Polish President Karol Nawrocki has told the European Commission that Poland will reject any EU plan to relocate irregular migrants, insisting the country already carries the burden of defending the bloc’s eastern border while also hosting about a million war refugees from Ukraine.
He insisted that “the safety of European citizens must come first” and vowed that Poland “will not agree to any actions by European institutions that would aim to settle illegal migrants in Poland.”
In a letter to von der Leyen, the Polish president said his country would “not agree to any actions by European institutions that would aim to settle illegal migrants in Poland.”
Being able to do FIML means that you have developed a skill or trait that did not exist in you before. The ability to do FIML is a functional “state of mind” that emerges from other states of mind–from consciousness, awareness, self-reflection, self-criticism, communication, language use, emotion, etc.
Doing FIML will change the way you communicate, especially with your FIML partner. It will change the way you view language and its uses.
Since FIML depends on real data agreed upon by both partners and since FIML can convincingly change how we perceive ourselves and our partners, it can give us new perspectives on psychology and/or any activity that depends on language/communication.
The use of a linguistic/semiotic vocabulary in FIML allows us to classify a great deal of human cognition, psychology, and behavior as lying on a spectrum of public—private semiotics.
This perspective allows us to broadly define many human behaviors, thoughts, and feelings as mistakes. For example, a private semiotic may be a “neurosis” and can be defined simply as a “mistaken interpretation” or an “ongoing mistaken interpretation.” Similarly, any public semiotic that can be shown to be wrong can be clearly identified as a mistake or an “ongoing public neurosis.”
What is “normal” in FIML is, thus, that which is not mistaken. Partners have great leeway to decide much of this for themselves.
Very often, the least mistaken view is one of doubt or traditional skepticism, the view that we may not be able to be certain about whatever is in question.
FIML practice accepts the basic scientific view that a scientific theory must be testable or falsifiable, based on experiments that can be repeated, based on verifiable evidence, internally consistent, consistent with what is external to itself, useful or practical, open to change, and parsimonious in its explanations.
New scientific theories should also say something new and interesting, something that explains data in a new way or that provides a new way of understanding old data.
FIML differs from a good deal of science in that it relies heavily on the experiences of two (or more) partners. FIML is a kind of subjective science that also relies on the objectivity of a truthful partner.
For the most part, partners alone decide what is true for them, though they cannot honestly do this without reference to other fields of science and thought.
FIML resembles Buddhist practice, art, or the work of early scientists in that the existential/ experiential data acquired by individuals is of great importance to those individuals and is central to what they are doing.
FIML can be scientifically falsified if many people do it and fail to gain any benefit from it.
Done properly, at a minimum, FIML practice should clear up most communication mistakes/ problems between partners. FIML also provides the means for partners to continue clearing up new mistakes as they appear.
By clearing up mistakes in communication between partners, FIML practice alleviates a great deal of emotional suffering.
By clearing up mistakes in communication between partners, FIML practice will also relieve partners of other mistaken ideas and feelings, thus relieving a good deal of more generalized emotional suffering.
Some of the most common medications taken by tens of millions of Americans leave a lasting impact on the body long after a person stops taking them, according to new research.
Beta-blockers, commonly prescribed for high blood pressure and heart conditions, were linked to changes in gut bacteria that were detectable even when people had stopped taking them several years earlier, according to a new study by Estonian researchers.
The same held true for anti-anxiety medications, part of the benzodiazepine class, including Xanax and Valium. Antidepressants had similar carryover effects, as did proton pump inhibitors, medications millions take for acid reflux and heartburn.
The microbiome is the body’s collection of beneficial bacteria. Its health relies on a diverse population of bacteria to fight disease, absorb nutrients and regulate immune and metabolic systems. It is influenced by everything from diet and lifestyle to the medications a person takes, including common prescription drugs.
The new study confirmed that commonly prescribed medications, ranging from antibiotics to antidepressants, consistently reduce the diversity of gut bacteria, sometimes for years.
A less diverse microbiome is linked to a weaker gut barrier, chronic inflammation and a compromised immune system. This state of imbalance, known as dysbiosis, creates a state of chronic inflammation and weakened immune defense that is a recognized breeding ground for cancer development, specifically, colorectal cancer.
Dysbiosis creates a gut environment dominated by cancer-promoting bacteria, which can trigger tumor growth by stimulating blood vessel formation, uncontrolled cell division and the evasion of cell death.
To investigate the long-term effects of medications on gut bacteria, an Estonian study genetically analyzed stool samples from 2,509 adults.
Colonoscopies also disrupt the gut biome. The linked article has a graph showing the absolute rate of colon cancer in people under fifty is less than six per 100,000. Beware of click-bait stories about the relative ratealmost doubling over the past 20 years. ABN
I strongly believe a major cause of neurotism, emotional agony, and mental illness is our minds are more complex than much of our thinking and most of our communication.
This causes us to be like prisoners trapped in small space when we are capable of much greater freedom.
A new study illustrates why this happens.
The study show how auditory hallucinations can be induced in people who are not otherwise prone to hearing them.
Pairing a stimulus in one modality (vision) with a stimulus in another (sound) can lead to task-induced hallucinations in healthy individuals. After many trials, people eventually report perceiving a nonexistent stimulus contingent on the presence of the previously paired stimulus. (Pavlovian conditioning–induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors)
Since this effect can be induced fairly simply it shows that:
Note that these hallucinations “result from overweighing perceptual priors.”
A “perceptual prior” is, in these cases, a mistaken assumption about reality.
If our auditory and visual “realities” are susceptible to mistakes like these, how much more is our psychology?
Due to our generally very simple ways of interacting with other people, we are essentially forced to hallucinate who they are and at the same time who we are.
That is, our complex minds are essentially forced to see ourselves and others in simple, hallucinatory terms that cannot possibly be true.
I believe this is the cause of great mental and emotional distress for all people everywhere.
I also believe that this problem can be largely overcome by practicing FIML
FIML allows us to remove our psychological hallucinations about our FIML partner as they remove theirs about us.
FIML works because it allows partners to escape the simplicities and many hallucinatory traps of ordinary communication.
As far as I know, there is no other method for doing this. FIML is practical psychotherapy that will optimize your mind and psychology by providing the data you need to overcome hallucinating most of your life.
In this respect, FIML is a preeminent Buddhist mindfulness practice done by two (or more) people working together.
I hope the day comes when Buddhist Sanghas will practice FIML among themselves and teach it to lay followers when they have mastered the technique.
FIML is deeply human and not something AI will be able to do. It is very well-suited to this Human Realm because it shows us how delusions are formed, where they lie within us and how to extinguish them.
A split second before the crack of the gunshot, a distinct ball of faint light can be seen darting through the tree in front of the Sorensen Center. If it is indeed the muzzle flash, then that puts the kill shot being fired from the roof of the Sorensen Center. Such a trajectory better matches the analysis of Charlie Kirk’s wound arrived at independently by both @chrismartenson & Baron Coleman (YouTube, H/T: Baron’s eagle eyes).
At the end of the video, I’ve included a rough layout analysis of the locations & trajectories. In the next tweet below, I’ll link the source video.
…lip reader Nicola Hickling told the Daily Mail that the handshake was much more than just a casual greeting between the two leaders.
‘Nice to see you, so you agreed?’ Trump told Macron who soon turned away from the camera and muttered an inaudible response.
‘Are you being genuine?’ Trump asks as Macron quickly replies, ‘Of course.’
The commander-in-chief then tightens his grips around Macron’s palm before shooting back, ‘Okay, so now I want to know why, you hurt me. I already know.’
Trump then squeezes Macron’s hand again as the French president looks down and away from the cameras.
It’s not clear what the pair speaking about; however, it comes weeks after Macron was seen mocking Trump with world leaders.
The two leaders have a colorful history together, often appearing to appear friendly, despite occasionally criticizing each other in public.
Speaking slowly and clearly Trump says, ‘I am making peace.’
Macron then taps Trump’s hand and replies, ‘Ah come on’; while Trump ignores and grasps tighter.
‘I only hurt those who hurt others,’ Trump tells Macron while pointing at the cameras.
‘I see. We will have to see about that,’ Macron says before pausing issuing a stark warning to Trump. ‘You will see what is about to happen.’
Trump concludes, ‘I’d like to see you do it, do it. I’ll see you in a bit.’
TL;DR: Advanced meditators entering nirodha samāpatti—cessation of all mental activity—are now being tracked with ultra-high-field brain imaging. Results show the brain entering a globally reorganized, low-energy but highly polarized state, unlike sleep or anesthesia. From a Frequency Wave Theory (FWT) perspective, this is the first empirical glimpse of consciousness “switching off” and rebooting, validating Buddhist claims and opening the door to measurable enlightenment.
The Ancient Claim Meets Modern Science
For thousands of years, Theravāda Buddhism has described nirodha samāpatti as the pinnacle of meditation: a deliberate shutdown of all perception, thought, and sense of self. Practitioners reported this as the gateway to nirvana, the end of suffering. Until now, these were taken largely on faith or subjective report.
This new study changes that. Using 7-Tesla fMRI, researchers followed advanced meditators as they entered what they called Extended Cessation (EC). Participants described total silence of mind—no thoughts, no sensations, no self-awareness. Consciousness went offline by choice.
This is interesting. The Frequency Wave Theory needs more explanation. I am pretty sure the state achieved in this experiment is a samadhi state and not nirvana. Nonetheless, this is an interesting finding. If anyone has more information on this, please post in the comments. ABN
In the dimly lit corridors of Capitol Hill, where backroom deals shape American foreign policy, House Speaker Mike Johnson recently conducted what can only be described as a strategic war council. On the afternoon of September 17, 2025, Johnson gathered with a who’s who of pro-Israel organizations for a private meeting ostensively designed to eliminate dissenting voices within the Republican Party. What emerged from this closed-door session reveals a coordinated effort to ensure ideological orthodoxy on Israel.
The meeting itself reads like something out of a tired political thriller. Johnson, who described himself to the assembled group as a “Reagan Republican” focused on “peace through strength,” went on to make a startling admission that isolationism is rising within the Republican Party and that a major debate on the issue is likely once President Donald Trump leaves office.
But Johnson’s most revealing statement came when he told the group that in his candidate-recruiting efforts, he’s working to filter out isolationists to prevent that wing of the party from growing more prominent in the House. Four people who attended the meeting confirmed this extraordinary pledge to Jewish Insider.
“The speaker was very, very direct about the U.S. role with Israel and in the world and understands that there are voices that don’t agree in both parties, on both extremes, and urges us all to be involved in fighting back against those extremes,” Eric Fingerhut, CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, told the publication.
The guest list for Johnson’s gathering was a who’s who of America’s most powerful pro-Israel organizations. In attendance were representatives from The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the Republican Jewish Coalition, Agudath Israel of America, AIPAC, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, National Council of Jewish Women, Synergos Holdings, CUFI Action, the Orthodox Union, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Standard Industries, the American Jewish Committee, Zionist Organization of America, National Debt Relief, Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the Deborah Project, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Coalition for Jewish Values and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. This comprehensive coalition represents the full spectrum of pro-Israel advocacy, from religious organizations to political action committees to think tanks—a formidable alliance with vast resources and influence.
…A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll conducted between July 29 and August 7 showcased a dramatic generational divide within the Republican Party. While 52 percent of Republicans aged 35 and older sympathize more with Israel, that figure drops to just 24 percent among those aged 18 to 34.
The split grows even wider when it comes to Gaza. Among older Republicans, 52 percent view Israel’s actions as justified. Among younger ones, only 22 percent agree. “The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking,” said Shibley Telhami, the poll’s principal investigator. “While 52 percent of older Republicans (35+) sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of younger Republicans (18–34) say the same—fewer than half.”
All human interactions entail some uncertainty and most entail a lot.
To deal with uncertainty, humans use heuristics (“rules of thumb”) that generally are based on what they perceive to be normal or required in the situation at hand. These heuristics come from experience, from role models, from organizational structures, beliefs and so on.
…an evolutionary simulation model, showing that even intermediate uncertainty leads to the evolution of simple cooperation strategies that disregard information about the social interaction (‘social heuristics’).
This study uses simulations to tease out how social heuristics and social cooperation evolve in very simple game scenarios.
If social games have rules, we can change how much uncertainty they contain and how best to cooperate within them.
This is essentially what FIML practice does. FIML greatly reduces interpersonal uncertainty between partners while increasing cooperation by having a few fairly simple rules.
When uncertainty is lowered and cooperation increased between partners, psychological well-being and understanding is proportionally enhanced. This happens because social interaction and communication are basic to human psychology.
The study linked above employs simulations to show a sort mathematically forced evolutionary outcome arising from initial settings. I believe FIML is similar in this respect, though the FIML game involves complex humans rather than simple sims.
I often wonder why no one has discovered the rules of FIML before. So many great thinkers, but not one found these key rules for optimal communication and psychological understanding. I believe there are two basics reasons for this: 1) FIML requires developing dynamic metacognition during real-time real-life communication events and this takes practice; and 2) most great thinkers that we know about today and hence could learn from also had great status, and this prevented them from noticing the deep flaws in interpersonal communication that FIML corrects.
Antifa means “anti-fascist,” which is a European term with a severe PC SJW connotation. Or at least that’s how I understand it from an American point of view. For an English translation, be sure the CC/subtitles feature has been enabled. ABN
Update 7/17/19: The version with English subtitles was removed from YT. Could not find a replacement.
UPDATE 10/13/25: Here are the lyrics translated into English:
Lyrics:
I saw an old man over the counter in a supermarket, He was called a bastard by a barking Arab woman. When the Antifa was coming in, The Antifa has screamed: “Police!” “This is an old Pétainist!”
A young girl reading the Bible in the train, Young Non-Europeans started their nasty games with her. If the Antifa had been there Then it would be sure that they have witnessed… In the face of the police… That she was a provocateur!
A little boy sang an old song. Non-violent Rastas have massacred him, just like he stand there. The Antifa had put him on the list… The list of anti-globalist suspects. He had sung: “Auprès de ma blonde”… What an evil Nazi!
That was before the time of the “Don’t insult my buddy.”. But such a buddy set me the blade to my throat. If the Antifa would have been established at this time… Then, the psychologist had demonstrated That the fear of the unknown was the evidence of… The racist syndrome.
I say, you have to send Manuel Valls… At night… In an area in which he has never walked in. Without a bodyguard, without the police And if he can escape the harassment… Then he can say to the media: “Inshallah!”
And when the rabble is going to rape you in the evening. Take an iron bar and use it to save your skin. But if one of them is lying on the ground. Then the judge will say that it is a conspiracy. The newspapers will read x3: “This was done by a fascist!”
Going to eat a falafel in the Rue des Rosiers, I put on my kippah and my turban in the market. The Antifa will not miss you, When you look like a Gaul. And if you eat quenelles with fries: “Anti-semite!”
If you do this, or if you… Say that, If you even think it… Then that’s already too much. If you say a word they don’t like… Then you will have to deal with the Antifa. For the Trotskyist GPU… You are a fascist.
They put millions there… In hell for this reason. For them it is a fixed idea… A method of terrorism. When I dispute, when I resist Then I find myself on the list: “I am a fascist!”
And if you don’t think… how you have to… Then you’re a fascist.
I first posted this video on 02/05/17 and thought it was a bit bold at the time. Back then there were English subtitles. I looked again today for a version with English subtitles, but could not find one. Today, Antifa is considered a terrorist organization in USA. Besides the mild political statements in the song, it’s a catchy pleasant tune with a good video, imo. ABN
I have been seeing a lot of stuff about microaggression recently.
The term interests me because FIML is all about micro impressions.
When done with a caring partner, FIML is designed to correct mistaken impressions or interpretations that often derive from micro impressions and/or manifest as micro expressions.
Anyone who has done FIML for more than a few months surely must be aware that we create wrong impressions of even our most trusted partners frequently.
A wrong impression often snowballs, leading to a wrong interpretation that after festering can be much harder to correct than the original micro impression.
So between friends, and especially FIML partners, the perception of micro aggression can and should be noticed and dealt with immediately or as soon as possible. It is basic to FIML practice that even a single uncorrected wrong impression can lead to serious divisions between people.
In this sense, I heartily accept the idea of microaggression being a thing. In fact, I believe it is such a thing that it happens all the time, especially if you mean micro mis-impressions and not just microaggression.
But the term microaggression means something different from the above, though the central concepts are related. Wikipedia has this short definition of microaggression:
…the use of known social norms of behavior and/or expression that, while without conscious choice of the user, has the same effect as conscious, intended discrimination.
The main difference is “without conscious choice of the user.” FIML is all about being conscious. Both parties being conscious.
If I perceive something in your speech, demeanor, or behavior that makes me think that maybe you are disrespecting me or mad at me or or suspicious of me or something like that, then if you are my FIML partner I am basically required to ask you about it if there is time.
In FIML, the asking is done without prejudgement. I simply ask “what was in your mind when you made that expression or said those words or did that thing.” Your answer must be honest. If you don’t trust your partner to be honest, you can’t do FIML (though you can start trying and see if either or both of you changes).
If your partner answers honestly and you do not perceive an iota of what you thought was in their mind, that part of the event is finished. If when the person spoke or acted they had no nothing about doing what you thought they might be doing, you are done with it. You no longer have any right to further impute your thing onto them.
You can if you want, and this is encouraged, continue to discuss the matter. For example, you might say: “From your response, I can tell that you were not disrespecting me and I am delighted to find that out. That’s a huge relief for me because I have spent much of my life reacting to people who do that as if they were disrespecting me. It’s weird to hear that I am wrong in this case and it makes me wonder if I have been wrong in other cases.”
Then the two of you can discuss that. I know one person who frequently reacts to educated northeast American accents as being “imperious” or “arrogant” when they are not. (Don’t get me started on all the many phrases and attitudes in culture that wrongly limit speech and thus culture itself—“condescending,” “know-it-all,” “argumentative,” “imperious,” etc.)
So, if two friends are having problems between themselves with microaggression, they are prime candidates for FIML practice. Of course, any two friends who are having any problems with micro impressions (all friends all the time) are prime candidates for FIML. (You cannot but have these problems.)
But microaggression as the word is being used today is not something FIML can deal with directly because it is
…the use of known social norms of behavior and/or expression that, while without conscious choice of the user, has the same effect as conscious, intended discrimination.
The important words here are “known social norms,” “without conscious choice” leading to “discrimination.”
I don’t know how to unpack that. From a FIML point of view, my guess is behaviors that could potentially be identified as “microaggression” according to that definition would be in the range of dozens per day per every person in the world. Maybe more.
An example many readers will remember is Michelle Obama reacting to a customer in Target asking her to hand them something they could not reach.
I tell this story – I mean, even as the first lady – during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf.
If even the president’s wife can get something so ordinary so wrong, you can see the scope of the problem. In the same interview, the president himself mentioned being “mistaken for a waiter.”
Both later downplayed their comments because they had to. Microaggression is an inherently super-ambiguous term open to a multitude of interpretations every time it is used.
In FIML, we find that micro-mistakes are real and dangerous. They are not ignored but addressed immediately because they can be so serious. Relevantly, in my experience with FIML a great many micro-impressions that I form are simply dead wrong. Most of them are wrong. I can’t enter that as evidence because the world does not have enough FIML practitioners for me to do a study on it. However, I do suspect that a great many micro-impressions of or impressions of microaggression are wrong.
Many of us laughed or thought it was ridiculous for Michelle Obama to bristle at having a short person ask her for help because we all have been on one side or the other of an exchange like that and thought nothing of it. I have been mistaken for a store employee or construction worker more than once and never thought anything of it, except maybe to feel slightly flattered that someone thought I looked like I knew what I was doing.
Another problem with the notion of politicizing microaggression (because that is what the term is about) is whose microaggression against whom?
I have strabismus, lazy eye. Even though the condition has been surgically corrected, I still cannot maintain a direct friendly gaze for long periods of time. This means that many people are led to misinterpreting my micro expressions (I start to look down) as me being bored, tired, or not friendly when all that is happening is my eye is so tired it starts to blur and needs to look away.
I know this from years of experience and because some people tell me what they are thinking. One in twenty or twenty-five people have strabismus. Add in other eye conditions with similar problems and you will get much higher percentages. Add hearing problems, attention-deficit problems, autism problems, and so on and you can include most people in the world having difficulties with micro-expressions and how they are being interpreted by others.
If someone from a different culture or race or neighborhood interprets my strabismus as microaggression (boredom with them or condescension toward them rather than simple fatigue), they will get it all wrong. And there is little or nothing I can do about it.
I even tell people about strabismus sometimes. I explain what it does. They say they understand, but very few of them really do. Only very close friends or people who have similar eye problems understand well enough that it stops being an issue with them.
Moreover, strabismus and other eye problems can lead to problems with facial recognition. So the person in the store that asked Michelle Obama for help may have also had facial recognition problems. I have that problem, too, and I seriously doubt that I would recognize Michelle Obama if I saw her in Target.
So, sorry, I don’t have any really good answer to how to understand microaggression or deal with it. On a personal level with friends or FIML partners, micro-impressions are what we want to work with as much as we can. On a societal level, you can hardly do anything about it. A super-smart person might be able to become aware of a good many of the difficulties faced by people in the world, but even that person will miss many of them or misinterpret what they perceive even if they “know” the right thing to do.
At the abstract heart of the problem there is probably a measurement or resolution problem. Simply stated, no person can ever possibly do perfect microanalyses all the time in all situations with all people. Far from it. Thus, it is a sort of “reverse microaggression” to demand or expect that they can or will or should.
I suppose we can and should become more aware of how complex people are and how difficult it is to know even one other person well, or even to know yourself well. But nothing that I can think of will ever relieve us of the difficulty of dealing with the immense number of micro-impressions we all give and receive every minute of every day.
UPDATE 3/24/21: Since I first posted this, the notion of reacting strongly to “systemic microaggression” has gained in popularity. Guys, that is a downward spiral into Hell. Misunderstanding micro impressions that way is to turn almost everything into “fighting words.”
American Buddhist Net 