Saturday, September 16, 2017

Deception: The Psychology of Backlash

Hillary Clinton released a book which was unique in that it posed both the question and the answer on the cover:

"What Happened

Hillary Clinton."

Exerts from the book are fascinating in that she takes the topic of personal responsibility to a new and often shocking level. 

Successful people take ownership of their failures and learn from them.  

The blaming of others is interesting to read.  Here are just those that I've read in exerts online. Her blaming of others teaches us many things about her.  She had not campaigned much in some states, had not written a concession speech, refused to concede until President Obama intervened, and had even spent a great deal of her money purchasing a home for the Secret Service agents to live next door to her.  She even refused to concede until the next day and only under pressure from President Obama.  

Hillary Clinton went into the 2016 election with:

Virtually all of Media Support,
99% (or more)  of Hollywood celebrity endorsements 
A narrative taught from kindergarten  through college 
The worldwide support of politicians, celebrities and media
The support of the political elite including President Obama 
The largest financial backing a candidate has ever seen, including the untold millions and millions through the "Clinton Foundation"
The refusal of the Justice Dept. to prosecute her in spite of publicly stated findings of  crimes
The refusal of the FBI to request prosecution 

Consistent polling showing dramatic victory.  

TV news shows openly joked and ridiculed anyone who dared suggest to the contrary. 

They labeled anyone who did not voice support for Hillary Clinton to be "racist", "misogynist" and even "nazis."  The pressure was such that people reported fearing for their jobs if they expressed support for anyone other than Hillary Clinton at their workplace. 

For some, these fears became realized after the election. 

The pressure was extreme and for many Americans, the shock of what unfolded that night remains.  
Hillary lost.  

Here are just a few of where she placed the blame for losing the election.  

She blamed:

Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the Democratic Primary of whom we learned that the primary was fixed so that Sanders would lose.  

"His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

"Crooked Hillary" came from the unanswered allegations of "Clinton Cash" in which the Clintons are alleged to have pilfered millions and millions of dollars from poor African counties, Haiti, as well as deep times to Russian billionaires and uranium deals.          

From a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Hillary's emails now confirm why Hillary did not issue any denials regarding the Clinton Foundation's exploitative activities.  We may now see calls for a special prosecutor. 

She writes that he impugned her character, made unrealistic promises of free everything to everyone, that put her in the position of being a wet-blanket realist and did little to confront those in his movement who were launching "ugly and more than a little sexist" attacks on her supporters.  
Clinton also points out that Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party and, consequently, may not always have the party's best interests in mind.
"I am proud to be a Democrat, and I wish Bernie were, too," she writes.  Sanders is an international socialist.  

Russia:   This is listed separately from Vladimir Putin because of the deals between Hillary and Russian businesses who donated millions of dollars to the "Clinton Foundation."  The ties between Hillary and Russia must be understood in context, when we view the actions of President Obama and why he told Hillary to concede in light of Susan Rice's "unmasking" deception. Putin:  I never imagined that he would have the audacity to launch a massive covert attack against our own democracy, right under our noses-and that he'd get away with it", she wrote.  President Obama's justice department had already done an investigation and knew this was not true, which is why he insisted that Hillary concede. 

Of Barak Obama, she blamed him for not calling a national news conference to announce that their "democracy was under attack" and in danger.  Recall the personal animosity between Obama and the Clintons as seen in a snap shot after he was first elected and became angry that Hillary addressed him by his first name.   


"I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack. Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat in time. " White People

As one woman pointed out:  Hillary called the husbands, sons and brothers of women "deplorable, nazi, sexists" and fully expected women to have more loyalty to her than their own families.  

Hillary blamed white people in general, including white women who she labeled misogynists.  

Here is a lesson in advanced analysis:  Projection.  

You can identify a racist by following the language.  It guides us to the truth.  Those who incessantly "see" racism everywhere and anywhere are projecting.  

Racism is something that can be evidenced in language.  It is a deep personal animosity based upon race.  

Those who are not racist do not carry heavy racist thoughts.  

Those with racism do carry heavy thoughts, and it becomes evident in their language.  

Recall the analysis when a most privileged young man in law school, who comes from a wealthy background and name drops politicians says that he lives "every day" with the "burden of my skin color", he reveals himself as such. It goes beyond exploitation and reveals a deeply embedded insidious racism.  

Projection in Analysis Training:

In studying deception detection, honest people struggle, at first, to identify deception.  They simply project their own honesty on to others and it takes training to overcome.  When it moves to content analysis these "trusting" analysts do quite well.  

The exception is often found in law enforcement and this is because they deal with deception every day, all shift.  

"To the pure all things are pure; to the froward, all things are froward

Jill Stein 

This one came as a bit of a surprise, as it seems there is no end to casting blame upon others. 

In 2016 Jill Stein (Green party) received 1,457,216 votes.  Was she a "misogynist" too?  Were the 1.4 million who voted for her misogynist?

She blamed James Comey and the FBI 

"If not for the dramatic intervention of the FBI director in the final days we would have won the White House."  Comey declined to recommend prosecution, which in looking back was all but  perfunctory since Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton and would not have prosecuted.  "I don't know quite what audience he was playing to, other than maybe some right-wing commentators, right-wing members of Congress, whatever." 


This is a word, like "racist" and "nazi" that has lost its meaning.  When actual misogyny is evidenced in criminal investigations, it is frightening and most always deadly.  

"This has to be said.  Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election.  Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."

This builds false narrative and makes assertion of "sexism" against the one who defeated her. She sees "sexism" everywhere because she is sexist; that is, she demands to be voted for based upon her sex.  

"I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president," she said during a CBS interview. "It doesn't fit into the stereotypes we all carry around in our head. And a lot of the sexism and the misogyny was in service of these attitudes. Like, you know, 'We really don't want a woman commander in chief'." She could not accept that voters did not want her as commander in chief.  As to the computer scandal and Wikileaks document dump, she did not address what was in the emails, but claimed the emails were selectively released.  This is not true.  Wikileaks does document "dumps" of massive files.  Selectivity comes from the journalists who present the material.   





But there is one place she assigns blame that I wish to link to deception and backlash: 

                                    The media. 

Hillary blames the media that was, by most estimates, more than 95% extremely favorable to her.  But it was the media's stance towards Trump:  they routinely invented news stories, hence, "fake news" entered our lexicon, as they did everything they could to demonize him personally.  This is the main point of this application of Statement Analysis.  


"Many in the political media … can't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump, from providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people's lives combined."

Statement Analysis Lesson: 

Media did not have "bias" towards Hillary.  Main Stream Media ran a campaign of psychological warfare.  

It incessantly presented anyone who disagreed with them as "white supremacist", including black conservatives. 
It portrayed a religious zealotry-like demarcation between "good and evil", labeling anyone who disagreed with them and Hillary as unworthy of life.  Coming off 8 years of incessant racist stirring (racism) and the "war on cops" (a war on authority), America appeared weak and feeble to resist.   When absurdity was introduced, millions quickly fell prey.  This is not "bias" but the results of psychological warfare, 24 hours per day; 7 days per week .  At any hour, tuning in, for example, to CNN meant endless personal contempt for one candidate, while gushing praise (feeding questions) for another; all presented as "news" and "journalism." 

It has not abated.  Recently, CNN ran a male journalist saying that although Trump was using the "right words" in Houston while comforting hurricane victims, "his words rang hollow." As proof he offered, "he does not hug children."

Later they ran a video and claimed that Trump deliberately and callously avoided a handicapped boy in a wheelchair.  

It took a citizen journalist to show the false editing; Trump had spent more time with the boy than with others.  


We are looking at an element of language where obsession overtakes the language.  

There is a short analysis here on the blog of a retired FBI agent who wrote a defense of Amanda Knox.  In advanced analysis, it is now used for psycho linguistic profiling.  It shows the acute use of hyperbole which then becomes absurdity.  His obsession with Knox eventually cost him employment.  

He repeatedly referred to his former career as the basis for his argument while ridiculing anyone who disagrees with him for not having his resume.  

Lesson:  What is the impact of repetitive hyperbole and personal attacks?

Answer:  the opposite of that which was intended. 

As an exercise, count the number of points he makes where he referenced actual evidence. 
Then, count the number of points he makes about his background.  

Compare the two.  

This is where we see the point about the media and Hillary Clinton. 

What was the psychological impact upon the nation of the relentless ridicule of one candidate and the incessant praise of the other?

Note the pattern there:

1.  His background 

2.   Insulting those who disagree with him
3.  Comparing his background with those who disagree with him 
4.  Hyperbole 

The reader is left wondering, "does this person believe his own words?"

This is the opposite of what he intended.  

It is as if to say, "believe me without question, but if you do question me, you are a person unworthy of life.  I do not need facts.  I do not need the case file.  I do not need to interview the investigators.  I know that every rule of every investigation by every investigator was broken."  

This is where it tips from extreme hyperbole over to absurdity.  

Hillary blaming the press has truth.  In this sense, the press did help elect Trump.  With 99% Hollywood and around the clock support by media, and the non-stop demonization of Trump, how is it possible that she could have lost?

The answer is found in deception.  

The psychology of deception also includes:

Contempt for the recipient. 

Pathological Liars hold the world in contempt.  They have learned, from childhood, that they are "smarter" than everyone else, including teachers (authority).  This is what good investigators use against criminals:  the ego.  

This is why guilty people often take the polygraph to their own detriment.  

The liar has a need to persuade that grows with time. 

It goes from 

Need to Persuade eventually to hyperbole and eventually to absurdity.  

The contempt for the recipients eventually causes them to demonize. 

When they are exposed, the hatred explodes in offensive attacks. 

This is the pattern of pathological liars.  

It is why, in 1943, a team of psychologists predicted Hitler's suicide.  

It is why liars, when accused, attack others, such as filing fraudulent suits and destroying lives.  This is what Lance Armstrong did. 

This is Hillary's time of explosion.  She is attacking even former allies.  She was delusional in thinking that she could use sexism to win the presidency.  This presupposed, as one woman explained:

"Hillary called our husbands, sons and brothers 'racist', 'deplorable' and 'misogynists.' She thought we would have more loyalty to her than our own families."

Many people did not vote so much for Donald Trump as they voted against Hillary.  In her campaign as well as in her defeat, her language revealed that she "carried" (volume, frequency) racism and sexism.  She "sees" it everywhere.  This is projection.  This incessant repetition of "misogyny" should be compared to Trump's inappropriate crude joke; something most people have either done or laughed at in private.  Hillary's contempt is now shown in failure.  Successful people own their failures and grow from them.  In the "Art of the Deal", Trump repeatedly failed in life, but would not quit.  

The objection that Hillary was a successful senator and secretary of state is answered by the fact that we would not even know her name if not for her husband.  It is the basis of her election and appointment.  What she did as senator and as secretary of state may now become the object of intensive investigations.  

The incessant psychological warfare from the media and elite impacted the election.  As America was divided, it still held to groups who wished to debate issues in a civil setting.  It is here that media's deceptive techniques may have tilted the election.  

There are those, like me, who believe in small government and politicians staying out of our social lives.  These believe in equality under the law, the rule of law and equal opportunity for all under the law.  They do not believe in equal outcome; that is up to the individual.  

Then there are those who want some government involvement in our social lives.  These are those who want to guarantee equality of outcome, which leads to legalized discrimination.  These could have gone either way in the voting. 

What happened? 

The incessant insult of contempt and demonization backfired just as the need to persuade went unchecked.  The incessant insult backfired just as what happens when the escalation of "Need to Persuade" goes unchecked.  

Main Stream Media and elite insulted Americans into thinking, in many different wordings, the same message: 

"If they need this much to convince me, they must be doing something wrong." 

Bill Di'Blasio wants to assess financial penalties up to one-quarter of a million dollars to force people into accepting a male who thinks he is a female, as a "woman."  

The coercive factor has a psychological impact. 

Politicians tells us that if we do not accept the 20 to 30 year predictions of "Global Warming" (though we struggle to predict weather patterns longer than 2 days) we must be "evil" and may even face prosecution. 

In the same vein, if we do not accept that "Islam is the religion of peace" we (in the West) face coercive measures, including incarceration, by the elite.  

How "true" must the claim be if it warrants such extreme measures to implement it?

This is the doubt that liars, themselves, bring to recipients which indicates the inability to conceal contempt.

 Then there are those who have fallen most prey to politicians' deceptions and are readily identified because they will go as far as echo absurdity in order to be among the "in" crowd. If calling a mentally ill grandfather the "woman of the year" or embracing pedophilia as "cultural diversity" means being popular, they are all in.   These are "progressives" who use tyranny to impose their ever-changing ("progressing") beliefs upon others.  What they hold dear today will be condemned by their own children tomorrow, simply because their children, if  also become "progressive" will reject any conserving of ideas from yesteryear.  Like those who believe Trump can do no wrong, these are those who would vote for Hillary under every and all circumstances and who openly declare anyone who disagrees as the enemy.  These are those who, if they continue,  will lead America into a  civil war of bloodshed.  They are religious fanatics of whom "leftism" is their religion and statism their god.  With their moral impetus and abandonment of reason, they are the most dangerous. Interestingly enough, with all of Hillary's claims of independence and feminism, it is now well known that she takes no personal responsibility for anything. 

Those who build successfully are the opposite.  They embrace and learn from their failures.  

Objection:  Isn't being a US senator and former secretary of state someone who has experienced success? 

Answer:  If not for her husband, we would never have even known her name.         


Statement Analysis Lesson Conclusion:

Liars have a need to persuade because they do not have the psychological "wall of truth."

This "need to persuade" goes beyond a simple defensive posture that even truthful people embrace contextually.  

When the need to persuade (NTP) becomes acute, it enters the language in frequency and in sensitivity.  

When the NTP becomes extreme, it now runs in two parallel themes:

1.  Embracing of Absurdity 
2.  Demonization of Disagreement 

It is that in both the absurdity (illogical, unreasonable) and in the wording used to demonize disagreement that we find contempt. 

The contempt's specifics are determined by the carrying of words. 

The racist "sees" racism everywhere.  Even when decrying racism for profit, one reveals one's own racism. 

The sexist "sees" sexism everywhere.  Even when decrying "sexism", Hillary demanded votes based upon her sex.  She "carries" sexism in her language; that is, both volume and repetition.  

America failed Hillary. 

The pattern of linguistic psychological warfare is recognizable over time:

1. Need to Persuade
2. Hyperbolic language and repetition 
3. Extremism
4.  Embracement of Absurdity, including suspension of reason, fabrication ("fake news"), immediate abandonment of life long beliefs  ("evolving positions")

5.  Demonization of Disagreement including coercive measures including threats, social isolation, loss of employment   
The impact, when it goes "too far" is often the opposite of that which was intended:  the backlash.


Regrettably, when one is falsely labeled something for a very long time, the rage that builds can prove to be self fulfilling.  This is a similar pattern found in "Sensitivity Trainings" where the attendees are often left with more anger and contempt than when they entered the training.  

Deception has its cost and whether personal, business or even national, the need to persuade rather than truthfully report is a powerful influence upon the recipients.                        

    Those who are habitual in deception hold the world in contempt. They carry contempt, in specific terms, in daily language.  To discern such, one need only to listen. 



Unknown said...

Ben Shapiro for president.

Tania Cadogan said...

Peter, some of the text is showing as small and difficult to read, can you please recheck so i and probably others don't have to squint?
Thanks in advance and an excellent analysis as always.
I wonder if in the future she will have a mental breakdown if she hasn't already?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic and a darn good reason why it is essential to learn the subject's internal dictionary.

A convicted pedophile accused of raping an 11-year-old girl at a hospital told police the child was 'sexually provocative' as he denied her allegations.

Dave Saffeels, 68, who previously spent eight years in jail for sexually abusing a six-year-old in 2002, is accused of raping the 11-year-old twice at a hospital in Springfield, Missouri, last month.

They were both visiting a woman who had just given birth to twins and were left alone in a room, police say.

According to charging documents, Saffeels felt the girl's groin then removed her clothes and raped her on a hospital room couch.

She later told police that he then performed oral sex on her and raped her a second time the next day, this time using a pink condom which he allegedly flushed down the toilet when he was finished.

Authorities say that not only did he rape her at the hospital, he later got in to the shower with her at her home and raped her again.

He is also accused of sexually abusing a two-year-old at her home while her mother slept.

After that attack, the toddler refused to allow her father to give her a bath, covered her groin and cried 'ouch' and 'no'.

Saffeels denies the allegations and told police that the 11-year-old had enticed him before by 'suggestively eating a popsicle' in front of him.

He also said she wore 'shorts' and sat with her 'legs spread' in an attempt to accuse her of provoking him.

Saffeels denies all the allegations against him.

He was arrested during a traffic stop on Friday but it is not clear how police came to learn of the alleged child rape.

He is charged with three counts of statutory rape, three counts of statutory sodomy and one count of child molestation and is being held in Greene County Jail.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic and finally...

The schizophrenic mother of two young children who vanished in 2014 has finally been charged with their murders after years of suspicion.

Catherine Hoggle, 30, has been in a psychiatric facility since shortly after her daughter, Sarah, three, and son Jacob, two, went missing with her in Maryland in September 2014.

Police found her walking down the street days after the trio were reported missing by the children's father but they have never been seen again.

She refuses to tell authorities where they are and despite being long suspected of killing them, had never been charged.

On Thursday, she was indicted on two murder charges and was moved from her psychiatric unit to the Montgomery County Jail. She will appear in court on Friday.

The development came as the result of a legal time limit on the three misdemeanor charges she initially faced immediately after the children's disappearance.

In 2014, police charged Hoggle with misdemeanor child neglect, abduction and hinderance in order to put her behind bars while they built a homicide case against her.

Misdemeanor charges, if not pursued for three years after they are first brought, are dismissed in Maryland.

With this in mind, the woman's lawyer filed a motion recently to have those charges dismissed. Prosecutors filed the murder charges in response.

The children's bodies have never been found.

Jacob and Sarah were last seen alive on September 7.

On September 8, their father, Hoggle's boyfriend Troy Turner woke up to find all three of them were not in the apartment they shared.

Hoggle returned in their mini-van and claimed she had taken the two children to a new day care center where she'd left them.

She and her boyfriend then went back out in their car and she asked him to stop at a Chick-fil-A restaurant for her to get a drink.

She went into the fast food restaurant but slipped out a different exit, leaving her boyfriend in the car.

He went to police shortly afterwards to report all three of them missing.

Four days later and after an intense manhunt and media appeal, a person who recognized Hoggle's face saw her walking down a street in Germantown and called police.

When police arrested her, she was holding a missing persons flier with her children's names and faces on it.

She was questioned but would not say where the children were and was taken to the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center in Jessup.

Later, she told officials she would take them to the children but a judge refused to allow her out of custody.

Since 2014, she has tried to escape from the facility several times by grabbing guards' security cards and running for the doors.

Staff say she had referred to the children as still being alive and has told them she wants to go to see them.

Whether or not Hoggle will ever stand trial will be determined by a judge.

Her long history of mental illness poses the possibility that she may not be fit to. She was previously found unfit to stand trial for the misdemeanor charges originally brought against her.

Anonymous said...

Many felt Hillary had other intentions when she remained with Bill after the sex scandal. She knew she'd go nowhere in politics if she didn't. Why did she know that? Because women are misogynist. Her mother probably was. Everyone she knew was. And, even Hillary herself is/was when she blamed a little girl for her own rape using a psychiatrist that basically stated children want to be raped and abused.

She did, at least, pave the way for another woman to be President someday.

In America, women are always last.

First they'll be a gay person for President.

Now Maryland is allowing non citizens to vote in local elections. Ain't that great?!

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

She did, at least, pave the way for another woman to be President someday.

In America, women are always last.

First they'll be a gay person for President.

Now Maryland is allowing non citizens to vote in local elections. Ain't that great?!

WHY DO YOU say women are last? Where does that thought come from and can you back it up?

Obama was the president and is gay, credible sources attest to it as well as L. Sinclair who described his affair with him in his book. So you don't have to take the word of Joan Rivers.

Anonymous said...

I dont really think Obama is gay...more like a very cerebral bisexual...I sense chemistry between him & Michelle, they do seem to love each other, plus does she seem like the kind of woman who would be like yeah this guy doesnt satisfy me cause he's gay, so I'll just suffer in silence? Lmao she woulda kicked his butt right out the door.
She is kinda masculine but I dont think Obama is "feminiine", just very cerbral with refined manners. Honestly, compare him to most of the Neanderthal men out there & he's lookin pretty good. Women get sick of putting up with beasts.

Anonymous said...

Bill & Hillary have no chemistry even when they were younger...probably bc Hillary is gay & a member of a witch coven who made voodoo dolls of the Congress and media...cant really blame Bill if he's not all over that.

Anonymous said...

if obama is not gay he certainly aint masculine

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Alex said...

Well, It doesn't "look" like he is in love with his wife in this photo. Nor does he "look" gay. LOL


Anderson Cooper said...

"I know Hillary Clinton is the single greatest criminal in US history, but I voted for her because she has a vagina."

Anonymous said...

@956, To me, that doesnt look like he's checking her looks like he's looking at her feet like wondering if she's going to trip on something.

Anderson Cooper fakes being gay. I dont get a gay vibe.

Anonymous said...

I just googled and found this statement from Anderson Cooper that confirms my intuition that he is NOT gay

.. "The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.[39]"

"always have been, always will be"

He hasnt always been gay & wont always be gay bc he's not gay.

Anonymous said...

that sounds like cooper is suicidal

Anonymous said...

Huh? Why do you say that about Cooper Anderson that it sounds like he's suicidal?

Anonymous said...

I have been following this intriguing blog for years. The others that commented on Peter's posts in the past sounded intelligent. It is usually not political in any way except to study the language of politicians, which is not the point of this blog. Is anyone else noticing the political hatred going on anyone else noticing the hatred at all? Where is the moderator?

Anonymous said...

Trump is calling Kim Jong-un "Rocket Man" on twitter lmao!!!!

rob said...

There is no way on earth that I could have ever voted for Hillary. She is totally unlikeable. I didn't like Obama's politics, even though I did see him as likable (Michelle is unlikeable)The three of them all think they know what is best for all of us low-life citizens, or just call us deplorables.
I didn't go into the election liking or wanting to vote for Trump, I just felt I had no other choice, but now I love him. He's in their face, calls it like he sees it and I really believe if he's given a chance and congress will work with him , he'll get things done.
In the next election, I'm hoping/voting for all non-incumbants. I really hope Kid Rock runs and wins, hate I can't vote for him.
The politicians in this country are deplorable, do-nothing haters. The republicans have not accomplished one thing will they should be changing the country for the better, and un-doing everything that Obama did.
I can't wait to vote against Lindsay Graham.

Nic said...

Excellent post, Peter. Just one thing:

Clinton “Foundation"

There, I fixed it for you. :0)

Politicians tells us that if we do not accept the 20 to 30 year predictions of "Global Warming" (though we struggle to predict weather patterns longer than 2 days) we must be "evil" and may even face prosecution.

Yet when they talk about record temperature/precipitation/drought, [they] present the information in the context of “record”. These records go back 100 years or more. The record proves that what we are experiencing is “normal”. i.e., if it rains 30mm in one day and the record for rainfall set in 1924 was 33mm, then guess what? The precipitation for that day is unremarkable!

Chris said...

Hillary Clinton's ARROGANCE is what turns my stomach.

ima.grandma said...

my silent daily prayer for the last year ~

shut mouth ~ open ears
breathe ~ just breathe
believe ~ receive

thanks peter