The video in question1is a Kill-Or-Be-Killed (KOBK) move. The only way to defeat it is swiftly arrest the perpetrators and prosecute them, thus ‘killing’ them. That video is an act of sedition in and of itself. Nothing like this should be permitted in USA. Hegseth should act swiftly while details are fresh in the public mind and to show force. ABN
Ukraine has agreed to Donald Trump‘s peace plan to end the war with Russia, according to a US official.
‘The Ukrainians have agreed to the peace deal,’ the official said. ‘There are some minor details to be sorted out but they have agreed to a peace deal.’
The new agreement has been revised from 28 points to a 19-point peace plan that no longer includes amnesty guarantees for atrocities committed during the war. Kyiv has agreed to cap its army at 800,000 men.
It is less favorable to Moscow, leaving it up to Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to decide the most sensitive terms, including territorial disputes and US security guarantees.
Vladimir Putin is expected to dismiss the new deal ‘out of hand’ – leading to longer drawn-out negotiations Trump has tried to avoid, sources in Washington said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned on Tuesday that if the plan ‘erased … key understandings’ that Putin reached with Trump at the Alaska summit in August, the ‘situation will be fundamentally different’.
One important thing FIML practice has showed me is that people very often—more often than they realize—attribute specific, clear intentionality to the speech of others when that speech actually originated out of a muddled state and was not clear or specific at all to the speaker.
I think we do this because as speakers we have better knowledge of the rich ambiguity that is our mind, while as listeners we know, for the most part, only what the speaker has said, or rather what we think we heard them say.
In many other posts we have discussed hearing words incorrectly and the consequences that can follow from that. In this post, let’s confine ourselves to a listener’s attributing a more specific intentionality to the speaker than the speaker intended.
A crude example might be a drunk at a bar mumbling to himself. Another drunk walks by with his girl on his arm. Hearing the mumbling, he asks, “Did you say that to her?” In saying that, he is attributing intentionality where there was none.
Sometimes, the drunk at the bar will explain that he was just mumbling. And sometimes he will own the intentionality being attributed to him.
In that case, he might say, “Yes, I did. What are you going to do about it?”
Misconstrued intentionality surely leads to many fights.
But those of us who don’t get drunk in bars like that never do anything similar, right?
Not so. We do it all the time. We frequently hear the speech of others as having more specific intent than they meant.
Whenever we listen, we do so with the network of semiotics and language that subsumes our perceptions. Thus, whatever we hear will tend to confirm or be contextualized by that part of our subjective network that is most active at the time or that seems to apply best to what we are hearing.
Our use of that network for understanding the speech of others is hurried, quick, and often wrong. Our listening makes sense to us, but is almost never in full accord with what the speaker said, especially as so much speech initiates in vague or muddled states of mind. Speech is often groping while listening often is less so.
For example, if someone expresses a political view that we have recently been thinking about and that irritates us, our listening will very likely attribute a more specific or pointed intentionality to the speaker than is justified.
If we agree with what the speaker said under the circumstances described above, much the same thing will happen though our attribution of specific intentionality will be favorable rather than unfavorable.
These examples are the polite forms of the barroom brawl versus barroom camaraderie.
Notice also, the tendency we humans have to frame these sorts of errors as dichotomies. Either you are insulting my girl or we are all best friends.
Furthermore, notice that we also have a strong tendency to own the more specific intentionality being attributed to us by the listener. In the bar, you might decline the fight, but in another location you might lock horns with someone who attributed a specific intention to your muddled or idle expression of a vague political “view.”
Next time you think you heard a specific intent in the words of a friend, ask them if that was indeed their intent. Be careful when asking because if they are not experienced FIML practitioners, they may agree to own an intention they never had or that was far more muddled than it had seemed to you (or them in the moment of speaking).
My guess is a great deal of what we say is sloppier or more muddled than even we ourselves realize. This is simply how we are and how we really use language. You can’t make speech perfect.
> Vladimir Zelensky, president of Ukraine under martial law
> Timur Mindich, business man involved in key Ukrainian industries, close friends with Zelensky
> Tsukerman, co-partner and financer to Mindich
> German Galushchenko, Minister of Justice, resigned
> Svetlana Hrynchuk, Minister of Energy, resigned
> Dmitry Basov, Security Director at Energoatom, arrested
> Igor Myroniuk, Advisor to Minister of Energy > Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, closest friend of Zelensky and second most powerful man in Ukraine, investigated for heavy corruption
Something similar happened in USA and the West about 125–250 years ago. That takeover was largely covert and gradual, so less obvious unless you pay attention and are good at pattern recognition. ABN
An unsealed federal search-warrant application reveals investigators have zeroed in on a Chinese drug-trafficking network operating out of Dexter, Stetson, Norridgewock & Ripley, Maine.
According to a sealed 50-page affidavit filed March 17, investigators caught their break when Zhao & Li were stopped crossing back into the U.S. from Canada and were forced to hand over their phones.
At the center: 🇨🇳 “Larry” Zhao of Brooklyn 🇨🇳 Wen Hui “Wen” Li of Las Vegas
DEA task-force officers then secured warrants for 4 Maine properties linked to the pair — each showing red flags for commercial-scale illegal cannabis grows: massive power usage, structural mods, and suspicious financial flows.
The affidavit says the operation was fueled by mortgage fraud, shell companies, foreign money transfers & straw buyers. Federal investigators say these sites fit patterns seen in the 270+ Chinese cartel grow houses DHS flagged across Maine.
WeChat messages pulled from Zhao’s phone show him telling partners that Maine operations had “ceased” due to “local police concerns” — matching the lull in cartel activity after public reporting and increased scrutiny.
As an update, both the White House and our counterterrorism agencies have confirmed receipt of what I reported publicly: Emmanuel Macron attempted to organize my assassination, per a source close to the first couple.
Also, I will again state that the French legionnaires were involved in Charlie Kirk’s assassination but they did not act alone.
For all of you who doubted my claims, you can now look to the President of the United States and our intelligence communities to issue a statement to confirm whether I am telling the truth.
What the collective institutions of all three branches of government have done to our nation sickens me. But the mission to keep pushing sunlight inch-by-inch continues.
In 2020 Catherine Herridge was one of a group of DC institutional defenders who just couldn’t/wouldn’t fathom or believe the background story of corruption as told by me in documented evidence with citations and full context.
Remember, the story behind these citations only becomes visible when you walk through two parallel timelines; both must be done at the same time in order to cut through the obfuscation always present in the silo defenses:
1. The timeline of the actual corrupt activity, as the events took place. And…
2. The timeline of when the evidence of the corrupt activity surfaced.
The former timeline shows the corruption; the latter timeline shows how they tried to hide the corruption. The second timeline is what DC investigators focus on in order to understand how the evidence was/is discovered.
The information within the second timeline, how the evidence surfaced, is what DC tries to use in order to control the underlying information; it’s the ‘how do you know this‘ part.
Chapters:
02:00 FBI ‘Burn Bags’ evidence revealed in Comey criminal prosecution 03:50 Former FBI agent suggests a potential whistleblower wanted to records preserved and discovered 05:10 CIA intelligence about 2016 presidential election found in storage closet near Director’s office 06:15 Connecting the dots: In 2016, CIA intelligence alleged potential ‘Clinton Plan’ to damage candidate Trump 08:00 FBI leak investigation alleges ‘investigator-level briefing” for reporters on Clinton email case 09:40 Surveillance warrant application cited media reports for national security court. Not standard. 12:10 DNI Clapper email: we all need to be on the same page. NSA Director pushes back, “took a lot of courage.” 13:30 National Security Adviser Susan Rice 2017 email: claims investigations ‘by the book.’ 14:40 FBI ARCTIC FROST investigation: GOP phone toll records collected. Retired FBI agent said toll records are intrusive. 16:30 Alleged coordination FBI, DOJ and intelligence community
The above is an excerpt from a longer article, the contents of which everyone should be familiar with, but few are. I would copy and post the entire article, with Sundance’s already granted permission, but its format is incompatible with my site. I highly recommend reading the entire article because it provides very important insights into how DC dysfunctions and why it is so hard to fix that deep tangle of corruption and malfeasance. ABN
Signals sent between people are almost never simple, single entities devoid of ambiguity.
Indeed, even very clear communicative signals, especially in interpersonal communication, are often fraught with subliminal associations. These “extra” associations are a primary cause of interpersonal error and ambiguity, and deriving from that, of individual, personal discomfort or neurosis.
We have mentioned this general problem many times and claimed that FIML practice is probably the only way to successfully remove the bulk of dangerous ambiguity and misunderstanding that inevitably accrues in almost all interpersonal relationships.
A study on visual perception from the University of Arizona—Your Brain Sees Things You Don’t—reasonably confirms these statements for visual perception. I would argue that many other brain functions work in similar ways, including listening, speaking, and our overall perceptions of human behavior and what it “means.”
The study found that participants subconsciously perceive “meaning” in visual images flashed quickly before them. It took about 400 milliseconds for this perception of “meaning” to show on an fMRI machine.
I have put the word “meaning” in quotes because this word could also be understood as “contextualize,” “associate with,” “frame,” or even “anticipate.” When we listen to someone with any care, our minds are always roving slightly as we adjust, readjust, and anticipate what the speaker means, meant, and is meaning. Listening is a dynamic process that draws heavily—even completely—on semiotic associations that hover and come into view as our sense of what the speaker is saying unfolds.
The UA study provides pretty good evidence that we do something similar visually and that it happens quickly.
Mary Peterson, an adviser on the study, said of it
This is a window into what the brain is doing all the time. It’s always sifting through a variety of possibilities and finding the best interpretation for what’s out there. And the best interpretation may vary with the situation.
Pay close attention to that word best.
Firstly, I completely agree with Peterson’s statement. And secondly, I see a massive problem in interpersonal communication lurking just beneath that word “best.”
Whose best? During interpersonal communication, if the listener does not have the habit of directly asking the speaker what is meant, then the listener’s brain will decide the issue on its own based on its own autocthonous “best” sense of what the speaker “means.”
How often can anyone be right under those conditions? This is why FIML practice micromanages some aspects of communication by requiring quick interventions to be sure the deep meaning is being transmitted correctly. If partners do not do FIML, they will be forced to do all of the following—make many wrong assumptions about what is being communicated to them, rely on general rules of listening (the bane of authentic individuality), rely on statistical assumptions about how the speaker “generally” more or less “is.” That is a formula for interpersonal disaster and likely a major factor in the very high incidence mental illness in industrialized societies.
FIML demands some effort and it takes some time, but I prefer it any day of the week over the static role-playing and error-prone guessing that is the only other alternative.
Another way of saying all of the above is this: when we communicate we often send and receive ambiguous messages. Our minds handle ambiguity (often subconsciously) by choosing what they perceive as the “best” interpretation. But this “best” interpretation happens very quickly and is frequently wrong. Nonetheless, this “best” interpretation if accepted, which it often is, will get fed back immediately into the communicative exchange, quickly (or gradually) distorting everything that is happening.
Unemotional visual perceptions, such as those used in the linked study, will not be problematical for the participants. But similar brain functions will be and are problematical in all of their interpersonal relationships. There is simply no way around the fact that we rapidly perceive and misperceive “best” interpretations, especially since we are accepting them based on subconscious processes.
The human brain is characterized by semiotic networks that are held together through a variety of associations between the “nodes,” or individual signs, that comprise them. We use these networks to understand everything and they are remarkable beautiful, even if fraught with danger when employed (as they always are) during acts of communication with people we care about.
American Buddhist Net 