Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Kevin Spacey Video Analyzed by Luke Kukovica

Kevin Spacey faces allegations of sexually abusing a boy and released a video in response. We presuppose de facto innocence and for him to tell us so.  

That Spacey is seen "washing" should not be dismissed, though outside the boundary of Statement Analysis. 

 That he employs language from a filming should also not be dismissed.  It is the need to use a script that is important to us. This is a tangent away from our premise and could be deception via deflection of information.  

Our expectation or "presupposition" does not change:

He did not do it and he will tell us so.  

The following is a guest submission by analyst, Luke Kukovica.  

Kevin Spacey video transcript

I know what you want. Oh sure, they may have 
tried to separate us but what we have is too 
strong, is too powerful. I mean, after all, we 
shared everything you and I. I told you my 
deepest darkest secrets. I showed you exactly 
what people are capable of. I shocked you with 
my honesty. But mostly I challenged you and 
made you think and you trusted me even 
though you knew you shouldn't.

So, we're not done no matter what anyone 
says. And besides, I know what you want. You 
want him back of course. Some believed 
everything and I've just been waiting with 
bated breath for him he confess it all. They're 
just dying to have me declare that everything 
said is true and that I got what I deserved. 
Wouldn't it be easy if it was all so simple.

Only you and I both know it's never that 
simple. Not in politics and not in life, but you 
wouldn't believe the worst without evidence, 
would you? You wouldn't rush to judgment 
without facts, would you?

Did you? No, not you, you're smarter than
 that. Anyway, all this presumption made for 
such an unsatisfying ending, and to think it 
could have been such a memorable send-off. I 
mean, if you and I've learned nothing else
 these past years it's that in life and art, 
nothing should be off the table.

We weren't afraid. Not of what we said, not of 
what we did, and we're still not afraid.
 Because I can promise you this: If I didn't pay
 the price for the things we both know I did do, 
I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the 
things I didn't do.

Well, of course they're gonna say I'm being 
disrespectful not playing by the rules, like I 
ever played by anyone's rules. But I never did 
and you loved it anyhow. despite all he 
animosity, the headlines, the impeachment 
without a trial despite everything despite even 
my own death. I feel surprisingly good and my
 confidence grows each day that soon enough
 you will know the full truth.

Wait a minute, now that I think of it, you never 
actually saw me die, did you? Conclusions can
 be so deceiving. Miss me?

I know what you want. 
1)     The subject starts with the pronoun”I”. This indicates that the subject is linguistically committed to his words and 

we are likely to find reliable information even if the subject is 

deceptive. He is, in this sense, psychologically committed 

to this statement. 
2)     The opening line or lines often are the priority of the speaker and may be the reason for the statement

“I know what you want.” 
His priority is“knowing what you want”. 

We cannot say who“you” refers to at this point but we look 

for linguistic indicators to see if he will reveal this 


What do we know about his priority?

It is not to deny the allegation, but to ingratiate himself to 

his audience.

As part of his priority, confidence in his ability to direct the 

thoughts of his audience should be considered. 

 He "knows" what they want, so much so, that he wants 

them  to know that he knows them. 

He knows the wants of his audience.  

It is insightful, not simply to dissociative

 acting skills or 

references to pop media (former production)

 but it is a strong indicator of a successfully 

manipulative personality type. 
a) you = the universal you, the audience
b) you = a specific (one) person, possible a victim.
c) you = a group of people but not all people, possibly victims.
d) you = it may mean different things in different parts of the statement.
1)     “Oh sure, …” is a form of Agreement with his audience. This is very important to him. 

This is to state the obvious or what the subject in his 

linguistic reality believes the recipient will understand and it 

serves to connect the speaker to the recipient. When we 

communicate, we choose the words we expect our recipients 

will understand. The subject wants his recipient to understand 

what he is saying so it should be understandable to the 

intended recipient but may not make sense to someone who is 

not an intended recipient.

When words of a script are used, we note not only the need to 

use such words, but we also note that the subject likely

believes his intended recipient will grasp this; no explanation 

2)     they may have tried to separate us but what we have is 

too strong, …” The subject uses passive voice “they” and 

“us” and“we” as none is identified. Passivity is used to 

conceal identity and or responsibility. 
3)     “they may have tried to separate us but what we have is 

too strong, …” To try, “have tried” is an action that wasn’t 

completed. So, the undeclared“they”, passive, was unable 

to“separate” the subject,Spacey” from the“we” the“you”, 

also passive. 
4)     “but what we have is too strong, is too powerful.” “but” is a word which refutes or minimizes what came before. The subject is telling the recipient that“what we have” iswhy they cannot be separated, it“is too strong, is too powerful”.
5)     “I mean, after all, we shared everything you and I.” The subject uses the linguistically powerful pronoun“I” as 

bookends. This indicates strong commitment to his words. “I 

mean” is to tell us why, because “we shared 

everything”.“after all” reinforces his stating the obvious to 

his intended recipient(s). Is he indicating he could “share 

everything”? Is he saying “we can’t be separated”? Are the 

intended recipients “too strong, too powerful”?
6)     “you and I”      There is a separation between Spacey and the 

intended recipient, he doesn’t refer to them as“we” which 

would indicate unity. This is distancing language.
I told you my deepest darkest secrets. 
1)     “I told you …” The subject’s communicative 
language“told” indicates a one-way authoritative dialogue. He is being firm in what he is communicating, it isn’t a discussion.
2)     “I told you my deepest darkestsecrets.”  In communication people will use the fewest simplest way to transmit their idea. This means any unnecessary words, words that when remove from the dialogue will not alter the meaning or intent are considered unnecessary words. Here the words “deepest darkest”are unnecessary to the sentence but they are necessary for the speaker to have included them.  The subject is qualifying his, “my” “secrets”with “deepest and darkest”. The subject is qualifying his “secrets” with these words.I believe him, his secrets are likely deep and dark.
I showed you exactlywhat people are capable of. 
1)     Again, the subject commits to his words with the pronoun “I”.Using visual element “showed”. Is this a reliving of an event where he was present with the intended recipient?
2)     “exactly”is an unnecessary word. It indicates sensitivity of the speaker and adds specify to his visual reference.
3)      “what people are capable of.” The subject distances himself with theword “people”. It is passive. He can not bring himself to own the action even after owning the sentence by pronoun. Using the word “people” gives him the cover of others. He does not want t be alone in his actions. 
4)     This sentence is reliable on form.

I shocked you with my honesty. But mostly I challenged you and made you think and you trusted me even though you knew you shouldn't. 
1)     “I shocked you with my honesty.” The subject again commits with the pronoun“I” and again with “my”. This sentence is also in reliable form. Is the subject trying to claim the high road claiming “honesty”?  
2)     “But mostly I challenged you and made you think …” “but” refutes or minimizes what came before. Here the subject minimizes “shock”and replaces it with “I challenged you and made you think …” What does he mean by “challenged”? What does he make the intended recipient “think”about?
3)     “and you trusted me even though you knew you shouldn't.” Here the subject speaks for the recipient of his video. Can he know the mind of others? Or is he projecting his own reality?
4)     “and you trusted me even though you knew you shouldn't.” This maybe an embedded admission. Broken“trust”?

1)     “So we're not doneno matter what anyone says.” “we’re not done” The subject forces unity with the pronoun“we”. This sentence reads like a threat.“no matter what anyone says.”

And besides, I know what you want. You want him back of course. 
1)     And besides,” A sentence starting with“and” is an indicator of withheld/missing information. 
2)     “I know what you want.” This is a repeated phrase. Repeated phrases and words have high importance to the speaker. In this case even more so as it is his opening line and his priority. 
3)     “You want him back of course.” Is he referring to himself? It does look like he is referring to himself in the third person. Is Kevin Spacey a different person than the one speaking? Is he disassociating? 
Somebelieved everything and I've just been waiting with bated breath for himto confess it all.
1)     “some”passive voice, used to hide identity and or responsibility. Who are “some”?
2)     “andI'vejustbeen waiting with bated breath for himto confess it all.”Either he is disassociating here or “him” is not Kevin Spacey. If it isn’t Kevin Spacey, than who is he waiting to confess?
3)     “I've justbeen waiting” The inclusion of the word“just” means that the subject was thinking about at least one other thing in context of“waiting”. “just” is a comparative word and requires a comparison in the mind of the speaker for its use. 
 They're justdying to have medeclare that everything said is true and that Igot what Ideserved. Wouldn't it be easy if it was all so simple. 
1)     “They're justdying to have medeclare that everythingsaid is true …” The subject continues as though he is talking to a private audience still using passive language. There is also distancing, through passivity and through chosen words. He does not refer to any charges let alone those against Kevin Spacey, even if he is Kevin Spacey at the time is not clear.
2)     “and that Igot what Ideserved.” Again, this is passive language. What did he get? What did he deserve? He sees himself as the victim here in a possible embedded admission, yet it leaves room for there being much more out there for him to be concerned with. In the previous sentence he brought“everything” into the language
3)     “Wouldn't it be easy if it was all so simple.” What is the speaker implying?“simple” in the negative indicating sensitivity. Added unnecessary words,“all so”, and passivity.

Only you and I both know it's never that simple. Not in politics and not in life, but you wouldn't believe the worst without evidence, would you. You wouldn't rush to judgment without facts, would you?
1)       "only you"only is a comparative word meaning it requires at least one other thing for it to make sense. The subject is thinking of at least another person,"you"is not the universal "you"in this case.
2)     "Only you and I both know it's never that simple." this is a short sentence without qualifiers and probably reliable. what is he referring to as"simple"? which is presented in the negative indicating elevated sensitivity.
3)      "Not in politics and not in life," “politics”comes before"life"and"politics"is presented in the negative. 
4)     "but you wouldn't believe the worst without evidence, would you? You wouldn't rush to judgment without facts, would you?" ..........."but"refutes or minimizes by comparison what came before. what came before?"know" "simple" "politics" life",... what does Spacey refute or replace what came before with?"evidence"in the negative preceded by"the worst". Spacey then doubles down on this with a second rhetorical question,"rush to judgement"and"facts" again presented in the negative. very sensitive. is he saying to his"you" I have "evidence"and"facts" so that"you" don't "rush to judgement".It is Spacey who brings"politics" "evidence"and"facts" into his language.
5)     “it's never that simple” “simple” is repeated from the line above, repeated words are important to the speaker. 

1)     “Did you? No, not you, you're smarter than that.” “did you”, the speaker uses rhetorical question to ingratiate his intended recipient while it can be argued it is also insulting. Passive aggressive nature of the speaker perhaps? This is backed up by his next line,“No, not you, you're smarter than that.” Is the subject mocking or praising when he says“smarter than that”? Is it a warning not to be“stupid”?
3)     “Anyway, all thispresumptionmade for suchan unsatisfyingending, and to think it could have been sucha memorable send-off.” “this” indicates closeness whereas“that” indicates distance. Here the subject uses the close“this” to“presumption” making it close to him. “presumption” is passive voice and distancing language. The subject is distancing himself from the charges and his actions. 
4)     “made for suchan unsatisfyingending, and to think it could have been sucha memorable send-off.” The word“such” is repeated indicating sensitivity.“such” is used to dramatize both “unsatisfying”and“memorable”. The speaker is very sensitive (bothered) by the situation. The speaker changes language,“ending” becomes“send-off”. Changes of language are noted in statement analysis. When there is a change in language there is a change in reality. We look for a change in reality. It is usually driven by emotion. If there is no change in reality deception is indicated. Here there is the emotional change, “to think”. The subject is thinking about how things turned out as opposed to how he had expected. 
I mean, if you and I've learned nothing else these past years it's that in life and art, nothing should be off the table. 
1)      “I mean, …” This is the second time the subject repeats this phrase. Repeated phrases or words indicate heighten sensitivity. It is used for dramatic effect and to stress what he is about to say.  
2)     “if youand I'velearned nothing else these past years …” Again, there is separation between the subject and“you”. The subject does not make unity with the pronoun“we”. The separation is distinct and purposeful. It is the second direct use of this separation.
3)     “learned nothingelse these past years …” the use of the negative is always noted in statement analysis. Things spoken in the negative indicate sensitivity and importance to the speaker. The speaker introduces the element of time coupled with the negative “these past years”. “these”also indicates a closeness. “these”– close, “those”– distant.
4)     “it's that in life and art, nothing should be off the table.” The subject likens his work to“life and art”?
5)     “… nothing should be off the table.” The subject shows his hand, and it is a weak hand. While it can be taken as a threat, he weakens any claim by adding“should be”. Had he said“nothing is off the table” then the claim would be strong.

Weweren't afraid. Not of what wesaid, not of what wedid, and we're still not afraid.
1)     The subject now brings unity with his use of the pronoun “we”four times in two short lines. The subject shows weakness in not wanting to be alone in this “unsatisfying ending”.
2)     Weweren't afraid.” The subject uses past tense. Does this mean he is afraid now? What does he mean“we’re still not afraid”? Why the plural pronoun? And why now/here?
3)     “Not of what wesaid, not of what wedid…” The subject mentions“what we said” before“what we did” possibly indicating he is more comfortable (less sensitive) about his words than his actions.
1)    “BecauseI can promise you this:” One of the highest sensitivity indicators is“because, so therefore, since etc.” where the subject tells us why. It is a need to explain, going beyond telling us what happened. 
2)    “BecauseI can promise you this:” The subject tells us hecan promise”. This is not the same as to“promise”,it weakens the claim and allows for not promising. Had he said“I promise” it would be a stronger claim, as it is it is weak and unreliable, yet still in need of the unnecessary 

statement of "promise" or vow. 
3)    “If I didn't pay the price for the things, we both know I did do, I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn't do.”

 The subject continues with the passive voice, not telling us what he did or didn’t do much of it in the negative. Things spoken of in the negative, what one didn’t do, didn’t say, didn’t know etc. are points of increased sensitivity. As listeners we expect to hear what was done, what was said and what is known.  

This is an example of avoidance.  
4)    “If I didn't pay the price for the things, we both know I did do…” The subject gives another possible embedded confession,“if I didn’t pay the price … I did do,”. This is bolstered by the commitment shown by the return of the personal pronoun“I”. By using the word“if” the subject allows himself cover without lying and deniability in the future.
5)    “If I didn't pay the price for the things, we both know I did do…”  This is distancing from what he did do and his words bring that to the forefront.The subject uses the article “the”for “price”. Where the expected article would be “a price” not “the price”. “the”indicates acceptance and knowledge of value of price. We should be open to revelations of the subject paying victims to stay quiet. 
6)    “If I didn'tpay the price for the things, we both know I did do…” The subject also uses the article “the” before “things” which brings “the things” close and familiar and specific
7)    “we both know I did do…” The pronoun “we” most likely means the intended recipient(s) of the video and not the universal“we” the greater audience.
8)    “I'm certainly notgonna pay theprice for the things I didn'tdo.”  It is an easy argument which no one will disagree. Has anyone asked him to pay a price for something he didn’t do? This is distancing from what he did do and his words bring that to the forefront.The subject uses the article “the”for “price”. Where the expected article would be “a price” not “the price”. “the”indicates acceptance and knowledge of value of price. Confession by article? We should not be surprised if more things to come out about his activities.
9)    “I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn't do.”The speaker uses the negative twice in this line and adds a qualifier, “certainly”highlighting the already high sensitivity. Again, his use of the familiar article “the”in “the things I didn’t do” indicates a familiarity of “things”giving credence to having done “the things”he is denying. Expected would be “pay the price for things I didn’t do”. Adding the article “the” makes “the things”familiar, how can something you haven’t done be familiar?
1)     Well, of coursethey're gonna say I'm being disrespectful…” “well of course” this phrase is used to bring the audience on side as if it is an obvious claim. This is a need to persuade and often indicates the opposite. 
2)     “Well, of course they'regonna say I'm being disrespectfulnot playing by the rules …” Note the word “disrespectful” this is minimizing language where the speaker wishes to distance himself from the charges being made against him. Who is accusing Kevin Spacey of being “disrespectful”? The passivity of “they” is also minimizing language. Who are “they? The victims? The prosecution? 
3)     “I'm being disrespectful not playingby the rules, like I ever playedby anyone's rules.” This is unveiled contempt for the“rules”, first he minimized using the word“disrespect” now he displays contempt for all others,“anyone’s” rules. Even the words “playing”and “played”minimize what his is accused of. It would be interesting to hear his meaning of “playing”is.
1)     “But I never did…” “but” refutes or minimizes what came before. Here he refutes“playing by the rules”., something he had just indicated he didn’t do. This is contempt for others.
2)     “and you loved it anyhow” The subject continues showing his contempt. Is he speaking for the victim or the audience or specific unknown intended recipients? To speak for others is to minimize and distance himself from his actions. He is justifying himself,“and you loved it anyhow.” 
3)     When people list things they often list with their own internal priority. The subject lists “animosity”first and strengthens its importantance by adding allthe animosity”. Second, he mentions“the headlines”.Third he mentions “the impeachment” and qualifies it by adding “without a trial”.This could be a metaphor for his being criminally charged and the charge coinciding with the release of this video is noted. We see Kevin Spacey is using the role he played as President Francis Underwood, this serves as cover for him or he is truly disassociating. He can claim everything he said is not Kevin Spacey but an actor playing a role. Yet it is his language so we will view it as such. 

It is his choice to employ this language, diverting attention 

from the accusation elsewhere. 

This is consistent with deception by diversion, or even 

deception by "filibuster"; something investigators experience

when a suspect speaks incessantly, even for hours, just to

avoid the truth. 
4)     “despite”The subject uses this preposition three times. Repeated words indicate high sensitivity.  despiteall the animosity, the headlines, the impeachment without a trial despite everything despiteeven my own death.” The subject lists “everything” even before “my own death”. 

note the inclusion of "impeachment" here.  This is similar to a 

diversion within a diversion. 

I feel surprisingly good and my confidence grows each day that soon enough you will know the full truth.

Wait a minute, now that I think of it, you never actually saw
me die, did you? Conclusions can be so deceiving. Miss me?

Analysis Conclusion:

the subject is unwilling to tell us that he did not sexually abuse

the victim in this allegation.

He has revealed confidence in his ability to manipulate, while

yielding signals of guilt of his crime. 

Diversion Deception 

When someone doesn't answer the question, we know the 

question is "sensitive" to them.  Often, not answering the 

question is to answer the question for us. 

In this sense he is deception indicated and likely has more 


Scripted language 

He is very intelligent but more so, he is a manipulative 

personality with very low human empathy.  He is aware of 

both his intellect (how clever he is) and his ability to 

manipulate his audience. This is personality driven with 

successes back to childhood. 

He is an "elitist" as seen in the contempt for his audience.

Using a script he believes his audience or "fans" will be 

familiar with, while avoiding any direct denial or factual

language, he reveals his low view of them as those easily 

manipulated.  This indicates an "out of touch" mentality 

and why he can claim his own "truth." 

I believe those closest to him are likely capable of describing 

someone who appears externally tremendously generous, but

is, in fact, coldly indifferent to the plight of others, yet still

thinking that all are concerned or even consumed, with his 

own suffering in life. 

Some may describe him as a pathological liar; or "habitual" 

where he routinely employs it to benefit and serve his own 


His victim (s) may be able to identify or at least describe how

Spacey became "another person" in demeanor, and propagated

his crime.  

In spite of his status of elitist removed from his intended 

audience, Spacey likely expects to be convicted or seen as

guilty of this allegation.  He has accepted this and is trusting

in his acting and manipulating skills to retain his fan base. 

This may stem from significant depression.

That he is washing in the video should not surprise readers or 

analysts as the association in language between sexual guilt

and water (washing) is evident. 

A level of reality is present: he has a need to divert attention 

away from any form of denial of the accusation, and may hope

to curry favor with the public, a jury, or even with prosecutors.


Rachel said...

This is excellent! Great job Luke and Peter! It was surprising that he decided to open the video with him washing. Where someone starts their statement is important! Thanks for the analysis!

Jenny said...

Thank you, Luke! Great work! If we look closely at the cup he is holding, we may guess who is one of the recipients. Nothing is left to chance.

Anonymous said...

Yes, thanks for this very interesting analysis. I have read it twice now and am starting to get convinced that Spacey may (also) be addressing a politician after all (how could I not see it).

I had only skimmed through the video before. I watched it in slow motion just now and one thing I noticed was how Spacey puts back his ring on his finger (at 2:46). He does it so deliberately, as if he is reminding “you” that he has information (of a sexual nature) on him/her/them.

Like Jenny says: nothing is left to chance. The mug is in commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. The quote says: ”Throughout all my life and with all my heart I shall strive to be worthy of your trust” Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Prince Andrew has been mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein paedo scandal (sex ring). Also: according to online information Kevin Spacey flew with Bill Clinton on Epstein’s so-called “Lolita express”. Spacey and Bill Clinton are (were?) the best of friends (described as bromance). Maybe Spacey wants Bill Clinton (”the impeachment without a trial”, etc.) to pull some strings at the Justice Department?

Adding the article “the” makes “the things” familiar, how can something you haven’t done be familiar?
Maybe Spacey was present when “you” did these things (or "you" told him all about these things)?


Anonymous said...

One additional thing. I believe there are several transcripts of Spacey’s video in circulation. The transcript used for the analysis seems to differ slightly from what Spacey actually says (see bold parts below):

So, we're not done no matter what anyone
says. And besides, I know what you want. You
want me back. Of course, some believed
everything and have just been waiting with
bated breath to hear me confess it all. They're
just dying to have me declare that everything
said is true and that I got what I deserved.
Wouldn't that be easy if it was all so simple.

Well, of course they're gonna say I'm being
disrespectful not playing by the rules, like I
ever played by anyone's rules before. I never did
and you loved it. Anyhow, despite all the poppycock, the animosity, […].


Anonymous said...

Are you certain that this statement from KS is in response to a sexual allegation? He is not himself in this video. He is playing the character Frank Underwood from House of Cards. His character may or may not have been killed off.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous to the other Anonymous, regardless if this is a movie script or not, life imitates art. Just as there is some truth in jesting.

Anonymous said...

What is he addressing here? Sexual allegations or if Frank Underwood will be coming back to House of Cards?

Anonymous said...

The ring he puts on at the end makes an appearance many times in HOC. It is significant in that show.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

"We weren't afraid. Not of what we said, not of
what we did, and we're still not afraid.

The subject chose "we", which could indicate unity or it could signal the need to hide in a crowd because the context is negative (telling the intended recipient what "we" weren't-afraid). I think the subject is afraid. He goes on to identify what "we" weren't afraid of- what "we' said, what "we" did. He continues with "we"[are] still not afraid. People who are are not afraid, much less of their words or actions, don't need to broadcast that they're not afraid. They certainly don't need to broadcast that their not afraid of their own words or actions, or words and actions they participated in with another...unless there is something in/about those specific words and actions that threatens the person individually.

"Because I can promise you this: If I didn't pay
the price for the things we both know I did do,
I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the
things I didn't do."

Sentence structure is very important here. Our subject was attempting to manipulate by employing circular logic ("if this is true, then that is true"), using parallel structure to bolster his argument. But, compare the actual structure of the corresponding sentences.

1st: "If I didn't pay the price for the things we both know I did do,"

2nd: "I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn't do."

While it sounds all blustery and full of bravado, He knows the logic is flawed because he's being deceptive. Even he will not/cannot verbally commit to the parallel that he, himself, has chosen to employ. I believe him in sentence #1; he didn't pay the price, more than one person has knowledge of what he did, and he did do things to other people. That he victimized other people is in this sentence-"we both know" what? The things "I did do". He doesn't say "the things we did" or even "the things you and I did".

This is one calloused, cold, calculating, abusive individual.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I wonder what he considers "the price"? Given the context of his fame and likely wealth due to his celebrity status, I don't think he's referring to solely a monetary price. I'm more inclined to think he's referring to the value he places on his personal reputation, given his intellect, his arrogance, his need to manipulate others, his aggressive contempt for authority/rules (responding to serious charges with what amounts to a caricature "statement"), his open contempt for others as well as victims of sexual abuse. I think he values his ability to deceive and manipulate others,control people and situations. He has the obvious opportunity to deny the charges and not only chooses not to, but instead produces this rambling "in character" soliloquy. He introduces "the price" sandwiched between a paragraph with "unsatisfying ending" and "memorable send-off" and a paragraph with "my own death". Being found guilty and convicted of sexual assault would certainly be an unsatisfying ending for a celebrity; however it could be unbearable for a status-conscious narcissist who prides himself on intellect and the ability to deceive and manipulate. He links "presumption" to the unsatisfying ending, and contrasts the unsatisfying ending to "what could have been such a memorable send-off". Wonder what Spacey a la Frank's definition is of a "memorable sendoff"?

Anonymous said...

The ring he puts on at the end makes an appearance many times in HOC. It is significant in that show.

Thanks for letting me know. I looked it up and found a.o. the following (on Reddit and Stack Exchange):

In one of the episodes Tusk asks Frank Underwood why he taps his ring twice every time he gets up from a table or leaves a lectern. Frank explains:

"Something my father taught me. It's meant to harden your knuckles so you don't break them if you get into a fight. It also has the added benefit of knocking on wood. My father believed that success is a mixture of preparation and luck. Tapping the table kills both birds with one stone."

At the end of S02E05 Frank attends the groundbreaking ceremony at the Civil War reenactment site and discovers that an ancestor of his (who fought on the losing side) was buried in the memorial. This inspires him to bury his class ring there as well. Commenters give different possible explanations for this on the above-mentioned sites.


Anonymous said...

"Not in politics and not in life," “politics”comes before"life" [Sometimes B preceeds A for dramatic effect; or "saving-the-best-for-last;" uh, right?]

“to think”. The subject is thinking about how things turned out as opposed to how he had expected. [Wondering... does that change if "to think" is being used passively, or in the vernacular?]

“… nothing should be off the table.” [I'm wondering, since he starts here with the ingratiating\insulting, "Did you? No, not you, you're smarter than that" His use of "should be" could be further ingratiating\insulting in implying it upon "you." "You should take nothing off the table;" it seems to me.]

"pay the price" [I'm thinking this is just a common phrase, (I've seen it a million times), "the" is over-analysed here]

“...the things I didn’t do” [It seems to soften or delay from “...gonna pay the price for things I didn't do.”]

“...they're gonna say I'm being disrespectful not playing by the rules …” ["gonna" is lazy-form of "going to" Is he avoiding repeating what has already been said by lazily-inferring it into a future?]

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's fascinating that Spacey chooses to let his character Frank do the talking for him, in response to sexual assault allegations-particularly when Frank was married and used a wife as cover for his homosexuality, Frank used and abused a large number of people, Frank repeatedly had sex with males subordinate to him in position, power, and wealth, Frank had power, wealth, connections, and influence, and Frank expected to get what wanted/demanded because of his abilities and position(entitlement), and Frank crushed/destroyed the lives those who dared or attempted to speak out against him.

I could be completely off-base here, but I "read" the video as a veiled threat, couched in corny, hammy drama...but a threat nonetheless. I took it as him identifying with Frank in that "I've worked to get where I am in my career, I'm going to protect my career/my reputation, and I don't care who I have to crush in the process. I'm above the rules-I make the rules." His court filing, petitioning to be allowed to skip appearing in the initial hearing on the case, evidences significant ego, arrogance, and entitlement. It also not-so-subtly signals his position is very weak- he and his attorney have already anticipated and accepted that he will lose in the court of public opinion when the victim(s) present their testimony, he is very worried about a jury trial, and he is seeking to mitigate a problem that has not occurred. Innocent people don't anticipate fair jury issues and seek to alleviate them before they've even been to an initial hearing on their cases.

Like Frank, Netflix is Frank's Presidential wife Claire, refusing to pardon him for his crimes because a pardon would seriously damage their credibility in both the Me-Too and LGBTQ-rights culture. His publicist, Staci Wolfe, dropping him is Frank's HOC Chief of Staff Doug Stamper, Frank's right hand man who ultimately kills him off. I think Kevin Spacey's life, like Frank's has been a House of Cards. It only takes one card to knock the whole thing down.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that he had some help writing this script? He does not give a reliable denial. He is not answering a direct question though. His statement is not within the free editing process.

Luke Kukovica said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Is it possible that he had some help writing this script? He does not give a reliable denial. He is not answering a direct question though. His statement is not within the free editing process.

it is not possible to say it is free editing process or not. they are still Kevin Spacey's words. he did the video and there is the assumption he did it willingly as there is no linguistic indication to show otherwise.

it is possible he had help. my personal opinion is that he did this willingly and probably without help. he may well have had a hand in the scripting of the House of Card's character so this would fit both his ego and talent.

I don't think he released the video to give a denial. I think his intended recipient(s), not the general public is the reason for doing the video.

LuciaD said...

Nice work, Luke. This statement is fascinating for the layers, riddles, Spacey put out there. I agree he has a high degree of confidence in his ability to manipulate his audience, and a high level of contempt for them. I didn’t watch his show, so there is context I’m unaware of. But even so, even “in character” , he reveals much.

Kris said...

My impression is that the speaker is an early abuser of Kevin Spacey, who is now speaking to Spacey in Spacey's mind. Most of the emotions and internal thoughts described are attributed to the object, which in this scenario would be Spacey. The speaker is now dead, but still threatening to Spacey.

Anonymous said...

Genie, I find that very interesting. I wonder if that's one of the layers of this story. Spacey’s brother insinuated that Spacey was possibly abused by their father. Maybe Spacey identifies with his (possible) abuser. As if on some level they became one and the same person: "we", "you and I”. Spacey may have said the same things to his alleged victim(s) that he himself heard from his abuser ("I know what you want", "Only you and I (...) know (…)"). In that case, he reenacted his childhood abuse (see also my comment of 12/26/18 at 3:27AM).

I think Spacey very deliberately putting back his ring on his finger in the video at 2:49 is not only a possible warning that he has information (of a sexual nature) on the intended recipient(s) of his monologue. The ring may also be a (conscious or subconscious) symbol of the sexual abuse he may have endured and allegedly inflicted upon others. Spacey’s ring in the video is similar to the ring Frank Underwood wore in HOC. In HOC Frank taps the ring twice every time he leaves a table. Frank explains this as: “Something my father taught me. It’s meant to harden your knuckles so you don’t break them if you get into a fight. […]” (see also my comment above). Maybe the ring symbolizes child sex abuse: something his father taught him; something that hardened him (made him a callous person). In a later episode, Frank buries the ring. On some movie blogs, people interpreted this as the burial of Frank’s innocence and/or his past (Frank got the ring when he was younger and happier). I think that Spacey may indeed have had a hand in the scripting of his HOC’s character. Like Foolsfeedonfolly explained, there seem to be many similarities between Spacey’s and Underwood’s life (I wonder if Spacey has a habit of tapping on his ring irl). I don't believe someone other than Spacey wrote the monologue.


Jenny said...

I'm posting the transcript again, with some corrections -mostly in punctuation, but also some words that are missing in the previous one- in case some new observations can be made.

"I know what you want.
Oh sure, they may have tried to separate us, but what we have is too strong, it's too powerful.
I mean, after all, we shared everything you and I. I told you my deepest, darkest secrets; I showed you exactly what people are capable of.
(cup in hand) I shocked you with my honesty, but mostly I challenged you and made you think. And you trusted me...even though you knew you shouldn't. (he puts the cup down)

So we're not done, no matter what anyone says, and besides, I know what you want. You want me back.Of course some,believed everything and have been waiting with bated breath to hear me confess it all, they're just dying to have me declare that everything said is true and that I got what I deserved.

Wouldn't that be easy? If it was all so simple? Only you and I both know it's never that simple, not in politics and not in life.

But you wouldn't believe the worst without evidence, would you?
You wouldn't rush to judgments without facts, would you? Did you? No, not you...You are smarter than that.

Anyway, all this presumption made for such an unsatisfying ending; and to think that it could have been such a memorable send-off.
I mean if you and I have learned nothing else these past years is that in life and art nothing should be off the table.

We weren't afraid, not of what we said, not of what we did, and we're still not afraid.

Because I can promise you this. If I didn't pay the price for the things we both know I did do, I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn't do.

Well, of course, they're gonna say I'm being disrespectful, not playing by the rules, like I ever played with anyone's rules before. I never did, and you loved it.

(cup in hand again)Anyhow, despite all the poppycock, the animosity, the headlines, the impeachment without a trial, despite everything, despite even my own death, I feel surprisingly good. And my confidence grows each day, that soon enough, you will know the full truth. (he puts the cup down)

Wait a minute. Now that I think of it, you never actually saw me die, did you?
Conclusions can be so deceiving...Miss me?"

I find the fact that he refers to the serious allegations against him and all the things that people working with him have said about him, even in Great Britain, as "poppycock" extremely dismissive, but fitting the overall arrogance displayed here.
It is also amazing that from all the parts he has played in his career, both in the cinema and the theater, he chose to speak as Frank Underwood, with a touch of Keyser Soze. Both characters are master manipulators.

Ruby said...

Interesting. After reading your analysis, it makes sense that Spacey would hide behind Frank, for psychological distancing and for deniability.

"Because I can promise you this: If I didn't pay the price for the things we BOTH know I did do, I'm certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn't do. Well, of course they're gonna say I'm being disrespectful..."
- Does the 'both' suggest an intended audience of just one particular person?

Title of video: "Let me be Frank"
- Could this suggest he's making a deal with this person and he wants his career back?
- But who would have the power to achieve that? It would have to be someone very high up... which makes me wonder some more about the word 'disrespectful' and sipping from the royal mug.

Your analysis of 'the' has me wondering about what he could be offering in return.
- 'pay the price' is an expression implying legal justice, or time in jail.
- 'the things I didn't do' could imply his familiarity with the things others did that are connected with Spacey's activities.
- so he could be promising here to not rat out others in return for an intervention that will not only get him out of this mess but even get his career back.

Speculating: Maybe he's being stitched up by child sex investigators and offered a deal, a way out, if he'll give up details about those much higher up in the ring.

Hey Jude said...

The video, analysis and comments are very interesting - I feel way out of my depth.

The video so disturbing - what is the viewer meant to take as it's context? I don't know House of Cards, beyond that Spacey played a President, or how much the video might be a take on that, and, if so, why that might be. Is it meant as a response to the allegations of sexual abuse - or is about his character in HoC? Why release such a cryptic and threatening sounding video at this time? The timing seems it must be intended in relation to the allegations, but as it is not his fictional character who is accused, it's at least an unexpected response....
If I was one of his alleged victims, it would scare me, because it's not officially related to the production of HoC - so what he is doing in assuming his fictional character of President in a personal video? It's weird.

Buckley said...

Does Spacey make residuals if people keep watching House of Cards (reruns)?

VLW said...

Off topic, but still newsworthy: New interview with Kyron Horman's mother. I've followed this case since day one but still heard new details I never heard before.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Buckley said...
Does Spacey make residuals if people keep watching House of Cards (reruns)?

I would imagine he would. it is contractual.

Nadine Lumley said...

Varun Patra has released the following statement to Rolling Stone India:

“In light of the recent allegations about me that have come out, I want to be as transparent as I can about the incidents that have been detailed. I had already done this with the woman who has made them but believe I owe an explanation about my genuine intentions.

There are two incidents that I need to speak about. 


Woman number 1 said we met on a tinder date post which we had consensual sex. She alleged that during the act I was asked numerous times to use a condom and I didn’t agree post which she confronted me some months later about the same. We did engage in consensual sex post a night out during which we both consumed alcohol. She says she asked me to get a condom multiple times and I refused. This is not an accurate depiction of the events. We never met on Tinder and in fact, met on a night out through common friends. She told me to get protection three times, and I immediately took a cab to the nearest chemist, bought protection and came back. It was only after this that we had sex and all of the same is corroborated in the personal chat we had on fb messenger when she brought it up a few months later. I apologised because I do understand that this is a complex issue. I only want to clarify that at no point did we engage in sexual activity without protection and without consent.


Nadine Lumley said...


I have been accused of audio recording somebody with whom I had consensual sex with. The person interacted with my social network a few times and then a mutual friend asked me if I would be ok with being set up with her. I agreed and we spoke on platforms for a couple of weeks before we decided to meet for dinner. We had a good time based on which we decided to meet again a few days later. She invited me to her house, where we met, ate dinner and spoke for a while before getting intimate. I put my phone on audio recording and here, I want to be clear that I completely understand that this is not ok. It came from a place of fear and uncertainty of how to navigate sex with somebody who I had not known for very long in the atmosphere of MeToo which I had already been introspecting on a lot. I was extremely anxious and fearful that any sexual activity, irrespective of consent, could be used against me. I never doubted the person’s integrity but casual sex does not entail history and an absolute sense of comfort and I let that get the better of me. I could not and would never do such a thing with the intention of harming somebody physically or mentally. It was only when she caught me that I understood the magnitude of my actions in violating somebody’s privacy. This is why I have done everything I could to apologise for any behaviour which caused harm unwittingly even though my intentions were not to hurt. In all of my conversations with her over several weeks, I have tried to explain clearly and consistently why I did what I did. I know that this does not excuse my behaviour but all I can do at this moment is be as honest as I can about my intentions. 

With respect to this second incident, I absolutely understand this was never the right decision to make. Unfortunately, I learned and understood this the hard way, only in retrospect. Sex is a complex interaction when it’s with new individuals and I should have exercised better judgment. The alternative should have just been me voicing my fear openly and asking for her consent to do the same or avoiding it altogether if I did not have the confidence to navigate such a situation. I have spent the months since reflecting on not only my own actions, but also this movement and its deep necessity. 

At this point, I can only take responsibility for my hasty decision. And I have apologised immediately and without pre-meditated thinking because I genuinely believe that I need to do better, and be better. 

I hope that people can understand my intentions and while the fear I felt is not comparable to what women have been subjected to for years, I can only be honest about where I was coming from or I would only be doing a disservice to the larger conversation that surrounds this movement.”


Nadine Lumley said...

R J Kelly

Like you're hiding from everyone?
“Uh, in a way, yeah. And I feel so secure. I've got the front door locked, I got the back door locked, I got the room door locked, and I got the closet door locked. I'm in a door in a door in a door in a door, so I feel protected. Just like the way they put money in a thick vault. So, call me money at that point

I'm wondering if it was his mom who sexually abused him from age 7 to 15 because he is so effed up.


Anonymous said...

I know a man who was sexually assaulted by KS so I know KS is guilty of these allegations. I appreciate your thoroughness.

That said, I am left puzzled why you do not parse the words of the sitting President for "deception by distraction." So much to analyze.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A judge in Washington state has set a new trial date in the welfare fraud case of Rachel Dolezal, the former president of an NAACP chapter in Washington state who made headlines in 2015 after her parents debunked her claims of being African-American.

The case will now be heard March 4, FOX 28 Spokane reported.

Dolezal, 41, who changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in 2016, was arrested in May 2018 on charges of first-degree theft by welfare fraud, perjury in the second degree and false verification for public assistance, FOX 28 reported.

Investigators claim that several years back Diallo began falsifying reports of her income so that she could qualify for public assistance, the station reported. She claimed she was living on just a few hundred dollars a month, donated by friends, the report said.

She was able to collect nearly $9,000 in state financial assistance from August 2015 to November 2017, Spokane's KHQ-TV reported, citing court documents. But a state investigation of her banking records found she deposited more than $80,000 in that same time period, the report said.

The welfare fraud case started in March 2017 after a state investigator received information that Diallo had written a book -- her autobiography, titled "In Full Color." The investigator reviewed Diallo's records and found that she had been receiving money from book sales, speaking engagements, soap making, doll making and the sale of her art, according to the case file.

After the notoriety that followed the June 2015 disclosure by her parents, with whom she has long feuded, Diallo (then Dolezal) resigned as Spokane NAACP president, was kicked off a police oversight commission, lost a position as a freelance columnist for a weekly newspaper in Spokane and was fired from her job teaching African studies at nearby Eastern Washington University.

Fox News' Sam Chamberlain and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

John Mc Gowan said...


Father of kidnapped 8-month-old speaks from jail, disputes police accusations
Mother claims 'everybody is being cooperative' with police

SAN ANTONIO - The parents of 8-month-old King Jay Davila, who was kidnapped Friday, are speaking out against allegations that his father had something to do with his abduction.

“It is not right,” Christopher Davila said via phone Saturday while in custody on a charge of endangering a child.

Davila spoke with KSAT while on the phone with his fiancé, Jasmine Gonzales.

“Since day one the police have been doing the same thing and they are not getting anywhere. Their focus is somewhere else. They just need to focus on where the car was located,” Davila said.

In a press conference Saturday afternoon, San Antonio police said Davila was uncooperative in the investigation and that his family members were as well.

“Everybody is being cooperative,” said Jasmine Gonzales, Davila’s fiancĂ© and King Jay's mother. “They are the ones trying to push the issue, trying to get somebody to accuse somebody, to get that blame for that. Instead of trying to get someone into prison, they need to worry about finding my son. That is what they need to do.”

She said all of their family went to police headquarters and were questioned.

“They took us all in and we answered every question they had to ask,” Gonzales said. “They just wanted us to work against Chris and that wasn’t going to happen because he did nothing wrong.

"Then, when they saw I wasn’t budging on their accusation of him, they started questioning me as if I did something to my baby and had him cover it up.

"This is all just ridiculous because the more time they spend trying to accuse people of doing something they did not do, the more time they can be searching for my baby like they claimed they have been.”

Gonzales said she was on the phone with Davila moments before everything happened.

“We're always on the phone,” Gonzales said. “We're (on the phone) 24/7, even when we're at work. I was at work when I was talking to him and he said he was at his mom’s house with King Jay. He was going to pick him up from his grandparents.”

She said Davila stopped by the gas station to get some cigarettes.

“He asked if I wanted a scratch off and he went inside,” Gonzales said. “Yeah he made a mistake. He made a mistake by leaving the baby inside the car. We admit that that was wrong.”

Gonzales said she all of a sudden heard panic in Davila’s voice.

“He was, like, ‘F*** the car is gone!’ He freaked out and I was like ‘OK, hang up and call the cops!’ He did just that. He hung up on me and at that time I called the cops, too," Gonzales said. “They said they already sent two policemen there, and then all of a sudden they started accusing him.”

Surveillance video shows a woman walk onto the parking lot of the gas station and get inside the car Davila left unlocked and running by a gas pump. Police believe that he may have known that woman.

Gonzales and Davila said that is not the case.

“Who is that chick? Why did she go inside the vehicle? Obviously she was watching,” Gonzales said. “It is not that they were interacting. She was watching and saw there was a car and she went straight in.”

Gonzales said she is upset that they would paint Davila in such a false light.

“He is a loving father,” Gonzales said. “He made a mistake. We've talked about this. But he is so overprotective of all of his kids. We have 10 kids all together and I have never been with someone who loves their kids so badly, he misses them whenever he is not near them. He wants to be there always. We just bought our kids phones because he wants to have contact with them all the time. He is beyond a loving father.”


John Mc Gowan said...

She said though he has a record, it has been years since he’s been convicted of anything.

“He literally just goes to work and home,” Gonzales said. “It has been so long since he has been to jail. He got his life together for his kids and he is even going through treatment to have his tattoos removed from his face and neck.”

She said they just want to see King Jay returned safely.

“His dad has been devastated by this entire situation,” Gonzales said. “He is more hurt for me because he knew how special King Jay was. I almost died having him. I had to have an emergency C-section for him. He could have died. The thought of that just hurts me now more than ever.”

Gonzales said she has started a search team of her own, searching the area the car the woman took and later abandoned near Rodriguez Park.

“You’re saying there’s cops out there and helicopters,” Gonzales said. “I’ve been out there with my family trying to find out where my son is at. We have been going underneath ditches and there’s nothing. I don’t see no cops at all. My son was lovable, just like his dad. He always smiled. He never was fussy. He has light brown hair that goes to the left sometimes and can go into a mohawk.”

She said she also wants this story to be a lesson for other families.

“Be careful,” Gonzales said. “Don’t judge people because they made a mistake. It happens. Just take care of your babies because you can never know what happen. Never leave your babies in the car. You just never know.”

The family said Davila has posted bail but is being held until his paperwork is processed.

“I just want to say that it is messed up how police are handling this right now,” Davila said in the final moments of his phone call from jail. “They're not sending an Amber Alert out for my son. Their focus is somewhere else right now, and not on the main issue. Every judge I spoke to and every officer that I spoke to agreed that it's wrong what they're doing.”

Police said if you have any information on King Jay’s whereabouts, call 911 immediately.

John Mc Gowan said...

Another article from my OT

Video shows missing 8-month-old abducted from San Antonio corner store
Police continue to search for the missing child, father charged in connection

UPDATE: 6:20 p.m.

The FBI is now assisting in the investigation into the disappearance of 8-month-old King Jay Davila, according to a news release.

"As always, we are extremely grateful for their willingness to assist our department when needed," San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said. "It's even more appreciated that these agents are volunteering their time and expertise to help us find King, despite them not being paid during the current government shutdown. Together, we will work tirelessly to find baby King."

UPDATE: 5 p.m.

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said Saturday evening that 8-month-old King Jay Davila remains missing during a news conference where a video of the abduction was shown.

"Detectives have been working around the clock since this happened last night and they continue to work as we speak," McManus said.

Police believe the father Christopher Davila, 34, who is charged with child endangerment in connection to the abduction, worked with the woman seen in the video.

"As you can see," McManus explained, "from her walking up, there is no hesitation, no looking around, no wondering if she's going to get in this car or not. She knows where she going and what she's doing."

He said events in the video were just "seconds" after the father left the vehicle. He also noted that the child's family has not offered help.

"The family is not cooperating, as is the father Christopher Davila, not cooperating," McManus said. "We continue to hope that the father will start to be cooperative and the family members will help us in this. But right now they're uncooperative, much to our dismay."

UPDATE: 11:30 a.m.

Images of a woman suspected of abducting 8-month-old King Jay Davila were released by officials late Saturday morning. San Antonio police say the images were taken in close proximity to where the child was abducted. The suspect is a thin white or Hispanic female in her 20s or 30s who was last seen in a grey hoodie and tan/brown pants.

The two images show the suspect carrying an infant car seat. Police said they are working on releasing enhanced images and possibly video of the suspect.


John Mc Gowan said...


San Antonio police say 8-month-old King Jay Davila remains missing after being abducted Friday night from a West Side convenience store.

The father, Christopher Davila, 34, was arrested and charged with child endangerment, according to a police report Saturday morning.

Read the breaking story: Baby abducted from convenience store, father questioned

Davila, who was wearing a blue onesie and has a scratch over his left eye, was left inside a Dodge Dart at 7 p.m. at the Friends Food Mart, 351 Enrique Barrera Parkway, with the door left open and engine running, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said Friday.

A white or Hispanic woman wearing a light colored hoodie and tan/brown pants was seen entering the vehicle and driving away while the father was in the store, according to police.

The father called police moments after the abduction, police said. But as investigators questioned the father they immediately noticed discrepancies in his story.

McManus said Friday night that police believe the father knows the woman who took the baby and that the abduction was planned.

The vehicle was later found at Elmer and Arvil near Rodriguez Park, but the child was not inside.

McManus said that the mother and father are estranged from one another. Investigators believe the child is in danger because of the way the child went missing.

Police are asking anyone with information about Davila's abduction to call 911.

"We're asking anyone, if they know where that child is or if they have that child to call 911 and turn that baby back in to the mother," McManus said Friday. "If you don't do that, then you may very well implicate yourself into this kidnapping."

Tania Cadogan said...

Let me be Frank can have a few meanings.

Frank as in honest and truthful
Frank as in a character he plays.
Frank as in a mixture of the above.

John Mc Gowan said...

SAN ANTONIO — UPDATE: As of 9:45 p.m., Monday, Christopher Davila is out of jail on bond.

Police said the kidnapping of a 8-month-old boy was staged and the father's cousin was arrested in an unrelated incident.

8-month-old King Jay Davila was last seen Friday night inside his father's car on the 300 block of Enrique Barrera near Southwest 34th Street. His father, Christopher Davila, 34, was charged with child endangerment after the incident.

This is a staged event like we said previously," said Police Chief William McManus. "This was not a kidnapping. We believe the story of the kidnapping was made up to cover up foul play involving King Jay Davila."

Police identified the person who stole the car as Christopher Davila's cousin, who was arrested and charged for an unrelated offense. McManus said another person dropped off the woman who took the vehicle about a block away from the gas station on an adjoining street.

Police believe King Jay Davila was not inside the vehicle at the time of the staged kidnapping. The car was found later nearby Rodriguez Park with the baby and keys missing.

King Jay Davila's mother, Jasmine Gonzales, disputed McManus' account of the evenet.

"Everything they're saying that my fiance has a part of this whole kidnapping is wrong I was on the phone with him the entire time," Gonzales said.

"We understand the anguish and pain the mother is feeling right now," McManus said. "But I think the information we put out today refused all of the allegations made against the San Antonio police department."

Police are still looking for King Jay Davila and are asking for the public's help in the case. McManus said the police department will continue its search at Rodriguez Park.

Anonymous said...

OT: Davey Blackburn about Amanda Blackburn’s death (A)

The below text is from Davey Blackburn’s blog (bold highlights added by me).


This was a spiritual attack, not just a physical one.

From day one I recognized this was not just a physical attack, but a spiritual one. There was no other way I could understand how all this could have happened in the hour and a half I was gone from my house, other than this was a strategically mapped out, carefully plotted ploy by evil powers that live in the supernatural realm and have been given dominion of this world.

What you must understand is that we fight a battle every day. It’s not a battle of flesh and blood, it’s a battle at the supernatural level involving principalities and spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12). I don’t tell you this to scare you because Jesus promised us as Christians greater is power that is within us than the powers that are around us (1 John 4:4).

C.S. Lewis writes in The Screwtape Letters that the enemy’s greatest ploy in third world countries is fear and his greatest ploy in first world countries is comfort. He indicates lulling us into comfortable lives as the enemy’s greatest strategy against the spreading of the Gospel in places where people are well off. We don't like to confront the fact that there is a battle going on around us because it jars us out of our comfort.

In college my buddy Kenneth and I used to talk about how we wanted to live such noble, dangerous lives for the Kingdom of God that our names would climb to the top of the enemy’s hit list. I’m not sure I would ever actually pray this, and to be honest when we’d say it out-loud we would always hesitate as we let it set in what that could entail. I always admired the stories of warriors of our faith - William Tyndall, John Wycliffe, John Huss, and Jim Elliott - who sacrificed everything they had including their lives to advance the Gospel here in earth. But, I always admired that kind of faith at a couple arms-length, never sure if I really wanted to embrace that level of intense discomfort for Jesus.

My counselor said this to me shortly after everything happened. “Davey, if you were the enemy and you wanted to stop the groundswell of the work God is doing in your church and in your father in-law’s church, what would you do?” I knew the answer as soon as he asked me. Satan wanted to take us out, derail Jesus’ work in Indy and Elkhart, cause us to grow bitter or frightened - and he intended to do so by taking Amanda from us. Jesus himself said the enemy comes to “steal, kill, and destroy.


Anonymous said...

OT: Davey Blackburn about Amanda Blackburn’s death (B)

To be honest, the part of all this I have trouble wrapping my mind around is why God would allow this kind of tragedy to happen to Amanda when He has the power to have protected her and prevented it. I've had to settle on this: I'm not sure I'll ever fully understand why on this side of eternity.

I also don't think God is intimidated by my questions. I think something beautiful happens in my relationship with God when I ask why and seek for answers. When Weston asks me questions I don't resent it, I encourage it, because asking questions leads to growth and discovery and a closer relationship between the two of us. I believe the same thing happens when I cry out to God with my questions about Amanda.

What I’ve begun to realize is that the greater the potential for impact, the greater (and sometimes the more violent) the opposition. C.S. Lewis wrote this in his book A Grief Observed:

"The greater the love the greater the grief, and the stronger the faith the more savagely will Satan storm its fortress."

In fact let’s look at our perfect example, Jesus. He was the most righteous person who has ever lived. He is not just our model for righteousness but a standard we will never attain, which is why he became our Savior. He offered himself to die in the most savage way possible. In fact, we get the word excruciating from the same root word we get the word cross - "crux." The instrument the enemy used to kill Jesus was the most horrific, bloody, and violent of the day. The stronger the faith the more savagely will Satan storm its fortress.” This was certainly true about Jesus. And think about this, God stood by and watched His Son die this horrific death. WHAT? WHY?

He knew something no one else knew at the time. The enemy took his best shot at Jesus but it actually set Jesus up for a greater victory - to claim for himself our salvation by raising from the dead! You see, God will allow evil enough space to work that it ultimately defeats itself!

That is exactly what is happening in Indy, Elkhart and all around the world right now because of Amanda’s death. People are coming alive. People are waking up. People are receiving Christ and repenting from their former ways. All because this beautiful, righteous girl stepped into a narrative bigger than herself, one that's not dissimilar from Jesus’.

Remember the Apostle Paul said in 1 Peter 4:13 we shouldn’t resent our sufferings, "Instead, be very glad--for these trials make you partners with Christ in his suffering, so that you will have the wonderful joy of seeing his glory when it is revealed to all the world."

This whole idea reminds me of Amanda giving birth to Weston. I watched in angst as she struggled through intense labor pains, contractions, breathing and pushing. Every mother reading this knows that labor is one of the most excruciating things you’ll ever have to endure. What’s even more shocking than watching a mom walk through this pain is hearing her say she wants to do it again!! What would cause you to be okay with enduring that level of suffering? Only this one thing: the joy of holding a life in your hands, the joy of kissing your baby for the first time, of squeezing his little hands and swaddling him in your arms.”


Anonymous said...

OT: Davey Blackburn about Amanda Blackburn’s death (C)

“Scripture tells us that it was for the joy set in front of Him that Christ went to the cross (Hebrews 12:2). He was willing to walk through intense suffering to experience overwhelming joy. He was willing to endure the cross to receive the crown.

Somehow in Jesus’ narrative, intense suffering ushers in unspeakable joy.

I have decided that in the last 45 minutes of her life, whether she knew she was on the cusp of receiving her heavenly crown or not, Jesus empowered Amanda with the courage to walk faithfully and boldly through intense fear and suffering. And now, Amanda is experiencing unimaginable and unspeakable joy! She is now receiving her crown. And back here on Earth new life is springing forth because of the pain she endured.


Anonymous said...


Concerning JAMES DAMORE (former Google employee who was fired)

This was just posted on reddit. Posted by Tiredoflying4Google

Why'd I'd like to believe someone at Google is tired of lying for Google, I'm skepical.

If anyone here is familiar with the case (in arbitration now apparently), and has interest, I'd like to know if this is genuine. Damore, himself, said in the comments that there are a few things that "only a Googler would know". He too is unsure of its authenticity.

I know Peter doesn't address anonymous posts, but the this is on the wrong side of the pushed narrative and the internet lives forever.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...


JAMES DAMORE (Tiredoflying4Google reddit memo from above)


Posted byu/TiredOfLying4Google
1 day ago

I helped Google screw over James Damore
I was involved in the internal decisions involving James Damore's memo, and it's terrible what we did to him.

First of all, we knew about the memo a month before it went viral. HR sent it up the reporting chain when he gave it as internal feedback, but we did nothing. There wasn't anything we could do, except admit to wrongdoing and lying to our employees. We just hoped that no one else would see his document.

Unfortunately, the memo started spreading within the company. The floodgates opened and previously silent employees started talking. To quell dissent, we: told executives to write to their employees condemning the memo; manipulated our internal Memegen to bias the ratings towards anti-Damore posts (the head of Memegen is an "ally" to the diversity cause); and gave every manager talking points on what to tell their reports about the memo. In all our communications, we concentrated on how hurt employees purportedly were and diverted attention from Google's discriminatory employment practices and political hegemony, never mind the science.

We needed to make an example of Damore. Looking for some excuse to fire him, we spied on his phone and computer. We didn't find anything, although our spying probably made his devices unusably slow, preventing him from organizing support within the company. When we did fire him, our reputation and integrity took a hit, but at least other employees were now afraid to speak up.

Firing him without an NDA was a huge risk though. He was a top performer and knew too many compromising secrets, like Dragonfly, the secret censored search project in China. He had also reported several legally dubious practices in Search that still exist. Only God knows why he never leaked Dragonfly or the other issues, but I think it's because he actually cared about Google.

Our response after we fired him was equally disgraceful. We were supposed to have a Town Hall TGIF to answer employees' questions about the controversy. However, after questions started coming in that we couldn't reasonably answer, we had to cancel it. We shifted the blame onto "alt-right trolls" and have avoided talking about it openly since then.

To control the narrative, we planted stories with journalists and flexed Google's muscles where necessary. In exchange for insider access and preferential treatment, all we ask for is their loyalty. For online media, Google's ads pay their paycheck and our search brings their customers, so our influence shouldn't be underestimated.

We dealt with his NLRB case in a similar way. People are ultimately lazy, so we found a sympathetic lawyer in the NLRB and wrote the internal NLRB memo for her. No one wanted to spend the effort to oppose it, despite it being laughably weak. Then, after Damore dropped his NLRB case and filed a class action lawsuit, we had the NLRB publicly release their memo. Our PR firms sent press releases saying "the NLRB ruled the firing legal", which was, of course, manufactured bullshit.

All of our scheming was over the phone, in deleted emails, or through an external PR firm, so we can deny all of it. Now that we've forced him into arbitration, we're close to screwing him over completely.

Anonymous said...

Jeanine Pirro: "Have you now or have you ever worked for Russia Mr President?

Trump: "That's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked."

I'd like an analysis on all the lies that have spilled out of those lips. The last could be an UNRELIABLE DENIAL, yes?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Jeanine Pirro:

yes it is an unreliable denial. in context it is an appropriate answer.

an unreliable denial doesn't indicate lying or not lying.

a statement with no lies can be deceptive and a statement with lies can hold truth.

statement analysis is only scientific if the principals are followed.

Anonymous said...

He's at it again.

24 Dec 2019
"KTWK" (Kill them with kindness)

Anonymous said...

Kevin Spacey settles assault lawsuit following death of accuser

December 31, 2019

Anonymous said...

Three accusers of Spacey die in the last year.