International bureaucracies are retreating from their formerly ‘iron-clad’ fixation on immediate global climate collapse.
As their worst-case computer models evaporate under the weight of real-world data, the goalposts are shifting. Realising they can no longer defend the rigid targets used to drive public anxiety, institutions like the IPCC are quietly pivoting to ‘overshoot’ mode to manage the damage.
This retreat is happening because empirical data from NASA satellites is telling a vastly different story of planetary resilience. The Sahara Desert, of all places, has shrunk by roughly 8% since the 1980s. This isn’t a computer model simulation, it’s the visible reality captured by NASA’s AVHRR and MODIS satellite instruments.
Satellite data reveals that 25% to 50% of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening. This is an expansion of biomass equivalent to twice the continental United States. Carbon dioxide fertilisation is responsible for roughly 70% of this growth.
Higher atmospheric CO₂ is also allowing marginal plants to use water more efficiently. Leaf pores (stomata) don’t need to stay open as long to take in carbon, drastically cutting water loss and boosting natural drought resistance. This biological efficiency is allowing vegetation to march back into the world’s most hostile environments.
Green cover has been actively reclaiming the arid fringes of the Sahel (the Sahara’s southern edge), the Middle East and Australian Outback. An 8% reduction in the Sahara’s desert expanse means over 700,000 square kilometres of formerly barren sand wastes have transitioned to green cover.
With CO₂ now hovering around 430 ppm, nature is using this extra airborne fuel to thrive in regions once completely inhospitable.
Centralised policy platforms remain focused on worst-case scenarios and economic penalties. But the biosphere is quietly demonstrating a profound, measurable benefit from higher CO₂. Earth is becoming greener and more water-efficient – where it matters most.
Words and semiotics are held together in networks. “Psychological morphemes” are also held together in networks.
A “psychological morpheme” is the smallest meaningful unit of a psychological response. It is the smallest unit of communication that can give rise to an emotional, psychological, or cognitive reaction.
Of course word networks, semiotic networks, and emotional, psychological, and cognitive networks all intertwine with each other.
FIML practice is designed to help partners untangle unwanted emotions from these intertwined networks. FIML practice focuses on psychological morphemes because they are small and thus rather easily understood and rather easily extirpated from real-time contexts (when partners are interacting in real life in real-time).
The hard part about FIML practice is it is done in real life in real-time. But the easy or very effective part about FIML is that once partners learn to do it, results come quickly because the practice is happening in real life in real-time. It is not just a theory when you do it in that way. It is an experience that changes how you communicate and how you understand yourself and others.
In FIML practice partners are mindful of their emotional reactions and learn that when one occurs, it is important to query their partner about it. They are mindful of psychological morphemes and as soon as one appears, but before the morpheme calls up a large network leading to a strong reaction, they query their partner about it.
This practice leads to a fairly smooth and effortless extirpation of unwanted psychological responses. This happens because the data provided by the partner that “caused” the reaction shows the partner who made the FIML query that the psychological morpheme in question arose due to a misinterpretation. Seeing this repeatedly for the same sort of neurotic reaction causes that reaction and the psychological network that comprises it to become extinguished.
A fascinating study from the University of Kansas by Michael Vitevitch shows that removing a key word from a linguistic network will cause that network to fracture and even be destroyed. An article about the study and a link to the study (pay wall) can be found here:Keywords hold vocabulary together in memory.
Vitevitch’s study involves only words and his analysis was done only with computers because, as he says, ““Fracturing the network [in real people] could actually disrupt language processing. Even though we could remove keywords from research participants’ memories through psycholinguistic tasks, we dared not because of concern that there would be long-term or even widespread effects.”
FIML is not about removing key words from linguistic networks. But it is about dismantling or removing psychological or semiotic networks that cause suffering.
Psychological or semiotic networks are networks rich in emotional meaning. When those networks harbor unwanted, inappropriate, or mistaken interpretations (and thus mistaken or unwanted emotions), they can cause serious neurotic reactions, or serious mistaken interpretations.
These mistaken interpretations, and the emotions associated with them, can be efficiently extirpated by revealing to their holder the “key” psychological morphemes that set them off.
The psychology of a semiotic network hinges on repeated reactions to key psychological morphemes and that this process is analogous to the key words described in Vitevitch’s study.
Vitevitch did not remove key words from actual people because it would be unethical to do so. But it is not unethical for consenting adults to help each other find and remove key psychological morphemes that are harmfully associated with the linguistic, semiotic, cognitive, and psychological networks that make up the individual.
Iris Chang’s *The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II* delves into the horrific events surrounding the 1937-1938 Nanjing Massacre, during which Japanese soldiers allegedly committed widespread atrocities against Chinese civilians. Published in 1997, the book sparked significant controversy and debate, particularly in the United States and Japan. While it received praise from various media outlets, it also faced criticism for its historical accuracy and reliance on secondary sources rather than primary documentation. The book’s vivid descriptions of the alleged atrocities, including mass killings and rampant sexual violence, were met with skepticism by some historians, who questioned the veracity of the figures and events described.
Despite the controversies, Chang’s work undeniably reignited discussions about the Nanjing Massacre and its implications for historical memory and international relations. Influential figures like George Will praised the book for encouraging academic discourse and raising awareness about Japan’s wartime actions. Critics, however, pointed to significant gaps in Chang’s narrative, questioning why prominent Chinese leaders like Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek did not leverage the alleged evidence of Japanese atrocities to further their political agendas. This omission raised doubts about the credibility of Chang’s claims, leading some scholars to speculate that she may have exaggerated certain details or lacked adequate corroborating evidence.
The book’s reliance on secondary sources and sensationalist claims drew comparisons to other controversial works, such as Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s *Hitler’s Willing Executioners*, which faced similar backlash for its historical inaccuracies. Scholars have argued that Chang’s narrative is further undermined by its failure to consider broader historical contexts and alternative accounts of events. For instance, the work does not address incidents like the Tongzhou Incident, where Chinese soldiers committed atrocities against Japanese civilians, which could complicate the simplistic portrayal of the Japanese as the sole perpetrators of violence during this period. Critics argue that Chang’s failure to include these details skews the historical narrative.
In the wake of Chang’s death in 2004, her book continues to evoke strong reactions. While some view it as a vital testament to the suffering endured by Chinese civilians, others argue it perpetuates a one-sided narrative that lacks scholarly rigor. The ongoing debate over the Nanjing Massacre illustrates the complexities of historical memory, national identity, and the interpretation of wartime events, revealing how narratives can be shaped by ideological perspectives and the political climate of the time. As discussions continue, the need for rigorous historical analysis and balanced perspectives remains crucial for understanding the lasting implications of these events in contemporary society.
The above is an AI summary provided by the website the article is posted on, The Unz Review. The article is worth reading as it reveals yet another area of significant historical dubiosity. Just as the present is so full of lies and mind-control it is nearly impossible to know what is really going on, so also is much of the past deeply uncertain and consequently often deeply misunderstood. ABN
1) Several sources confirm: Ratcliffe’s CIA did take back boxes of files from Tulsi’s ODNI.
2) A number of ODNI agents have been threatened by Ratcliffe’s CIA with being investigated themselves for looking into matters the CIA considers “off-limits.”
3) I was contacted recently because Tulsi wanted to talk with me. That meeting was stopped by Tulsi’s chief of staff @alexahenning I’m told.
4) I’m also told: There’s an open war inside the US government between CIA & ODNI that has now reached the White House.
@alexahenning 5) Several members of ODNI were recently removed (or quit) who were integral to investigations into election fraud & voting machines. Their role was to verify the technical accuracy of voting data. Without their expertise, these election fraud investigations could be halted.
@alexahenning 6) In Oct. 2025, the infamous Dominion Voting Systems was “purchased” by a new entity: Liberty Vote USA. Details of that sale were kept private.
This appears to be a simple name-change, according to my sources.
That means: Dominion will operate as usual in upcoming elections.
The trolls went mental over this section. I even made a video to counter their nonsense. They even tried to argue that breastmilk isn’t really all that good for babies. Lol. — Suzanne Humphries
…The authors of this study argue that physical sensations form the core of any emotional experience. When people feel an emotion, they experience interoceptive states, which are the brain’s internal perceptions of signals from inside the body, like a racing heart or a tense stomach. The researchers wanted to map these self-aware, physical feelings, known as somatosensory experiences, to see what a state of political anger or political hope actually feels like in the human body.
Understanding these bodily sensations can shed light on how political contexts alter basic psychological responses. To explore these physical patterns, the researchers conducted a study with 992 adult participants from the United States. The sample was designed to be nationally representative in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and political party affiliation. The median age of the participants was 46 years, and the group included exactly 50 percent women.
The scientists used a validated digital mapping technique called the emBODY tool to measure physical reactions. During the experiment, participants viewed digital silhouettes of the human body and used a coloring tool to indicate exactly where they felt physical sensations. They painted regions red to show increased activation, such as warmth or tension, and they used blue to show decreased activation, such as numbness or physical heaviness.
Political disgust produced an entirely different physical map compared to everyday disgust. Everyday disgust, such as the natural physical reaction to spoiled food, tends to be felt heavily in the stomach and throat. When participants mapped political disgust, the physical sensation looked remarkably similar to anger, with high activation concentrated in the head and upper body.
Democrat-leaning participants reported stronger bodily sensations for negative political emotions compared to Republican-leaning participants. For political anger, anxiety, depression, and disgust, Democrat-leaning individuals showed much higher physical activation, primarily concentrated in the head and upper torso.
American Buddhist Net 