Sunday, May 4, 2014

Politics and the Lens of Statement Analysis

Ruthlessness on Steroids?
With much knowledge, sadness increases.

There is no way around it.

As you listen to people speak, and analyze their words that end up in print, statement analysis, or better expressed here, "content" analysis allows for not simply truth being discerned from deception, but for content to expose itself, in any and everything in the complex nature of human life.

Avinoam Sapir, the father of statement analysis ( showed the language of President Clinton in comparing his content while speaking of his wife ("person"), to his own mother, ("woman"), with the varying ramifications compared in not only the litany of women in Clinton's life, but the revelations of ruthlessness in the life of Hillary Clinton, in trading in human dignity, morality and ethics, for an election to a state she did not grow up in, on to the upcoming presidential elections.

When woman came forward, the internet age has allowed us to see quickly the transcripts of the statements and to know truth from lies, and all the filth that followed with accusations of selling military technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign funds, to Vince Foster, White Water, and the ability to do and say anything to anyone, at any time, at any cost, in order to have personal gain.

Two howls will emerge:  one is from those new to Statement Analysis, while the other comes from political partisans who see not past their own divisions.

Yet, no political party is exempt from the corruption of power, even as we consider the "hijacking of a peaceful religion" response from President George W. Bush, responding to the attack on America, instead of "destroying the great Satan, America!" that the religion of oppression, Islam, openly claims.

We are no longer a nation of freedom of speech.  There are many things we would not dare say today.  People of faith are painted in the most negative of terms.  This echoes the late 1920's and early 1930's Germany.  By the late 30's certain words were only used in hushed language. We have embroiled ourselves in legislating ourselves to the point of being no longer able to breath for ourselves.  Cesar did not exercise this much authority over the private citizen as we have gone from personal responsibility to socialism, and our political speeches are no different than:

"Germany is before us, Germany is behind us, Germany marches on!" pop sloganism of the 1930's Germany.  Ours are just as weak and the people just as gullible.  Common German citizens even became slaves to their own laws and precepts, rather than exercise their own common sense.

As we approach the next election, we will view the leading politicians' statements and apply the same principles to both sides.

Perhaps we'll vote for whoever promises to leave us alone, the most, at least.


Anonymous said...

can I get some fries with that crazy

Anonymous said...

Holy passive construction Batman. Sentence after sentence built to try to infuse your (more extreme than you want to let on) views with puffed-up authority, via omniscient grammatical structure and by associating yourself with the Founding Fathers et al.


Understandable, because if you said what you really thought here, clearly, with "I" in the subject position of the sentence and without all this passive obfuscation, you'd lose all credibility.

Also, you should know better that freedom of speech pertains very specifically to what is LEGAL speech, not what is popular or unpopular, culturally taboo speech! Please get the details straight.

For goodness sake, could you possibly undermine your own work any more than this? Is this another April Fool's post?