The Danger of Fabrication of Reality
Few people understand how dangerous one who fabricates reality is. In deception detection, we learn that less than 10% of those who are deceptive, will fabricate reality.
In live team analysis recently, we covered a statement where rent money went missing.
The subject was 100% truthful, line by line.
The statement tested to be "Unreliable" on its Form.
There was not a single lie in it.
The team rightfully concluded that the subject (author) had stolen the rent money via their analysis.
This highlights a very important principle within both lie detection and in life, itself: 90% plus of lies are via missing information rather than the fabrication of reality.
When we have one willing to literally fabricate reality, we have an unique individual who poses a threat of unknown proportion.
Lying causes internal stress and the brain becomes quite adept at avoiding this stress. The stress is not simply due to feelings of guilt, as even sociopaths, who hold no empathy for their fellow man, feel internal stress of a direct lie. Why? Because it leave them vulnerable to being caught and accused.
By what?
By their own words.
Their own words.
This is critical in understanding human nature. We are known by our words via communication, and to be seen a "liar" is not to be seen "lying" but literally to be classified, in total, as a liar. This is not something the liar likes.
Out right lies are rare and with the rent money, the analysts, both new and experienced, focused in upon sensitivity indicators and made the only reaonsable conclusion the words would allow: "Deception Indicated."
In fact, he had stolen the rent money from his two roommates and went out and purchased drugs and some new clothes with it, leaving the living status of the roommates in jeopardy.
Police asked him to write out a statement and it was very short, so the victims were told, "well, we just don't know..." and no justice was realized.
This deceptive young man gave indication of not only deception, but the language of addiction. The analysts spotted this readily.
Dangerous
When one will lie outright, he is now in the 10% category. "I didn't do it" when he did, is one thing, but to say
"I took the money and gave it to the landlord", for example, when the subject did not even meet the landlord, puts himself into a new category and it makes him a danger to all around him.
Those who lie by omission and are successful pose a risk specifically due to their success. Like a thief at work, $100 success will emboldened for $1,000 theft.
Yet, when one lies by omission, and continue in this lie, they will experience something similar to the most dangerous fabricator of reality:
desensitization.
Why is the rarer outright fabricator more dangerous?
For whatever reason, likely rooted in childhood, and fueled by success in deceiving people, the fabricator of reality has overcome the internal stress of lying.
It is here that we learn:
There is no bottom.
They are in this sense dangerous because they are not restrained as others.
You may predict their next downward step, but you cannot predict the bottom. Their potential for societal harm is only limited by their opportunities.
Even immoral people have some restraint, such as fearing being caught, and they still have the restraint of internal stress to hinder just how far they will go with deception.
When Richard Blumenthal said he was boots on the ground in Viet Nam, he fabricated reality; he never left the United States. Confronted by his own words, his response indicates who he is. His "core" identity was under attack. His response is consistent with the lack of conscience.
With this by-passing of internal stress, we cannot know how low he will go, and we should not expect any basic honesty. This means that when prosecuting people for crimes, he would be at high risk to prosecute an innocent if it benefited his career.
Businesses that do not screen for deception pay a severe cost.
There are ways to spot this type of deceiver, but there is no way to strongly predict how low they will go; we can only predict the next step downward, and perhaps, the next step, but in terms of the bottom: it does not exist.
Wall of Truth
Truth is powerful and it is an invisible wall of protection.
What makes fabricators of reality so dangerous is that they do not have the same restraints as others in society. They will go increasingly further into depravity; they will graduate from lie to lie, crime to crime, inflicting costs upon any and everyone around them.
If you get in their way, they will go on the offensive.
Without the wall of truth, the 10% fabricator of reality has a need to silence opposition. It is far more than just being unable to answer truth, they cannot abide it.
Need to silence
The lack of any reasonable "bottom" is frightening enough, but when it is combined with exploitation of others, we find they possess a need to silence discussion.
Without a bottom, we now have the need to silence that is often accompanied by a pseudo-morality, which further fuels the liar into the realm of violence. We see this in the "anti fascist" socialist movement that uses fascism to silence. Socialism, itself, must use coercion to accomplish its social goals. When the "virtue signaling" begins, we have a combination of:
a. Deception that needs to silence communication
b. Intrusion of hormonal increase (emotion)
c. violence
The "science" march was a political march, not a science march, and its theme was singular and the opposite of science: silence opposition.
Anything that needs to silence scrutiny is scientifically indefensible, hence the need for coercive silence. Combine this with hormonal increase (virtue signaling) and the power is increased.
Add in male testosterone age 18 to 30 and the result can be violence that increases in both intensity and scope.
Someone wants to do you bodily harm because you disagree with him.
When one claims, for example, that a man is a woman, the absurdity, itself, can only be defended by coercion. Therefore, if you go to the delivery room and your doctor says,
"It's a boy!"
the only contrary argument would be to attack the doctor as a "bigot", "racist", "phobic, nazi" and so on, as is the popular result of identity politics today. Classify someone to avoid using logic.
Add in virtue signaling and testosterone and this can lead to violence. In untreated mental health issues, it is even worse.
Yet, those who have long recognized that one who sees something that is not is in need of mental health intervention, suddenly, in just a few short years, now defend their position by attacking discussion. Here you see even the defenders acknowledge the mental health issue justifying why one must watch his words around the sufferer of sexual dysmorphia:
The defenders are the actual insulters.
To claim a man is a woman is a fabrication of reality. Where once professionals treated such as depression, and later dysmorphia, politicians have made it a "civil right" and has led to the same results of all identity politics: division.
The lie brings loss and destruction.
Today, would any mental health professional dare attempt to treat the dysmorphia?
Yet, the 40% suicide rate remains.
Taking the same logic, what of the dangerously underweight teen who "identifies" as overweight?
Is is "respectful" to indulge her lie or should she receive help?
We are not better people or "morally superior" for maintaining a lie. Only politicians tells us that we are.
Politicians join in to exploit with the new claim: "hate speech is not free speech."
Question: Why is it so important that you change your belief and say that a man is a woman?
Answer: Because it is not true. It must be coerced, one way or another, because there is no wall of truth.
This is why liars like the McCanns must keep up the pressure and have dedicated their entire lives to this "fight." It is not a fight for Madeleine, as many note; they rarely dedicated words to her. It is about them.
People dedicate websites, not to disprove the McCann analysis but to impugn the analyst. Recently, it was "he is making money off a dead child."
What does that mean?
If a journalist covers a story and gets a promotion for a job well done, and the story is a dead child, is he making money off of a dead child?
Besides...isn't Madeleine "kidnapped"?
Free speech was part of our fabric as hate speech against tyranny. It is, in its historical sense, hate speech.
Lies must be defended by violence because it is not truth, and, the restraint of lying as taboo is not only removed, but lying now becomes "morally" correct. This is to increase fuel towards violence.
Danger: Deception + Emotion + Faux Morality + Testosterone
Young males see the videos of black hooded attackers and they see this as exciting. It appeals to violence but it is violence that is now "justified" by false morality. If a male wanted to be violent but was reluctant due to his upbringing, the false morality allows him to overcome the resistance.
Once he is in the crowd, mob psychology takes over and we see the cowardly professor hitting someone in the head, then hiding.
We can laugh when Al Gore said air conditioners led to the creation of the Islamic State (they certainly laugh) but he is a politician and politicians are adept at separating you from your money for their causes.
Yet, even a few years ago, few Americans would have ever called for the end of free speech, defining "hate speech" as anything I disagree with.
It is dangerous because it has no restraint. It is outright fabrication and with this restraint removed, it is now combined with emotion (moral narcissism or virtue signaling). Remove restraint and you get violence. This is why the fascist protesters wear masks.
Human desensitization. Fuel with false morality and the end can be dehumanization for the purpose of bloodshed. This was the argument in the French Revolution, The Marxist Revolution, Nazi Germany, and so on, and the bloodshed was severe.
Those who maintain a lie will be desensitized similar to the outright liar. Eventually, the maintained lie will lead to offensive strategy, seeking to harm others.
Example: McCann threats as the lie is perpetuated for 10 years.
Why the need to silence via lawsuit? Will any of these suits bring their child back?
Context is Key
The context is a "missing" child. If saying, "I don't believe their story" resulted in being terminated at their job because they have been portrayed as child killers, perhaps, professionally they would need protection.
The context is that they have been building a movement on a lie, and cannot let it go.
No loss of income like a tv personality falsely accused.
Those who say they do not believe the parents will not impact the issue: Madeleine.
The need to silence is the indicator of weakness.
Lance Armstrong sued people of out of business, and destroyed lives and reputations. Why?
Because they told the truth.
The list of victims is unknown. Even in his sport, what of those who rode clean and were cheated out of lawful competition? What of those who lost endorsements in their country because they could not keep up with him?
Liars take their toll on society and the more lying becomes acceptable, especially when disguised as morality, the greater the overall impact. This is the essence of "third world banana republics" in the insulting language: they are corrupt.
Language is the currency.
Deception is counterfeit currency.
An acceptance of lies leads to destruction. In Ferguson, the police officer told the truth about what happened, and eventually, witnesses came forth to say, "there was no 'hands up; don't shoot', yet an entire racist movement is underway, well financed and even received in the White House, based upon a lie. Police officers have died, particularly in 2016, because of this false narrative that came from the top, beginning in earnest in 2008.
The spouses and children will never be the same.
Anti-cheating and sportsmanship lessons were once given to children to help establish an inner point of resistance to the corruption of lying and cheating.
When you have someone who has overcome the internal stress of lying working for you, he will not "steal" from you; but he may "reimburse" himself, or even use the language of Marxism:
He will "redistribute the wealth."
There is no bottom.
This form of theft is at the heart of the socialistic ideology: successful people owe those who are not successful and if they disagree, we will coerce them. This is what we are seeing today in America, and it is based upon a lie.
The successful did not get their by hard work and sacrifice, they had to steal.
The unsuccessful did not get that way by government disincentive. It was a vast conspiracy to hold them down.
These absurdities are lies in which politicians exploit and use to create violence. This is why politicians want to control the internet.
Truth stands upon its own strength. The "need to persuade" from a liar is incessant.
If you do not believe him, it will continue to pester.
If you still do not believe him, the very weakness of a lie will force the only method of acceptance possible:
Coercion.
In any circumstance, none of us knows how low a liar will go.
Even those who may have once been honest, who will not yield from their lies, will only become more and more desensitized due to their lies.
Some comment with, "they actually believe their own lies."
No, they do not. If they did, it would not show up as deception in language and in their behavior:
If they did, they would have no need to attempt to coerce through pressure, through law suits, or through violence.
The McCanns show a willingness to destroy others careers and lives through threatened suits.
Yet, would winning a suit bring back Madeleine?
If she was their cause, they would not care who did or did not believe them.
They spent their energy attacking others and their focus upon their own selves.
Why?
Because Madeleine was never "missing."
They have lied by omission but the same pattern of desensitization is active.
This is evident from their own words, and has been consistently remained the same, for a decade.
Expect the increase in offensive attacks to continue. It is their life. Searching for Madeleine was not in their language, nor in their labors.
For them, maintaining a lie has become an industry.
Peter Hyatt
No comments:
Post a Comment