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.
Large social systems, especially those with many members who do not know each other, evolve into hierarchies because the number of connections is reduced.
When the number of connections that hold a group together is reduced, it is less costly to maintain the group and thus such groups are more likely to survive.
Military organizations, companies, religious organizations and schools are usually organized into hierarchical structures. Creative, independent modules can relieve some of the formalism of hierarchy but these modules will still fit into the hierarchical structure somewhere.
Hierarchies are (always?) organized around a purpose—money for corporations, winning for militaries, belief and organizational systems for religions, food for animals and so on.
You can even see the hierarchical principle in plant structures.
A research project on this topic as it applies to artificial intelligence demonstrates that biological networks evolve into hierarchies:
If we accept this principle behind the development of hierarchies, I would submit that we can also apply it to how language has developed as a hierarchy in and of itself and also as a support system for the social hierarchy within which it is used.
Language and culture are held together by a system of hierarchical categories.
These categories are what we think of as beliefs, values, codes, stories, political systems, who’s who in the group, and so on.
Hierarchical systems based on general categories of that type typically also exist between individuals within any society. Indeed, we can find the same sort of hierarchical system within the individual.
This is an efficient and very reasonable way to maintain a society and a language.
Problems arise in this system, however, when the individual does not know any other way of organizing themself or of communicating with others.
An individual who exists and communicates only within a hierarchical structure will be alienated from the great mass of idiosyncratic perceptions, responses, thoughts, and emotions that exist within them and others. I think that this causes a great deal of psychological suffering and is a major part of what the Buddha meant by delusion.
FIML is designed to fix this problem between individuals.
A Midwestern Doctor brings expert clarity to what people are getting wrong about DMSO — and what the real science shows it can actually do.
Dear readers, I have something special for you today, an exclusive interview with the author behind The Forgotten Side of Medicine, A Midwestern Doctor.
I know many of you have questions about DMSO — and I actually do, too. That’s why I asked
A Midwestern Doctor to have a back-and-forth conversation to get your most common questions about DMSO answered, along with other items.
A Midwestern Doctor’s work is so detailed and prolific that it’s almost hard to believe a single person can consistently publish 10,000-word reports with such ease.
But A Midwestern Doctor delivers every time, providing all the medical receipts so you can make truly informed decisions about your health.
Germany has unveiled a new variant of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (PzH 2000) 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzer at the KNDS Deutschland facility in Munich, the the PzH 2000 A4, has the country has made investments not seen in decades in modernising its ground forces.
The new variant’s primary improvements are its greater digitisation, and superior network integration and electronic systems, with Defence Minister Boris Pistorius particularly highlighting its new digital backbone and improved fire controls.
PzH 2000 Howitzer
An updated power and cooling architecture has also been integrated, and was designed with a split between the generator and thermal management systems, improving energy efficiency and facilitating further expansion of electronics.
A surge in defence spending across Europe has led Germany to seek to play a leading role in modernising its neighbours’ equipment inventories, including by marketing new variants of the PzH 2000.
By any reasonable definition, the EU and many Western governments are traitors to their peoples, traitors to their duties as societal elites. Treason is an abhorrent crime. ABN
Social groups can be defined in many ways. In this post we will loosely call something a group if it has some effect on the individual member. Comments will relate to Buddhism, human psychology, and how these relate to FIML practice.
One person
A “one person” group is one of the ideals of Buddhist practice. Milarepa is an example of a single person who lived alone for years until he became enlightened. The Buddha himself also spent years in solitary pursuit of enlightenment. Some monks and some recluses today live in one person groups. From a FIML point of view, a single-person group can work only insofar as the person doing it is able to reflect on FIML interactions they have done before or if they are unusually self-aware and honest. The problem with one person doing FIML alone is they do not have a second source of information; there is no one to check their work, and so they can easily delude themselves.
A single person working alone on anything will still have some sort of relationship with the semiotics of a larger group–be it Buddhism, some other religion, science, literature, music, etc.
Two people
Two people are the ideal number for FIML practice. Two people can still delude themselves, but this is far less likely than a single person practicing alone. Two people who care about each other and who care about what is true will have the flexibility and focus needed for successful FIML practice.
Two people will also be exposed differently to the semiotics of the larger culture(s) in which they live, providing a sort of parallax view of the society beyond them. This gives each of them a second pair of eyes and ears and a second opinion on what they encounter.
In the Buddha’s day monks generally traveled in pairs and gathered in large groups during the summer. Why did the Buddha have them travel in pairs? Is it not because this small unit is best for profound interpersonal communication and sharing?
A few people
Three or even four people could do FIML together, but in most cases it would probably be more difficult than just two people because it would take more time and be more difficult to balance all views.
Many people (all of whom know each other)
A group of many people who all know each other is becoming rare in the industrialized world, though it has probably been the most important group size in human evolution and history. Bands of hunter-gatherers all knew everyone in the group, as did (and do) peasants in small villages across the world. Small religious groups or communes in an industrialized society today might be able to do FIML very well if they divided into working pairs or small groups of a few people. These small divisions could easily share information with the whole group formally at meetings or informally as conditions allow. I would think that a commune or small Buddhist temple of 80 people or less might do very well with FIML practice.
Many people (many of whom do not know each other)
This is how most people in the industrialized world live today–within a huge group of people, most of whom are not known to us. Some examples of groups of this type are nations, religions, large religious groups, political groups, unions, professions, etc. People in groups like this can have varying degrees of attachment to the semiotics of their group. TV, news and social media create an illusion of group cohesion that can be, and often is, manipulated by the small groups that control these media. Economic, ethnic, and religious interests also determine the semiotics of many large groups. I don’t think that any large group would be likely to undertake FIML practice today. The day may come when FIML, or something like it, is taught in schools, but for now it is hard to imagine how any nation or large organization would decide to have their members all take up FIML practice.
Buddhism as a coherent tradition is a large group with many millions of members, most of whom do not know each other. This should tell us that all we can expect to get from “Buddhism” is its basic, or general, semiotics. The same will hold true for the large Buddhist traditions that are sub-groups of Buddhism. We can learn a good deal from Chinese, Tibetan, Theravada, or American Buddhism, but will always be limited at those levels to abstract semiotics. When and if we interact with smaller groups of Buddhists, the story changes to be roughly in line with what has been said above about smaller groups. It would be quite possible, and I think highly desirable, for a small Buddhist group to undertake FIML practice by breaking into smaller working groups of two or three people and discussing the findings of these groups as conditions permit. FIML is grounded in Buddhist ideas, and my guess is that partners would quickly begin to see many of those ideas in a new light. Emptiness, attachment, delusion, Buddhist ethics, and so on will take on new meaning when grasped with the dynamic tools of FIML.
New groups based on new definitions
The Internet has spawned a good many new groups that many people seem to be able to identify with in a way that was not possible in the past. Some of these groups with which members identify most strongly seem to be those that are based on medical diagnoses. There are many online groups centered around the diagnoses of autism, Asperger’s, ADHD, cancer, etc. To join a group like this you need the diagnosis or at least a strong suspicion that you have one of these conditions. Since these groups are pretty new, I don’t know enough about them to say how one of them might approach FIML practice. Personally, I tend to think these sorts of groups are a good thing. It is quite natural for people who perceive themselves as somehow different from the mainstream to want to band together and share their experiences. Notice how profoundly different group allegiance is in an online group formed around a medical diagnosis compared to a traditional ethnic, regional, or religious group. This comparison can tell us a great deal about the semiotics of all groups, how group identification happens, what it is based on, what loyalty to the group entails, etc.
Conclusion
From this short outline, I hope readers will see that as individuals we can understand and gain a good deal of control over how group semiotics influence our lives. If you are living in a huge anonymous group (a nation state, say), notice how much of your semiotics comes from TV and the news media. If you work in a large company, notice how much of your semiotics comes from the company. If you feel a strong allegiance to an ethnic group, notice how your group understands its own history and defines group traits. If you are a Buddhist, how do you see yourself as part of that group? How do you understand Buddhist semiotics? The ideal way to deeply understand all of your group attachments is to probe them with your FIML partner(s). FIML partners have the tools to grasp and discuss semiotics in ways that non-FIML couples do not.
Note: One reason I did this post is I want to show that some aspects of FIML practice are that way because that’s how people, language, and groups are. We form groups. One of the best group sizes for rapid and profound interpersonal interactions is two people. This condition can be used by larger groups to good effect if the large group is broken into smaller groups of two (or three) people. A very large group is not likely to undertake FIML practice. A single person living alone is unlikely to make rapid progress in FIML because they have no way to check what they are doing with someone else.
I received this from a friend in Korea, about the collapse of the mainstream conservative party in that country:
“This column examines how South Korea’s conservative ruling party effectively imploded from within—through weak leadership, lawfare, compromised party discipline, and the refusal to confront entrenched judicial power.
But more critically, it reveals how this collapse created new openings for CCP influence in a country that is supposed to be one of America’s strongest allies.
For more than a decade, Korea’s mainstream conservative party maintained regular political exchanges and MOUs with the CCP’s International Department, while failing to build any meaningful ties with the U.S. conservative movement.
During the recent constitutional crisis and the unprecedented lawfare campaign against President Yoon, that same party chose to stand aside, distance itself from its own government, and legitimize narratives that weakened the presidency.
The result was a complete institutional breakdown inside Korea’s ruling party—a breakdown that now leaves the country more vulnerable to external pressure, political manipulation, and CCP-aligned influence networks.
What happened in Korea mirrors the exact patterns some have repeatedly warned about:
• CCP influence operations through formal and informal political channels
• Weak center-right parties unwilling to confront authoritarian pressure
• Bureaucratic and judicial structures overpowering elected leadership
• Lawfare deployed to dismantle constitutional authority
• The absence of a global conservative network capable of defending vulnerable allies
This is not merely a Korean domestic issue.
It is a strategic shift that affects the Indo-Pacific balance and creates opportunities for Beijing at a moment of heightened geopolitical competition.
I believe this analysis may be useful to the work of observers, especially regarding CCP strategy, regional authoritarian alignment, and the vulnerabilities emerging inside U.S. allied democracies.”
American Buddhist Net 