Decentralization will be the new strategy for Hamas.
The Doha strike proved that no single location is safe, accelerating Hamas’s move toward a dispersed leadership model.
From what I am gathering from the region, the group has already established a political office in Baghdad and maintains a significant presence in Istanbul.
This swift readjustment just proves once again, just how coordinated all this is.
This shift to a multi-node network across several friendly nations is a logical evolution to maintain survival and slow integration. Intelligence collection will be forced to pivot from monitoring a single headquarters to mapping this distributed and more elusive network.
This will naturally mitigate the risk while significantly raising the cost of Israel attempting further strikes in the absence of undeniable proof that Hamas is still strong and active.
To understand and make sense of all this, you need to walk the western narrative framework.
As I said,
the Israeli strike in Doha marks the end of the “safe haven” era for Hamas’s political bureau.
From here, I think Hamas will survive as an organization, its role in regional diplomacy will contract sharply,
with Arab states and TPS [Transnational Private Sector] actors seizing the initiative to reshape Palestinian governance.
UPDATE: Kirk is the kind of man who has been culled in USA and the West for many decades.
Usually, they are poisoned or maimed when they are young, before they gain a reputation like Kirk’s.
Men and boys like him are culled because they are strong, smart, can speak very well, are honest and do not fear telling the truth.
Across the West we hear women complaining where are the men who will protect us?
There are many factors but a very major one is millions of men with the natural ability to protect women and their societies have been destroyed even before they became adults.
It’s a military strategy and has been very effective in destroying the West.
As a nation or civilization, it is difficult to find the will to fight against this strategy because those who hold power have been major beneficiaries of the culling process.
And that makes it very hard for them to see what is happening or do anything about it if they do. Consider how many feckless weaklings are flourishing in politics, media, art, teaching and more. ABN
These two appear to be signaling the sniper just before he fires. I know very little about Kirk or his assassination but will post information that may be of interest. As of today, many believe Israel was the culprit as Kirk, who had been a major supporter of Israel, had begun to turn on them. That meant his usefulness was over and their best propaganda option was to kill him. I am filing most of this kind of information under ‘speculation’. The shooting strongly appears to have been done by professionals. Another suspect is Ukraine but it is not clear why this would benefit them. Maybe they will be tagged as the fall guy. ABN
UPDATE: Candace is keeping at this story and it’s actually pretty good. She is weaving in MKULTRA, military connections and an ancient cult that dates back to pre-Christian times. She might have caught a really big fish. ABN
FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
Greatly improve communication between participating partners
Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
I don’t want to keep talking about crypto because it’s not my area of expertise.
But I want to respond to the post below because I’ve seen too many of these “feel good” assertions, as if we are on the verge of breaking away from a “dying” system and about to “earn our freedoms”.
These are luxury beliefs with no grounding in reality.
Bitcoin doesn’t dissolve the old frame. It proves how the TPS [Transnational Private Sector] rewrites frames.
Gold worked not because people “believed” in it,
but because a handful of people within states and empires enforced it with armies, trade routes, regulation and convertibility rules.
The masses just did as they’re told.
There’s a whole power structure mandate that you’re completely neglecting.
The dollar works NOT because of “habit,” but because the FIC transacts in it and the MIC enforces it globally.
Saddam shared a very similar philosophy on the dollar. That it was a fiat worth nothing based on false belief.
He quickly found out that it was much more than that.
So did Gaddafi.
Ok.
So it’s NOT just “belief” that adds value to a currency.
It’s enforcement of the power structure that punishes anyone who deviates from it.
FIML is a specific semiotic, but it also says interesting things about the general semiotics of all languages and communication systems.
As a specific semiotic, FIML influences individual psychology, behavior, and thought. Since FIML rules can be generalized and taught, FIML also shows something about all languages and their uses.
FIML is a way that two people can check the specific semiotics that exists between them. Without FIML, or something like it, individuals cannot do this.
If an individual does not do FIML or something very similar in their primary relationship, that relationship will be characterized by semiotics extrinsic to the relationship and/or by illusions.
I don’t want to overemphasize the semiotic content of FIML practice, but a basic sense of how signs and symbols are interpreted can be a great help to understanding FIML.
In FIML practice, your partner can explain the “text” of what they said much better than you can interpret it. This can only happen if both partners are honest and trust each other and the interpretation/explanation of the “text” is brought up quickly enough that little or nothing has been forgotten by either partner.
As for honesty and trust, it is my guess that these areas can be a problem for people because we humans are almost always required to interpret what is said to us without any possible recourse to a better explanation. There are three major reasons for this: 1) convention, habit; 2) timing; and 3) emotion.
Taking the second reason first, timing makes it very difficult to get good information about what a speaker means because when we ask quickly enough for them to actually still be able to remember, we will appear confrontational or rude. The speaker will become flustered and often answer with an excuse rather than an explanation.
This happens due to factor three, emotion. Language evolved in hierarchical societies. To question someone quickly about what they said is to seem to question them, to doubt them. In hierarchies, we do not question the orders we are given. We wait our turn, we let the speaker finish, we don’t interrupt, etc. Yet, if we don’t act quickly—within a few seconds—the speaker will have forgotten the fullness of their mind at the moment they spoke. Their explanation for the “text,” for what they said, will be lost forever, even if we have a video recording of it.
Due to the quickness of human emotion, virtually all societies everywhere have constructed rules for listening and speaking that completely preclude a FIML-type inquiry. Most beginning FIML partners will, therefore, experience some difficulty getting used to FIML queries. Our moods, emotions, mental states, thoughts, and more have all been long conditioned by social forces that constrain us in the very place where we need more freedom—getting the real explanation from our partner to replace our interpretation.
You would never want to run a business or do an engineering project based on ambiguous interpretations, but most of us conduct our love lives and friendships in just that way.
FIML is a specific semiotic in that it deals with the communications between two specific individuals. FIML does not tell these individuals what to think, say, or believe. It merely provides a technique for them to fully explore the semiotics and all ramifications of those semiotics that occur between them. A general semiotic is one that says something about all languages. FIML fixes a general weakness that occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in all human languages.
American Buddhist Net 