Sunday, September 18, 2016
Bill DeBlasio Statement on NYC Bombing
When one is deceptive, including in submission to narrative, it is akin to:
"Don't trust your eyes; trust me" from politicians. The same can be said about the awkwardness of political correctness, a technique of deception used in propaganda.
A man walks into a bathroom where your young daughter is, but said man claims to have a thought that tells him he and your daughter are the same sex. "Don't trust science; trust me" from politicians who seeks to exploit the moral narcissism within some voting public. This says, "if you do not agree with me, you are morally reprehensible (hate) and likely suffering mental illness (phobia) " which few people wish to be accused of. It is very successful today.
We discern deception within intention. We discern criminal behavior also within deception. When more than 30,000 emails are destroyed, and laptops and cell phones pummeled with hammers, we have intention to conceal.
If one is incorrect on a matter, there is no linguistic signal of intent to deceive. The intention is what causes the pause in the free passage of words, generally with an additional word allowing us to discern deception.
Intention is key to deception detection.
In fact, within statement analysis, we carefully note the inclusion of intention where no such activity was carried out, as a deliberate attempt to get the reader/listener to interpret the words of intention as specific activity even though no such activity may have taken place.
When a bomb is contracted and detonated, we have intention. The intention is to inflict enough injury and death to coerce, by fear, the public. This is what terrorism is. Someone purchased the ingredients for the bomb, and constructed the bomb so that the bomb would explode.
Within 24 hours, a bomb was detonated at a 5K charity run by Marines, an "Allahu Akbar" had 8 people stabbed in a Minnesota mall, and 29 people are injured, 1 critically, by a bomb in New York City.
Hillary Clinton said there was a "bombing" and then chastised Donald Trump for using the word "bomb" before "knowing the facts" in a soft-ball pitched question by media. The video will produce more questions about neurological difficulties for Clinton.
When Islamic terror takes place, and the killer confesses his motive, consider that the politicians tell us that this was not their motive. The politicians knows better than the confessed killer. This is then followed up by main stream media.
Recall the Orlando Islamic killer. He confessed to police 911 his motive, cited the specific mandates in the koran, and then accomplished the fulfillment of these mandates. What did main stream media report?
a. The killer hated homosexuals because he had been given AIDS
b. The killer's "boyfriend" appeared on television (the analysis showed deception)
c. The killer's phone had lots of homosexual apps and dating service.
This was widely reported by MSM.
The FBI investigated and reported that there was no connection to homosexuality.
This was scarcely reported.
Hence, the narrative (Islam is a religion of peace) overruled the killer's confession and the facts of the case, and led the president of the United States to declare that America would be safer with more Muslims and less guns. He morally condemned those who wish to not import more Muslims lecturing that America does not "discriminate on religion", while importing Syrian Muslims at more than 99.7% with only 0.3% Syrian Coptics, confident that MSM would not report the contradiction.
Regarding yesterday's NYC bombing, we have a politician's statement telling us two conflicting thoughts.
Bill de Blasio:
"All hands are on deck; injuries are significant. There is no evidence at this point of a terror connection...It was an intentional act."
Note the order: "all hands are on deck" come before "injuries."
Note what he tells us does not exist before he affirms what does exist.
Note the qualification of the negative, with time as its element with "at this point." This is where pressure increases as the subject is reporting what does not exist (negative, increased importance) while allowing for this to be qualified by time.
This is then followed by "intention" within his language. That it was a bomb that was successfully detonated and a second unexploded bomb was found indicates terrorism.
Question: What would cause the subject to want to express to the media that there is "no evidence" of terrorism?
Answer: Political narrative.
It is political narrative that supersedes truth, common sense, eye witnessing, and even science that shows itself in the absurdity of this form of deception.
Should Islamic terror continue, with specific mandates from the koran to kill non Islamic citizens cited by confessed killers, the election may be impacted particularly for candidates who's narrative is to deny the confessed motive. This means that, somehow, a politician is better able to know the mind of the killer, than the killer himself, and is able to nullify the killer's logical sequence of thought, including the thought patterns that constructed the bomb, itself. The killer used, "A, B, C, D" in order, but when "E" was used, the politician knows differently. "E" is really "X" for the politician and for those who are prone to such deception.
The pressure of the illogic remains upon the language. This is a popular form of deception in the political language today.
The "age of absurdity" found within language?