Statement Analysis and Global Warming
by Peter Hyatt
Statement Analysis seeks truth.
It is not a defense of Judaism, Christianity, Socialism, Reaganism, Feminism, or a slave to any "ism" in life. It tests the 'isms' and ideologies that influence how people speak, around the world.
It is a method of which human communication is examined, and truth is separated from deception.
Politicians give us much sample from which to work by virtue of their profession and media exposure. The same goes for celebrities. Some find the use of statements by celebrities degrading to our science yet I simply see the exposure of principle as a great advantage.
Political Correctness is a fascinating term which refers to how something appears, rather than what something is.
It is, in a sense, propaganda versus truth, exterior versus interior, emotion versus logic, and the sacrifice of truth (including fact) for the purpose of "narrative." Even in the view of ideologies that have impacted history, we are concerned with truth, rather than appearance or impact.
Those who are "PC orientated" fail in Statement Analysis. This requires little explanation. If something is more important than truth, the person is in the wrong field. Math, for example, is neither left wing, nor right wing, yet those who seek narrative will make attempts to destroy or in the least, distort math.
We often see that political correctness is illogical; that is, it is not part of human logical thinking, including consequence. It also is a form of deception that brings great harm, both short term and long term.
Imagine living in a civilized country where someone breaks into your home, threatens you to stay back, grabs your valuables, and runs, only to call police and be told not to describe the assailant's most basic visible attributes.
Imagine living in a country where your daughter was raped but the rapist, a 30 year old male, was let go because he testified under oath that he was 15 years old, and by law, his testimony must be taken. The 30 year old is not only free to rape Swedish women again, the working women of Sweden finance his life from their taxes.
Imagine living in a world where your opinion, which impacts no one but you and your family, could mean loss of liberty.
These are the consequences of the illogical world of Political Correctness.
Statement Analysis can, and must withstand healthy scientific skepticism.
What would you think about the science of Statement Analysis, with its claim of "90% to near 100% long term accuracy" if I told you:
1. If you disagree with me, you are mentally ill. You have an irrational fear of analysis.
2. If you disagree with me, you are morally so depraved that your opinion is of no consequence and will not be heard. You disagree with analysis because you hate me, personally, and are a person filled with hatred.
Words, alone, are not enough to stop you? How about consequences?
3. If you disagree with me regarding Statement Analysis, you will jeopardize your job, your income, your standing in the community.
4. If you disagree with Statement Analysis, you may find yourself imprisoned.
It is very likely that if you have read this blog and learned anything over the years, you would conclude:
"The NTP is acute."
Or in simpler language, you might say that 'this nut job's need to persuade, rather than truthfully report, is so highly deceptive that his position can only be protected by fascist violence and there will be no reasonable discussion.' "Deception Indicated."
I began with "Statement Analysis and Global Warming" and readily admit, I am not a scientist, nor have I studied much of weather.
I do not believe in Global Warming.
In fact, I think it is a dangerous hoax put upon the world by a political elite with deceptive and illicit motives, including both partisan and financial. It is a tangent to move attention from other threats; deadly threats that our children and grandchildren will inevitably face.
It's comical when someone who's career is to pretend to be someone else, is adored for it, makes a pronouncement of demarcation: those who disagree with him are "evil."
But what about my opinion? I'm no scientist.
How could my opinion have any weight, other than looking at long term charts and saying, "I don't see it."? Or, by listening to Al Gore, 20 years ago saying that the world would have been struck with catastrophe by 2012? Or, by saving my pennies and buying a Canada Goose parka, looking like Nanook of the North, because I walk in temperatures lower than -20 F in spite of all the dire predictions.
Obama says it is our worst threat, while arming a country with a nuclear weapon who has promised to use it against us.
Better still for the purpose of applying Statement Analysis is when it was released that Barak Obama had formal discussions with his advisors on making scientists who disagree with him face potential criminal charges, I knew all I needed to know about Global Warming, and will save my pennies, or book a seminar in south Florida next February to escape Maine's global warming.
That which cannot be challenged, itself, is weak, but that which is so weak that any challenge is ridiculed and no debate heard, is deceptively weak.
In our Advanced Course, I dedicate a chapter to dealing with Political Correct language, particularly as it has grown dramatically in the past 30 years, but its impact has become acutely dangerous in the last 7.
If the danger of a nuclear Iran is not enough to scare you, consider the following:
When Barak Hussein Obama took office, he concealed his Islamic beliefs, though when anyone questioned him, the questioner was considered "racist" with no answer given.
Beginning in 2009, with most completion by 2011, anti Islamic terror manuals were scrubbed clean of "Islam" after Muslim terrorist organizations in the United States claimed that they were unfair to Muslims. We do not know how the designated terrorist groups accessed these manuals.
A picture of a terrorist with a beard was removed, as it, too, was "offensive."
There are now more than 80 mosques in the United States known for being connected to terrorism.
Our bombing of ISIS has dropped off precipitously, while reports continue which show us deliberately avoiding ISIS headquarters.
Steve Emerson said that security experts who lectured both the CIA and the FBI on Islamic terror were banned from speaking to both; instead Muslim Brotherhood representatives were invited to speak.
How about freeing killers in Guatameno, and then having dead Americans because of it?
Islamic jihadists, in obedience to the Koran, kill innocent civilians and Obama lectures Christians about "irrational fear of Islam" as if fearing an ideology far worse and far more successful than Nazism, is irrational. 30 dead, 150 wounded, in Brussels, hours later, Obama interrupted his condemnations of America while in Cuba to speak for less than 60 seconds about Brussels, without using the word "Islam."
Is it racist to analyze his short speech?
Imagine Winston Churchill, circa 1940, not using the word "Hitler."
a. What impact would this have upon England and the war effort?
b. What impact would this have had upon Hitler and his followers?
The emboldening from a nation's leader too fearful to even utter the name, would be powerful.
I love truth.
With the deception of PC language so popular today, I developed a habit of making a politically incorrect statement at some point in my seminars so that I can quickly read the faces of the attendees.
Some will chuckle;
some are a tad uncomfortable, as if they just indulged in the guilty pleasure of a 2nd chocolate bar;
and generally, one or two show deep offense, sometimes even contempt.
They will not abide Statement Analysis because Statement Analysis does not have its narrative of which principle and result be be enslaved towards.
Statement Analysis is a slave to the subject's words; the context, the non-interpretating of the words...the bowing before the context and letting the context raise and answer its own questions. Where it raises questions without answers, interview preparation begins.
I sometimes reference a 65 year old grandfather who wears women' dresses and has had all sorts of surgery to make others think he is a 22 year old attractive female.
He is not.
This is the "Bruce Jenner Effect" where inevitably, a deceptive person is offended at Glamor Magazine's Woman of the Year being used in a seminar by me.
Truth be damned, the process of learning is shut down, as the person reveals himself as a slave to political correctness. There is no such scientific classification as "transgender." It is not "truth."
Objection: "This just shows how hateful you are!"
Answer: My point about truth is hereby exampled. I feel sorrowful for one who must have experienced severe trauma to have such terrible confusion, but I feel anger that he is likely not getting treatment because instead of intervention, politicians are throwing him parades. The parades are not for him, but to benefit the politician.
When the parades die down, what is left but a terribly confused person in desperate need for professional intervention but psychologists and other professionals are too frightened to intervene. They can only "affirm" him or her, but cannot help, lest they be charged with the same objection as above, and watch their career be destroyed, or their corporation be sued in court.
Women and Men speak differently. This statement, alone, would produce no response a generation ago. Today? It could destroy a career.
Sometimes black people and white people speak differently, too. Even 10 years ago, one might respond to this with, "yeah? so, what's your point?" suppressing a yawn. Today, at best, there is a shifting of seats of uncomfortableness, and at worst, a violent protest so no freedom of expression can be exercised.
The 16 year old girl, starving herself to death, who "identifies" as a terribly obese young person, is given a parade, rather than treatment, left to "celebrate" her "diversity" as she slowly and painfully commits suicide.
Years ago, I was motivated by statistics of suicide and those who are vulnerable to the final act of self loathing yet today the mental health industry's professionals do not dare intervene, and got involved. Today, it is very different and the professionals know the risks of intervention, and remember what violence, protests and threats did in the 70's.
I just want the truth.
If I were told, regarding any aspect of life, that I was "less than 2% of the population", I would be hungry to learn why.
After Cologne, feminists held up signs saying they prefer rapists to racists, which is self loathing suicide progression before our eyes.
"Political Correctness" is a fascinating phrase because it highlights "politics"; that is, appearance for one's personal gain, at its core and center. The politician stands to gain the most; the public loses the most. This is why I think the term "political correctness" is so appropriate: it is only "correct" to one with political and financial ambition.
It is very effective in committing personal, regional and even national suicide.
A statistic was recently released showing that more than 90% of illegal immigrants are unemployed. This means welfare benefits to those who did not pay into the system. Hmm. "How can we argue for this to be accepted? " This is the question for whom? It is the question for politicians to answer.
In some countries, immigrants are 2% of the population, but 80% of the prison, or some bizarrely close numbers.
What do you and math conclude? Versus:
What does the politician conclude from this?
a. We are racists and the criminal justice system is racist.
b. We need more immigrants to show how we are not racist.
Those who enter the country illegally, including those with criminal backgrounds, generally vote for one party...creating motive).
If 1 of every 4 Swedish women are raped, the politician says "let's increase this number" and actually does so by promoting judges who will give lenient sentences, paroles, and refuse to deport.
A welfare state cannot exist without borders, mathematically, although some can (and do) argue that a welfare state, itself, cannot exist for more than a few generations because each newly elected politicians must offer more social benefits, and eventually, the pesky debt increases and...well, you know how nature and math seem to work.
Suicide is an example of illogical thinking carried out.
Even those given to political correctness who study Statement Analysis end up seeing the inevitable conflict between truth and presentation.
Statement Analysis can and must experience incessant scientific scrutiny.
It is the only way we can improve.
If "90% to near 100% sounds wonderful to you, I agree, especially when compared to other schools, but this also means that up to 10% can be wrong!
Scrutiny, questioning, challenging and forcing those with strong intellects and a commitment to principle, will rise to the surface and push our statistic north.
Would any of us accept that with a 10% room for improvement, we should actually fire the best analysts and begin choosing analysts, not based upon their training and performance, but upon their belief that 90% to near 100% success rate is embarrassing and discriminatory against body language analysis?
Imagine putting S/A in the hands of politicians.
"How many of these analysts are male?" instead of, "Which analysts have the highest scores?"
"Which analysts are making micro-expression training look foolish? These are full of hate for other schools of thought. Terminate contracts with them!"
When a topic is before you and the only defense it has is to ridicule you, and even threaten you,
you may be looking at deception.
Hence, my "statement analysis of global warming" conclusion is this:
Buy a warm wool sweater, made in the UK.
The illogic of Political Correctness is in opposition to truth seeking. It is why one cannot be a slave to Political Correctness while being a slave to truth seeking. Even when seeking to discern "the expected", the PC adherer is lost.
Not only does he not understand human nature, but this lack of understanding is best seen in how the language of the expected is not understood.
It is a form of self-loathing, not from the top, but from the bottom. At the top, it is exploitation.
Those who's children go to private schools, who live behind walls with arms to protect them, are capitalizing on the suicide of the non-engaging suicidal followers, who repeat phrases and bumperstickers, without any follow through thought.
The elite gain; the public is fleeced.
Like the delicate snow flakes, young college men in need of a safe place to cry tears because someone did not 'feel the bern', they face a future where truth is sacrificed for a narrative, but it will not help them pay the bills, and they will, one day, feel terribly betrayed as they watch, long after leading office, that the only ones who gained from the nonsense, are safely tucked away behind riches.
They protest for "free college", not understanding that someone is going to pay for it and by the time they get free college, they will be on the other side; paying the taxes, and watching what human nature does with that which is not earned, as it turns even worse than it is today.
The consequences of political correctness is loss.
The loss begins slowly but steadily increases. Yet, each step, political correctness appeals to the pride of its adherer.
He is told that he is morally superior to others.
He believes he, alone, cares for the poor, as he robs them of drive and potential success, and feeds a bureaucratic system.
He believes he is morally superior with the way he runs his company, while he limits its long term success and ability to spread wealth much further.
He believes himself morally superior, while he endangers lives.
He believes himself morally superior, while he watches others commit suicide.
It is this need to feel morally superior that is exploited by the clever politicians. Recall the meeting of 10 making financial decisions with tax payer monies regarding multicultural programs.
Not one of the ten was willing to vote against it, even though they knew it would harm the small nonintegrated violent culture it was giving money to, and waste tax payer monies. Privately, they felt it was immoral, but no one was willing to risk his or her career and be logical, at the risk of being "hateful."
The power of a word!
Before you condemn police, consider that orders come from the top. When they know that if they intervene and protect a citizen, that they will be called "racist" or "phobic", and even face loss of job, or arrest, they, too, must feed their families.
Political Correctness comes from Politics.
I am not a meteorologist, but I do know deception when I see it.