A magnificently honest rendering of low self esteem.

Thinking we are unloved and unlovable is endemic. What a state to be in. It breeds a constant need to give away parts of ourselves so that we feel loved and valued. When in truth, if someone truly loves and values us, they do not need what small treasures we have. We are enough all by being who we are. By existing. 

When we give of ourselves to get affection or acceptance or love, we enter a transaction. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but if becomes how we identify ourselves, it can break us. It treads in to parasitic territory. How can love support a parasite? Love requires exchange. Perhaps in the short, it may not be balanced, but on a long enough timeline, it should be an even give and take. 

I care for you, you care for me. Our needs are met.

But in long-term relationships, patterns can form that are not healthy. They may form because one partner or the other just doesn't have what is needed to fill all our missing parts. It isn't their fault. They may even wish to be the parity to our broken. But a one legged man will not win a marathon against bipeds. 

So if we are in a committed imbalance, or not, we must learn to accept ourselves. If you and I can approve of who we are and find validation and acceptance, and not count on our second parties to fulfill us, then we can find peace. 

Or perhaps, you and I will find each other. Because—not because we wish harm, but because we vibrate at a frequency that feels incredibly lonely. And suddenly, there is a signal in the dark that we recognize. And we align with it. And we are made greater. Where other signals diminish us, we are suddenly enhanced. 

And made beautiful. 

And you may be made to feel bad as if this is evil or wrong. But how can love be wrong? If you are cold and you find a fire, is that wrong? 

This is not something I say lightly. It is dangerous territory to admit. 

The world is a cold place. Is not the true injustice to ask someone to stand in the cold because it is the right thing to do?

The Boy, the Mole, The Fox and the Horse is the kind of story that begs introspection.  You, I hope, will see yourself in one of the characters. The wise, the broken, the hurt, the lost and the sage. You will probably realize you are some mixture of these.  And I think that's beautiful. 

Let me go on this journey with you. If you can' support Charlie at Charliemackesy.com

I love you.

Love always,  Wolf

It’s been a quiet past few days. I stayed inside all day. I ate food and snacks. I binged a show. I skipped yoga. I went out for a walk in my Uggs. I rested. I slept. I processed a ton during my sleep, in my dreams. I felt like I was preparing myself for something significant to come towards me. It’s been intense since September. Blessings after blessings. Issues after issues. So many documents and forms. So many people. I’ve been stretched. I learned new solutions to problems I wasn’t even aware of. There were days I almost lost hope. I got so close, only to be let down. I started all over again. My nervous system has been all over the place. Today felt new. The kind of day where my worries were proven wrong. Despite all the change and some serious challenges, miracles are happening to me every single day. I am convinced. I am blessed.

NCAA president Charlie Baker warned about sports betting influencing college sports in his interview at the National Press Club in July 2025 (Photo: A. Kotok).

ESPN reports tonight that state authorities in New Jersey charged 14 persons for running an illegal sports betting scheme linked to college athletes. And to make matters worse, the mob is allegedly involved.

The sports network cites state authorities that “Joseph ‘Little Joe’ Perna, a member of the Lucchese crime family, and his associates ran a nationwide network of bookmakers who used offshore websites to facilitate approximately $2 million in bets between 2022 and 2024.”

New Jersey’s attorney-general Matthew Platkin, according to ESPN, says “several college athletes operated sportsbooks at the direction of Perna's organization.” But Platkin did not identify the colleges or sports involved.

In July, I photographed NCAA president Charlie Baker who warned about the growing dangers of betting on college sports, particularly with many athletes and bettors about the same age and possibly friends or acquaintances. In September, we reported on multiple gambling investigations by the NCAA involving several schools and athletes, linking to Baker’s warnings about the growing connections between sports betting and college sports.

Now, the mob is allegedly involved with college sports betting. In his Press Club interview, Baker told about threats and harrassment against athletes when gamblers’ prop bets — on specific plays or in-game outcomes, not wins or losses — don’t work out. If the mob is indeed calling the shots, they have other more painful ways of showing their displeasure.

Who could have seen that coming?

Copyright © Technology News and Literature. All rights reserved.

Hello again. I hope your week is going well.

POTUS is planning to permit oil drilling again in the ocean shelf off of California. Apparently he has long forgotten what happened the last time there was drilling on the ocean shelves – disastrous floods of oil from wells that blew apart and coated the pristine coastline. This left wildlife dead and dying all up and down the shoreline. POTUS doesn't care. He considers this the cost of drilling for oil.

In Alaska POTUS is about to authorize drilling in the last wildlife preserves in the country. These 23 million acres in the Alaskan North Slope are irreplaceable portions which POTUS is willing to risk because he is too stupid to recognize the causes of Global Warming. What else can you expect from this POTUS. Surely there must be some way for Congress to stop him but it does not appear even they have the spine necessary to act. Oh well, Thanks POTUS.

Thanks for reading my posts. If you want to see the rest of them, please go to write.as/potusroaster/archive/

To email us send it too potusroaster@gmail.com

Please tell your family, friends and neighbors about the posts.

In Summary: * A frustrating day in which I had to spend time on the phone straightening out miscommunication between two different doctors' offices, resulting in one office apologizing to me. And the Clinical Trials folks have finally given me a date when my treatments are to begin: next Monday, 17 November. Whew!

Prayers, etc.: * My daily prayers.

Health Metrics: * bw= 218.29 lbs. * bp= 146/84 (65)

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

Diet: * 06:00 – 2 HEB Bakery cookies * 06:20 – toast and butter * 06:45 – cottage cheese * 07:00 – 2 crispy oatmeal c00kies * 10:30 – 2 more HEB Bakery cookies * 11:35 – egg drop soup, beef chop suey, fried rice * 15:00 – 2 more HEB Bakery cookies

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:30 – listen to local news, talk radio * 05:30 – bank accounts activity monitored * 05:45 – read, pray, listen to news reports from various sources * 11:35 – watch old game shows, eat lunch at home with Sylvia * 13:15 – follow news reports from various sources * 15:30 – listening to The Jack Ricardi Show * 17:00 – listening to relaxing music and quietly reading * 19:15 – listening to the Hawkeye Radio Network ahead of tonight's Women's College Basketball between the Iowa Hawkeyes and the Drake Bulldogs.

Chess: * 13:45 – moved in all pending CC games

Walk into any modern supermarket and you're being watched, analysed, and optimised. Not by human eyes, but by autonomous systems that track your movements, predict your preferences, and adjust their strategies in real-time. The cameras don't just watch for shoplifters anymore; they feed data into machine learning models that determine which products appear on which shelves, how much they cost, and increasingly, which version of reality you see when you shop.

This isn't speculative fiction. By the end of 2025, more than half of consumers anticipate using AI assistants for shopping, according to Adobe, whilst 73% of top-performing retailers now rely on autonomous AI systems to handle core business functions. We're not approaching an AI-powered retail future; we're already living in it. The question isn't whether artificial intelligence will reshape how we shop, but whether this transformation serves genuine human needs or simply makes us easier to manipulate.

As retail embraces what industry analysts call “agentic AI” – systems that can reason, plan, and act independently towards defined goals – we face a profound shift in the balance of power between retailers and consumers. These systems don't just recommend products; they autonomously manage inventory, set prices, design store layouts, and curate individualised shopping experiences with minimal human oversight. They're active participants making consequential decisions about what we see, what we pay, and ultimately, what we buy.

The uncomfortable truth is that 72% of global shoppers report concern over privacy issues whilst interacting with AI during their shopping journeys, according to research from NVIDIA and UserTesting. Another survey found that 81% of consumers believe information collected by AI companies will be used in ways people find uncomfortable. Yet despite this widespread unease, the march towards algorithmic retail continues unabated. Gartner forecasts that by 2028, AI agents will autonomously handle about 15% of everyday business decisions, whilst 80% of retail executives expect their companies to adopt AI-powered intelligent automation by 2027.

Here's the central tension: retailers present AI as a partnership technology that enhances customer experience, offering personalised recommendations and seamless transactions. But strip away the marketing language and you'll find systems fundamentally designed to maximise profit, often through psychological manipulation that blurs the line between helpful suggestion and coercive nudging. When Tesco chief executive Ken Murphy announced plans to use Clubcard data and AI to “nudge” customers toward healthier choices at a September 2024 conference, the backlash was immediate. Critics noted this opened the door for brands to pay for algorithmic influence, creating a world where health recommendations might reflect the highest bidder rather than actual wellbeing.

This controversy illuminates a broader question: As AI systems gain autonomy over retail environments, who ensures they serve consumers rather than merely extract maximum value from them? Transparency alone, the industry's favourite answer, proves woefully inadequate. Knowing that an algorithm set your price doesn't tell you whether that price is fair, whether you're being charged more than the person next to you, or whether the system is exploiting your psychological vulnerabilities.

The Autonomy Paradox

The promise of AI-powered retail sounds seductive: shops that anticipate your needs before you articulate them, inventory systems that ensure your preferred products are always in stock, pricing that reflects real-time supply and demand rather than arbitrary markup. Efficiency, personalisation, and convenience, delivered through invisible computational infrastructure.

Reality proves more complicated. Behind the scenes, agentic AI systems are making thousands of autonomous decisions that shape consumer behaviour whilst remaining largely opaque to scrutiny. These systems analyse your purchase history, browsing patterns, location data, demographic information, and countless other signals to build detailed psychological profiles. They don't just respond to your preferences; they actively work to influence them.

Consider Amazon's Just Walk Out technology, promoted as revolutionary friction-free shopping powered by computer vision and machine learning. Walk in, grab what you want, walk out – the AI handles everything. Except reports revealed the system relied on more than 1,000 people in India watching and labelling videos to ensure accurate checkouts. Amazon countered that these workers weren't watching live video to generate receipts, that computer vision algorithms handled checkout automatically. But the revelation highlighted how “autonomous” systems often depend on hidden human labour whilst obscuring the mechanics of decision-making from consumers.

The technology raised another concern: biometric data collection without meaningful consent. Customers in New York City filed a lawsuit against Amazon in 2023 alleging unauthorised use of biometric data. Target faced similar legal action from customers claiming the retailer used biometric data without consent. These cases underscore a troubling pattern: AI systems collect and analyse personal information at unprecedented scale, often without customers understanding what data is gathered, how it's processed, or what decisions it influences.

The personalisation enabled by these systems creates what researchers call the “autonomy paradox.” AI-based recommendation algorithms may facilitate consumer choice and boost perceived autonomy, giving shoppers the feeling they're making empowered decisions. But simultaneously, these systems may undermine actual autonomy, guiding users toward options that serve the retailer's objectives whilst creating the illusion of independent choice. Academic research has documented this tension extensively, with one study finding that overly aggressive personalisation tactics backfire, with consumers feeling their autonomy is undermined, leading to decreased trust.

Consumer autonomy, defined by researchers as “the ability of consumers to make independent informed decisions without undue influence or excessive power exerted by the marketer,” faces systematic erosion from AI systems designed explicitly to exert influence. The distinction between helpful recommendation and manipulative nudging becomes increasingly blurred when algorithms possess granular knowledge of your psychological triggers, financial constraints, and decision-making patterns.

Walmart provides an instructive case study in how this automation transforms both worker and consumer experiences. The world's largest private employer, with 2.1 million retail workers globally, has invested billions into automation. The company's AI systems can automate up to 90% of routine tasks. By the company's own estimates, about 65% of Walmart stores will be serviced by automation within five years. CEO Doug McMillon acknowledged in 2024 that “maybe there's a job in the world that AI won't change, but I haven't thought of it.”

Walmart's October 2024 announcement of its “Adaptive Retail” strategy revealed the scope of algorithmic transformation: proprietary AI systems creating “hyper-personalised, convenient and engaging shopping experiences” through generative AI, augmented reality, and immersive commerce platforms. The language emphasises consumer benefit, but the underlying objective is clear: using AI to increase sales and reduce costs. The company has been relatively transparent about employment impacts, offering free AI training through a partnership with OpenAI to prepare workers for “jobs of tomorrow.” Chief People Officer Donna Morris told employees the company's goal is helping everyone “make it to the other side.”

Yet the “other side” remains undefined. New positions focus on technology management, data analysis, and AI system oversight – roles requiring different skills than traditional retail positions. Whether this represents genuine opportunity or a managed decline of human employment depends largely on how honestly we assess AI's capabilities and limitations. What's certain is that as algorithmic systems make more decisions, fewer humans understand the full context of those decisions or possess authority to challenge them.

What's undeniable is that as these systems gain autonomy, human workers have less influence over retail operations whilst AI-driven decisions become harder to question or override. A store associate may see that an AI pricing algorithm is charging vulnerable customers more, but lack authority to intervene. A manager may recognise that automated inventory decisions are creating shortages in lower-income neighbourhoods, but have no mechanism to adjust algorithmic priorities. The systems operate at a scale and speed that makes meaningful human oversight practically impossible, even when it's theoretically required.

This erosion of human agency extends to consumers. When you walk through a “smart” retail environment, systems are making autonomous decisions about what you see and how you experience the space. Digital displays might show different prices to different customers based on their profiles. Promotional algorithms might withhold discounts from customers deemed willing to pay full price. Product placement might be dynamically adjusted based on real-time analysis of your shopping pattern. The store becomes a responsive environment, but one responding to the retailer's optimisation objectives, not your wellbeing.

You're not just buying products; you're navigating an environment choreographed by algorithms optimising for outcomes you may not share. The AI sees you as a probability distribution, a collection of features predicting your behaviour. It doesn't care about your wellbeing beyond how that affects your lifetime customer value. This isn't consciousness or malice; it's optimisation, which in some ways makes it more concerning. A human salesperson might feel guilty about aggressive tactics. An algorithm feels nothing whilst executing strategies designed to extract maximum value.

The scale of this transformation matters. We're not talking about isolated experiments or niche applications. A McKinsey report found that retailers using autonomous AI grew 50% faster than their competitors, creating enormous pressure on others to adopt similar systems or face competitive extinction. Early adopters capture 5–10% revenue increases through AI-powered personalisation and 30–40% productivity gains in marketing. These aren't marginal improvements; they're transformational advantages that reshape market dynamics and consumer expectations.

The Fairness Illusion

If personalisation represents AI retail's seductive promise, algorithmic discrimination represents its toxic reality. The same systems that enable customised shopping experiences also enable customised exploitation, charging different prices to different customers based on characteristics that may include protected categories like race, location, or economic status.

Dynamic pricing, where algorithms adjust prices based on demand, user behaviour, and contextual factors, has become ubiquitous. Retailers present this as market efficiency, prices reflecting real-time supply and demand. But research reveals more troubling patterns. AI pricing systems can adjust prices based on customer location, assuming consumers in wealthier neighbourhoods can afford more, leading to discriminatory pricing where lower-income individuals or marginalised groups are charged higher prices for the same goods.

According to a 2021 Deloitte survey, 75% of consumers said they would stop using a company's products if they learned its AI systems treated certain customer groups unfairly. Yet a 2024 Deloitte report found that only 20% of organisations have formal bias testing processes for AI models, even though more than 75% use AI in customer-facing decisions. This gap between consumer expectations and corporate practice reveals the depth of the accountability crisis.

The mechanisms of algorithmic discrimination often remain hidden. Unlike historical forms of discrimination where prejudiced humans made obviously biased decisions, algorithmic bias emerges from data patterns, model architecture, and optimisation objectives that seem neutral on the surface. An AI system never explicitly decides to charge people in poor neighbourhoods more. Instead, it learns from historical data that people in certain postcodes have fewer shopping alternatives and adjusts prices accordingly, maximising profit through mathematical patterns that happen to correlate with protected characteristics.

This creates what legal scholars call “proxy discrimination” – discrimination that operates through statistically correlated variables rather than direct consideration of protected characteristics. The algorithm doesn't know you're from a marginalised community, but it knows your postcode, your shopping patterns, your browsing history, and thousands of other data points that collectively reveal your likely demographic profile with disturbing accuracy. It then adjusts prices, recommendations, and available options based on predictions about your price sensitivity, switching costs, and alternatives.

Legal and regulatory frameworks struggle to address this dynamic. Traditional anti-discrimination law focuses on intentional bias and explicit consideration of protected characteristics. But algorithmic systems can discriminate without explicit intent, through proxy variables and emergent patterns in training data. Proving discrimination requires demonstrating disparate impact, but when pricing varies continuously across millions of transactions based on hundreds of variables, establishing patterns becomes extraordinarily difficult.

The European Union has taken the strongest regulatory stance. The EU AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, elevates retail algorithms to “high-risk” in certain applications, requiring mandatory transparency, human oversight, and impact assessment. Violations can trigger fines up to 7% of global annual turnover for banned applications. Yet the Act won't be fully applicable until 2 August 2026, giving retailers years to establish practices that may prove difficult to unwind. Meanwhile, enforcement capacity remains uncertain. Member States have until 2 August 2025 to designate national competent authorities for oversight and market surveillance.

More fundamentally, the Act's transparency requirements may not translate to genuine accountability. Retailers can publish detailed technical documentation about AI systems whilst keeping the actual decision-making logic proprietary. They can demonstrate that systems meet fairness metrics on training data whilst those systems discriminate in deployment. They can establish human oversight that's purely ceremonial, with human reviewers lacking time, expertise, or authority to meaningfully evaluate algorithmic decisions.

According to a McKinsey report, only 18% of organisations have enterprise-wide councils for responsible AI governance. This suggests that even as regulations demand accountability, most retailers lack the infrastructure and commitment to deliver it. The AI market in retail is projected to grow from $14.24 billion in 2025 to $96.13 billion by 2030, registering a compound annual growth rate of 46.54%. That explosive growth far outpaces development of effective governance frameworks, creating a widening gap between technological capability and ethical oversight.

The technical challenges compound the regulatory ones. AI bias isn't simply a matter of bad data that can be cleaned up. Bias emerges from countless sources: historical data reflecting past discrimination, model architectures that amplify certain patterns, optimisation metrics that prioritise profit over fairness, deployment contexts where systems encounter situations unlike training data. Even systems that appear fair in controlled testing can discriminate in messy reality when confronted with edge cases and distributional shifts.

Research on algorithmic pricing highlights these complexities. Dynamic pricing exploits individual preferences and behavioural patterns, increasing information asymmetry between retailers and consumers. Techniques that create high search costs undermine consumers' ability to compare prices, lowering overall welfare. From an economic standpoint, these aren't bugs in the system; they're features, tools for extracting consumer surplus and maximising profit. The algorithm isn't malfunctioning when it charges different customers different prices; it's working exactly as designed.

When Tesco launched its “Your Clubcard Prices” trial, offering reduced prices on selected products based on purchase history, it presented the initiative as customer benefit. But privacy advocates questioned whether using AI to push customers toward specific choices went too far. In early 2024, consumer group Which? reported Tesco to the Competition and Markets Authority, claiming the company could be breaking the law with how it displayed Clubcard pricing. Tesco agreed to change its practices, but the episode illustrates how AI-powered personalisation can cross the line from helpful to manipulative, particularly when economic incentives reward pushing boundaries.

The Tesco controversy also revealed how difficult it is for consumers to understand whether they're benefiting from personalisation or being exploited by it. If the algorithm offers you a discount, is that because you're a valued customer or because you've been identified as price-sensitive and would defect to a competitor without the discount? If someone else doesn't receive the same discount, is that unfair discrimination or efficient price discrimination that enables the retailer to serve more customers? These questions lack clear answers, but the asymmetry of information means retailers know far more about what's happening than consumers ever can.

Building Genuine Accountability

If 80% of consumers express unease about data privacy and algorithmic fairness, yet retail AI adoption accelerates regardless, we face a clear accountability gap. The industry's default response – “we'll be more transparent” – misses the fundamental problem: transparency without power is performance, not accountability.

Knowing how an algorithm works doesn't help if you can't challenge its decisions, opt out without losing essential services, or choose alternatives that operate differently. Transparency reports are worthless if they're written in technical jargon comprehensible only to specialists, or if they omit crucial details as proprietary secrets. Human oversight means nothing if humans lack authority to override algorithmic decisions or face pressure to defer to the system's judgment.

Genuine accountability requires mechanisms that redistribute power, not just information. Several frameworks offer potential paths forward, though implementing them demands political will that currently seems absent:

Algorithmic Impact Assessments with Teeth: The EU AI Act requires impact assessments for high-risk systems, but these need enforcement mechanisms beyond fines. Retailers deploying AI systems that significantly affect consumers should conduct thorough impact assessments before deployment, publish results in accessible language, and submit to independent audits. Crucially, assessments should include input from affected communities, not just technical teams and legal departments.

The Institute of Internal Auditors has developed an AI framework covering governance, data quality, performance monitoring, and ethics. ISACA's Digital Trust Ecosystem Framework provides guidance for auditing AI systems against responsible AI principles. But as a 2024 study noted, auditing for compliance currently lacks agreed-upon practices, procedures, taxonomies, and standards. Industry must invest in developing mature auditing practices that go beyond checkbox compliance to genuinely evaluate whether systems serve consumer interests. This means auditors need access to training data, model architectures, deployment metrics, and outcome data – information retailers currently guard jealously as trade secrets.

Mandatory Opt-Out Rights with Meaningful Alternatives: Current approaches to consent are fictions. When retailers say “you consent to algorithmic processing by using our services,” and the alternative is not shopping for necessities, that's coercion, not consent. Genuine accountability requires that consumers can opt out of algorithmic systems whilst retaining access to equivalent services at equivalent prices.

This might mean retailers must maintain non-algorithmic alternatives: simple pricing not based on individual profiling, human customer service representatives who can override automated decisions, store layouts not dynamically adjusted based on surveillance. Yes, this reduces efficiency. That's precisely the point. The question isn't whether AI can optimise operations, but whether optimisation should override human agency. The right to shop without being surveilled, profiled, and psychologically manipulated should be as fundamental as the right to read without government monitoring or speak without prior restraint.

Collective Bargaining and Consumer Representation: Individual consumers lack power to challenge retail giants' AI systems. The imbalance resembles labour relations before unionisation. Perhaps we need equivalent mechanisms for consumer power: organisations with resources to audit algorithms, technical expertise to identify bias and manipulation, legal authority to demand changes, and bargaining power to make demands meaningful.

Some European consumer protection groups have moved this direction, filing complaints about AI systems and bringing legal actions challenging algorithmic practices. But these efforts remain underfunded and fragmented. Building genuine consumer power requires sustained investment and political support, including legal frameworks that give consumer organisations standing to challenge algorithmic practices, access to system documentation, and ability to compel changes when bias or manipulation is demonstrated.

Algorithmic Sandboxes for Public Benefit: Retailers experiment with AI systems on live customers, learning from our behaviour what manipulation techniques work best. Perhaps we need public-interest algorithmic sandboxes where systems are tested for bias, manipulation, and privacy violations before deployment. Independent researchers would have access to examine systems, run adversarial tests, and publish findings.

Industry will resist, claiming proprietary concerns. But we don't allow pharmaceutical companies to skip clinical trials because drug formulas are trade secrets. If AI systems significantly affect consumer welfare, we can demand evidence they do more good than harm before permitting their use on the public. This would require regulatory frameworks that treat algorithmic systems affecting millions of people with the same seriousness we treat pharmaceutical interventions or financial products.

Fiduciary Duties for Algorithmic Retailers: Perhaps the most radical proposal is extending fiduciary duties to retailers whose AI systems gain significant influence over consumer decisions. When a system knows your preferences better than you consciously do, when it shapes what options you consider, when it's designed to exploit your psychological vulnerabilities, it holds power analogous to a financial adviser or healthcare provider.

Fiduciary relationships create legal obligations to act in the other party's interest, not just avoid overt harm. An AI system with fiduciary duties couldn't prioritise profit maximisation over consumer welfare. It couldn't exploit vulnerabilities even if exploitation increased sales. It would owe affirmative obligations to educate consumers about manipulative practices and bias. This would revolutionise retail economics. Profit margins would shrink. Growth would slow. Many current AI applications would become illegal. Precisely. The question is whether retail AI should serve consumers or extract maximum value from them. Fiduciary duties would answer clearly: serve consumers, even when that conflicts with profit.

The Technology-as-Partner Myth

Industry rhetoric consistently frames AI as a “partner” that augments human capabilities rather than replacing human judgment. Walmart's Donna Morris speaks of helping workers reach “the other side” through AI training. Technology companies describe algorithms as tools that empower retailers to serve customers better. The European Union's regulatory framework aims to harness AI benefits whilst mitigating risks.

This partnership language obscures fundamental power dynamics. AI systems in retail don't partner with consumers; they're deployed by retailers to advance retailer interests. The technology isn't neutral infrastructure that equally serves all stakeholders. It embodies the priorities and values of those who design, deploy, and profit from it.

Consider the economics. BCG data shows that 76% of retailers are increasing investment in AI, with 43% already piloting autonomous AI systems and another 53% evaluating potential uses. These economic incentives drive development priorities. Retailers invest in AI systems that increase revenue and reduce costs. Systems that protect consumer privacy, prevent manipulation, or ensure fairness receive investment only when required by regulation or consumer pressure. The natural evolution of retail AI trends toward sophisticated behaviour modification and psychological exploitation, not because retailers are malicious, but because profit maximisation rewards these applications.

Academic research consistently finds that AI-enabled personalisation practices simultaneously enable increased possibilities for exerting hidden interference and manipulation on consumers, reducing consumer autonomy. Retailers face economic pressure to push boundaries, testing how much manipulation consumers tolerate before backlash threatens profits. The partnership framing obscures this dynamic, presenting what's fundamentally an adversarial optimisation problem as collaborative value creation.

The partnership framing also obscures questions about whether certain AI applications should exist at all. Not every technical capability merits deployment. Not every efficiency gain justifies its cost in human agency, privacy, or fairness. Not every profitable application serves the public interest.

When Tesco's chief executive floated using AI to nudge dietary choices, the appropriate response wasn't “how can we make this more transparent” but “should retailers have this power?” When Amazon develops systems to track customers through stores, analysing their movements and expressions, we shouldn't just ask “is this disclosed” but “is this acceptable?” When algorithmic pricing enables unprecedented price discrimination, the question isn't merely “is this fair” but “should this be legal?”

The technology-as-partner myth prevents us from asking these fundamental questions. It assumes AI deployment is inevitable progress, that our role is managing risks rather than making fundamental choices about what kind of retail environment we want. It treats consumer concerns about manipulation and surveillance as communication failures to be solved through better messaging rather than legitimate objections to be respected through different practices.

Reclaiming Democratic Control

The deeper issue is that retail AI development operates almost entirely outside public interest considerations. Retailers deploy systems based on profit calculations. Technology companies build capabilities based on market demand. Regulators respond to problems after they've emerged. At no point does anyone ask: What retail environment would best serve human flourishing? How should we balance efficiency against autonomy, personalisation against privacy, convenience against fairness? Who should make these decisions and through what process?

These aren't technical questions with technical answers. They're political and ethical questions requiring democratic deliberation. Yet we've largely delegated retail's algorithmic transformation to private companies pursuing profit, constrained only by minimal regulation and consumer tolerance.

Some argue that markets solve this through consumer choice. If people dislike algorithmic retail, they'll shop elsewhere, creating competitive pressure for better practices. But this faith in market solutions ignores the problem of market power. When most large retailers adopt similar AI systems, when small retailers lack capital to compete without similar technology, when consumers need food and clothing regardless of algorithmic practices, market choice becomes illusory.

The survey data confirms this. Despite 72% of shoppers expressing privacy concerns about retail AI, despite 81% believing AI companies will use information in uncomfortable ways, despite 75% saying they won't purchase from organisations they don't trust with data, retail AI adoption accelerates. This isn't market equilibrium reflecting consumer preferences; it's consumers accepting unpleasant conditions because alternatives don't exist or are too costly.

We need public interest involvement in retail AI development. This might include governments and philanthropic organisations funding development of AI systems designed around different values – privacy-preserving recommendation systems, algorithms that optimise for consumer welfare rather than profit, transparent pricing models that reject behavioural discrimination. These wouldn't replace commercial systems but would provide proof-of-concept for alternatives and competitive pressure toward better practices.

Public data cooperatives could give consumers collective ownership of their data, ability to demand its deletion, power to negotiate terms for its use. This would rebalance power between retailers and consumers whilst enabling beneficial AI applications. Not-for-profit organisations could develop retail AI with explicit missions to benefit consumers, workers, and communities rather than maximise shareholder returns. B-corp structures might provide middle ground, profit-making enterprises with binding commitments to broader stakeholder interests.

None of these alternatives are simple or cheap. All face serious implementation challenges. But the current trajectory, where retail AI develops according to profit incentives alone, is producing systems that concentrate power, erode autonomy, and deepen inequality whilst offering convenience and efficiency as compensation.

The Choice Before Us

Retail AI's trajectory isn't predetermined. We face genuine choices about how these systems develop and whose interests they serve. But making good choices requires clear thinking about what's actually happening beneath the marketing language.

Agentic AI systems are autonomous decision-makers, not neutral tools. They're designed to influence behaviour, not just respond to preferences. They optimise for objectives set by retailers, not consumers. As these systems gain sophistication and autonomy, they acquire power to shape individual behaviour and market dynamics in ways that can't be addressed through transparency alone.

The survey data showing widespread consumer concern about AI privacy and fairness isn't irrational fear of technology. It's reasonable response to systems designed to extract value through psychological manipulation and information asymmetry. The fact that consumers continue using these systems despite concerns reflects lack of alternatives, not satisfaction with the status quo.

Meaningful accountability requires more than transparency. It requires power redistribution through mechanisms like mandatory impact assessments with independent audits, genuine opt-out rights with equivalent alternatives, collective consumer representation with bargaining power, public-interest algorithmic testing, and potentially fiduciary duties for systems that significantly influence consumer decisions.

The EU AI Act represents progress but faces challenges in implementation and enforcement. Its transparency requirements may not translate to genuine accountability if human oversight is ceremonial and bias testing remains voluntary for most retailers. The gap between regulatory ambition and enforcement capacity creates space for practices that technically comply whilst undermining regulatory goals.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to reclaim agency over retail AI's development. Rather than treating algorithmic transformation as inevitable technological progress, we should recognise it as a set of choices about what kind of retail environment we want, who should make decisions affecting millions of consumers, and whose interests should take priority when efficiency conflicts with autonomy, personalisation conflicts with privacy, and profit conflicts with fairness.

None of this suggests that retail AI is inherently harmful or that algorithmic systems can't benefit consumers. Genuinely helpful applications exist: systems that reduce food waste through better demand forecasting, that help workers avoid injury through ergonomic analysis, that make products more accessible through improved logistics. The question isn't whether to permit retail AI but how to ensure it serves public interests rather than merely extracting value from the public.

That requires moving beyond debates about transparency and risk mitigation to fundamental questions about power, purpose, and the role of technology in human life. It requires recognising that some technically feasible applications shouldn't exist, that some profitable practices should be prohibited, that some efficiencies cost too much in human dignity and autonomy.

The invisible hand of algorithmic retail is rewriting the rules of consumer choice. Whether we accept its judgments or insist on different rules depends on whether we continue treating these systems as partners in progress or recognise them as what they are: powerful tools requiring democratic oversight and public-interest constraints.

By 2027, when hyperlocal commerce powered by autonomous AI becomes ubiquitous, when most everyday shopping decisions flow through algorithmic systems, when the distinction between genuine choice and choreographed behaviour has nearly dissolved, we'll have normalised one vision of retail's future. The question is whether it's a future we actually want, or simply one we've allowed by default.

---

Sources and References

Industry Reports and Market Research

1. Adobe Digital Trends 2025: Consumer AI shopping adoption trends. Adobe Digital Trends Report, 2025. Available at: https://business.adobe.com/resources/digital-trends-2025.html

2. NVIDIA and UserTesting: “State of AI in Shopping 2024”. Research report on consumer AI privacy concerns (72% expressing unease). Available at: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/ai-data-science/generative-ai/

3. Gartner: “Forecast: AI Agents in Business Decision Making Through 2028”. Gartner Research, October 2024. Predicts 15% autonomous decision-making by AI agents in everyday business by 2028.

4. McKinsey & Company: “The State of AI in Retail 2024”. McKinsey Digital, 2024. Reports 50% faster growth for retailers using autonomous AI and 5-10% revenue increases through AI-powered personalisation. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights

5. Boston Consulting Group (BCG): “AI in Retail: Investment Trends 2024”. BCG reports 76% of retailers increasing AI investment, with 43% piloting autonomous systems. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/industries/retail

6. Deloitte: “AI Fairness and Bias Survey 2021”. Deloitte Digital, 2021. Found 75% of consumers would stop using products from companies with unfair AI systems.

7. Deloitte: “State of AI in the Enterprise, 7th Edition”. Deloitte, 2024. Reports only 20% of organisations have formal bias testing processes for AI models.

8. Mordor Intelligence: “AI in Retail Market Size & Share Analysis”. Industry report projecting growth from $14.24 billion (2025) to $96.13 billion (2030), 46.54% CAGR. Available at: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/artificial-intelligence-in-retail-market

Regulatory Documentation

1. European Union: “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act)”. Official Journal of the European Union, 1 August 2024. Full text available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

2. Competition and Markets Authority (UK): Tesco Clubcard Pricing Investigation Records, 2024. CMA investigation into Clubcard pricing practices following Which? complaint.

Legal Cases

1. Amazon Biometric Data Lawsuit: New York City consumers vs. Amazon, filed 2023. Case concerning unauthorised biometric data collection through Just Walk Out technology. United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

2. Target Biometric Data Class Action: Class action lawsuit alleging unauthorised biometric data use, 2024. Multiple state courts.

Corporate Statements and Documentation

1. Walmart: “Adaptive Retail Strategy Announcement”. Walmart corporate press release, October 2024. Details on hyper-personalised AI shopping experiences and automation roadmap.

2. Walmart: CEO Doug McMillon public statements on AI and employment transformation, 2024. Walmart investor relations communications.

3. Walmart: Chief People Officer Donna Morris statements on AI training partnerships with OpenAI, 2024. Available through Walmart corporate communications.

4. Tesco: CEO Ken Murphy speech at conference, September 2024. Discussed AI-powered health nudging using Clubcard data.

Technical and Academic Research Frameworks

1. Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA): “Global Artificial Intelligence Auditing Framework”. IIA, 2024. Covers governance, data quality, performance monitoring, and ethics. Available at: https://www.theiia.org/

2. ISACA: “Digital Trust Ecosystem Framework”. ISACA, 2024. Guidance for auditing AI systems against responsible AI principles. Available at: https://www.isaca.org/

3. Academic Research on Consumer Autonomy: Multiple peer-reviewed studies on algorithmic systems' impact on consumer autonomy, including research on the “autonomy paradox” where AI recommendations simultaneously boost perceived autonomy whilst undermining actual autonomy. Key sources include:

   • Journal of Consumer Research: Studies on personalisation and consumer autonomy
   • Journal of Marketing: Research on algorithmic manipulation and consumer welfare
   • Information Systems Research: Technical analyses of recommendation system impacts

4. Economic Research on Dynamic Pricing: Academic literature on algorithmic pricing, price discrimination, and consumer welfare impacts. Sources include:

   • Journal of Political Economy: Economic analyses of algorithmic pricing
   • American Economic Review: Research on information asymmetry in algorithmic markets
   • Management Science: Studies on dynamic pricing strategies and consumer outcomes

Additional Data Sources

1. Survey on Consumer AI Trust: Multiple surveys cited reporting 81% of consumers believe AI companies will use information in uncomfortable ways. Meta-analysis of consumer sentiment research 2023-2024.

2. Retail AI Adoption Statistics: Industry surveys showing 73% of top-performing retailers relying on autonomous AI systems, and 80% of retail executives expecting intelligent automation adoption by 2027.

---

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

My game to follow this Thursday night is my first Women's College Basketball Game of the season. I'm listening to the Hawkeye Radio Network ahead of tonight's Women's College Basketball Game between the Iowa Hawkeyes and the Drake Bulldogs.

Early in the game the Hawkeyes are ahead 16-9.

And the adventure continues

Most of us have grown up seeing the same Christmas scene: a glowing manger, shepherds kneeling, angels watching, and three regal kings on camels following a bright star. But what if one of the most widely believed details in that story—the idea that there were three wise men—isn’t actually in the Bible?

It’s true. Scripture never says there were three of them. The story of the Magi in Matthew 2:1-12 is one of the most beautiful and mysterious moments in the Gospel—but much of what people believe about it comes from tradition, not text. When you discover what the Bible really says, you’ll uncover one of the most profound lessons of faith and worship in all of Scripture.

👉 Watch the full message on YouTube — the complete study that inspired this article, exploring the truth behind the Magi and what their journey reveals about following God’s light today.

---

1. The Common Misconception: “Three Kings” or “Three Wise Men”?

From Christmas carols to nativity plays, we’ve all heard phrases like “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” Yet the Gospel of Matthew never calls them kings, nor does it number them as three.

Matthew simply says:

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem.” — Matthew 2:1

The Greek term used is μάγοι (magoi)—plural for magos, which historically referred to scholars, astrologers, or learned men from the east, often associated with Persia or Babylon. These were likely priest-philosophers who studied the heavens for divine signs.

So why do we say there were three? Tradition filled in the blanks based on the three gifts listed in verse 11—gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But Scripture never confirms that there were only three visitors. There could have been two, ten, or more.

According to GotQuestions.org, “The Bible never says there were three wise men. The idea likely developed because there were three gifts, but the text only says ‘wise men from the east.’” (GotQuestions.org – Three Wise Men)

This simple discovery flips the familiar story on its head—and it invites us to look deeper at what Matthew was really trying to teach.

---

2. What the Bible Actually Says

Let’s look closely at the passage:

“After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.’” — Matthew 2:1-2

They followed the star not because they were Jewish believers but because they recognized a supernatural sign. These men were Gentiles—outsiders—yet they understood something powerful was happening in the heavens.

Later, verse 11 says:

“On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.”

Notice that it says “the house”, not “the manger.” This means the visit may have taken place months after Jesus’ birth, not the same night the shepherds arrived. Biblical archaeologists, including those referenced by the Bible Archaeology Report, note that Herod’s command to kill all boys under two (Matthew 2:16) supports this timeline.

(Bible Archaeology Report – Who Were the Magi?)

So not only does the Bible omit the number of wise men—it places their visit at a later time and location than most nativity scenes depict.

---

3. Who Were the Magi, Really?

The Magi were most likely members of a priestly or scholarly class from ancient Persia or Babylon, possibly followers of Zoroastrianism. Their knowledge of astronomy and prophecy may have connected them to the prophecy in Numbers 24:17:

“A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel.”

In other words, they might have been Gentile scholars who studied ancient prophecies, recognized the celestial event as a sign of a new King, and journeyed west in faith.

Their willingness to leave everything behind to follow the light they had received is a profound image of obedience and spiritual hunger. They didn’t have full understanding—but they had enough light to take the next step.

That’s what faith looks like.

---

4. Why the Bible Leaves Out Their Number

Every word in Scripture is intentional. When something is not included, it’s often an invitation to look beyond details and into meaning. The omission of their number may be deliberate—so that the story becomes about their action (seeking, worshiping, giving) rather than their identity or status.

As Bible Gateway’s commentary notes, Matthew’s focus was never on counting visitors—it was on showing that even the Gentiles recognized Jesus as King. (Bible Gateway Commentary – Matthew 2)

In other words, this story isn’t just history—it’s prophecy fulfilled and theology in motion.

By leaving the number open, Matthew ensures the door of the story is always open for you. Because the invitation to seek and worship the Savior isn’t limited to three travelers—it’s for everyone who will follow the light God gives.

---

5. The Symbolism of the Gifts

The three gifts themselves are richly symbolic—and may be why tradition settled on the number three.

• Gold represented royalty—an offering fit for a king.
• Frankincense, used in temple worship, symbolized divinity.
• Myrrh, a burial spice, pointed to death and sacrifice.

Together, the gifts declare: This child is King, God, and Savior.

Even without a specified number of Magi, the gifts themselves preach the Gospel: Jesus would reign as King, be worshiped as God, and die as Redeemer.

Crossway explains that early Christians saw these gifts as prophetic emblems of Christ’s mission—His kingship, priesthood, and sacrificial death. (Crossway – Meaning of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh)

---

6. Why the “Three Kings” Tradition Caught On

Centuries after Matthew wrote his Gospel, church tradition began filling in the blanks. Around the 6th century AD, Western Christianity identified the wise men as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, representing Asia, Europe, and Africa—the known world at the time.

While symbolic, this addition was never part of the biblical account. The Adventist Record notes, “The concept of three kings developed later in church tradition, not from Scripture itself.” (Adventist Record – How Many Wise Men Were There?)

This shows how easily beautiful traditions can become accepted as truth. Yet by returning to Scripture, we rediscover something even more powerful—a universal message of faith that transcends folklore.

---

7. The Lesson Hidden in Plain Sight

When we stop focusing on how many wise men there were, we see the story’s true message:

• God reveals Himself to those willing to seek Him.
• Faith often starts with a small light—but grows as we follow it.
• Worship isn’t limited to insiders; it’s open to all who bow before Christ.

These men didn’t have all the answers. They didn’t have a map. But they had a sign, a star, and a conviction that the King of Kings had come.

And that’s the lesson for us: faith begins when you start walking toward the light you have, not when you have every answer.

---

8. The Star That Guides You

The “Star of Bethlehem” has fascinated astronomers and theologians for centuries. Some say it was a planetary conjunction, others a comet, others a supernatural event.

Whatever it was, one truth remains: it appeared for those who were looking.

God still sends light to those who seek Him. It may not be a star—it might be a verse that speaks to you, a conviction in your heart, a person sent into your life. The question isn’t whether God is speaking—it’s whether you’re watching for His light.

The Magi remind us that guidance doesn’t come all at once. It comes in steps. Each step requires faith. Each act of obedience reveals the next mile of the journey.

---

9. The House, Not the Manger

One of the most overlooked details is that Matthew says the Magi found Jesus in a house. This implies the family had already moved from the stable into a home in Bethlehem.

According to BibleHistory.com, the Greek word used (oikia) means a permanent dwelling—not a temporary shelter. This means Jesus may have been a toddler by the time they arrived. (Bible History – Bethlehem and the Magi)

This aligns with Herod’s order to kill all boys aged two and under, showing he estimated the child’s age based on when the star first appeared.

So while shepherds witnessed Jesus as a newborn, the Magi likely met Him as a small child. This detail reveals something profound: Whether early or late, every act of worship arrives right on God’s time.

---

10. From Historical Detail to Personal Revelation

If God went to such lengths to draw Gentile philosophers from across the desert to worship Christ, how much more is He willing to guide you?

This isn’t just a story about ancient travelers—it’s an illustration of divine pursuit. God placed a light in the heavens, stirred hearts thousands of miles away, and orchestrated their steps so they could kneel before the Savior.

That’s not mythology—that’s the heartbeat of the Gospel.

The message is timeless: Wise men—and women—still seek Him.

---

11. Lessons for Our Faith Today

1. Follow the Light You Have You may not know every step, but obedience to the light you have will always lead you closer to truth.

2. Bring Your Best The Magi didn’t come empty-handed. Their gifts were extravagant, but their worship mattered more.

3. Bow in Worship Before a child who could not yet speak, they fell to their knees. True worship isn’t about recognition—it’s about surrender.

4. Obey God’s Voice When warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they listened. Faith always involves action.

5. Leave Changed They went home “by another way.” When you encounter Christ, you never leave the same.

---

12. Faith Beyond Numbers

The number of Magi doesn’t matter. What matters is that they came.

Faith doesn’t count followers—it calls them. Faith doesn’t demand clarity—it steps into the unknown.

And in every generation, God is still writing that story. When you choose to seek Him, when you decide to worship instead of wonder, you become part of the same story that began under that ancient star.

---

13. A Call to Action

Maybe you’ve been waiting for a sign—a star bright enough to guide you. Maybe you’ve been standing still, uncertain where faith will take you.

This story is your invitation.

Follow the light you have. Bring your worship. And trust that the same God who guided the Magi will guide you, too.

Because the real miracle of Christmas isn’t the star—it’s the Savior.

---

14. Final Reflection

The Bible never says there were three wise men—and that truth changes everything.

It reminds us that God’s story is bigger than our traditions. It tells us that worship is about heart, not headcount. And it reveals that anyone—no matter where they come from—can find Christ if they’re willing to follow the light.

So this Christmas, as you see nativity scenes and hear carols, remember:

• It wasn’t three kings—it was countless seekers.
• It wasn’t certainty—it was faith.
• It wasn’t the star that saved them—it was the Child beneath it.

Wise men still seek Him. Will you?

---

In faithful journeying, Douglas Vandergraph

🙏 Support the mission on Buy Me a Coffee

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

---

#WiseMen #Magi #Matthew2 #ChristmasTruth #FaithJourney #ChristianLiving #KingOfKings #BibleStudy #JesusChrist #FaithAndWorship #SpiritualGrowth #BiblicalTruth

Every person alive knows what it feels like to come to the end of a chapter that didn’t go as planned. Maybe you lost your way, failed someone you love, or fell so hard that the reflection in the mirror doesn’t look like you anymore. You tell yourself, “That’s it. I ruined it. My story’s over.”

But it isn’t.

Because there is One who never stops writing.

God doesn’t erase your story—He rewrites it. He takes the chapters we wish never existed and turns them into testimonies that change lives.

Watch this powerful message about God’s grace and redemption here: watch this message about God's grace and redemption. It’s a reminder that no matter what you’ve done or how far you’ve fallen, you are not beyond the reach of grace.

---

Grace Is the Pen That Never Runs Dry

Grace is the ink of God’s handwriting on the pages of human failure. It doesn’t dry up when we sin, and it doesn’t fade when we forget Him. It keeps flowing—through betrayal, disappointment, addiction, anger, grief, and guilt.

In the ancient Greek, the word charis (grace) means “gift.” It’s unearned, undeserved, and unconditional. Grace is the moment Heaven says, “I know what you did, but I also know what I’m about to do with it.”

Grace is God bending down to the dust of your mistakes and whispering, “Watch Me make something beautiful from this.”

When we surrender our story to Him, He turns every failure into a foundation for faith.

“Where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” — Romans 5:20

No matter how thick the darkness, grace burns brighter.

---

The Broken Chapters Still Belong

You might wish certain pages of your life could be torn out forever. The choices you made, the words you said, the roads you took that led nowhere—those memories can haunt you.

But God doesn’t tear pages from your life; He redeems them.

Every scar has significance. Every failure holds potential. Every detour has direction.

In fact, many Christian theologians argue that redemption is most powerful because it transforms brokenness instead of avoiding it. Augustine wrote in The City of God that “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” That’s the paradox of grace: the worst moments in our lives can become the stage for His greatest miracles.

Modern psychology agrees. According to a 2024 review by the American Psychological Association, reframing past failures as opportunities for growth increases long-term well-being and purpose. What the mind calls “regret,” grace calls “raw material for transformation.”

---

The Author Who Refuses to Quit

The Bible isn’t a story of perfect people—it’s a story of a perfect God rewriting imperfect lives.

• Moses killed a man but became the liberator of a nation.
• Rahab ran a brothel but became the great-great-grandmother of Jesus.
• David committed adultery and orchestrated a death but became the psalmist whose worship moves us to this day.
• Peter denied Christ three times and still became the rock on which the church was built.

When others see a ruined script, God sees a revised masterpiece.

“Being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” — Philippians 1:6

God doesn’t start stories He doesn’t plan to finish.

---

You Haven’t Gone Too Far

Every lie of the enemy begins with one goal—to convince you that you’ve gone too far for grace to find you.

But grace doesn’t need directions.

There’s no wilderness too wild, no night too dark, and no heart too hardened. God specializes in finding the lost. Jesus said, “The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost.” (Luke 19:10)

If you’ve ever whispered, “It’s too late for me,” remember Lazarus. He wasn’t just late—he was dead. Four days gone. Buried. Done. But Jesus walked into that tomb and said, “Come forth.”

The miracle wasn’t just resurrection—it was revelation. God was showing the world that no situation is too dead for His voice to revive it.

---

The Process of Divine Rewriting

When God rewrites your story, He doesn’t erase the ink; He redeems the meaning. Here’s what that process looks like:

1. Conviction — God Opens the Wound

Conviction isn’t condemnation—it’s the Holy Spirit revealing what needs to be healed. It’s the Author circling a line in the story and saying, “Let’s fix this part together.”

2. Confession — You Hand Him the Pen

Confession is permission. It’s saying, “Lord, I can’t write this right.” The Bible promises that when we confess, He is faithful to forgive and cleanse (1 John 1:9).

3. Cleansing — He Wipes Away the Guilt

Grace doesn’t just remove the sin—it removes the stain. Your past no longer defines you because God rewrites the headline.

4. Commission — He Uses the Story

The moment you surrender your past, He sends you into purpose. Your weakness becomes the proof of His strength.

Grace is not just pardon—it’s empowerment.

---

From Brokenness to Beauty

There’s a Japanese art form called kintsugi, where broken pottery is repaired using gold dust and lacquer. Instead of hiding the cracks, the gold highlights them. The piece becomes more beautiful precisely because it was broken.

That’s what God does. He fills your cracks with grace until the fractures glow with divine beauty. Your life becomes His kintsugi masterpiece—evidence that healing is possible, even for those who thought they were beyond repair.

As Christian author Ann Voskamp writes, “The places where we are broken become the very places where God’s glory shines through.”

Your scars are not shame—they’re scripture written on your soul.

---

Faith Beyond Feelings

We live in a culture ruled by emotion, but faith is not a feeling—it’s a foundation. Feelings fluctuate; truth doesn’t.

You may not feel forgiven. You may not feel worthy. But the cross didn’t ask your permission to be true.

When Jesus said, “It is finished,” He wasn’t talking about His suffering—He was talking about your separation.

Forgiveness is not a reward for good behavior—it’s a rescue for the brokenhearted. The grace that saved Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene is the same grace available to you today.

---

Science Confirms What Scripture Declares

Modern research affirms the healing power of grace-based thinking. Harvard Health Publishing notes that “self-forgiveness and compassion lead to measurable improvements in mental health, including reduced anxiety, lower blood pressure, and higher resilience.” That’s not coincidence—that’s divine design.

Grace isn’t just spiritual—it’s scientific. The human body and mind thrive when released from guilt. It’s as though our Creator wired us to flourish in forgiveness.

As theologian Timothy Keller said, “To be loved but not known is superficial. To be known and not loved is our greatest fear. But to be fully known and fully loved—well, that is what it means to be loved by God.”

---

The Power of Telling Your Story

Your testimony may be the single most powerful sermon someone ever hears. People don’t relate to perfection—they relate to redemption.

When you tell the truth about what God did in your life, you become living proof that grace still works.

In a 2024 Journal of Positive Psychology study, participants who shared personal stories of forgiveness experienced a 27% increase in hope and purpose. The act of sharing didn’t just heal listeners—it healed the storytellers.

That’s why the Bible says, “Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story.” (Psalm 107:2)

The world doesn’t need another flawless hero. It needs real people who have met real grace.

---

When Grace Crosses Borders

Grace isn’t American or European—it’s eternal. The same grace that reached a fisherman in Galilee now reaches teenagers in Ghana, mothers in Manila, and fathers in Mexico.

In a study published by Pew Research Center (2023), over 2.3 billion people identify as Christians worldwide—the largest faith group on Earth. That’s not coincidence; that’s the global echo of redemption. Every story rewritten becomes a beacon, spreading across cultures and continents.

Whether whispered in English, Spanish, or Swahili, the message remains the same: You can start again.

---

How to Let Grace Rewrite Your Life

If you’re ready to turn the page, here’s how to begin:

1. Admit the Need

You can’t fix what you refuse to face. Admit that you’ve reached the end of your own strength. That’s where God begins.

2. Surrender the Pen

Pray: “Lord, I give You the pen of my life. Write what I cannot.”

3. Replace the Lies

For every lie you’ve believed—replace it with truth. “I’m too far gone” → “Nothing can separate me from God’s love.” “I failed too many times” → “His mercies are new every morning.” “I’m not worthy” → “I am His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus.”

4. Step Out in Faith

Faith is action. Don’t wait to feel ready—walk as if the rewrite has already begun.

5. Share the Journey

Tell someone. Post it. Preach it. Live it. Every shared story extends the reach of grace.

---

The Miracle Hidden in Mistakes

Some of the most life-changing movements in history began with people who failed first.

• Thomas Edison failed 1,000 times before creating the lightbulb.
• Peter failed Jesus before leading the early church.
• You may have failed, too—but your light isn’t out; it’s just waiting to be relit.

Failure is never fatal when faith enters the story. Grace transforms failure into foundation.

C.S. Lewis once said, “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” That’s the essence of redemption.

---

The Global Promise of Hope

Hope is the heartbeat of grace. Across every nation and generation, hope is what keeps faith alive.

According to World Vision International, more than 90% of people in developing regions who encounter faith-based recovery programs report a measurable improvement in life outlook and mental health. Grace heals from the inside out—spirit, mind, and body.

That’s why your story matters globally. Every person who reads, hears, or watches your testimony becomes another spark in the wildfire of hope spreading across the world.

---

Prayer: Handing the Pen Back to God

“Lord, I’ve written chapters I’m not proud of. I’ve walked roads I wish I could erase. But today, I give You the pen. Rewrite my story with Your grace. Turn my guilt into gratitude, my pain into purpose, and my shame into strength. Use my story to show others that Your mercy has no limit. In Jesus’ name, amen.”

---

Your Story Is Still Being Written

Maybe life left you in ruins, but that’s exactly where resurrection begins.

Don’t close the book. Don’t believe the lie that it’s too late. Don’t let your past speak louder than His promise.

God’s grace isn’t finished yet. The next page might just be the one where everything turns around.

“He makes all things new.” — Revelation 21:5

If He said all things, that includes you.

---

Final Thoughts: Grace Is the Author, and Hope Is the Ink

Grace never runs out of chapters. Even if the world writes you off, Heaven writes you back in.

You are not a rough draft. You are a masterpiece in progress.

And one day, when you stand before the Author of Life, you’ll realize that every pain had purpose, every tear had meaning, and every moment of brokenness was part of His redemptive plan.

He never dropped the pen. He just paused—to let you turn the page.

---

In His Grace and Truth, Douglas Vandergraph

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

Support the mission: Buy Me a Coffee

#Grace #Redemption #Faith #SecondChances #NewBeginnings #ChristianMotivation #OvercomingFailure #SpiritualHealing #HopeInChrist #GodsPlan #FaithJourney #Encouragement #Restoration #Forgiveness #HealingThroughFaith

In these few posts i've made on this site, i've realised the difficulty of writing. I know that proper writing is hard, but i didn't realise how difficult it would be in this setting. I'm going to try and illuminate these problems, and in doing so, hopefully stake out a clearer path for myself in the times ahead. Maybe the reader gets something out of it as well ;)

First of all, what i intend to write about almost inevitably pivots mid-session. Maybe the topic that brought me to the table to write was more complicated than i thought. Maybe it wasn't. Sometimes it's so simple that it feels stupid and patronising to myself and the reader when i write about it, and that segways well in to my next problem.

How deeply should i go when explaining something? I don't know how detailed you would like my breakdowns. I don't even know how deep i want them myself. Part of the problem is that i am mainly writing about things i've thought through. This is like some advertised guru self-help shit. And i don't know if that's the direction that i want to take this. Yes, it's great putting esoteric ideas into words, but i want to explore ideas too. Outsource and feedback. The problem with writing like this is that it feels like a certainty is required, like a confidence that i'm right with what i write and that it IS the way i say it is. Yes it's fine, but it's boring too. I want to explore, but i am drawn to deep waters i'm not sure i'm comfortable writing about. And that again segways into my third issue.

Where exactly do i want to take this? This might be too soon to ask, but i have to consider my vision with this stuff. The way i've written so far is a bit all over the place. Again i think it's fine, but it would boost my creativity and motivation if i could narrow down on the topics and general spirit of the direction of this blog.

My style is chaotic and rambly(?). I can feel it, but my hands are tied with incompetence for now. For the foreseeable future i'll probably post as before, about random stuff i think about. I think i still lack a general feeling for this project, so until i get one, i'll just keep going in faith.

I have many concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) and LLMs in their present state. I'll elaborate on these concerns in future posts, but I wanted to make it clear that until my concerns are resolved, this is an AI-free blog.

I do not use or consult AI in the research or writing of my blog posts or in any other aspect of this blog. What you read comes from my own mind as typed by my own hands. I also do not willingly or knowingly post AI-generated images here (I did that once in 2022 when DALL-E was a new thing, but have since deleted that image).

I believe it is wrong to train AI on human-created content without the consent of the humans who created it. While there is little I can do to prevent it, I do not consent to the scraping of my blog content for the purposes of training AI.

My blog is written by a human for humans.

#100DaysToOffload (No. 102) #AI #tech

Hey

I’m thinking

Thinking

Do you know?

Like this; it’s like this exactly:

It’s been nagging at my brain:

There was a can of worms opened up inside of my brain — a swarm of realisations — like they are symbolising something serious like cognitive dissonance — wreaking havoc — as they shine a new worm light on everything.

And it’s ugly !

But even so, they try to crawl back into the jar, to seal themselves from me, because they hurt up there. They hurt me, and so I may subconsciously be compelling them to crawl back,

Like there’s a blind spot where the jar is: that’s where they crawl.

But I’ve written it all down!!

Even so, it’s like when I read the things I’ve written, it’s like the realisation comes anew…

Why is it like that? Somethings not right up there!

I wish to mend my inner construct, but I can’t as long as these worms of wisdom are there in the crowded darkness in their jar; I do not want to regress into my former shape, when this realisation cost me so much, do you know?

I will mend, it will be wabi sabi.

This is the hill I will die on.

I am good at recognising patterns. I don't have a genius level IQ or anything, but I am observant and analytical by nature, and I think a lot about what speaks to me when I go about my day. I believe that my key trait in justifying me typing like I know something you don't, is my sensitivity. From the time i was a child i have always been hyper-sensitive to my emotions, positive or negative. While life is impossible to navigate before you get a handle on yourself if you are like me, once the worst has passed and you learn to live with yourself, doors of perception open. I found myself searching for truth, whatever that was.

The thing about surface-level truth is that it can really be anything. Someone's belief is their belief, and if it makes sense in their eyes, it is real. Who's to say it isn't? Luckily for me I got that part fairly quickly. Start telling everyone they're wrong is just dumb (for laymen like you and me. Can be done by pros if EXTREME caution is utilised.) Yet, the way things played out didn't really match what people said. The implication being that there was things people didn't talk about, or even actively misdirected from. At times i had to reject my own intuition, and follow the flow. I didn't know any better, I thought everyone was as sensitive as me, and it was just me that didn't get it.

I've always wanted to be loved and revered. However i've rarely had the means to invoke that feeling in my peers. Long story short i was an annoying shit-kid. Mouthy, lazy, sensitive and unwilling to adapt to the order of things to get its benefits. I never put in the work, even though i wanted to. I just couldn't focus, yet i wanted the fruits of labour, so i started preaching and mimicking those at the top. Inevitably though, i got sniffed out every time. And every time I got beat down a little bit. There is a lesson in humility to be learned here. I didn't, for a long time. If one can't accept a deep truth, reality will force it down your throat, forever, until you notice it and manage to swallow it. Until then, you will walk around feeling like you are choking.

The dissonance between needing to be respected and liked while simultaneously embodying the things that manifest the exact opposite broke me badly. But i eventually learned humility, after crashing my head in a wall a million times.

In understanding myself, I wanted to go deeper. To see what really lied beneath the surface, and what caused me to be who I am. I think that introspective and philosophical pursuits are a result from you not getting what you truly want and need in life, for whatever reason. A cope, if you will. Consciousness in its raw and intended purpose is forced upon you when the ego is shattered. Gaining somewhat of an understanding of your situation and the world might help you realign and leverage yourself properly. That's what i'm doing now, i think.

In my quest for wisdom i found things about myself and others that weren't pretty. The realisations weighted on my naive self like giant rocks on my shoulders. But once they were there in their full forms, free from delusions and cope, there was a bit of relief in the weight. There was a purpose in the pain, finally. I had been broken down before by my own deceptions. This was hard, but that's because it was a voluntary burden. Compared to drowning in chaos forced upon you? it didn't even come close. And the best part? Day by day, the weight lessened.

With the increasing autonomy of my thinking i realise day by day how much i've strayed off my own path. In a way things get more painful, but it's a different pain. A very manageable one, and one i can negotiate with. I can train myself to endure and transcend this one. That is because there is meaning and truth to match the pain.

Sometimes we seek comfort from our religious and spiritual practices. Whether we call it calm, equanimity, repose, inner peace, consolation, radical acceptance, or any other title, a sense of feeling safe, connected, seen and held can be a beautiful gift that enlivens us. It’s important to note, that if this is the only spiritual state that we seek out regularly, we may be missing an important opportunity to explore the rich invitations that are present in other states of being. Our spiritual lives are a container for the confluence of human experience and expression, not just for warm fuzzies (some mystics call this spiritual sweetness) or for deep peace no matter what comes.

In fact, when our connection to the divine is frequently a shortcut to a hypo-activated state (as opposed to a hyper-activated/reactive space or one that is regulated and balanced), we may be engaged in a contemplative misstep called “Spiritual Bypassing”, where genuine difficulty, suffering, joy, anger, rage, sorrow, love, and more are papered over by generic spiritual language that avoids rather than embraces, soothes symptoms rather than metabolizes the core challenge. This move to avoidance might be couched in deeply spiritual or religious language, but serves to depersonalize, disconnect, even dissociate from what is actually happening. It is a way our minds try to “go around” instead of “going through”, and it’s often a path to a colossal energetic traffic jam.

While there are many ways this bypassing might present, one that I see frequently is a desire to only involve the divine, the ultimate, the universal at a point when everything is already fairly neat and clean. We chase self-repair before showing up to ask for mercy or grace. Another one is the idea that any time God is introduced into deep discord or dysregulation, the practice brings a permeating calm and “okay-ness” that actually prevents spiritual growth, working through shadow material, or otherwise contending with the vicissitudes of life. In this scenario, the Holy One becomes its own form of thought terminating cliche, emotional bandage, or spiritual dissociation.

If abiding with God and our pain means we have to conform to some sort of “positive vibes only” or “deep peace and ease” framework, then our practices will not yield much in the way of growth, healing, or compassion. We are invited to a deeper relationship where not only can we be messy, but where God is ready to get messy with us. This is the miracle of incarnation. We are beloved by one who not only sees and acknowledges our dumpster fire, but who joins us in the smoke and flame, getting just as sooty, and in the midst of the fire, gives us the inspiration to imagine what it would be like to be a dumpster phoenix, remembering that death and resurrection go hand in hand.

There are too many modes of existence to tackle in a single essay, but I will endeavor to lift up a few, to encourage you to try out some of these ways of being present with God and in which, God can be present with you too.

Dryness- Sometimes we experience flow states, where it seems like inspiration, ideas, efforts, and even results are just pouring into, through, and out of us. This can be so intoxicating, mysterious, enjoyable and yet every river experiences low times, dry spells, and low flow. When we are dry, inspiration is hard to come by, our practice doesn’t feel lively, and we can find ourselves desperate for even a drop or two of invigoration. In dry spaces, we may be called on to wait, to wonder, to pay attention for places around us that we can see the trickle of flow. We can abide here with the one who says “I am thirsty” and who knows what it’s like when our bodies and our souls feel parched.

Righteous Anger- the ability to bear witness to the world’s suffering and not be activated at all, or at least to pretend that it is true, isn’t the ultimate asceticism, but more likely another version of bypassing. When we are activated by injustice, disaster, and the harm we see around us, in us, or even coming from us, we can abide in that anger and invite the one whose “nose burns hot” at what is wrong in the world to keep that fire alive in us, while also making sure that our anger helps us to transform and metabolize pain, not join in transmitting it to others.

Lament- lament begins with being overwhelmed, sharing in that overwhelm with others, and then crying out in honesty, “we are overwhelmed and our hearts are breaking within us.” Sometimes the pain in the world is an evil that can be restrained or resisted. Sometimes we are up against a disaster so complex, that identifying blame is a fruitless task, but identifying the harm and publicly mourning it and crying out for help are essential. We can abide in deep sorrow and lament what is not okay, joined by the very one whose “womb aches for the suffering of her children” and knowing that our outcry will be heard.

Desolation- sometimes we go dry for a long time. We are exhausted from resisting and pushing back. We feel disconnected and unable to join in community, even to wail. From a practice perspective, nothing seems to be medicine for the soul. It can be tempting to seek distraction, busyness, or even to court despair. In desolation, we are invited to look more carefully at the landscape of our interior selves, moving forward as slowly as necessary while we wait for something new to break through. We can abide in our desolation, inviting the one who cried “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?” to be present, to see us in this low and help us to trust in what comes next.

Playfulness/Childlike Awe- even when things feel balanced, calm, relatively stable, we can be cautious about showing up for our practice unserious or without the requisite solemnity. We have a whole nervous system state for play, and yet as adults frequently avoid playing or being silly in order to be taken seriously by our peers. We shy away from approaching things we cannot explain or apprehend, when this is precisely the core of our spiritual lives. Let us be silly, playful, curious, childlike in our awe and as we abide in such spaces, we will be joined by the one who said “unless you become as a little child, you will never enter the kin-dom of Heaven.”

There are thousands of states beyond these few, but my hope is that if you can show up to your practice in the ones mentioned here, that it will be marvelous practice for showing up in them in other states as well. The Bypass isn’t the quick way around, because the path of a life well lived goes through, not around. If you find yourself in the traffic jam, don’t be afraid to turn off the car, stand on the hood, and raise your arms to the sky in an act of pure wonder.

Cöda X78sd7d

Maan zie je daar nou boven ons staan en behendig langs onze wereld gaan somber schaduwlicht in hemel gewelf en je maakt het niet eens zelf jij bent hoogst waarschijnlijk het opvallendste in het schemerrijk niet bedekt door zwevend water viel al eerder neer hoeft niet later dit schouwspel van eeuwige reflectie met een intens bloederige connectie

Maan waar haalde de man het lef vandaan om daar bovenop te moeten staan daar zijn manische vlaggenstok in steken een ziekmakend en pijnlijk litteken van die dwaze al minachtende man die zijn moeder natuur niet aan kan al wat opkomt gaat altijd weer onder geen jaar vol maanden zitten we zonder maar als die egocentrische man onder gaat weet dat hij uit zichzelf niet weer opstaat

welterusten

I’m at the sushi joint, waiting for a so called bibimbap, they’re all full of stuff in there, in the food. However the chef coughed just now. Wonder if there’s cough in my bibimbap.

That would be unfortunate.

Now some idiot woman is asking them for wooden spoons. First she asked twice whether there was chicken in her food. They said yes twice. Now she’s wondering about wooden spoons. Why would they have wooden spoons in there? Does it look like an ice cream shop to her?

I bet she’s one of those entitled parents, you know? — or worse yet: a middle school teacher, who has this way of talking down to other people, like whoever she talks to she also teaches something, you know? Like she would have to ask twice in case they didn’t understand her the first time…

Wooden spoons…

She can shove the wooden spoons where the sun don’t ✨ shine.

---

Now I have eaten the bibimbap. The world isn’t so terrible.

I hope the middle school teacher found some wooden spoons for her chicken.

teachers and parents are the golden link between past and future.

May she ✨ shine like a su