Saturday, May 27, 2017

Dept. Of Homeland Security John Kelly

Today, politicians use deceit in ways generally restricted to periods of time just prior to, or during war, or periods of historical abundance of wealth and corruption.  

The numbers the politicians have released have consistently been minimal compared to numbers police departments have deliberately leaked out. 

The politicians minimize to cover their importation of Islam into their nations.  

They race to see who is the most morally virtuous as they yield to an ideology that, whether practiced or not, seeks their own subordination.  Statement Analysis gets to the truth, and seeks to know what is behind criminal behavior, whether it be from the elite or from the violent perpetrator himself.  It begins with questions and questions guide it through its completion.  

                       Investigation of Crime 


This is the first most important question we ask in an investigation.  
If we can understand why, we can move into content.  The first sentence of a statement in an investigation is always important; and it is sometimes even the motive for the statement, itself.  


Why did the Islamic terrorist target young girls in Manchester this week?

You can get your answers from politicians and the media that does their bidding, or you can look into the ideology that yields the violence, itself.  In the end, you may see why John Kelly said what he did.  

Religion and Statement Analysis 

We view all religion as ideology.  We ask what its basic teachings are, who obeys them, who disobeys, who alters, who upholds, and so on.  Religion is an ideology just as other forms of societal ordering is, including democracy, socialism, communism, and so on.  Within the west, "leftism", itself, if an ideology where under the guise of morality, reason may be suspended to bring adherence or obedience.  It, too, has its devout followers, which is similar religious overtones and like all ideologies has consequences upon society.  One consequence of it is the combination of moral superiority with the suspension of reason:   a powerful combination for violence.  Historically, this violence generally comes from the young males who are impoverished.  The violence we see today is often times from male and female and predominantly from the middle to upper middle class young who are, according to a recent study, technically unemployed (though many are paid for the violent protests).  As an ideology, anarchism, supported by elitist in government, seeks to eradicate government.  The irony here is strikingly similar to what now follows.  

Islam is a criminal supremacist ideology with  religious overtones and distinct sexual violence as an element.  The ideology, itself, seeks to assert its dominance wherever it goes.  Its first victims are those born into it, without choice of leaving.  
Adherence (obedience) to this ideology is what brings violence to fruition. Politicians, with main stream media,  now call devout Islam "radical Islam." 
Our entire western travel culture has been forever altered due to the power of this ideology that operates without a single leader giving orders.  When one group is defeated, another takes it place.  The names and faces and even years change, but the ideology, itself, remains unreformed. 
The founder, Mohammad, used religious instruction to justify envy, through conquest, subordination, theft and sexual violence. This is found in the Koran as well as the Hadith.  Followers are not permitted to criticize ("blasphemy laws") nor to leave Islam.  
In other religions, the perpetrator of violence must defy (disobedience) its teachings to commit said violence.  This is the only  ideology that incorporates distinct religious beliefs with specifically described acts of coercion.  It's position as a "religion" is not only used to control  its subjects, but is used to  exploit democratic views on religious tolerance; notions that were not in context during the formation of its principles.  Whereas "freedom of religion" in the early founding of our nation was designed to protect various denominations, there is no context of Islam or other totalitarian belief systems within it.  
Recognizing it as a danger, past presidents have used various means of excluding followers of Islam from immigrating to the United States, such as questions about polygamy, rather than confront it as a "religion."  In countering it, prior administrations studied it, particularly when it came to war, including the Tripolitan War.  
Today, the anarchist ideology  of no borders and "multiculturalism" has removed the historical necessities of invasion by Islam in conquests, as nations have freely offered  money and entry to Islamists to enter their countries at will unvetted.  As Islam teaches that the non Islamist, the "infidel", is only to be allowed to live if he pays a "tax" (jizrah) or ransom for his life, to the superior Islamist, the social welfare systems has affirmed to the mostly young male arrivers their superiority.  It is a cultural shock to walk into an "infidel" nation and not be vetted, but be given food, living quarters and actual money for simply showing up.  No repayment nor work is required.  

Claiming civil war, they readily embraced the status of "refugee" fleeing war, even as 70% to 90% were males of fighting age.  The numbers have been a source of deception from the beginning, just as their sex and ages have been. 
The results have been the habitual pattern of history. Those coming from a violent culture to a peaceful culture set up the same cultural distinctive elements that brings violence, resisting integration.  The result is the violent culture within the peaceful culture and the requisite death and injury seen.  

 Because of this, politicians have sought to justify their claimed morally superior position of "no walls" by claiming that it is poverty, frustration, warming temperatures, and injustices from centuries ago, that leads to the violence and bloodshed of terrorism and that Islamic terrorism is not Islamic, even though the perpetrators make full confession of their crimes. 

The politicians know the motive of the crime more than the perpetrator.  

Deception Indicated.  
The irony comes from those whose claims are made while living safely behind behind walls and are protected by arms.  


The perpetrators quote the Koran and Hadith freely offering their motive, or the reason "why" they spilled blood, faithfully warning that more bloodshed will occur.  History bears this out.  

Sharia Law and Submission 
"Creeping Sharia" is a phrase used to describe the slow acceptance of this totalitarian ideology by small increments.  It is often where minor complaints are made, along with threats of violence, and actual bloodshed, which cause the initial minor acceptance of Islam.  As a supremacist ideology, logically, satisfaction can never exist.  Therefore, "Muslim grievances" are incessant.  They begin small and they demand that, as minorities, they be given special rights; the very same rights they deny to minorities in Islamic controlled lands. This includes holidays, food accommodations and enforced segregation.  This, along with the free money given to Islamists further affirms to them that which they have been taught since early childhood:  their own supremacy. 


Islam teaches that women's testimony is less than that of a man, the women is the property of the man, and that, for example, it demands women not be along unaccompanied in public. 

European elite  have rejected this notion, yet in many locales women have stopped going out at night; a de facto adherence to Sharia.  
When countries enact Sharia Blasphemy laws, under the various wording such as "hate crimes" and "hate speech", the implementation of the blasphemy law is in effect.  Some Europeans have been arrested for criticizing Islam under the false claim of "inciting racial violence", though no race is ever claimed.  Generally, it is a criticizing of mass migration policies that leads to legal difficulty for the citizen.  
Islam exists without a single strong charismatic leader.  National socialism needed Adolph Hitler and lasted less than two decades.  Islam, without a leader, has lasted 1,400 years.  
September 11, 2001 
In more than 30,000 terrorist attacks in the world since 9/11, the common denominator is not race, age,  socio-economic status, nor climate.  


Who is committing these acts of violence, routinely making "ramadan" the most dangerous month of the year for non Islamists around the world? 

What is the common denominator of these acts of seemingly senseless violence, against unarmed citizens, in all parts of the world? 

The common denominator is this:  
The killers accurately quote the Koran and Hadith as their motive.  

The motive is the same in all the attacks...more than 30,000 recorded attacks since 9/11's powerful destruction of life and property in the United States, including one of the West's monuments of culture:  the Twin Towers in New York City.  

This, too, is specifically addressed in the Koran which tells us that when the Islamist sees a non Muslim land, they are to note the "ruins" which speaks to the "favor of Allah" in destroying them.  

This irony leads to destruction to "correct" the inaccuracy of the Koran.  

Hence, the Eiffel Tower is a longed for symbol of the false report in the Koran, and must be destroyed.  

This is why ancient valuable artifacts are routinely blown up by ISIS.  

Islam and Sex 

What led to the massive sexual assault New Year's Eve that was not just Cologne, but throughout Europe?

Why are there all these "honor killings" of females?

Why do females cover up?  

These are all appropriate investigative questions that warrant answers.  

Mohammad had a 6 year old bride and consummated at age 9 (pedophilia)  and his name is the most popular Islamic name because he is considered "the perfect man" to imitate.  This is why Europe has seen the sexual assault, rape and grooming gangs against children that it has seen.  

In Afghanstan, American soldiers were ordered to "stand down" at the rapes of little boys.  Today, some report nightmares that continue from this experience.  

With the value of women's testimony lessoned by Islam, outworking such as "genital mutilation" and overall sexual harassment is, for the Islamist, permitted in the Koran.  Like theft and supremacy, it appeals to the baseness within human nature.  
How effective is "Creeping Sharia"?  We need to look no further than the use of the term, "Islamophobia" as well as the "dhimmitude" status of politicians who, before the dead are buried, profess allegiance to fighting "Islamophobia", or the irrational fear of Islam. 
Sir Winston Churchill called Islam the "rabies of the mind" and saw its impact upon those in submission to it.  A rabid dog was wild, vicious unpredictable, scary and to be shot to preserve life.  With rabies vaccinations, this imagery is lost upon the modern mind.  
It is rational to fear that which calls for our subordination and death.  
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Friday said the terror threat is worse than most realize, saying some people would "never leave the house" if they knew the truth.
“I was telling  Steve  on the way in here, if he knew what I knew about terrorism, he’d never leave the house in the morning,” with "Steve" being a journalist. 
He noted there were four major terror attacks in the last week — in England, Egypt, the Philippines and Indonesia — "by generally the same groups."
It’s everywhere. It’s constant. It’s nonstop. The good news for us in America is we have amazing people protecting us every day. But it can happen almost here anytime.

The FBI do not receive credit for the thousands of attacks that have been foiled, nor will this be known.  
Masked gunmen opened fire on a group of Coptic Christians driving to a monastery in southern Egypt on Friday, killing 26 and injuring 25 more.  The slaughter in Egypt is genocide.  
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed responsibility for a Monday bombing after and Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, that killed 22 children and injured more than 100.
This is the result of open borders where no discernment on who is permitted to enter has been exploited.  
Many Europeans enjoy the free movement and economic benefits of this free movement between countries, but it has also been exploited to the point where, in Germany, citizens risk arrest to even criticize Islam.  
To criticize an ideology, they are told by politicians, is "racism", though no one race is identified. 
This is why former president Barak Obama sought to create a new classification of "race" known as MENA, or "Middle East North Africa."
It was to further enforce Sharia blasphemy laws by coercion. 
The violence against women is prescriptive within Islam.  
When a young boy grows up seeing his mother "disciplined" by violence, and he is taught to idolize a murderous pedophile, the resulting barbaric practices are expected.  
While the elite claims that "barbarians" no longer exist, or that they only need a job, they do not take into account the powerful de-sensitizing process of being raised in a system that appeals to our lowest primal instincts within human nature. 
Manchester targeted young girls. 
Young girls are being mutilated genitally in order to not enjoy sexual relations.  
The Orlando shooter targeted homosexuals.  
Both terrorists acted accurately upon the teachings of the ideology.  This in spite of U.S. government and the Obama administration's attempt to deceive the nation by giving out deliberately false information about the Orlando massacre.  They had his 911 call in which he accurately described and followed through with the belief system.  Main stream media gave us a false narrative (homosexuality, or the fear thereof) and even a false witness (false boyfriend), of which was debunked, eventually, by the FBI.  
The ideology of National Socialism (nazi) is commonly used today to condemn socialism that is "national" (though not international socialism) is both ideologically and historically pale compared to 14 centuries of a self-containing criminal ideology that has, in the past 50 years, mounted a major comeback in the West. 
Law enforcement agencies have been pressured into removing instruction manuals on Islam as an ideology, by the terrorist-designate, "CAIR" as well as the associates of the Muslim Brotherhood. 
The FBI has reported that local mosques have not been universally helpful or forthcoming regarding those with deadly intentions. 
This may be due to many factors, but fear, itself, must be examined, as they are not permitted, by this ideology, to publicly criticize the Koran. 
This is why the West's pleading with Islamic leaders to begin a "reformation" falls upon death ears. 
94% of Muslims in Germany are against integration.  This may be, in some cases,  because it would go directly against Islamic teaching and put them in harm's way.  
Close sanguineous relationships within Islam have produced an abundance of children with developmental disabilities and has overwhelmed western social services.  
Consider the lethal combination of lower IQ, poor impulse control, supremacist ideology, and eye witness of domestic violence coming together and meeting testosterone.  
Then import this to the West where women are not covered.  
Then consider the Islamic teaching about covering:  it is to mark those who are not to "be molested."  
It puts a "bullseye" on women who, in the teaching and culture of many of these males, for sexual assault. 
No matter how politicians change the language, the ideology remains the same. 
The message from Department of Homeland Security John Kelly is that no matter how bad we think it is, it is worse. 
We may be grateful that we were not born into such an ideology and have empathy for those who were, but this is not a substitute for self protection.  
As it becomes acceptable  for European children to grow up with armed military in the streets, the demographics are clear as to the powerful shift and even population replacement that is taking place. 
Inevitably the lesson from history is clear:  there will come a time when those who desire freedom will have to choose to either fight or submit.  

It must be understood:  these acts of violence are neither random nor are they illogical to the perpetrators.  

They are willful acts of destruction of human life in specifically premeditated and orchestrated manner designed to show public obedience and submission to the ideology.  

The perpetrator, himself, is promised "reward" in the afterlife. 

There, the ideology says, he is permitted to rape virgins.  

If this is what he is taught about the afterlife, it is consistent that he should seek the same in the present.  

To the western mind, this is illogical, immoral and unfathomable.  

But to the western mind, strength is seen in self control, whereas within Islam, self control is seen as weakness. 

Friday, May 19, 2017

Analysis: Anthony Weiner's Court Statement

Regarding "full responsibility" in analysis, please see here how Statement Analysis classifies this well used phrase.  

Anthony Weiner has been previously analyzed to be seen deceptive.  Here, it is a "mea culpa" before the court and a prepared statement. Does he take "full responsibility" for sending sexually explicit text messages to an underaged female?

Recently, a secret service agent was sentenced to 20 years in prison after entering a guilty plea for sending messages to an underaged girl in the attempt to meet her for an illicit sexual encounter.  

Weiner has pled guilty.  It will be interesting to compare sentences and to see how he describes, in his verbalized perception of reality, his victim.  

Note his linguistic disposition towards his vicim;
Note any unnecessary information as very important.  

In a prepared statement we do not analyze Anthony Weiner; we analyze the statement, addressing "the subject" (author).  

“Beginning with my service in Congress 

Where a statement begins is always important as it can be priority and dominate the thought of the subject. 

Where does the subject begin?

*With his service in Congress. 

He does not begin with the pronoun "I"
He begins with "my service in Congress", which is used instead of a date.  He reminds the court of his "service" and the importance of such, with "Congress."

This is an unnecessary diversion from responsibility as it portrays him as one in service of others.  One may question if the subject, while in Congress, was in "service" to others, but for him, it is where he began his statement:  his priority.  

and continuing into the first half of last year, I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, 

It is unnecessary for him to tell the court who contacted whom; the others are not on trial.  Yet for him, the unnecessary information is a form of distancing himself from responsibility.  

He sought "attention"; not sex, in his language.  

and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation. 

Here the subject continues to build with innocent "extras" that are unnecessary.  He wants the court to know he "served" in congress and victims contacted him and now many of these contacts were non-sexual.  

Was it his actions something that brought destruction?

These destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service. 

It was the "impulses" that did it; not him, nor even his yielding.  It was "these destructive impulses."  

He is now distancing himself even further from both responsibility and from his actions.  

And yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart.

The world is "around" him.  This is a narcissistic phrase that is to say that things revolve around him.  It is consistent with his external "lotus of control" philosophy that like the racist Yale professor, they are victims of external forces conspiring against them, rather than personally responsible for their own behaviors.  
In late January 2016, I was contacted by and began exchanging online messages with a stranger who said that she was a high school student and who I understood to be 15 years old. 

It is very important to the subject to repeat that he did not contact the victim. He "was contacted" uses passivity, even further distancing himself from the victim and his actions. 

 This is a form of distancing language by shifting the burden of responsibility  to the teenager.  

If she had not contacted him, he would be okay.

If she had not lied about her age, he would be okay.  

Through approximately March 2016, I engaged in obscene communications with this teenager, 

The use of "with" between himself and this teenager is appropriately forming of distance. He does not see himself as unified with her.  In context of everything else he said, he may feel betrayed by her.  

including sharing explicit images and encouraging her to engage in sexually explicit conduct, just as I had done and continued to do with adult women. I knew this was as morally wrong as it was unlawful.

Here, the unnecessary "just as I had done and continued to do with adult women" 
This fall, I came to grips for the first time with the depths of my sickness

note:  not my "behavior", but my "sickness" is a form of distancing from responsibility.  

I had hit bottom. I entered intensive treatment, found the courage to take a moral inventory of my defects, and began a program of recovery and mental health treatment that I continue to follow every day.

He separates himself ("I") from defects.  His inventory, however, was moral, but his defects were not moral defects.  This is fascinating insight into the subject's thinking.  He is "courageous" and posses the high standard of "morals" needed to "inventory" or count, his moral defects.  He is so praiseworthy that he wants the court to know that he continues this "every day."  
I accept full responsibility for my conduct. I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse. I apologize to everyone I have hurt. I apologize to the teenage girl, whom I mistreated so badly. I am committed to making amends to all those I have harmed. Thank you.”

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject's verbalized perception of reality is that he is going to prison for an illness. 

He does not take any responsibility for his actions, but blames his victims, circumstances and an unknown illness for sexual inappropriate behavior with a teenager.  

Since he is not responsible, he cannot change his behavior, as he is a "victim" of others' behavior.  

The language here is consistent with other statements Wiener has made.  

Adam Jones Analyzed: Racial Slur

Adam Jones reported that he was a victim of racism in Boston where fans threw peanuts at him and called him "the N word." It made headlines throughout the media.  

Curt Shilling raised doubts saying that if this was heard, Twitter would have been all over it as everyone has cell phones.  Shilling also reported that Jones has an agenda. 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth. 

Does Adam Jones say "the fan called me the N word"?

Or, is he deceptive?  

Schilling is over there with his rants. He just wants an outlet. Somebody will take his call, take his rants. He can keep them for himself. Because he’s never experienced anything like I have. I’ll stick with what [Mark] McLemore said about it: Schilling, hell of a career. But he’s never been black, and he’s never played the outfield in Boston.”

Jones said defending himself.  We expect him to say, "he called me the N word" or "they yelled the N word at me."  

This would include identifying the fan or fans, the past tense verb, and the topic ("N word") identified. 

Truthful people speaking from experiential memory are psychologically connected to the event.  

The event is imprinting upon the brain and when there is an escalation, such as Jones' claim, there is an elevation of hormone that further increases memory recall. 

Here he tells us what happened.  Note the underlining and color coding to call attention to sensitivity indicators within his answer.  

As a general principle, truthful people state from experiential memory and do not feel a need to add many words to the statement. 

"The guy called me the N word" is such an example. 

Psychological Weakness in Deception 

Those who are not speaking from experiential memory (of the specifically claimed event) feel a need or burden to convince the audience.  This "need to persuade" seeks out assistance via a multitude of words. 

We also find that a deceptive person may anticipate being asked a question that is very uncomfortable, leading them to explain "why" in an answer before being asked. 

This is a study unto itself and is fascinating.  One of the greatest benefits within detecting deception in noting this "reason why" is this:

The person answers a question without being asked and quite often, the question would not have entered the mind of the audience/interviewer.  

This is to give away information (sensitivity=importance) that we may not have even sought.  It is a consistent way to not only catch liars, but to obtain more information.  The "reason why" is highlighted in the color blue to assist catching the eye's attention to the word.  We note that the statement does not begin with the pronoun "I" and a past tense verb.  Statistically, we begin with "less reliable" status.  

Next, we note that he now defends what happened by telling us "why" we should believe him:  he has great hearing. 

"To hear and and understand what I hear, what  I heard, I got great hearing.  And um, you know, we understand that we're the road team. 

Note the use of the pronoun "we" indicates contextual weakness:  liars do not like to be "alone" in a deceptive statement.  Like school children saying, "everyone was doing it", the deceptive person will not take personal responsibility as an attribute for himself in this statement.  

And uh, fans, they don't need to uh, welcome us.  It's all part of the competitive edge for the fan base to, you know, tell the opponents, you know, you suck, ha ha, you struck out and various things on your performance which is completely understandable in the lines of, uh, just how sports work and how fan bases work. 

This is a lecture or "sermonizing" (ethics) that is unnecessary. It is often used to establish a "moral high ground" by a deceptive person.  The need for moral high ground often shows the opposite. 

 Uh, um, so, I heard that all night 

Note he reliably reports hearing all night "you suck" "you struck out", and tells us, his hearing is good as is his attention span. 

and then, then just something that caught my attention.  

His ability to hear "all night" is now escalated.  His "attention" was sufficient to hear specifics about "suck" and "striking out" all night, but he now feels the need to qualify what happened next. 

I heard the N word 

This is better; he uses the pronoun "I", the past tense "heard" and the topic, N word.  What is missing is the fan or fans who made this claim.  

Yet, he is not done yet, and this is where we obtain information to judge the quality of the partial sentence: 

and you know, I, I, I get so 

He stutters, as a non-stutterer, on the pronoun "I", which indicates an increase in anxiety.  He is intelligent and articulate and has used the pronoun "I" millions of times in his life.  

Question:  Does he stutter on the pronoun "I" anywhere else in the statement?

He now address an increase in attention:  

certain reactions when someone says something clever or something really really stupid and ignorant 

note "stupid" before "ignorant"
note "stupid" is qualified as "really, really" 

and last night it was not clever 

note the rule of the negative 

it was really stupid and ignorant so it caught my attention 

note "really" for the third time;

Note the need for him to now explain the incongruence of his previous words about his attention, though no one has asked,

"Why did this particular ____ (fan, word?) catch your attention?"

This means that the subject (Jones) anticipates being asked the question, though, after his explanations of how attentive he is, including his great hearing, it is not likely that anyone would think to ask this question.  

"you know" is a habit of speech.  We note what causes its intrusion and what topics do not.  It is to show an acute awareness of his audience/interviewer.  

he now moves into a general use of the 2nd person, running away from personal commitment to a topic that he just claimed elevated his personal attention:  

and you know, and by the time you look back you can't tell who says what and who's doing what so I was just like this is okay this is really, um, this is really you don't go down here, so okay."

Reporter:  Do you think it was more than one person?

Jones;  I don't know.  It's hard, its hard to say exactly who is what and who's voices is from where, you know I'm focused, I'm focused on the game. Dellenbodi (?) was pitching a hell of a game, so I'm focused on that. 

He does not know anything specific and feels the need to tell us why he does not know:  his attention span.  

After telling us about his attention span and hearing, we would not have sought such justification.  

Reporter:  As a person or persons were watching right now, what would you say to him?

We now get further insight into not only his character, but motive:  

Jones:  Square up.  Let's fight and get it over with. 

This is narrative agenda.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Fake Hate. 

Adam Jones is deceptive. 

If you look at his original statement, you will find the same pattern of "running away" from commitment.  

For training in detecting deception please visit  for law enforcement, business, journalists and citizen training.  

The value for journalists is highlighted in cases such as these.  

Study is in seminar or at home.  

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Yale's June Chu Statement Analyzed: Is She Penitent?

A  dean at Yale University who championed multicultural sensitivity has been "outed" for her racist remarks.

Once caught, she has issued an apology.  

Analysis Question:  What is the quality of the apology?

Taking Responsibility in Statement Analysis

There is a difference with one taking responsibility and one stating the taking of responsibility.  

Next, there is a difference between the use of the term "full responsibility" which critics often ask, 

"What does that even mean?"

Often the mea culpa is low on mea and consequences are not accepted.  

Remember:  taking responsibility and the the verbalized perception of this are two separate things. 

"I was wrong.  I am sorry" is taking responsibility for being wrong and giving remorse.  

"I am fully responsible for..." is a statement to communicate responsibility.  It does not necessarily mean the subject has taken responsibility.  It is often used when caught.  Being "responsible" as a confession is unnecessary (1) and sensitive via the use of "fully" (2)

Deceptive people linguistically move away from responsibility, even when claiming ownership.  

This is similar to the theme of "I'm telling you" versus actually stating something.  The latter is strong, while the former is to engage the speed of transmission of words with additional effort to preface a statement.  

Words Reveal Us All

We look for four elements from our words in which a portrait emerges.  Our background (1) including sex, race and age emerges as does the things we experienced (2) in life.  These are things that touched us and are with us, to the point of influencing our words. Our education and intelligence is readily seen in our words.   Our priority (3) emerges from a statement (including multiple priorities) and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, our words reveal our personality traits.  We are known by our words. 

Is she penitent? 

We need a definition for our purposes of truth seeking.  

What is racism?  

Racism is the arbitrary employment of race as a point of illicit or inappropriate discrimination and/or personal malice.  Racism is the personal hatred, for example,  held against a specific race, due to race, itself, not the characteristics of a person. 

Racism is personal and it can be institutionalized by politicians, just  as it can, and is, exploited.  

For example, one may dislike or disapprove of a cultural distinctive while maintaining no personal malice towards people of a specific race.  You may dislike Celtic music, but it does not mean you despise the descendants from which the music arose.  Disliking a cultural distinctive is not irrational fear, moral dearth, or, in today's political-speak:  being a nazi.  It is discrimination in taste.  In ancient language, racism was called a "respecter of faces", that is, the skin pigmentation which, having no bearing on a person's character, is called "arbitrary."  It is not rational or intelligent.  

Racism Institutionalized 

To deny one equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome) based upon race is an example of institutionalized racism.  

In the United States, this is mostly illegal.  (Exception:  the denial of opportunity is constituted by politicians.  Here, they can deny someone employment opportunity based upon race called "affirmative action."  The need to call it "affirmative", itself, indicates the negative consequence attendant.)  

It is without sense in a free market because if the goal is outcome the thriving business, for example, is going to seek talent, not pigmentation.  

Our Words Reveal Us All.  

She does give us insight into her personality through her reviews.  In this sense, all communication is "autobiographical.

 has apologized for her “insensitive” Yelp reviews of restaurants, gyms and movie theaters, including hot takes on what “white trash” customers would find tasty and employees she blasted as “barely educated morons.”

June Chu, dean of Yale’s Pierson College, apologized for the offending reviews, which had been circulating among students for several months, after the Yale Daily News published screenshots on Saturday.

“To put it quite simply: If you are white trash, this is the perfect night out for you!” 

Chu wrote in one review of a Japanese restaurant. “This establishment is definitely not authentic by any stretch of any imagination and perfect for those low class folks who believe this is a real night out. Over salted and greasy food. Side note: employees are Chinese, not Japanese.”

The popular divisive "identity politics" is not lost on her.  Note the order:   

“Remember: I am Asian.  I know mocha. These are not good and overpriced. They are ice cream mocha which are small in size and easily become freezer burned if not stored well … I guess if you were a white person who has clue what mocha is, this would be fine for you.”

In another review of a movie theater, Chu called the employees there “barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese” while trying to do simple math.

Is she an "elitist" who empower politicians to decide what is best for citizens?

Does she feel entitled? 

“Unfortunately it’s this or the Hanover Nugget but heaven forbid the Nugget get movies which pander to the masses.  You’ve got no choice and like a fool I remain in line with all the other idiots.”

Chu continued: “Be kind my ass. I pay for my ticket and decent customer service. Decent. I’m not asking for stellar. I’m asking for a bare minimum of competence.”

Chu, whose Yelp account has since been deleted, sent an email to students at Yale’s largest residential college to apologize for her “insensitive” reviews and admitted they were out of line.  This is where we see her apology.

Expected:  "I was wrong.  I am sorry." 

We must see her in the statement via the pronoun "I" and we seek short, powerful thought.  Excessive words weaken the statement.  A use of the plural pronoun (and sometimes, contextually, the 2nd person) indicates a psychological need to not be left alone with guilt.  This is something parents learn early from their children.

“I have learned a lot this semester about the power of words and about the accountability that we owe one another.  My remarks were wrong. There are no two ways about it. Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

This is instructive for psycho-linguistic profiling in advanced Statement Analysis. 


1.  She has learned a lot, with the additional time element verb, "have learned."  This is a subtle weakness given the expectation. 

2.  She began with "I" regarding learning, but turns to the audience (including herself) with "we."  She is not alone in what "we" owe each other; not what she owes to others.

Question:   Was she wrong?

Answer:  No. 

She was not wrong; her words were wrong.  This is to give life to words by a subtle removal of herself from it.  

She no longer addresses herself:  she addresses her words with the pronoun "they."

"They" is highlighted in red, not because there is a plurality of people (there isn't) but because this is a strong psychological distancing from personal responsibility. It is not that her brain processed and dictated to her tongue, it is as if her words are the guilty parties here. 

My remarks were wrong

Next, it is not her words that were wrong, but "remarks." 

Her thoughts were not wrong, nor were her words. 

What is the difference?

"Remarks" is a form of minimization.  These were not "remarks"; that is, casual off the cuff words we wish we could take back;  this was a written review by a very intelligent subject.  

3.  NTP

"Need to Persuade" is a common term in analyzing statements.  Rather than say, 

"I was wrong.  I am sorry.  Please forgive me."  She has a need to persuade. 

This need expresses weakness but specifically, what does she wish us to be persuaded of?

That her words were 'really' wrong. 

Reading her words we need no such persuasion.  This is unnecessary (*) to include, but only unnecessary for us.  She, herself, has a psychological need to convince her audience that she is not a racist.  

Additional words are important. 

Additional and unnecessary words are even more important (sensitive) to the analysis.  

4.  Further Distancing Language 

Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

She was not insensitive; "they" were insensitive; her words.  This is to divorce her from her words. 

We are the only created beings with complicated language to communicate.  Here, she gives us much insight into her 'ownership' of her apology.  

She was not insensitive, the words were. 

She did not demean others. 

5.  Pedantic lecture and virtue signaling

Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

6.  Narcissist 

Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

Question:  To whom were these words insensitive towards?

Question:  To whom were these words demeaning towards?

The answer to both is found in her language. 

She was not insensitive nor demean white people, people with less education or intelligence then herself:

The words, which, in her verbalized perception of reality, did not belong to her, and they have insulted her.  

"They", the words, were insensitive and demeaning to the values, to which "I", hold "myself,"

Question:  Who is the victim?

Answer:  the holder of the values, June Chu, herself. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject does not take ownership of her racism.  She blames the words, even while minimizing the words into "remarks" and holds to racist and elitist ideology. 

Her words strongly indicate narcissistic traits. 

It is very likely that white students, in particular, have a strong sense of her racism and condescending demeanor.  The hypocrisy of her position and remarks is affirmed by the analysis of her "mea culpa" in which she, herself, is a victim of "words."  

This is similar to the techniques of both politicians and MSM with such things as:

"Truck attacks Germans..." seen in the need to give inanimate objects personal responsibility in order to alleviate human responsibility, while attempting to protect political decision makers. 

To use modern phrases in history:

"Planes attack Pearl Harbor.  Calls for planes to be outlawed were heard on Capital Hill today..."  

Substitute knives, guns, acid, etc.  

Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway said he and other administrators decided Chu should email students after they wrestled “with how to do the right thing,” he told the Yale Daily News.

“I’ve not asked for her resignation, and neither has [Pierson College Head Stephen Davis],” Holloway said. “She’s terribly sorry, and I think she’s doing exactly the right thing by saying, I’ve learned from this, I want to stand by all of you and I hope that you’ll stand by me as well.”

One can only question if these "remarks" were directed towards a different race would there have been a different outcome.  Although readers here are not likely to be offended by her racist views, (most may find it ironic or typical)  her statement is valuable for insight for those who wish to study statement analysis with the eventual goal of deception detection, content analysis and psycho-linguistic profiling. 

Our words reveal our background, experiences, priorities and our personality traits.  This is essential for investigators just as it is for hiring.  

Or, just to have your son or daughter avoid her class.  

The student and faculty reaction, however, is consistent with the identity politics creation of eternal victimization and insult.  The article continues: 

Some students, however, weren’t so moved.

“I will never be able to look at her the same way,” one unidentified student told the  student newspaper. “She needs to formally apologize in person to the college. Dean Chu is trained in human development and psychology so [she] should clearly understand the gravity of her actions, yet the fact that she would put such things on the internet shows that she really should not be in a position of advising students.”
Chu, meanwhile, declined to comment specifically on the reviews when reached by the student newspaper.

I am concerned about the shadow that my actions have thrown on my efforts to create an environment in Pierson that respects everyone, and I am especially concerned that it could prevent anyone from coming to me for the support that I offer to all Pierson students,” Chu wrote. “I see that I now have work to do to repair the trust you have all shown me.”

Chu, according to her Pierson biography, has a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of California-Davis. She joined the college after serving as an assistant dean of undergraduate students at Dartmouth College. During high school, Chu also worked in a summer program at the Yale Daily News, the same student newspaper that exposed her controversial reviews.