FIML is a practical technique that optimizes communication between partners by removing as much micro ambiguity as possible during real-time interpersonal communication.
FIML will also greatly improve meso and macro understanding between partners, but the basic FIML technique rests on micro analyses of real-time communication. (See Micro, meso, and macro levels of human understanding for more on this topic.)
Real-time micro communication means communication within just a few seconds. If we are reading we can focus on a word or phrase and think about it as long as we like. If we are listening to someone speak, however, we normally cannot stop them to analyze deeply a particular word choice, a particular expression, a particular tone of voice, or anything else that happens quickly.
This missing piece in the puzzle of interpersonal communication is of great—I would argue massive—importance because huge mistakes can be and often are made in a single moment.
FIML practice corrects this problem. In other posts I have referred to psychological morphemes, which are defined as:
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.
The theory of FIML claims that psychological morphemes arise quickly and if they are not checked or analyzed can have massive influence on how people hear and think from that point on. This is why the practice of FIML focuses greatly on the initial arising or manifestation of a psychological morpheme. The morpheme may be habitual, having origins in the distant past, or it may have first arisen in the moment just before the FIML query that seeks to understand it.
The important point is that the person in whom the psychological morpheme has arisen, or has just begun to arise, realizes than it has arisen due to something that seems to have originated in the other person, their FIML partner.
This is the reason a basic FIML query is begun—because one partner notices a psychological morpheme arising within themself and wants to be sure it is correctly based on objective data shared with the partner. If the partner honestly does not support the interpretation of the inquirer, then the inquirer will know that the psychological morpheme that had arisen in their mind is a mistake. By stopping that mistake, they further stop a much larger mistaken psychological or emotional response from taking hold in their mind.
The stopping of a much larger mistaken psychological or emotional response from taking hold in the mind is the point at which FIML practice greatly influences psychological well-being. If we can see from the honest answers of a trusted partner that some of our most basic emotional responses are not justified—are mistakes—we will in most cases experience a rapid extinction of those responses.
In some cases of deep-seated mistaken interpretations, we may need to hear many times that we are mistaken, but extinction will follow just as surely even though it takes longer. FIML can’t cure everything but a great many people who are now dissatisfied or suffering with their emotional or psychological conditions will benefit from FIML practice. With the help of a trusted FIML partner it is easier to extinguish mistaken interpretations than it may seem upon fist hearing of this technique.
In addition to the above, FIML practice itself is interesting and will lead to many enjoyable discussions. Furthermore, FIML practice can also find and extinguish dangerous positive mistaken interpretations. A positive mistaken interpretation is one that feels good but that can lead to dangerous or harmful actions due to overconfidence, false assumptions, and so on.
FIML cannot remove all ambiguity between partners. That may be possible one day with advanced brain scans, but I suspect that even then ambiguity will still be part of our emotional lives. FIML can, however, remove enough ambiguity between partners that they will feel much more satisfied with themselves and with how they communicate with each other. When micro mistakes are largely removed from interpersonal communication, meso and macro emotions and behaviors will no longer be undermined by harmful or neurotic subjective states that have not been analyzed objectively.
In recent posts, I have made a series of arguments that the Christianization of the Roman Empire was good for the Jews (here and here) and bad for the Gentiles (here and here), and that it has paved the way for the subversion and subjugation of Western civilization by Jewish Power. Since Christianity is a Jewish invention, it is hard to resist the theory that it was part of a grand Jewish conspiracy (that “aggressive and vindictive conspiracy … against the rest of the world” that is written “plain and clear” in the Hebrew Bible, as H. G. Wells tried to warn us about in The Fate of Homo Sapiens, 1939). However, no matter how hard I look for some clue that Christianity was from the start a Jewish psy-op to alienate the Romans rather than to save them, I do not find it. The vast number of Jews (mostly Hellenized Jews from the Diaspora) who converted to Christianity in the first century runs contrary to that theory. I find no reason for suspecting Paul, the real founder of Gentile Christianity, of being some sort of Israeli asset trying to deceive the gullible Goyim into believing things that he didn’t believe himself. The fact that he wrote “This is the truth” (Romans 9:1) doesn’t mean he’s lying. Yet, we do find in his letters the conviction that with the massive conversion of Gentiles to Christ, “all will be restored to [the Jews]” in the end (Romans 11:12).
So we are left with the firm conclusion that Christianity provided a decisive selective advantage to Israel in its millennia-long war against Rome, but no proof that it was secretly manufactured for that purpose. It is time, therefore, to call on professor Kevin MacDonald to help us solve this riddle. I will here discuss whether Christianity can fit within the general theory that he has developed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples (1994) and his subsequent volumes.
The great advantage of MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology approach is that it bypasses the question of intentionality and therefore allows us to study “group evolutionary strategies” without having to look for evidence of a conspiracy. Evolutionary psychology postulates that the various strategies that kinship-based groups (clans, tribes, nations) develop for survival, reproduction, expansion and dominance in a competitive environment can be, at least in part, subconscious rather than clearly articulated. There is, in any ethnic group, a collective, transgenerational will to power operating below the threshold of individual consciousness. The group’s collective mentality is not purely the product of biology, but involves ideology: through generations, culture becomes a second nature.
Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir Wednesday night during a discussion in the Security Cabinet that the IDF is dealing with unusual pressure, even stating that he is “raising 10 red flags” and that the army is “collapsing in on itself.” His comments came against the backdrop of the multitude of tasks, the burden on reserve soldiers, the lack of progress in passing the conscription law, the extension of reserve duty, and, in the background, the establishment of new settlements.
The remarks sparked strong reactions in the political system. The leader of the opposition and chairman of Yesh Atid, Yair Lapid, said that “the Chief of Staff is warning of the collapse of the IDF – and the government is ignoring it,” placing the responsibility on the government.
Former Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot also emphasized that the political leadership will not be able to claim that it did not know, and called for the promotion of a compulsory service law for the entire population.
Furious Republicans stormed out of a classified briefing on Iran on Wednesday amid fears the US is preparing to invade the country as Tehran refuses Donald Trump‘s peace overtures.
With almost 7,000 US ground forces deploying or en route to the Middle East – including from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the Marines – speculation is swirling about Trump’s rapidly developing plans for the war.
Now, a Daily Mail source inside the room has revealed stark new details, including a new set of objectives which may suggest that America is moving toward boots on the ground as Iran continues to strangle the Strait of Hormuz.
The lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said members were presented with three military objectives: Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial oil export hub; its nuclear material; and regime change.
It marks a stark shift from the four goals the White House has publicly stated: destroying Iran’s missiles, navy, armed proxies, and nuclear capabilities.
The lawmaker said that the White House must answer for its plans, particularly regarding Kharg Island and troops on the ground.
Benjamin Netanyahu gave Israeli commanders a 48-hour deadline to destroy Iran‘s weapons industry from his Tel Aviv bunker after reviewing Donald Trump‘s proposed peace plan.
Netanyahu ordered the Israel Defense Forces to strike as many high-value Iranian targets as possible as the US submitted a 15-point peace plan on Tuesday.
The Israeli prime minister and his top military advisers were alarmed the US plan did not go far enough to curb Tehran’s military capabilities, despite its tight restrictions on Iran’s missile stockpile and nuclear program.
Netanyahu’s Thursday deadline reflects deep concern within the Israeli government that Trump could reach a deal with Tehran at any moment, sources say.
Israeli officials present at Netanyahu’s underground meeting described the atmosphere as ‘tense.’
I’ve tried calling you and texting you multiple times since the February 9th hearing on antisemitism which you and Bishop Barron were absent from. I wished to discuss this with you privately. But again, unfortunately, you’ve provided zero response to me.
However, today, you publicly made the post which I am replying to now.
You have publicly stated that you agree with Bishop Barron’s recently issued statements wholeheartedly.
Please answer this question: Why did you say to me in person on September 8th 2025, at 8:26 in the morning, “if they are going to remove you for your support of the Palestinians in Gaza, then they will try to remove me too”?
I explained to you at this meeting, that I was being asked to resign from the commission by the White House at the behest of our colleague’s Paula White and Dan Patrick. You expressed that you were shocked I was asked to resign in August because of my Catholic position on Zionism, and outspoken support of innocent human life in Gaza. You fully supported me as indicated by your words.
I had expressed to both you and Bishop Barron months before the February hearing that I was asked to be removed from this commission due to my Catholic beliefs and my support of the Palestinians in Gaza. Both of you said that would never happen. But it did.
Can you please explain to me and to all Catholics the meaning of this apparent contradiction?
If there is no contradiction between what you said to me in August and why I’m presently removed, then please explain.
I believe I was removed from the religious liberty commission in February for the same reasons I was asked to resign in August.
The excuse for removing Boller I have read is she was being ‘disruptive’ by raising the Catholic position on Zionism and pursuing a real answer. If history is a guide, the most likely explanation for the White House Religious Liberty Commission‘s cowardly actions and lame excuse is they, too, have been infiltrated by Jewish Supremacists and are not in full control of their own commission. ABN
American Buddhist Net 