Analysis: Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terr...

9y ago Aug 17, 2017 at 6:45 PM

Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-11. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

70%

This tweet, posted during the acute Charlottesville backlash, represents a textbook displacement defense: Trump redirects aggression from domestic critics (CEOs, bipartisan leaders, media) toward Islamic terrorists via a fabricated historical narrative about General Pershing. The apocryphal story—that Pershing dipped bullets in pig's blood and executed Muslim prisoners, ending terrorism for 35 years—is thoroughly debunked by historians. Trump has repeated it since 2016 campaign rallies, making this deliberate myth-making rather than spontaneous confabulation. The psychological function is multifold: (1) deflection from narcissistic injury, (2) reassertion of strongman identity through endorsement of brutal decisive action, (3) news cycle disruption forcing media to cover new outrage, and (4) base signaling with a known applause line. The implicit endorsement of extrajudicial execution and collective punishment—framed as effective policy through the enthymeme "Study what he did [implication: we should do the same]"—elevates the danger assessment. The timing (same day as Barcelona attack) provides surface justification, but the primary driver is the sustained narcissistic injury from Charlottesville fallout. This pattern—pivoting to provocative foreign policy posturing when under domestic pressure—is a recurring Trump behavioral signature. The grandiose narcissistic state is evident in the authoritative imperative tone and the fantasy of leadership through overwhelming force.

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

Repeats known rally talking point verbatim
Historically false claim he has told many times
Imperative/commanding tone
No polish or nuance
Serves impulsive deflection purpose

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (Charlottesville backlash, CEO defections, bipartisan criticism)

Rage: Intensity 60% targeting Islamic terrorists (displaced from domestic critics)

Proportionality

30%

Sentiment

-0.40

Mildly Hypomanic

Multiple provocative tweets in single day across different controversiesImpulsive escalation during crisis

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

70%

Antisocial

70%

Paranoid

30%

Sadism

70%

Defense Mechanisms:

displacementdistortionacting out

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

30%

Cognitive Markers:

confabulation

Parasocial Techniques:

Strongman positioningShared enemy constructionImplicit violence endorsement as strength

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

Implicit endorsement of extrajudicial killing
Endorsement of collective punishment
Violent imagery presented approvingly
War crimes framed as effective policy

Reality Distortions:

Fabricated Pershing execution narrative presented as historical fact
35 years of no terror claim is invented

Rhetorical Analysis

Violent Imagery Present

Fact Checks (1)

"General Pershing executed terrorists using pig-blood-dipped bullets, ending radical Islamic terror for 35 years"

False

No credible historical evidence supports this story. Pershing dealt with Moro insurgents in the Philippines but did not conduct mass executions with pig-blood bullets. Moro resistance continued after his tenure. The story has been repeatedly debunked by historians and fact-checkers.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Analysis: "General Pershing" Tweet (2017-08-17)

Context

This tweet was posted the same day as the Barcelona terror attack and amid the ongoing Charlottesville fallout. Trump references the apocryphal story that General Pershing dipped bullets in pig's blood before executing Muslim insurgents in the Philippines—a tale Trump repeatedly told during the 2016 campaign. The story is historically false; Pershing did not summarily execute prisoners with pig-blood-dipped bullets, and "35 years of no terror" is fabricated.

Timing & Authorship

Posted at 2:45 PM ET (Trump was at Trump Tower, NYC). Business-hours posting. However, the impulsive content, historical distortion, and lack of polish suggest authentic Trump despite the timing. The tweet functions as a deflection from Charlottesville pressure—classic Trump pattern of introducing a new controversy to shift news cycles.

Psychological Analysis

The post arrives during an intense period of narcissistic injury: CEO defections, bipartisan criticism, media condemnation over "both sides." Rather than continuing to defend the Charlottesville remarks, Trump pivots to an entirely different topic (Barcelona attack) and uses it to invoke gratuitous violence against Muslims. This is displacement—redirecting aggression from the actual source of injury (domestic critics) toward an external enemy.

The invocation of Pershing carries implicit endorsement of extrajudicial killing and war crimes. The command form ("Study what...") positions Trump as educator/authority while the content advocates brutality as effective counterterrorism.

Rhetorical Function

The Pershing myth serves multiple purposes simultaneously:

News cycle disruption — forces media to cover a new outrage
Base signaling — the story is a known applause line from rallies
Strongman positioning — implicit "I would do what Pershing did"
Deflection — shifts from defending white supremacists to attacking Islamic terrorism

Danger Assessment

The post implicitly endorses summary execution of prisoners and collective punishment. The imperative "Study what General Pershing...did" is a thinly veiled endorsement of war crimes as policy. Combined with the dehumanizing framing, this constitutes elevated danger rhetoric.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"General Pershing executed terrorists using pig-blood-dipped bullets, ending radical Islamic terror for 35 years"	False	No credible historical evidence supports this story. Pershing dealt with Moro insurgents in the Philippines but did not conduct mass executions with pig-blood bullets. Moro resistance continued after his tenure. The story has been repeatedly debunked by historians and fact-checkers.

Overall Veracity: 0%