It’s stunning for me that no one here points at the below. Are you guys afraid being downvoted? We’re supposed to search for truth. Let me share my thoughts:
She doesn’t have this sad look in the eye as most of the victims do when their lives are affected by the abusers.
In the other video (also sticked) she claimed being abused by both: Obama and Biden. If she added 2 Bushes to her list - no one would believe in a story with 4 presidents. She already claimed half of this list.
Inter-racial sex intercourse is outside of standard deviation so I would also count this as a reason for my own disbelief because we all know that Biden likes to sniff white girls.
Her purple hairs looks woke.
The way she speaks (and please read the whole thing before downvoting) is like if she talked about the most “unbelievable” things portraying it as true. We know that all these things are areal, so I’m not talking about it. The issue is that she presents it like a Red Riding Hood story instead of a true warning about wolves in the forest (especially if they already did some harm to her).
My bet: Her story is fake and staged like J6 to discredit the movement.
The standard deviation in statistics means that majority of the people don't enjoy inter-racial sex intercourse.
If some perverts are exceptions - it’s only small %. The article addresses these exceptions. Biden could be one of them too, but from all the videos we’ve seen - he seems to prefer white girls.
Considering that I’m rising multiple red flags here - it’s statistically unlikely to be wrong on all counts.
This video is not a sale, it's a brave recovering DID system putting together all the personalities and memories after lots of trauma. The ones that front for videos are the brave and upbeat ones, the others are harder to listen to. But she's overall happy that people are listening and waking up.
I think this is a good starting point. There's a few things that stand out to me in the OP clip first of all.
One is an emphasis on being special. "I know things that your average person has no idea about".
Why is this important? Because of what it does and how it does it.
A, it focuses attention on her not on <other>, and B, this specialness is emphasized via knowledge, not via wisdom, or humility. (I know this, and so I'm special).
Two, she backs up this being special by throwing out factoids that anyone spending a few hours in the truth sphere can know about. She says "Why? Why?" but then never answers the question. Instead, she throws out these supposed facts.
"Because Joe Biden as a water island, Jeffrey Epstein had an island, Zuck, facebook owner, he has an island"
So let's look at the facts widely established in the truth sphere. A, Epstein owned an Island, Little St. James. B. Joe Biden's brother (so by extension the Biden crime family) owned a very small plot of land on Water Island, none of which was coastal. He then partitioned it, sold one third of it (reportedly) to some lobbyist for the price he paid for the whole plot in the first place. Etc. (Politico is a corrupt propaganda instrument, but the story checks out from many multiple sources.)
As far as I know, the whole "Biden owned an island" is a disinformation narrative intended to could and confuse the Epstein narrative. Have a look at how the 'fact checkers shoot it down. (https://www.google.com/search?q=water+island+caribbean+joe+biden). It's easy pickings. problem-reaction-solution. Problem - Epstein Island reality Reaction - disinfo narrative Joe biden owns an island too! Solution - Fact Checkers shoot down those crazy conspriacy theorists again!
From what I can see, Zuckerberg owns a large piece of property in Hawaii, and is naturally making problems for the people there in that manner. but the Caribbean?
What's noticeable about Epstein vs these other very dodgy assertions (biden, zuck) is that Epstein's operation was very clearly known, out in the open, for a LONG time. What he was doing there was not known, but the ownership itself was NEVER a "conspiracy theory". It was just plain fact.
Back to the woman:
"right next door to Joe Biden and Jeffrey Epstein. Look it up. Ask me how I know!"
So again, a 'look it up' as if verifying these things proves that she has special knowledge. Obviously, they do not, and are not even factual. BUT very tantilizing and emotionally attractive to those of us who are sick of the sickness of the Elites.
She continues to challenge you, the listener: Look it up!!! To prove that she has special knowledge. Which focuses attention on her. All the examples here are a mix of known information that anyone can find with some effort, and unsubstantialized juicy morsels that seem intended to whet the disbelievers appetite.
She follows off her little tirade with the kicker:
"Every city, they link to the houses they link to the ocean, they link to so much and you won’t believe it but you know what, I’ll say that for you little dummies who feel like you know."
You little dummies?
Belittling the listener is a very passive aggressive method of pushing the idea that I am special and you are not and you had better believe me because x, y and z....
Disclosure: As soon as I saw she was interviewed by Stew Peters, my antenna goes up. My own current view is that it is 80% likely that Stew Peters is a disinfo agent designated to infiltrate the truth sphere, like many others, (e..g Real Raw news, Newspunch, Lin Wood, etc). I'll admit that up front, so that sort of impacts on my initial thoughts re: this woman.
Nonetheless, I find the tirade posted here to be rather transparent in its nature, and bearing many indicators of an ego-driven push for getting attention and exploiting that.
Well, on to the Peters interview, and I'll see how that goes.
Belittling the listener is a very passive aggressive method of pushing the idea that I am special and you are not and you had better believe me because x, y and z....
Not that I am disagreeing with what you posted, but one thing I wanted to point out
A lot of anons or Trump supports belittle leftists for not knowing what we know. When you are never believed by people a person tends to get mad and call names to the sheep. GAW has less of this, but check Patriots.win. Full of people belittling leftists.
Also she gives me some vibes of when Kappy was sharing info. He didn't call names but seemed as excited as her to spread info to the people sending messages.
This is really just my initial impressions, and obviously requires more. She appeared quite different on the Peters interview.
However, full disclosure: I am always very skeptical of potential disinformation agents, whether done for private personal benefit or as part of an anti-truth psyop. When large claims are made, I find that the demeanor and behavior of the claimant are limited in how useful they are, and that more substantive evidence is required than just telling a story that pushes certain buttons but which are very difficult to corroborate.
Some of us are willing to believe in things simply because they appeal to us and give us a sense of surety, rather than because we've applied discretion, discernment and allowed ourselves to be OK with not actually knowing.
To me it seems that HOW we process the information is often more important in a practical sense than whether the information is actually truthful or not.
Your comment straddles the bar between a humorous quip well played and a serious comment with pronounced attitude overtones.
It is opaque. Ambiguous. How do I know? I know. Ask me how I know. (No seriously. Ask me how I know. Knock and the door will be opened. Ask, and you shall receive.)
On a side note, I hear tidbits about this woman having multiple personalities. If this is indeed the case, it could well explain why the personality in the OP clip is like she is. I watched some of her interview with Peters, and found her personality to be markedly different in that.
In any case, the Peters interview is years old, and while it's completely valid not to dismiss any report of this sort of stuff out of hand (we know that it exists), I also think its important to not let one's discernment guard down.
How do I know? I don't. It's an opinion, not a fact!
Nobody here so far appears to know anything about this abuse survivor with multiple personalities and validated stories, so I'll caution your rushing to judgment based on one set of short clips from one of her upbeat outgoing personalities. The older personalities are much more serious but also harder to listen to and don't want to engage in live sessions causing memories of the traumas to come up.
I can't buy that. I have a hard time believing normal survivors who are always sad and can't even gets worse out. It was you life, the only way you knew things to be for years. Children's minds accept the crazy things they are presented with. If the perverts thought you were worth keeping around it's likely because you weren't depressed constantly.
But then again I only speak from personal experience. I've been to lots of survivor meetings and the sad ones are actually rare but more vocal because they say the "right" things.
The fact this is on Stew Peters has my eyebrows raised in a dubious manner. Peters is most likely a voice of disinformation and subterfuge. In my mind its a voice I will note but the information he presents is not to be trusted and therefore filed deep in the future proves past category and never used as a red pill. Information coming from him needs deep vetting and verification from trusted sources before I will relay a word of it to anyone else.
It’s stunning for me that no one here points at the below. Are you guys afraid being downvoted? We’re supposed to search for truth. Let me share my thoughts:
She doesn’t have this sad look in the eye as most of the victims do when their lives are affected by the abusers.
In the other video (also sticked) she claimed being abused by both: Obama and Biden. If she added 2 Bushes to her list - no one would believe in a story with 4 presidents. She already claimed half of this list.
Inter-racial sex intercourse is outside of standard deviation so I would also count this as a reason for my own disbelief because we all know that Biden likes to sniff white girls.
Her purple hairs looks woke.
The way she speaks (and please read the whole thing before downvoting) is like if she talked about the most “unbelievable” things portraying it as true. We know that all these things are areal, so I’m not talking about it. The issue is that she presents it like a Red Riding Hood story instead of a true warning about wolves in the forest (especially if they already did some harm to her).
My bet: Her story is fake and staged like J6 to discredit the movement.
I'm not impressed with the video either.
However, I think you are wrong on this part:
Remember Haiti.
And hunter and malia kek
The standard deviation in statistics means that majority of the people don't enjoy inter-racial sex intercourse.
If some perverts are exceptions - it’s only small %. The article addresses these exceptions. Biden could be one of them too, but from all the videos we’ve seen - he seems to prefer white girls.
Considering that I’m rising multiple red flags here - it’s statistically unlikely to be wrong on all counts.
This video is not a sale, it's a brave recovering DID system putting together all the personalities and memories after lots of trauma. The ones that front for videos are the brave and upbeat ones, the others are harder to listen to. But she's overall happy that people are listening and waking up.
Yes!!!
I think this is a good starting point. There's a few things that stand out to me in the OP clip first of all. One is an emphasis on being special. "I know things that your average person has no idea about". Why is this important? Because of what it does and how it does it. A, it focuses attention on her not on <other>, and B, this specialness is emphasized via knowledge, not via wisdom, or humility. (I know this, and so I'm special).
Two, she backs up this being special by throwing out factoids that anyone spending a few hours in the truth sphere can know about. She says "Why? Why?" but then never answers the question. Instead, she throws out these supposed facts.
"Because Joe Biden as a water island, Jeffrey Epstein had an island, Zuck, facebook owner, he has an island"
So let's look at the facts widely established in the truth sphere. A, Epstein owned an Island, Little St. James. B. Joe Biden's brother (so by extension the Biden crime family) owned a very small plot of land on Water Island, none of which was coastal. He then partitioned it, sold one third of it (reportedly) to some lobbyist for the price he paid for the whole plot in the first place. Etc. (Politico is a corrupt propaganda instrument, but the story checks out from many multiple sources.)
As far as I know, the whole "Biden owned an island" is a disinformation narrative intended to could and confuse the Epstein narrative. Have a look at how the 'fact checkers shoot it down. (https://www.google.com/search?q=water+island+caribbean+joe+biden). It's easy pickings. problem-reaction-solution. Problem - Epstein Island reality Reaction - disinfo narrative Joe biden owns an island too! Solution - Fact Checkers shoot down those crazy conspriacy theorists again!
From what I can see, Zuckerberg owns a large piece of property in Hawaii, and is naturally making problems for the people there in that manner. but the Caribbean?
What's noticeable about Epstein vs these other very dodgy assertions (biden, zuck) is that Epstein's operation was very clearly known, out in the open, for a LONG time. What he was doing there was not known, but the ownership itself was NEVER a "conspiracy theory". It was just plain fact.
Back to the woman:
"right next door to Joe Biden and Jeffrey Epstein. Look it up. Ask me how I know!"
So again, a 'look it up' as if verifying these things proves that she has special knowledge. Obviously, they do not, and are not even factual. BUT very tantilizing and emotionally attractive to those of us who are sick of the sickness of the Elites.
She continues to challenge you, the listener: Look it up!!! To prove that she has special knowledge. Which focuses attention on her. All the examples here are a mix of known information that anyone can find with some effort, and unsubstantialized juicy morsels that seem intended to whet the disbelievers appetite.
She follows off her little tirade with the kicker:
"Every city, they link to the houses they link to the ocean, they link to so much and you won’t believe it but you know what, I’ll say that for you little dummies who feel like you know."
You little dummies?
Belittling the listener is a very passive aggressive method of pushing the idea that I am special and you are not and you had better believe me because x, y and z....
Disclosure: As soon as I saw she was interviewed by Stew Peters, my antenna goes up. My own current view is that it is 80% likely that Stew Peters is a disinfo agent designated to infiltrate the truth sphere, like many others, (e..g Real Raw news, Newspunch, Lin Wood, etc). I'll admit that up front, so that sort of impacts on my initial thoughts re: this woman.
Nonetheless, I find the tirade posted here to be rather transparent in its nature, and bearing many indicators of an ego-driven push for getting attention and exploiting that.
Well, on to the Peters interview, and I'll see how that goes.
wwg1wga
Not that I am disagreeing with what you posted, but one thing I wanted to point out
A lot of anons or Trump supports belittle leftists for not knowing what we know. When you are never believed by people a person tends to get mad and call names to the sheep. GAW has less of this, but check Patriots.win. Full of people belittling leftists.
Also she gives me some vibes of when Kappy was sharing info. He didn't call names but seemed as excited as her to spread info to the people sending messages.
Thanks for the input. Valid points.
This is really just my initial impressions, and obviously requires more. She appeared quite different on the Peters interview.
However, full disclosure: I am always very skeptical of potential disinformation agents, whether done for private personal benefit or as part of an anti-truth psyop. When large claims are made, I find that the demeanor and behavior of the claimant are limited in how useful they are, and that more substantive evidence is required than just telling a story that pushes certain buttons but which are very difficult to corroborate.
Some of us are willing to believe in things simply because they appeal to us and give us a sense of surety, rather than because we've applied discretion, discernment and allowed ourselves to be OK with not actually knowing.
To me it seems that HOW we process the information is often more important in a practical sense than whether the information is actually truthful or not.
Pardon me but your assessment is wrong. How do I know? Because I know. Ask me how I know.
Your comment straddles the bar between a humorous quip well played and a serious comment with pronounced attitude overtones.
It is opaque. Ambiguous. How do I know? I know. Ask me how I know. (No seriously. Ask me how I know. Knock and the door will be opened. Ask, and you shall receive.)
On a side note, I hear tidbits about this woman having multiple personalities. If this is indeed the case, it could well explain why the personality in the OP clip is like she is. I watched some of her interview with Peters, and found her personality to be markedly different in that.
In any case, the Peters interview is years old, and while it's completely valid not to dismiss any report of this sort of stuff out of hand (we know that it exists), I also think its important to not let one's discernment guard down.
How do I know? I don't. It's an opinion, not a fact!
Nobody here so far appears to know anything about this abuse survivor with multiple personalities and validated stories, so I'll caution your rushing to judgment based on one set of short clips from one of her upbeat outgoing personalities. The older personalities are much more serious but also harder to listen to and don't want to engage in live sessions causing memories of the traumas to come up.
I can't buy that. I have a hard time believing normal survivors who are always sad and can't even gets worse out. It was you life, the only way you knew things to be for years. Children's minds accept the crazy things they are presented with. If the perverts thought you were worth keeping around it's likely because you weren't depressed constantly.
But then again I only speak from personal experience. I've been to lots of survivor meetings and the sad ones are actually rare but more vocal because they say the "right" things.
The fact this is on Stew Peters has my eyebrows raised in a dubious manner. Peters is most likely a voice of disinformation and subterfuge. In my mind its a voice I will note but the information he presents is not to be trusted and therefore filed deep in the future proves past category and never used as a red pill. Information coming from him needs deep vetting and verification from trusted sources before I will relay a word of it to anyone else.
Totally agree looks like a setup to attack us again.