Tag Archives: deconstruction

Did Donald Trump support the Iraq War?

“Yeah, I guess sooooooo, uuuuuuh.  I wish the first time it was done correctly.” ~Donald Trump, September 11th, Anniversary.

The Alt-Left is using this as evidence that Donald Trump supported the Iraq War.  They are doing so precluding his personal testimony about his own perspective at that time and they are ignoring the Emotional Data that he communicated as he made this comment. 

In linguistics, prosody (from Ancient Greek) is concerned with those elements of speech that are not individual phonetic segments (vowels and consonants) but are properties of syllables and larger units of speech. These contribute to linguistic functions such as intonation, tone, stress, and rhythm. Prosody may reflect various features of the speaker or the utterance: the emotional state of the speaker; the form of the utterance (statement, question, or command); the presence of irony or sarcasm; emphasis, contrast, and focus; or other elements of language that may not be encoded by grammar or by choice of vocabulary. (SOURCE)

The amount of hesitation in his voice demonstrates a lack of commitment and he is communicating negative emotions exhibiting a lack of confidence in the position followed immediately by a modification of the original comment that shows he wished the decision would never have to be made in the first place.  We know that Donald Trump is Frugal, some would say stingy, but we can all agree on the fact that he doesn’t like to waste money because he is efficient and he would have considered the Iraq war a huge waste of money with little to no return on the investment.  To this day he’s against Nation Building and all the money we spent rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure is now forfeit.  So we can all see that he was right in more ways than one from the beginning and he only agreed tentatively because of Patriotism and because he didn’t want to contradict the Politicians who were supporting the War who’s campaigns he was contributing to at the time. 

It’s not just that though, listen to the pitch, timber, and tone of his voice.  You can obviously hear the distress in his voice when he agrees to the war and then the immediate return of confidence and his relaxation when he wishes that it wouldn’t have to be a question in the first place. 

Advertisements

Richard Dawkins Deconstructed.

Image

So, I am going to practice describing Richard Dawkins inner world based on my psychological models and using my terms.  It is good for me to practice describing peoples profiles so I get used to using my thought technology (terms).  Religious language, in a manner of speaking, describes our internal world or the way we think the world works.  Our internal world is our soul, or our gestalt, it is our understanding of the world.  Now what is interesting with some atheists with the conceit that god doesn’t exist is that they don’t have any system for describing their internal world workings, which is to say they can’t scrutinize themselves.  Now I created my psycholinguistic model for detecting psychopaths while I was observing troll behavior on social networking sites.  Psychopaths conceal their true self and represent themselves falsely.  My model was created to understand the soul of people that were concealing themselves and revealing themselves strategically, people that don’t want to be understood.

Richard Dawkins, narrative recently changed, in his book, THE GOD DELUSION he mentions that a female associate of his said emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse and that he agrees with her.  Then recently this statement changed to, I was physically abused and I can’t condemn mild pedophilia.  One of the things I do in my deconstruction of narrative is learn to distinguish between authentic behavior and strategic behavior.  The second piece is closer to his true narrative (what is actually going on in his head)  but he is still concealing, although he did sidle up to his true narrative a little.  Now we look for variations on the narrative, and look for different deviations of narrative, and potentially contradictions.  One could say “nancy is a little loose” “nancy is a floozy” or “nancy is a slut.”  Each statement communicates slightly different data and characterizes the person speaking and the relationship between the two objects.  “I was molested and I can’t condemn it” in no way contradicts the narratives, “I enjoyed it” or “I wouldn’t mind doing it”.  So just like minesweeper we are going to go through his other actions and statements all of which are tautologies from his world view, as we think, so we speak, and so we act, unless you are a psychopath and concealing yourself, but we have the MIND HACKER on our side.

Image

(https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/everything-i-know-looks-through-me/)

Richard Dawkins was habituated into an environment that was highly sexually charged at a young age, boys punished each other sexually, and they rewarded each other sexually too, C.S. Lewis experienced this behavior in school, the boys called it tarting and fagging.  Dawkins also had a teacher that rewarded the boys with sexual attention, and put his hands in his pants at one point and knocked his junk around.  People have a normative bias, they think what is normal is good.  Although Dawkins portrays himself as a victim of circumstances as a tacit emotional appeal, I suspect that he actually enjoyed the environment, and the sexual attention and we will get into why later.  It is also important to mention that in Richard Dawkin’s mind, learning is associated with sexual arousal (and so is teaching), from his experience, teaching and learning are sexy and arousing.

Psychopaths perseverate in their behavior and internal narrative.  Psychopaths can’t reform they only become more manipulative.

In psychology and psychiatry, perseveration is the repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.[1] Symptoms include “the inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate,”[2] or the “act or task of doing so,”[3] and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).

The mind is averse, and it reacts against things it doesn’t like.  This eventually creates the form of the conquest for psychopaths.  Being morbidly in relationship with their issues and in the case of a histrionic psychopath clinging to those issues instead of seeking mental health, they need to change or attack whoever they blame for whatever their mind is averse to.  So what is Richard Dawkins mind averse to?

Image

He is averse to shame and he blames Religion as the cause of the bad for his shame.  Now when he says “child abuse” he is referring to emotional abuse and when we say emotional abuse we mean shame, specifically sexual shame.

Image

Notice the association between not being able to enjoy your life, and god not existing?  That is the way he is mentally in relationship with god.  If god exists it means you don’t get to enjoy your life.  Because of sexual shame.  So now we look for repeating occurrences in his behavior and narrative for sexual shame, what do we find?  Do we find a perseveration of emotional morbidity?

Out Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Out Campaign is a public awareness initiative for freethought and atheism. It was initiated by Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and is endorsed by Richard Dawkins, who is a prominent atheist.[1][2]

 

“There is a big closet population of atheists that need to come out.”  Richard Dawkins

R. Elisabeth Cornwell has stated that the gay rights movement was a source of inspiration for the campaign.[5] The campaign, however, encourages one to “out” only oneself; it invites atheists to:

  • Reach out and talk to others about atheism and help spread a positive view of atheism
  • Speak out about their own beliefs and values without feeling intimidated, thus helping people realize that atheists don’t fit stereotypes and are a very diverse group
  • Keep out, meaning to promote the idea that religion should be kept out of public schools and government, and that nobody’s religious agenda should be allowed to intimidate
  • Stand out and become visible in their communities and become involved. An offshoot of Stand out is the Non-Believers Giving Aid campaign, which has raised money to help out in the aftermath of disaster. The A+ symbol used in the campaign refers to Atheists Standing out for their activism in social and humanitarian efforts.

So we see he was inspired by a campaign for reversing the sexual shame of the stigma associated with being gay.  How do they identify themselves?

Image
The campaign aims to create more openness about being an atheist by providing a means by which atheists can identify themselves to others by displaying the movement’s scarlet letterA, an allusion to the scarlet letter A worn by Hester Prynne after being convicted of adultery in Nathaniel Hawthorne‘s The Scarlet Letter.[3] It encourages those who wish to be part of the campaign to come out and re-appropriate, in a humorous way, the social stigma that in some places persists against atheism, by branding themselves with a scarlet letter.
Again we see the recurring theme of sexual shame.  What this signals to me is that he is concealing something that was very powerful and he is very averse to, and that was caused by his being shamed, by a religious person, and that is why the form of his conquest is to attack and marginalize religion, and humiliate and ridicule religious people.  Let’s see if we can’t piece together more of his narrative.
ImageImage

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

So exactly where do morals come from?  And what are your morals Richard Dawkins?  Some of his arguments suggest that humans are innately moral.  I find this interesting.  I think he is suggesting that his morals are good which means that he doing what he wants is innately correct.  Because men are innately good, and we shouldn’t be being good because somebody is watching us or threatening us.  Are you starting to get the picture yet?  Let’s take it a step further, what of the morals of a psychopath or a sociopath or a child molester?  If people are innately good than whatever their morals allow them to do is also innately good.  How does he propose we agree on what is good and moral?  Should we turn Science into a religion?  and then science can tell us what is moral?  I mean this is coming from the man that wants to eradicate religion.  Should our morals come from the government?

 

RELATED ARTICLES

HAM AND EGG CAESAR SALAD

Image

 

This is a salad I made last night.  I wanted to show you how flavor is about layers and contrast.  You need the flavors to clash a little.  You have to be a little irrational and creative as you do your jazz cooking fusion and deconstruction.  

  1. THE BED: finely chopped romaine lettuce with slivered carrots, drizzled with Newman’s creamy Caesar dressing (I am picky with my Caesar dressing).  
  2. THE STEAK: I scrambled some ham with some eggs.  
  3. THE COUP DE GRAS:  Onions sauteed with white wine, soy sauce, and Worcestershire sauce. 

Remember the flavors should mix in your mouth, not in the pot and 

Alchemy started in the kitchen.

Image

Information Shock

Image

 

It is possible to know everything about anybody.  We don’t know how to evaluate the information.  We don’t know what we should be paying attention to.  We are horrified by what we see on the internet which is now creeping into the news.  We don’t want it to exist in the world.  But where are the boundaries?  Can I even be free in my own head?  To think what I want to think?  Or can I be considered a criminal for my very thoughts?  Not even actions, thoughts. 

Who are the people that get to judge my thoughts?  Who are they that get to scrutinize and judge me?  Sitting in their ivory towers, with their puritanical judgements, priding themselves on never having stepped into the mire of the low brows.  Are they not the living dead?  They feel superior to me because they are refusing to live life and make mistakes.  

The people that are watching us have no business watching us and no ability to evaluate us.  Sexual repression turns into perverted expression.  Those sitting in judgement are not making things better they are part of the problem.  Closeted freaks.  Gone is the country where we could say, “I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”  We are not allowed to speak or even think something that is unpleasant.  

We do not have the positive freedoms that our founding fathers granted us, we have negative freedom.  We are no longer free to, we are free from.  Free from freedom, free from relationship, free from freedom of speech, free from pursuing our own happiness, free from failing, free from succeeding.  All we can do is trudge along and allow unseen corporate oligarchs reappropriate the wealth that we have created at their whim through taxation, manipulation, or overt theft, as in the case of the stock market and the sub-prime mortgage dropout.