The husband, Davey, made many statements and was interviewed on television shortly after the murder.
Police eventually arrested and charged 3 gang members with her murder.
Blackburn, as husband, had a strong alibi: he was at the gym when the home invasion and murder took place.
It appears that he was not polygraphed.
His language shortly after the murder shocked the public.
I have heard two dismissals of Blackburn's words, both using the ideology:
1. He did not grieve his losses and concentrated on numbers because he loves lost souls so much.
This was to defend his bizarre language using the ideology.
the second is equally wrong:
2. His language was due to his ideology. It is not that he is showing guilt, or even a need to be found among others in a plurality to assuage guilt, it is just that he sees himself and his 'god' in such close proximity that it went into the intuition of pronouns.
Both of these claims dismiss the analysis due to the ideology that Blackburn affirms.
Both of these claims are wrong as I will exhibit in this lengthy article about ideology.
To understand much of the language used by the victim's husband in the Amanda Blackburn murder, it is essential to grasp the ideology. This is true in any analysis, though it is often not noticed until a cold case is presented:
Ideology; culture; behavior; language. The language is not reality, but the subject's verbalized perception of reality.
I will give an overview (general) of the ideology first,
then, I will raise the question:
Is the husband's affirmation of this ideology done in a deceptive manner?
Lastly, I will bring forth analysis of his language, while referencing the ideology in a separate article.
Why the need to show the ideology first?
It is more than to just understand his language; which is important enough.
There is something far more important in this murder case where the statistics tell us that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the number one suspect is the husband/father of the child.
Much of what the victim's husband has said has been dismissed due to the ideology that produced it. This is to show ignorance, both of criminal analysis, and of the personality embracing a specific ideology who deliberately exploits it. Here, we will take a basic look at the ideology and then the subject's view towards the ideology and how this may impact the analysis.
The central question is this:
Is the subject honest or deceptive, regarding his use of the religious ideology that he publicly espouses?
Is he honest about it? This is vital for analysis of this case; not is he 'incorrect' about any part of the ideology, but is he deliberately altering, deleting, adding, or outright changing that which he states is unalterably divine? To affirm divine origin is not only to affirm inerrancy, but it is to hold something to a level of "sacred"; that is, set apart from all else.
Is he, somehow, deceptive, which means, 'knowingly' changing the ideology for a specific purpose. Is this purpose narcissistically based?
If so, it provides strong insight into his personality and subsequent language.
In researching this element, these factors must be present:
*The ideology must be believed (and stated) to be of divine origin. This means it is unchanging truth, given to us by God, and cannot be changed or altered to fit human opinion. Truth, by definition, is not impacted by external influences, including time. For what I am looking for here, the premise must be that the ideology of the victim's husband is that it is divine truth which cannot be altered.
What type of personality element can claim that their ideology is of divine origin yet alter it, or even have a need to alter its presentation, in spite of believing it to be divine?
*The alteration must not an error, misunderstanding, or disagreement. The alteration must be deliberate.
If one says "this ideology is divine" and then adds, subtracts or does any alteration of it, in application, presentation, or core belief, the personality is being revealed to the audience, and where the self places his view in comparison to divinity. In a murder case, it is vital.
It is as to say, "God is good; but I, that is, me, myself, I am better" in a sense of narcissism that is all but impossible to contain, even by the most talented egotists. The filter simply gives way once he enters the free editing process of speech where he chooses his own words.
Question for consideration: Does Blackburn alter the ideology, in any way, to fit a specific agenda that belongs uniquely to him?
This alteration can be in design, scope, presentation or application, but it must be deliberate, of which I offer a few examples, which would then allow us to gain some insight into the personality.
We also need to have a basic grasp of the ideology to understand the language in a deeper, more concise manner for the purpose of analysis.
By understanding the ideology, we may be given insight into personal conflict within the victim's husband.
This now will give you insight into the element within the personality. We must step back in ideology, and then on to the subject's variant on this ideology including any cultural 'adjustment' or compatibility towards it. This, alone, will provide insight into the personality and temperament of the one person who has done much to foster suspicion that he is connected to the murder, though the case may be 'closed' by police.
Please consider that everyone is under the influence of an ideology whether we embrace it or not.
If you were raised in "Western civilization", Judeo Christianity, as an ideology, shaped your own thinking, inherited from your parents, who inherited this from their parents, and so on, regardless of the element of "faith" or personal conviction. Even if you do not believe in either Judaism or Christianity, you are a product of a Judeo-Christian culture, that is, the practical and measurable outworking from the ideology from the Bible.
It does not mean you believe in the Bible nor claim to be Jewish or Christian. It means you were raised in a culture that had its roots in the Bible's ideological positions, even as, generationally, the culture shifts further and further away from it. Today, it may be fair to estimate, Judeo Christian ideology is no longer the influence it has been, but in many ways, it is even despised, even as some have altered it to make it culturally compatible. Yet, even in a 'post Christian' generation, its influence remains with us. The fascinating element of this alteration is that they still claim the ideology to be "divine", meaning, it needs no change, no dressing up, no persuasion, and so on, to be relevant because the divine message, if divine, is perfection, and without "need to persuade" found outside itself.
In other words, if it is divine, those who alter it, even if in presentation, are showing great weakness. They either do not believe it is divine, or...
they note that 'divinity needs help' and you can guess just who it is who is bright enough to offer divinity a hand.
Now, if divinity 'needs help', can you guess the personality that is willing to 'fix divinity' to make it relevant or culturally compatible today?
This is essential in understanding the history of thought (and language) and where specific arguments come from.
For example, if you dwell in relative safety between your neighbors on the left and neighbors on the right, this may be due to a cultural external adherence to "thou shalt not" of Judeo Christian thought. To dismiss this as 'common sense' is to deny one's own history and to show ignorance of how others, in other cultures, think about this.
Here is a more practical and easier to spot example:
While at work, when you are insulted or humiliated and withhold your anger, it is as a result of culture which was shaped by an ideology that prized self-governing of your emotions. You presented an idea at your work in which one person disagreed and when you asked him why he disagreed, he ridiculed your appearance, or some arbitrary position, while avoiding giving any practical reason for his disagreement.
You remained silent and were viewed as 'strong' in your position; admired by coworkers.
Other ideologies (and the subsequent cultures) would not admire you for your restraint, but would hold you in contempt for your weakness. This is a basis of the Islamic ideology and its impact upon eastern culture. What we saw in Cologne was not so much misogyny, (though rape is) but a powerful contempt of European men who are incapable or unwilling to protect their women, lest they be called names such as 'racist' or 'right wing' or now, the new insult, 'nationalist.'
The same event has two very different opinions due to differing cultures, which are due to very different ideologies which impacted the cultures.
When you show a sense of justice; you are not a 'blank slate' of 'new ideas' but as a result of your upbringing, your parents' upbringing, their parents' upbringing, and so on and how they were influenced by the world around them. Example:
The 'West' loves children. Think of 'nativity' scenes where they bow down before a child in a manager, and how they talk of childhood innocence and such. This is juxtaposed next to Islamic nations where children are human shields, strapped with bombs, or used for propaganda purposes by migrants.
This photo is upsetting to the western mind. To the Islamic mind, there is nothing wrong, nor inappropriate about it, and they question why this would upset any western male. To them, it is the cultural outworking of the Koran's teaching of the value of woman.
|Iconic photo of Islamic culture invading Europe|
All throughout northern Africa, the middle east and parts of Asia, women and children are denigrated culturally even though these are different peoples, nations, tribes and languages. What is the common denominator? The ideology; Islam.
Westerners project their culture onto a people who hold the ideology of the west in contempt. It does not work.
Let's take a look in American culture and ideology and see the waning influence of Judeo-Christian thought.
Another example is the Titanic Society that heralded the "women and children first" ideology that is distinctly opposite of the dominant Islamic ideology that encompasses much of the world. The notion that "women and children" are placed first is due to the physical weakness of both. Rather than "survival of the fittest" (including Marxism today), the distinctly Judeo-Christian thought is that when one is given strength, he is expected to sacrifice his strength to protect those without. This was the historical definition of "masculinity" that arose from the ideology. A "patriarchal" society, in this definition, meant that the male sacrifices for the female. It has been redefined to mean male exploitation of the female, as ancient ideological beliefs are now replaced with "more progressive" beliefs, which are not, as claimed, new to history.
Here is a rather superficial example, yet for analysis, it is important.
In the late 50's, Elvis shook his hips on TV and was roundly condemned for being "vulgar" because the culture (outworking of ideology) felt that sex was personal and private. The word "obscene" means 'off-stage' or 'private.' Today, this same video clip is used for humor to ridicule another culture. It was not that sex was wrong, it was private and the performer was mimicking in public that which the culture held as private. It was 'in the wrong place' but not wrong, itself.
|Not exactly Madonna's dog|
Let's say you were assigned a cold case of a murder where the subject was a young teenager when he heard his parents' anger at Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show. He was impacted by something you are not impacted by. You need to enter the 'shoes' of the subject who was raised to believe that Elvis was, in deed, vulgar, though you, the reader/analyst, may not personally agree. If you cannot 'see' what the subject 'sees', you might completely miss valuable elements. This was the recent work done by our top analysts in a cold case murder investigation of which I expect a conviction.
When a pregnant woman is murdered, statistics point to the husband/boyfriend/father of the child.
To understand the language of Davey Blackburn, look at:
1. The ideology
2. The culture
3. His public reaction to the ideology
4. His public reaction to the culture
5. Any contempt of the ideology.
Remember: he is a professional public speaker. His business is that he sells an ideology and has stated his desire to see his audience grow.
Then, take yet another look at his language: It is intended to be understood. When he was alone, and used the word "we", it was not a signal of psychosis, nor was it a belief that it was him and Jesus. This is a bit of a journey, but for those who wish to learn analysis, it is indispensable. It is why I have been prompting study of Islamic ideology, Islamic culture, and the criminal outworking of both. It is an excellent exercise for those who wish to become analysts. Listen to Dr. Nicolai Sennels, for example, as a criminal psychologist who treats Muslim men in Dannish prisons. He was given an amazing education over the years as he learned that their thinking and subsequent impulse was nothing like his own nor the average European. I disagree, personally, with some of his ideology, but respect his study.
Those who, for example, can only project their own thought and culture, cannot work cold cases from yesteryear when culture was different from our own. (they fail for a variety of reasons not listed here but of the same theme: projection). The dramatic shift (rapidity) today, whether due to political influences and/or the speed of transmission of information, means we must adapt to analyze.
You must hear Blackburn from Blackburn's own language.
I ask readers to attempt to understand this ideology apart from any personal belief or faith. No disrespect is intended in the language, nor in the punctuation. It is an attempt to bring understanding and clarity to 'enter into the shoes of the subject.'
I would like all readers to consider, for this analysis, that Judaism and Christianity are utterly false superstitious stories in an attempt to explain that which cannot be explained, though every human asks the question as to "why" they are in existence. I want them to view the ideology separate from belief, faith, loyalty, and so on. This is an exercise for analysis and it is about moving deeply into language; language nurtured by culture, born of ideology. It is a hypothetical exercise, similar to what we do in expectation to every statement we approach.
What you are being asked to do is this:
Is Davey Blackburn, husband of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, true to the ideology he sells, or is he one who knowingly and purposefully does 'violence' to the ideology to pursue his own personal goals and agenda?
This is not "Is Blackburn perfect?" as a question. No human is.
This is not "Is Blackburn correct in his understanding?" as a question.
The best human beings fail in all things in life. These failures are spectacularly published when one claims to be a Christian though they are the failures that the accusers, themselves, participate in without public reproach.
When you meet a perfect family, you are meeting one that hides their frailties well. When you hear of the perfect marriage, you are hearing elements of fiction. The Bible's books that are biographical are considered unique as they never present anyone (sans Christ) in a perfect (or even good) light whereas biographies throughout history have traditionally been white washed, lest they are "tabloid tell alls" of today.
We are in a murder case analysis.
It matters not if we disagree about this understanding or that understanding. We are interested in his understanding, the subject, himself, and what he does (or does not) do with it. I see the evidence of emotion in the comments of this case. There is deep shame, embarrassment, anger over misrepresentation, as well as the usual anger of believing this to be a miscarriage of justice.
The Basic Ideology
It is difficult in choosing the distinctives within this ideology, so I have chosen some basics, and, most deliberately, I have chosen some that are provocative as they are in direct opposition to what is culturally accepted today. This is vital to our analysis: where the ideology is in conflict with popular opinion today.
Short Historical Sketch
In the middle east, a man of no renown, education, money, nor place in society, stepped into the pages of history and made stupendous and exhaustively intolerant claims. This was more than 20 centuries ago, predating modern methods of communication, including the printing press, cameras, video and the internet. Word of mouth and carefully copied parchments alone would rehearse his biography and ideology.
He claimed that the entire religion of the tiny nation of Israel, "Judaism" was all about him. He claimed to be present at creation where it is written "Let us make man in our image" (Elohim, plural), in the establishment of all living things. He claimed that each book in the collection of ancient works that had been used to construct the tiny nation's laws, were written about him and that each ceremony and even historical event, reflected, mirrored or had at its essence, him. He claimed that predictions made, over the course of centuries, in different languages and by different authors, was accurately fulfilled in him, from his birth, exact geographical location, chronology, betrayal, trial, to the actual detailed forensics of his death, hundreds of years prior to the event. He claimed to be the unique fulfillment of every prediction.
To have such an impact as He has, we note his His career was very short; about 3 years. He claimed not simply to know God, but to be God, as the unique Son, and this, his view point, was utterly intolerant. He claimed to be the exclusive avenue of access to God and that every other means was to indicate deception and fraud.
He also made historical predictions, including the destruction of the famous temple, and the utter description of Jerusalem, 70 AD, by Titus of Rome, giving both dating and detail which, 40 years later, happened as predicted.
He gave revolutionary ideas to the small crowds and the distinctions are well known. Justice would be limited and mercy endorsed. We grew up, whether we believed (faith) in this ideology or not, influenced by it. Our nation was founded upon its influence and its influence was in all of the textbooks of the schools, as well as in the legal language of the founding (s) of the country. Oaths of allegiance were sworn to him by those elected as rulers and even in the legal language of colony, territory and state constitutions, he was referenced.
He taught and upheld the Old Testament (Judaism) and His explanation of its meaning, pointing to Himself as the fulfillment of all the promises, and then gave explicit instruction to 12 men to spread His message. He predicted his trial, death and that he would live again.
On the third day after his illegal trial and execution, eye witnesses claimed to have seen him, at different times, and by different numbers of eye witnesses. This added a little more than a month to his overall short career.
This poor obscure blue collar man from the middle of nowhere, 20 centuries ago, claimed to be complete "king" over every nation on earth. His rule was also laid out: his followers were to spread His ideology by example of doing good to others, with the consequence of rejection being eternal rejection, but not temporal, nor violent.
The entire Western world was forged with this powerful and revolutionary ideology. To "treat one as you want to be treated" was, in history, something that was revolutionary and in lands where it was accepted, progress was seen. The list of "thou shalt nots" put great restraint upon mankind. Even the "eye for a eye" was shocking, as it limited justice in a most violent and dark world. He predicted that his followers would be hated and persecuted, which began in earnest shortly after his death and was the norm for more than 300 years where those who held to this ideology suffered horrific deaths. Even so, the ideology grew.
He was obscure and his local fame, numerically small, was resented by politicians and religious leaders who felt the best way to end the revolution was to kill him. This became the norm for society, including the powerful Roman empire who would, for hundreds of years, make those who embraced (faith, belief) the obscure man's ideology, targets for violent and cruel death. Eventually, a merger of his ideology and Roman culture took place.
How violent was the world outside of this ideology?
Did you see the movie, "Gladiator"? In one seen, after a brutal battle in which the Roman legion invaded Europe for the purpose of exploitation, the lead character, a general, was asked what he wanted to do next in life. He stated that he wanted to go home and raise crops with his wife and son, of whom he had not seen at length. As an invader of foreign lands, he said that he had "seen the rest of the world and Rome is the light!"
Rome had many Jewish slaves and were influenced by the ideology that came from Israel. If you view the complex ceremonial descriptions you see the basic ingredients of soap, for example. In the movie, we view Rome as 'horribly violent' with the multitudes enjoying violence as entertainment and the brutal chattel slavery as its norm. Yet, this movie had much historical and linguistical accuracy. Rome, which had brutal slavery, was not as dark as the rest of the world. The ancient world was far more violent. As the Judeo-Christian ideology spread, things changed, but where there was little or no Judeo-Christian ideology there was almost indescribable brutality.
|The search for Dr. Livingstone|
Early slave traders, fame seekers, missionaries and those who simply loved exploration, wrote first hand accounts of African villages that is close to being unreadable. The writers were of varying motive, which makes it better for us to read, but what did they write? What was the world outside of this ideology like? A typical description of a village in Africa, for example, showed that slavery was the norm, with 70% of a village in slavery, and that food stores had specific meat selling, with human meat being the most expensive. One slaver-wanna be wrote that he watched a fat girl run through a pathway where men jumped her, tore her apart, and ate her alive. Another wrote that one wealthy owner was having friends over for a dinner and did not have enough meat. His most loyal slave volunteered to be the host's main course, due to his 'devotion' to his master.
They found no books, no poetry, no literature, no plays, theaters, hospitals, nor schools, and this was similar wherever in the continent they landed. Missionaries lamented that they could not convince the native Africans "thou shalt not kill", as it seemed bizarre and silly to them. The cruelty they exhibited one to another, especially to children, was unwatchable, but it was their norm. If a baby developed teeth in one side of her mouth before the other, she would have to brutally killed to appease the 'gods' they feared. Although locale by locale the beliefs changed, brutality and filth, with little reverence for life, was the same. The white man who came as a missionary was targeted by the Africans because, they learned quickly, he was destructive to the lucrative slave trade. He was targeted by Africans, Arab slave traders, and European slave traders besides the general danger from cannibalism that was the norm in the entire continent. Please consider the number of missionary deaths, including family, as well as their testimony of celebration over just one convert to their ideology. This is something Christians point back to proudly, and must be compared to Blackburn's anger at his followers' failure to meet his pre-set target for numbers "even though" some people professed conversion. This was stated in the form of minimal comparison, structurally. It also showed what topic (failure) would produce the pronoun "I" for him.
If European descendants wish to consider themselves superior to the Africans, one only need to consider some of the testimonies of the Roman invaders to see filth, brutality, and 'the law of the jungle', that is, the survival of the strongest, to know that my background, Irish, for example, without the influence of Judeo-Christian ideology, was as brutish as any other in Europe, which was similar to the barbaric African.
In fact, this beginning is something we all share in common.
As this obscure middle eastern man's ideology spread, it was accepted, in measure; (some higher measure, some lower), while some mixed with the local culture. Improvement in life was slow, but steady, with some setbacks, errors and then recoveries.
Yet, today, the world around us has been utterly shaped by the ideology presented, so much so, that it divided the world into 2 basic parts: those areas that accessed his ideology and those which did not.
In general, those that had this ideology went on to create "Western civilization" with advances completely beyond any and everything else, especially at the major turning point of the Reformation, including:
Equal rights, innovation, freedom, Shakespeare, Architecture, Music, Bach and Beethoven, justice, dignity, human rights, and led to the most bizarre human experiment ever conducted; the founding of a new nation, of all immigrants, that would come to, in short order, be the most dominant and powerful nation in history. This was unprecedented. America stood alone having its foundation from the flow of intelligence out of England, where the early charters of the settlements (colonies, states) professed loyalty to the single middle eastern man who lived almost 2000 years prior, and had the short, 3 year career.
It is interesting to note that innovation, itself, is prized by western civilization, while Islamic nations see the 7th century as the "golden age" and hold no noble thoughts of innovation, outside of pragmatism.
This does not mean that everyone was Christian, nor even claimed to be, but that the basic ideology drove the general population, while the nations and continents that did not have this ideology, did not advance, but remained well behind, impoverished, rife with criminal violence, and so on. The "Protestant Work Ethic" became a driving force of innovation and the age of exploration was fueled not only by the desire for wealth, but under this sole man's marching orders to spread his message to the utter parts of the world. Some went out to spread the message, while others, under the guise of spreading the message, went for wealth, no matter how gained, including theft and murder.
In history, killers and despots have used the ideology to justify killing and abuse, but this, too, was in contradiction to the ideology. Even the rules of engagement in war, how Prisoners of War were to be treated, and how treaties would be conducted, were influenced by this ideology.
It is interesting, for example, to listen to UK's comedian Pat Condell, as he decries the illogical destruction of his homeland by criminal Islamic ideology and feminism's castrative impact.
Listen to his reasoning on his pointed you tube videos and watch his argument develop:
He takes Judeo Christian ideology and employee it to argue why Islam is counter productive and when his argument is complete, (and successful) he turns and condemns Judeo Christianity. He borrows from it, has inherited a culture influenced by it, and speaks its language, while then condemning it. Again, coming from the position of historical thought, it is fascinating, and another example of a talented performing intellectual narcissist making videos to analyze.
The Middle Eastern Man's Morals
It can be argued as such: if there is no god, and jesus was a liar, and all of this simple superstition, history has never produced a more conducive ideology for prosperity, freedom, health and safety than the ideology that the obscure middle eastern man presented 20 centuries ago.
As an atheist, who would you rather live next door to?
One who 'knows' that the only possible consequence from breaking into your house is the possibility of getting caught by police or...
The one who not only fears the same consequence of being caught by police, but has a 'superstitious' belief that in doing so, he will be punished when he dies?
In Statement Analysis in hiring, we have a visible barrier to theft and exploitation: video cameras, eye witnesses, forensic computer footprints, and so on.
It is not enough.
We see those who also have the invisible barriers, such as the tender conscience, taught in childhood, that theft and exploitation are morally wrong, and have a negative internal consequence upon the employee.
The results for businesses are amazing; not just less theft, but less unemployment, less fraudulent claims, and an increase in morale, which leads to an increase in sales.
While young and strong, it is easy to dismiss anything about the afterlife; but not so easy when one gets older, as the philosophers lament and envy those of faith, while in advanced years, getting older, slower, with more limitations, aches, pains and ability to enjoy life; looking forward to...nothing. This is why I wrote earlier, that the question of "why?" in life is asked by all thinking human beings.
It is fair to say that Jesus Christ was either Who He said He was, or he is history's greatest liar and perpetrator of fraud. Please presuppose in the analysis that the victim's husband asserts the former.
This is an overview of the ideology publicly espoused and used in business by the victim's husband. I wish for readers, again, to separate themselves from belief or faith and consider the business side:
The husband of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, works full time to sell the ideology of the middle eastern man, for a living. Like most men, he works, and wants to be successful in what he does. This is a 'neutral' for analysis. In analyzing employment applications, we look for employment motive: earning money, building a resume, gaining experience, and so on, are all appropriate motives for seeking a job. In the case of Blackburn, he has spoken extensively about this business aspect:
He has allowed us to know, in analysis, what his priority is. This will be revisited in the actual analysis of the statements, but it is easy to assert now, to anyone who has either listened to him or read his statements, his priority is numerical success in his business. It was in his most immediate statement made to his "fans" (his word) when Amanda was murdered, and it was not only analyzed as a priority due to order, but repetition and context. It is an overwhelming priority, so much so, that it, alone, caught the attention of the public with such questions as, "How could he be talking about publicity for his church while his wife's killers are on the loose?" and "Why does he care about these things while his baby is murdered and...?" and so on.
The defense is to use the middle eastern man's ideology, is it not? Have we not heard something along these lines? "He is so concerned for the souls of others that he concentrates..."?
Have we not heard dismissal where some say he is so 'delusional and lost in religion that you cannot take his words seriously'?
These are two attempts to discredit the analysis of the murder case; one from within, and the other from without, the ideology itself.
Deception Within the Ideology
What about those who "change the rules"?
There have been murderous rulers who have committed atrocities in the name of the ideology but in doing so, they were deceptive. They were not commanded in the ideology to steal and if you get beyond the propaganda of wars, you will find at all the non Islamic wars there was a consistency beneath motive:
Money, land, power...Greed.
"I will have my tariffs!" from Lincoln, led to 600,000 dead. Eventually, the argument from tariffs went to "save the union" and eventually slavery. Lincoln's racist statements are all but forgotten in history books today, and even the Emancipation Proclamation is edited for not fitting the narrative today.
England had freed its slaves without the need for bloodshed.
"We need living space!" Hitler, though he began with a false flag bearing in Poland and had to "intervene" to "save" the innocents. If you were a citizen of Germany in 1939, you read daily accounts that made your blood boil with anger: innocent German citizens being attacked by criminal elements within Polish society, manipulated by Polish aristocracy, while Jews were profiting from the blood shed. You believed main stream media and you wanted your government to intervene. You knew nothing of Hitler's plans of theft and death. (Another good reason to study deception detection)
Generally, but not always, the invader or aggressor, was the guilty party, and generally, too, was the quest for wealth, including power that generates wealth, or land that generates wealth. Religion becomes the pre text and cover for greed.
This is to go directly against all those unique "thou shalt nots" in Judeo Christian ideology. If you live in relative peace thinking that while you are at work that your neighbors will not enter your home and steal, it is because an ideology of "thou shalt nots" became part of a culture and even if only superstition, you have benefited from it.
If you argue that this cultural or ideological influence is in wane, you are not going to meet many who will disagree. It is said that "Democracy only works" with people of good will. Your neighbor may not break into your house and steal, but he might hack your computer and steal, or file a false lawsuit against you as the influence is in retreat. Prisons filled, and once where the Protestant Work Ethic meant personal, internal responsibility, socialism and government dependency re-defines what "compassion" is, for the purpose of voting blocks.
Judaism gave the origin of marriage, plainly, by painting a portrait of nature, with first plant life, bearing "seed after its kind", so that an orange tree reproduced an orange tree, and then on to animals, so that a horse would "bring forth after its kind", a 'baby' horse. Then it was time for man in the creation account of this ideology, with "woman" taken from the man, with the pronunciation of what marriage is. "Therefore a man shall leave his family and cling to his wife and they shall be one..."
Marital laws have, in following this, not only affirmed this definition but added limits (which came from the same ideology) including any union that would harm the offspring, such as siblings.
The very word "husband" only works as it relates to one created to react to the design of the male. In statement analysis, it is a dependent word, indicating that while used, another thought is in play. One can "husband" only a female, with scientific reciprocal physiology; physically and emotionally, in the historical and creative definition of "marriage."
We, today, have re-defined the word "marriage" as a cultural shift. It puts things into perspective:
The middle eastern man's ideology affirms the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" exclusively. If you make public claim to represent this man's ideology (which presupposes Divine Authorship) yet are willing to publicly oppose his ideology, for the purpose of profit, it is a form of 'deception', which is commonly called "hypocrisy", but has powerful emotional elements within it regarding truth and exploitation.
Consider this: someone who claims to be a "minister" (professional) of this ideology cannot say "it is divine" and then affirm a new definition of marriage, and be truthful. If it was divine, it was perfect, is perfect, and cannot be altered. If it was human, it could have been wrong, and the change acceptable.
This, too, begs the question, Why not embrace a different ideology that one is more comfortable with? Why the need to do violence to this particular historic ideology and demand it yield to personal agenda? This is a question repeated due to its importance. What kind of personality is willing to claim divinity and then claim authority over the divine ideology? This is not one who does not understand, or is in error to the ideology. It must be deliberate in order to be deceptive.
This is where 'truth seekers' end up; an almost indifferent external view that observes and questions. The relevancy is critical in the investigation into the murder of Amanda Blackburn. The re-definition of "marriage" is just a sample of deception by those who claim the ideology has divine inerrant origins. It is not a disagreement of interpretation; it is to make an entirely different claim on a statement.
My assertion here, in context, is about a specific psychological form of deception that takes a unique personality type to employ.
II. Ideology and Deception
It is fascinating to listen to people who want to 'own' as theirs the ideology of this obscure man from 20 centuries ago, but at their own recipe. These are those who see the claims, know the claims, but deliberately present deception. This deception is by re-defining language, which is to pass counterfeit currency, linguistically, or by 'amputation', which is to directly contradict the claims of that man's own claims.
If they do not agree with the man, why not simply adopt another ideology entirely?
It seems genuine to say, "Christianity limits sexuality to heterosexuality; therefore, I have no need of it" than to say, 'that's not what it really teaches" or "jesus and the apostles did not have the understanding of genetic sexual attraction as we do today" which assaults his claim to be God and his word being perfection.
Statement Analysis: "thou shalt not lie with man as with woman..." as a prohibition that is from Judeo-Christian ideology. A truthful one can say, "I do not agree" and be done. A deceptive person has a need to deceive and change the intent of meaning. This refers to a specific personality type.
What happens when this deceptive personality type has talent?
What happens when this deceptive and talented personality type has a single-minded obsession for something?
Most people have respect for honest disagreement.
I've had fascinating discussions and interviews with homosexuals who have said, "Of course I am not a Christian. Christianity is against my belief in my sexuality." Yet others have said "I am a Christian. The Bible didn't really mean that..." and retail the deceptive responses they have heard from others.
It is not Statement Analysis of the texts.
This is why I often state that Statement Analysis has a "freeing" affect; we let the statement speak for itself; what is true is true; what is not true, is not. It is as if we are outside looking in, with scientific indifference.
Some have made the latter claim due to ignorance of the ideology.
Others have made the claim while knowing the ideology. This brings us closer to what it is we need to find out.
Honest Debate Versus Willful Destruction
There are lots of issues that faith debates over, but issues that are debated are done so to learn. When one takes a plain, "thou shalt not" and say, "no, that is wrong, it should say, thou shalt!" while claiming to hold to the ideology do so as one who deceives. He may deceive himself, or he may put himself in a public position (such as in a business to sell this ideology) and knowingly state:
1. The Bible is Divine
2. The Bible is Wrong
3. Please come to my business establishment where I share this ideology
4. I am superior to Divinity
In other words, they know what ideology A teaches, but instead of simply disagreeing with it, and moving on to ideology B, or C, they demand ideology A bend to their own beliefs or bias.
This is where the personality must be in view of the one who takes upon himself (or herself) the public bearer of the ideology of the man from the middle east 2000 years ago.
This is why it is important to highlight topics of disagreement in this pre-analysis study.
Another example. The ideology and women 'business owners' of the ideology:
1. The ideology claims to be divine; therefore inerrant. It cannot be wrong and it cannot be changed by time, culture, or any outside influence. Truth remains what it is.
2. The middle east man behind it chose 12 men to carry his ideology to the world. They, in turn, kept the leadership restricted to men.
3. The ideology forbids woman to be pastors.
4. The ideology reported why this prohibition existed.
5. The ideology said that the prohibition was not due to culture.
Therefore, if I am a woman and I want to be a public representative of this ideology, I am faced with some choices.
I can, of course, be honest and say that I will find a different ideology to cling to. I disagree with this middle eastern man's ideology, though it has many fine points, because it excludes me. I will find something else to sell...or
a. Ignore the ideology as temporary solution until challenged;
b. Oppose the ideology by various arguments including-the ideology is wrong, which then leads to, the "what if?" problem.
One cannot claim divinity and error and be truthful.
This then leads to the genuine question that says, "Why not find a different ideology to follow?"
Instead, we find people willing to publicly demand the ideology change to fit their own personal bias. This is heightened if the person wishes to publicly 'sell' the ideology as a business. The business owner wants to make money off of the ideology which he states is of divine origin, yet:
'The ideology, which claims to be divine, will bend to my will.
This takes a very specific personality type. It is not the personal or private opinion that I address, but one who is making a public declaration against the ideology while making a public declaration to represent the ideology.
This next part is a bit difficult to explain, but I attempt to do so in order to allow you, regardless of your own position in any of these matters, to enter into the shoes of the subject, who is a public figure, publicly stating to be a true representative of the middle eastern man's ideology.
This person is deceptive. It goes beyond what most people understand psychologically:
'This book is the Word of God; It cannot be wrong.
I know it says, "this", but I still choose "that" personally.
I do this because, in essence, I am smarter than God."
Any claim to state the Bible is the inerrant Word of God but then changes it to fit one's own bias or agenda, is to show a personality that is not only unafraid of lying, but he (or she) unafraid of lying publicly, and even unafraid of divine retribution. Take this a quantum leap further and place the person as one who, publicly and professionally (for money) asserts the ideology in his 'business' or church setting.
Even if you believe it is all fairy tales from thousands of years ago, you should be able to see the inconsistency in those willing to change the message in order to be popular or successful. Yet, can you see, from their own perspective, that they see themselves as superior to the god they claim to bow to?
For some, it is to claim the Bible to be God's Word, but it is "wrong" in limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
Truth is not changed by time. If something is true, it was true yesterday, and it will be true tomorrow. Consider that a minister studies philosophy, so these are not new assertions to them.
The ideology instructed him to teach the message. When someone claims the message to be authentically Divine, it is submitted to.
For another, it is to claim that the message is divine (note the capitalization change to reflect the internal) needs to be altered to fit the person's own agenda.
If the person adheres to the ideology being perfect, that is, 'complete' because it is divine, does not the person set himself up to be above the divine author?
Does this person now place himself as judge over the divinity?
It is easy to ask, 'Why not just embrace a different ideology altogether? Why not start her own?' because this would be genuine and being genuine, or true to one's own self, is something humans respect.
I do not speak to those in ignorance, nor those who have honest disagreements one with another: I want readers to see that there are those who know what it teaches, but are of a personality that demands the ideology change to fit his or her own opinion rather than adopting a different ideology.
They demand, for example, that 4,000 years of ideology change, instead of simply saying, "I am not a believer in Judaism or Christianity. I believe..."
These are people who deliberately "lie" about the ideology are revealing a personality type that is very important to get to know: profiling.
If the ideology says "thou shalt not lie with man as with woman" you can either:
1. Accept it
2. Linguistic gymnastics
3. Ignore it
4. Truthfully, condemn it and adopt a different ideology in a "live and let live" philosophy.
To be "truthful" would be to say, "Hey, I don't buy this. Therefore, I am not going to cling to this ideology started by a man from the middle east 2000 years ago. Instead, I will find something else more suited to what I like regarding a man having sex with a man."
This is truthful.
You may or may not like it, but it is authentic.
If Jesus claimed to be God, and God, by definition, cannot change nor be wrong, why not bail out instead of claiming to believe Jesus is God, but Jesus is also wrong?
*It takes a very specific element within a personality to place himself or herself above that which they consider divinity.
The answer is not singular, but I implore readers to consider one particular element. I recognize the hatred and the antagonism but in context, consider that those who alter the message may do so to personally profit from the ideology.
Readers come here for truth. They are, more than in other places, perhaps, open for the truth to be told than the general public. They want to hear what analysis shows.
"Hey, I'd like to have 3, maybe even 4 wives. I see that the precept in Creation says, "nope" to my idea, so I am going to adopt a different ideology so that I can practice polygamy. "
You may not like this person, but he is, in the least, being truthful. It is completely different from the person who says "I want multiple wives and the Bible teaches it." If (and the word "if" is critical) the subject knows the Bible both condemns polygamy while historically reporting it historically, he is deliberately twisting historical recognition to justify his own desire.
Over the years, I have had gay friends who have been open about this and I respect them for it. "I'm not interested in assaulting the beliefs of others; it is not for me."
"Why would anyone join a religion with so many restrictions, anyway?" This is a good question and an honest question. It is asked in sincerity.
It is not, however, the question for this analysis. It is sometimes helpful to see the shadow before we see the original.
It is most fascinating to see people who rush to an ideology that condemns them, demanding that the ideology bend to them, rather than they find something else to hold to. We see this in the news almost daily today, as it has become increasingly popular to hold people in faith in contempt and to call their sacred beliefs 'phobias' and 'immoral hatred' not while walking away from the ideology: but while walking into the ideology, with demands in hand.
There is something within the personality that lies in this manner.
If it says "thou shalt not", why not just be honest and start a new religion or ideology? Why the need to input oneself into something that disagrees?
Since this question has been posed several times for impact, it is now time to ask:
"What kind of personality walks into an ideology demanding it bend to fit one's emotions?"
Now we are moving closer to the object, away from the shadow.
We must consider it from a professional point of view.
There are a lot of reasons for this, but it is important to note those who are, publicly, willing to deceive even their own profession, for personal gain. This is what it comes down to: altering the message to propagate myself.
On the obvious level: It takes a very selfish person to do this, yes, but there is still more.
It takes a very selfish, and talented person, to do this and do it successfully.
Over the years, most, though not all, of the "televangelists" have done this very thing. They have a powerful desire for money, and fame makes money. Those who hold to the ancient ideology as "faith" or "belief", cringe.
Most of what is offered is accurate.
It is the drive for money, one way or another, that causes them to 'alter' the message even if it means creating an imbalance in the message.
Let's call these who change or alter the message knowingly to be "pragmatic" for the backdrop of this understanding.
These are individuals who use this man's ancient ideology for personal gain. They know that it is easier to get the masses to brace a bumper sticker slogan than complicated truth. They will say and do pragmatically whatever it takes to gain what they seek. This is almost always money, and when it appears to be fame or power, remember that these are steps towards wealth.
In the 1970's, there was an attempt to bring the "hippies" to Christianity.
What would be presented to them?
Consider the choice faced.
Person A says "I will deliver the same message as always, "Repent and live" and call them to live a life forgiven and now intent on keeping the "thou shalt nots", while "loving thy neighbor" and working hard to provide for self. As society has gotten more and more wealthy, this message has lost some of its popularity.
Person B says, "If I deliver the same message, few are going to come. Therefore, I will just present one particular side of the message and once they are in, then I will tell them the other side. So for now, I will tell them, "Be forgiven" but I won't tell them those "thou shalt nots" which turn them off. They want to do their own thing. I will tell them to "love their neighbor" but the word "love" needs a bit of tweaking."
Person C has been watching the others and he says,
"I see Person A has 10 people and is impoverished. I see Person B has 100 people and he is feeding his kids. I'd sure like to surpass him and get 200 people, so I will further "tweak" the meaning of "loving thy neighbor" and this 'jesus' that John the Baptist said would judge...he's got to go. The guy who went violent in cleansing out the temple...I will emasculate and instead, he is going to have long hair, because my hippie audience does this, and..."
The message of "repent" gave way to new "prosperity" messages and so humorous songs like The Rolling Stones' "Girl With Far Away Eyes" has a comical, but accurate look at the silly message that says if you send money to the evangelist, you're going to find wealth. The key is it is deliberate.
This ideology progressed in affluent America and with each wave of "political correctness", many willingly changed the teaching of the man's ideology and did so in a rush of competition.
When the person knows that what he or she is saying is in contradiction to the ideology but do it anyway, the person is lying and is doing so for profit margin.
Remember, lie detection has to do with intent. Simply repeating what one believes is not to lie, even when the information is incorrect.
When an English Iman said, "Islam is not consistent with democracy" he was countered by non Muslim English politicians who said, "that's not true."
The Iman told the truth. Love him or hate him, he was truthful, in a stark moment where he embarrassed the "multi cultural" politicians but he told the truth. He actually showed the influence of the UK's culture upon him. He was 'goaded' into the truth, instead of the cultural 'tacquia' that honors deception.
Baptist and Presbyterians have disagreements on baptism. These are genuine disagreements, but what of the personality who says,
"I know baptism, by either means, is in the Bible, but today, people hate the water thing, so I am going to change it and say, "there is no such teaching of baptism today. This was culturally due to...you know, how people in those days rode on smelly camels and they got camel poop on their, well on their heads if they were short, and in those days, everyone was short, so baptism was just needed to wash off the camel poop. Uh, check history. It's all there. In fact, in the original Greek, there were some words found in ancient philosophers that held to camel poop as sacred and it really caused disease so the church invented this baptism as a way of washing off the poop!"
The more intellectually clever the deceptive one is, the more he can explain off anything that might hinder his goal of fame and fortune. Here we come to the personality of pragmatic success, even while claiming the ideology to be of divine, unalterable character.
In understanding this murder case, you must see how powerful this pragmatism really is, no matter your opinion of Judaism or Christianity.
Many (not all) murderers feel a need to put their victim on trial, which both condemns the victim but it also justifies the action. This is crucial in analyzing a statement. It is found to slip into statements where accidental death is claimed.
"The baby wouldn't finish her dinner."
Now, she is dead, claimed as an accidental death.
In the Blackburn case, we had one who:
has embarrassed those who want justice for this case, with his change of Christianity, an ideology many hold sacred.
People have become obsessed with Amanda Blackburn's murder, which some interest can be explained in the obvious circumstances but there are other elements:
a. Blackburn's seeking of attention. This almost always triggers anger. No one likes being 'played the fool' with liars. Recall how anger brewed at Falcon Lake 'widow' who emerged from Falcon Lake, Texas, sans husband, with an outrageous theft of the modern "Titanic" hollywood version. She could barely contain her zeal, going from network to network, while the public insisted that she be polygraphed. She never was and even made it as far as the Governor's front steps. Attention seekers hold their audience in contempt, even if they are only appearing in an attempt to control information as was the case of Billie Jean Dunn, in the murder of her daughter, Hailey Dunn.
b. Blackburn's crass commercializing of her death.
This is key to understanding, not only who he is, but who we are. This irritated people and for some, gave them more resolution to learn the truth in this case.
In doing so, people of positions of justice-mindedness were (and are) enraged that he would take her death and use it for fame and subsequent fortune.
c. The circumstances, including:
1. Complaining about her publicly.
2. Telling the public how his business would be better without her
3. Making distancing and deceptive statements
4. Circumstantial Evidence including the conclusion of "no one can be this lucky!" from many seasoned investigators. The 'odds' of all of the factors coming together on the very day he did not lock the door and stayed on the phone, days after waving around a gun...
5. Flamboyancy as an irritant to audience seeking truth.
Some are likely obsessed with this case for all of the above, but have an additional emotional component: anger at one who holds their faith in contempt for the purpose of exploitation. In this sense, it is rather personal and it is reflected in the length of comments about this murder case.
Everything he says, does, and even in appearance, is not only flamboyant, but is designed to entertain, entice, convince and bring fame and fortune that numbers bring.
He is, at the core of his being, one obsessed with success and his chosen area for this end is the ideology of a middle eastern man from more than 20 centuries ago.
I suggest to you that Christianity, as an ideology, presents the perfect platform for exploitation by Blackburn, and all others like him, who know plainly, that they are presenting only portions of truth, changing other portions, and deliberately presenting to people a specific personal version of truth, pragmatically designed, to make him famous and wealthy.
This is all "justified" by the religious veneer.
Years ago there was a 'televangelist' who said 'God' told him people's woes and he would wow the crowd by revealing,
"Your aunt Polly is sick with cancer. She will be healed!" to the amazement of the subject and audience.
Later, it was found that he had a small blue-tooth pre-blue tooth like device in his ear and was exposed as a fraud.
He lost it all.
How gullible and vulnerable are Americans? He made it all the way back to TV. This does not affirm nor deny the ideology, but it does affirm the thief.
It is this justification that I hope readers will bear with this lengthy article and give consideration to, as I move from backdrop of ideology, to analysis.
My assertion is that these exploiters know and deliberately alter the message, present an imbalanced message, and withhold truth for the pragmatic purpose of personal gain, no matter what they feel needs to be changed. For some, it is mild changes, while for others, it is wholesale changes, but the common denominator is deception; that is, the willful knowing that what he (or she) is doing is contrary to the middle eastern man's ideology that is claimed to be perfection.
Next, consider the personality type who knows, lies, and goes public with it. Again, this is not one who is in error, but sincere; it is one who knows precisely what he is doing and does it, anyway.
How much talent does this deceiver have?
What of his presentation's design?
What does his language reveal as his priority?
For those who hold to this ideology in sincerity, differences are presupposed and accepted among people of good will; while recognizing how many are motivated by personal gain.
It is within the personality of one bold enough to:
1. Learn the Ideology
2. Deliberately twist, pervert, change, imbalance, manipulate the ideology for personal gain.
3. Have the nerve to go 'public' on a large scale, including fearlessness in the face of scrutiny
4. Remove any hinderance to this 'mission' for success.
5. Resolve: under the public scrutiny, the personality digs his heels in, no different than the liar who backs up his lie with yet another lie, rather than own the truth and admit fault.
I warn employers incessantly that liars will always put themselves before the material needs of their companies, as well as their employees and customers. Liars destroy. It is what they do. If one is a habitual liar, one has a trail of broken lives, broken promises, and losses for as long as they have practiced their deception.
From "King" to "weepie, effeminate affirming therapist"
When the 70's turned into the 80's and 90's, there was a disappearance of "Christ the King" and His rule over the nations, demanding repentance and obedience from them as His subjects, as He claimed the crown rights both for Himself, and from the Old Testament scriptures, while there was an appearance of a new 'jesus', who is not king, but weak, weeping, beggarly, just asking people to 'accept' him, and have some form of "personal relationship", as if they were having coffee together while seated in a sunny porch on a lazy day. This new 'jesus' existed to 'meet your needs'...what needs? "All" your needs. It is easy to do this by destroying context, and history. Blackburn is not the first, and he won't be the last to use pragmatism to promote his business venture. He is, however, very talented in what he does.
It takes a certain personality to first know the truth, and then to pervert it to fit a particular aim, but it takes someone with a deeper commitment to self to take the ideology, bear it in contempt, and then go "public" with it for personal gain.
This 'personal relationship' is presented in a sexualized manner, including tight pants, pop haircuts, and an overall "front and center" narcissism of a showman. It includes the open indictment of the victim, Amanda, to 'make a point' which statement analysis shows:
the need to persuade his audience that he has a powerful heterosexual drive for sex.
They produce studies and expensive workshops on how to grow their "business", with "example models" and "the latest techniques" on how to "grow your church", with the chief end being numerical success.
They are taught in seminars how to use the "bumper sticker" education so popular in the United States today where catch phrases supplant the hard work of education. This, too, is not new or unique to "the best is yet to come" we heard after the murder.
Remember the bracelets, "WWJD"? This stood for "what would Jesus do?" for teens who were at R rated movies. The inherent issue of this bracelet is that it is speculative and it encourages one not to study and learn. Instead of taking the time (and effort) to learn what Jesus did, and what He taught, and what His disciples taught, one could simply speculate. For some, "jesus" would steal, assault and even murder. This appeals to the lazy minded audience who craves entertainment over instruction.
Recall the sad account from the attorney who's client was being sentenced for armed burglary and assault listening to the client's mother and aunts "claiming in jesus' name!" that the guilty violent young man would "have the victory", which meant: he would get away with his crime. The attorney lamented that there was no prayer for the young woman he beat up, nor for victims in general. For them, this 'jesus' existed to bypass justice and help criminals remain as criminals and not learn from mistakes.
Without getting into what specifics Blackburn twists to further his cause, one can simply choose any video of his and instead of studying it, one can simply listen for a few minutes. There will be no argument. Better still? Look at several videos, just a few seconds of each, to get an even wider portrait. If you can listen, go to those with Amanda, or about marriage and note how often he talks about himself and his sexuality. How many times must he tell you that he is heterosexual before you ask, "Why the need to persuade?"
His presentation of an ideology, precious and sacred to some, is an affront.
This bothers people, all by itself, but to have video where he insults his victim, complains about his victim, and finally, waves a gun around, compounds with the inherent insult of public lies, to cause a powerful reaction within people; especially people who love the very words he twists or uses for exploitation. The murder case, itself, fascinates, but to give an in-depth analysis means to understand the ideology, and the 'violence' done deliberately to the ideology, as it reveals the personality.
Liars are destructive. This means that they destroy. It is what they do. "When push comes to shove..." always happens in life: push will come to shove and when it does, expect the liar to fulfill his pattern in life: he will protect himself with lies, even if it destroys others. He will also lie so that it destroys others. Get him some success and he will lie some more, but get him a lot more success in his ambitions and watch his ambitions grow to levels of ruthlessness.
Ruthlessness? Talk to those who have dared to disagree with Blackburn's mentor, the one who described Blackburn as sexy at Amanda's funeral.
Honest people lie.
When they lie, they hurt, they repair the damage but most impressively, they learn from their mistakes. When they hear a sermon, for example, about theft, they do not say, "I am glad I am not a thief", instead, they look within and say, "I told the ticket puncher that my daughter was 12 when she was 13. I stole" and seek to amend this, while learning from it. The 'shaming' of thievery, therefore, is something they found inspiring and helpful because they seem themselves as personally responsible and with the ability to change. Those that seek to blame others, blame society, blame external forces, cannot make such amendments.
These hear Blackburn's messages, or worse, watch his carefully choreographed video appearances, and they react with such words as "nauseating", "infuriating" and it fills them with a desire to see justice for Amanda, even though there are thousands of victims of murder that have not received justice.
They are particularly upset because he has deliberately invaded an ideology they hold sacred, for his own gain and state that the message he gives uses similar language from their ideology, but is very different.
My assertion is this:
The spouse of Amanda Blackburn has spoken a great deal. What he has spoken about the murder indicates deception. Some of the deception appears to be, in context, about sexuality. When this is coupled with his videotapes messages about his own sexuality, with its specific choreography and costumes, it further asserts deception about his much affirmed heterosexuality.
But that is not all.
He is one who is not afraid to deliberately tailor the ideology precious to many to fit his own agenda, nor is he afraid to talk about his agenda; he does it boldly. His wife had not yet been buried and he was already publicly celebrating an early success in his agenda of numerical success.
He is more honest and upfront about his "numbers" agenda than he is about his sexuality, and about what happened to Amanda, even though he talked a great deal about his own sexuality, on video.
To understand his language, and how he puts everything in the context of this ideology, you must first understand the ideology and then understand the personality type that is dishonest enough to alter the ideology to fit popularity and success. Then, you must see and estimate the measure of his intellect, along with his boldness in the face of scrutiny. These are all elements of personality emerging.
Take that another step up and see the boldness of one who not only isn't afraid of television and exposure, but seeks it.
Take that yet further: he can read analysis and still be unafraid to attempt to explain away that which is consistent with both guilt and deception.
Let's say that you were in a very unhappy marriage, even to the point where you considered lucky, blessed or fortunate to be freed, even in horrible circumstances, from this marriage.
Would you use such distancing language?
I affirm that you would not. In fact, you would feel guilt over having wanting a divorce. This is called "survivor's guilt" by some in psychology. "Why Amanda?"
If your wife, even if you wanted with all your heart and even your sexuality, wanted out of this marriage, was brutally murdered and the killers running free,
would you express no concern for your son, or your own life?
This article is written, in part, for those who foolishly dismiss human nature and say, "Davey was fearless because he trusted God" and "Davey did not mourn because he knew he would be with her again", and finally, "Davey's use of "we" is because he sees himself and Jesus as one."
He does not.
I assert that he sees himself as superior to Christ. I assert that he sees himself superior to the Apostles and to the message they carried. I assert that he feels the need to 'coach', and 'guide' and give a 'new presentation' to the ideology that he claims and believes to be divine and perfect.
He sets himself up above perfection.
This is a form of narcissism that is combined with a well above average intellect and a talent for deception, manipulation and persuasion. This is wrapped up within a desperation for relevancy that drives him to success. When he said that he would have been content with x number of congregants, this statement was, in the context of Christianity's ideology, an unnecessary statement. It is why we have "Negation" in Statement Analysis, and why that which is in the negative is elevated in importance of that which is in the positive.
He portrayed this number in the context of 'humbly accepting less', which is distinctly negative, and he did so in the wake of his wife's murder.
The more one speaks, the more we know.
If he knew his own ideology he would know that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
So from this abundance, I can simply count words.
How many times did he use Amanda's name?
I can do the same thing at the Amanda memorial service.
What did his mentor talk about?
The resurrection from the dead, as the ideology teaches, based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Question: How many times did you hear the word "resurrection" used from one who is ordained as a minster of this ideology? If you are familiar with the ideology, the resurrection from the dead is "front and center" not only ideologically, but at every funeral and memorial service where the subject represents the ideology.
How many words did he dedicate to tell us about the victim's husband's physical appearance?
He told us that something "wasn't right" about Blackburn and that the "fix" or "repair" would be a woman; Amanda.
My assertion is that this ideology, from an Israeli man of obscurity, more than 20 centuries ago, is used for personal gain; not as so much a primary motive, but also from a pragmatic viewpoint: to change whatever portion of the ideology that might hinder the goal.
Where the ideology teaches that there is joy in Heaven over one sinner repenting, we saw and heard the strong introduction of the pronoun "I" from Blackburn, berating his followers so that they would not celebrate any turning from sin to Christ, but because they failed to reach his expectation of numbers; a mandate he set, himself.
He is unafraid to challenge and change anything in order to accomplish his goal.
He told us that Amanda and her pregnancy hindered him from his goals just a few short years ago and from there, he went on to complain about his wife not fulfilling his heterosexual sex drive. How obsessed did he present himself?
He claimed that he could not "concentrate" on a dinner date with Amanda, lest he had sexual intercourse first.
This he gave to an audience of young people, including females, who could watch him strut back and forth, allowing their imaginations get ahead of them: perhaps they could satisfy him since she can't. Couple this with his complaints about her and you get the picture:
Focus upon him. Focus upon his sexuality. Him: good. Amanda: bad.
We listen very carefully for one to justify his own actions. See the short article on this where murderers sometimes play the role of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, of their victims, verbally.
Step back from this and place it all within the contextual language of the ideology of Judeo Christianity. Christianity actually gives him justification of his complaints.
What did he complain about her?
Was it about her ears? Her family? Her money?
Think of how he took complaints and indictments against her back to his twisted view of the ideology.
If one can, whether or not belief in Christianity is held, see the ideology, his alterations of the ideology and his use of it in his narrative, you can begin to understand the language and the analysis.
It is convenient, in hindsight, to say "we" is "me and jesus" yet Pronouns are intuitive and are used...
after making such a claim. When he returned, 6 months from the murder, the same pronoun pattern appeared, including distancing language and the dropped pronoun.
This is a talented, well above average intellect, and showman who has placed himself, naked, in the location of needing to be washed, with Divinity, Himself, having taken "instructions" from the Creator, to go out and receive his fame.
He is not delusional. "Crazy Davey", as his mentor called him, does have something "wrong" and that is "very wrong" with him, and it is something that his mentor said would be fixed by a "woman." He knows what he is saying, and he is consistent in both his priority and in his guilty use of pronouns.
This message, given 'off the cuff', that is, from the Free Editing Process, was a brilliant form of manipulation that included 'preparing the soil' for the message, taking authority over his father in law, his father-in-law's work, the entire congregation, and then to take his wife's murder to boldly give himself a status that demands either submission with all reverence, or... scorn.
Whether you or I believe him, his message, or in Judaism or Christianity, is not relevant here.
It is what he believes.
It is within his assertion.
Those more familiar with the ideology can have a better understanding and insight into the spouse of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, when he speaks.
It comes down to this:
Is he true to the ideology?
Does he affirm the ideology to be perfectly divine, only to set himself up, slightly above it, for the purpose of achieving his personal agenda of success?
How far will he go while driven for success.
He told us.
Amanda died so the church would live.
Consider this, aside from blasphemy.
Consider that this was the claim of Jesus Christ. Years later, Paul pointed to science.
A tiny seed must be given a burial and from this burial in the ground new life would come, highlighting that humans, too, with all life, experience life from death, in the resurrection. The little tomato seed is buried in the dirt as to 'die' symbolically, with 4 months later, a 5 or 6' plant yields much fruit.
Amanda died for the church, he claimed.
She was not dead but a few days and he already was counting the 'tomato' production, to the point of giving an actual number of people who tuned in to the memorial via the internet.
Do you see what he is doing?
This is a form of justification of her death. It uses specific language from an ideology of which he sets himself up as "over" it, or superior to it; in need of his theatrics, as well as his picking and choosing which to emphasize and which to withhold.
Distinctly within this narcissistic like personality trait is a belief that he is superior to the god he claims to represent. He takes the ideology for business success reasons, and alters it to fit his compulsion and drive for the fame and fortune of numerical success.
Whether this is done in theatrics of presentation, or by imbalance, it is clear that the analysis of his priority is correct. When facing the greatest tragedy a man can face: losing his own "person"; that is, one half of the "full person" that Creationism teaches, his response was to happily report the numbers coming in. "Jesus" is just a buzzword to cover this insatiable drive for fame. "Jesus" bears no resemblance, linguistically, to the middle eastern historical figure.
There are those who alter the ideology to fit their agenda, revealing an element of narcissistic thinking within themselves, demanding that the ideology be accepted as Divine, while demanding it bend to their will. This, alone, helps us understand their motive.
Yet when the need to assert both elements couples with the single minded purpose of drive for fortune as well as the talent of public speaking and the flair of theatrics, it reveals a personality that says:
Nothing will stand in my way for greed. Nothing.
This is why we saw no grieving but an almost inability to conceal his giddiness at the free publicity he received and why he was able to say that the murder victim died for this success.
Fear of the unknown killers?
Fear that they would return to silence him and kill his son?
Bereft of his "better half"?
No, she was the albatross slowing him down, along with a pregnancy, from his very publicly stated goals. The memorial was, in deed, celebratory, with the reason for celebration claimed to be a resurrection that was not even mentioned.
Our words give us away.
The reason men die throughout history is from greed. It is the source of wars and it is the source of murders. True, they hide behind religion to masquerade their greed, or, as in the case of criminal Islamic ideology, violence is prescribed, but to what end? To the end of taking what others have, including their land, their homes, their wives and their possessions.
It is not that money is the root of all evil; it is the love of money that is not all evil, but its root cause.
Power is intoxicating and it, as fame, brings great wealth.
Some wars are necessary to stop the greed of others and are fought defensively or to free those taken away by greed. The number one cause for the American War for Independence was "duty." Men believed it was their "duty" from this specific ideology, to provide for their families and that when the king of England did not stop the tyranny of a parliament that held no legal representation of the colonies, the decision to fight was that the oppressive taxes caused men to be incapable of providing for their families. It was the call of duty to resist greed and the tyranny that facilitates greed.
Greed drives men to insanity, or in the least, to illogical and even murderous decisions,
One can claim that good things come from tragedy and this is precisely the teaching of the ideology, yet, there is no suspension of human nature. This does not explain away the incessant complaints against his wife, or how she held back the growth of his business. This does not justify the extreme nature of distancing language. This does not clarify the childlike guilt found within the plural use of "we", when he was alone. This does not explain any of it.
For some, he is hiding his sexuality behind the magnificent heterosexual sex drive his wife could not satisfy and is crassly cashing in on her death of which he was just incredibly lucky.
For others, the language of guilt far exceeds any guilt felt from commercializing her death.
My conclusion of his language in this ideological setting is this:
The husband of murder victim Amanda Blackburn has revealed, linguistically, a personality that is so narcissistic in scope, that he demands that his audience accept that the ideology he sells is both divine in nature, and that he thus reveals that he, himself, is a counselor and advisor to divinity, and the purpose of such is to advance his ambitious agenda of greed.
When he claimed that he was personally spoken to by divinity, standing naked in his shower, he deceived his audience, deliberately, to propagate an authority that leads to numerical success. When he said he received the news that he would be part of a history making event, he was not simply showing his narcissism, but he was deceptive.
The coincidental nature of the murder is next examined in light of the statements he has publicly made.