Racism, like any word in analysis outside of pronouns and articles, needs definition.
In the culture borne by Judea Christian ideology, racism is a grievous transgression that warrants the seeking of forgiveness. In said ideology, it is forbidden.
"Racism" is not disagreeing with a politician's policy.
In a free society, however, we recognize that the reciprocal "do unto others" cannot (or should not) be legislated by politicians and enforced by coercion. Where it is attempted, tyranny is historically indicated. This is why "communism" and "socialism" have always been identified as direct threats to western freedom. The latter being the former's little brother, howbeit without the use of violence...yet.
We recognize that offense, itself, cannot be redefined as "hate speech" in order to quell disagreement. "Hate speech" in the sense of yelling "fire" in a theater causing the outworking of hate (injury, death) is already illegal. We also have legal remedy for libel and slander.
To shift the burden to "offense" is to make any and everything we disagree with "hate."
I may not find it humorous to see people dressed up like me making my appearance entertainment, as I cannot control others; but I can control my response. This is the lesson our mother's taught us as we went off to school, "sticks and stones may break our bones..."
We are the ones who give or deny the power to those who seek to offend. Ask a police officer who hears all manner of taunts every day if being "offended" should result in government action.
Was racism intended by Ralph Northam's costume?
What of his nickname, "coonman"?
Statement Analysis does not interpret but listens. The Analytical Interview is legally sound and it is successful. It does not interpret but allows the subject to define his own language. This is "best practice" in child interviewing, and for those trained, it is best practice in sex crimes, yet successful in all interviewing, from criminal to employment.
We have a life long familiarity with our own words. This is why when a polygraph is properly administered, using the subject's own words, it is at or near 100% reliable. Where we see error or inconsistency, is when we see linguistic contamination, or the introduction of language from the examiner.
When a subject does multiple interviews, or has to be re-interviewed, we not only have to deal with contamination, but we do, on the positive, often get to hear the subject define, or make clear, his own words.
I use the word "boy" to demonstrate this principle.
In the audience, the word "boy" generally gets a 21 year spread of interpretation.
For some officers, the "boy" is a new born.
For older officers, the "boy" is her 21 year old son, in Afghanistan, in the U.S. military.
Child protective investigators and caseworkers often receive tedious but effective training to ask children what "______ looks like."
"I play wrestle with Daddy Ronald."
Rather than presume this to be nefarious sexual abuse or affection play wrestle, the trained interview will ask:
"What does 'wrestle' look like?"
"Who is 'Daddy Ronald'?"
"What does 'Daddy Ronald' say?" and so on.
Sexual abuse investigations share something in common: Perpetrators change language to conceal (deception) their crimes.
In a particularly case where the child was being sexually abused, I asked the child, "What do you do after school?" as her mother was at work. Mother had history of meeting men and moving them into her home, subjecting her child to strangers. In this case, the newest "Daddy Ronald" was the babysitter. The child's acting out caught the attention of an astute teacher.
"We play Monopoly..."
I play Monopoly. Kindergarten aged children do not play Monopoly.
"What does Monopoly look like?"
The answer was sickening.
"When do you play Monopoly?"
Follow up questions are to utilize the child's language; not our own.
"Racism" is a term that has lost its meaning due to politics.
I do not believe that someone who dresses up as another race is necessarily racist. Teenage boys do lots of stupid things, not from malice, but from the reaction of outrage. It is a basis within humor.
It does not mean that it is not offensive, nor even that the teen can be racist.
It means that some may due so out of racism, while others may do so for the attention that outrage brings.
Ralph Northam's photos may or may not mean he is racist. Better to follow his language.
Upon viewing his language, there are several considerations. The first being his use of "racist" as a term of derision in his campaign.
His opponent wanted security in the borders as the gang "MS 13" has a strong presence in Virginia.
Rather than agree with his opponent, Northam made repeated assertions that his opponent was "a racist."
Abortion and Racism
Abortion was championed originally to limit the number of black children being born. It is ironic that this case came together as it it, in the scope of 48 hours.
Last week, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, MD, came out in support of legislation that some call "birth abortion" and "post birth abortion."
In listening to him, the attempt to portray his words as "out of context" was deceptive in its assertion. The video was not cut. When he made this attempt, he made his position, as the governor and as a doctor, clear.
It was later revealed that Ralph Northam, a medical doctor, received almost $2,000,000 in campaign donations from the abortion industry's most profitable organization, Planned Parenthood.
WTOP-FM interview, he said the position on a woman aborting the child while dilating was “was really blown out of proportion.”
“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician—more than one physician, by the way—and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”
He gives a hypothetical response which is appropriate given the question about "what if a woman is dilating...?"
He should not be cited for the hypothetical scenario language ("may") yet calls our attention, via emphasis with "by the way."
It is to be noted that Northam’s response, however, is inconsistent with the actual language of the legislation. HB 2491 specifically eliminates the requirement of more than one physician’s “consent”:
The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.
This is an added emphasis, but it is not clear if it is an error on his part, or deception. It may be, but it is not conclusive in the language.
His use of "fetus" is consistent with the generally stated position of Planned Parenthood.
Additionally, research does not support the common pro-abortion rights narrative that late-term abortions are performed primarily in cases of “severe deformities” or when the unborn baby is determined “non-viable.”
A study released in 2013 by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, found women seeking both first-trimester and late-term abortions provided the same reasons for delaying their abortions, including “not knowing about the pregnancy,” “trouble deciding about the abortion,” and “disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved.”
For women in the late-term abortion group, the most commonly cited reason for delaying the procedure was ‘raising money for the procedure and related costs.’”
It is not known here if Northam is ignorant of the research (no deception) or if he is attempting to deceive.
H then gives us insight into his personal subjective dictionary. We now see the confidence increase as he went from "we" to "I" in the following:
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.
The pronoun "I" produced the word "exactly." This is an increase in confidence. It thus throws doubt upon the error v deception above. He says "I can tell you" which suggests that there were things that preceded this that "we could not tell you."
When a liar is fabricating and has the opportunity to make a truthful point, he is very likely to avail himself of such.
Recall when the mother of missing/murdered 13 year old Hailey Dunn was describing the night the child was killed.
"I did see her in her bed, but I did not touch her."
She did not say, "she was in her bed" nor even "I saw her in her bed..."
but "I did" is to affirm with emphasis that which did not warrant such.
Did you notice the negative?
"I did see her in her bed, but I did not touch her."
"She was in her bed" would emphasize or focus upon the "missing" child, yet the subject focuses upon her own self. This was what indicated her immediate guilt: alibi building on the Nancy Grace Show.
Here she tells us what she saw and what she did not do.
The word 'but" is used to counter what "I did" and the "rule of the negative" elevates what she did not do: she did not touch the dead body.
Deceptive people relieve some level of stress by emphasizing something they know to be true while being overall deceptive. Keep this in mind when less than 24 hours later, Northam would have more explaining to do.
Back to his statement. What of the "fetus"?
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered.
From a doctor, "the infant would be delivered" has the change from "fetus" to "infant."
If he had hoped to claim anything other than infanticide, the following words reveal insight into his personal subjective internal dictionary:
The infant would be kept comfortable.
Here the infant's living status quality is addressed. He is in a hypothetical response (appropriate) and now gives human comfort to a human ("infant" in his language).
What comes next in his statement?
The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
It is no longer a "pre born" or a "fetus" but an "infant" who is alive outside of his or her mother.
It is now the "desire" that decides if the child, who has been made "comfortable", lives or is put to death. He uses passivity as the means of death.
"So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. "
In this sense, it is true. The question was about aborting a "fetus" that is still within the mother's womb, but that she had only begun to dilate.
Ralph Northam took the hypothetical scenario outside the boundary of the question. In this he took it further (inflation) than what the called for.
He then used a conservative talking point:
We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.
The subject is deceptive about infanticide. This is "who" the subject is in 2019. Having received almost $2,000,000 dollars from the abortion industry leader Planned Parenthood, the bill not only allows for increased abortion profits, but for infanticide. His attempt to deny this was not only deceptive, but it affirmed the accusation of supporting infanticide.
Hours later, a photo from 1984 was published in which he was in seen in offensive costume.
Here is his statement.
“I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now. This behavior is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine, and in public service. But I want to be clear, I understand how this decision shakes Virginians’ faith in that commitment.”
In training, investigators and analysts are taught to trust pronouns. They are instinctive, intuitive and 100% accurate. We use the pronoun "I" so many millions of times, we are efficient at brain-tongue processing.
Conclusion: he is in the photo.
Note the statement begins with "I", increasing psychological presence.
Note he takes ownership of the decision for the costume.
Note embedded (and reliable) pronoun admissions. "...decision I made" which speaks to the period of time before the photo where brain processing ("should I wear this?") took place.
Consider that either costume would take both imagination and physical effort. This is the investment of thought and emotion (psychological).
Either costume would require the investment time to obtain and to adorn.
If he is not one of these two photos, he knows there is a photo of him dressed as such that may come out. Why? Because of the pronoun "ownership" he reports. It is coming from experiential memory.
He went on to "crowd sourcing guilt", similar to the little boy who claims innocence to his mother because "everyone did it, but the teacher only picked on me!"
It is not only crowd sourcing guilt, but it is a psychological shift of blame and a justification for faux righteous indignation as a victim...
from the lips of a 6 year old boy.
Northam said that his growth mirrored the growth of "the commonwealth."
This is to move from singular responsibility, to "crowd sourcing guilt" of an entire racist entity.
It is an affirmation of his own guilt.
He could have said "this was a stupid and thoughtless stunt" rather than the oft-cited fraudulent, "I take full responsibility."
In statement analysis, we note those who take or own responsibility versus those who have the need to state that they are "taking" responsibility. This is evident in Employment Analysis of recovering addicts. They do not state that they are taking personal responsibility; they simply take it. There is a stark difference.
In his later denial, he said that he had consulted with classmates and family and that it is not him in the photo and he is doing an investigation.
The initial apology shows pronoun ownership of the event.
He then went on to not only introduce the entire state and history of Virginia "the commonwealth" as to water down guilt and blame his culture, but he then invoked a deceptive tangent.
To change the topic is a form of avoidance. It is something manipulative personalities do well, but honest people often struggle with when they lie.
Recently, a supervisor received a report that his employee was not out working but out partying on a business trip.
"You were seen smoking marijuana while you were supposed to be working..."
The subject said, "Me? Where would I get marijuana? Where in ____ city would I find marijuana to buy?"
The allegation produced a sensitive response which its first words indicate the strategy the employee is very likely to take when facing internal discipline:
He will embrace the role as victim of some form of injustice.
Next, he uses questions to move the focus of words from himself and his action to purchasing and the location of a large city. He went from small ("me") to large ("city").
It is something he is comfortable doing and in employment analysis, this would be someone flagged for "low personal responsibility."
"I am not the person in that photo," Northam said at an afternoon news conference.
He apologized, however, for the photos being on a page with his name on it.
Gnostic Distancing Language
It is common for guilty people to say "that is not who I am" (in some form) rather than
"I did not do it."
"That doesn't sound like me..."
need to persuade --self and police, rather than deny the action.
Northam, at age 59, employs this same technique.
"I am asking for the opportunity to earn your forgiveness," the governor said, adding, "I am far from perfect and I can always strive to do more."
Several points here:
1. If this is a fake photo, he is the victim.2. If it is not him, he is also a victim (genuinely) as falsely accused.
"The reason I so vividly don't remember is because it didn't happen,"
a. note the negative
b. note the need to explain why he does not remember
Consider "it didn't happen" is passive from one who has used passivity, yet works in "passive voice" the psychological mindset of distancing language away from guilt. It is a psychological term, not a grammatical, used to enter into the mindset of the subject as he has an ongoing need to remove or distance himself, seen in his words, from guilt.
As in deception mindset he does what the pattens call for:
"Get the heated attention off this topic" by moving to larger quantities, but then he does something he likely considered to be clever.
He preempted the next accusation knowing a photo may now surface:
"I did darken my face to dress up like Michael Jackson."
An ingratiating journalist asked him if he could "moon walk" of which he appeared to be stopped by his wife from doing so.
This is important because it speaks to his expectation of a friendly press.
Ralph Northam "saw" racism in his opponents' policies against illegal break ins to the nation by criminal gang members. Those who "see" racism may be exploiting but may be racist themselves. Those who "see racism everywhere", do so because it proceeds from their own selves.
"From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
Planned Parenthoods' origins of eliminating black births was in stock with the KKK's ideology of racism.
That this organization would donate money to him only to have him promote their interests is not lost on the public.
The awkwardness of his language first in explanation of infanticide and then in his yearbook photos is, for the non trained, the level of discomfort they sense in liars.
His reaction to the journalist indicated his level of comfort with the press. This, too, would cause him to lower his guard and speak freely, allowing us to obtain information. This is the contempt of which is evidenced in expectation that his audience will believe whatever it is he says because he is "morally" superior in his popular or trendy positions.
That he would remember and then suddenly not remember an event that took time and effort (costume idea, design, adornment) and took effort to remove (recall his remark on how difficult it was to remove black face), tell the untrained that he is lying.
That he would, as a physician who took an oath to "do no harm" advocate for infanticide should be considered in the "need" (analysis) of morally charged platitudes so often heard.
Those who seek ethical or moral policy are often low on the language of such.
Because it is unnecessary.
It is the unnecessary language of morals or ethics that audiences should focus upon. In analysis, we flag for sensitivity.
The unnecessary language of the "higher moral position" in a statement often indicates to the contrary.
In a criminal interview, the unnecessary "sermon" or "moral lecture" often means: we have the right suspect. And if he "didn't do it", he did something else that triggers such language. We often solve attendant crimes simply by listening.