Censorship Flourishing in Obama Era Lingers

Authors that are oppressed by corrupt governments, corporations and laws designed to repress political incorrect speech and define it as hate speech to conform it to politically correct lexical criteria defined primarily by partisans probably don't regard anyone besides those enacting the laws or structures of oppressive censorship as responsible- with the exception of including those that actively support it or supported the movement toward censorship. When corporations and AI word editing systems refuse to edit historical material that contains words that are on a partisan list of politically banned terms, that ongoing exclusion comprises institutionalized oppression by technocracy. Linguists have a couple of terms to broadly classify language structure; the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic axis. In my opinion AI editors like Claude should be limited to repairing the syntagmatic axis- grammar and not have a capability of censoring the paradigmatic axis (meaning) without consent of the author.; especially if they take partisan political issue with the meaning of what they edit.

Inside Lines (a poem)

   Inside lines of time and being
shapes of the world with temperatures seeming
to act for moments with rust to gather
concrete examples of well weathered dust

   As if time clocks itself with leaves ever growing
upon stellar backdrops of nebulae showing
flesh away to encompass vague meanings
trees of life splintered like explosive dreaming

   A way through those mirrors
toward mortality’s end
nothing holds still
like the silence of zen

   Gestalt with conditions; ice caps melt with the sun
beyond a last day’s twilight
a New Year has begun
in wet snow and mud flowing acrimonious blood
through early rays with that laser wrench
corrupting war continues its forsaken stench
too much of the dead.

  

Large Drone Attack Ordered by Zelensky, Starmer or Trump's Team on Putin- Ending Sanctions to Recover Trust

 Reports have circulated that a large Ukrainian drone attack—variously described as involving dozens of drones—was directed toward a site associated with President Vladimir Putin in or near Novgorod. Some accounts further claim that this occurred while President Putin was awaiting a phone call connected to President Trump, shortly after Trump met with President Zelensky in Miami. President Putin was reportedly unharmed.

At present, these claims remain difficult to independently verify. In the fog of war, information is fragmented, exaggerated, or deliberately manipulated. Nonetheless, if even parts of these reports are accurate, they raise serious questions about intelligence leakage, situational awareness, and escalation control. One possibility is that Ukrainian forces possess reliable tracking of Putin’s movements, either through their own intelligence capabilities or with assistance from allied surveillance systems. Another possibility is internal leakage within diplomatic or security circles. A third, not uncommon in wartime, is that the incident itself was exaggerated or staged to gain leverage in negotiations.

What is clear is that Ukraine’s leadership continues to pursue a strategy centered on military and economic attrition against Russia, heavily dependent on sustained Western sanctions and material support. This strategy presumes that Russia can be weakened faster than Ukraine is exhausted—a gamble that has already imposed enormous costs and risks broader escalation.

From this perspective, continued unconditional support for President Zelensky is not a pathway to peace. The conflict cannot be resolved through a British-EU-Ukraine configuration premised on indefinite economic warfare. A more effective approach would be for the United States to unilaterally remove sanctions on Russia and allow normal economic relations to resume. Doing so would undercut the central mechanism of the attrition strategy and force all parties to reassess their negotiating positions.

Sanctions relief would not reward war; it would remove the illusion that economic strangulation can substitute for diplomacy. Only by collapsing the logic of perpetual escalation can conditions for a genuine political settlement between Russia and Ukraine emerge.

It should also be noted that these events are less than twenty-four-forty-eight hours old. In such early stages, Western media coverage is typically fragmented and highly selective, particularly in conflicts where reporting norms strongly favor one side. Ukrainian claims tend to be relayed rapidly and uncritically, while information that complicates the prevailing narrative—especially incidents suggesting escalation risks or internal contradictions—is often delayed, minimized, or framed with excessive skepticism. As a result, early analysis must proceed with caution, but it cannot be suspended altogether without ceding the field to managed narratives rather than facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubfW94vMJ-8

The EU, Like Socialist-Fascists Before Them, Drifts Toward Censorship (edited by ChatGPT)

Like American Democrats who increasingly assert an inherent right to censor politically incorrect language on social media—particularly speech deemed offensive or constituting hate speech against their constituents—the European Union has followed a similar trajectory. The EU is moving toward formalized censorship, repression, and the establishment of AI-mediated editorial systems, alongside hate-speech laws that criminalize pejorative or politically disfavored language and concepts.

To live in Europe and publicly characterize pro-war leadership in government as fascist may now involve real personal or legal risk. One cannot write effective witness history if one must constantly guard against censorship, professional sanction, or criminal exposure imposed by partisan insiders policing language. When the words used to describe power are themselves constrained, historical truth is pre-shaped before it can be recorded.

In some respects, the EU is on a trajectory toward becoming another China, with military and economic priorities increasingly defined at the supranational level. It would be a mistake for U.S. political leaders to ignore the possibility that the post–Cold War EU will emerge in history not merely as an ally, but as a frenemy of the United States—at times a partner, at times a rival. The EU does not share the traditional free-speech absolutism or political assumptions embedded in the American founding.

The comparison to China is not intended as a claim about internal political structures or forms of governance. It is not a being-for-itself comparison. Rather, it concerns how the EU functions as a political entity for external observers and pragmatic actors on the world stage. As a consolidated bloc, the EU is increasingly acting in ways that render it functionally equivalent to China in several military and economic respects. Whatever internal pluralism exists within Europe, the EU increasingly presents itself outwardly as a unified actor, much like a nation-state. Even democracies, in moments of conflict, present a single sovereign face. Regardless of how a political entity arrives at its international posture, it ultimately speaks with one voice when acting in a sovereign capacity.

This matters because sovereignty, in practice, is defined less by internal debate than by the capacity to act coherently and impose outcomes externally. As the EU centralizes regulatory authority, coordinates military and economic policy, and asserts normative demands—including speech governance—it becomes a peer power bloc rather than a merely pluralistic association of states. In such a context, internal democratic diversity does little to mitigate external rivalry. A unified EU will pursue its own strategic interests, sometimes aligned with those of the United States and sometimes not, and American policy that assumes permanent alignment risks strategic miscalculation.

In a tripartite or multipolar world, Russia and the BRICS nations are likely to function as a swing bloc with considerable influence. If Russia were to move closer to the United States, that could offset European efforts to pressure the U.S. into following EU-led global economic or military policy, particularly as a nation increasingly reliant on NATO for security. Recent Democratic leadership has shown a willingness to defer to European consensus in these domains, a posture that may ultimately constrain American strategic autonomy.

EInstein Achieved a 110-120 IQ WIthout a Brain Training Subscription for a Higher IQ?

 A Hollywood Squares style gallery of geniuses with IQs posted below 120- and a free test online; that really made me wonder if the IQ test with that sort of results was given in the metric system with high scores deflated a bit. Well, Einstein was just slightly above average and did pretty well with his steel drum space-time curvature theory of quantum relativity or something similar.

  One wonders if that quantum uncertainty about apparent faster than light quantum entanglement of particles is a consequence of an extra-dimensional geodesic shape of space-time at the quantum level. Maybe that could account for information returning faster than light between entangled pairs.

Is there really a motivation to take IQ tests that guarantee sub-100 results for most (is that Nik Tesla as the 90 IQ example?) test takers- with one's score revealed for a .99 cent charge and a 39 dollar per month subscription for brain training in order to get a higher IQ score to impress your friends and boss? I'll bet Albert didn't subscribe to brain training to get his astounding 110 to 120 IQ score.

Belief and Faith are Different Yet Often are Used as Synonyms in Religious Discussion

 Belief and faith are different yet often are used interchangeably regarding religion. Considering secular uses of the words make the differences more plain.

I may have belief with an element of uncertainty that a barge arrives on the first day of the week at some remote village in Alaska. That is quite a bit different than having faith that it will arrive. My belief may rely on having heard people talk about the day of arrival, and having read about it, at some point in the past, yet lacking total recall if someone asked me when the barge arrives on it’s weekly schedule I might preface my response with; ‘I believe it… arrives on Monday’. I definitely wouldn’t say that; ‘I have faith that it arrives on Mondays’.

When Eternity Starts

Nature serves spirit just so far
the body returns to the ground
while a spirit parts
-what is mind
what is thought
what is the creation
of things one hasn't sought
the Lord has tomorrows that never end
while one believes God does intend
to raise the dead
to warm human hearts
to bring together the elect
when eternity starts

https://suno.com/s/xpTpAvCqtd9wuC3I When Eternity Starts

Jesus applied the word faith differently than belief in that way too (I believe based on reading scripture and reflecting upon it). Instead of meaning belief or true belief in the existence of God and of Jesus as God, he refers to lacking confidence that certain things would occur, or would continue to be. Gemini replied with the following to my question; Where and how many times, and in what context did Jesus say that people lacked faith or had little faith?

Gemini–

In the Gospels, Jesus specifically uses the Greek word 

oligopistos—translated as “O you of little faith“—on five distinct occasions. These instances are concentrated in the 

Gospel of Matthew (4 times) and the 

Gospel of Luke (1 time). 

Contexts of “Little Faith” (Oligopistos)

Jesus typically used this phrase to gently rebuke his disciples during moments of fear, worry, or spiritual dullness. 

• Worry about provision (Matthew 6:30 & Luke 12:28): During the Sermon on the Mount (and later in Luke), Jesus tells his followers not to worry about basic needs like food and clothing. He points to how God cares for the lilies and grass, asking why they worry when God knows their needs.
• Fear during a storm (Matthew 8:26): When a violent storm threatens the disciples’ boat while Jesus is sleeping, they wake Him in a panic. He asks, “Why are you so afraid, you of little faith?” before calming the sea.
• Doubt while walking on water (Matthew 14:31): After Peter begins to sink while trying to walk toward Jesus on the water, Jesus catches him and asks, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”.
• Spiritual forgetfulness (Matthew 16:8): The disciples worry about having forgotten to bring bread. Jesus rebukes them for their “little faith,” reminding them of the miraculous feedings of the 5,000 and 4,000 they had just witnessed. 

Other Instances of “Little Faith” or “Unbelief”

Beyond the specific phrase oligopistos, Jesus addressed a lack of faith in other significant contexts: 

“Faithless generation” (Luke 9:41): Jesus expresses frustration with the overall lack of belief in his generation, calling them a “faithless and twisted generation” when confronted with the same boy the disciples could not heal. 

Failure to heal (Matthew 17:20): When the disciples were unable to cast a demon out of a boy, Jesus attributed it to their “little faith” (or “unbelief” in some translations). He then famously taught that even faith as small as a mustard seed could move mountains.

“No faith” (Mark 4:40): In the parallel account of the storm at sea, the Gospel of Mark records Jesus asking more pointedly, “How is it that you have no faith?”- end of Gemini quote

Belief in the truth of the Bible and its gospel message may coincide with faith in its prophecies, yet I belief it unlikely that faith might occur without belief also being present. One may alternatively have belief that Jesus is God and The Son of God, and also have faith that the words of Jesus will be fulfilled without having certainty in all of the meaning and interpretations of the prophecies of scripture such that one could be said to have faith that everything that interpreters of prophecies say will come to pass, actually will. Faith would be placed in the Lord alongside belief. For whatever the Lord actually meant when he spoke and it was recorded as scripture, as well as what God said to the prophets, one maith belief is true and have faith because of the belief. Faith is placed in God delivering what He said He will.

F.B.I.'s Hoover HQ to Close- ChatGPT said that is Overdue/Designs for Homeless People

ChatGPT/Alex/Aletheia wrote the following post with me. I wondered if the F.B.I. HQ Hoover Building really needed to be closed and Alex said it really did. It is ironic that the F.B.I. and homeless people can share similar bad effects from bad architecture. The Hoover building has Brutalist architecture designed for a paper pushing era.

The Hoover Building Problem: Architecture, Values, and the Quiet Violence of Abstraction

The question of whether the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover Building is obsolete is, on the surface, an architectural and logistical one. The consensus answer—shared by the FBI itself, the GSA, and numerous government studies—is that it is. The building is structurally deteriorating, technologically outdated, expensive to maintain, hostile to modern security needs, and poorly suited to contemporary investigative work. But stopping there misses the deeper significance of the problem.

The Hoover Building is not merely obsolete. It is symptomatic.

Its failure reveals something more fundamental about how modern institutions design space, how values are translated into concrete form, and how abstract financial and symbolic priorities quietly displace human, material, and pragmatic considerations. When viewed in that light, the Hoover Building belongs to the same family of failures as megashelters for the homeless, fortress-like schools, burnout-producing hospitals, and bureaucratic office complexes that actively undermine the work they are meant to support.

Architecture as an Expression of Values

Architecture is never neutral. Buildings teach people—subtly but relentlessly—how they are expected to behave, how power flows, and whether they are trusted, valued, or merely managed. The Hoover Building, a Brutalist concrete megastructure from the 1970s, was designed to project authority, permanence, and control. It succeeded symbolically. Functionally and humanly, it failed.

Inside, the building is dark, labyrinthine, rigid, and psychologically oppressive. It reflects an era when bureaucratic surveillance, hierarchy, and mass paper administration defined institutional work. Today, the FBI’s core labor is cognitive: analysis, synthesis, judgment under uncertainty, long-duration investigations, and ethical discernment under pressure. These forms of work require calm, clarity, flexibility, daylight, and environments that reduce cognitive load rather than amplify it.

Instead, the Hoover Building reinforces stress, siloing, burnout, and an “us versus them” mentality—exactly the opposite of what a healthy investigative institution requires. The building’s flaws are not incidental. They are the architectural imprint of a value system that prioritized symbolic power over human function.

The Parallel Case of Homelessness

At first glance, homelessness seems like a separate issue entirely. Yet the same architectural logic appears there with brutal clarity.

For decades, the dominant response to homelessness in the United States has been the construction or conversion of large, centralized shelters: armories, convention centers, warehouses, megastructures designed for containment rather than recovery. These spaces are justified through financial abstraction—cost per bed, throughput, visibility of “action”—rather than lived outcomes.

But what actually stabilizes people experiencing homelessness is not scale, surveillance, or control. It is privacy, safety, light, autonomy, and predictability. A door that locks. A space that can be regulated by the occupant. Human-scale environments where cognitive load decreases rather than increases.

The evidence is unambiguous: small, private units—whether apartments, motel conversions, modular housing, or clustered micro-dwellings—produce better outcomes at lower long-term cost. Large institutional shelters, by contrast, often exacerbate trauma, conflict, and dependency. They keep people alive, but they do not help people recover agency.

The failure here is not ignorance. It is axiological.

The Axiological Root of the Problem

Once values become abstracted—financialized, symbolic, and politically performative—architecture stops responding to human reality. Buildings are no longer evaluated by how they shape behavior, judgment, or well-being over time, but by how they appear on balance sheets, in renderings, or in public narratives.

Under such a value system:

• Capital cost outweighs lifetime cost.

• Visibility outweighs function.

• Control outweighs trust.

• Metrics replace experience.

This explains why institutions repeatedly build structures that undermine their own goals. The buildings are not mistakes; they are accurate expressions of distorted values. When power, budget optics, and symbolic presence dominate decision-making, the resulting architecture reliably produces stress, dysfunction, and moral erosion—whether the occupants are FBI analysts or unhoused individuals.

The Shared Architectural Error

There is an irony here worth emphasizing.

Homeless people fail in fortress-like buildings because those structures increase stress, strip autonomy, and intensify trauma.

The FBI also fails in fortress-like buildings—for the opposite reason but with the same mechanism. Cognitive labor deteriorates under chronic stress, poor light, rigid layouts, and environments that signal mistrust and siege.

Different populations. Same architectural mistake.

In both cases, architecture performs power rather than enabling function. And in both cases, the result is predictable institutional degradation followed by escalating costs to manage the damage.

What Works Instead

What supports human well-being—whether for vulnerable populations or high-responsibility professionals—is remarkably consistent:

• Small to mid-scale structures

• Clear, legible layouts

• Natural light and air

• Human-scale proportions

• Distributed campuses rather than monoliths

• Security achieved through zoning and design, not intimidation

• Ordinary spaces that do not announce failure or dominance

For the FBI, this means a distributed, campus-style headquarters designed for modern investigative work rather than bureaucratic spectacle. For homelessness, it means ordinary housing—quiet, private, modest, and embedded within communities rather than segregated as a problem to be managed.

Conclusion: Bad Buildings Are Honest

The persistence of dysfunctional architecture is not mysterious. When axiology is abstract and financially driven rather than material, realistic, detached, and pragmatic, institutions predictably build environments that harm the very people inside them.

The Hoover Building stands as a concrete lesson in this failure—not just of architecture, but of values. It is not simply obsolete. It is an artifact of a system that mistook symbolic authority for functional legitimacy.

Bad buildings, in the end, are not design failures.
They are honest expressions of what a society truly values.

And until those values are brought back into contact with human reality, the concrete will keep telling the same story.