Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Security Vetting in Analysis
Statement Analysis is an indispensable tool for vetting.
It is used in this manner by levels of security in government, and it is used by companies wishing not only to hire the best and brightest, but to avoid hiring those who are most likely to exploit the company, particularly through the means of fraudulent complaints, more than outright theft.
It is to 'vet' the applicant knowing that our words reveal us.
How might this apply to today's tiny minority patriots in Europe?
Statement Analysis allows for us to discern deception.
This is the basic usage, and is why "Statement Analysis 101" is valuable: it's success rate far exceeds other methods and often catches the attention of an investigator or interviewer. In basic applications, the new investigator finds success until he attempts to apply the simple to the complex. Thus, the need for formal training. It is here that the dogmatic view, necessary initially, gives way to a wider and deeper understanding of the complexities of human nature and communication.
Next, the analysis of a statement allows for 'content analysis', or specific areas of missing information to become evident, so that the interviewer knows 'where' to target his questions. The subject may either 'skip over' a period of time, not by clear omission, but by commission, in that he signals his thought process is on the time frame he wishes not to reveal.
Then, the analysis of a statement allows for the inadvertent release of information, including priorities, which is commonly called 'leakage', because the subject did not intend for this information to be released. This can range from quality of relationships to the author's own identity.
Further study and application of the principles of Statement Analysis lead to profiling; that is, the
of the subject emerge. The more content, the more information. In the artistic sense of "everything is autobiographical", it is called "Analytical Profiling" as:
Analytical Profiling, that is, a profile from Statement Analysis is far more subjective, and is lots of guess work; yet educated guess work based upon language. It can be so distinct that it can even identify an actual author. It is by this time that the analyst has reached or is near 100% accuracy.
While guess work remains 50% and some schools of lie detection show results only slightly higher, this advanced analysis has taught the retention of information audibly, in "discourse analysis" in which the interviewer "hears" the analysis as it goes by. I have yet to see the development in this in anyone with less than 2 full years of professional study and application, yet once it arrives, it appears to become a permanent part of the brain's processing.
Also by the time the proficiency has reached profiling, the analyst is now constantly seeking affirmation. If he concludes one to be "open, honest, and humble" in a profession that demands the learning of new skills, he wants to hear, 12 months hence, back from the employer that, in deed, the hire was solid.
He also seeks immediate affirmation in the interview process.
"The subject is confrontational in nature. He will likely yield much information to a female investigator who takes a subordinate posture and allows him to control the interview."
This is gratifying when said female investigator assumes the role and obtains an admission. This can range from overall strategy of the interview, to detailed tactical points within the interview for the end purpose of admission.
I often think of the "end game" of Statement Analysis where a profile is complete and an anonymous author's intent is identified as is his identification.
In consideration, this takes years of professional work to obtain and its reward of emotional satisfaction is lasting. As I have thought of this, something else came to mind:
Much is said today about "vetting refugees", which the subject (plural) is likely to not be a refugee at all, yet vetting of some form must take place, and polls today show that few people trust their government in this manner, as unlimited immigration builds a powerful voting block for the political elite, while feigning a type of moral highroad, without respect to immediate or after costs, including both security and finance, that our children and children's children will bear.
Vetting in Europe
There is a growing underground resistance movement in Europe which recognizes that the political elite have sought to destroy national identity while simultaneously, establishing a voter block for themselves. As millions have entered Europe over the past generation, the increase, percentage wise, in 2015 and thus far in 2016, has been extraordinary.
The political elite has deliberately brought in those with an ideology that presents the most challenge to the post Christian European secularism: where they hold egalitarianism, the migrants hold to a tyranny and supremacy that they are ill equipped to answer, nor counter. Islamic supremacy is political, social, militaristic, and lastly, religious.
The results have been, Europe-wide, either as predicted, or worse than predicted.
Those with small percentage of population (Islamists) are overwhelmingly high percentage of incarcerated, arrested, or charged with acute violent and sexually violent crimes.
The worse than predicted nature has been in sexually crimes. The government's response to the danger has been to stick to the narrative and lie about the dangers, often boldly changing statistics. In Sweden, for example, with certain crimes, police and the public are not allowed to give the race of the criminal thus leaving no chance for the criminal to be caught.
Routinely, the criminal is either dismissed, or given a light sentence. This affirms his superiority and strengthens the resolve of the new community in their quest to 'conquer' the lands.
Unless human nature changes, a welfare state cannot abide itself longterm, and it cannot exist without borders. This, alone, is mathematical and is to be at war with nature. 2 - 3 = a negative 1. If you continue this pattern, eventually, there will be no one left to borrow from who has not demanded repayment. When debt forgiveness follows debt forgiveness, eventually the money can only be printed, which leads to...the downward spiral.
I. What has been the government's response of Europe to those who question, criticize or disagree with the importation of millions of supremacist males, flooding the welfare system as well as the social service system, while filling the prisons (German prisons are said to be at capacity now), and committing crimes against citizens, including unimaginable numbers of sexual assaults against European women?
II. What can the European do to defend himself, his wife and children and his land, from the political elite who are giving it all away?
In socialism, the government is the 'god', even where religion is denied. This means that the final arbitrator of right from wrong is the government and that human rights are not inalienable, since they are given, not endowed, from human government, and not of Divine authority. The government controls as much as it can, and historically, where wars limit freedoms, freedoms are slow to return, if at all.
In Europe, the government subsidizes the media. Thus from both the US (Obama) and Germany (Merkel), the public was told that those migrating from North Africa, the Middle East and points of Asia were "refugees", fleeing from war.
How many deceptions were in this description?
1. Refugee. This is a legal term and in Europe a war refugee is considered the status of "refugee" and must be granted refugee asylum in the first country their feet land, which is not at war. The war in Syria was said to be the source of the refugee. This would preclude the United States, Sweden and Germany from being such asylum counties.
2. War Refugee. Few were from Syria with the UN reporting that more than 70% were from other lands. Later, this statistic was disputed claiming that 90% were from other lands than Syria.
3. Obama claimed they were "widows and orphans." Merkel said that they were "engineers and doctors."
The UN said otherwise.
When citizens took videos, Europe colluded with Google and Facebook to stop the free flow of information which showed that from 70% to 90% the migrants were male, of fighting age. These are men who came for the free money; abandoning their wives and children in Syria, for example, considering that Syria was not worthy fighting for.
As to the Merkel claim of "engineers and doctors", social workers reported that the average IQ of Syrians was at a level beneath what we call "mental retardation." Eventually, the UN agreed and admitted that "most" of the migrants are unemployable.
They came in with low IQs which translates to poor impulse control, and an ideology that says "rape is reward" and that they were superior to the 'unclean' European, so the European must give them money.
The Obama "widows and orphans" had designer clothing, iPhones and threw back the food, demanding money instead. They quickly formed gangs and began the lucrative narcotics trade with Berlin under its grip. When a Berliner says, "What happened to Germany?" she is said to be "racist, Isamophobic, xenophobic and full of hatred for her fellow man."
Sweden boasted itself as the "humanitarian superpower of the world", with its moral relativism and is now known as "The Rape Capital of the West", rivaling only portions of southern Africa as the single most dangerous place to be a woman.
While Obama cited Europe for safety due to gun restriction, the citizens and the statistics told us otherwise. When Fox News apologized for reporting the "no go zones", Americans at that time did not know that there were not "55 no go zones" or anything like it. While some said, "well, America has neighborhoods that are unsafe too", this was another form of deception: re-defining a term.
In Europe a "no go zone" is one in which, at its minimum, services cannot enter without police escort. At maximum, it is where Sharia law exists, and police, fire and rescue often do not go, at all, even under escort, for fear of violence. There are entire neighborhoods, and some cities, that are now "Islamic" in Europe. Molenbeek, for example, is, like places in Brussels, simply, "Islamic ruled." How many thousands of such places now exist?
In city after city, authorities not only lie about the crime, and let criminals go, but have yielded to Sharia blasphemy laws whenever they could, and the mosques, in Denmark, for example, where tax dollars underwrite, the people are taught Islamic supremacy, jihad, conquest, and resistance to integration. They believe welfare is the "just due payment" that the inferior must give to the superior (jizrah) and when undercover video emerges showing the state-sponsored mosque teaching violence against women, the videographer is condemned.
In a suburb of France, Muslims volunteered to protect a Catholic Church, only to have the mayor familiar with history, to reject this offer, knowing what has happened to the decimated population of Christians in the Middle East who were 'protected' by Muslims against Muslims. He read it as the "jizrah" it was.
As the violence rises, civil war, that is, war that is anything but 'civil', is slowly building.
In some places, masculinity has been destroyed by militant feminism, so that a video of men wearing mini-skirts "in solidarity" to women victims of rape, will mean no capable masculine defense will be mounted.
II. What Can European Men do to Defend?
Small groups of men, throughout Europe, have bonded together in an attempt to protect women. In France, neighborhoods have been abandoned by police, with residents told to defend themselves, not due to the lack of conviction on the part of police, but due to being simply outnumbered.
1. The underground must accept its status.
In Nazi Germany, we readers of history are not always privy to what it was like for the underground.
Just as there are Muslims who are born Muslims but do not believe in Islam, there were those who hated the Nazis but were forced to join the Nationalist Socialist Party just to keep a job.
Those who were in the underground are viewed, today, as heroes, and rightfully so.
That is not how they were viewed then. This is where today's mirror tells us the courage the resistance movement needs:
Today, one who even disagrees with mass migration is publicly defined, by their own government as:
1. Suffering from mental health disorder so severe as to render their viewpoint immaterial.
2. Suffering from some moral defect as to render their viewpoint immaterial.
Those who wish to join resistance movements must be prepared, not only to sacrifice their lives in a just cause to protect their land from history's most proficient criminal and enslaving ideology, but to accept that their own children will be taught in school:
"Your father is xenophobic." This is the irrational fear of 'new' or that which is foreign; a mental disorder.
"Your father is a racist." Although Islam is not a race, the patriot must accept this designation and that his government declares him to be "racist", that is, one who hates due to race, and the government television news, and the government paid teachers will all reaffirm this, incessantly, to his wife and his children.
This is the government's stifling of free speech while it exploits for its own good. It is not that you have questions about whether our country can abide importing 6 million people who's cultures are at war with freedom, it is that you are "Islamophobic" and this name calling has men quaking in fear.
Therefore, the freedom fighter in Europe today must have thick skin, and be emotionally prepared for his family to hear slander against him.
The Resistance Movement, therefore, like the Underground Resistance movement in France and Germany in the early 40's, must be carefully vetted.
They must know that if Angela Merkel is willing to tell Mark Zuckerberg to stop freedom of speech on Facebook, and to seek to use surveillance techniques to monitor outgoing videos from citizens, and to stop incoming news articles, she is likely, from her East German propaganda background, to use police to infiltrate these organizations and arrest citizens for exercising free speech.
This vetting, or screening out process, is an indispensable necessity and it will require the highest levels of training afforded in Statement Analysis.
An underground movement is not likely going to be able to have widespread use of a polygraph today.
When the polygraph is administered, post interview, where the examiner (or "polygrapher") only uses the dictionary of the subject, it is very likely to approach or reach 100% efficiency.
Not only must a patriot be prepared to be slandered, but to be slandered to his family.
This is repeated for good reason:
Not only should the European patriotic or nationalistic resistance movement be vetting applicants for deception, they must vet those who cannot bear up under the pressure of slander and libel, which they are likely to experience, particularly to their families.
For a father, it is one thing being labeled a 'traitor', and something entirely different to be labeled a 'traitor' to his children, by their own teachers, in text books and quizzes in which their own writing affirms this status.
This is sickening to consider, but it is something that each man who decides to enroll in resisting the government's tyrannical exploitation of their land and destruction of their national identity, must consider before pledging his life.
Even the bravest who may be ready to lay down his life, may not be ready to lay down his reputation to his wife and to his children. It is a different aspect of sacrifice.
Yet, the intensity is not over just the exposure of thus to his wife and children, there is another element:
In the famous overnight trial of Christ, false testimony was made against him, some using partial truth, while others making outright accusations of political treason. In these charges, Christ was silent.
Consider your own life in this way to understand how difficult it is to be silent under such circumstances.
Were you ever falsely accused of something?
How did it feel?
Was it something so outrageous that it brought little reaction to you?
Or, much more intense: Was it something that had partial truth to it?
We have been created with an innate desire for justice. We do not like bullies and we like underdog stories.
Hollywood, for almost a century, has capitalized on this aspect of human nature but almost always with the happy ending where the truth comes out.
The character is slandered and all sorts of complexities arise due to the lies being told. The lies are insipid because they are based upon some truth, otherwise, the emotional reaction would be muted.
The movie is 'satisfying' (emotionally and intellectually) due to justification. The truth came out, and even if the lead character dies, we know he was righteous. Just our knowing of the truth, was enough.
In real life, however, consider what the young son of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel experienced.
In his final minutes in life, the German hero and patriot for his country told his son that he was implicated in the assassination plot against their Fuhrer and was offered a choice:
Kill himself and the nation will be told he died as a result of his injuries, with his family receiving retirement benefits, or
Go to trial, be found guilty of treason, be executed and then his family will be destroyed in the concentration camp system.
He chose the former.
Imagine what bearing this secret was like in life.
You may consider, "but it was only a year later when all the truth came out!"
Not entirely true.
In the years after the surrender, everyone did not simply drop the ideology that led to destruction and the family had to be very careful on who they spoke to, or trusted.
Remember, even the final days in April, 1945, young boys were being hung from posts in the streets as "traitors."
We see them as victims, while some cheered the deaths of little boys to send a signal to the Russians: We will never stop fighting.
Had Hitler won the war, the history books today would show the underground resistance movement as that of "cowardly terrorists" and "anarchists" who tried to destroy.
The resistance movement must understand what its cost is.
For some, being killed in battle is far easier to accept than languishing for 20 years in a prison while your whole world calls you a traitor, terrorist, and hater of mankind, and where even religious leaders will condemn.
This is not something easily abided.
The vetting is so dangerous to the life of an underground movement that they must not only vet those who pose a security risk, but vet those who show points of weakness than the enemy can later exploit.
How does this work?
It means that the resistance movement must have a system of levels of promotion and trust, with tests between levels to continue this vetting system.
It does not mean turning away anyone with fear.
Those without fear, whatsoever, are likely mentally ill.
It means knowing one's weakness and permitting only certain levels of access to key information until weaknesses have been tested.
The system of 'government' within the French resistance movement of the Occupation was complex.
It had to be.
The very first step is a Questionnaire in which the European resistance movement must have trusted analysts trained in advanced methods of profiling from language and it must have adequate sample from which to work.
They must know of whom they trust.
The polygraph can result in vetting out those sent to infiltrate, but it will become a much weaker instrument in seeking to vet, at least temporarily, those from 'upper levels' of authority with greater access to secure information.
Europe is on the precipice of war.
Propaganda is a major tool of war.
The resistance movement is a defensive movement, trying to stop the thousands and thousands of men who enter their borders, each and every day (with more to come with the advance of Spring) while maintaining their jobs, and guarding over the lives of their wives and children.
They do the work that their own children will learn to condemn in school.
War is coming, though history tells us it brews for years and years before it explodes, but the kettle is rapidly warming up.
Thousands of major weapons have been seized at the borders, with officials admitting that most still enter in.
Actual Islamic State warriors are in Europe (and the United States), and while Obama says "we don't choose by religion", we know that just from Syria alone, 97% or more are Muslims, so it is another easily discerned lie on his part.
The ideology opposes everything America and Europe once stood for, and the supremacists use the western judicial system against them, with, for example, the terrorist designated organization CAIR filing suit after suit, and making headways with "Common Core Curriculum" into many states