Reviewing NASA’s AI Guide Through the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections

How NASA Explains Artificial Intelligence: A Connected Mind Review Using the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections

---

By J. Andre Faust (Dec 02, 2025)

NASA’s educational resource “What is AI? (Grades 5–8)” (NASA, n.d.) offers a clear and engaging introduction to artificial intelligence for younger learners. But even though it is written for middle-school students, the content opens the door to much deeper insights about how AI fits into larger systems of technology, society, and global change.

To highlight those deeper layers, this review uses the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections (UTPC) — a framework I am developing to map how events, decisions, and systems interact across time, structure, and interconnected feedback loops. Applied here, it reveals the hidden dimensions underlying NASA’s presentation of artificial intelligence, showing how simple explanations rest atop complex structural realities.

1. AI as a Structural Response to Complex Environments

NASA describes AI as technology that helps machines “think” in ways that resemble human reasoning (NASA, n.d.). It gives examples ranging from recognising images to navigating rovers on Mars. What is striking through the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections is that these technologies are not emerging in a vacuum — they are shaped by the structural demands of NASA’s environment: deep-space missions, vast datasets, remote operations, and scientific uncertainty.

In UTPC terms, AI fills structural “gaps in capability” where human senses, reaction time, or endurance cannot operate. Massive datasets from satellites, telescopes, and planetary sensors create a landscape where probabilistic decision-making is essential. The structure itself sets conditions that generate the need for AI.

2. Human and Machine Agency Intertwined

NASA emphasises that humans design, train, and guide AI systems. At the same time, AI performs tasks we cannot — identifying craters on the Moon, sorting scientific data, or autonomously steering exploration vehicles. This creates what UTPC identifies as hybrid agency: a dynamic interplay in which humans initiate action while machines extend or transform those actions across time and distance.

Rather than replacing humans, AI becomes an amplification of human agency, enabling decisions and discoveries that would otherwise be impossible.

3. Feedback Loops and Acceleration Through Time

One of the most important dimensions in the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections is the role of time-based feedback. NASA’s article hints at this indirectly: the more data AI receives, the better it becomes — leading to missions that collect even more data. This creates a reinforcing cycle:

• More missions → more data
• More data → better AI
• Better AI → more efficient missions

In UTPC analysis, this is a classic self-amplifying loop. Once a threshold is crossed, progress accelerates non-linearly. NASA’s use of AI in Earth observation, climate science, and planetary mapping demonstrates this principle in action.

4. Interconnections and Emerging Global Implications

Although written for a young audience, NASA’s resource implicitly raises broader questions: If AI can navigate a rover on Mars, identify exoplanets, and evaluate disaster zones on Earth — what are the consequences when these tools migrate into civilian, commercial, and political systems?

Using UTPC, we see that technologies rarely stay confined to their original domain. Tools built for exploration can influence global economics, environmental monitoring, surveillance, defence, and governance. Understanding AI’s “interconnected spillover” is essential if we want to predict how technological systems reshape societies.

Final Assessment: Why NASA’s Simple Resource Matters

NASA succeeds in creating a clear, accessible explanation of artificial intelligence. But when examined through the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections, the resource reveals an underlying narrative about how AI emerges, accelerates, and reshapes human capabilities. It becomes apparent that AI is not merely a tool — it is a systemic response to complexity, a partner in decision-making, and a catalyst for new global feedback loops.

For educators, researchers, and the general public, NASA’s article provides an excellent entry point into understanding how technology intersects with structural forces, human agency, and long-term interconnected change.

---

References

NASA. (n.d.). What is AI? (Grades 5–8). NASA Learning Resources. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/what-is-ai-grades-5-8/

---

About the Author

J. André Faust writes on the structural entanglements of politics, economics, technology, and society. His work applies layered-systems thinking to reveal how events and decisions shape one another across time. Through the lens of the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections, he traces feedback loops, power structures, and the hidden architecture of global change. The guiding principle: follow the connections — and revise beliefs as new information reshapes the map.

The New Frontier of Power: Brains, Machines, and the Future of Influence

 

By J. Andre Faust (Nov 30, 2025)

Abstract

This article examines the renewed debate surrounding mind altering technologies following a recent report by :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} [1] on emerging neuro weapons. Drawing on expert commentary [2], historical evidence [3], and modern scientific knowledge [4], it separates legitimate concerns from popular fear. The analysis explains why governments and militaries are increasingly interested in neurotechnology [5], how artificial intelligence and biomedical tools are reshaping the landscape [6], and why historical cases such as MK Ultra remain relevant cautionary examples [3]. At the same time, it outlines major scientific and technical obstacles that prevent genuine mind control from becoming reality [7]. The central argument is that the danger lies not in existing weapons, but in the rapid convergence of technologies that could be misused if governance proves too slow [8].

A Connected Mind Analysis

A recent article published by The Guardian [1] reported that “mind altering brain weapons” may no longer belong entirely to the realm of science fiction. It was based on warnings from researchers at the University of Bradford [2] who argue that rapid advances in neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology could create new tools that influence cognition or behaviour. The story gained attention because it touches a primal fear: that someone might discover a way to reach inside the human mind [4].

The Guardian report is grounded in legitimate academic concerns [2]. It does not claim that such weapons exist. Instead, it highlights a shift in the scientific landscape. Technologies affecting the brain are becoming more powerful, more precise, and more integrated with data driven systems [4]. These trends raise ethical and security questions that have not been fully addressed.

This article places the Guardian report in a wider context, examines the warnings made by experts, explains why genuine mind control remains scientifically out of reach, and draws lessons from the historical precedent of MK Ultra [3].

Why Researchers Are Sounding the Alarm

1. Neurotechnology is maturing

Neurotechnologies once limited to laboratories are now entering clinical settings [4]:

• deep brain stimulation
• focused ultrasound modulation
• noninvasive stimulation techniques
• brain computer interfaces

While primarily medical, each advance creates a potential dual use pathway [5].

2. Growing military and intelligence interest

Historically, armed forces have explored technologies that influence attention, resilience, and stress responses [5]. Modern neuroscience expands these possibilities and the ethical challenges that accompany them.

3. Artificial intelligence changes scale and precision

Artificial intelligence can analyse large patterns in behaviour, emotion, and decision making [6]. Combined with neural tools, this creates a new environment where influence can become more personalised and data driven.

Historical Precedent: MK Ultra

MK Ultra, a covert programme initiated by the CIA in the 1950s, pursued chemical and psychological experiments intended to influence human consciousness [3]. These included:

• administration of LSD and other hallucinogens
• hypnosis
• sensory deprivation
• electroshock procedures
• sleep manipulation
• interrogation methods

The programme failed to produce any reliable or controlled cognitive influence [3]. Its relevance today lies in its demonstration of institutional willingness rather than capability.

A Critical Reality Check

1. The brain is too complex

The human brain’s billions of neurons and trillions of synaptic connections make targeted intervention exceptionally difficult [7].

2. Human variability

People respond very differently to the same drugs or stimuli, preventing predictable population level effects [7].

3. Delivery challenges

The skull, the blood brain barrier, tissue depth, and environmental variability prevent controlled delivery of influence [7].

4. Safety limitations

Any strong enough disruption risks seizures, cognitive collapse, or physical harm [7].

5. Ethical and legal barriers

International treaties prohibit methods that target the central nervous system in harmful ways [8].

Relation to the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections

The Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections argues that social, technological, and political events form networks of interacting probabilities. Neurotechnology fits directly into this model, because each scientific gain creates new probabilistic branches that can develop in positive or negative directions [8]. MK Ultra represents an earlier branching event in which fear, secrecy, and weak scientific understanding combined to produce harmful outcomes [3]. Modern systems carry similar risks if emerging neural tools mature without appropriate governance.

Closing Reflection

Technology evolves quickly. Oversight does not. MK Ultra shows how secrecy can cause harm even when the science is weak [3]. Modern neurotechnology shows that the science is no longer weak [4]. While mind control remains impossible, society already faces large scale psychological influence through algorithms, attention systems, and structured persuasion. The gap between influence and coercion is narrowing [6]. Early discussion is necessary, not to fear the future, but to shape it.

---

References

1. The Guardian. (2025). Report on emerging neuro weapons.
2. University of Bradford. (2025). Neurotechnology and security briefing.
3. Declassified CIA documents on MK Ultra.
4. Royal Society. (2012). Brain Waves project.
5. Baker Institute. (2023). Neuroweapons and national security report.
6. AI behavioural analysis research literature.
7. Neuroscience reviews on brain complexity and modulation limitations.
8. International ethical and legal frameworks governing neurotechnology.

About the Author

J. André Faust writes on the structural entanglements that connect politics, economics, psychology, and technology. His work focuses on layered systems, probabilistic connections, and the ways feedback loops shape public understanding. The Connected Mind project explores how hidden structures influence the choices societies make and how beliefs evolve through interaction, conflict, and new information.

---

When Saving the Planet Collides With Paying the Bills

The Real Environmental Dilemma: Planet or Paycheque?

Image created by J. André Faust using OpenAI DALL·E (2025). Photorealistic depiction of the environment-versus-paycheque dilemma on a balance scale.

---

By J. André FAust, Nov 29, 2025

Abstract

Environmental protection and economic survival are often framed as opposing forces, but the real conflict emerges during the transition between them. Climate science is clear: fossil fuels are finite and contribute to global warming. Yet the shift toward green energy introduces a transition gap in which traditional jobs disappear faster than replacement employment can be created. This gap exposes workers to income loss, cognitive and skill mismatch, and regional economic decline. Modern oligopolistic markets are structurally incapable of absorbing displaced workers at the speed required, leaving families vulnerable and fuelling political backlash. A just transition must therefore acknowledge both scientific urgency and economic reality. Environmental goals cannot succeed if people cannot survive the transition, and policy must address the structural, temporal, and cognitive barriers that shape this dilemma. This analysis situates the issue within a broader systems framework, recognising that social and economic outcomes emerge from deeper structural patterns that govern how complex systems evolve.

For most of my life, I considered myself a committed environmentalist. I believed firmly that protecting ecosystems and reducing emissions should always be the top priority. That belief has not changed. What has changed is my understanding of the economic realities that millions of workers face during the transition away from fossil fuels.

Many will see me as a hypocrite for acknowledging this tension. Some will say I have sold out. But I cannot dismiss the very real dichotomy between preserving the environment and ensuring people have income. If someone has never faced a choice between their principles and their paycheque, it is easy for them to treat this dilemma as simple. It is not.

Two truths: Climate science and economic survival

I understand the science behind climate change. Warming is real. Greenhouse gases drive it. Fossil fuels are finite and will eventually be depleted. My view is that depletion will occur long before humanity has the ability to extract resources from other planets or asteroids. These facts are not in dispute.

But understanding the science does not erase the human reality. Families need paycheques today, not twenty years from now. When environmentalists say we can transition instantly, or that new green jobs will simply appear, they are overlooking the transition gap. This gap is where workers lose income, communities decline, and political backlash grows.

The transition gap is the real crisis

The tension is not between the environment and the economy in the long term. The real dilemma emerges in the transitional period. Fossil fuel jobs disappear immediately when production is halted. Replacement jobs do not appear immediately. They require years of planning, training systems, and infrastructure.

Some green jobs require mathematical and technical skills that not everyone possesses. Suggesting that a fifty year old oil worker can simply become a software engineer overlooks the cognitive, financial, and logistical barriers. This is not realism. It is wishful thinking.

Why traditional capitalism cannot solve this problem

Classical capitalism assumes healthy competition, many firms, and a free market. That is not the system we live in. Modern economies are dominated by monopolies and oligopolies. Companies like Rogers and Bell own multiple sub-brands and create the illusion of competition. Large corporations do not invest in job creation in regions abandoned by fossil fuel industries. They follow profit, not community need.

This means the market is incapable of providing immediate transitional jobs. Not unwilling. Incapable. The structure of our economy cannot support the speed or scale of workforce absorption required for a rapid environmental transition.

A transition cannot be moral if it is not survivable

Policies that destroy livelihoods in the name of protecting the environment will fail. They will fuel political polarization, resentment, and revolt. Real environmental progress requires a transition that people can survive. This means income support, phased transitions, and honest recognition of the economic realities facing workers.

We cannot lecture people about reducing emissions while ignoring the fact that their bills are due next month. A transition that overlooks human survival is not a just transition.

The path forward

We need a transitional model that respects both the science and the economic realities. Environmental responsibility must be paired with economic survival. Otherwise, the people who are most affected by the transition will be forced to choose between their principles and their paycheques. No democracy can sustain a transition built on economic pain.

---

About the Author

J. André Faust is an independent writer exploring the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. His work examines how systems interact across multiple layers of complexity, using a quantum-informed approach to understand cascading outcomes in global events. He focuses on the feedback loops that connect policy, perception, and collective behaviour, with the guiding belief that tracing connections and revising assumptions leads to clearer public understanding.

References

---

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Sixth assessment report. IPCC.
Faust, J. A. (2025). Environment vs paycheque balance scale [AI-generated image]. Created using OpenAI DALL·E.
Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan.
Sovacool, B. K. (2021). The limits of rapid climate transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 78.
Tingle, R. (2024). Canadian market concentration and the illusion of competition. Canadian Journal of Political Economy.

Carney’s 2025 Budget: Ambition, Risk, and the Realities of Governing in a Minority Parliament

Figure 1. Mark Carney viewing a stylised map of the Canadian economy (Faust, 2025).

By J. Andre Faust (Nov 27, 2025)

Canada’s 2025 federal budget is being presented as a major economic pivot. It introduces a capital-budgeting approach, expands investment in national infrastructure, and attempts to stimulate private-sector growth through productivity and industrial policy. It also lands in a highly unstable political environment, where the government must negotiate survival month by month.

This commentary reviews the budget through several lenses: fiscal, political, labour, centrist institutional analysis, environmental constraints, and the structural pressures created by the actions of the United States under President Donald Trump. The aim is to provide an objective analysis that minimises confirmation bias by integrating critiques from across the political and economic spectrum.

---

1. The Fiscal and Economic Foundations of the Budget

Budget 2025 presents a multi-year plan covering the period from 2025 to 2029, with some measures extending into 2030. The government divides its spending into two categories: operating expenditures and capital investments. This new framework allows the operating budget to appear closer to balance, while large capital projects, incentives, and industrial policies sit on a separate track (Government of Canada, 2025).

The projected deficit for 2025 stands at 78.3 billion dollars, with reductions expected over time (Government of Canada, 2025). However, the broader fiscal plan shows repeated deficits through the full five-year window. Fiscal-conservative analysts argue that separating capital from operating spending creates an impression of discipline that masks the true scale of borrowing and long-term debt accumulation (Fraser Institute, 2025).

Supporters of the budget argue that Canada’s long-standing productivity stagnation requires high-impact investment, and that the focus on national infrastructure, industrial capacity, and innovation addresses deep structural weaknesses (Government of Canada, 2025). Whether productivity gains will materialise quickly enough to offset increased debt remains an open question. Centrist commentators generally agree that the diagnosis is sound, but they caution that the numbers rely on optimistic assumptions about private investment and global conditions (The Hub, 2025).

---

2. Political Viability: The Budget’s Real Horizon Is Not Five Years

Although the economic and fiscal plan spans 2025 to 2029, the political reality is far shorter. Minority governments in Canada typically last between eighteen and twenty-four months. This creates an inherent contradiction in long-range budgeting. A change in government is plausible at any confidence vote, particularly if opposition parties believe they can gain seats in an election.

If the Conservative Party of Canada forms the next government, the fiscal framework will likely undergo major revision. Their platform generally emphasises lower taxes, regulatory reduction, a smaller federal footprint, and a shift away from state-led industrial strategy. The New Democratic Party, by contrast, would tend to shift the budget toward expanded social programmes, stronger labour protections, and higher corporate taxation. The Bloc Québécois would push for region-specific adjustments centred on Quebec’s fiscal and policy priorities.

Only a renewed Liberal mandate would produce something close to continuity, but even then, global and domestic pressures can force revisions. Therefore, the practical implementation horizon of Budget 2025 is closer to twelve to twenty-four months than to five years, regardless of how the tables are presented (Government of Canada, 2025).

---

3. Perspectives from Across the Economic and Political Spectrum

A. Fiscal-Conservative Analysis

Research organisations with a market-liberal orientation argue that the budget expands spending more than it reduces it, and that debt is on course to rise to levels that raise concerns about long-term fiscal resilience (Fraser Institute, 2025). Their specific concerns include:

• Growing interest payments consuming a larger share of revenues
• Uncertain private-sector response to new incentives and credits
• A risk that capital investments will not produce returns quickly enough
• Public-service reductions that may not fully offset new commitments

Their conclusion is that the budget is ambitious but financially fragile, and that the accounting split between operating and capital spending may obscure the true trajectory of total federal debt (Fraser Institute, 2025).

B. Centrist Institutional Analysis

Commentators from more centrist or institutional outlets tend to find the budget strategically coherent, but they warn that its transformative rhetoric exceeds its practical scope (The Hub, 2025). They note that the headline goal of mobilising very large volumes of total investment, public plus private, may be difficult to achieve in the face of economic uncertainty and tighter global financial conditions.

On housing, these analysts observe that the budget appears to rely more on measures that reduce demand, such as adjustments to immigration targets, than on a dramatic acceleration of construction capacity. They describe the overall plan as offering more continuity than dramatic change, even though the language of “generational investment” is prominent (The Hub, 2025).

C. Labour and Social-Justice Perspectives

Labour unions and social-justice organisations argue that the budget places a disproportionate burden on workers and public-sector employees. With tens of thousands of federal jobs projected to be reduced over several years, they warn of pressure on health care, education, transit, and community services (Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2025).

Although the budget contains targeted measures, such as a refundable tax credit for personal support workers and some reinvestments in programmes for women and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, labour groups consider these insufficient when set against broader austerity in public services (Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2025). Their framing emphasises distributional impacts: who benefits from investment incentives, who faces job insecurity, and who is most exposed to cutbacks in frontline services.

---

4. Environmental Constraints and International Pressures

Environmental policy presents one of the most difficult strategic challenges for any Canadian government. Voters experiencing rising housing, food, heating, and transportation costs are placed in what feels like a forced choice: environmental protection or affordability. This arises from how the global economy is structured, rather than from any single party’s ideology.

Countries with weaker environmental rules can lower production costs and attract investment, while nations imposing stricter standards risk losing competitiveness. Under President Donald Trump, the United States has signalled a willingness to use tariffs and industrial pressure to enhance its own economic advantage, including in sectors where environmental and labour standards differ (The Guardian, 2025). Environmental policy, in this context, becomes a potential point of economic exploitation, not simply a domestic policy issue.

For the Green Party of Canada, this creates a structural dilemma. A strong environmental stance may protect the climate in the long term, but voters under immediate economic strain often prioritise feeding their families and paying their bills. At the same time, scaling back environmental commitments undermines the party’s identity. This tension complicates coalition politics around any budget that seeks both to attract investment and to decarbonise the economy.

---

5. Structural Realities: Policy Horizons vs Political Cycles

Budget 2025 reveals a deeper problem within democratic governance. Economic planning often requires a four or five year horizon, yet political stability in minority situations редко lasts that long. As a result, governments design long-term plans that may only partially survive. This produces a disconnect between the stated ambitions of a budget and the practical limits of its implementation (Government of Canada, 2025).

External forces compound this problem. Global supply chains, currency volatility, interest-rate shifts, and trade decisions by larger economies introduce uncertainty that no domestic budget can fully control (Financial Times, 2025). When an election is always possible, long-term policies become probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Analysts across the spectrum, from fiscal conservatives to labour advocates, share the view that the true test of Budget 2025 will lie not only in its design, but in how long the political context allows it to operate.

---

Conclusion

Carney’s first budget is ambitious and attempts to shift Canada toward long-term productivity, national resilience, and industrial renewal (Government of Canada, 2025). It brings a clearer sense of direction than some past fiscal plans, and it aligns with international advice that stresses growth-enhancing investment in infrastructure, housing, and clean energy.

At the same time, it carries substantial risks. Debt is projected to rise, and much depends on optimistic assumptions about private investment and global stability (Fraser Institute, 2025; The Hub, 2025). Labour groups warn about reductions in public-service capacity and the social consequences of austerity in essential services (Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2025). Environmental ambitions remain structurally constrained by international competition and by the risk that powerful neighbours may exploit any unilateral decarbonisation efforts (The Guardian, 2025).

The most objective interpretation is that Budget 2025 represents a structured attempt at national repositioning within an unstable environment. Its success or failure will depend less on its internal narrative and more on geopolitical forces, domestic affordability pressures, and the survival of a minority government navigating competing political incentives.

---

About the Author

J. André Faust

Writer and analyst focused on the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. Through a systems-layered approach, he explores how decisions, institutions, and global pressures interact across time. His work follows a guiding idea: trace the feedback, understand the connections, and revise beliefs when new information emerges.

---

References

1. Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2025, November 4). Carney’s first budget gives corporations a free ride and leaves working Canadians behind. BusinessWire. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251104130391/en/
2. Financial Times. (2025, November 3). Carney to present first budget after drawing cabinet from private sector. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/
3. Fraser Institute. (2025, November 4). Pulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget. Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/
4. Government of Canada. (2025). Budget 2025. Department of Finance Canada.
5. The Guardian. (2025, November 5). Canada budget adds tens of billions to deficit as Carney spends to dampen Trump tariffs effect. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/
6. The Hub. (2025, November 5). More continuity than change: The Hub reacts to Mark Carney’s big spending budget. The Hub. https://thehub.ca/
7. Faust, J. A. (2025). Mark Carney looking at the Canadian economy [Digital image]. Generated using OpenAI DALL·E on 27 November 2025.

---

Sedition, Death Penalties and a System Under Strain

By J. André Faust (Nov 23, 2025)

Sedition, Death Penalties, and a System Under Strain: What Trump’s Latest Outburst Reveals

When President Donald Trump accused six Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behaviour, punishable by death” for reminding military personnel that they are not required to follow illegal orders, it marked a turning point in American political discourse. As reported by multiple outlets (BBC News, 2025; The Guardian, 2025; WMTW Maine, 2025), the president’s posts escalated routine political disagreement into language associated with treason and capital punishment.

The lawmakers’ message—rooted in established military law—emphasised that service members must refuse illegal orders. This principle has been reaffirmed for decades, including in United States v. Keenan (1969), which held that obeying “patently illegal orders” is not a defence. Yet Trump reframed their reminder as sedition, calling for arrest, trial, and even suggesting execution (BBC News, 2025).

This reaction triggered bipartisan concern, institutional responses, and physical security measures. It also triggered something else: a substantial shift in the probability landscape described by the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections (UTPC), my framework for understanding how events create branching pathways of potential futures.

---

What the Lawmakers Actually Said

The six Democrats—all military or intelligence veterans—stated plainly:

• Service members must obey lawful orders.
• They must refuse illegal or unconstitutional orders.
• Their oath is to the Constitution, not a president.

None referenced any specific policy. Their concern, as stated, was the rule of law and constitutional limits (BBC News, 2025; Slotkin, 2025).

---

Trump’s Reaction: Sedition, Arrests, and Capital Punishment

The president posted three escalating messages:

• “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL… ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL…”
• “LOCK THEM UP???”
• “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

He also reposted a user calling for the lawmakers to be hanged (The Guardian, 2025).

This is not normal democratic rhetoric. It is punishment language wrapped in the vocabulary of treason. It equates a lawful constitutional reminder with sedition. It positions elected officials as enemies of the state. It openly entertains execution as a political consequence.

---

Institutional Reactions: Alarm and Division

1. Maine’s Entire Delegation Responds

All four members—Republican, Independent, and Democrats—condemned Trump’s statements (WMTW Maine, 2025). Their responses include:

• Sen. Susan Collins: Such comments “risk sparking political violence.”
• Sen. Angus King: The reaction shows “contempt for the Constitution.”
• Rep. Chellie Pingree: “Disgusting… terrifying.”
• Rep. Jared Golden: Service members have a duty to disobey illegal orders.

2. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

On the Senate floor, Schumer stated:

“The president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials… some of his supporters may very well listen.” (C-SPAN, 2025)

3. Security Measures in Motion

House leadership is coordinating with Capitol Police to protect the lawmakers and their families (BBC News, 2025). When political rhetoric triggers security intervention, the system has reached a dangerous threshold.

4. White House and Speaker Mike Johnson: Defence and Reframing

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied Trump wanted executions but then accused the lawmakers of encouraging military personnel to defy “lawful orders” (The Guardian, 2025). House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump, saying he was “defining the crime of sedition” (BBC News, 2025).

This partisan split over the meaning of “sedition” represents a form of constitutional fragmentation.

---

A Climate Already Primed for Violence

The BBC contextualised these remarks within a period of rising political violence, including:

• Two assassination attempts targeting Trump.
• The assassination of commentator Charlie Kirk.
• An arson attack on a governor’s home.
• Murders of elected officials.
• Swatting attempts on both Republicans and Democrats.

Eighty-five percent of Americans believe political violence is increasing (Pew Research Center, 2025).

---

Why This Fits the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections of Complex Systems (UTPCCS)

1. A Single Node Produces an Expanding Web of Outcomes

Trump’s posts created branching pathways involving:

• Institutional condemnation
• Partisan alignment
• Security escalation
• Civil-military tension
• Media narratives
• Public anxiety

2. Feedback Loops Determine Which Branches Strengthen

Bipartisan condemnation pushes toward constitutional stability. Defence by high-ranking Republicans pushes toward authoritarian alignment.

3. Multiple Futures Coexist Until One Collapses

The U.S. now sits in a superposition of potential trajectories:

• Stabilisation
• Authoritarian escalation
• Increased political violence
• Civil-military breakdown
• Constitutional confrontation

4. The Quantum Analogy

As in quantum physics, the true “position” of the system becomes clear only at the moment of observation. The UTPC maps the probability field—not the final result.

---

Conclusion: A System Under Strain

Trump’s rhetoric, institutional reactions, and the broader climate of violence converge into a single conclusion: American democracy is under pressure. Whether this pressure resolves through institutional resilience or through further destabilisation will depend entirely on how key actors respond in the days and weeks ahead.

---

References

• BBC News. (2025). Trump calls Democrats’ message to troops seditious behaviour, punishable by death.
• C-SPAN. (2025). Schumer condemns Trump Truth Social posts calling for arrest of Democrats.
• The Guardian. (2025). Leavitt says Trump does not want lawmakers executed.
• Pew Research Center. (2025). Americans’ perceptions of political violence.
• WMTW Maine. (2025). Maine’s delegation reacts to Trump comments.
• United States v. Keenan, 50 C.M.R. 564 (1969).

---

About the Author

J. André Faust writes about the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. His work draws on the Unified Theory of Probabilistic Connections to explain how events unfold through branching pathways, feedback loops, and evolving systems. His approach emphasises discipline, coherence, and the continuous revision of beliefs through evidence and reflection.

How Canada Shifted From Nation Building to Corporate Welfare

by J. Andre Faust (Nov 19, 2025)

Canada has offered incentives to businesses since the nineteenth century, but the meaning and purpose of those incentives have changed over time. Early support for industry was tied to national development, such as railway construction and western expansion (Norrie, Owram, & Emery, 2008). In the modern era the logic shifted as corporations became international and gained the power to relocate production. This mobility allowed them to pressure governments for tax breaks, grants, and subsidies, a pattern widely documented in political economy research (Helleiner, 2006).

---

Early Canada: Tariffs and Land Grants (1867 to early 1900s)

In the first decades after Confederation, business incentives were focused on building the country. The National Policy of 1879 introduced high protective tariffs to support Canadian manufacturing (Creighton, 1956). Railway companies received land grants, low interest loans, and other support because transportation infrastructure was essential for national unity and settlement (Berton, 1970).

These early incentives were not tax breaks in the modern sense. Businesses could not threaten to relocate internationally. Canada’s economy was territorially anchored, and incentives were tools for nation building rather than corporate negotiation.

The First Modern Incentives (1930s to 1950s)

The Great Depression, the Second World War, and post-war reconstruction brought the first recognisable business incentives. Capital cost allowances, implemented in the 1940s, permitted companies to deduct machinery depreciation from taxable income (Perry, 1955). Wartime industrial expansion required grants and procurement contracts, which later transformed into peacetime industrial support (Granatstein, 1990).

By the 1950s the federal government also began regional development initiatives to address economic disparities among provinces (Savoie, 1992). Canadian corporations still lacked international mobility, and incentives did not arise from relocation threats.

The Global Shift: Mobility and Leverage (1960s to 1980s)

During the 1960s and 1970s, economic globalisation accelerated. Multinational corporations expanded internationally, production chains spread across borders, and trade policies liberalised. This period marked a major turning point in the bargaining power of corporations (Levitt, 1983).

Canada responded with targeted incentives, including investment tax credits, research and development subsidies such as the Scientific Research and Experimental Development credit, and regional industrial development grants (Dobbin, 1994). These measures were no longer about building the country. They were designed to keep corporations from leaving.

The Contemporary Period: Competing for Global Corporations (1990s to Present)

By the 1990s the mobility of global capital had reached full maturity. Trade agreements such as NAFTA, along with WTO rules, allowed firms to reorganise production on a continental or global basis (Clarkson, 2002). Corporations gained significant leverage by threatening to move production to jurisdictions with lower taxes or better subsidies.

Canada responded by lowering federal corporate tax rates and offering increasingly targeted incentives for automotive plants, aerospace manufacturing, technology firms, natural resource developers, and film and digital media industries (Standing Committee on Finance, 2009). Provincial governments often competed with one another to attract or retain major employers.

This dynamic mirrors global trends where governments provide incentives not solely for economic development but to prevent corporations from relocating to other countries. Researchers describe this pattern as a race to the bottom in corporate taxation and industrial subsidies (Swank, 2006).

---

Conclusion: How Mobility Shifted Power to Corporations

The history of Canadian business incentives reveals a clear pattern. In the nineteenth century grants and support programmes were aimed at building national infrastructure. In the twentieth century they promoted industrial growth and regional equality. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries the meaning shifted. Once corporations gained the ability to operate globally, they also gained leverage. Today incentives are often responses to this mobility. Governments compete for investment while corporations can choose where to locate production.

This change represents a structural shift in the relationship between governments and global capital. It explains how public money began to finance what critics call corporate welfare, and how national economic policy became shaped by international corporate strategies.

---

References

Berton, P. (1970). The National Dream. McClelland and Stewart.
Clarkson, S. (2002). Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State. University of Toronto Press.
Creighton, D. (1956). The Road to Confederation. Macmillan of Canada.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging Industrial Policy. Cambridge University Press.
Granatstein, J. L. (1990). Canada's War: The Politics of the Mackenzie King Government, 1939–1945. University of Toronto Press.
Helleiner, E. (2006). Towards North American Monetary Union? McGill-Queen's University Press.
Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92–102.
Norrie, K., Owram, D., & Emery, J. C. H. (2008). A History of the Canadian Economy. Thomson-Nelson.
Perry, J. (1955). Canadian tax policy and capital cost allowances. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 21(4), 449–462.
Savoie, D. (1992). Regional Economic Development: Canada's Search for Solutions. University of Toronto Press.
Standing Committee on Finance. (2009). Tax Incentives for Industry. Parliament of Canada.
Swank, D. (2006). Tax policy in an era of globalization. International Organization, 60(4), 847–880.

---

About the Author

J. André Faust explores the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society through a layered systems perspective. His work follows the principle that understanding emerges when we trace connections, map feedback, and revise beliefs as new information appears. The Connected Mind examines how local events are linked to global networks that shape behaviour and outcomes.

Persuasion Feedback Loops, Trump, Netanyahu, and the Politics of Resonance

by J. André Faust (Nov 16, 2025)

There is a saying that “politics makes for strange bedfellows,” which refers to strategic alliances between political actors who would otherwise be adversaries but come together to achieve a shared goal. However, when comparing Trump and Netanyahu, this phrase does not apply. A more accurate descriptor is “likeness attracts likeness.” Their relationship is not a marriage of convenience but a resonance of similarity.

Trump and Netanyahu can both be described as Machiavellian, as they seem to follow the philosophy often summarised as “the end justifies the means” in their efforts to maintain leadership control (Machiavelli, 1532/1998). To be fair, most political actors adopt some flavour of Machiavellian strategy, but few do so as openly or as consistently as Trump and Netanyahu, and in different ways, Putin, Zelenskyy, and Xi Jinping.

This discussion highlights the similarities and techniques Trump and Netanyahu use to influence the masses, both domestically and globally. To appreciate these techniques, it is useful to draw on concepts from sociopolitical theory. Three in particular apply here:

• Homophily – the tendency for similar individuals to cluster.
• Ideological convergence – shared values that create stable partnerships.
• Mutual narrative reinforcement – each actor supports and amplifies the other’s myth and messaging.

While Putin and Xi Jinping also employ Machiavellian tactics, the key difference is that their political philosophies diverge sharply from those of Trump and Netanyahu. If a close strategic relationship were to form between Trump and Putin or Trump and Xi, the phrase “politics makes strange bedfellows” would be appropriate. In contrast, the interaction between Trump and Netanyahu can be understood as a phase resonance between similar information systems, where their political signals operate on the same frequency and naturally amplify one another.

Comparison Table, Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Xi

Concept	Meaning	Trump & Netanyahu	Trump & Putin	Trump & Xi Jinping
Strange bedfellows	Unlikely partners forced together by circumstance or strategic necessity	❌ No	✔️ Yes	✔️ Yes
Likeness attracts likeness	Similar forces naturally align due to shared worldview	✔️ Yes	⚠️ Partially, limited ideological overlap	❌ Not really, alignment is admiration based rather than worldview based
Homophily	Similar actors cluster socially or politically	✔️ Yes	❌ No, they do not share political identity	❌ No, entirely different political systems and identities
Phase resonance (4D model)	Similar signal patterns reinforce each other	✔️ Strong resonance	⚠️ Weak to moderate, tactical rather than ideological	⚠️ Weak, resonance is psychological (admiration), not structural

Both Trump’s and Netanyahu’s misinformation and denials create a persuasion feedback loop, a self amplifying cognitive system. Rather than addressing the truth, it deflects from it, exploits emotional coherence and group identity, and sustains itself by continuously feeding perception back into belief.

This feedback loop unfolds across five stages: Seeding the Frame, Resonance and Amplification, Emotional Entrenchment, Feedback Reinforcement, and Policy Manifestation. Each stage functions as part of a broader mechanism of influence.

Stage 01, Seeding the Frame

This stage introduces a simple, emotionally loaded claim that creates an immediate emotional “truth” which feels intuitively right to supporters. It works through emotionally charged language, fear, outrage, and patriotism. It anchors abstract ideas such as “violence” or “chaos” to a visible symbol, for example Antifa or Hamas. This low cognitive load messaging is easy to repeat, easy to believe, and serves as the initial emission, a wave packet of meaning entering the public information field.

Stage 02, Resonance and Amplification

The claim is echoed through sympathetic media and social platforms until the message becomes omnipresent and self validating. Repetition triggers the illusory truth effect, where familiarity becomes a substitute for accuracy (Fazio et al., 2015). Social media algorithms prioritise emotionally arousing content, creating amplification bias and helping false or polarising narratives travel faster and farther than corrective information (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Counter narratives are reframed as “attacks” by enemies, such as “fake news,” “deep state,” or “antisemitism.” In four dimensional terms, this is constructive interference: overlapping signals increase amplitude and coherence inside the echo chamber.

Stage 03, Emotional Entrenchment

Belief becomes tied to identity, converting information into belonging. Accepting the message signals loyalty to the in group; rejecting it signals betrayal or alignment with the enemy. Cognitive dissonance discourages reassessment and stabilises belief through emotion. This is phase locking: once waves align in phase, they maintain synchrony and resist decoherence.

Stage 04, Feedback Reinforcement

Opposition fuels confirmation. Criticism is reframed as persecution, and resistance energy is absorbed and re emitted back into the system, strengthening its coherence. This is negative feedback inversion, where attacks become proof that the message was correct all along.

Stage 05, Policy Manifestation

Emotionally solidified narratives translate into real world action. Emotional consensus creates political cover for extraordinary measures; long before evidence is demanded, the decision has already been normalised.

Examples include Trump’s efforts to classify Antifa as a terrorist organisation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020), or Netanyahu’s military escalations and expanded emergency powers during conflict periods (Haaretz, 2024). This is wave collapse: potential narratives condense into concrete outcomes such as policy, executive orders, or societal polarisation.

How These Stages Apply to Trump and Netanyahu

Seed Claim, Constructing existential threats. Both leaders frame abstract enemies as existential threats. Trump invokes Antifa, immigrants, or the “deep state,” while Netanyahu highlights Hamas, the United Nations, or critics of Israel’s military conduct. Criticism becomes equated with betrayal, and an emotional narrative replaces empirical complexity.

Resonance and Amplification, Echo through loyal media. Trump uses Fox News, Breitbart, and Truth Social as primary echo chambers (Pew Research Center, 2020); Netanyahu uses Channel 14, Israel Hayom, and aligned social media networks to reinforce his framing (The Guardian, 2023). Each dominates their information environment and casts opposing journalism as “enemy propaganda,” producing constructive resonance within the partisan field.

Emotional Entrenchment, Identity as proof of loyalty. Trump ties loyalty to patriotism and “Make America Great Again,” while Netanyahu evokes survival narratives such as “defending the Jewish people” and “never again.” The emotional stakes override policy debate; dissent feels like sacrilege. This phase locking suggests that once emotional coherence is achieved, facts no longer alter belief.

Feedback Reinforcement, Turning criticism into fuel. Fact checking or indictment becomes evidence that “the system fears Trump” (BBC News, 2023). International criticism of Gaza is framed as proof that “the world is against Israel” (Al Jazeera, 2024). Opposition strengthens in group cohesion through negative feedback inversion.

Policy Manifestation, Emotional truths translate into political action. Trump’s narrative culminated in terrorism designations and immigration bans (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). Netanyahu’s culminated in broad military campaigns framed as self defence, restrictions on dissent, and expanded emergency powers (Haaretz, 2024). Potential narratives condense into tangible political reality.

Structural Parallels

Function	Trump	Netanyahu	4D connectivity analogue
Threat narrative	Antifa, “deep state”	Hamas, “international bias”	Seed claim, initial emission
Media echo	Conservative media	Right aligned Israeli media	Constructive interference
Identity politics	“Patriot” vs “traitor”	“Zionist” vs “self hating Jew”	Phase locking
Response to criticism	“Witch hunt”	“Anti Semitic bias”	Negative feedback inversion
Result	Normalisation of extraordinary measures	Justification of indefinite militarisation	Wave collapse, policy manifestation

Why does this work, and why is it dangerous? Both leaders exploit the psychological architecture of fear and belonging, turning uncertainty into certainty through repetition. Each creates a closed semantic system in which new information is either assimilated or rejected based on emotional fit rather than evidential truth.

This behaviour is not mere coincidence; it is a shared rhetorical technology, optimised for polarised democracies.

To summarise, unlike Putin or Xi Jinping, whose collaboration with Trump would represent a “strange bedfellows” relationship because their political philosophies are drastically different from Trump’s, Trump and Netanyahu operate from a foundation of similarity. Their alignment enables them to use the same playbook, even if the endgame does not always result in mutual advantage.

When examining Trump’s twenty point “peace plan,” which heavily favours Israel, or his reported request that the president of Israel pardon Netanyahu for war crimes (Reuters, 2025), it becomes clear that both leaders maintain tight control over their narratives. This makes it a challenge to assess how accurate mainstream media is in presenting the reality on the ground.

---

References

• Al Jazeera. (2024). Netanyahu rejects UN criticism as biased.
• BBC News. (2023). Trump indictment reactions and political rhetoric.
• Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993–1002.
• Haaretz. (2024). Netanyahu’s emergency powers and wartime governance.
• Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince (Q. Skinner, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1532)
• Pew Research Center. (2020). U.S. media polarization and the 2020 election.
• Reuters. (2025). Trump’s 20 point Middle East peace proposal and Israeli response.
• The Guardian. (2023). Israel’s Channel 14 and the rise of pro government media.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Statement on Antifa and domestic terrorism.
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.

---

About the Author

J. André Faust explores the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society through a layered systems approach. His work focuses on tracing feedback loops, identifying hidden architectures of influence, and examining how narratives evolve within complex, interconnected environments. Guided by the principle that understanding requires both observation and revision, he works to illuminate how beliefs form, shift, and solidify within dynamic social systems.

Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan: What the TIME Cover Missed and Why the President Complained

Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan: What the TIME Cover Missed

A 4D Connectivity analysis of moving parts, hidden constraints, and branching outcomes.

Image: TIME magazine cover (original version). © TIME. Used for commentary/criticism with attribution.

---

by J. André Faust (Nov 09, 2025)

TIME’s headline focuses on a striking narrative of success: a ceasefire, a hostage–prisoner exchange, aid corridors into Gaza, and a pathway to withdrawal. That is one slice of the story. The fuller picture contains competing incentives, veto players, and time-sensitive trade-offs that can pull the process in different directions. Under a 4D Connectivity lens, the best we can do is map the pressure points and estimate which branches are more likely under specific conditions.^[1]

What the cover story emphasises

• Ceasefire with a completed hostage–prisoner swap.
• Increased humanitarian aid into Gaza.
• Staged withdrawal of Israeli troops, with guarantor states to monitor compliance.
• Regional summitry to move from battlefield to political process.

Trump’s Complaint and TIME’s Revision

Trump publicly criticised the original cover several days before the issue’s November release date. TIME often posts digital covers online ahead of print runs, so it is likely he saw it through those channels rather than through any special preview. What is unusual is the pivot: after Trump attacked the image as unflattering and “weird,” TIME replaced it with a revised version before publication. Major magazines seldom alter a lead cover that late in production. This shift shows how reaction from a central actor can reshape the media frame in real time, an example of the feedback loop at the heart of the 4D Connectivity model.

Image: TIME magazine cover (revised version). © TIME. Used for commentary/criticism with attribution.

What is under-reported or ambiguous

• Enforcement mechanics: How guarantors verify and respond to violations, and who has authority to trigger penalties.^[2]
• Gaza governance: The interim structure, rules of succession, security sector design, and the path to elections or other legitimacy-granting mechanisms.
• Domestic veto players: Israeli coalition dynamics, Palestinian factional competition, and their street-level constituencies.
• Spoiler risk: Actors with the capacity to sabotage progress to gain leverage or delegitimise rivals.
• Financing reality: Sequencing of pledges, disbursement controls, and conditionality for reconstruction funds.^[3]
• Justice track: Detainee policy, accountability claims, and how legal processes interact with political bargains.
• U.S. political constraints: Congressional oversight, budget approvals, and electoral timetables that can reshape timelines.

4D Connectivity: why outcomes branch

Systems evolve as interconnected layers: security, politics, economics, law, and narrative. Each action creates multiple potential reactions, and observers update beliefs in real time. That feedback loop creates branching paths rather than single-track forecasts. The goal is to identify the hinges where small shifts produce outsized effects.

Branch	Trigger	Short-term effect	Longer-run risk	Watch item
Compliance consolidate	Verified adherence by both sides for 30–60 days	Aid scale-up, initial returns, reduced clashes	Stall in governance design creates vacuum	Guarantor joint verification reports
Partial backslide	Localised violations without sanction	Stop–go aid, checkpoint frictions	Normalisation of low-level violence	Delay between incident and guarantor response
Spoiler escalation	High-casualty event by a non-signatory actor	Public pressure for retaliation	Collapse of ceasefire logic	Rules for attribution and proportionality
Finance lock-in	Front-loaded pledges with escrow safeguards	Visible rebuild wins legitimacy	Corruption or capture of funds erodes support	Independent audits tied to milestones

Practical checkpoints to track

1. Verification cadence: Are guarantor reports timely, specific, and jointly endorsed.
2. Rules of engagement: Are incident-response protocols public and consistently applied.
3. Governance roadmap: Is there a dated sequence for interim administration, security reform, and representation.
4. Funding mechanics: Are pledges escrowed with transparent release conditions and third-party audits.
5. Civic signals: Trends in detainee policy, movement permits, media space, and service delivery.

What this means for readers

If the next two months produce verified compliance, transparent governance design, and credible financing, the probability mass shifts toward consolidation. If verification lags, spoilers set the tempo, or domestic politics harden, the process drifts toward partial backslide. Outcomes are not fixed. They are updated by what happens at the hinges.

In complex systems, prediction is not a single number. It is a map of plausible branches that move as incentives and information change.

Editor’s note

This piece responds to TIME’s cover story and related reporting about the Trump administration’s Gaza peace plan. It highlights mechanisms and risks that major coverage tends to compress or omit. As always, new facts can and should update the analysis.

---

References

1. [1] TIME cover story on Gaza peace plan. Add URL and date accessed.
2. [2] Statements or documents from guarantor states outlining compliance mechanisms. Add URLs.
3. [3] Reporting on reconstruction cost estimates and financing pledges. Add URLs.

About the author

J. André Faust writes The Connected Mind, a systems-level look at how politics, economics, and society interlock. The guiding idea is simple: trace feedback, surface assumptions, and update beliefs as new information arrives.

If you found this useful, share it with someone who follows Middle East policy or complex-systems thinking.

---

Beware: Scammers and Fraudsters Are Adapting to Get Your Money

 Online scammers and fraudsters don’t care about their victims’ hardships.

By J. André Faust (November 8, 2025)

The Numbers Game of Digital Scams: A Case Study, Psychology Breakdown, and How to Verify Emails

This post examines a live Facebook scam I received, compares it with a legitimate fundraising email about a real multimillion dollar lawsuit, and unpacks how a separate DHL phishing email tries to trick recipients. Along the way, I explain the persuasion mechanics and show exactly how to verify email authenticity using message headers.

---

Part I — The Facebook “Government Grant” Scam: A Case Study

Transcript highlights (abridged):

• Scammer: “Have you heard about the DC program… an International Development program by the government due to the pandemic to give financial assistance to everyone… Even I got $150,000… I’ll send you the agent.”
• Me: “Which government, which country? I base decisions on verifiable data.”
• Scammer (later): “Federal government… Canada… It’s 100 percent real.”

Why this is a scam

• Vagueness: no program name, no department, no official link.
• Over-promising: “everyone” gets $150,000 with no repayment.
• Scripted escalation: they try to hand you to a fake “agent.”
• Outdated frame: they invoke “pandemic aid,” which signals a recycled 2020–2022 script.
• Decorative obfuscation: odd characters like “ۦۦ ۦۦ …” are Arabic combining marks used as visual filler to dodge filters and to look exotic. They add no meaning.

What I did: demanded specifics — country, department, official link. When they finally said “Canada,” I asked for the minister and noted I could verify with federal contacts. The conversation stalled. That is a win.

Psychology of why these scripts work

• System 1 vs System 2 (Kahneman): scams push fast, emotional System 1 before careful System 2 can engage.
• ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model): they target the peripheral route with cues like “government,” big payoff, and friendly tone, avoiding the central route where claims are scrutinised.
• Cialdini’s principles: authority (“government”), social proof (“my friend got it”), reciprocity (“I’m helping you”), scarcity (“apply soon”), commitment/consistency (get you to reply once), liking (chummy small talk), and unity (“people like us”).
• Heuristics under stress: financial strain, time pressure, and fatigue increase reliance on shortcuts.

Glossary

• FOMO: Fear Of Missing Out. A pressure tactic that nudges people to act quickly to avoid “losing” a benefit.
• Peripheral route: quick persuasion via cues rather than evidence.
• Central route: persuasion through careful reasoning and proof.

---

Part II — Legitimate Fundraising vs Scam: How I Evaluated the Broadbent/PressProgress Email

Within the same window of time I received a fundraising email from the Broadbent Institute referencing a lengthy, expensive media-law trial connected to a 2019 Alberta election story. The email routes through ActionNetwork’s infrastructure, shows consistent sender identity, and references an ongoing, public legal matter involving multiple media outlets. This stands in contrast to the Facebook scam’s evasiveness.

Legitimate signals

• Clear organisational identity (Broadbent Institute, PressProgress), stable web domains, and a consistent sender address.
• Context that matches public reporting about a multi-month trial and a multimillion dollar claim.
• Routine fundraising framing: transparency about costs, a donation ask, and unsubscribe links.

Why scams harm legitimate fundraising

• They saturate people with fake appeals, creating “compassion fatigue.”
• They erode trust in all asks, so real causes must overcome higher skepticism.
• They mimic legitimate language, forcing genuine organisations to prove more and more.

---

Part III — DHL Phishing Example

I also received a “DHL EXPRESS” email, in mixed Japanese and English, urging me to click a link to correct my address and phone number. This is classic delivery-problem phishing.

Plain-English translation of the Japanese body (abridged):

“Were you not at home at the time of delivery?
Dear Customer, an international item from the United States is scheduled for delivery, but we could not deliver due to errors in the address and phone number. Please complete the delivery information using the link below and we will arrange redelivery within 1–2 business days. You can choose no-signature contactless delivery or pickup at a nearby service point. Click here.”

It then shows a fake tracking number and a button to “complete delivery info.”

Red flags

• Sender domain is not owned by DHL.
• Urgent correction request plus a link to a data-harvesting site.
• Language switching and generic “Dear Customer.”

---

Part IV — How to Verify Email Authenticity with Headers

Email display names and apparent “From” addresses can be spoofed. What matters is the header trail and authentication results.

What to look for in headers

• Return-Path / Envelope-From: the true sending identity for bounces.
• Received lines: the path the message took, from the first server to your provider. Look for reputable infrastructure.
• SPF: did the sending IP have permission to send for the domain.
• DKIM: a cryptographic signature by the sender’s domain.
• DMARC: domain’s policy that ties SPF/DKIM to the visible “From.”

Note: Good providers filter many spoofed messages using SPF/DKIM/DMARC, but filtering cannot be perfect. You should still verify suspicious messages manually.

How to open headers in Outlook desktop (two ways)

1. Classic method: double-click the email to open in its own window → File → Properties → copy from the Internet headers box.
2. Message Options shortcut: double-click the email → in the ribbon’s Tags group, click the tiny launcher arrow at the corner → headers appear in Properties.

Once opened, scan the Received chain top to bottom. For a legitimate campaign, you will usually see a known bulk sender or the organisation’s own infrastructure. For phishing, you often see mismatched domains, odd servers, or no valid authentication.

Quick test you can do

• Hover but do not click links. Does the actual URL match the brand’s domain?
• Check if the sender’s domain passes SPF and DKIM in the headers.
• If in doubt, go directly to the organisation’s website and navigate to their donate or account page yourself. Never use the email link.

---

Part V — Practical Checklist: Spotting Manipulation

• Specifics or nothing: program name, department, official URL.
• No fees for money: never pay “delivery,” “clearance,” or “verification” fees to receive funds.
• Timeline sense: does the story fit the current moment, or does it smell like a pandemic-era template.
• Route yourself: for legit appeals, type the known site in your browser. Do not click the email button.
• Slow the pace: taking time forces your System 2 to engage.

---

Conclusion

Scammers run a numbers game that counts on speed, stress, and vague authority. Legitimate organisations expect scrutiny and can point you to verifiable sources. The simplest defence is a habit: ask for specifics, read the headers, and never let urgency make your decision.

---

About the author

J. André Faust explores the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. His work follows a layered-systems approach that traces feedback loops and updates beliefs in light of new evidence. He writes and produces under the banner The Connected Mind.

---