First time I watched this video I thought to myself, “She is leaking happiness, that is a strange emotion to be leaking considering the subject matter especially at this particular moment in the speech.” I continued to watch her and it was obvious that throughout the rest of the speech she was concealing happiness, there was something else she was leaking but I won’t speak it here, this is far enough fetched for now. Originally I decided not to finish this photoshop or post it.
I went back and I watched Obama again, his emotions seemed sincere and not contrived. But they seemed too perfect. There was no suggestion that he was using anything to initiate the crying. The emotions appeared spontaneous. I decided I was right to not post the photoshop.
Obama has summoned tears on demand before on the same subject. If it appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, then arguing emotionally is operating on a logical fallacy. Not long ago Obama was telling us that the Syrian refugees were widows and orphans and that Republicans were afraid of little children. I knew this at the time but the public quickly caught on. 80% of the “refugees” were in fact fighting aged men. Many of the refugees were not Syrian at all, a large majority in fact. It isn’t commonly known but a lot of women and children were thrown overboard by some of the “refugees” that came by boat. If I were attempting to manipulate the feminine bias of our Western Society I would do so by making them think about babies being hurt, or kicked puppies, or drowning kittens. The female mind prioritizes such things over the suffering of others.
I went back and started watching other videos, gaging the distance between the living tapestry of people standing behind the president designed to suggest to the viewer that we weren’t just hearing the opinion of a single person dictating to us. And observing their reactions in response to him which are meant to characterize him to us and communicate to us a consensus about how we should feel and react to what he is saying but again I noticed something peculiar. This time the absence of the woman that I had seen in the other video. She only stopped concealing her emotions when she thought she wasn’t on camera because her head was ducked behind the body of the president. And she only concealed her emotions when her head was raised and turned towards the cameras she knew about.
I know that Obama is a psychopath, I have already caught him in strategic rhetoric and behavior. I already know that Obama is a tyrant, he has done too many things that trespass the boundaries created by the constitution in order to protect us from tyranny in any form and he has already made too many suspect decisions. We know that he is a talented actor, he is able to fill in for Stephen Colbert and host his show without missing a beat. He is able to do stand up comedy and roast the Congress humiliating them in front of the Nation and the World. But if he is able to manufacture this kind of honest emotional response at will, he is far more consciously evil and psychopathic than I could have predicted and we should be very, very, afraid.
Psychopaths are over coddled children, they are raised in environments where they are encouraged to lie to their parents. Psychopaths manipulate your emotions. Every child grows up seeing his parents as God prototypes. If the child sees the Father Figure as dominant, they will communicate analytical data and establish dominance by demonstrating superior reason. If on the other hand they see the mother as dominant they will communicate emotional data and make an appeal to Mercy and Charity. Not only was Obama communicating emotional data, he was communicating likeness with his concern for babies. Based on Shared State Theory (Law) of Communication this will stimulate em-path-y in men and women that reason emotionally. They will sym-path-ize with the person speaking.
I take into account not only who he was talking to, but what he was communicating to them with his words and behavior.