We have seen the recent deception of Brian Williams and his unwillingness to own his lies and seek forgiveness. He has the rare (less than 10%) outright lie, though he also is deceptive via missing or suppressed information, which is 90% of what most deception looks like. This is why we let the words guide us, trusting in the words, sentence by sentence. We must, however, be aware of the 10% or less lie.
Richard Blumenthal is a good reminder.
Brian Williams has lied outright, and has lied via missing information or deflection. Yet his outright lie is what stuns us.
In this, I have compared him to another outright, bold liar: Richard Blumenthal. This was analysis done during the election, updated with reference to another similar character, Bill Cosby.
While running for office, Richard Bluemthal told Viet Nam Veterans that he was in Viet Nam, dodging bullets and knew the danger they suffered, hence, able to serve their needs in an elected office.
He then was researched and found to have never set foot in Viet Nam.
Question: Is it possible that a Harvard educated Attorney General could boast about his service in Vietnam even though he never went to Vietnam and secured 5 deferments just to avoid going there?
Answer: Yes, and here is his statement:
"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility, but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
That is a comment by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal regarding questions surrounding his past statements about his military service.
By now, you have learned to key in on the word "but" in Statement Analysis, to know the important information in a sentence follows this particular word.
"On a few occasions" remember, the shortest sentence is best. Additional words give us additional information. If a sentence can work without a word, the added word should be noted.
"few" is an attempt to minimize.
"occasions" are instead of formal speeches. This is an attempt to minimize the deception he propagated in order to gain favorable results in an election.
What would you have said?
Remember, the statements made were in front of not only live audiences, but with cameras rolling. Was this just a "few occasions", or were they formal political addresses with large crowds and media?
Maybe he meant that he said it, off handedly, at a picnic, or something.
This raises an important question about the link between event and memory:
Would you forget that you didn't go to a country, thousands of miles away, while being shot at with weapons that could have ended your life?
If you study statement analysis in an attempt to become a better liar, it will not help you. It is something ingrained within you at childhood; truth or fabrication, and it is habit forming. Even those who read that deceptive people often employ words like "swear, honest to God, swear to God, honestly" and so on, still employ these words, as the brain tells the mouth what words to use processing this information in less than a microsecond. Think: the brain knows thousands of words, and in a moment, chooses which ones to say. Lying from childhood becomes "habitual" and continual. Often, the habitual liar will tip his hand by lying where there is no apparent reason to lie.
"I have misspoken about my service "
No, he said he was in Vietnam and research has showed that he worked hard at making sure he was not in Vietnam, but safely in Washington, D.C, running "Toys for Tots" in the reserves.
"misspoken" past tense is a word used to soften or minimize (neutralize) the word "lied". Misspoken conjures up thoughts of an innocent mistake, rather than an intention to deceive.
"and I regret that"
"that" means distance, "this" means closer, in our language. He instinctively distances himself, not from "lying" or a "lie" but he even distances himself from the softer "misspoken" regret.
Please note that "regret"is an emotion.
He does not own that he lied. In fact, he refuses to call it a "lie", but telling Viet Nam veterans that he was in the land in which they suffered, and that he also suffered with them, is in his personal, internal subjective dictionary, just a "mis-speak."
Now imagine what his career has been as a prosecutor.
Did he "misspeak" against the accused? Did he order his subordinates to do the political expedient thing over and above the truthful and honest thing?
He has not owned, nor asked for forgiveness. I think anyone who said that they were in another country only to be caught lying would likely regret being caught. I believe his regret is genuine, but it is not linked to deception, but rather to having been caught.
"And I take full responsibility"
at first glance, this sounds strong. But remember, the shortest sentence is best. "And I take responsibility" is shorter. "full" is the emphasis that he feels he needs to add, thus weakening the statement, however, this wasn't the end of the sentence. The word "but" now employs the most important part of his message:
"but"
This word will now refute or minimize, via comparison, that which preceded it. The words following "but" are, in context, more important to the speaker:
"but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
he will "not allow"; forbid, control. How can he "not allow"
"anyone" (neutral gender)
This shows the arrogance of a liar. The language of a narcissist is often laden with "Divine" like qualities. Recall Bill Cosby's threats against not only his victims, but journalists. "If I even hear your name..." as if his control over his environment could be invaded by outside influences.
He now expresses himself in terms of divinity; controller over destiny, and over the minds and hearts of Americans who will hear these words. He will not "allow"; language that deludes himself and shows how far from reality he is.
When you read this you can now see why someone with his intellect and place in life can be so utterly void of common sense. Does he have the ability to see how he makes himself sound? Is someone of such a strong intellect so void of self awareness?
In your life, could you go to your job, or to your family, and simply announce that you were in, for instance, "war-torn Bosnia" during the height of conflict? You know, when they thought you were home, or at school, all that time, you were really dodging bullets in the streets of Bosnia. Your family might look at you and question your validity.
It is equally absurd; showing how out of touch a deceptive person can become over the years. A young liar may be good, but a liar who reaches the age of a grandparent has a lifetime of practice at deception but ego overrides and causes them to look foolish.
"to take a few misplaced words"
Here we have a change in language, from misspoken to misplaced. A change of language represents a change in reality. When the girl kissed the man, the man fell in love with the woman. Notice the change? She was a girl, but once they kissed, she became a woman.
Where there is no justification for the change, it is likely deception.
"The car ran roughly. I ran out of gas. I left the vehicle on the side of the road."
It was a car when it went, but now that it cannot transport, it is a vehicle.
Here, we have a change. His words were "misspoken" but now, are not "
misspoken at all, but were "misplaced", meaning, put into the wrong place.
This means that he stands behind his lies and reveals what his regret is:
That he spoke his lies in the wrong settings. Had there been no cameras running, he could have used his "Vietnam" experiences to persuade vets to vote for him and if called on the carpet, he could easily deny.
He will not allow someone to "take" these "misplaced" words. To him, the words are no longer "misspoken", as he affirms their validity: they were just in the wrong place, and this was done, not by him, but by someone else, of whom he will not "allow", as if he has control over others.
But because the cameras were rolling, it is hard for him to watch and listen to the lies he told.
He takes "full responsibility", but he has provided service to his counrty. The use of the word but suggests that he doesn't take responsibility at all, because he feels that he has a record of service to his country after all.
This politicians statement regarding the lies he told about his service in Vietnam reveal that he is a chronic, life long liar, who thought he was above being questioned, and is still in denial about his own mortality.
In his election, he asks for those who do not know him to trust him, while those who know him, and know, for example, that when he was 18, he was running Toys for Tots and not dodging bullets.
Profile
The arrogance and deceptive nature of the statement issued by Blumenthal tells us that this is a man who has long lied without consequence and that he has been a man of authority, who has had much success in exerting his will over others.
No comments:
Post a Comment