by Peter Hyatt
'If you want to know who your master is, see the one whom you cannot criticize.'
We just saw a sheriff struggle to avoid stating the obvious.
The sheriff had the motive before him and showed unnecessary sensitivity in simply stating it.
What caused this intrusion into his language?
He had an attempted murderer imitate several weeks worth of terrorism in Israel by going after citizens with a knife, but if this was not enough, police have his manifesto which affirmed his motive: devout obedience to the koran.
Yet. in this, the sheriff's statement showed sensitivity, which is likely reluctance, to admit this. He spoke intelligently, and from experimental memory, but called upon additional support to what he "remembered" seeing in one portion, but not in the other, which was more detailed.
"I remember seeing" Versus "I saw..."
When one says, "I remember seeing..." instead of the strong, "I saw", it is an indication of weakness and we must explore the cause. By saying "I remember..." one may even be able to blame faulty memory, should he wish to disavow or alter his assertion.
When we struggle with memory, it is an appropriate phrase to use.
Since the Tripoli invasion, America has been at war with Islam's ideology which was brought home in no uncertain sound on 9/11 when symbols of our culture were destroyed. This, too, was from the koran. Yet, this war took a decidedly strange turn which put federal and local law enforcement in a most awkward position. The war against the ideology has never been a war against a race of people. In fact, Muslims, themselves, are often the victims of Islamic violence. It is the ideology that teaches violence.
We think of a boy who witnesses Domestic Violence in his home as in desperate need of intervention, and we are correct: he may now be prone to violence against women if he grew up seeing his mother attacked.
How much more so for a young boy who is taught, by precept and precedent:
1. You are superior to women and the koran says she is only worth "one half" of your value. By itself, this could lead to violence. But it does much deeper:
2. You are to hit your wife to 'correct' her
3. He actually sees the physical abuse of his mother who may not object or protest
4. He sees his entire community do it
5. He is told that this is a religious obligation and something divinity wants him to do.
6. This happens during the brain's development.
"Ghosts from the Nursery" explored this, but not from the perspective of religious instruction or parent pleasing.
This boy wants to please his parents and fulfill his religion.
*How much more likely is he to engage in Domestic Violence?
For 6 years now, law enforcement has been at war with the Federal view of the Islamic supremacist ideology which calls for strict and literal obedience to the koran, including the mandate for not only violence, but spectacular or public violence against the "kaffir", or infidel. Like the attacker in California, and the weekly videos, be heading is specifically called for, and those who are obedient, do it. The sheriff obviously knows this, in context (see his entire statement) as he references "the virgins" in his statement. (This element adds to the Islamic rape epidemic and misogyny).
There is not just a desensitization to violence as part of this ideology, but a religious, moral and familiar obligation that has brought about violence, consistently, for centuries, which has been in every nation, every country and every race it has gained footing in. Those in the field often see (and struggle with) the language of denial or minimization within Domestic Violence victims as we expect it but how much more so in a victim's language who believes it is a religious duty to accept the assaults?
What causes this reluctance on the part of the subject?
Here is a small sample to show this shift in what is 'safe' to say and what is not:
One of the appointees to the Department of Homeland Security tweeted that the United States is an islamic nation.
One of the senior officials at the FBI tweeted that the Koran has "American values."
Federal training manuals have removed the word "islam" from "islamic violence" and continually refer to "right wing" violence, though it does not exist in any measurable form.
Many times in the last 6 years when people have died in accordance to the koran, Barak Obama has made a statement which included a reference to "The Crusades" much like his recent "Islam helped found America" statement. This subfucation of history is the norm in Islamic nations who believe that Europe's wealth is as a result of theft from them. The koran tells them that the lands where "allah has not blessed" are in "ruins." When they see the Eiffel Tower, or the Twin Towers, there is a blaring contradiction of the koran, and in their ideology, the koran cannot be wrong, so ancient ruins, including churches, artifacts, art, etc, are exploded.
The "corporate victim status" is an empowering and uniting element.
There is a pressure, which has built for 6 years now in earnest, to avoid assigning the violence prescribed in the koran, and obeyed by the criminal, to religious motive.
This is the reason for the awkward statement by the Sheriff.
Disagreement is no longer considered a vehicle of progress.
The Language of Disagreement ___________
One of my biggest concerns for our country after the advent of this violent ideology is the American trend to linguistically demonize anyone who disagrees with another, and assign certain negative emotions, which are predominantly "irrational fear" and "hatred."
This is to say,
1. "if you disagree with me, you have an irrational fear of what I hold to."
2. "If you disagree with me, you are a person of hate."
It has become so popular that it is rare to analyze a statement from politics or civil discourse without new "phobia" words.
What does "phobia" mean?
What does "hate" mean?
"Phobia" is to insult the subject, and assign to the subject a mental health disorder or issue that warrants professional intervention. In effect, it is a label used to silence opposition. Since you are "irrationally afraid" of the topic, there is no use in continuing the discussion.
"Hate", which is akin to murder, to to also silence or marginalize the subject by making the assertion that the person disagreeing is of a base character, unworthy to be heard, blinded by a powerful prejudicial emotion that if allowed to act upon itself, will lead to murder. Since you intend upon murder, there is no use in continuing the discussion.
"Hate Speech" is common in Europe, and gaining strength in America.
In Europe, "hate speech" is often described or applied as any words used to incite violence. This is not lost upon Islamic supremacists.
Islam forbids criticism of Islam under the penalty of death. This is the "Sharia blasphemy law" often cited.
In something as simple as a cartoon, violence is threatened; therefore, if one draws a cartoon of Mohammad, not only is he subject to violence or threats of violence (with a long track record of keeping its word) but the subject may be arrested, fined, or even face potential incarceration.
By the very definition (or practical legal application) of European "hate speech", it is a de facto implementation of Sharia blasphemy law even when saying it is not Sharia. If, for example, we promise to go violent if you criticize the headscarf, anyone criticizing the headscarf can be guilty of inciting violence. The control is gained readily because no politician wishes to be in office during a riot.
Sweden took it a step further: make it a crime to criticize the government policy on immigration. Therefore, it creates the very opposite of "voice of the people" rule. One politician was charged with "hate speech" because he presented statistics that showed the connection between Islam's ideology and rape. The court did not disagree with the statistics, only that his quoting them is to incite violence. Even quoting Islamic scholars to show Mohammad had sex with a child is to incite violence.
America used to severely limit its interpretation to "crying "FIRE!" in a movie theatre" as a sense.
In America today, we see this in certain topics and it leads to the same dichotomy of speech that is in Europe:
People will say one thing in public, but another thing in private.
We are then able to see, in public statements, the sensitivity in defensiveness, fear, or concern. We may pick this up. It was comically portrayed in "Seinfeld" but the same qualifiers are being used...
"...not that there's anything wrong with that." This fumbling over words was comical, but in context they were somewhat prophetic as the writer, himself, expressed reluctance to appear at colleges because "everyone is offended by everything" as the point of humor is to be ironic, inappropriate, offensive, and so on. Remember the days of "roasts"? Today, courts would award millions to the "victim" for hurt feelings, which is why people fear free speech so much so:
Jobs will not give references.
In public, people must watch every word they say.
But worse, is the dichotomy of speech because this does have external consequences. What happens when someone feels that he or she cannot speak out that which they consider logic or opinion?
This leads to powerfully embittered emotional reactions: no one likes to be squelched.
We have been created to communicate what their brains process more than any other creatures found in creation. (including Dex)
|Say it ain't so|
If one must be bullied into either silence or false statements, not only is the topic weak, but it is to fill the opponent with resolve. This, too, begins to show itself in language, especially with a few additional words that show the underlying negative emotion.
If those who disagree fear losing their jobs, social status, or professional licenses, expect the language to show an ever increasing level of bitterness.
It is in the language, and it is a growing trend that Statement Analysts must track.