In 1953 Albert Einstein closed his eyes and imagined roughly this animation. He then wrote the following forward to a book:
“[This] idea if it continues to prove itself is of great importance…A great many empirical data indicate…many climatic changes have taken place…suddenly…This is explicable if the outer crust…undergoes from time to time extensive displacement…as consequence of…comparatively slight forces derived from Earth’s momentum of rotation…which tends to alter the axis of rotation of the Earth’s crust… The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum will…produce a movement of the Earth’s crust over the rest of the Earth’s body, and this will displace the polar regions towards the equator… Extraordinarily rich material…supports displacement theory…this idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with…Earth’s development.”
This is a civilization-wide problem across the West (and the world). It rests on a psycholinguistic feature or flaw inherent in human beings.
This feature or flaw is used in mind-control and self-actuating mind-control.
Once this feature has been tapped as a flaw, it works on its own in a majority of people, thus producing pathological hive-mindedness.
To be brief, psycholinguistic arrays tend to cluster around core concepts. The nature of trained-in core concepts is they become reified and ‘root’ the mind firmly against distractions, deviations and suasion.
This is good when you are training to be an electrician. This is bad when you are training to be a psychotherapist.
All cultures and subcultures are formed around core concepts (and psycholinguistics) through training and imitation.
It takes a better than average mind to see above this or around it.
Learn and understand FIML and you will see this in great detail within yourself and understand why it is both a feature and a flaw in all human language use.
It is not solely a psychological thing, which is why I often use the term psycholinguistics. ABN
The title above states precisely what people do with interpersonal speech and semiotics: When confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, they seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar. People do this all the time. Throughout history people have been doing this. It is a major source of suffering, violence, idiocy, madness, cruelty, and lost opportunity. Isn’t it obvious? When we talk or communicate in any way our message is frequently misunderstood, sometimes very seriously misunderstood. This causes all of us to live in a massively reduced world because the only way we typically deal with this interpersonally is by seeking subconsciously for a pattern that is familiar. So far, no one has suggested a cure for this horrible human malady, until FIML came along. FIML fixes precisely this problem: It’s not hard: You just have to change the way you think (and listen and talk). ABN
Observed anomalies that are not let go are the heart and soul of investigative science. There have been many theories about why the Towers fell — nano-thermite, energy weapons, mini nukes. If DARPA is 30-50 years ahead of what the public knows, which it surely is in many realms, it makes sense that we still do not know what caused the fall of the Towers or the other major events of 9/11. It surely was not crashing airplanes, which themselves are four separate events, each rife with unique anomalies: The plane that disappeared into a hole in the ground in PA; the plane that flew at an impossible speed into the Pentagon; the two planes that supposedly struck the Twin Towers, also flying at impossible speeds and seemingly disappearing into the Towers unlike any airplane crash in history. ABN
Another former Bush administration official is exposing the elites’ fear of the upcoming geophysical event on Tucker Carlson’s show.
She says much of the stolen black budget money ended up being used to build underground doomsday bunkers and infrastructure.
Watch this segment about what the elite is afraid of, and why we should start preparing too—because they’re not going to tell you what’s coming. Follow this thread for more information!
She says ‘solar minimum,’ but what she really means is the Grand Solar Minimum. They are afraid of the Grand Solar Minimum, when the Sun becomes less active and its magnetic field weakens. Combined with the decreasing strength of Earth’s magnetic field, this will expose us to increased cosmic rays and radiation from outside the solar system.
There are studies indicating that the Sun will enter a ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ sometime between 2030 and 2040. So that is why you are hearing a lot about the year 2030.
…Over time, humans went from an anthropocentric to a geocentric to a heliocentric and eventually to a more universal view of the world, and each step constituted scientific progress.
Yet the crux is that there is at least one important phenomenon that resists such objectivization or “de-perspectivization,” and that is consciousness itself. If we accept that the core of consciousness is subjective experience, then consciousness is the ultimately subjective phenomenon. The core of my consciousness lies in the fact that I find myself in a world in which there are first-personal facts. I am conscious, I have certain experiences, I am in a particular perceptual state, and so on. First-personal facts are irreducibly subjective. They are “centred” around my perspective as an experiencing subject, and unlike objective facts, they are not invariant under shifts in perspective.
Crucially, each of us is inextricably tied to our own conscious perspective. I can reflect about your experiences and empathize with you; I can hypothetically try to place myself in your shoes; I can try to simulate in my mind what things must be like for you. But I cannot literally leave my own conscious perspective. It is an essential fact about me that I experience the world from my perspective and not from anyone else’s. To be conscious, one might say, is to have a subjective perspective around which some first-personal facts are centred.
…The lesson, I think, is that the attempt to “objectivize” consciousness – to represent it as an ordinary property that can be found in the objective world, like gravity and electromagnetism – fails to do justice to the irreducibly subjective nature of the phenomenon. Physicalist theories of consciousness are not alone in running into that problem; standard versions of dualism face the same problem too. We will better understand consciousness only if our scientific and philosophical theories fully come to terms with the existence of first-personal facts and recognize that reality may not be captured by a single objective book of the world, but only by a library of subjective ones.
This is a good essay. It provides an overview of consciousness studies to frame the worthy assertion that: ‘We will better understand consciousness only if our scientific and philosophical theories fully come to terms with the existence of first-personal facts’. This kind of thinking fits well with Buddhism, and especially well with the Buddhist emphasis on samadhi states, which are deeply subjective. A Buddhist might say samadhi is describable and sharable with someone else who knows it. Or a Buddhist might not say that. The full essay is 2,578 words long and worth reading because the point is well made and the overview fits it very well. It’s quality information briefly stated. ABN
Much discussion between races has been on the black and white, but it’s much more nuanced, and thus perhaps more intriguing, to analyze the achievement gap between the west and the east.
Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton have produced credible and data-backed articles that show how East Asians fare better in a host of traits, primarily intelligence. However, during one recorded session with J. Philippe Rushton, he seemed to be not able to answer the question about how eastern societies had not been able to develop to the extent the Western ones had. This popular conception that Asians fare better than Whites in terms of intelligence contrasts with how East Asian societies fare compared to Western ones, both past and present, and with how the Chinese had been perceived.
In 1894, Arthur Smith published Chinese Characteristics, a collection of twenty-six essays. The author had great credentials: he had spent roughly two decades in China. This is a fairly accurate book, although a lot of the content seems to be more negative than positive. Throughout the book, Chinese are portrayed as little better than savages, vastly different from the current view. Judging from the essay titles alone, the ills of Chinese society are named in the title of nine essays, although many more are sprinkled throughout other essays: (5) Disregard of Time, (6) Disregard of Accuracy, (7) Talent for Misunderstanding, (8) Talent for Indirection, (12) Contempt for Foreigners (15) Indifference to Comfort and Convenience, (21) Absence of Sympathy, (24) Mutual Suspicion, (25) Absence of Sincerity.
Those who are both very poor and very ignorant, as is the fate of millions, have indeed so narrow a horizon that intellectual turbidity is compulsory. Their existence is merely that of a frog in a well, to which even the heavens appear only as a strip of darkness.
Life consists of two compartments, a stomach and a cash-bag. Such a man is the true positivist, for he cannot be made to comprehend anything which he does not see or hear, and of causes as such he has no conception whatsoever. Life is to him a mere series of facts, mostly disagreeable facts, and as for anything beyond, he is at once an atheist, a polytheist, and an agnostic.
As with much of what I post, I do not necessarily agree with this author but find the topic interesting and his viewpoint refreshing. Cultural differences are very real as are genetic difference which are molded or honed by culture over the centuries. The whole world needs to do much more talking about cultural and genetic differences and similarities. The essay above may get some people thinking and inspire others to delve into this topic.
Trump has launched a response to China’s decades-long trade war against us. One factor at play was referred to the other day when Trump said of Xi, ‘I don’t think he knows how to make a deal’, or words to that effect. Having lived in China for many years, I have noticed that most of the time most Chinese see ‘deals’ as win-lose propositions and they almost always go for the win at any cost. There are exceptions but not many, in my experience. On the world stage, we are seeing that same zero-sum strategy being played by Xi Jinping and the CCP; the only difference between him and CCP leaders who preceded him is he is more ruthless, more zero-sum in how he makes ‘deals’. A tangential observation to this one is over the past 10-15 years I seem to have noticed a decline in the dating value of Chinese women in the West. If true, that may be due to their not knowing how to make relationship deals that are good for both parties. ABN
I hope this means Sundance also understands we have experienced several generations of savage covert warfare. Since the battlefront has been covert, it is slightly difficult to see what has been happening. Use your imagination for a few hours, maybe less. Consider the gains compared to costs of a covert war against USA. There are trillions at stake, plus the most powerful military the world has ever known. How to win control of all of it? Infiltrate, takeover, attack strong boys and young men especially. In three or four generations all will be yours. Once you conceive of this strategy, you will begin to see the evidence. Lobotomies in Tibet and wherever young men are incarcerated for nothing. Lobotomies in USA without incarceration. Poison, sensory damage, done covertly. It’s a very simple strategy employing very simple tactics. I hope Sundance sees this and spends some time thinking about it. Many things will become clear, even obvious. Our enemy has long ago gotten ‘brutally, harshly mean’ with us. Remove ‘delicate sensibilities’ from your imagination and it will all become clear. 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 mind being called a conspiracy theorist. The killing of JFK was a conspiracy, and 9/11 was a conspiracy, and I wrote theories on both, so I’m a conspiracy theorist. I don’t reject any conspiracy theory on principle. Even looking into those which are obvious nonsense can teach you something about the extent of human gullibility or about the techniques of cognitive infiltration. So in 2023 I looked into the theory that Brigitte Macron was born a man. I concluded it had a very low probability, and I told Xavier Poussard and anybody who asked for my opinion. But I didn’t want to spend any more time on it.
However, I now feel some kind of responsibility to read and review Xavier Poussard’s book, Becoming Brigitte, published last month with the endorsement of Candace Owens. So I bought the original French version, read it in a day, and posted my first impression on March 12, in an ironic tweet saying: “After 292 pages, the ultimate proof. Come on, believe!”
This is a credible debunking of the theory that Brigitte Macron is a transgender man. I read the whole thing as I highly respect and enjoy Guyénot’s work. Then I read the comments under his article and became less sure again. At best, the Brigitte story is an interesting aside in our world; worth some investment if you like but not terribly important. Whether it is true or false, I will probably continue posting interesting pieces on it when I run across them. Owens is funnier on this topic than Guyénot, for whatever that’s worth. ABN
If women were in charge of most states, the world would not last long. Women are too volatile, too personal and emotional ——- exactly the qualities that make for bad diplomacy.
This trait is exacerbated in a Western world committed to liberalism in geopolitics, rather than realism.
Liberalism seeks to “fight the last war” to make the world safe for democracy” —- whereas realism, a manly perspective, accepts the realities of great power politics and the balance of power doctrine.
It understands that bigger nations get to have more privileges than small nations, and that there is no such thing as equality of rights in international relations.
He may be right. I take the male-female differences as about 15% on either side for many determinations of this sort. It is decidedly true that world history is filled with bad leaders. And it is also true today that there are few if any really good female leaders in anything. When they gang up and form gynogangs, as they have done in American universities and the EU, the results are worse than death: stifling low-brow ‘ideological thinking’ so bad it appears designed to turn away best minds. Plenty of men participate in nonsense like the above but that’s where the 15% comes in. Duchesne frequently makes the point that Western liberalism—which sees all human beings as equal and the same—is a dagger in the brain of the West. If we do not adapt to reality soon, and the odds are not good, we are done for as a people. White Western people will disappear from the earth due to their failure to protect themselves against their own ingrained ideals and the parasites who have learned to exploit those ideals. Frederiksen is a clueless fool to talk like that and she is not the only one who is doing it. ABN
Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn’t Sleepy Joe Biden demand Equalization, in that this War is far more important to Europe than it is to us — We have a big, beautiful Ocean as separation. On top of this, Zelenskyy admits that half of the money we sent him is “MISSING.” He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden “like a fiddle.” A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only “TRUMP,” and the Trump Administration, can do. Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues…..
A prosperous and peaceful world depends on a successful northern alliance between USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mongolia and anyone else who wants to join and is acceptable. This could be called the ‘Top of the World Alliance’. Its core is Western civilization. The game-theory and KOBK importance of this alliance is so obvious it proves itself. I hope this is where Trump is going and I hope he succeeds. For the moment, Europe can go fuck itself, they have been so stupid. At the end of the day, a Top of the World Alliance benefits all its partners as well as all other nations and regions on earth. Only this alliance is capable of world leadership while fostering peaceful global development. ABN
American Buddhist Net 