A psycho-linguistic profile is used to identify important elements of an anonymous author.
It is that when we speak or write, we reveal many things about ourselves. The profile seeks to identify four specific elements:
1. The Author's Background
Is the author a male or female? What is the author's race? How old is the author? Where is the author from? (regionalism) What is the author's intelligence level?
2. The Author's Experiences
Does the author have a high education? Military? Medical, legal, technical background? Does he use substances?
Education level has become more difficult to pinpoint due to the marked degradation of formal education in the United States. For example, a high school graduate, pre 1980, may have better grammar skills than a master's level post 2000.
3. The Author's Priority
What does the author want? What are lesser priorities?
This is a point of very high accuracy in threat assessment. Is this a true "whistle blower", or is the author seeking to cause an emotional reaction in the recipient? Does the author seek cover for criminal acts or guilt?
4. The Author's Personality
The author's dominant personality traits will emerge within the words. Narcissistic, manipulative, low human empathy, low personal responsibility, outgoing, introverted, and even sex may be found in the words. Violent, impulsive, thoughtful, pensive? Mental health issues are often evidenced in the words.
Statement Analysis has correctly identified the authors of anonymous threatening letters for law enforcement and private sector.
Next, we look at further elements of an anonymous letter.
1. Masking
An author will seek to mask his or her identity. This "masking" is noted in emphasis.
In a recent anonymous threat, the author used common "black urban speak" language. He was identified as a white low level employee in his company, successfully. The attempt to appear one race will suggest the other.
We do not find "double masking" in general in analyzing anonymous authors. It is to go against human nature to draw specific attention to self when one does not wish to be identified.
2. Intended and Unintended Recipient
To whom is the author addressing? Is there, such as in taped jail house video, an "unintended" audience (more important) such as the investigators?
3. Ingratiation
Does the author seek to ingratiate himself or herself to the recipient? Or, does the author remain indifferent to the audience, instead focusing on the topic (danger, alert, etc) as priority?
4. Elements of Persuasion
Simply, the less "need to persuade" and the greater the linguistic commitment, the likely of reliable information increases. The "psychological wall of truth" that is in the language of de facto innocents, is also in the language of anonymous authors who write as a "Whistleblower" to alert others to danger and risk.
The answer to "who wrote this?" is to emerge slowly and naturally. The analyst must be prepared to change viewpoints often until the statement, itself, has satisfied the assertions by denial or affirmation. Any "closed mindedness" or "falling in love with my opinion" will lead to error. This is an inexact exercise, particularly when compared to simple deception detection.
What is the Expectation of Accuracy in the Psycho-linguistic profile?
Deception Detection expectation is 100% accuracy. If there is an error, it can and should be traced and rectified. Once it is known if someone is deceptive or reliable:
Content Analysis expectation is 80% accuracy. This means we are often able to identify who did it, when he did it, how he did it, and why he did it.
Psycho-lingusitic Profile expectation for accuracy is 70% of three of four basic elements (background, experiences and personality traits). The fourth, "priority" is at 100% expectation of accuracy.
Correctly identifying 7 of 10 of these three elements is often enough for the recipient of an anonymous threatening letter to identify the author.
We seek to learn this author's identity through the author's background, experiences, priorities and dominant personality traits.
Please search this blog for examples, from news stories, on the successful identifying of anonymous authors, including fraudulent attempts to raise money at "Go Fund Me."
The following is from the NY Times in which a "high ranking senior official at the White House" wrote an op-ed piece published 5 September, 2018.
Linguistic Disposition is one of the most key points of Anonymous Author Identification. This asks contextual questions of each "person" in the statement:
"What does the author think of President Trump?"
"What does the author think of himself?"
"What does the author think of others?" These are "people" that enter the statement. We recognize them, note the order, and carefully classify the author's disposition (in the words) towards each entry. It can be positive, negative or neutral, and is context dependent.
For example, a father reports a young child (incapable of self protection) missing in the woods. After several hours of searching without finding the child, the father praises the officials for not finding his child. This is not only linguistic disposition but represents an example of "ingratiation" with police. It is common for criminals to praise or "ingratiate" themselves into authorities. This is heard in 911 calls when one is giving an overabundance of detail to sound helpful.
"What does the author think of his audience?"
This is mostly discerned by unnecessary information. Does the author use ingratiation? Does the author hold the audience in contempt? Does the author think the audience is not intelligent enough to discern deception? Is the author condescending? Etc.
What can we know about the author from the words?
Sex in Anonymous Letters
More males than females write anonymous letters.
Anonymous letters have a correlation with same sex attraction (SSA) where a desire to "come out" is sometimes found as a priority for the author.
Sex is not likely found in "Whistle blower" letters unless the letter seeks to protect others from sexual abuse. Here, the motive is a perception of public good: justice or safety.
Sex is also not often found in female authors. In female authors we find more of a sense of needing to be heard, raised from emotional bruising or abuse. This could arise from sexual betrayal, but the overriding motive is more to be "heard" which often indicates a sense of silencing by the subject.
Trigger: Humiliation
Humiliation is often a trait found in both male and female. It is often later learned that:
Humiliation was the "trigger" which caused the author to go ahead with plans to publish or mail the written statement.
Many may feel a sense of relief in the processing that takes place in writing an anonymous letter and will not go on to mail or publish it.
This includes threatening letters.
With anonymous letters that are not "genuine" whistle blowing letters (hence, "deception indicated") we look for the author to tell us that he (or she) has been emotionally wounded and perceives the need for personal redress.
Genuine Whistleblower letters will have short introductions (25% or less) and an immediate revelation of injustice or danger (50% or more) and may include concern for personal with regards to anonymity. The last section may present hope or remedy for justice/safety.
In criminal analysis, someone thinking of theft of his employer, for example, may not go through with it. Yet, passed over in promotion, the humiliation triggers the action of theft.
In sexual assault statements this is often found in the words of perpetrators, including in genuine misogynistic violence.
Hormonal Consequence
"Did you kill my pet unicorn this morning?" is not likely to trigger a significant hormonal reaction (polygraph) in a subject. This is true of fictional examples and in hypothetical expectation. Hard data and constant exposure to statements proves most effective for analysts.
Post 2000 education may find the discernment of male and female language to be "offensive." The educational indoctrination of "social construct" overrules critical thinking (and biology) in a reported "higher ethical" cause.
Oxytocin, Estrogen and Testosterone begins shortly after the 7th week in the baby's development. The mother's voice, sound, music, nutrition, substance abuse, alcohol, overall health, all impact the ongoing development. By 8 weeks, the male and female baby are measurably different. Domestic Violence, causing hormonal response (such as cortisol/adrenaline spike) will impact the pre born child.
The "hormonal consequence" ("fight or flight") is used in statement analysis and in body language analysis training for military and law enforcement.
Whistle Blowing Letters
These are anonymously sent with the priority of justice. This is presented by the editorial staff as a "senior high ranking White House official" needing to come forth for higher ethical concerns, and in need of confidentiality.
The letter, therefore, should be presupposed to be as such. With this presupposition, we look for its priority and body to:
1. Reveal specific corruption
2. Seek justice against said corruption.
If the "whistle blowing" is regarding a president's mental capacity for the position, it should state this as a priority and it should give evidence to the same.
Please note the universal and historical use of the masculine pronoun, "he" in the general analysis. A switch to "he or she" indicates a move to the minority (female) which can show the analyst's thought process.
I. The Statement
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
II. Statement With Analysis
Statement Analysis 101 teaches that where a person begins a statement is always important and it is sometimes even the reason for the statement.
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
a. The statement begins with the pronoun "I" which suggests the psychological presence of the author is going to yield reliable information.
b. The author begins with work status: "I work for the president"
c. The author immediately responds to working for the president with the word, "but." This is to refute or minimize the statement of working for the president.
Questions:
Does the author no longer work for the president?
Does the author still work for the president yet has found his (or her) work marginalized by the president?
Does the author not work for the president, but actually works for those who do work for the president?
The statement is reported by the NY Times to be from a "high ranking" official.
These are questions left unanswered unless or until the statement itself answers them.
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
This is interesting: the author links with "like minded" "colleagues" which introduces another "person" in the statement.
1. "I"
2. "the president"
3. "colleagues"
These are not "officials" but are "colleagues."
Questions:
Is our author of a humble mind?
Or is our author not, perhaps, the "senior high ranking" official claimed?
Remember, psychologically, the author rebuts his own assertion of working for the president.
Verb:
"Colleagues and I vowed to..." is a strong commitment to a specific event in a specific time period. It is not what the author wrote.
"Colleagues and I have vowed..."
a. "have vowed" reduces commitment to a specific event at a specific time
b. "have vowed" could be over more time than a single event.
Note "vowed" is a very strong, formal wording. This suggests:
a. the author sought out others to join
b. the author has a need to persuade that this action is a result of an actual "vow"
c. Weakness? Such a formal oath from "colleagues" and the author may be hyperbole; more of an agreement than a stated oath.
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
a. The author does not wish to be "alone" in the quest to
b. "thwart"
c. The author wishes to only thwart "part" of the president's agenda.
Expected: In statement analysis, we set up "the expected versus the unexpected."
For example, if accused of shooting someone, we begin with the presupposed stance of a reliable denial: the innocent will say "I did not shoot him."
In a kidnapping case, we "expect" the biological parents to address the missing child, the kidnappers and any negotiation to regain the child.
When the expected is absent, we call this the "unexpected." In an allegation of kidnapping, we do not expect the parent to care for self, the lack of sleep or public perception. Why? Because the priority is the child, what the child is experiencing and how to get the child back. When this is not indicated, we discern deception. There are many examples here, including Madeleine McCann disappearance.
Vow as a Priority
Since this is under an oath or "vow" taken over time, and is found in the opening statement (priority) we now expect the author to identify which "parts" of the president's agenda that need to be thwarted by the author and the author's "colleagues."
The author identifies "some" of the president's agenda and his "worst inclinations."
Therefore, the agenda that has been vowed to be thwarted is expected to be identified; not only as such, but in detail.
The president's "worst inclinations" should also be identified since it is the reason for the vow and the author's priority.
Question: What if the author does not identify the above?
Answer: We may conclude that the author's stated priority contains deception.
If such deception exists, we may know that the author is likely a person who is habitually comfortable with deception.
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
We now move forward to learn what agendas and inclinations cause risk to our nation, to the contextual level of an anonymous letter.
This now brings us to classification:
Is this a genuine "whistle blower" letter? Is the author concerned for the well being of the United States? Or, does the author have competing interests?
Is this a whistleblower letter to awaken the public to a clear and present danger to the nation?
If so, fulfillment of such will be readily seen and given in reliable terms (shorter sentences; low qualifiers, low persuasion).
If not, is "I work", with the focus upon the job the most pressing priority for the author?
What are the author's lesser priorities?
The author does not wish to be "alone" psychologically. It is very likely that he/she feels isolated in position. This is a theme that we seek from the rest of the statement.
Will the statement affirm it, deny it, or not answer it?
We let the words guide us.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
"the president" is now called "President Trump" which is an appropriate title.
We hold to the expectation of the "law of economy" where we naturally go from longer to shorter. "My wife, Heather" should become "Heather" once introduced. If I repeated, "my wife, Heather" in the statement, it would not only become odious to read, but it would suggest a "need of emphasis" of her status as wife. Like the "Facebook Love" with its over emphasis of public praise, it suggests the contrary of a content relationship.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
We note the need for a psychological move to hyperbolic language. The end of the counsel is to impeach the president. Another "modern American leader" realized impeachment (without removal) in our life time.
What is this "test" that "President Trump" is facing?
Contextually, note that he is "President Trump" while "facing" a "test."
Note: the author has the need to separate the president from all other presidents, including President Clinton. Since President Clinton was the last president to be impeached (President Nixon was threatened and resigned), and
the author included "leaders", we should consider the unmentioned president, President Clinton is viewed in a "positive linguistic disposition."
contextual "President" facing "test": does the author favor "impeachment"?
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large.
The Rule of the Negative: What is reported in the negative is more important to the analysis than that which is in the positive. A reliable witness, for example, tells us what happened; not what did not happen.
Here, the author tells us what it is "not just" when it comes to the "special counsel."
External Context
The "special counsel" was convened by a release of FBI material by terminated director James Comes. Statement Analysis of Comey's statement indicated him for deception.
Russian Collusion
The FBI used a Clinton financed dossier to obtain FISA warrants to spy upon the Trump campaign. A collusion with the Russian government as investigated would be readily proven by the special counsel with both evidence and the results of planting a spy. We have learned that the FBI's leadership was corrupt, partisan and had an "insurance policy" (Peter Strzok) to overrule the democratic will of the American people. This is commonly referred to as the "Soft Coup Attempt" of 2016.
These actors conspired with a discredited (terminated) British spy (Christopher Steele) and with Russian to thwart the lawfully elected president.
Those associated with the Soft Coup have been either terminated or demoted. The investigation is more than 2 years old, with "Russian interference" publicly dismissed by ridicule by President Obama, and has failed to produce evidence of collusion by Trump.
It has revealed corruption (Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and more) which withheld critical information from FISA court judges, leaked confidential information and planted false stories in the media (choosing complicit media) as an "echo" of "confirmation." Several hundred promoted agents are under investigation for accepting bribes from journalists, including tickets to sporting or entertainment events. It is accepted that within the Bureau, agents refrain from sharing personal opinion and speaking to media.
The disgraced actors, demoted or terminated, may face indictment of criminal charges.
Hence, the assertion of "looms large" is an expression of persuasion; not the reporting of criminality nor fact. As such, "emotion" should be noted by the analyst.
The author tells us that this investigation "looms large", which is the language of "persuasion", rather than state what the results will be.
It looms large to "his" presidency; not "the presidency" nor even him, personally.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large.
Taking the negative (rule of the negative) and the persuasion, we consider the weakness of the assertion: no claim of Russian collusion, indictment, impeachment, removal, etc. It is expected by one taking a "vow" to tell us what "agenda" is illegal or harmful to America, and how this is to be rectified.
That the author does not expect the special counsel to reveal collusion is indicated by the dependent word, "just", which compares this to something else. This is, in a sense, to minimize the acute allegation of conspiring with a foreign enemy government to overrule the democratic will of the United States. Therefore, the author does not likely believe in collusion between the president and the Russian government to nullify or overthrow the vote of the American people.
Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership.
The country is divided in a close split and has been for most two party system governments. The additional and unnecessary word "bitter" is used as another "need to persuade" term, which signals emotion in the statement.
The emotion of "bitter" is very likely to be projection or "leakage" from the author.
This is where an author's own thinking is revealed the further he or she writes or speaks.
Recall when Baby Ayla went missing. The father did not call out to her through police, search, nor use media to find her. When provoked, he said,
"contrary to what's being floated out there, I have been cooperating with the Waterville police."
He had not only failed the polygraph and ran out of the police station when showed imagery of the victim's blood cleaned up in his basement, he gave indication that the child was likely disposed of in water. This is an example of projecting guilt into language; commonly called "leakage" by analysts.
Justin DiPietro was not cooperating "with" (distance) the police but concealed (deception) what happened to his child.
The partisan element continues:
Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
Note the reference to party is "his" party. This follows "his" presidency.
Both separate him from the two entities. It is not "the presidency" nor is it "the party."
Our author may have a history of supporting partisan politics contrary to this position and administration. Voting record will likely show "democrat" when discovered.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
The author does not say "I know" but "would" (future/conditional). Yet, even "I know" is unnecessary information since we were told, "I work for the president" in the opening statement.
Next note, one of "them" is now employed. This is now another element of unnecessary emphasis.
a. NY Time published this as a high ranking White House official.
b. The author was a "colleague" of "vow takers" earlier.
c. This is an example of needless persuasion and over-emphasis, common in masking.
If the author does not reveal high crimes, harmful agenda or dangerous impulse that impact our nation, this would affirm a "false priority" or "deception indicated as a Whistle Blower" author.
Question: Is the author not a "high ranking White House official" but one who works for (or has worked for) a "high ranking White House official"?
Emphasis of Plurality is not necessary since we were told, in the opening that "colleagues" have taken this vow.
The author is very likely to be alone in this letter.
The following need to move from "I" to "we" with additional unnecessary emphasis affirms this assertion of working alone:
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
"To be clear" is an unnecessary statement. Allegations of illegal or illicit "agenda" and dangerous impulses or instincts do not require clarity.
The author has a need to be heard and understood. This is where the author began the statement and is a priority. Thus far, we have not heard:
a. High Crimes and Misdemeanors
b. Illegal Activities Witnessed
c. Specific commitment to irrational behaviors
We have been alerted to the "health" of the republic by the author. The author should, if making a reliable report on the risk to the public, state precisely and concisely the immediate risk to the republic.
What is the first word produced by the author to this "health risk to the republic"?
That
The author did not write, "this is why" with the word "this" indicating importance or "closeness." Instead, the author chose "that", or distancing language from the topic of the "detriment of health" of the republic.
This is to affirm and then deny the importance or priority of the topic presented. It is consistent with deception.
is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
We see a change in social introduction context.
"Trump appointees" are not "the president's appointees" but "Trump's."
Analysts should consider if our author has worked for an appointee or has a relation to "appointee" (including being one, but not permitted to access "high ranking" meetings).
The author may have recently experienced a perceived humiliation by the president or by his or her superiors.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality.
The "test", the "agenda" the "worst inclinations", the "investigation" (Russian Collusion) now are identified as a "root" in which the author knows that the president is
"amoral."
This is to be without morals. This is a trait sometimes associated with sociopathy or lacking conscience.
Our author does not state, "Trump is amoral" but identifies the "root" or beginning of the "problem."
This is not evidence of high crimes, treason, criminal collusion but is, again, an entrance of emotional language by the author.
It is not criminal but it is a "problem."
This is consistent with emotional language that minimizes, rather than willingly uses outright deception.
Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Here we have another introduction to "people" in the statement. This time it is not "to be clear" but "anyone who..."
This is to seek "others", which is found in crowd sourcing guilt. It is very likely that our author is concerned about his or her own actions' consequence.
"anyone" is all inclusive; hyperbole noted. This further weakens the assertions of the author.
"Moored" is a term associated with sailing or boating.
Has our author been on a yacht?
Has our author spent time near water, experiencing storms?
Does or did our author work for an "official" who owned a yacht or boat?
Has our author read or been involved in any fiction or non fiction with characters from the sea?
The author calls these "first principles" that are "discernible." This is to acknowledge that the author believes the president does have principles, but that the author does not "discern" them.
The decisions are "his";
the author has likely been impacted by a decision made by the president. This could be direct or it could be indirect, from a senior official having to make a reluctant decision.
It is noted that we have not gotten to the "whistle blow" of crimes or illicit conduct/behavior, including those which are without morals. Yet the author recognizes accomplishments by the president.
Did you notice the wording?
and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
The change from "his" to 'its" further suggest our author has experienced some form of personal humiliation and, thus far, has failed to identify anything but nondescript conclusions ("the root" and "amoral") without evidence or reliable sentence structure.
This is to further affirm the intrusion of emotion in the statement of the author.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.
Note there is no claim, "the president opposes free minds, free markets and free people."
It is that he shows "affinity" for, but "little affinity" in our author's verbalized (written) perception of reality.
Note "espoused" is a language often referring to marriage. It is also associated with emotion and relationships.
Does our author feel personally humiliated or rejected by the president, or by the "official"?
Note the order:
a. free minds
b. free markets
c. free people
It is interesting that "minds" comes first. Note that the president has come out against:
a. Censorship in social media
b. Unfair trade policies with global partners
c. in support of "populism", or peoples' voice, including self determination.
"free minds"
It is very likely that our author considers himself or herself a "free thinker,"
The author's ideas were likely perceived to be under-appreciated or rejected.
Question: Was our author "in over his (her) head" professionally?
Was our author part of an appointment employment that was not merit based?
Our author indicates a sense of betrayal; personally, not nationally.
At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
The author invokes further hyperbolic language with "best" and "worst" comparisons.
We must, therefore, have the author identify the specific actions of the president to obstruct thinking (silencing), free markets, and how he has sought to make "bonded" people that are free.
Please note that the author recognizes national safety and prosperity.
Safety
The Iran Deal, not confirmed by Congress, that has enriched the Islamic Republic of Iran to export terrorism, has been abandoned.
The Islamic terrorist ISIS has been decimated by orders by the president, as commander in chief.
The US military has been strengthened, updated and rank and file have received salary increases.
North Korea is in negotiations to de-nuclearize, which would bring peace to the world if accomplished.
Germany long refusing to fund its NATO obligation has acquiesced to the president's call to meet its commitment. This came as some of the Soft Coup actors called the president a "traitor" who should be "tried for treason."
Statement Analysis indicated such for acute projection of criminal (illegal) behavior guilt.
Prosperity
Black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at record lows.
Wages have increased without government coercion.
Major companies announced returns to the United States.
Manufacturing has increased.
Consumer Confidence is high.
The president has rolled back thousands of pages of government regulations of businesses.
The "conservative" ideology encompasses less government interference and strong military. The "progressive" or "left" emphasizes more government interference in both business and in the social lives of the people. The current "divide" includes lack of physical boundaries and general demarcations.
The author's claim of "free mind" is key to understanding what may have triggered this (thus far) emotion dominated statement.
End of part one.
The author's background, experiences, priorities and dominant personality traits are emerging.
Upcoming Part Two: Will the author reveal the immediate danger to the nation?
For training in deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.
No comments:
Post a Comment