't just replace human observation; they saw things humans couldn't detect, operating in spectral ranges that reveal crop stress invisible to the naked eye. Multispectral imaging allows the systems to detect subtle changes in plant reflectance that indicate stress days or even weeks before visual symptoms appear.

Bayer's Xarvio platform exemplifies how AI integrates multiple data streams. The system analyses weather patterns, satellite imagery, and agronomic models to deliver field-specific recommendations for disease and pest management. By processing information at scales and speeds impossible for human analysis, Xarvio helps farmers intervene before problems escalate, shifting from reactive crisis management to proactive prevention. The platform demonstrates how AI excels at synthesis, connecting weather patterns to disease risk, correlating soil conditions with nutrient requirements, and predicting pest pressures based on temperature trends.

Yet precision agriculture remains largely confined to well-capitalised operations in developed economies. The sensors, drones, satellite subscriptions, and computing infrastructure required represent substantial upfront investments, often running into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds. Even in the United States, where these technologies have been commercially available for decades, only about one-quarter of farms employ precision agriculture tools. Globally, smallholder farms (those under two hectares) account for 84 percent of the world's 600 million farms and produce roughly one-third of global food supplies, yet remain almost entirely excluded from precision agriculture benefits.

Supply Chain Intelligence

Beyond the farm gate, AI is rewriting how food moves through the global supply chain, targeting staggering inefficiencies. The numbers are sobering: wasted food accounts for an estimated 3.3 gigatons of carbon emissions annually, making food waste the third-largest source of greenhouse gases after the United States and China. More than 70 percent of a company's emissions originate in its supply chain, yet 86 percent of companies still rely on manual spreadsheets for emissions tracking.

AI-powered supply chain optimisation addresses multiple failure points simultaneously. Generative AI platforms analyse historical sales data, weather forecasts, local events, and consumer behaviour patterns to improve demand forecasting accuracy. A McKinsey analysis found that AI-driven demand forecasting can improve service levels by up to 65 percent whilst reducing inventory costs by 20 to 30 percent. For an industry dealing with perishable goods and razor-thin margins, these improvements translate directly into reduced waste and emissions.

The Pacific Coast Food Waste Commitment conducted a revealing pilot study in 2022, deploying AI solutions from Shelf Engine and Afresh at two large retailers. The systems optimised order accuracy, leading to a 14.8 percent average reduction in food waste per store. Extrapolating across the entire grocery sector, researchers estimated that widespread implementation could prevent 907,372 tons of food waste annually, representing 13.3 million metric tons of avoided carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and more than $2 billion in financial benefits.

Walmart's supply chain AI tool, Eden, illustrates the technology's practical impact at industrial scale. Deployed across 43 distribution centres, the system has prevented $86 million in waste. The company projects it will eliminate $2 billion in food waste over the coming years through AI-optimised logistics. Nestlé's internal AI platform, NesGPT, has cut product ideation times from six months to six weeks whilst maintaining consumer satisfaction. These time reductions ripple through supply chains, reducing inventory holding periods and the associated waste.

Carbon tracking represents another critical application. AI transforms emissions monitoring through automated, real-time tracking across distributed operations. Internet of Things sensors provide granular, continuous data collection. Blockchain technology creates transparent, tamper-proof records. AI-powered analytics identify emissions hotspots and optimise logistics accordingly. The technology enables companies to monitor not just their direct emissions but the far more substantial Scope 3 emissions from suppliers, transportation, and distribution.

Chartwells Higher Ed, partnering with HowGood, discovered that 96 to 97 percent of their supply chain emissions fell under Scope 3 (indirect emissions from suppliers and customers), prompting a data-driven overhaul of procurement. Spanish food retailer Ametller Origen is working towards carbon neutrality by 2027 using RELEX's smart replenishment solution. Companies like Microsoft and Chartwells have achieved emissions reductions of up to 15 percent using AI optimisation, whilst a leading electronics manufacturer cut Scope 3 emissions by 20 percent within a year.

The technology enables something previously impossible: real-time visibility into the carbon footprint of complex, global supply chains. When emissions exceed targets, systems can automatically adjust operations, rerouting shipments, modifying production schedules, or triggering supplier interventions. This closed-loop feedback transforms carbon management from annual reporting exercises into continuous operational optimisation.

Predicting the Unpredictable

As climate change amplifies agricultural risks (droughts intensifying, pest ranges expanding, weather patterns destabilising), AI-powered prediction systems offer farmers crucial lead time to adapt. The technology excels at identifying patterns in vast, multidimensional datasets, detecting correlations that escape human analysis.

Drought prediction exemplifies AI's forecasting capabilities. Researchers at Skoltech and Sber developed models that predict droughts several months or even a year before they occur, fusing AI with classical meteorological methods. The approach relies on spatiotemporal neural networks processing openly available monthly climate data, tested across five regions spanning multiple continents and climate zones. This advance warning capability transforms drought from unavoidable disaster into manageable risk, allowing farmers to adjust planting decisions, secure water resources, or purchase crop insurance before prices spike.

A 2024 study in Nature's Scientific Reports developed a meteorological drought index using multiple AI architectures. The models predicted future drought conditions with high accuracy, consistently outperforming existing indices. MIT Lincoln Laboratory is developing neural networks using satellite-derived temperature and humidity measurements. Scientists demonstrated that estimates from NASA's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder can detect drought onset in the continental United States months before other indicators. Traditional drought metrics based on precipitation or soil moisture are inherently reactive, identifying droughts only after they've begun. AI systems, by contrast, detect the atmospheric conditions that precede drought, providing genuinely predictive intelligence.

Commercial applications are bringing these capabilities to farmers directly. In April 2024, ClimateAi launched ClimateLens Monitor Yield Outlook, offering climate-driven yield forecasts for key commodity crops. The platform provides insights into climate factors driving variability, helping farmers make informed decisions about planting, insurance, and marketing.

Pest and disease forecasting represents another critical climate resilience application. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, 40 percent of crops are lost annually to plant diseases and pests, costing the global economy $220 billion. Climate change exacerbates these challenges, influencing invasive pest and disease infestations, especially for cereal crops. Warmer temperatures allow pests to survive winters in regions where they previously died off, whilst changing precipitation patterns create favourable conditions for fungal diseases.

AI systems integrate satellite imagery, meteorological data, historical pest incidence records, and field sensor feeds to dynamically anticipate hazards. Recent advances in deep learning, such as fast Fourier convolutional networks, can distinguish between similar symptoms like wheat yellow rust and nitrogen deficiency using Sentinel-2 satellite time series data. This diagnostic precision prevents farmers from applying inappropriate treatments, saving costs whilst reducing unnecessary chemical applications.

Early warning systems disseminate this intelligence to policymakers, research institutes, and farmers. In wheat-growing regions, these systems have successfully provided timely information assisting policymakers in allocating limited fungicide stocks. Companies like Fermata offer platforms such as Croptimus that automatically detect pests and disease at their earliest stages, saving growers up to 30 percent on crop loss and 50 percent on scouting time.

The compound effect of these forecasting capabilities gives farmers unprecedented foresight. Rather than reacting to crises as they unfold, operations can adjust strategies proactively, selecting drought-resistant varieties, pre-positioning pest management resources, or securing forward contracts based on predicted yields. This shift from reactive to anticipatory farming represents a fundamental change in risk management.

Who Owns the Farm?

As AI systems proliferate across agriculture, they leave behind vast trails of data, raising thorny questions about ownership, privacy, and power. Every sensor reading, satellite image, and yield measurement feeds the algorithms that generate insights. But who controls this information? Who profits from it? And what happens when the most intimate details of farming operations become digital commodities?

The agricultural data governance landscape evolved significantly in 2024 with updated Core Principles for Agricultural Data, originally developed in 2014 by the American Farm Bureau Federation. The principles rest on a foundational belief: farmers should own information originating from their farming operations. Yet translating this principle into practice proves challenging.

The updated principles mandate that providers explain whether agricultural data will be used in training machine learning or AI models. They require explicit consent before collecting, accessing, or using agricultural data. Farmers should be able to retrieve their data in usable formats within reasonable timeframes, with exceptions only for information that has been anonymised or aggregated. These updates respond to growing concerns about how agricultural technology companies monetise farmer data, potentially using it to train proprietary models or selling aggregated insights to third parties.

Despite these principles, enforcement remains voluntary. More than 40 companies have achieved Ag Data Transparent certification, but adoption is far from universal. Existing data privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation apply when farm data includes personally identifiable information, but most agricultural data falls outside this scope. Though at least 20 US states have introduced comprehensive data privacy laws, data collected through precision farming may not necessarily be covered.

The power asymmetry is stark. Agricultural technology companies aggregate data across thousands of farms, gaining insights into regional trends, optimal practices, and market conditions that individual farmers cannot access. This information asymmetry creates competitive advantages for data aggregators. When AI platforms trained on data from thousands of farms offer recommendations to individual farmers, those recommendations reflect the collective knowledge base, but individual contributors see only the outputs, not the underlying patterns. A technology vendor might discern that certain seed varieties perform exceptionally well under specific conditions across a region, information that could inform their own seed development or sales strategies, whilst the farmers who provided the data receive only narrow recommendations for their individual operations.

Algorithmic transparency represents another governance challenge. When an AI system recommends specific treatments or schedules, farmers often cannot scrutinise the reasoning. These black-box recommendations require trust, but trust without transparency creates vulnerability. If recommendations prove suboptimal, farmers lack the information needed to understand why or hold providers accountable.

Emerging technologies like federated learning offer potential solutions. This approach enables privacy-preserving data analysis by training AI models across multiple farms whilst retaining data locally. However, technical complications arise, including data heterogeneity, communication impediments in rural areas, and limited computational capabilities at farm level.

The Environmental Paradox

Whilst AI optimises agricultural resource use, the technology itself consumes substantial energy. Data centres currently consume about 1 to 2 percent of global electricity, and AI accounts for roughly 15 percent of that consumption. The International Energy Agency projects this demand will double by 2030.

The carbon footprint numbers are striking. Training GPT-3 emitted roughly 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to driving a car from New York to San Francisco about 438 times. A single ChatGPT query can generate 100 times more carbon than a regular Google search. Research quantifying emissions from 79 prominent AI systems found that the projected total carbon footprint from the top 20 could reach up to 102.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.

Data centres in the United States used approximately 200 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024, roughly equivalent to Thailand's annual consumption. In 2024, fossil fuels still supplied just under 60 percent of US electricity. The carbon intensity of AI operations thus varies dramatically based on location and timing. California's grid can swing from under 70 grams per kilowatt-hour during sunny afternoons to over 300 grams overnight.

For agricultural AI specifically, the environmental ledger is complex. Key contributors to the carbon footprint include data centre emissions, lifecycle emissions from manufacturing sensors and drones, and rural connectivity infrastructure. However, well-configured AI systems can offset these emissions by optimising irrigation, fertiliser application, and field operations. Estimates from 2024 suggest AI-driven farms can lower field-related emissions by up to 15 percent.

The net environmental impact depends on deployment scale and energy sources. A precision agriculture operation reducing water use by 40 percent and fertiliser by 30 percent likely achieves net positive environmental outcomes, particularly if data centres run on renewable energy. Conversely, using fossil-fuel-powered AI to generate marginal efficiency improvements might yield negative net results.

Major technology companies are responding. Google has committed to running entirely on carbon-free energy by 2030, Microsoft pledges to become carbon negative by the same year, and Amazon is investing billions in renewable projects. Cloud providers increasingly offer transparency about data centre energy sources, allowing agricultural technology developers to make informed choices about where to run their computations.

The path forward requires honesty about trade-offs. AI can deliver substantial environmental benefits in agriculture through optimisation and waste reduction, but these gains aren't free. They come with computational costs that must be measured, minimised, and ultimately powered by renewable energy. The technology's net environmental impact depends entirely on how thoughtfully it's deployed and how rapidly the underlying energy infrastructure decarbonises.

The Equity Gap

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of agricultural AI's rapid expansion is how unevenly benefits distribute. Smallholder farms account for 84 percent of the world's 600 million farms and produce about one-third of global food, yet remain almost entirely excluded from precision agriculture benefits. In sub-Saharan Africa, only 13 percent of small-scale producers have registered for digital services, and less than 5 percent remain active users. These smallholder operations, which include farms under two hectares, produce 70 percent of food in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, making their exclusion from agricultural AI a global food security concern.

The accessibility gap has multiple dimensions. Financial barriers loom largest: high initial costs deter smallholder farmers even when lifetime return on investment appears promising. Precision agriculture systems can require investments ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Many large agriculture technology vendors offer AI-powered platforms supported by data from thousands of Internet of Things sensors on equipment used at larger farms in developed countries. Meanwhile, data on smallholder farming practices either isn't collected or exists only in paper form.

Infrastructure gaps compound financial barriers. Many smallholder farmers lack reliable internet connectivity and stable power supplies. Without connectivity, cloud-based AI platforms remain inaccessible. Without power, sensor networks cannot operate. Investment in rural broadband and electrical infrastructure thus becomes prerequisite to agricultural AI adoption. Economic realities make these investments challenging: sparse rural populations and difficult terrains reduce profitability for network operators, discouraging infrastructure development.

Digital literacy represents another critical barrier. Even when technology becomes available and affordable, farmers require training. Many smallholders need targeted digital education and language-localised AI advisories. For women and marginalised groups, barriers are often even higher, reflecting broader patterns of inequality in access to technology, education, and resources.

Investment patterns reinforce these disparities. Most funders focus on mid-to-large-scale farms in the Americas and Europe, leaving smallholder farmers in the developing world largely behind. In Latin America, only 15 percent of the $440 million agricultural technology industry is built for smallholders. In 2024, the largest funding amounts went to precision agriculture ($4.7 billion), marketplaces ($2.5 billion), and AI ($1.3 billion), with relatively little directed towards smallholder-specific solutions.

Algorithmic bias exacerbates these inequities. AI systems trained predominantly on data from large commercial operations often perform poorly or offer inappropriate recommendations for small family farms in different contexts. When agricultural datasets lack representation from marginalised farming communities or ecologically diverse microclimates, the resulting AI perpetuates existing inequalities. A dataset heavily weighted towards large operations in temperate zones might train an algorithm that performs poorly for small family farms in semi-arid tropics.

The bias operates insidiously. Loan algorithms assessing farmer creditworthiness based on digital transaction history might inadvertently exclude smallholders who operate outside formal digital economies. Marketing algorithms trained on biased data perpetuate cycles of bias. Recommendation systems optimised for monoculture operations may suggest inappropriate practices for diversified smallholder systems.

Yet emerging solutions demonstrate that inclusive agricultural AI is possible. Farmer.Chat, a generative AI-powered chatbot, offers a scalable solution providing smallholder farmers with timely, context-specific information. Hello Tractor, a Nigerian-based platform, uses IoT technology to connect smallholder farmers with tractor owners across sub-Saharan Africa. The company has provided tractor services for half a million farmers, with 87 percent reporting increased incomes.

Farmonaut offers mobile-first platforms using satellite imagery and AI analytics to provide actionable advisories. These platforms avoid costly hardware installations, offering flexible pricing based on acreage, making precision agriculture accessible even for farmers managing less than 20 hectares.

The AI for Agriculture Innovation initiative demonstrated what's possible with targeted investment. The programme transformed chili farming in Khammam district, India, with bot advisory services, AI-based quality testing, and a digital platform connecting buyers and sellers. Participating farmers reported doubling their income. The pilot involved 7,000 farmers over 18 months. Farmers reported net income of $800 per acre in a single six-month crop cycle, effectively double the average income.

ITC's Krishi Mitra, an AI copilot built using Microsoft templates, serves 300,000 farmers in India during its pilot phase, with an anticipated user base of 10 million. The application aims to empower farmers with timely information enhancing productivity, profitability, and climate resilience.

These examples share common characteristics: they prioritise accessibility, affordability, and clear return on investment. They leverage mobile-first platforms requiring minimal hardware investment. They provide language-localised interfaces and culturally appropriate advisories. Most crucially, they're designed from the outset for smallholder contexts rather than adapted from industrial solutions.

Levelling the Field

Bridging the agricultural AI equity gap requires coordinated policy interventions addressing financial barriers, infrastructure deficits, knowledge gaps, and market failures. Several promising approaches have emerged or expanded in 2024.

Direct financial support remains foundational. The US Department of Agriculture announced up to $7.7 billion in assistance for fiscal year 2025 to help producers adopt conservation practices, including up to $5.7 billion for climate-smart practices enabled by the Inflation Reduction Act. This represents more than double the previous year's allocation. Critically, the programmes prioritise underserved, minority, and beginning farmers.

Key programmes include the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education programme; the Environmental Quality Incentives Programme, targeting on-farm conservation practices; the Conservation Stewardship Programme; and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Programme.

Insurance-linked incentives offer another policy lever. Research explores integrating AI into government-subsidised insurance structures, focusing on reduced premiums through government intervention. Since AI's potential to reduce uncertainty could lower the overall risk profile of insured farmers, premium reductions could incentivise adoption whilst recognising the public benefits of improved climate resilience.

Infrastructure investment represents perhaps the most critical policy intervention. Without reliable rural internet connectivity and stable electrical supply, agricultural AI remains inaccessible. Several countries have launched targeted initiatives. Chile announced a project in October 2024 providing rural communities with access to high-quality internet and digital technologies. African countries including South Africa, Senegal, Malawi, Tanzania, and Ghana have implemented infrastructure-sharing initiatives, with network sharing models improving net present value by up to 90 percent.

Public-private partnerships can accelerate infrastructure development and technology transfer. IBM's Sustainability Accelerator demonstrates this approach: four out of five IBM agriculture projects have concluded with approximately 65,300 direct beneficiaries using technology to increase yields and improve resilience.

Data governance policies must balance innovation with equity and protection. Recommendations include establishing clear data ownership frameworks; requiring algorithmic transparency; mandating explicit consent before collecting agricultural data; ensuring data portability; and preventing discriminatory algorithmic bias through regular auditing.

Digital literacy programmes are essential complements to technology deployment. Farmers require training not just in tool operation but in critical evaluation of AI recommendations, understanding when to trust algorithmic advice and when to rely on traditional knowledge.

Open-source AI tools offer another equity-enhancing approach. By making algorithms freely available, open-source initiatives enable smallholder farmers to adapt solutions to specific needs. This decentralised approach fosters innovation and local ownership rather than consolidating control with technology vendors.

Tax incentives and subsidies can reduce adoption barriers. Targeted tax credits for precision agriculture investments can offset upfront costs. Equipment-sharing cooperatives, subsidised by governments or development agencies, can provide access to expensive technologies without requiring individual ownership.

The Agriculture Bill 2024 represents an integrated policy approach, described as a landmark framework accelerating digital and AI adoption in farming. It provides funding for technology, supports digital literacy, and emphasises sustainability and inclusivity, particularly benefiting rural and smallholder farmers.

Effective policy must also address cross-border challenges. Agricultural supply chains are global, as are climate impacts and food security concerns. International cooperation on data standards, technology transfer, and development assistance can amplify national efforts.

The Road Ahead

As AI weaves deeper into global food systems, we face fundamental choices about what kind of agricultural future we're building. The technology clearly works: crops grow with less water, supply chains waste less food, farmers gain lead time on climate threats. These efficiency gains matter desperately on a warming planet with billions more mouths to feed. Yet efficiency alone doesn't constitute progress if the tools delivering it remain accessible only to the already-privileged, if algorithmic black boxes replace farmer knowledge without accountability, if the computational costs of intelligence undermine the environmental benefits of optimisation.

The patterns emerging in 2024 should give pause. Investment concentrates on large operations in wealthy regions. Research focuses on industrial agriculture whilst smallholders remain afterthoughts. Technology vendors consolidate data and insights whilst farmers provide raw information and see only narrow recommendations. The infrastructure enabling AI in agriculture follows existing development gradients, amplifying rather than ameliorating global inequalities.

Yet counter-examples, though smaller in scale, demonstrate alternative possibilities. Farmer-focused AI delivering measurable benefits to smallholders in India, Nigeria, and Latin America. Open-source platforms democratising access to satellite analytics. Mobile-first designs bypassing expensive sensor networks. These approaches prove that agricultural AI can be inclusive, that technology can empower rather than dispossess.

The question isn't whether AI will transform agriculture; that transformation is already underway. The question is whether it will transform agriculture for everyone or just for those who can afford it. Whether it will enhance farmer autonomy or erode it. Whether it will genuinely address climate resilience or merely optimise the industrial monoculture systems driving environmental degradation. Whether the computational footprint of intelligence will be powered by renewables or fossil fuels.

Answering these questions well requires more than clever algorithms. It demands political will to invest in rural infrastructure, regulatory frameworks protecting data rights and algorithmic fairness, research prioritising smallholder contexts, and business models valuing equity alongside efficiency. It requires recognising that agricultural AI isn't a neutral technology optimising farming but a social and political intervention reshaping power relations, knowledge systems, and resource access.

The promise of AI in agriculture is real, backed by measurable yield increases, waste reductions, and early warnings that can avert disasters. But promise without equity becomes privilege. Intelligence without wisdom creates efficient systems serving limited beneficiaries. If we want agricultural AI that genuinely addresses food security and climate resilience globally, we must build it deliberately, inclusively, and with clear-eyed honesty about the trade-offs. The algorithms can optimise, but only humans can decide what to optimise for.

---

References & Sources

• AI & Global Food Security: A Focus on Precision Agriculture | CSIS
• How AI in Precision Agriculture Drives Profitability (2025-2027 Guide) – Aya Data
• AI in Agriculture Market Size & Share, Growth Report 2025-2034
• Need Of Precision Farming: AI Transforms Agriculture 2025
• Three Ways AI Is Driving Reductions in Food Loss and Waste
• How AI Technology Can Tackle The Food Waste Affair | Supply Chain Magazine
• Drought prediction using artificial intelligence models based on climate data and soil moisture | Scientific Reports
• AI may be able to predict droughts a year in advance
• ClimateAi Launches AI-Driven Crop Yield Outlook Amid Global Climate Volatility
• Updated Core Principles for Ag Data (2024) — Janzen Schroeder Ag Law
• Core Principles — Ag Data Transparent
• The Legal Landscape of Data Privacy in AI-Driven Precision Agriculture | Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts
• Data Ownership and Privacy in Dairy Farming: Insights from U.S. and Global Perspectives
• Farmer.Chat: Scaling AI-Powered Agricultural Services for Smallholder Farmers
• How AI is transforming extension services for precision smallholder farming – CGIAR
• Harnessing AI to Empower Smallholder Farmers: Bridging the Digital Divide for Sustainable Growth — Harvard ALI Social Impact Review
• AI Water Footprint & Agricultural Footprint: 2024 Carbon Insights
• AI's Environmental Paradox
• We did the math on AI's energy footprint. Here's the story you haven't heard. | MIT Technology Review
• Analyzing the Relationship between Agricultural AI Adoption and Government-Subsidized Insurance
• Biden-Harris Administration Makes up to $7.7 Billion Available for Climate-Smart Practices | USDA
• Sustainable Agriculture Grants 2024: Top USDA Funding
• AI Transforms Real-Time Tracking & Reduction of Scope 3 Emissions in Supply Chains
• Using AI for Carbon Footprint Tracking: How Supply Chains Can Meet Sustainability Goals
• Integrative approaches in modern agriculture: IoT, ML and AI for disease forecasting | Precision Agriculture
• Remote sensing and artificial intelligence: revolutionizing pest management | Frontiers
• AI in Agriculture: Examples, Benefits & Real-World Use Cases
• Farmers in India are using AI for agriculture – here's how they could inspire the world
• World Agri-Tech 2024: Pioneering agriculture resilience with AI – Microsoft
• Digital Agriculture for Small-Scale Producers – Communications of the ACM
• Digitalisation in agriculture: A scoping review for smallholder farmers in sub-saharan africa – ScienceDirect
• Data Bias in AI Agriculture: Ensuring Fairness & Sustainability | Keymakr
• Algorithmic Bias and Farmers' Autonomy in AI-Driven Agricultural Marketing | IGI Global
• Artificial intelligence in sustainable agriculture: Towards a socio-technical roadmap – ScienceDirect

---

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

There are moments when you realize that what once defined you no longer fits the person you are becoming. It isn’t dramatic at first. There’s no thunder. No announcement. Just a quiet tension between who you were trained to be and who you are being invited to become. That tension lives at the very center of 2 Corinthians 3, and it is one of the most unsettling, liberating, and misunderstood chapters Paul ever wrote.

Paul is not arguing against faithfulness. He is not attacking Scripture. He is not dismissing discipline or obedience. What he is dismantling is something far more dangerous: the belief that righteousness can be proven, measured, certified, or controlled. He is confronting the human impulse to reduce transformation into something legible, something recordable, something that can be signed at the bottom and filed away.

The chapter opens with a question that feels almost defensive. “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?” Paul asks. It’s a strange way to start unless you understand the environment he is writing into. Paul is being challenged. His authority is being questioned. Other teachers have arrived in Corinth with credentials, letters of recommendation, endorsements from respected communities. They look impressive. They sound polished. They have paperwork.

Paul does not.

And instead of scrambling to produce his own credentials, he does something radical. He reframes the entire idea of legitimacy. He tells the Corinthians that they are his letter. Not something written with ink, but something written by the Spirit of the living God. Not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts.

This is not poetic filler. This is theological confrontation.

Paul is saying that the evidence of God’s work is not primarily found in documents, doctrines, or declarations. It is found in changed lives. And not changed in a way that can be easily audited. Changed in ways that are organic, relational, and deeply human. The kind of change that doesn’t look impressive on paper but is unmistakable in person.

What Paul is pushing back against is an ancient problem that has never gone away: our obsession with visible validation. We want faith we can point to. Holiness we can measure. Spirituality we can certify. We are far more comfortable with systems than with surrender.

Ink feels safer than Spirit.

Stone feels sturdier than hearts.

But Paul refuses to play that game. He insists that the new covenant does not operate on the old terms. The Spirit does not write with ink because ink fades. The Spirit does not write on stone because stone cannot respond. The Spirit writes on hearts because hearts can grow, ache, resist, soften, and change.

This is where many people begin to feel uncomfortable, because a heart-written faith cannot be controlled the way a rule-written faith can. It cannot be standardized. It cannot be mass-produced. It cannot be enforced from the outside.

It has to be lived.

Paul then introduces a phrase that has been weaponized, misunderstood, and oversimplified for generations: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” This line has been used to dismiss Scripture, excuse laziness, or justify spiritual chaos. That is not what Paul is doing.

Paul is not saying that God’s law was bad. He is saying that God’s law was incomplete without God’s presence. The problem was never the letter itself. The problem was the human heart trying to fulfill it without transformation. Law without Spirit does not produce righteousness; it produces either pride or despair.

If you think you’re keeping it, you become arrogant.

If you know you aren’t, you become crushed.

Either way, life drains out of you.

The law can diagnose, but it cannot heal. It can expose sin, but it cannot transform the sinner. It can demand holiness, but it cannot create it. That work belongs to the Spirit, and the Spirit does not operate like ink on stone. The Spirit operates like breath in lungs.

This is why Paul contrasts the ministry that was carved in letters on stone with the ministry of the Spirit. He acknowledges that the old covenant came with glory. He does not deny it. Moses’ face literally shone after encountering God. But Paul points out something deeply unsettling: even that glory was fading.

Imagine how that must have landed with his audience. The most revered moment in Israel’s history, the giving of the Law, is described as glorious but temporary. Not false. Not evil. Temporary.

Paul is not diminishing Moses. He is placing Moses in his proper place within a larger story. The law was never meant to be the final word. It was a tutor, a guide, a preparation. Its glory was real, but it was not permanent. It pointed beyond itself to something greater.

And this is where Paul introduces one of the most psychologically and spiritually profound images in all of Scripture: the veil.

Moses veiled his face so that the Israelites would not see the fading of the glory. That detail alone should make us pause. The veil was not hiding glory; it was hiding the loss of it. The people were allowed to see the brightness, but not its decline.

There is something hauntingly familiar about that.

We are very good at showing spiritual brightness and hiding spiritual fading. We curate faith the same way we curate everything else. We show moments of clarity, certainty, and conviction, but we conceal doubt, exhaustion, and decline. The veil becomes a tool not of reverence, but of preservation.

Paul takes this ancient image and turns it into a mirror for the present. He says that to this day, when the old covenant is read, a veil lies over hearts. Not eyes. Hearts. This is crucial. The issue is not information. It is perception. It is not that people cannot read the words. It is that they cannot see where the words are pointing.

A veiled heart can be deeply religious and completely unchanged.

A veiled heart can quote Scripture and miss God.

A veiled heart can defend truth and resist transformation.

Paul is exposing the tragedy of familiarity without encounter. The law, read apart from Christ, becomes something people cling to for identity instead of something that leads them to transformation. The veil is not intellectual ignorance; it is spiritual resistance.

And then Paul makes a claim that quietly rearranges everything: when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

Not slowly.

Not conditionally.

Removed.

The turning itself changes the way everything is seen. This is not about mastering a new system. It is about reorienting the heart. The veil is not lifted by effort; it is lifted by encounter. When someone turns toward Christ, the Spirit does something no amount of discipline could ever accomplish.

Clarity replaces control.

Life replaces performance.

Presence replaces proof.

Paul then declares, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” This line is often quoted, rarely understood. Freedom here does not mean the absence of structure or responsibility. It means the absence of condemnation-driven obedience. It means no longer relating to God through fear of failure.

Freedom means obedience flows from love instead of terror.

Freedom means transformation happens from the inside out instead of the outside in.

Freedom means you are no longer trying to preserve a glow that is fading.

You are being changed by a presence that remains.

Paul ends this section with one of the most breathtaking descriptions of spiritual growth ever written: “We all, with unveiled faces, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.”

This is not instant perfection. This is progressive transformation. Not by striving. Not by law-keeping. By beholding.

That word alone dismantles so much religious anxiety.

Transformation does not come from staring at yourself and trying harder. It comes from looking at Christ and staying there. The Spirit does the work as you remain present. You are changed not by force, but by exposure. Not by pressure, but by proximity.

One degree at a time.

Not backwards.

Not stagnant.

Forward.

This is where many people misunderstand the Christian life. They assume maturity looks like certainty. Paul says it looks like clarity without veils. They assume holiness looks like control. Paul says it looks like freedom. They assume growth looks like adding more rules. Paul says it looks like becoming more like Christ.

And this transformation, Paul insists, is from the Lord who is the Spirit. Not from the law. Not from self-effort. Not from religious performance.

This chapter quietly but firmly declares that the Christian life is not about maintaining a system but participating in a relationship. Not about preserving stone tablets, but allowing living hearts to be written on again and again.

If that feels destabilizing, it is supposed to. Because a faith built on control cannot coexist with a Spirit who brings freedom. A religion built on external validation cannot survive a covenant written on hearts. And a life defined by performance will always feel threatened by grace.

Paul is not calling believers to abandon obedience. He is calling them to stop mistaking obedience for transformation. One produces compliance. The other produces life.

And the Spirit, Paul reminds us, always chooses life.

The danger Paul is addressing in 2 Corinthians 3 is not rebellion. It is stagnation disguised as faithfulness. It is the subtle belief that once you have learned the system, mastered the language, and memorized the expectations, you have arrived. Paul is dismantling the illusion that proximity to sacred things equals transformation. He knows from personal experience that you can devote your entire life to Scripture and still miss the God who breathes through it.

This is why his emphasis on the Spirit is so unsettling. The Spirit cannot be managed. The Spirit cannot be scheduled. The Spirit does not submit to human hierarchies or religious branding. The Spirit works in places systems cannot reach—motives, fears, wounds, habits we hide from everyone else. Ink can outline behavior. Only the Spirit reshapes desire.

When Paul says that believers are “ministers of a new covenant,” he is not handing out titles. He is describing posture. A minister of the new covenant is someone who understands that transformation is not transferred through pressure but through presence. Not through coercion, but through communion. This changes the way faith is lived and shared. It removes the need to dominate conversations, win arguments, or enforce outcomes. The Spirit does not need defending. The Spirit needs space.

One of the quiet tragedies in modern faith culture is how often people are trained to protect the letter while neglecting the heart. Scripture becomes something to wield instead of something to enter. Doctrine becomes armor instead of invitation. Paul is not anti-truth. He is anti-reduction. Truth, severed from the Spirit, becomes brittle. Sharp, but lifeless. Accurate, but incapable of healing.

This is why the veil metaphor matters so deeply. The veil represents more than misunderstanding. It represents resistance to vulnerability. A veiled heart prefers distance over exposure. It prefers certainty over surrender. It prefers rules over relationship because rules feel safer. You can follow rules without being known. You cannot encounter the Spirit without being exposed.

Paul knows that as long as the veil remains, people will continue reading Scripture as a closed loop instead of an open door. They will treat it as an end in itself rather than a witness pointing beyond itself. The tragedy is not ignorance. It is refusal to turn. Because the moment someone turns toward Christ, the veil is removed—not by effort, but by encounter.

That word “turn” matters. It implies movement. Direction. Choice. Not perfection. Turning does not mean arriving fully formed. It means reorienting your trust. It means shifting from self-reliance to dependence, from performance to presence. The veil does not fall because someone becomes worthy. It falls because someone becomes willing.

Paul’s declaration that “the Lord is the Spirit” is not philosophical. It is deeply practical. It means that encountering Christ is not limited to memory or history. Christ is present and active through the Spirit now. This is what makes transformation ongoing instead of nostalgic. Faith is not about preserving what God did once; it is about participating in what God is doing now.

And where that Spirit is, Paul says, there is freedom. Not chaos. Not moral collapse. Freedom from fear-based obedience. Freedom from identity built on performance. Freedom from the exhausting need to prove yourself spiritually valuable. Freedom to grow without pretending you are finished.

This freedom is terrifying for systems built on control. But it is life-giving for people who are tired of pretending. It allows honesty without condemnation. Growth without shame. Obedience without dread. The Spirit produces a kind of righteousness that does not need constant reinforcement because it flows naturally from changed desire.

Paul’s final image brings everything together: unveiled faces beholding the glory of the Lord. Notice what is missing. There is no ladder. No checklist. No demand to manufacture holiness. The posture is beholding. Staying. Remaining. Looking long enough to be changed.

This kind of transformation is slow, but it is real. “From one degree of glory to another” suggests movement that is often imperceptible day to day, but undeniable over time. This dismantles the anxiety of instant maturity. You are not behind because you are still becoming. You are not failing because you are unfinished. Growth is not measured by how impressive you look, but by how honestly you remain before God.

The Spirit does not rush this process. Because rushed change does not last. Forced obedience fractures. Only transformation that emerges from presence endures. The Spirit works with patience because the goal is not compliance but likeness. Not behavior modification, but image restoration.

Paul is quietly telling the Corinthians—and us—that the Christian life is not about shining briefly and hiding the fade. It is about living unveiled, exposed to a glory that does not diminish. The old covenant needed a veil because its glory was temporary. The new covenant removes the veil because its glory is increasing.

This redefines what faithfulness looks like. Faithfulness is not clinging to what once worked. It is staying open to what God is still doing. Faithfulness is not guarding the past. It is consenting to ongoing transformation. Faithfulness is not preserving a glow. It is becoming radiant from within.

2 Corinthians 3 confronts every version of faith that prefers safety over surrender. It challenges the instinct to reduce God to manageable terms. It exposes the exhaustion that comes from trying to live by ink when you were meant to live by breath.

The Spirit does not write once and walk away. The Spirit keeps writing. Keeps shaping. Keeps renewing. And the invitation is not to work harder, but to remain present. To turn. To behold. To live unveiled.

Because the story God is telling with your life cannot be finished in ink.

It has to be lived.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

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

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

I'm at a point where I can focus more on the UI. And this will be time-consuming. This is a lot of trying out and seeing what sticks. It's a lot of fun, but I need to limit myself and not overdo it here. 😅

So, today I got a lot of stuff done. Refined the spacing and tried to make it even on all screens. Improved the styling of the forms and buttons. And cleaned up the styling itself, so it looks a bit more minimal.

I want to show more, but I also would like to keep it a secret what app and style I'm working on. So the posts get a bit shorter. I just want to describe what I have achieved so far.

👋

---

75 of #100DaysToOffload
#log #AdventOfProgress
Thoughts?

While working on and improving the Add/Edit Forms, I noticed that I want the same tag handling in the input form, for another list input.

Said and done. Extracting the tag input into a shared component and adjusting it for the name list input. 🧠

👋

---

74 of #100DaysToOffload
#log #AdventOfProgress
Thoughts?

There are chapters in Scripture that feel gentle when you first read them, almost quiet in tone, until you sit with them long enough to realize they are anything but soft. Second Corinthians chapter two is one of those passages. It does not thunder like Romans eight or blaze like the resurrection narratives. Instead, it speaks in the voice of someone who has been wounded, misunderstood, and forced to choose between being right and being redemptive. This chapter does not deal in abstractions. It deals in relationships, in tension, in leadership under strain, and in the cost of loving people who have already proven they can hurt you.

Paul is not writing theology from a distance here. He is writing from inside the pain. You can hear it in the way he opens the chapter, explaining why he decided not to come again in sorrow. That one sentence alone carries an entire backstory of conflict, tears, confrontation, and restraint. This is not the voice of a detached apostle delivering commandments from a mountaintop. This is the voice of a spiritual father who knows that showing up at the wrong moment can do more harm than good, even when you are technically in the right.

What strikes me every time I read this chapter is how human Paul allows himself to be. He admits that his presence could have caused more grief instead of joy. He acknowledges that his own emotional state matters. He recognizes that leadership is not simply about authority, but about timing, emotional intelligence, and discernment. In a culture that often glorifies relentless confrontation and “speaking your truth” no matter the cost, Paul does something countercultural. He pauses. He waits. He chooses restraint.

That choice alone challenges many modern assumptions about strength. We are often told that strength means showing up, standing firm, doubling down, and making sure everyone knows where you stand. Paul suggests something different. Sometimes strength looks like staying away. Sometimes love means not forcing your presence into a situation where it would only deepen wounds. This is not avoidance. It is wisdom.

Paul then explains that he wrote a painful letter instead, one written with anguish of heart and many tears. That phrase should stop us cold. Many tears. This is not a calculated disciplinary memo. This is a letter soaked in grief. Paul did not enjoy writing it. He did not feel victorious sending it. He was not trying to assert dominance. He was trying to preserve relationship while still addressing wrongdoing. That is an almost impossible balance to strike, and anyone who has ever tried to confront someone they love knows exactly how fragile that line can be.

What Paul reveals here is that correction, when done rightly, always costs the one who delivers it. If it does not, something is wrong. If confrontation feels empowering instead of painful, it may be driven more by ego than by love. Paul makes it clear that his goal was never to cause sorrow, but to demonstrate the depth of his love. That is a radically different framework for discipline. It reframes correction not as punishment, but as an expression of care that refuses to abandon the other person to destructive behavior.

Then the chapter takes a turn that many people gloss over too quickly. Paul addresses the individual who caused the pain, likely someone who had opposed him publicly or disrupted the church in a significant way. He acknowledges that punishment has been sufficient, that the community has done what was necessary. And then he says something that is profoundly uncomfortable for anyone who prefers clean lines and clear consequences. He urges them to forgive and comfort the offender, lest he be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.

This is where grace becomes costly.

There is a point at which justice, if left unchecked, turns cruel. Paul recognizes that discipline can easily tip into destruction if forgiveness does not follow. He understands that shame can become a prison, and that a person who is crushed by regret may never recover if the community refuses to reopen the door. Paul is not dismissing the seriousness of the offense. He is insisting that restoration must be the final goal.

Forgiveness here is not sentimental. It is deliberate. It requires effort. Paul even commands the church to reaffirm their love for the offender. That is not an emotional suggestion. It is an intentional act. Love must be made visible again. The community must actively communicate that the person is not defined forever by their worst moment.

This challenges one of the most deeply ingrained instincts we have. We often believe that withholding warmth is a way of maintaining moral clarity. We think that staying distant proves that we take sin seriously. Paul suggests the opposite. He warns that refusing to forgive creates an opening for Satan, who exploits unresolved bitterness and isolation. In other words, unforgiveness does not protect holiness. It undermines it.

That line alone should make us pause. Paul is not saying that forgiveness is merely a personal virtue. He is saying it is a spiritual defense. When forgiveness is withheld, the enemy gains leverage. Division deepens. Relationships fracture. People withdraw or harden. The community becomes less about healing and more about control.

What is especially striking is that Paul includes himself in this act of forgiveness. He says that if he has forgiven anything, it is for their sake in the presence of Christ. Forgiveness is not just horizontal. It is lived out before God. Paul understands that forgiveness is not simply about resolving interpersonal tension. It is about aligning the community with the heart of Christ, who forgives not because people deserve it, but because redemption demands it.

The chapter then shifts again, almost abruptly, to Paul’s travel plans and his emotional state in Troas. He describes an open door for the gospel and yet confesses that he had no rest in his spirit because he did not find Titus there. That admission is easy to skim past, but it reveals something profound. Paul had opportunity, success, momentum, and still felt unsettled because he was carrying unresolved concern for the Corinthians.

This is not the portrait of a man driven by outcomes alone. Paul is not intoxicated by open doors if relationships remain fractured. He is not willing to ignore the state of the people he loves just because ministry is going well elsewhere. That should challenge any model of success that prioritizes growth over health, expansion over integrity, and numbers over people.

Paul leaves Troas and goes on to Macedonia, still carrying this internal unrest. And then, almost unexpectedly, he breaks into praise. He thanks God who always leads us in triumph in Christ and manifests through us the fragrance of the knowledge of Him everywhere. This is not a denial of pain. It is not a pivot into shallow optimism. It is a declaration that even in uncertainty, even in relational strain, God is still at work.

The imagery Paul uses here is rich and layered. The fragrance of Christ is perceived differently depending on the heart of the one encountering it. To some it is the aroma of life. To others it is the smell of death. That is a sobering thought. Faithfulness does not guarantee universal approval. The same gospel that heals some will offend others. The same message that restores one person may harden another.

Paul does not flinch from that reality. He does not soften it or apologize for it. He simply asks, who is sufficient for these things? It is a rhetorical question that points beyond human adequacy. Paul knows that carrying the gospel, navigating conflict, practicing forgiveness, and leading broken people requires more than skill. It requires dependence.

He contrasts his ministry with those who peddle the word of God for profit or manipulate it for gain. Paul insists that he speaks with sincerity, as from God, in Christ. That phrase is easy to read quickly, but it encapsulates everything this chapter is about. Sincerity. Integrity. Accountability before God. These are the qualities that govern how Paul confronts, forgives, waits, acts, and speaks.

Second Corinthians chapter two is not a neat lesson. It is a lived reality. It exposes the emotional cost of leadership, the tension between justice and mercy, the danger of unforgiveness, and the quiet confidence that God works even when situations remain unresolved. It invites us to reconsider what faithfulness looks like when relationships are strained and outcomes are uncertain.

Most of all, it forces us to sit with an uncomfortable truth. Forgiveness is not optional for communities that claim to follow Christ. It is not a secondary virtue. It is central. And it often requires us to move toward people we would rather keep at a distance, not because they have earned it, but because Christ has forgiven us first.

Second Corinthians chapter two does not resolve neatly, and that is precisely why it feels so real. Paul never circles back in this chapter to tell us exactly how everything turned out in Corinth. He does not give us a tidy conclusion where everyone learned their lesson, harmony was fully restored, and the church moved forward without scars. Instead, he leaves us sitting in the tension. That tension is the space where most of life actually happens.

One of the great mistakes modern faith communities make is assuming that spiritual maturity eliminates emotional complexity. Paul dismantles that assumption completely. Even as an apostle, even as a seasoned leader, even as someone who has seen miracles, conversions, and churches planted, Paul still experiences unrest in his spirit. He still feels anxiety over relationships. He still wrestles with concern when communication is incomplete and reconciliation is uncertain. Faith does not erase emotion. It gives emotion direction.

Paul’s honesty here matters because it gives permission to leaders, parents, mentors, pastors, and everyday believers to admit when something is unresolved inside them. Too often, people feel pressure to project confidence when internally they are unsettled. Paul shows us that acknowledging inner unrest is not weakness. It is awareness. It is the recognition that love binds us to one another in ways that cannot be compartmentalized.

What becomes clear as we sit longer with this chapter is that forgiveness, in Paul’s understanding, is not a single act. It is a process that unfolds in stages. There is confrontation. There is sorrow. There is accountability. There is restraint. And then there is restoration. Skipping any one of those steps distorts the whole. Forgiveness without truth becomes denial. Truth without forgiveness becomes cruelty. Paul refuses both extremes.

This has profound implications for how we handle conflict today. We live in a culture that swings wildly between public shaming and superficial reconciliation. Either someone is canceled beyond repair, or they are rushed back into acceptance without any real healing having taken place. Paul charts a slower, harder path. He allows time for consequences to do their work, but he also knows when to stop them from becoming destructive.

That discernment is one of the most underappreciated spiritual skills. Knowing when discipline has accomplished its purpose requires wisdom, humility, and attentiveness to the condition of the person involved. Paul is deeply concerned that excessive sorrow might overwhelm the offender. That word, overwhelm, carries weight. It suggests drowning. It suggests being buried under regret with no way out. Paul refuses to let that happen on the church’s watch.

This speaks directly to how communities handle failure. If someone stumbles and never sees a path back, the message they receive is not holiness, but hopelessness. Paul understands that despair is not a neutral state. It is spiritually dangerous. People who believe they are beyond redemption often stop trying altogether. Forgiveness, then, becomes an act of rescue.

Paul’s warning about Satan gaining an advantage through unforgiveness feels especially relevant in a time when division is normalized. Bitterness hardens quietly. Grievances calcify. Relationships fracture not always through dramatic blowups, but through prolonged silence and withheld grace. Paul sees this clearly. The enemy does not need spectacular evil when ordinary resentment will do the job just fine.

What stands out here is that Paul frames forgiveness as a communal responsibility. This is not just about how one person feels toward another. It is about the health of the entire body. When forgiveness is withheld, the whole community suffers. Trust erodes. Fear spreads. People become cautious, guarded, and performative. Love becomes conditional. Paul refuses to let the church drift in that direction.

Then there is the striking shift from relational pain to triumphant imagery. Paul’s declaration that God always leads us in triumph can sound jarring if read carelessly. It can easily be misinterpreted as triumphalism, as though faith guarantees constant success or visible victory. But when read in context, it means something much deeper. Triumph here is not about circumstances aligning perfectly. It is about being led, even through difficulty, in a way that ultimately serves God’s purposes.

The triumph Paul speaks of is Christ-centered, not comfort-centered. It is the triumph of faithfulness, not ease. God’s leading does not bypass hardship. It moves through it. And as Paul says, through this movement, God spreads the fragrance of Christ. That fragrance is not manufactured. It is released through lived obedience, through costly forgiveness, through integrity under pressure.

The metaphor of fragrance is powerful because it reminds us that influence is often subtle. Fragrance lingers. It permeates. It cannot be forced. Some will find it life-giving. Others will find it offensive. Paul accepts both responses without compromising his calling. That is a mature faith. It does not measure success solely by applause or rejection, but by fidelity to Christ.

Paul’s closing emphasis on sincerity stands as a quiet rebuke to performative spirituality. He contrasts his ministry with those who treat God’s word as a product to be sold or a tool to be leveraged. His concern is not branding or reputation. It is faithfulness before God. He speaks as one sent, one accountable, one aware that every word carries weight.

Second Corinthians chapter two ultimately invites us to rethink what strength looks like. Strength is not always pressing forward. Sometimes it is stepping back. Strength is not always confrontation. Sometimes it is restraint. Strength is not always punishment. Sometimes it is forgiveness that risks being misunderstood. Strength is not emotional detachment. Sometimes it is allowing yourself to feel deeply and still choose love.

This chapter also challenges our timelines. We want resolution quickly. Paul is willing to live with uncertainty while waiting for healing to unfold. He trusts that God is at work even when communication is delayed, outcomes are unclear, and emotions are unsettled. That kind of trust is not passive. It is active patience grounded in confidence in Christ.

Perhaps the most enduring lesson of this chapter is that the gospel is not merely proclaimed with words. It is carried in how we treat one another when things go wrong. Forgiveness is not an accessory to faith. It is evidence of it. Restoration is not a side project. It is central to the mission.

Paul does not pretend that forgiveness is easy. He shows us that it costs tears, vulnerability, humility, and risk. But he also shows us that the cost of withholding forgiveness is far greater. It fractures communities, isolates individuals, and opens doors that should remain closed.

Second Corinthians chapter two leaves us with a question that still echoes today. Who is sufficient for these things? And the implied answer remains the same. No one on their own. Only those who walk in Christ, led by grace, grounded in sincerity, and willing to let love have the final word.

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

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

#Faith #Forgiveness #Grace #Restoration #NewTestament #2Corinthians #ChristianLiving #SpiritualGrowth #Leadership #Hope

The feeding of the five thousand is one of those biblical moments that almost everyone thinks they understands, largely because it is told so often and remembered so simply. A crowd is hungry, Jesus performs a miracle, food multiplies, and everyone leaves satisfied. It becomes a story about divine power and supernatural provision. But when a story becomes too familiar, it also becomes flattened. The details that matter most are often the first ones we skip, and in this account, the most important part of the miracle happens long before anyone eats.

This moment did not begin with Jesus deciding to demonstrate power. It began with people lingering longer than they intended. The Gospels make it clear that the crowd did not gather with a plan to stay all day. They came to hear Him, to see Him, to be near Him, and somewhere along the way, time slipped past them. The hours accumulated quietly. The sun moved. The ground grew warm beneath their feet. Conversations faded as attention fixed itself on His words. This is often how encounters with Jesus unfold—not through dramatic decisions, but through gradual surrender of time and attention until we suddenly realize we have stayed far longer than expected.

The setting itself matters. Scripture describes the place as remote, not necessarily barren, but removed from supply and convenience. There were no markets nearby, no infrastructure prepared for crowds of this size. The people were spiritually attentive but practically unprepared. They had come with expectation but without contingency plans, trusting that whatever they needed could be figured out later. That trust worked well until hunger arrived. Hunger has a way of bringing urgency into moments that previously felt weightless.

The disciples were the first to recognize what was happening, and that is not an indictment of their faith. Those closest to Jesus often feel responsibility more acutely, not less. They were watching the crowd with concern, noticing restless children, distracted parents, and the subtle shift that happens when physical need begins to override spiritual focus. They understood crowds. They understood logistics. They understood what happens when thousands of people are tired, hungry, and far from home. From their perspective, intervening early was not only wise, it was compassionate.

When they approached Jesus, their suggestion was entirely reasonable. They advised Him to send the people away so they could find food in nearby villages while there was still time. This was not dismissal; it was delegation. It was leadership thinking in practical terms. Let people take responsibility for themselves. Let them meet their needs in the way adults are expected to. Nothing about the request was unfaithful or dismissive. It was grounded in reality.

Jesus’ response, however, disrupted that entire framework. Instead of agreeing, He placed responsibility back in their hands with a single sentence: “You give them something to eat.” The command was not symbolic and not rhetorical. It forced the disciples to confront the limits of their own resources and assumptions. Suddenly, the problem was no longer theoretical. It was immediate, personal, and impossible.

Their reaction was honest. They did not pretend confidence they did not have. They did not spiritualize the moment. They simply stated the facts. Even an enormous amount of money would not be enough to buy food for everyone present. The scale of need far exceeded their capacity. This was not a faith failure; it was an accurate assessment. There truly was not enough.

Jesus did not dispute their calculations. He did not challenge their understanding of numbers or logistics. Instead, He reframed the question entirely. Rather than asking how much was missing, He asked what was already present. “What do you have?” That question changes the entire posture of the moment. It shifts attention from scarcity to availability, from insufficiency to participation. It suggests that the solution will not come from outside the situation, but from within it.

The disciples began to look, not for abundance, but for offerings. They searched the edges of the crowd, the overlooked places where people stand who do not expect to be involved. And that is where they found him. A boy. Scripture does not give us his name, his age, or his background. He is not introduced with ceremony. He is simply noticed. That alone tells us something. He was not trying to be seen. He was not presenting himself as a solution. He was simply there.

We know only what the text implies. He was young enough to be called a boy, yet old enough to be entrusted with food. Someone had prepared him for the day. Someone had packed his lunch with care, expecting him to be gone long enough to need it. The meal itself was simple and unremarkable: five barley loaves and two small fish. Barley bread was common among the poor, coarse and filling but not impressive. Dried fish were practical, preserved food meant to last, not to impress. This was not abundance. It was adequacy for one person, nothing more.

The boy did not push forward to offer his food. There is no indication that he volunteered himself or his lunch. The disciples discovered what he had. That detail is important, because it tells us that participation in God’s work does not always begin with boldness. Sometimes it begins with presence. Sometimes it begins simply with having something when Jesus asks what is available.

When the disciples spoke of him to Jesus, their tone reflected uncertainty. “There is a boy here,” they said, almost tentatively, as though unsure whether this even warranted mention. They described what he had and then voiced the obvious concern: “But what are they among so many?” That sentence captures the tension we all feel when asked to contribute something small to a problem that feels overwhelming. It is not rebellion. It is realism. It is the voice of experience that says giving everything you have may still not make a visible difference.

Jesus did not correct their assessment. He did not argue that the lunch was sufficient. He did not insist that it was impressive. He simply asked for it. That distinction matters. God does not ask us to bring what is adequate; He asks us to bring what is ours. Adequacy is His responsibility. Availability is ours.

The moment the boy’s lunch left his hands, something shifted. Scripture does not linger on his reaction. It does not describe hesitation or fear. It simply records transfer. What had been prepared for one person was now placed in the hands of Jesus. That exchange, quiet and uncelebrated, is the true beginning of the miracle. Before bread multiplied, trust was released. Before abundance appeared, control was surrendered.

Jesus then instructed the people to sit down. Order preceded provision. Structure came before supply. The crowd settled into the grass, forming groups, slowing movement, creating space for what was about to happen. Then Jesus took the food, lifted it, and gave thanks. Not after the miracle, but before it. He thanked God for what was already present, not for what was about to appear. Gratitude came before multiplication.

When He broke the bread, the act would have looked like loss to anyone watching. Smaller pieces meant greater insufficiency, not less. Yet this is often how God works. Breaking precedes increase. What looks like reduction becomes the pathway to expansion. The Gospels do not explain how the food multiplied. They simply state that it did. Hands passed bread. Fish appeared where none should have been. People ate. Children first, then families, then everyone present. No one was skipped. No one was rushed. No one was told there might not be enough for them.

They ate until they were satisfied. Not symbolically, not minimally, but fully. And when it was over, when the crowd stood to leave, there were leftovers. Twelve baskets remained, more than they had begun with. God did not merely meet the need; He demonstrated that generosity placed in His hands never results in loss.

The boy fades from the story at this point. His name is never recorded. His reaction is never described. We do not know whether he understood the magnitude of what had happened through his obedience. But we know enough. We know that the miracle did not begin with power. It began with surrender. It began when someone small released what he had without knowing what God would do with it.

And that is where this story presses uncomfortably close to us, because the real question it raises is not whether Jesus can multiply bread. The real question is whether we are willing to release what we have before we see how it could ever be enough.

What makes this account endure is not the scale of the miracle, but the way it exposes how we typically misunderstand participation in God’s work. Most people read the feeding of the five thousand and subconsciously place themselves in the role of the crowd, hoping to receive something, or in the role of the disciples, burdened with responsibility and aware of limitation. Very few people ever imagine themselves as the boy, not because they cannot relate to being small, but because they do not believe smallness is where history turns. We are conditioned to assume that influence belongs to those with preparation, foresight, authority, or resources. This story quietly dismantles that assumption without ever announcing that it is doing so.

The boy was not consulted about strategy. He was not asked whether he believed his lunch could make a difference. He was not invited into theological discussion about faith or doubt. He was simply asked for what he had, and he did not withhold it. That matters, because the text never suggests that the boy understood the outcome ahead of time. There is no indication that he expected multiplication. He did not give because he knew the ending. He gave because he was present when the question was asked. His obedience was not informed by foresight, but by trust.

That is an uncomfortable truth for people who prefer guarantees. We want to know what our sacrifice will accomplish before we make it. We want evidence that our contribution will matter before we release it. We want confirmation that our effort will be noticed, valued, or remembered. The boy received none of that. His name is never written. His future is never mentioned. His story is swallowed into the larger miracle, and yet without him, the miracle never begins.

This forces us to confront a subtle but persistent illusion: that what we offer must be impressive to be useful. The boy’s lunch was not impressive. It was common. It was modest. It was exactly enough for one person to get through the day and nothing more. And yet Jesus never asked for something larger. He never requested a better offering. He never waited for someone wealthier or more prepared to step forward. He took what was already present and allowed heaven to do what earth could not.

This pattern appears throughout Scripture, but it rarely announces itself clearly. God does not usually wait for abundance to appear before He acts. He waits for availability. He waits for someone to say yes without controlling the outcome. He waits for surrender that is not conditional on success. The feeding of the five thousand makes this visible in a way that is almost confrontational. It tells us plainly that the size of the offering is irrelevant once it leaves our hands and enters His.

There is also something deeply instructive about the fact that Jesus gave thanks before the miracle occurred. Gratitude preceded multiplication. Thanksgiving was not a reaction to abundance; it was a declaration of trust in the midst of insufficiency. This reveals something about how faith actually functions. Faith does not deny reality. It does not pretend there is enough when there is not. Faith acknowledges the lack and still gives thanks for what exists. It treats presence as sufficient grounds for gratitude, even when provision feels incomplete.

The breaking of the bread is equally significant. Breaking is almost always interpreted as loss from a human perspective. Something whole becomes fragmented. Something intact becomes diminished. Yet in God’s economy, breaking is often the moment when increase begins. What looks like reduction becomes distribution. What looks like less becomes more. The feeding of the five thousand teaches us that God’s multiplication often moves through processes that look counterproductive at first glance. If you do not understand this, you may mistake preparation for destruction and retreat when you are actually on the edge of expansion.

The leftovers are the final, often overlooked detail that seals the meaning of the story. Twelve baskets remain, more than the original offering. This is not excess for spectacle’s sake. It is a theological statement. It tells us that when generosity is entrusted to God, it does not merely meet the immediate need; it creates residue. It creates overflow. It leaves evidence behind that something divine has occurred. God does not just replace what is given. He transforms it into something that outlasts the moment.

The boy never receives credit, and that is precisely why his role is so powerful. If his name were known, we might be tempted to romanticize him. We might imagine him as uniquely faithful or unusually brave. But Scripture withholds that information so that we cannot distance ourselves from him. He remains anonymous so that he can be universal. He is every person who has ever wondered whether what they have is worth offering. He is every quiet act of obedience that no one applauds. He is every unseen contribution that becomes foundational without ever being recognized.

This is where the story turns toward us. The question Jesus asked the disciples still echoes through time: “What do you have?” Not what you wish you had. Not what you might have someday. Not what others possess in greater measure. What do you have, right now, in your hands? That question is unsettling because it removes our excuses. It does not allow us to delay obedience until conditions improve. It does not permit us to outsource responsibility to someone more qualified. It asks us to participate with what is already present.

Most of us underestimate the power of what we are holding because we measure it against the size of the problem rather than the nature of the God we are placing it in. The boy’s lunch made no sense when compared to the hunger of thousands. It only made sense when placed in the hands of Jesus. That is the pivot point. The value of what we offer is not determined by scale, but by surrender. Once released, its impact no longer depends on us.

The feeding of the five thousand is not ultimately a story about food. It is a story about trust, about release, about obedience without visibility. It teaches us that God often chooses to work through what is overlooked rather than what is obvious, through what is small rather than what is impressive, through those who do not even realize they are standing at the center of history. It reminds us that miracles rarely announce themselves at the beginning. They often look like ordinary moments of faithfulness that only make sense in retrospect.

And perhaps the most sobering truth of all is this: had the boy chosen to keep his lunch, no one would have blamed him. It would have been reasonable. It would have been understandable. He would have eaten, survived the day, and gone home unnoticed. The miracle would not have happened, and history would have recorded a hungry crowd instead. The difference between abundance and absence hinged on one quiet decision that no one else saw.

That is the weight of this story. It tells us that God’s work in the world is often waiting on the willingness of someone who does not think they matter. It tells us that history sometimes turns not on grand gestures, but on small acts of obedience offered without guarantees. It tells us that what feels insufficient in our hands may be more than enough once we stop trying to control it.

The miracle began in a child’s hands, but it did not end there. It continues wherever people are willing to release what they have and trust God to do what they cannot. That is the rest of the story, and it is still being written.

---

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

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

#faith #christianwriting #biblicalreflection #faithjourney #obedience #trustgod #christianencouragement #scripturereflection

Our Father Who art in heaven Hallowed be Thy name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven Give us this day our daily Bread And forgive us our trespasses As we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into temptation But deliver us from evil

Amen

Jesus is Lord! Come Lord Jesus!

Come Lord Jesus! Christ is Lord!

A single-purpose hero of the night A brave new space in fire The lonely woman who kept esteem Was her to go on her own A place of blue In varity Shining open windows A world without this Keeping score In a land of California, Dream And feeling skybright rockets keep A bunch of men in hiding She was there- And their- To know A grand new moment coming In prayer of sensors And quantum dots The bell rings here for Carol To sonic match And breath of blight Communique for Dever Each is own And hers already And they are theirs And won To simply watt- A bulb of peace Turnstiles sit and wonder Who gave this watch To three great people The islands light up most For votes to know The high and low This Winter will esteem A lovely man to give his lot To every Woman no Spilling courage And hope esteem Our day is brightest New

🌈

This Taunted Earth

For every eleven A tall seeking series Forego the sea And this planet sky To Roskilde and proper Dare peace And go by the Window We have a word With gold and great By silver spore A fittance for the lot With highest purple To seize our Earth And Summer bright To make stands blue For reading measure A space For mew

😸

Children of The USA

A bliss to the United States In Holy reset of the universe In clarity we know and make this stand That God is our home Being there in the way To see the Woman, Liberty A notice plan built Spare courage in the nine A Dove took our day To be here and afar Timeless noon and this night There is courage in the morning A special day To fit our path Redeeming spirit Impressed forever And a way with this Flower Betrothed to each petal We are forever In nature’s hand

Kerri & Jenna

For Keeps Anointed to the Britain Moon Love me and be you We accomplished our everything And one night, A fire of Heaven Took us to the dusty sky For riddles and hair- And colours and rhymes Our keep on this island Play date for an evening We were the main event And lovers knew In a way we landed When nature was cold No blessing but God Who saw us here And reminded our Him That ancestors prayed To be like us Warranted lines- Of current and wisdom We saw the future And noted our past Promise of the underkeep To be Wallace’s day And in all things Holy The serious men Came to our appreciation Of Indigenous thought Tiny women Holding hands And making time Forever

I don’t know what im looking for, but sometimes I find more than I thought I wanted.

España-December 2025

This is only my second day in Madrid, but I am mad to experience every moment. To savor everything the city and the country have to offer. I have 1 month to extract a lifetime of inspiration and love from this place. So, in spite of only having a single full day before flying to Portugal for a week, I embrace it fully.

It is pre-Christmas and the city is bustling with shoppers and beautified with every sort of light that good design will allow. There is a real difference here with the design of holiday lights. Everything is tastefully done. There are no 20' wiggle-dancers or animatronic robots and certainly not a single skeleton repurposed for the holiday by slapping a stocking cap on the figure.

Spain is an ancient culture and as such, have managed to imbue art into even the smallest places.

However, in spite of my eagerness, desire cannot outpace physical exhaustion. Jet lag isn't just a myth and it's difficult to get my body and mind moving before noon local time. But move it does.

On to the #6 grey line for a few stops, a hop to the blue line before coming up at Plaza de España. This square is home to the Monumente de Cervente. A huge bronze sculpture of Don Quixote and Sancho Plaza.

We wander the city for a while. Find cinema row and discover an AMAZING bookshop-cafe named Eight and a Half. Every terrific film book I've ever seen is here, in Español, and hundreds I've never heard of. The decor is thick with film lore. The main ceiling has a giant mural of Georges Méliès rocket having been shot into the moon's eye. Gorgeous.

More exploration and we find an art store, more bookstores and an ancient city.

Returning to Plaza de España we soak in the lights and the sound. Ice skating is irresistible though I am terrified of falling and cracking my noggin. We do not have ice skating in Dust Meridian, so this memory will stick with us indefinitely.

The hour grows late and we, hungry. After passing through a giant spherical LED screen that is playing old American cartoons, we see a sign that promises food and Flamenco dancing. The door is red and open to dark entrance. It isn't inviting unless you are a curious experience-seeker. So, I send in a probe. She is 5' and fearless, disarming men and women who find my size and white-ness intimidating.

In short order, i see a waving hand and slip into the darkness myself.

When we arrive, the show is underway. The audience and the staff are fixated on the lovely woman whirling and stomping on stage. She is gowned in sangre velvet and every part of her is alive and in controlled motion.

At first, she moves in small bursts, but the longer she dances, the more open she becomes, arms wide, dress flailing and flashing muscled thighs. Her musculature tenses and the naked parts of her become a sculpture of perfected anatomy. Her body is iron but it moves like water.

She is all but making love to the audience.

Her performance crescendos with the vocalist lifting out of his seat and whirling as he cries and dances. The sprit of dance has them in its thrall and is letting fly the dogs of war. No one is going quietly into the night on this cold December evening. The room is fully heated by the exuberance of the dancer, the vocalist and the guitarist.

Act II

Stunning young dancer. Whirling and stomping. Gorgeous and moving. Marvelous black flamenco dress with big white polka dots.

A red rose tying her hair back in a tight black wash. She’s been dancing for 10m her back and arms glisten with sweat. She is 100% physically engaged. I don’t know what story she is telling but she is speaking to my heart. I have—Chills.

Her performance is soul-shattering. I am moved to welting eyes and chills up and down my body.

The patron in front of me was also moved to tears. I can see her dabbing at her eyes. She is stunningly blond. A white Spaniard.

An older rotund man without hair is strumming his flamenco guitar, about to set it on fire with his unleashed energy.

Now a young man with a red blouse and black and white Polk dot sash is unleashing every fiber of his sole into his clatters and stumps. Motions are precise and powerful.

The Spanish patrons are shouting ‘ole’ and ‘Aya’.

The sound is quiet and then loud. His speed is inhuman.

Behind it all, the vocalist shouts and sings melodiously. Clapping and occasionally tugging his socks up as they keep sliding down as he stomps and taps in time.

I prefer the graze and motion of the women. But his skill and power are absolute undeniable.

The rhythms are chaotic and drift into synchronicity. Random and chaotic and then perfectly in sync. And I have no idea where each beat and tap is coming from. It is amazing, invigorating and moving.

I have only been here 24h and already can see the way this trip shift my soul.

#Yesteryear #doooongMuse

JUN TOGAWA 戶川純

Jun Togawa (戸川純, Togawa Jun; born 31 March 1961) is a Japanese singer, musician and actress. She is one of the greatest influences on Japanese avant-garde music and media, and her career spans over 35 years. Her close friends over the years include Susumu Hirasawa. She was mainly active from 1981 to 1995.

After gaining attention as a guest singer for the New Wave band Halmens and her acting roles in Japanese dramas and commercials for the Washlet, she began her professional music career in the early 1980s as a singer.[1][2] She joined former Halmens member Kōji Ueno and artist/lyricist Keiichi Ohta to form the Shōwa era-themed band Guernica in 1981, whose first album was released under YEN Records in 1982.

In 1984, during a hiatus on Guernica, she released a live album Ura Tamahime with a backing band called Yapoos; the band included some former Halmens members and the album featured several covers of Halmens songs. The same year, she released her debut solo album Tamahime-sama (also on YEN), containing themes of menstruation, womanhood, and romance with a recurring insect and pupa motif. The following year, she came out with album Kyokuto Ian Shoka (Far Eastern Comfort Songs) with a backing band called the Jun Togawa Unit. Later that year she released her album Suki Suki Daisuki, a satirical take on aidoru music, this time under her own Alfa Records sublabel, HYS.

She joined Yapoos and solidified the group as an official band, releasing their first album in 1987. She did two more albums with Guernica in 1988 and 1989, and continued singing with Yapoos, releasing albums mainly into the mid 90s, then one in 2003 and another in 2019. Generally the differentiation between her self-named bands and the Yapoos has been a greater degree of collaboration in the latter.

Although she never achieved major pop success, she survived as an influential and respected underground music figure both solo and as the lead singer of Guernica and her most commercial project Yapoos where she is particularly noted for her connection to eroguro culture

Notable collaborators over the years include Haruomi Hosono who sponsored Guernica's first album and produced & wrote music for some of her earlier works. Her late sister Kyoko Togawa was an actress who at times ventured into the music world and cross collaborated at times. Around 1990 Jun shared management with Susumu Hirasawa resulting in quite a number of collaborations.

She has acted in the films Untamagiru and The Family Game

In 1989, Susumu Hirasawa, who had placed his band P-MODEL on hiatus, joined the Yapoos as support, appearing in the “Bach Studio II” section of the TV program “Yume de Aietara”, where he played in a session with Downtown, Ucchan Nanchan and Susumu Hirasawa.

In 1991, Togawa appeared on the TV Tokyo program Jun Togawa x Susumu Hirasawa (MC: Kenzo Saeki) “Jun Togawa Revival Festival!”

In 1992, Susumu Hirasawa offered her “Beals (1992)” as a Yapoos song.

In 1995, “Showa Kyounen” was released to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Jun Togawa's performing career. Based on the concept of “covering nostalgic melodies of the Showa era,” the album contained six songs arranged by Susumu Hirasawa. The songs include “Ribbon Knight” composed by Isao Tomita and arranged by Susumu Hirasawa.

Her 2004 album, Togawa Fiction, with the Jun Togawa Band, featured elements of progressive rock, electropop and other genres. In 2008, she released a career-spanning three-CD boxed set, Togawa Legend Self Select Best & Rare 1979-2008 which featured many of her most popular songs along with several scarcer tracks and hard to find collaborations.

She marked the 35th anniversary of her professional career in 2016 by releasing new collaboration albums with Vampillia and Hijokaidan, her first new recordings in twelve years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWlugvcnuSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X90sB3L9osY