Trump blasted former president Joe Biden for letting unvetted migrants stream into America – claiming he allowed the Afghan shooting suspect into the US during the disastrous 2021 withdrawal.
‘I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover,’ he said in a Truth Social post Thursday night.
Trump also vowed to end all federal benefits for noncitizens, denaturalize migrants who undermine the US, and deport any foreign nationals deemed a security risk or ‘non-compatible with Western Civilization’.
‘Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,’ he wrote in the Truth Social post.
‘Other than that, HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for – You won’t be here for long!’
MILAN — Finland has released a new Arctic security strategy that seeks to define the country’s growing role in a region facing overlapping claims by friends and foes alike.
Nearly one-third of Finland’s land mass lies above the Arctic Circle, in the region of Lapland.
There are eight countries with territory within or north of the Arctic Circle that are members of the Arctic Council: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.
This week, the Danish news outlet Politiken reported that the Trump administration has on several occasions tried to set up high-level meetings with Greenlandic authorities without Denmark present.
And distorted motives warp human interactions, which in turn degrade individual psychology.
There is no way around it—the ways almost all people communicate are much cruder than their brains are capable of.
And that is the cause of most of what we now call (non-biological) “mental health” problems.
Here is an example: I want to say something very complex to my primary care doctor. I can give her the gist in a minute or two but I do not want to have that go on my medical record.
So I ask her if I can start a discussion that she will promise to keep off my record.
She says, “I’ll think about it.”
A week later I get a letter from her nurse saying she is not willing to do what I asked.
No reason why was given. Do rules prevent her from doing that? I have heard of doctors allowing patients to keep some concerns off the record, but who knows what the reality is? Do you?
If I insist, will that go on my record? Did what I asked in the first place go on my record? My doctor is trapped within or is voluntarily following some guideline that is most decidedly not in my best interests.
This same sort of thing can happen interpersonally. If I raise a topic that is psychologically important to me with even a close friend, I have to wonder will they understand? Will they allow me to expand the subject over a few weeks or months or longer? Will my initial statements change our friendship?
The basic problem is how do you discuss complex psychological subjects with others?
One of my friends works in alternative health care. She knows what I want to bring up with my doctor and admits that even in her professional setting where patients have an hour to open up, there is not enough time.
Back to my primary care doctor. I saw her again a year later and she asked if I remembered her. I said, “Of course I remember you.” She said no more and neither of us raised the off-the-record topic. An intern was with her.
I wonder what she thinks of me. Did she interpret my slightly nervous behavior when I first asked as a “sign” of something? Does she think I am volatile or bipolar or just nuts? (I am not.)
I am 100% sure that she cannot possibly know what I wanted to bring up with her. In this case, I have all of the information and I want to give it to her but she cannot or will not allow that unless my initial fumblings toward a complex subject are made public.
Even a close friend could find themselves in a similar position. And I wonder if I have done that myself to someone. Most people most of the time are not able to scale those walls that divide us.
On either side of the wall is a complex person capable of complex understanding, but one or both persons cannot scale the wall. My doctor is smart enough to have become an MD and yet I cannot tell her about a complex medical condition that is of great importance to me.
I know that I do not want to open the subject and risk a shallow public label (a common hindrance to many potential communications). I honestly do not know what my doctor is thinking. Maybe I will try again the next time I see her.
EDIT 12/16/2020: I didn’t try again. After much thought, I decided to switch doctors. And I will not bring this subject up with my new doctor. It’s a sad reality that trying at all ruined (in my mind) my relationship with my first doctor and convinced me that the topic is not one I can discuss with any medical professional in a professional setting and maybe in any setting.
Long-term practice of FIML generates deep change in the human psyche.
Social relations, habitual traits and attitudes, as well as ingrained emotional responses may all be subject to profound transformation.
The reason this happens is the basic FIML technique provides consistently good counter-evidence to habitual mental and emotional reactions. In addition, the technique itself teaches the practitioner’s mind–or shows it by example–to apply similar kinds of reasoning to many other situations that are not open to FIML dialog.
The basic FIML technique is a deceptively simple stop-and-query technique designed for use in conversations between close friends or partners. In our How to do FIML post, we have described the basic technique as clearly and simply as we could. This description should work as an effective model for beginning FIML practitioners, but it is a bit like describing in words how to hit a baseball or dive into a pond. The experience of actually doing FIML in a real-life, dynamic, emotionally-charged conversation will draw on a wide variety of skills and emotions from both partners. These aspects of FIML cannot be well-described in words because they will be different for different people and in different situations.
FIML does not tell anyone what to think or feel, but rather provides a method for clarifying thought and feeling as they occur in real life.
FIML practice allows partners to expand their senses of who they are and access these areas through speech. Correctly done, FIML will keep partners from becoming lost in side-issues or emotional traps. FIML gives partners access to a shared meta-perspective that will help them gradually rediscover or redesign how they think of themselves and each other, and how they react in many different kinds of situations.
FIML is like yoga in that it uses no props. Yoga uses the body to exercise the body. FIML uses two minds working together on the basis of shared rules. With practice, FIML partners will find that they are able to leverage or gain access to many areas of themselves that cannot be reached by other means. After several years of practice, partners will discover that they have gained levels of mental and emotional strength and freedom that had been barely imaginable before.
The basic FIML technique depends on partners clearly remembering everything that is/was in their mind(s) at the moment a phrase in question was spoken and/or heard. By honestly comparing the contents of their minds under these circumstances, partners will gain access to the rich realm of secondary and tertiary meanings that accompany all utterances. At the same time, they will free themselves from habitual mistaken interpretations whenever they arise.
Their minds, thus, will gradually gain freedom from error (mental and psychological) while broadening the range of subject matter they are capable of entertaining. And this will have a far-reaching influence on both behavior and perception in many other areas.
Once partners are skilled in the basic FIML technique, they will find that it need not always be done immediately upon noticing an emotional or judgmental reaction. After a few months of successful FIML practice, partners will probably find that they can bring up events from hours before and both will still have a reasonably accurate memory of what was said and heard.
It is important not to jump to this level too quickly, though, because if the basic technique has not been mastered, partners will lose sight of the meta-perspective, without which deep understanding and transformation will not be possible. Experienced partners will know when they have good data and can proceed with a FIML dialog and when they don’t. If you don’t have good data (both partners remember exactly what was said and what they were thinking), don’t do a FIML dialog. Just drop the subject. Though retain the general sense of something having happened because the subject will almost certainly come up again. When that happens, try to get good data you both agree on and then proceed with a FIML dialog.
Artificial intelligence voice agents with various capabilities can now guide interrogations worldwide, Pentagon officials told Defense News. This advance has influenced the design and testing of U.S. military AI agents intended for questioning personnel seeking access to classified material.
Now, seven years after writing about physical torture in “The Rise of A.I. Interrogation in the Dawn of Autonomous Robots and the Need for an Additional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture,” privacy attorney Amanda McAllister Novak sees an even greater need for bans and criminal repercussions.
Two National Guard soldiers were shot in the head just yards from the White House during a possible terror attack by a lone gunman identified as an Afghan national.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, has been named as the alleged gunman in custody over the horror shoot-out at Farragut West metro station in the center of Washington, DC, which has left two soldiers in a critical condition.
Law enforcement sources initially told NBC News the gunman has been identified as an Afghan national and the shooting is being investigated as a possible act of terror.
He allegedly came to the United States during the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 under Joe Biden‘s Operation Allies Welcome, sources told The New York Post.
X and the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Market: Fraud in the Inception
When a contract party pays for a service under the presumption of equal access, yet is never informed that a throttling mechanism will be used to meter or diminish that service at the direction of a third, non-governmental entity, the contract is compromised at the outset. This hidden mechanism becomes even more problematic when the third party makes throttling decisions based on a social-conformance profile it has assigned to the buyer.
Under such conditions, users are charged as if they are receiving full, equal participation in a public commodity, while in fact experiencing discriminatory contract fulfillment and selective product impairment triggered by their identity, viewpoints, or classification — criteria determined not by the platform’s stated terms of service, but by an unaccountable external actor.
If the provider degrades or withholds the paid-for service — visibility, advertising utility, algorithmic distribution, or fair access to market by other paying parties who have an interest in the contracted party — not for violations of the terms of service, but because of external preferences, then the behavior becomes analytically indistinguishable from:
– throttling one customer at the behest of another,
– selling an inferior product at a full-price rate, and
– administering a concealed, criteria-dependent class system within the market itself.
The ethically salient question is not whether a platform moderates — as moderation is an operational requirement. The issue is whether the platform:
– covertly delegates moderation power to outside parties,
– without disclosure,
– and without transparent, appealable standards.
This is where the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached, and where the transaction shifts from a simple service agreement into a form of inception-level fraud.
Great point, this is the kind of legal reasoning that may eventually protect free speech.
Social media companies may be able to dodge this legal problem by reducing user fees if users are throttled; and/or refunding user payments, with fines added, after the fact if the company is caught.
If that were included in terms of service, not throttling or being milder about throttling would be a big selling point.
X is already working that angle.
It’s bad that advertisers can influence public discourse as much as they do, especially as advertising itself is often a bribe or payoff for doctored information.
This is all fixable if handled well. Legal skills backed by open source AI monitoring. ABN
American Buddhist Net 