Post: #26

"Her life is shattered. Life will never be the same for any of us."

Just wait until she Googles Mommy.

Post: #27

Methedes Carrera.

Post: #28

(02-09-2019 02:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 12:31 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  I think she's guilty.

There's an excellent book called "I Know You Are Lying," someone may have even mentioned it in another thread months back.

The author, Mark McClish, gives a crash course in lie detecting by looking at statement analysis, which is the manner in which someone writes a statement like Carrera's, to uncover clues that indicate deception.

The number one point he makes is that people rarely tell an outright lie. They will instead hide crucial information, word things in a way as to leave themselves out, or speak in abstractions or theoreticals. But rarely will someone who is guilty come right out and say "I didn't do it." According to Mark McClish, that's a strong denial, and in general when someone makes a direct denial we should believe them.

What's immediately telling when you look at Carrera's statement is that she never makes a firm denial! She's accused of molesting her own child, you would think the number one thing an innocent person would do is to clear their name by firmly denying the crime. Carrera doesn't do so, instead listing a bunch of truths about the situation, but not leaving a firm denial. Examples:

He is trying to take custody of our child from me. The charges are absolutely false and horrifying, and a last ditch effort to keep me from contact with my daughter for the rest of my life.

Here she describes the situation as it stands, and everything she says is true. The statement makes perfect sense if she's guilty- of course her ex husband is trying to take custody, she molested his daughter.
Which charges exactly are false, and which are horrifying? Carrera doesn't specify, and this is a prime example McClish references where people use vague language to cover something up. We are meant to assume that Carrera is referring to all the crimes she's accused of, but she doesn't directly state it. Instead, we should take what she says at face value and not place our own assumptions. Since we can't know exactly which charges she thinks are false (didn't happen) and which ones are horrifying (could have happened), we can surmise that Carrera is hiding something.
Lastly, her final sentence in the bolded above makes sense if she's guilty. Obviously the ex would want his daughter taken away from Carrera forever if she's guilty.

The closest Carrera comes to a denial is in her last sentence- "We do not know what to do, but I ask that you all know me for who I am, and know that neither I nor my husband would ever, ever do anything like this to any child, let alone my beloved daughter.”

"We do not know what to do"- Because they are guilty, and can't see a way out?

"But I ask that you all know me for who I am"- Fine example of using vague language; Carrera doesn't tell us who she is, nor whom she wants to know her.

"Know that neither I nor my husband...let alone my beloved daughter"- Carrera makes a very weak denial here. Notice that she never mentions what it is she and her husband would never do to a child! We are meant to assume, in the context of the statement, that she's referring to the child abuse crimes she's accused of, but since she never tells us this, we shouldn't assume it. Also, she states a conditional situation- she would "never, ever, ever do something." This is still a weak denial, since people do things all the time that they never thought they would do or be capable of.


Notice the stark difference between her weak denial above and a direct denial: "I didn't molest my daughter." Something so simple to say, yet according to McClish, most people don't actually lie, so most of the time a guilty person would not be able to make such a direct, strong denial.

Also, firm denials don't mean shit. Bill Clinton denied outright he didn't anything with Monica and it was BS.

McClish devotes a full chapter to studying the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton never outright denies his involvement with Lewinsky, instead using evasive/slipperly language to avoid having to tell a lie. Some examples:


"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."- The most famous quote, looks like a strong denial on the surface. However, Clinton equates sexual relations with vaginal penetration, so when he denies having sexual relations, for him he's telling the truth. Even when the courts explicitly defined what constituted "sexual relations," Clinton was able to claim innocence because the courts neglected to include receiving oral sex(what actually happened) in their definition of "sexual relations."

During an interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
Lehrer: "You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?"
Clinton: "There is not a sexual relationship- that is accurate."


The question is asked in past tense, Clinton answers in the present. Clinton can't answer in the past tense because he would have to lie about having HAD a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, so he instead states his answer in the present; at the time of the interview, the investigation was under way, so it's safe to assume he was no longer involved with Lewinsky. Therefore Clinton can answer truthfully that he's not currently in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky while avoiding addressing the past.

It may seem petty to micro-analyze such small details, but they're the backbone of statement analysis. There's endless examples of Clinton using deceptive language throughout the investigation to avoid having to lie about his involvement with Lewinsky.

Post: #29

(02-10-2019 01:36 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  During an interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
Lehrer: "You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?"
Clinton: "There is not a sexual relationship- that is accurate."


The question is asked in past tense, Clinton answers in the present. Clinton can't answer in the past tense because he would have to lie about having HAD a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, so he instead states his answer in the present; at the time of the interview, the investigation was under way, so it's safe to assume he was no longer involved with Lewinsky. Therefore Clinton can answer truthfully that he's not currently in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky while avoiding addressing the past.

It may seem petty to micro-analyze such small details, but they're the backbone of statement analysis. There's endless examples of Clinton using deceptive language throughout the investigation to avoid having to lie about his involvement with Lewinsky.

Rob Ford did the same thing when the crack scandal broke: "I do not smoke crack, I am not addicted to crack, and I cannot comment on a video that I have not seen or that does not exist". He didn't say "I haven't smoked crack and there definitely is no video of me smoking crack.

Post: #30

(02-10-2019 01:36 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 02:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 12:31 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  I think she's guilty.

There's an excellent book called "I Know You Are Lying," someone may have even mentioned it in another thread months back.

The author, Mark McClish, gives a crash course in lie detecting by looking at statement analysis, which is the manner in which someone writes a statement like Carrera's, to uncover clues that indicate deception.

The number one point he makes is that people rarely tell an outright lie. They will instead hide crucial information, word things in a way as to leave themselves out, or speak in abstractions or theoreticals. But rarely will someone who is guilty come right out and say "I didn't do it." According to Mark McClish, that's a strong denial, and in general when someone makes a direct denial we should believe them.

What's immediately telling when you look at Carrera's statement is that she never makes a firm denial! She's accused of molesting her own child, you would think the number one thing an innocent person would do is to clear their name by firmly denying the crime. Carrera doesn't do so, instead listing a bunch of truths about the situation, but not leaving a firm denial. Examples:

He is trying to take custody of our child from me. The charges are absolutely false and horrifying, and a last ditch effort to keep me from contact with my daughter for the rest of my life.

Here she describes the situation as it stands, and everything she says is true. The statement makes perfect sense if she's guilty- of course her ex husband is trying to take custody, she molested his daughter.
Which charges exactly are false, and which are horrifying? Carrera doesn't specify, and this is a prime example McClish references where people use vague language to cover something up. We are meant to assume that Carrera is referring to all the crimes she's accused of, but she doesn't directly state it. Instead, we should take what she says at face value and not place our own assumptions. Since we can't know exactly which charges she thinks are false (didn't happen) and which ones are horrifying (could have happened), we can surmise that Carrera is hiding something.
Lastly, her final sentence in the bolded above makes sense if she's guilty. Obviously the ex would want his daughter taken away from Carrera forever if she's guilty.

The closest Carrera comes to a denial is in her last sentence- "We do not know what to do, but I ask that you all know me for who I am, and know that neither I nor my husband would ever, ever do anything like this to any child, let alone my beloved daughter.”

"We do not know what to do"- Because they are guilty, and can't see a way out?

"But I ask that you all know me for who I am"- Fine example of using vague language; Carrera doesn't tell us who she is, nor whom she wants to know her.

"Know that neither I nor my husband...let alone my beloved daughter"- Carrera makes a very weak denial here. Notice that she never mentions what it is she and her husband would never do to a child! We are meant to assume, in the context of the statement, that she's referring to the child abuse crimes she's accused of, but since she never tells us this, we shouldn't assume it. Also, she states a conditional situation- she would "never, ever, ever do something." This is still a weak denial, since people do things all the time that they never thought they would do or be capable of.


Notice the stark difference between her weak denial above and a direct denial: "I didn't molest my daughter." Something so simple to say, yet according to McClish, most people don't actually lie, so most of the time a guilty person would not be able to make such a direct, strong denial.

Also, firm denials don't mean shit. Bill Clinton denied outright he didn't anything with Monica and it was BS.

McClish devotes a full chapter to studying the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton never outright denies his involvement with Lewinsky, instead using evasive/slipperly language to avoid having to tell a lie. Some examples:


"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."- The most famous quote, looks like a strong denial on the surface. However, Clinton equates sexual relations with vaginal penetration, so when he denies having sexual relations, for him he's telling the truth. Even when the courts explicitly defined what constituted "sexual relations," Clinton was able to claim innocence because the courts neglected to include receiving oral sex(what actually happened) in their definition of "sexual relations."

During an interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
Lehrer: "You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?"
Clinton: "There is not a sexual relationship- that is accurate."


The question is asked in past tense, Clinton answers in the present. Clinton can't answer in the past tense because he would have to lie about having HAD a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, so he instead states his answer in the present; at the time of the interview, the investigation was under way, so it's safe to assume he was no longer involved with Lewinsky. Therefore Clinton can answer truthfully that he's not currently in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky while avoiding addressing the past.

It may seem petty to micro-analyze such small details, but they're the backbone of statement analysis. There's endless examples of Clinton using deceptive language throughout the investigation to avoid having to lie about his involvement with Lewinsky.

This was good to read and opened it to a new level for me. I'll concede the argument.

Post: #31

Her boyfriend, Jason Whitney, real name Jay Allen, comes from a masonic family and his Instagram postings reveal an interest in occultic larping. Not a good look at this point.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RzqxPEEbITC3/

https://www.instagram.com/daemoncins/

Post: #32

I hope it's not true, but I also hope she loses the kid.

Post: #33

Oh...
Cause those Instagram posts are indicative of normal behaviour...

Post: #34

How lovely. Who would have thought that a porn star would be a sexual deviant lacking in moral fiber. What is this world coming to?

Post: #35

I'm still laughing at the Cucamonga police. Heres the cheif:



Here's the national anthem:





Its the funnest place on earth. Minus the occult pedophilia, which I do not condone.

EDIT: There appears to be some type of funny business going on behind the monkey in the little car. Musta been taken during the great Cucamonga riots.

EDIT #2: As you can see in the video, the children of Cucamonga go on to do great things. Jennifer Anniston is in there, and the song appears to be sung by Jaleel White aka Steve Erkel.

Aloha!

Post: #36

She'll be released from prison in no time and be let off the hook. But if a man were to do the same, he'll spend a long time in prison and the rest of his life on the sex offender registry. Feminists only want equality when it benefits females.

Post: #37

(02-10-2019 04:15 PM)Kona Wrote:  ...
Its the funnest place on earth. Minus the occult pedophilia, which I do not condone.

EDIT: There appears to be some type of funny business going on behind the monkey in the little car. Musta been taken during the great Cucamonga riots.

EDIT #2: As you can see in the video, the children of Cucamonga go on to do great things. Jennifer Anniston is in there, and the song appears to be sung by Jaleel White aka Steve Erkel.

Aloha!

Those riots were rough. An earlier fire in the industrial district destroyed several factories responsible for local production of propeller hats, silly string and whoopee cushions. Shortages led to rationing and when the mayor was caught hoarding supplies a mob formed and burned him at the stake under a pile of those gag birthday candles that never go out no matter how hard you blow them.

I'll never forget the footage of his wife and children trying to blow those candles out, but it was no use. Those were Cucamonga candles, and as they say, when it's made in Cucamonga the laughs are guaranteed.

Dark days.

Post: #38

Is it really surprising when a degenerate, mentally-ill prostitute reveals herself as an even worse sexual pervert?

I remember at the time the alt-lite was so enamoured of this broad - "oh wow, she sucks and fucks on camera AND she repeats civnat lolbertarian political platitudes? So brave, so based. Let's use her as a poster child [molester]!"

This is why the alt-lite is such a joke. They invite open degenerates to their ranks just because they regurgitate boomer talking points. Remember that Gavin shoved a dildo up his ass? Or that 'twinks for Trump', with pictures of pubescent boys in Maga hats, that Geert Wilders attended? or Milo turning out to have a liking to underage boys? Or Tommy Robinson inviting a tranny to speak on stage with him, cause he/she/it was so brave and for freedumb. I mean, even the based minorities they parade are less cringe-worthy than this shit.

Will they learn their lesson? Nope.

Post: #39

An analysis of Mercedes:

Post: #40

(02-11-2019 07:02 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  Is it really surprising when a degenerate, mentally-ill prostitute reveals herself as an even worse sexual pervert?

I remember at the time the alt-lite was so enamoured of this broad - "oh wow, she sucks and fucks on camera AND she repeats civnat lolbertarian political platitudes? So brave, so based. Let's use her as a poster child [molester]!"

This is why the alt-lite is such a joke. They invite open degenerates to their ranks just because they regurgitate boomer talking points. Remember that Gavin shoved a dildo up his ass? Or that 'twinks for Trump', with pictures of pubescent boys in Maga hats, that Geert Wilders attended? or Milo turning out to have a liking to underage boys? Or Tommy Robinson inviting a tranny to speak on stage with him, cause he/she/it was so brave and for freedumb. I mean, even the based minorities they parade are less cringe-worthy than this shit.

Will they learn their lesson? Nope.

The sad civnat fags on the soft right are actually last generations centrists and the previous generation's soft left at best.

They're cowards who are so afraid of taking the fight beyond democracy that they will forever court the center, even when the center has drifted so far left that in reality they're chasing deviants and degenerates.

God forbid the wheels stay on this fuckfest for another 10 years, guys like Crowder and McInnes will be doing political outreach to pedophiles that "limit themselves" to heavy petting while roundly decrying "far right" guys who refuse to stop making jokes about free helicopter rides.

Post: #41

Exactly. I can already see it. Ten years from now a generic alt lite personality (probably a tranny) with a youtube channel will make a viral video with the title 'Democrats are the real pedophobes'.

But let's not be too kind to the alt-right proper either. They love themselves some Greg Johnson who thinks intolerance of homos is inherently jewish, or Dickie Spencer who thinks fagness is the last stand of implicit white identity, or the hordes of idiots who fell for the trap meme and recite race statistics to their natsoc "gf".

Post: #42

It'll go bloody eventually (we can hope, because that's the best of all the bad outcomes at this point) and at that point all of the nuanced faggotry about who's really white and why natsocism is/isn't Right wing and blah blah blah will all go out the window.

Everyone will be divided into three categories:

1) Long live the revolution
2) Die you foreign/marxist bastards
3) Please, I don't want any part of this

Faggots larping online will fall in with one of these three groups whether they like it or not. When the shooting starts then nobody is going to give 1/1024th of a shit about the nuances of national vs international socialism.

Post: #43

(02-11-2019 08:26 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It'll go bloody eventually (we can hope, because that's the best of all the bad outcomes at this point) and at that point all of the nuanced faggotry about who's really white and why natsocism is/isn't Right wing and blah blah blah will all go out the window.

Everyone will be divided into three categories:

1) Long live the revolution
2) Die you foreign/marxist bastards
3) Please, I don't want any part of this

Faggots larping online will fall in with one of these three groups whether they like it or not. When the shooting starts then nobody is going to give 1/1024th of a shit about the nuances of national vs international socialism.

4) How do I survive and prosper while these idiots tear themselves apart.

Post: #44

Degenerate whore ended up being a degenerate whore!
weeell split my dick and call me kaytlin that is shocking...

I remember her from the GamerGate days.
My advice to you gents: stay humble, keep your eyes open, shut the fuck up and think extra hard next time you want to support an e-thot

Post: #45

Being far away helps but you need to act early on that.

Once the iron curtain comes down and the MSM goes from "death to the fascists" to "everything is fine, ignore the gunfire" then you're options are 1), 2) or 3).

Exceptions for people willing to be truly and coldly cut-throat. Personally I don't qualify anyone willing to defend their lands and their people as an idiot. Our ancestors all had to do it at one point or we wouldn't be here, and for those unwilling to fight the endgame is death, whether in this generation or the next.