>WELL GAWD PIERS

Why is this nigga still relevant

>>211908012 (OP)
wash ur penis

>>211908880
cleanse your phallus

darn tootin I say so if you can wash your penis and you should then you can fight dragons with some certainty that the frogs repeating digits is some some some sort of sign that the vicissitudes of nature made funcoland as a dragon for you to defeat by worshing your penis

>>211908012 (OP)
Did the coma give him brain damage? He used to be much brighter and is now a retard.

>>211908012 (OP)
I hate this crying faggot and his verbal traffic jams. Every video with him is a giant waste of time.

>>211908012 (OP)
DEM LOBSTAS.................

>>211909094
He got brainbroken after his daughter fucked Andrew Tate

>uploads free lectures to YT and writes books to help disenfranchised young men
>UMMMM BUT HE CRIED A COUPLE TIMES SO JORDAN BAD!!

Some true demoralisation niggers outtchea

>>211909170
>it's true

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>211908904
launder your tally-wacker

>>211909239
it was all projection but in a good way because he's had experience with feeling miserable himself

>>211908012 (OP)
i'm fucking embarassed that i used to listen to this guy so intently.

>>211909239
>Do you believe in God?
>Define "believe".
>Do you think it's true?
>Well, you see... *wastes 2 hours of you life with semantic bullshit while not answering the question*

Fuck this grifting faggot

Well, first, we need to *really* unpack that question, because it’s riddled with assumptions I simply can’t accept at face value.

What do you mean by *true*? Truth isn’t a binary between fact and fiction—it’s a complex interplay between *objective reality* and *narrative coherence*. Just stating something doesn’t make it true in any meaningful epistemological sense.

Then there's *had*. Are we talking about a single moment? A long-term connection? Or *had* in the possessive sense, which implies ownership and reduces a person to an object—precisely what the radical left criticizes the so-called patriarchy for doing.

Now, *sex*. That term is far from straightforward. Are we referring to *biological sex*, grounded in dimorphic reproductive structures? *Gendered behavior*, shaped by evolutionary pressures? Or the *act* of intercourse itself, which is interpretively loaded and far from simple? If you're going to accuse me of something, at least be clear on *what*.

As for *transsexual*—that opens another set of questions. Are you referring to someone post-transition? Or someone who *identifies* as such? Because under modern ideology, identity is subjective and cannot be questioned without incurring accusations of bigotry. But if we must accept identity as *true*, does that not make the experience indistinguishable from being with a biological woman? And if so, why even pose the question?

So before I *even begin* to answer, we need conceptual clarity. What you’ve done—deliberately or not—is set up a linguistic trap wrapped in ideological presuppositions. And I *will not* engage in that kind of dishonest discourse.

>>211909239
>uploads free lectures to YT
there are also videos of him on yt explicitly saying that his purpose is to stop young white men from radicalizing as their national inheritance is given away to pajeets