Sunday, October 30, 2016

Analyzing Facebook Post: Home Invasion and Sleep





Here, we have a police officer's wife Facebook posting of a home invasion.   

As you consider the language, note that a "home" is where one sleeps.  Linguistically, the location of sleep is always important.  This is seen in two ways:

The first is the use of "home" versus "house" when it comes to the location of both sleeping and eating; two requirements to sustain life. 

The second is when a subject specifies the location of sleep in a statement.  This should be "unnecessary" due to the expectation that one sleeps in one's own bed, in one's own bedroom.  When the specific location of where one slept is in a statement, it must be flagged.  

For example, a home invasion is just that, an "invasion" which should produce "invasive" elements in language.  It is very personal and very intrusive.  It is where you sleep, you eat, and where your privacy is maintained.  Home invasions have a tremendous psychological impact upon us. 


 As a separate issue in statement analysis , if one gives the specific location of where one slept, it is a signal of missing information regarding what displaced the person from their usual location of sleep. This is often seen in domestic homicide cases as well as domestic violence cases. 

"Last night, I was asleep on the couch when..."  This location is not expected and it is indicative of something that caused the subject to sleep somewhere besides his own bed.  There is a 'story' here that must be discovered. 

Even men who go to the couch due to back pain (men over 40 sometimes report this) do not feel the need to mention the location of their sleep.  They simply 'skip' it because, as they edit their account, it is not relevant. 

When a person mentions the specific location of where he slept, there is a reason for its inclusion and a reason for where he slept.  We look for the answer in the statement itself, and if not there, in the subsequent interview.  

Overall, a "home" is where one sleeps, which is necessary for life, and where one "eats", which is also necessary for life.  

This is why home invasions can be trauma producing in language.  




Maria Daly is a police officer's wife.  She now faces charges of false reporting.  She wrote:

We woke up to not only our house being robbed while we were sleeping but to see this hatred for no reasonIf you would have asked me yesterday about this blue lives and black lives matter issue my response would have been very positive. Today on the other hand I have so much anger and hate that I don’t like myself.”


There are many signals of deception in her post.  

a.  Follow her pronouns.  A home invasion will produce very personal language and the pronoun "I" is expected.  She begins her post with the need to "not be alone" with her statement.  This is a very strong signal that something is amiss.  By itself, it is not enough to conclude deception, but something posted this so soon after a home invasion should begin with the pronoun "I"

b.  Note the need to 'share' (guilt) with "we" were sleeping after we awoke.  Generally, one wakes up a bit differently than the other and this is expected in language from "I work up" to "my husband and I woke up..." because it is often at different times, even if only momentarily.  

c.  Note "not only" begins in the negative;

d.  Note "house" and not "home" as "home" is the safety place.  This would be something consistent with a home invasion but the context is introduced and surrounded by the activity of sleeping.  We "sleep" in our homes.  "Home" is where safety, sleep and food sustain life.  That she began with "wake" and followed "our house" with "sleep", it is not expected. 

e.  "our house" continues the sharing theme in something frightening, especially from a female subject.  In context of this statement the need to not be alone is already evidenced in the statement.  Other times it is indicative of a possible divorce, or the inclusion of others living in the home, including relatives or renters.  

f.  Motive for Writing:   note the inclusion of the reason:  "for no reason" attempts conceals the motive. "for no reason" would be false:  it would be for "BLM terroristic" reasons, but she is telling us something about herself:  this is not for BLM reasons."  She has come very close to a "Statement Analysis Confession" 

g.  note the important (and strong) change to "me" from "we" as a change of emotion :  This means the analyst should take notice of that which is going to now come from "me" as more important than what "we" produced. 

What does she tell us?

She introduces "me" because she is now going to reveal herself:

1.  She has anger

2.  She has hate

3.  She has self loathing 

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated as the author of the Facebook post reveals herself as the author of the vandalism and false reporting of robbery.  

This post is not about a home invasion, but it is about her and how close she has come to a confession. 

She has shown her emotions and her self loathing reveals knowledge that what she has done is wrong and self destructive.  

By negating the motive as "BLM" racism, she tells us that there is another "reason" or motive, outside of "BLM."  

Please note that police now suspect that financial motive is behind the criminal reporting. 

"Fake Hate" crime trend continues to increase dramatically as "Victim Status Mentality" continues to gain popularity in our culture.  

Human Abedin's Deposition

The following is analysis of Huma Abedin's sworn deposition.  


Q.  “How did you go about searching for what records you may have in your possession to be returned to the State Department?”
HA:  I — I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned — returnedgave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents. And gave them devices and paper.”
The pronoun "I" is used by us millions of times; we are very good at its use.  When someone stutters on the pronoun "I", as a non-stutterer, there is an entry of anxiety in the stutter. 

Note next the word "returned" is used, and corrected to "gave." This means we should consider the former word, "returned." 

Note also that the word "returned" is repeated, increasing its importance. 

One should wonder what the subject knows about the attorneys' examination results of her devices.  
Q Okay. And what devices did you return for your attorneys to look through with respect to federal records you may have had in your possession to be returned to the State Department?

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope.
Her attorney does not want this question answered.  The objection, however, was overruled. 

HA:   My — if my memory serves me correctly, it was two laptops, a BlackBerry, and some files that I found in my apartment.

"If memory serves" is an expression of uncertainty with memory.  Since it is unnecessary we note where it is used and where it is not needed.  This question has produced it.  It does not mean, by itself, that the subject is lying.  It means she has an element of uncertainty.  

"it was two lap tops" is to use passive voice. It avoids saying, "I returned two devices..."

With the signal of uncertain ("memory") and passive voice, we now increase the perspective or lean regarding deception.  We allow the subject to guide us, like a meter, and where the subject strongly commits, the 'needle' leans to truth, and where she does not, it leans towards deception.  Here is an example of a weak answer  that should signal to the Interviewer that she is not telling "all" the truth, but likely some of it. 

Q Okay. The BlackBerry that you returned, is that a BlackBerry that was associated with your Clintonemail.com account?

HA Yes.

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope of discovery.

HA: Sorry.

MR. BRILLE: That’s okay. Just take a second.

HA : Sorry.

MR. BRILLE: That’s okay. You’re okay. You’re doing fine. Just take a little bit of a pause.

Q Was your answer yes, Ms. Abedin?

HA The answer is yes.

Q Okay. Thank you. And the two laptops that you returned, or you gave to — provided to your attorneys to look through, did they have e-mails from the Clintonemail.com account?
This is a direct question:  did they have emails from Clintonemail.com account?

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope of authorized discovery.
The attorney does not want this answered, but the objection was overruled and the subject had to answer, under oath.

'Did they contain emails from Clintonemail.com?' is a "yes or no" question.  

For analysis:  Did Huma Abedin know that Clintonemail.com emails were on her private devices here?
A: I was not involved in the process. I — I provided them with the devices and the materials and asked them to find whatever they thought was relevant and appropriate, whatever was their determination as to what was a federal record, and they did. They turned materials in, and I know they did so. I couldn’t tell you from what device.

This answer will give us insight into the personality and character of the subject.  
a.  The 'yes or no' question is avoided, making the question, itself, very sensitive to her. 
b.  She begins with the pronoun "I", psychologically, increasing the strength of the avoidant answer. 
c.  She begins her answer 'in the negative', that is to say, she tells us what she was not involved in. 
d.  She stutters, again, on the pronoun "I", which shows that this question has increased anxiety for her.
e.  She was "not involved in the process" which then seeks to remove her from responsibility and place responsibility upon those who were in the process of providing the devices to her attorneys. Here, she blames her staff.
f.  Next, she puts responsibility from her staff or whoever handled this for her, to her attorneys with "whatever they thought" and "their determination."  This is to blame attorneys twice. 

This is what accomplished or habitual liars do:  they go beyond the realm of the question.  She should have quit after blaming the unnamed for the transfer or handing over, but liars 'never know when to quit'.  They have a tremendous need (pressure, anxiety, etc) to persuade or convince, which is why their "yea is not yea" and their "nay is not nay"; it is the inherent weakness seen within deceptive people.  

Analysis Conclusion: Huma Abedin was aware of Clintonmail.com emails on her devices. 

This is to take the avoidance of the question (sensitivity) added to the shifting of blame three times; once upon someone close to her and twice upon attorneys.  

This is, therefore, extreme distancing from the question by the subject, hence the conclusion of deception indicated. 

This also provides insight into the 'quality of deception' displayed by the subject; something that began with avoidance but then moved to multiple responsibilities, indicating a sophisticated habitual deceiver.  

We may consider that the subject is not one to ever take personal responsibility and even if blamed by her boss, she will seek to blame someone else; perhaps her estranged husband, disgraced former Representative Anthony Wiener.  



What follows is from a news article on the story. The quotes should be taken in light of the above analysis to see if they confirm or deny the analysis conclusion:  



In the deposition, Abedin also admitted to using her Clintonmail.com email for “State-related matters.”
The deposition also contained other examples of noteworthy conduct. As Breitbart News reported previously:
During the quizzing, Abedin was asked, “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

Her reply was astonishing.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that . . . that certainly happened on . . . on more than one occasion,” Abedin said during the meeting.
In August, the Daily Caller reported that an email showed Abedin once left one of these burn bags in the front seat of her car:
“Favor” is the subject of Abedin’s July 20, 2009 email to Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s personal assistant. Judicial Watch obtained the records and hundreds more pages of Abedin emails as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department.
“I’m going to have ambassador ride on next drive,” wrote Abedin. “There’s a bunch of burn stuff in the pocket of my front seat.”
Other details beginning to emerge also raise concerns about whether Abedin’s apparent security lapses are indicative of a deeper problem.

As Breitbart News has reported, Abedin has never faced serious mainstream media scrutiny over her background such as Abedin’s myriad connections to the Muslim World League, a Saudi Arabian Islamist “charity.” In 2009, Hillary Clinton herself admitted the charity is one of the Saudi organizations that “continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

Paul Sperry reported in the NY Post about an April 5th of interview of Abedin that was attended by the “chief of the FBI’s counterespionage section:”
On page 3 of their 11-page report, the agents detail how they showed Abedin a classified paper on Pakistan sent from a State Department source which she, in turn, inexplicably forwarded to her personal Yahoo email account — an obviously unclassified, unencrypted, unsecured and unauthorized system. The breach of security was not an isolated event but a common practice with Abedin.
“She routinely forwarded emails from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her yahoo.com account,” the agents wrote. Why? “So she could print them” at home and not at her State Department office.
Despite the growing web of concerns, in a statement given to DailyMail.com, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said that the campaign continued to support Abedin:
Huma completely and voluntarily complied with and cooperated with the investigation. She sat for a hours long interview. She turned over and went through with her lawyers all of the emails that might possibly be relevant and turned them over to the state department and investigators. There’s absolutely nothing she’s done that we think calls into question anything that she’s done.  She’s been fully cooperative. We of course stand behind her.

Note the deception indicators within Podesta's email.  
"completely and voluntarily" is used first for one under subpoena; then he uses "cooperated", which is appropriate,  but the use of "complied" is against "voluntarily."  




Even the Daily Beast was forced to acknowledge how Huma Abedin’s unique position with Clinton might be protecting her from investigation:
In a normal election year, a normal candidate’s close aide who caused even minor embarrassment to a campaign so near to Election Day would be whisked away as quickly as possible to avoid becoming a distraction.
But Huma Abedin is not simply a close aide, she’s a critical member of Hillary Clinton’s tiny inner circle that protects and — at times — enables the deeply flawed and secretive Democratic nominee.
The new emails were discovered in the course of an investigation into whether Anthony Weiner allegedly exchanged sexually oriented texts and photos with a 15-year-old North Carolina girl, including one message where he said “I would bust that tight pussy so hard and so often that you would leak and limp for a week.”

Friday, October 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton Statement on FBI: Vote Early






Question:  Does Hillary Clinton know or believe the material the FBI referenced is harmful to her election?

We look to her for the answer. 

The FBI has announced a new element in the Hillary Clinton Email scandal with a reopening of the investigation.  In response to this, Hillary Clinton has given an unusual response.  

She urged people to "vote early."

2 days ago, the FBI released information that showed that Human Abedin, a Pakistani American Muslim, often overruled standard  security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA had prepared for the president.  Abedin's family has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia. 



Hillary Clinton spoke about the new information.  What do her words tell us? 


“You know, we’ve heard these rumors, we don’t know what to believe, and I’m sure there will even be more rumors. That’s why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they are talking about because right now your guess is as good as mine, and I don’t think that’s good enough.

Note first the exception of evidence with "incumbent upon the FBI..."

Generally, suspects that demand immediate access to evidence are not initially given such until discovery.  

Note that the FBI did not announce "rumors" but new information via a formal letter. 
Note the change of pronouns from "we" to "I."

I’m confident, whatever they are, will not change the conclusion reached in July,” 

Note the statement includes "confident" which is not to say, "This will not change the conclusion from July..." but, "I'm confident", which weakens the assertion.  

Is she concerned that this could change voters' minds, given the short period of time between this announcement and election day?


“You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the emails,” she said, urging “everybody to get out and vote early in all the states that have early voting.

 "Vote early " is repeated making it important to the subject perhaps signaling that the new FBI investigation has information that may change votes. 

Next note "in all the states that have early voting" is unnecessary since voting early cannot take place in states that do not have early voting. 

Why its inclusion?

It is repeated, increasing the sensitivity. 
It is unnecessary because it is seemingly impossible. 

With Wikileaks, we have learned more about Hillary's attitude towards voter fraud, including her statement about destroying election results in a foreign election, but we also have DNC strategies for voter fraud. 

Is this the source of sensitivity?

Did she feel the need to add the unnecessary qualifier to her statement?

"vote early and vote often"?  


Thursday, October 27, 2016

Human Resources: Violence in Language

In our training, we look at specific language that is associated with Domestic Violence from both the perpetrator's perspective and the language of victims.  

We seek to discern, as early as possible, within the language, the potential for violence in our work on Employment Analysis.  

We have specific indicators and direct questions and exercises to weed out those who pose a risk of violence when they apply for law enforcement, as one inappropriate officer tarnishes the reputation of the whole.  

Trends and Culture 

A 10 year old boy punched a 70 year old woman in the jaw, so hard, that she went unconscious as she hit the sidewalk.  When questioned why he did this, he told police it was a new "game" he and his friends play and "lots of kids do it."

The game? "Polar Bear Knock Out" where black youths deliberately target elderly white victims.  The "polar bear" refers to the gray hair of the victim, interestingly enough, as ancient Scripture calls for specific honor given to those of advanced age.  

The desensitization of such youths came from somewhere.  

Where do youths sometimes get the notion of humiliating others?

In sports, "unsportsmanlike conduct" was specifically conduct meant to humiliate a defeated foe.  Celebration is normal, expected, and a release of tension (hormonal increase) from competition, yet, by refusing to allow taunting the defeated, sports used to teach self control. 

Which athlete is more likely to assault his wife or girlfriend?

Athletes are competitive, and competition, itself, is not only good, but necessary for society and confidence building.  Due to high levels of competition, domestic violence among professional athletes is at a much higher rate than other professions. 

Which athlete would you consider more likely to restrain his own temper and avoid using violence as an outlet to release pressure, athlete A or athlete B?

Athlete A scores a touch down, turns to the one of whom he just broke a tackle, and begins to "trash talk", grab his own crotch, and dance above the fallen foe. 

Athlete B scores a touch down and jumps into the arms of his fellow teammate, but upon seeing the possibly injured foe, leans over to offer a hand in getting up. 

Both athletes poured tremendous effort into overcoming the tremendous and violent effort of the defensive player who sought, by all means, to stop him.  

Both athletes had the same hormonal rush of adrenaline and testosterone. 

Now take Athlete A and Athlete B and put them both, separately, in high speed chases where a dangerous suspect is now putting Officer  A and Officer B's lives at risk. 

Driving at incredible speeds, both are on high alert.  

Both are using their training skills to maintain control over their vehicles. 

Both have tremendous rushes of hormones, including 'fight or flight' and are engaging in a 'fight' for their own lives and the lives of innocent citizens. 

Both are doing the jobs they accepted upon employment. 

When each gets out of their car, they now will handcuff the submissive perpetrator. 

Which officer, A or B is more likely to expend the tremendous tension via unwarranted violence?

Which officer will be able to control himself, the one who learned early in life that no matter how much exuberance he felt, he had to show respect to the defeated foe, or the other?


Things such as "self control", "reliability", "humility" and "personal responsibility" are dismissed by some as "old school", while for others, it is distinctly dismissed as "racist"; particularly those who call this "restorative justice"; that is, somehow, the victim deserved the assault, and this "balances the scales of justice" for wrongs perceived, including those of hundreds of years ago.  

When the violence is committed, media may seek to hide its elements, as we saw in the recent flash mob attack outside Temple University.  Elsewhere, violence is blamed on police.  Deception obfuscates truth.  

That we have become a violent nation, or a violent world, isn't in debate.  How we got there is not debated often enough, while "what can we do to fix it?" is.

But we live in the here and now, and for the Human Resources professional, who has clients or customers or patients at risk, screening out potentially violent employees is the present concern.

Yet, it is the culture of violence that should be explored in the interview process in order to learn if a potential hire poses a risk to others.

I instituted Analytical Interviewing at a company that had experienced severe violence, where one victim, unable to speak, was left for dead, and police had already forwarded a report to the coroner's office.  The victim, however, survived.  I was asked, "Can you help?"

Analytical Interviewing is interviewing from Statement Analysis.  You must learn Statement Analysis first, and then practice, hands on, in the legally sound, non-coercion manner of Analytical Interviewing.


Another expression that has a wide gulf is, "I'm going to kill you" in speech.

"Let me borrow your shoes or I am going to kill you" versus the threat found within domestically violent situations.

Research and my own experiences in D/V show that the best predictor of D/V is not just history (often quoted, and, via data, wisely so) but also language.

Note that threats of violence should always be taken seriously, and must come within the realm of:

Decoding one's personal, internal, subjective dictionary:

Especially by not only those in charge of hiring, but of therapists, counselors, social workers and medical professionals.

Does the subject use phrases connected to violence?

In particular, does the subject use words connected to violence when he speaks of non-violent scenarios or situations?

Does he "knock out" or "slaughter" his friends in video games?  (substitute "knock out" for any of a hundred expressions).  This takes careful listening, just as "terrified" and "kill you" can be dismissed as hyperbole.  You must seek out a pattern of similes, for example, and what the subject reaches to, in his vocabulary, to ascertain risk.

Does he listen to, or quote, musical lyrics in which women are degraded, objectified, or even referenced with violent lyrics?

Ask questions about his friends, specifically targeting areas in which you learn about how his friends treat their wives and girlfriends.

Who does he admire?

Why does he admire so and so?

Heroes may not be, today, what you and I think they were, yesteryear.

Seek out areas in which the subject has been in some form of competition.  Now, focus in on what his reaction to victory was.

Did he gloat?
Did he boast?

or...

Did he show any empathy towards the loser?

Athletes are highly competitive and you must learn what their reaction is towards the loser.  This is critical.  ESPN has glorified violence and unsportsmanlike behavior, which means that agents will encourage athletes to "stop the camera's movement" and have it focus in on the player, specifically, while he taunts his opponent.  That ESPN highlight clip may translate to money for the agent and the player, even while it teaches unsportsmanlike conduct to the children watching.

We use sports scenarios in interviewing to discern between normal, competitive language and those who actually enjoy violence.  

Those who are sexually aroused by violence pose the highest threat.  


Your job as an interviewer is to de-code the internal, subjective and very personal dictionary of the subject.  This includes gender, race, culture, education, age, and so on, as factors into his language.  At this point, you are just listening and asking him to clarify, and define.  Do not assume to know even slang.  Ask the subject about the word, and allow him to explain.

Does the subject actually feel (expressed in empathetic language)  what the consequence of violence upon another is like?

You are an observer and not seeking, at this point, to enter into his language.

You are just listening.

Question:  Who should screen for violence?

Answer:  Who shouldn't?

The question is so sensitive that it requires a rhetorical question to explore if there is anyone that should not be on alert for violence. 



Parents,  teachers, professionals of all sort, and anyone who cares to protect others, particularly those incapable of protecting themselves.  

Training is necessary.  

Deception and Absurdity




If someone told you, just eight years ago, that a grown man wearing a dress and high heels, is now headed into the bathroom where your young daughter is, you'd likely rush in to save her from any possible consequences.  

If I then told you that in a few years,  this same disturbed man who believes he is a woman, will not only not have professional intervention, but actually politicians, main stream media, the United Nations, our enemies' military, academia, and so many others,  will be celebrating and throwing parades in his honor, defending his "right" to be believe he is a woman and to be in a bathroom with your little girl,  you'd likely have laughed at me, or dismissed me as either mentally disturbed, or a conspiracy nut.  

The change in society has been extreme in both scope and speed.  

If I then told you that any disagreement with this position, including insisting that the disturbed man needs professional intervention, would have you labeled mentally ill, with irrational fear, and moral depravity so extreme as to render you as unworthy of an opinion, in fact, one who is to be "deplored" rather than embraced, you'd believe I was quoting from a science fiction novel that is too far from reality to hold your interest.

A 65 year old grandfather is a celebrated "Woman of the Year", without regard to truth, science, or the inherent insult that all you need to be a woman is an emotion and a surgical knife.  Would it matter how emotionally abusive it is to his grandchildren who are now told, "Don't call me Grandpa no more.  Call me Hot College Coed Grandma
 
."  

Everyone is deceived at various points in life.  Trauma can be the result dependent upon both the setting of the deception and the impact.  Yet this is not a clever deception, nor is it trauma inducing.  It isn't even subtle, which removes any possibility of comedic value.  

It is absurd.  

A great question to ask regarding such absurdity is:
Prosecutor of cops; both black and white

Who would possibly be taken in such deceptions?

Readers at the Statement Analysis blog come to see truth discerned from deception, or...

deception discerned from truth, and are not likely to be those taken in by absurd deception, but they should consider the vast number of those deceived.  

Specifically, what of this 'wholesale' deception where millions of people are all deceived at the same time as we see in our nation and in the western world?  What allows so many to be deceived?

When far left socialist government in Germany, in the 1930's, said that Jewish blood was different from German blood, microscope be damned (or broken), how was it that so many people came to believe such obvious absurdity?

When an absurdity is mandated under threat, the absurdity is only heightened. 

I. The Type of Deception

II.  The Deceived.

I.  The "type" of deception is "Absurdity."  

Since deception is too vast for any single article, we view only the deception of  absurdity commonly called, "Political Correctness" here, and this to but a few of the most pressing and illogical deceptions today: 

1.  War on Cops 
2.  Islamophobia
3.  Gender and Mental Health

1.  War On Cops

In 2015, cops killed twice as many whites as they did blacks.

To quote such is "hate speech" for the deceived.  

"Black Lives Matter" was based upon a lie; a fabrication of reality.  "Hands Up; Don't Shoot" did not happen, but was quickly seized upon by opportunists, either in business or politics, who could gain from the lie.  The lie was sold, and appealed to a very specific target audience, successfully.

Besides those who stand to gain on the lie (a small minority) those who fell for the lie were those who had a need to fall for the lie.

The truth?  We look at the statistics and they tell us:  

Black males kill black males.

In NYC, blacks committed 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.  Even when black cops confront criminals, the lies continue.  Politicians lie and a large segment of the population falls right in line.  


The lie of "police kills black males" has led to endangering young black children, as well as black citizens, as police arrests are way down due to "The Ferguson Effect", where officers now recognize that their own lives are on the line; not just from the criminal element, but from the criminal politician.  

This is the "de policing" that politicians created that has increased the death toll among black citizens.  

If you were a white police officer confronting a dangerous armed black criminal, would you feel tempted to drive away?

Self preservation is a powerful element.  

Deception has empowered a "victim status mentality" to a people of whom funding after funding is given, with generational failure to produce results.  

Yet politicians will not ever admit the problem is human nature, and not money, so inner city schools will continue the money pit pattern: 

Every two years a new curriculum is used with special "this is how you teach black children!" as if pigmentation will impact phonics.  This is a racist betrayal of dark skinned children and if you disagree, you are the racist. 

Police are not killing black men; black males are killing black males and criminals are becoming emboldened, while a population grows in anger as "victim status" keeps them from exercising drive and initiative.  

The "Victim Status mentality" is very powerful.  It is a ready made excuse for failure and its impact is well known:  there is no advancement.  "You didn't built that"; the envious, racist claim that tears down all drive, initiative, and success, only fueled the anger and frustration. 

Black Lives Matter led directly to the assault, hatred and murder of police today.  Again, this is at the expense of black families in Chicago who are counting on police to protect them.  When BLM takes children and turns them against police, they are turning them against authority.  This includes those kids who now despise police, and think it is appropriate to defy them. 

When such a kid pulls out an unknown item from his pocket, while a police officer gives a command, the BLM propagandists are responsible for the consequences. 



2.  Islamophobia: Irrational Fear of Islam

A man is a pedophile, murderer and a thief.  He gains a following of murderous thieves who he must inspire to greater plunder.  

Let's start a religion based on emulating him.  What could possibly go wrong with that?

The belief system told followers that 'god' had deemed them superior to others, ordered them to take what belongs to others, and, specifically, "rape" as a reward, both on earth and in the afterlife.  If the conquest meets no resistance and the men submit to slavery and yield their wives, declare "peace"; hence, "the religion of peace" via submission.  

"Islamic attacks have nothing to do with Islam" (last 3 presidents of the United States)

"Just a few long wolf psychos"  Barak Hussein Obama  

The facts?  

Since 9/11, there have been 29,547 recorded Islamic attacks, in obedience to the Koran and hadith.  Due to the lack of freedom in Islamic lands, this number is likely woefully understated.  

In Germany, the minority who cheered on the Islamic invasion, clapping and holding signs saying, "Welcome!  Our land is your land!" had to be told that the migrants they were applauding were singing a song about how their god had taken your land away from you and given it to them... 

yet, they kept on singing.  

After the Cologne sexual assault epidemic, where thousands of sexual assaults took place in a concerted manner, feminists  carried signs showing they preferred rape to "racism."  They protested against those who protested against sexual assault.  

An ideology that tells its adherents to demand I submit, or enslave me or kill me, rape my wife and daughters, and take what is mine is something I am acutely afraid of.  

When college kids are the result of funding from Saudi Arabia we see that homosexuals will protest in favor of Islam, which, when enacted, will kill them. 


Hillary opens a home server which allows foreign nations who have donated millions to her, to readily access national information while accepting millions and millions of dollars from Islamic nations that execute homosexuals, refuse basic human rights to women, practice female genital mutilation and promote this supremacist enslaving ideology.  



3.  Gender Absurdity 


Just what our nation needed:  another divisive issue to continue to tear us apart.  Politicians found .001 of the population suffering from acute mental health issues and demanded that everyone fall in line behind them.


They were successful.

As if coddled college kids needed any less motivation, the males are now told that to "man up" is "sexist" and that while Russian troops train like men, endure hardship and work hard to pass requirements, we have "trans-gender" troops in therapy support groups, with standards, routinely ignored or lessened to "accommodate" "diversity" including obvious sufferers of disorders.  

How successful is the lie that a man is only a man if he "feels" he is a man, and a woman is defined as such if the person "feels" like a woman?

*Consider the boycott of Target has cost them millions in losses
*Consider major sports teams and celebrities deliberately boycotting North Carolina for punishing them for daring to not believe. 
*Consider how children are labeled "hateful" and "phobic" if they dare to not believe the lie in the public schools.  

II.  Who is it that is so easily deceived by absurdity?  

What would cause feminists to carry signs saying they prefer "rapists to racists"?

What would cause people to vote for politicians who promise them everything and all for free, suspending simple mathematics?

Politicians benefit from the deception of political correctness.  They can laugh and ridicule the gender dysmorphia suffers in private, while rush to gain votes from a specific type of victim of deception.  

Remove the borders from a nation allows for the politician to gain the votes of those who illegally enter the country and without a single dollar contributed, yet take  money from the labor of working citizens.  With open borders comes in those who drain the economy, criminals and even those who's ideology and religion calls for conquest, without vetting.  

'We don't build walls!' 
'Guns kill!'
"More money for public schools will raise grades"

said by those who live behind walls, have armed protection and send their children to private schools.  Who, then, are those of whom they so readily deceive?

Cities like Baltimore and Chicago have extreme unemployment rates yet vote for politicians who promise them more free money, free doctors, free phones, free any and everything, while illegals can now take jobs away from them.

Police are labeled as killers of black males by politicians even though black males are the killers of black males.  The politician knows the statistics but ignores them; instead opting to fuel the lie, and watch the ignorant protest violently, and where the protests are too tepid, use money for professional protestors to stir the attention that allows them to garner votes.  

  This leads the deceived into mass anger,  leading to protests, violence and eventually death of police officers.   The politician remains unrepentant.

Police officers would be alive today if the political elite had not stirred the violence for the past 8 years.  

Amazon removes the costume of the "sexy burqa" so as not to offend 'religious people' but not the "sexy nun" costume.

A rock star cancels a concert where a state says men cannot use women's bathrooms to protest while campaigning for a woman president who claims she is for woman's rights, while accepting millions of dollars from nations that deny woman even the most basic of human rights.  

                    Who could possibly be this deceived?

After we slice away those who profit from the deception and turn to the vast audience, we find that the lies of absurdity are specifically designed to appeal to a specific element within personalities. 

The deception of absurdity appeals to those who are "moral narcissists."

It is moral narcissism within the average person that the politician now exploits with deception that has no sophisticated element:  

it is absurd.  

If you raise the minimum wage, you'll feel a lot better about yourself.  

The community will rally around the restaurant that now goes to $15 per hour; a number mandated by government. 

This good will shows itself in support, but will, soon enough, return to equilibrium and, as goes the math, the local renter who rented out at $800 per month to the one making $10 per hour, now raises his rent because, after all, the tenant is now at a 50% increase, so even a 20% increase seems "fair."

Before long, the layoffs begin, which then moves the unemployed to the government welfare, which, of course, is also single party run.  

Long term inflation, loss of jobs and more people dependent upon government works well for the politician, but for the moral narcissist, 

for a few minutes, they get to feel really good about their moral 'superiority'.  

It feels good, but it does not accomplish good. 

It feels even better when the moral narcissist gets to compare himself or herself to others and claim:

"racist!"
"immoral!"
"xenophobic!"
"you don't care about the poor!"

Even as they enslave people to welfare generationally they feel good about how much 'better' they are than others.  

If you don't hold to their position, you are "deplorable."  That is, to be despised.  

They are empowered because the political elite and media work hand in hand.  

A professor of African Studies in Italy said that it was not refugees nor even migrants pouring into her country; it is middle class males who paid up to $10,000 for passage.  The human traffickers, she said, tell them, "everything in Europe is free."  

She said, "you know what?  It is true."  Eventually, money and houses run scarce, and when this happens, the politician who exploited the moral narcissism is long gone, living safely behind a wall; the wall denied to those exploited.  Eventually, all the "make work, fake jobs" created by government spending reach a tipping point and, for example, Greece is bailed out, promising to behave better, but immediately elects politicians who promise more and more free stuff, lower retirement ages, and on and on it goes.  

The governments have "Messianic Complex" where they can "save the world" because they have "unlimited wealth and resource" and in order to get taxes raised, they must turn the sentiment of the masses against "the rich."  Hence, the hatred of the successful.  

Venezuela beckons.  

The Moral Narcissist is the one who has an acute need of being seen as "morally superior" to others.  

This is where they are specifically exploited.  

Others, including in media, are funded, so their motive is financial gain, including safety for their careers.  It is such a powerful drive that it impacts peer relations; no one wants to be 'left out' and considered "less" than moral.  

In the United States, the college professors decry business as evil, with success being denigrated, all from a beautiful campus built by business funding and actual construction companies.  The hypocrisy isn't even discussed.  A single student who makes a statement that is perceived as "pro business" is ostracized and denigrated to the point of despair.  

The Moral Narcissist does not care for the black citizens in Chicago who cannot venture outside their homes at night. 

 The Moral Narcissist cares only that he or she "feels" good about herself and that mankind is so wonderful inside that people will stop killing each other if we just give them money.  

They also think that people are so wonderful that they are not really killing each other; the guns are.  Just take away their guns and peace will return.

Yet, in the cities where the strictest gun laws are in effect, and the most money per student is spent, is the locales of the greatest violence.  

The elite  are incapable of admitting their lies. 

As long as the moral narcissists will allow, expect the absurdity to continue.  

Terrorist designate CAIR will watch someone quote the koran accurately and inflict "terror in the hearts" of the unbeliever, and will see the death toll and demand law enforcement investigate a muslim who had her feelings hurt because her Islamic garment frightens the public. 

Who are the deceived when it comes to absurdity?

                 The moral narcissists who crave to be superior.  

Why do they believe the lies?

because they want to believe the lies.  Their "feelings" are more important than truth and more important on how lies destroy lives.  

It matters little that John Kerry says air conditioners are more dangerous than ISIS, or Leo DiCaprio went from making monkey faces in front of his mirror to millionaire flies in a private jet at a save-the-earth-fuel is killing us conference.  
Homosexual activists  protesting anti-sharia protestors.  
Human Rights "advocates" supporting more Planned Parenthood centers in black neighborhoods. 
Welcome mats rolled out to those who intend on conquest. 

 It is absurdity in action. 

What matters most, however,  is how they feel about themselves, not about others who are nothing more than a basket of deplorables.  

They will support laws that feel good, but do not enact good for mankind as they embrace deception.  

It is absurdity in action, and it leads to their own destruction.  Hence, it is "self loathing" in action, as they do not consider the consequences of the destruction of the rule of law, or the ridicule of truth.  

I'm privileged to work with analysts and investigators who seek truth. 

 Truth is non-partisan and exposing deception is the priority.  Even those who once fell for "political correctness", as they study deception, come to recognize that which is presented as deception, and is supported by deception, can only be defended by silencing opposition, which represents reason, logic, and truth.  

Next up:  Narcissism and statement analysis