“Would you be serious for a moment?”
“Are you like this with everyone?”
“You’re such an asshole!”
“You really think highly of yourself.” (translation: “I really think highly of you”)
“I can never get a straight answer from you.”
“Oh GOD you’re INFURIATING.”
“You never tell me what you’re feeling.”
“That’s not gonna work on me.”
“You think you can just waltz in here like nothing’s wrong.”
“Why do you have to make this so difficult?”
“It’s just, I dunno, I need a little something more from you.”
“I know you love me.” (translation: “you know I love you”)
***
If you hear any of these giddily exasperated complaints from a girl, you’re doing it right.
Just don’t actually address what she’s asking of you, or you’ll kill her love outright. Simply smile, and know that your ship of state is steady and on course to vaginaland.
My girl accused me of being “super annoying” the other day (I’m super annoying everyday fwiw). I told her that’s why she loves me. She didn’t have much of a response.
LikeLike
Being called “trouble” is also fun
LikeLiked by 3 people
Made my day. I have heard every single one.
LikeLike
Me too. No shit. Every. Single. One. Plus more.
LikeLike
“You’re such an asshole!”
If I dont hear this once a day I know I’m slacking.
LikeLiked by 4 people
just once?
LikeLike
Reply to all or any;
Do you wanna see my knob?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what do you do when a girl loves you and you want her to stop loving you so you can exit the relationship peacefully without fucking things up for your life, friends and family? Asking for a friend.
[CH: act like a supplicating beta. i know there’s a post in the CH archives on this topic, but good luck finding it]
LikeLike
fuck her mom or her sister or her best friend
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is this Dr. TravBlackvaj, THE Dr. TravBlackvaj??
LikeLike
This is parody Trav…
LikeLike
Cry, apparently
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6710597/Reddit-woman-says-break-boyfriend-admitted-raped-child.html
LikeLike
Horrible, and unfortunate, but lets face it: none of us wants a rape victim either, and though she migh have stayed with him had he not cried, she would have seen him as a victim, as a vulnerable boy who gets raped, and would have sabotaged the relationship anyway. She’d see him as the equivalent of a bisexual man.
Women dont want to know your horror stories.
LikeLike
this girl is a selfish bish plain and simple. she should have been feeling pain and sympathy for this man she supposedly loved went through, not repulsed. selfish and heartless is what she is
women are supposed to be there to support you when you’re down, not betray you as soon as you show a sign of weakness or go through a tough time
if you’re bitching and moaning all the damn time acting like a girly man it makes sense that a girl wouldn’t stick with you
but even the toughest dudes around will have some hard times and moments of weakness. if your woman can’t be there loving you up and supporting you through those times, she’s trash and not a keeper.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Be REALLY nice to her, call her all the time, tell her how much you wuv her (say wuv in cutesy voice), say how lucky you are to have her to everybody all the time, call her “the wife” and tell her how much you need her in your life. She’ll be gone in a month.
Or, just don’t be a pussy and break up with her.
LikeLike
l82dagame, “playing games” in the worst sense:
So what do you do when a girl loves you and you want her to stop loving you so you can exit the relationship peacefully without fucking things up for your life, friends and family?
Show her this comment that you just made, for exemplary proof of your own pathetic weakness, cowardice, indecision, lack of will, and abject irresponsibility for your own desires and actions. Get this straight: You are a conflict-avoiding, passive-aggressive eunuch who wants for the actual pussy to exercise her will and thus take the responsibility for you. Now, for your pussy, what is the opposite of catnip?
Protip: Most women are categorically disgusted by males who try to manipulate them into being the one to break up. They hate it to the degree that this has become a misandrist TV trope representing male cowardice, irresponsibility, and “game-playing”, as seen on (((sitcoms))), (((soap operas))), and (((cable women’s channels))). You are George—and worse.
(When I say “most”, I exclude a few exceptions who are ṕsych0 or otherwise mentally deranged.)
Asking for a friend.
Um, yeah, I mean: Your “friend” should make a post on the Internet just like the one that you made, then show it to “his” girl.
Or just tell your “friend” that he should man the fuck up.
LikeLike
Arisnarkus
“Asking for a friend” is a joke, ease up on the aspy sperg Hoss…
LikeLike
Become unemployed and whine about it.
LikeLike
Whine about not knowing how to break up with your girlfriend.
Whine about everything.
Whine about anything.
LikeLike
Whine about whining
LikeLike
Personal record last week, got a girl to say “You are the worst” and mean it within two hours of meeting.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“You’re just going to do what you’re going to do anyway.”
I think there’s a “Why do I even bother” thrown in at the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Jerk”.
LikeLike
these may be true early on in a relationship. but if she’s still pulling any of that after you’ve been together awhile, she’s a bish and/or she’s unhappy with you
a normal mentally healthy girl who is truly in love won’t pull that snarky childish shiz. you’ll be hearing mushy gushy love talk on the regular, not how much of an asshole or how infuriating you are.
[CH: a healthy LTR will have a mix of both her gush and her exasperation.]
LikeLiked by 3 people
A healthy, fertile woman has a cycle during her month. True Alphas might not hear a negative word throughout the duration, but everyone else should hear a range from “I hate you” to “I love you”.
The only thing bad is indifference. When she doesn’t care, she’s already gone.
LikeLiked by 4 people
that’s right greginaurora. depends on how alpha the guy is and what type of girl you’ve got
aside from a handful of time over 10+ years, i can’t remember my current lady saying any of that shiz. but my ex…it was non-stop immature snark and shit testing like that
LikeLike
true
but she better have a smile on her face and a sweet but frustrated tone of voice if any of that comes out of her mouth. without that it’s just bishiness
delivery matters of course
LikeLiked by 1 person
N00BIEZ: Cracker is giving some stellar advice on this subthread.
There are better chicks out there – work your way up the ladder and graduate to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Younger Hotter Tighter
LikeLike
younger hotter tighter sure
but if you’re even considering an LTR she also needs to be:
femininer
sweeter
loyaler
LikeLiked by 2 people
HOT
LikeLike
Although, to be straight, my favorite is “Can I make you dinner?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mein Gott, it’s a veritable panoply of projection!
LikeLike
Who b!tch dis izz?
LikeLike
That comment could be read both ways. I debated if I should bother inquiring to ascertain whether @dropdropfizzfizz was making fun of women’s projection, as is evident behind a few of those items—or had somehow never heard of the Shakespeare “doth protest too much” line that I quoted elsewhere on this page. The latter case would also betray a gross misunderstanding of the word “projection”. But in no case am I given to a particular class of rude snipes that seems to be popular around here.
LikeLike
So we’re not gonna talk about what happened today? Or is CH just really choosing his words?
LikeLike
it’s not a terror attack when it’s by the native population
LikeLiked by 5 people
kiwi shot up mosques…yay for him
jay will be along to tell you not to do anything bc he posted shit and ran his mouth and talked shit and he got stomped on…bc he was saying shit he shouldn’t have said.
I’m betting if he gives me his case information we will find out that the story is nothing whatsoever like he represents it to be..spoiler alert on that one. It will be a classic case of dude says a bunch of shit and makes a bunch of threats and state comes and steps on him, morphing into “woeizme I’m a white victim, don’t defend yourself against niggers.”
Now he wants to make sure you all suffer too bc he couldn’t keep his mouth shut.
Qu33n will worry about “the optics” AS IF the left needed an excuse to fuckin do what they were gonna do anyway…this is battered wife logic- if I just appease them enough, they won’t hurt me again.
Use the Tuco Rule.
LikeLike
Not a Kiwi
LikeLike
“Tuco Rule”
Good kkkomment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reduced to exactly the only pertinent part:
Qu33n will worry about “the optics” AS IF
Mr. T, foo, stop trying to force everyone into a false dichotomy between Matthew King-style pawns who shepherd the White sheep to keep them within the System, versus unstrategic retards who reek of desperation as they give up their worthless lives in exchange for the equal value of no useful achievement whatsoever.
Your agenda is objectively identical to the agenda of a garden-variety agent provocateur. Hmmm. Cui bono?
P.S., ceterum censeo, you will get ŕ0pe for your copulation with female niggers.
LikeLike
Not gonna talk about it
If anything, I’m more surprised they’re mosques in NZ. Though I know I shouldn’t be
LikeLike
False flag. Read up on it at VD’s blog.
LikeLike
I read the entire pol thread on it, the only place to see the video apparently and I heard every argument under the sun. I don’t think it’s a false flag. Did you read the guys manifesto? I read at least half of it and I’m pretty sure I get the jist.
LikeLike
The most obvious objection is that you can’t get that many guns in New Zealand unless you’re in the government. And considering how cucky NZ is, I’m not even sure about that.
LikeLike
Is there EVER an event that youse yeggs don’t knee-jerk as “false flag”?
And in this case, do you mean nobody actually got shot, or do you mean the gummint put him up to it somehow, so that they could do what they were going to do anyway, in re “security measures”… regardless of anyone getting shot?
Youse yeggs STILL think the gummint has to manufacture outrage? Who’s going to stand up and stop them from more “security” and big brotherism, whether or not any “heinous incident” gets pulled or not?
As a matter of fact, the risk of manufacturing outrage and its possible subsequent discovery would be a greater threat to said gummint, and far outweigh any “just go ahead and do it” agenda.
The people are not ready to revolt against Big Brother’s agenda, whether life becomes more restrictive with or without “terror”… but if it was discovered they actually had a hand in these acts (and I mean proven, not your half-assed YouTube evidence), the populace wouldn’t be so docile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean that Tarrant and his accomplices were globalist agents. (And for once they’re admitting multiple shooters.)
LikeLike
Okay, so my point remains… why should any gummint risk staging these heinous acts when they can just go ahead and implement whatever they want to anyway?
You think they need to further any Narrative about White racist gun nuts in the current year?
Let’s just call a spade a spade… more and more White men are going to the Fuck It Zone, and will continue to do so… new fire against the old fire that’s been raging on the other shitty end of the racial stick for overlong.
Nothing creates more chaos than a White man driven to anger and with nothing to lose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, for one thing, it buttresses the shitlib argument against objections to muzzie violence that “white men do it too!” — especially with their inability to grok basic statistics. I guarantee ya that’s what will be happening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As well as the shitlib argument that alt-righters are just as violent and dangerous as muzzie extremists, and should be locked up. Which hitherto could’ve been treated as a joke by normies. Now, though… buckle up.
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot, this is the key point:
knee-jerk as “false flag”
False flags exist—that wouldn’t be a spycraft term if they didn’t. But the knee-jerk reflexive cry of “ZOMG false flag!!!11” with inevitably accompanying jewtube video “proofs” is both idiotic and counterproductive.
Speaking in general (not as to current events I have not yet caught up on)…
Duh, get this: Some folks are really outraged. And given human nature, it is a statistical inevitability that from the outraged set, at least a few of them will be mentally unstable, stupidly unstrategic, and/or just plain pissed off with nothing to lose.
In practice, whatever the intention, this “false flag!!!” reflex does have some very counterproductive effects:
(1) It makes the blightwing look like a bunch of paranoid retards. Smart men who suspect a false flag will quietly watch and wait as evidence is uncovered. In the moment that events break, nobody amidst the public has sufficient information to pronounce a firm accusation, let alone a conclusion! The “false flag” knee-jerkers are in effect pronouncing what to them is a foregone conclusion—a product of irrational paranoia.
(2) It discredits and delegitimizes in advance any potential “propaganda of the deed”. Students of revoļuţionary ţh3ory will see my implication here. If ever the hypothetical day hypothetically comes that I hypothetically make a strategic decision to hypothetically shoot or blow something, then I damn well will not appreciate the inevitable jewtube videos calling that a “false flag”.
(3) It helps to reinforce the New Orleans-style dogma that political violence is off the table, period. It can’t even be discussed—it is unspeakable! It can’t even be thought about—it is unthinkable! Compare the unstated premise of “false flag” knee-jerks: Only a C1A-M*şş*d agent would ever even dream of resorting to violence! Good goy.
As a matter of fact, the risk of manufacturing outrage and its possible subsequent discovery would be a greater threat to said gummint, and far outweigh any “just go ahead and do it” agenda.
I have no doubt that the “gummint” has within it some (((folks))) from the tribe that practically fucking invented revoļuţionary ţh3ory. Oh, they understand it well: Legitimization and delegitimization, “propaganda of the deed”, the calculated provocation of increased repression, etc., etc.
The principal risk to the “gummint” is that an ill-designed “false flag” could inadvertently be received as “propaganda of the deed” that works against them. Think on that a bit. Real false flags are to be applied sparingly and cautiously, when you are trying to deradicalize the folks and avoid any sparks that ignite a revolution.
Where I disagree is the proposition that they fear “subsequent discovery”. That means nothing, because the populace is too stupid. Counterexample to your proposition: The JFK A Sass I. Nation, which was intended to be a false-flag squarely pinned on “right-wing extremists”. It did not go quite as planned—which is always another risk of false flags! Nevertheless, they salvaged much of the effect, whilst perpetually brushing off all of the well-documented, publicly available evidence of who did what and why.
If “they” could pull that off, and successfully contain any outrage with Warren Report whitewashes and Oliver Stone movies, then they really needn’t fear discovery of anything, ever.
LikeLike
The principal risk to the “gummint” is that an ill-designed “false flag” could inadvertently be received as “propaganda of the deed” that works against them.
I suspect there is a real risk of that in this case. Tarrant is far too cartoonish of an alt-righter, NZ too isolated and gun-control happy, plus he had accomplices, for it to be anything but a false flag IMHO. (If it happened in, say, Texas, I’d find it far more believeable.) But because there are superficial resemblances to Breivik’s operation in Norway, which I read as a genuine right-wing terror operation, there is a risk that Tarrant’s operation might actually be received as “propaganda of the deed”.
LikeLike
vfm#7634:
Breivik
Not to go off-topic (much less into the weeds), but I should point out: That was a publicly documented Ḿá5*n (and I don’t mean in jewtube videos). In his exceedingly tedious manifesto, which I skimmed to find pertinent parts for close examination, he repeatedly condemned Adolf Hitler, praised the Jews, explicitly praised Fréèḿá5*nry, and symbolized himself with “Knights Templar” Ḿá5*nic imagery. Indeed, he literally said in as many words that he wished he could go back and kill Hitler. (I could find you the exact quote; I don’t have his “2083” handy at this particular moment.)
Under the flag of killing White liberals who embraced Muslims in Europe, he in fact killed a bunch of White liberals who were supporting the Palestinians against Zionism in Palestine. Hmmm… (For the record, the plight of the Palestinians was one thing my liberal girl and I could mostly agree on—except for the part where I morally endorsed their courageous, violent means of struggle. LOL, ḑëäḑ Jews.)
which I read as a genuine right-wing terror operation
Please read again.
(His later jailtime about-face to being a “Nazi” is also not unexpected, given his profile.)
Also, too-much-off-topic, I suggest Mrs. Nesta Webster (one example of a reliable scholar, not a paranoid whackjob).
Tarrant
I usually wait awhile before even reading anything about these events. Let the dust settle—and be not the fool who opens his mouth and proves it.
Granted, that strategy will not be suitable for men who are trying to actually address current events as they are current. It only suits me because I see myself as more of a “future historian”. If I hurry up, then I may pronounce an opinion about Tarrant as soon as in a month or three. Or maybe next year. I had the same approach as to Breivik.
LikeLike
Well, for one thing, it buttresses the shitlib argument against objections to muzzie violence that “white men do it too!” — especially with their inability to grok basic statistics. I guarantee ya that’s what will be happening.
I repeat (sigh), since when does THAT argument have to be further buttressed?
Especially for ANY gummit to risk being found out, which then would turn ANY argument topsy-turvy except AGAINST the gummint?
Jeez, Louise… youse yeggs aren’t happy unless you can make muh Deep State look invincible, able to pull off any heinous act with impunity, at will, and EVERY… FUCKING… TIME.
No wonder no one really takes the alt-R seriously.
(((shakin’ mah haid)))
LikeLike
Wasn’t aware of that about Breivik — that would mean he’s more of the Baruch Goldstein variety of terrorist.
Come to think of it, this Tarrant fellow…
LikeLike
The JFK A Sass I. Nation, which was intended to be a false-flag squarely pinned on “right-wing extremists”.
See, now there YOU go off the rails… the reason the nefarious muh Deep State plan to kill JFK was never uncovered is because THERE WAS NO PLAN.
It was the work of LHO, a motivated ex-Marine with a rifle… all the other folderol was just the granddaddy birth of the CT lurv that has engulfed the ‘Murrican populace… dimwits which, alas, all-too-often include otherwise sound thinkers on other issues, but when it comes to the idea of one clown being able to bring down the most power man in the world, they just can’t wrap they haids ’round it and sleep soundly at night.
Lackey’s don’t kill patrolmen 40 or so minutes after they make their escape from a scene of a crime.
And if LHO was to be a lackey to be taken out, why wasn’t a Dallas cop right outside the door of the repository, ready to gun him down immediately?
Naw, it’s more fun to jump through irrational hoops over Rube Goldbergesque machine machinations to attempt to explain away the obvious evidence and hang with bitter claws onto every piece of circumstantial happenstance.
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot, displaying what used to be called good old-fashioned common sense:
make muh Deep State look invincible, able to pull off any heinous act with impunity, at will, and EVERY… FUCKING… TIME.
This. It dovetails with “antisemites” who are infected with what is called “fear of the Jews”, and one way or another imagine that the Jews are praeternaturally evil, super-powerful arch-demons who irresistibly “brainwash” nice, decent, passively helpless goyim.
Making your enemies bigger than they are is the exact opposite of the pufferfish strategy. The Jews, and the so-called “Deep State” (idiotic term), are sufficiently formidable enemies in reality. Why phantastically puff them up even bigger?
It does help to rationalize the cowardice and failure of their opposition. Why bother opposing the invincible Deep State and almighty Jews? Just give up. STOP CARING. Complain and play the victim on the Internet.
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot, here is where you go from common sense to a head-in-the-sand denial of the fact that, yes, indeed: Organized, criminal-minded persons do in fact sometimes employ subterfuge. What, will you next deny that the CIA exists, or deny that it ever does anything covert or clandestine?
LHO, a motivated ex-Marine with a rifle
Frankly, that’s a stupendously obfuscatory description. Oswald was a known Communist with documented Communist connections.
Fact: International Communism is systematically, intelligently conspiratorial, as known to anybody who has actually studied it.
Question, a related question just to know where you stand: What is your opinion of Senator Joseph McCarthy? To state where I stand: I admire Senator McCarthy for his courage, although he significantly underestimated the depth and organization of the actual conspiracy he faced. That was why he was eaten alive.
(Even lightweight non-radical Ann Coulter sufficiently honest to admit some of the facts about Senator McCarthy. My own sources are significantly more explicit, and not on the level of jewtube videos, thank you very much.)
Another related question, tangential (not specific to Communism): What is your opinion of Mrs. Nesta Webster?
And if LHO was to be a lackey to be taken out, why wasn’t a Dallas cop right outside the door of the repository, ready to gun him down immediately?
Occam’s answer: Do not unnecessarily multiply the subterfuge. Why would the conspirators plan for Oswald to be caught and disposed of in public? That would be the dumbest conspiratorial plot that I’ve ever heard this side of CH commentator “Paracelsus”!
Actual conspirators are not invincible, omniscient arch-demons who can bend the world to their will. They inevitably run the risk that their agents may caught by honest policemen; not each and every gubmint agent down to street cops is a “conspirator”, you know! Like generals who know that no plan survives the first touch of battle, the relatively small, limited group of flesh-and-blood conspirators must do their best to intelligently adapt to unforeseen and unforeseeable “oopsies”.
After Oswald was caught, of course, he had to be shut up before he could be sufficiently interrogated. He was only a low-level tool, to be discarded when broken rather than risking the near inevitability that he would leak under pressure.
Objectively viewing all these (and many more) bits of information, the intelligent analyst (in the “intelligence” sense) advances his inquiry by asking, Cui bono? This is no more mysterious a process than the rational analysis used by a police detective who “follows the money” to assemble fragmentary evidence on something you cannot deny operates conspiratorially: Garden-variety “organized crime”.
I could continue this much more; but I believe, at the baseline, I have already adequately demonstrated that there is more to the offing of Jackanapes than you insist.
Now, please do not evade this question: In your version of events, why did (((Rubenstein))) effectually sacrifice himself to kill a some “lone nut” who was safely neutralized in police custody who, according to you, was of no consequence to anybody? Jews are typically cowards, you know. Unless they have adequate reason to act as fanatical Sicarii—the original Zealots, capital ‘Z’, per the etymology of that word.
LikeLike
Hmmm, m0db0t is suddenly forbidding mention of too-“interesting” things that I’ve otherwise been recently discussing. It must be a robotic conspiracy!
LikeLike
One theory of why Oswald was offed, which has no particularly firm foundation, is that they were afraid he was directly Russian-employed assassin. They didn’t know, but they decided they had to make sure.
If that came out at a trial, they would pretty much HAVE to declare war on the USSR, after the Rooskies arranged for the death of the US prexy. Which, of course, would make the use of nuclear weapons quite likely.
Fear of a catastrophic conflict if their worst fears are publicly confirmed is as good a reason for “shutting Oswald up” as any potential “false flag” motive. Possibly a much better reason, even.
LikeLike
Ironsides: When the USG wants to dispose of a prisoner, he may be expected to “commit suicide” in his cell (e.g., I question Yockey?), or perhaps suffer some unfortunate accident. Actually, such fates may befall anyone, anywhere—even famous Generals who disagree with Eisenhower!
Shooting a prisoner in public while he is in police custody is not typically USG m.o. Makes no sense. Too much drama—too much raising of more questions. If high-level USG in the executive branch had wanted to dispose of Oswald for the reasons you state, then he would have inadvertently wound his prison bedsheets around his neck, or gotten shivved by another prisoner, or slipped and fallen, or something of that nature.
Remember that the USG was only partly infiltrated and subverted at that time. Within the vast, non-monolithic entity of the Federal government (and even agencies such as the CIA), any covert enemy agents had to be careful! At the time, most of it was still run by more or less patriotic Americans.
Within the confines of blog comments, I cannot possibly elaborate on the mountain of evidence on the J.F.K. question. Therefore, I have intentionally avoided many quite “interesting” aspects thereof—and focused instead on the obvious, at the baseline. This is indeed why I put in boldface my question about Rubenstein. Anyone who proposes piling “lone nuts” atop “lone nuts” will suddenly find Occam’s Razor cutting against him. Now, why would anyone have an emergency need to sacrifice another, higher-level agent and attract way too much more attention with a dramatic public killing like that?
LikeLike
Now, please do not evade this question: In your version of events, why did (((Rubenstein))) effectually sacrifice himself to kill a some “lone nut” who was safely neutralized in police custody who, according to you, was of no consequence to anybody? Jews are typically cowards, you know. Unless they have adequate reason to act as fanatical Sicarii—the original Zealots, capital ‘Z’, per the etymology of that word.
Too easy, to anyone who has dug into the events (and wasted much time attempting to verify the various CTs):
Ruby was a small-time wannabe wise guy and cop groupie… he encouraged BOTH types to frequent his little club, drinks on the house, the whole spiel.
Neither side, ACTUAL organized crime yeggs nor police took him seriously, but treated him as a sort of mascot and, from the police, a source of an occasional bit of information (he was well-known around the station house for dropping in at times looking to ingratiate himself)… and there were NO established connections with him as an actual member of any crime family or someone they would use for serious business. He long had delusions of being a local big shot and palsy-walsy with tough guys on both sides of the fence, and often spoke of making some big splash on the local scene. When the opportunity arose to become “The Avenger of Kennedy” (his own words if memory serves, and his admiration for the young ‘outsider’… as the first Catholic pres serving as an in-your-face to the Prot Establishment) likewise being well-known, the rest is history… I’ve heard speculation that Ruby knew of his medical condition and hence bolsters the idea of him thinking he’d make some mark on history before his passing from cancer (he actually died 3 years later in prison of the disease), but I don’t think that’s actually been verified as to when the disease was diagnosed for the first time.
Note that I haven’t bothered with any more detective work and study of books on this for about 15 years now, having exhausted good from bad information and my patience with each new hare-bråin CT that pops up… the most recent being an hour-long special on the History Channel about an accidental discharge form the SS man in the car behind JFK (duckface).
Now… there’s your answer to a question, thoroughly unevaded. If you have some evidence, heretofore unknown, that verifies Ruby’s bona fide standing as a button man with organized crime that they would trust him with the alleged serious mission of quieting a witness, let’s hear it. I’ve read all the books and separated the wheat from the chaff, so surprise me.
LikeLike
m0d test
LikeLike
Shooting a prisoner in public while he is in police custody is not typically USG m.o. Makes no sense. Too much drama—too much raising of more questions. If high-level USG in the executive branch had wanted to dispose of Oswald for the reasons you state, then he would have inadvertently wound his prison bedsheets around his neck, or gotten shivved by another prisoner, or slipped and fallen, or something of that nature.
You yourself said it… if there’s a grand conspiracy, and LHO is merely a lackey, you DON’T have a patrolman killed 40-odd minutes later by your lackey, you don’t arrest him and let him talk to who knows who, even for a few minutes… and you ESPECIALLY don’t have some alleged mafia hit man kill him in the middle of a police escort at their own homebase two days later.
You simply have a cop stationed outside the repository, doing his regular duty as the pres is in the area, and when shots are heard he runs inside and catches lackey boy running towards him and bam, cop does what cops do in such instances, seeing as how said lackey has a revolver on him, not to mention the rifle he just left upstairs as proof of violent intent.
Voila, no ‘strange’ coincidences, no odd questions to answer, simply a cop on duty reacting to a perp.
This isn’t rocket surgery… sometimes truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
Of course, to some yeggs, the more outlandish and hole-ridden the theory, the greater the faith in it… especially if said theory’s own logic contradicts itself.
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot: Who said anything about the mafia? That’s all you, here. Meanwhile, you flatly ignored a bunch of what I said involving the C-word. What do you think of Senator McCarthy? Was he just “outlandish and hole-ridden”, an uneducated and irrational “CT” monger like me, to be thus derided by experts such as yourself? Please don’t evade that one, now…
A bit earlier, a string of my attempts to say something else to you here was m&dd3d to hell. I may try again to say something useful to you here.
P.S., IMPEACH WARREN. You young’uns don’t get it, do you.
LikeLike
jewniggerfucking m0db*t! Ate another one! If I come off as irate, one factor is that. Another is the apparent presumption that I just fell off an apple cart into jewtube videoland—from an otherwise intelligent man who seems determined to swallow the snow-job perpetrated by the traitor who affirmatively transformed “our” Supreme Court into a Soviet Revolutionary Tribunal.
Of course, that’s just another “CT”, now isn’t it. It is absurd to imagine that a superpower owned and operated by Jews could ever form an organized international subversive network to internally usurp its enemies. Patent nonsense! I also hear that McCarthy was a real whackjob, who persecuted innocent (((“Americans”))) for absolutely no reason; why, (((Hollywood))) said so, because some innocent (((Hollywood people))) got so stupidly, ridiculously, for no reason whatsoever accused of being Communists! ‘Twas a witch-hunt, I tell ya—all based on “conspiratorial thinking” by persons so lacking in (((mental health))) that they must’ve surely pegged the top of the Berkeley F-scale!
I will now attempt to back off the sarcastic rant, and slip something cool and rational by the jewniggerfucking censorship robot.
LikeLike
Yea probably revenge for Hollywood commie shit
Really do need to learn to forgive
Like me too i guess
But hey im trying to change it without everyone dying but whatevs
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot, looking back over this thread, I can see where, despite my copious mention of “Communists, Communists, Communists,” including Oswald’s Communism, you somehow misread two of my analogies as saying “mafia”.
(This is a retry. Chopping it up, now; sorry. I think that the censorship robot wants to slowly turn me into spamslingergregi.)
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot:
I tried to explain this in more detail. The robot ate it. Short version: Since the nineteenth century, International Communism always functioned as an organized-crime entity with motives quite different from the “mafia”. After it captured Russia, it literally became an organized-crime entity that was a (((Jewish organized-crime superpower))).
You can’t very well deny that all organized-crime entities operate in a secretive and conspiratorial fashion, much of which involves infiltrating and corrupting governments. And to avoid running off into the weeds with wild speculation, a student of Communism must piece together available evidence in the manner of a police detective who specializes in organized crime.
Thus, by analogy.
LikeLike
P.S., Mr. Eliot, very important: There’s a man whom I mostly admire, whom you and I have discussed before. I can’t mention him since (not at all—tried many times). My main critique of him is the knee-jerk attitude he had towards anything whatsoever that he deemed “CT”. Well, at least you’re consistent!
LikeLiked by 1 person
WP has repeatedly eaten my clarification that, in fact, I do know the difference between Senator McCarthy and the House Unamerican Activities Committee.
(For the moment, this concludes my spamslinger-style hammering of something past the robot. I wanted to say more, and more importantly, say it all in a much more coherently organized fashion.)
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot: Who said anything about the mafia? That’s all you, here.
You yourself used the term “organized” and “criminal” and brought the name of Ruby into the discussion. And Isn’t that one of the main CTs, with Ruby allegedly being a wise guy? There are still some yeggs ’round chere claiming he was directly ordered to kill LHO by Meyer Lansky, for cryin’ out loud.
If you weren’t implying mafia (when everybody and the devil’s grandmother does, in re Ruby) then my bad, but don’t be disingenuous.
Meanwhile, you flatly ignored a bunch of what I said involving the C-word.
There was no need to address LHO’s obvious commie sympathies, I was merely using a line from Full Metal Jacket about “motivated Marines with a rifle” being able to do what all other men wouldn’t even think of. Alas, yet another homage falling flat!
LHO’s personal politics have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, in re he being the assassin or just a patsy.
What do you think of Senator McCarthy? Was he just “outlandish and hole-ridden”, an uneducated and irrational “CT” monger like me, to be thus derided by experts such as yourself? Please don’t evade that one, now…
See, here’s where you lose the debate… bringing in McCarthy, of all things, into whether LHO actually killed JFK or not, is diversionary tactics of the oddest sort.
If you want to talk about McCarthy and commies, let’s start another thread… but for right now, I’m attempting to keep you on track for the current issue.
Sneak preview on Joe… OF COURSE he was right… boy, I read None Dare Call It Treason when you were still banging cheerleaders.
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot, I already addressed most of this; but it probably came out as unreadable to you, due to how I had to chuck disconnected pieces by the robot. Nevertheless, you may wish to review this thread, wherein I have stated much more than the following (albeit mostly by logical implication).
You yourself used the term “organized” and “criminal” and brought the name of Ruby into the discussion.
See above, where I explained that this was by analogy to International Communism—several short comments starting at, “Mr. Eliot, looking back over this thread, I can see where… you somehow misread two of my analogies as saying ‘mafia’.” (My longer, more coherent explanation had been eaten.)
There was no need to address LHO’s obvious commie sympathies… LHO’s personal politics have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, in re he being the assassin or just a patsy.
To the contrary, when I am advancing the argument that Jackanapes was killed by the Communists!
See, here’s where you lose the debate… bringing in McCarthy, of all things, into whether LHO actually killed JFK or not, is diversionary tactics of the oddest sort.
Not “diversionary” in the least, whereas my whole argument is that JFK was killed by the same International conspiracy that was so powerful that, only a few years earlier, it had handily crushed a courageous Senator’s attempt to strike at it within the highest echelons of the United States Federal government.
(It should go without saying that Kennedy himself was a cheap playboy whose uncaring destruction of America temporarily coincided with Communist objectives—not, in his case, a useful idiot, but more of an apathetic, arrogant jerk who didn’t CARE about his own Game being (((useful))). There is no contradiction in the fact that, at a critical point in 1963, the Communists found it more useful to dispose of him. By analogy, a Communist-ordered bullet no more makes a patriotic martyr of Saint Jackanapes than that ice-pick made a hero of Trotsky.)
Sneak preview on Joe… OF COURSE he was right… boy, I read None Dare Call It Treason when you were still banging cheerleaders.
Mr. Eliot, my faith in you is restored! I am relieved to find that you are not blind, deaf, and dumb to the fact that there is an exceedingly powerful, well-organized, criminal-minded international conspiracy of infiltration, subversion, and usurpation—one that, in the pertinent time-frame, was the owner of a superpower, and all the resources thereof.
As for the rest there, touché. Though it may be hereby relevant that in my adolescence, in addition to chasing tail, I also once won first place in a national competition in analogies. I use lots of ’em—amongst other rhetorical devices that are not to be taken literally. You, Mr. Eliot, are one of perhaps four or five regular commentators here whom I would expect to understand what I write. As I said above, however garbled this thread came out, you may want to take a second look.
P.S., what is your opinion of JBS in its earliest years? I debate with myself whether the Welcher was in the Jews’ pocket from the beginning, or he sold out to them later on. Obviously, after about the mid-60s, the whole thing was just a drain on the Right, a money-sucking sham that searched for conspiracies anywhere and everywhere except (((there))). Ooh, spooky “Insiders!” Yet I admit that without the benefit of historical hindsight, I myself may have been suckered into JBS around 1960 or so.
LikeLike
what is your opinion of JBS in its earliest years?
No opinion, not enough of a frame of reference… even by the time I read the aforementioned None Dare, it seemed that society was of little impact.
Even the most Red-Aware folks of the times were still shying away from the JQ, with the exception of course of Rockwell, but he was viewed as a fringe type. The first intellectual discussion of said JQ in my ken, the one which awakened me, was Robertson’s Dispossessed Majority.
LikeLike
Mr. Eliot, OT for a moment: Re your awakening, you can mention someone/something I cannot, and have been consistently unable to since our last discussion. Strange. Question: Are you able to talk about a certain nineteenth-century German philosopher whose name begins with ‘N’, whom I’d infer you probably find disagreeable? That is another from a short list of topics that consistently get flagged for me (also, some history on various ancient religions).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Eliot: [Note: The following is written off the top of my head; I can dig through my humble mini-library if bibliographic references are requested by private contact.]
No opinion, not enough of a frame of reference…
Just in case you should be curious—and I know this, as much of my study of Old Right history circa 1960 has moved in outward ripples from JBS:
The organization was founded in 1958 with the involvement of some men of unimpeachable reputations for integrity and patriotism. Two members of the Council of the Society resigned in 1966—almost simultaneously, without co-ordination between each other (whatever the Welcher’s apologists may claim), and, to the public eye, with seeming abruptness.
Even the most Red-Aware folks of the times were still shying away from the JQ, with the exception of course of Rockwell…
Rockwell, as you know, despised JBS and had some mutual war of words with the Welcher.
The real purpose of JBS was to keep it this way: “Red-Aware folks… shying away from the JQ”. This motive may be firmly deduced both from the Society’s consistent organizational behavior, and the later public or private disclosures of aforesaid former members of its Council.
The Old Right was internally gamed in concentric rings like the layers of an onion. Buckley scorned JBS, and drove much of the “mainstream” right away from those conspiracist whackjobs who stank of “antisemitism”. (Cf.: Kusher-Sr.-in-law gets productively accused of “antisemitism”, just like the Welcher got accused of “antisemitism” no matter how loudly and sincerely he praised the Jews.) JBS caught folks who were sufficiently clearheaded to see that there was a real Red problem—and steered them away from the Jews, whilst simultaneously sucking up vast amounts of personal energy, money, and other resources from courageous, intelligent, self-sacrificing diehard patriots whose efforts may otherwise have recaptured America. As a result, Rockwell and later Byers, Pierce, et al. were consigned to the fringe.
(I here omit discussion of Carto, whom I don’t believe was ever anything other than a money-grubber who gamed the Right in his own selfish interest.)
The JBS also engaged in smear campaigns against other right-wing organizations. I do not here refer to rational criticism: The Welcher was an expert in character assassination, and is suspected by well-informed persons of having obtained much of his smear-juice directly from the Defemation League, under-the-table. Related note: The current (((wiki))) article on JBS alleges that men who resigned on principle were “expelled”, by implication for bad behavior.
As I said: If I were now living circa 1960, I myself may have been drawn into JBS. It was a good show, for awhile. Though really, with the benefit of hindsight, one can clearly see how by 1960, JBS had already established its consistent pattern of loudly fighting to avoid winning. It was overall an internal catastrophe for the Right—right at the moment when the apocalypse was rolling over America.
LikeLike
A fun bit that I have no doubt Mr. Eliot already knows:
In that (in)famous April 1966 Playboy interview, Rockwell named “Billy James Hargis and Robert ‘Rabbit’ Welch” as men whom he would challenge, after he brought back legalized duelling.
Commander Rockwell was a gentleman, no matter how much he may have sometimes pretended otherwise!
Damn, I’d love to have seen Rockwell shoot the Welcher as the latter’s hands quavered on his gun. By eliminating some of the worst of the controlled opposition, maybe that could have helped save the old American Right, too—thus too, America.
LikeLike
“I hate you”
8=====> best make up sex ever
LikeLike
cringeworthy. nz news announcer actually apologising to the “muslim community” and telling it to please not view the native population as the bad guys. amid the endless kowtowing, still finds time to criticise Trump.
no link. this is all from
https://www.magic.co.nz/home.html
LikeLike
Breivik had it right
when do muslims ever apologize for anything one of theirs does?
in fact polls say they SUPPORT IT
LikeLiked by 3 people
Breivik had it right
Predictable.
The doublethinking, doubletalking niggerfucker Mr. T, who also advocates that Whites should convert to Islam, here endorses the rampage against White liberal anti-Zionist supporters of the Palestinians by a known Ḿá5*n whose “2083” manifesto repeatedly condemned Adolf Hitler, praised the Jews, and explicitly praised Fréèḿá5*nry. No wonder Breivik symbolized himself with “Knights Templar” Ḿá5*nic imagery.
Mr. T, what’s your Game?
LikeLike
looks like they took anglins site down
LikeLike
Nah, I think it’s the server collapsing from serving up several million copies of the gigabyte of information on this thread: https://dailystormer.name/kiwis-final-shitpost-massacres-mosques-personally-radicalized-by-candace-owens/
LikeLike
I think you are wrong still cant get on the site.403 forbidden
LikeLike
It got nuked off normie-web days ago, long before the NZ matter.
It has only been accessible via Tor. It has nothing to do with that topic, or traffic in general, which according to the site people, is pretty constant.
LikeLike
“Welfare Mothers”
People, pick up on what I’m puttin’ down now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Down at every Laundromat in town now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
While they’re washin’ you can hear this sound now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Divorcee!
Hard to believe that love is free now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Out on the street with the whole family now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Hard to believe that love is free now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Divorcee!
People, pick up on what I’m puttin’ down now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Down in every Laundromat in town now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
While they’re washin’ you can hear this sound now
Welfare mothers make better lovers
Divorcee!
LikeLike
I’ve had variations of the first four said to me. Only problem was I wasn’t
datingbanging any of those broads.Much more of a sperg back then. An idiot game savant not aware of what I was doing or how to follow through.
Le Chateau cuts through, clarifies
Here’s my nickel, Lucy
LikeLike
I hit a girl with “youre ok, I guess” when dropping her off at the bus stop after sex, and she replied “that’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me”
Can’t believe I let my game get leaky like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
interview with mud from the muslim women association from christchurch. predictably, the report asks her how she feels. her reply: “a mixture of anger and sadness”.
LikeLike
Or my favorite…”Why did you cum in my mouth without telling me first?”
LikeLike
Major Styles: What, she’s not begging you to cum in her mouth?
That’s not sarcasm; please see what I said in the 3/5 “Subcellular Shit Tests” thread, in reply to KingofQueans, about my screening for this, and the wherefore thereof. A bit of interesting discussion thence ensued; I’m not sure which side you’d take there.
(I also just noticed your reply to me re Hanukah, in re 3/13 “Tucker Carlson For President”. I will try to drop you a very brief note about that later, just a little research lead. I wish that you could see the still-invisible part 1 of my comment there—a respectful disagreement with your analysis of “the right direction” and cyclic history, prefaced with with my thanks for the thoughtful discussion.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Major Styles: What, she’s not begging you to cum in her mouth?”
Point duly noted. When the Major was a poor sap (up until my mid twenties) I could only get the most promiscuous slut to do such a thing. Since my conversion to the dark side, all the gals are waiting in line, more or less.
LikeLike
damn… i hate the the idea of having to play these games all the time. maybe one day i’ll find a girl who doesn’t do this so much.
LikeLike
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
“You really think highly of yourself.” (translation: “I really think highly of you”)
Fair and good article. It is not “Game”: It is age-old men’s wisdom. It is also common sense, as learned by every little boy who has ever had a little girl tell him much too emphatically that, “Eww, boys are gross!”
Daddy, why does she hate me?
Son, that’s just her way of saying that she likes you—I mean, really likes you.
Those who seduce with poetry also know how many ways can cut Shakespeare’s observation about females who “doth protest too much”. Anytime a woman says anything too emphatically, she usually almost always means approximately the exact opposite.
“You’re such an asshole!”
Per my nature, of course, I will have taken this to an extreme.
After I had first struck up a friendship with her, then played with her head whilst waiting for her to hit on me, my liberal girl’s initial declaration of her love for me was her sudden, gratuitous announcement that if ever I were to break into her home and ŕ4ypë her, then she would Cass Trait me (!) and feed my Diss Membered manly organs to a dog (!!). Since she knew that I condemned racial mixing, she even added the nice touch of emphasizing that she would feed my manhood to a mutt.
I accepted this extremely too-much protest, and responded with my affection, as if she had just handed me a bouquet of roses. ‘Tis always the thorny stem that bears forth the beautiful bloom.
She then broke down and frankly confessed that for the past week, she had been Master Bay Ting while fantasizing about me. I demanded to know her specific fantasy. She blushed, stammered a bit, and then said something about wondering how rough I would be with her.
No, she was not the “Kin Kee” type generally. (I later obtained hands-on confirmation of her total inexperience in such matters.) I infer that as a psychological defense mechanism to rationalize falling hard for a “Nazi guy” whom she hated, she developed some form of an actual [ravishment] phantasy. I had first forced her friendship by compelling her involuntary admiration: I was unto her the devil—the impeccably polite and cultured devil whom she could fear, but never despise. After I had spent over a month trolling her with subtle innuendo to turn up her internal heat, she must have on some level subconsciously wished that I would force the issue, so that she would have an excuse for the óŗǵäşḿs she was getting from me.
…
LikeLike
P.S., before it starts, suitors of Miss O. Giny can fuck off. Not all wahmen are secretly wishing to be ŕ4ṕ3ḑ by your ugly incel microṕ3ņis. I am discussing a particular scenario that invoked a woman’s natural submissiveness to a man whom she admires. In this case, she manifested her submission in a spectacularly extreme way due to the love-hate dynamic between us.
She also trusted me—because I deserved her trust. Her ŕ4ṕ3y talk was indeed also another way of her professing her trust of me: You can do whatever you want; I know you will not harm me. She also happily, eagerly embraced my demand that, at my exclusive discretion, I was peremptorily entitled to fuck her while she was asleep. (Except on the odd whim, I did this only often enough to prove to both of us that I could; a girl needs her beauty sleep.)
She metaphorically (and also literally) rolled over and exposed her belly to me. Internal compulsion beats physical force. I am proud that I never hit her: I never needed to. Cf. Machiavelli on rule by love versus rule by fear.
LikeLike
Guys, I’m gonna have a shit test sortie launched at me tomorrow from a hyper agressive 23 year old.
She was being a bitch, so I put her in her place today. I can tell she’s not used to being spoken in an agressive manner. It was shock and tingle.
Advice on how I should further handle this one? I think she needs more agression until she’s broken in.
LikeLike
response to any of the 12 statements up top: so, you wet yet?
LikeLike
Don’t ask with words: Inquire with your fingers.
LikeLike
Nice
LikeLike
They Chew your peanuts for u when u have no teeth
They read your mind
When u almost out money
They stop eating so u Van get cigs and steak
They spend 4 hours making your steak
From scratch every day
Starting at 6 on morning
Might be more like 6
And She don’t even eat it
Just pure love
When She can read your subconscious mind
And knows what you want before
You do
When She let’s u do your thing
And some how magically
Knows when your done
And its attention time
When She Praya to God daily to have your baby
When She tells u She wants baby to look like you and kissed every part of your face cause wants those featured
When She situs ini car homeless
To take a pay cut
When She goes to one of shitiest jails
For three months
To get out of a country
To get to her own
To wait for you
When She tells you She would
Rather have u ok and your love rather than 300 grand
When She dedicated herself to u
Every fucking day
And fucks up slightly every once in while
A woman in love with u
Aint too bad he he he
LikeLiked by 1 person
When She tips another bitches
Hair out who told her She gonna take u away
When She is willing to fight to the death with you and for you
When She don’t play u and him fight
When She tells some crazy dude
If he hits you
You Will prob fuck him up
But She Will have him curb stomped
By other dudes with boots till the blood comes
Out
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its just so fucking beautiful
LikeLike
How the fuck did i get so lucky
She waited 7 and half years for me
My God
LikeLike
Remember when i got teeth out couldnt eat shit
Then She blender food and it tasted like shit
So She just started chewing it for me lol
LikeLike
that’s a keeper alright
LikeLike
Since I insist on living mentally in my own zip code: the words don’t matter. She is testing with those words and losing, but body language is the sincere language of woman, and of saying I lust you. Is her body conveniently close? Then she wuvs you. If you can’t avoid bumping her tit, the attraction is legit.
LikeLike
This is me being nice:
Since I insist on living mentally in my own zip code:
That about sums you up, now doesn’t it.
I finally understand the scare-quotes in “‘Reality’ Doug”.
Protip: Reality belongs to those who live in it—not those who live in their own “mental zip code”, phantasizing about a nation of persons with admitted neurological defects who all avoid eye contact with each other, whilst they pretend to be a “nation of philosophers”.
Another protip: Because all mortal men are more or less imperfect, moral strength consists in conquest of one’s own weaknesses. Men who suffer a severe defect may choose to either compensate for it, or hate the healthy with extreme jealousy. Either-or!
I am skinny as a rail, and slightly crippled (not unlike that old “Nazi” propaganda man, Dr. G.). I admire men who can run marathons, or bench far more than I weigh. I wish I could. Too bad; life ain’t fair, and I will play to my own strengths. I don’t believe in any gods, so I know that it is all up to me: To be, or not to be.
You evidently hate the “neurotypical”, i.e. the healthy. You are metaphorically the stereotype of a cripple who hates all who can walk, a mental (((Roosevelt))).
If you want to make something of yourself, then wake the fuck up to the fact that you are not highly evolved, but defective. You were lied to by whatever (((head-shrinker))) inculcated you with the mentality that made you brand me as “psychologically abusive”. Normal men don’t talk that way—don’t think that way. And the only way for you to obtain some semblance of a normal life as functional man is to reject the Jewish garbage that makes you fancy your defect to make you superior. Oh, boo hoo, did I “stigmatize” you there? I am talking to you like a man, man-to-man—not glad-handling you like the sick puppy you are. Man up, or shut up!
The alternative is to wallow in nihilistic self-pity, and soothe your broken nerves with hatred of all that is good in this world.
Your choice. If you don’t care, then I wouldn’t lift a finger to save you if I could; and I will watch you perish without a qualm.
[Note for the peanut gallery: I do not have a psychiatric degree; and unlike the argumentative shyster Matthew King, I do not make over-the-Internet diagnoses as a tactic of argumentation. I base the foregoing on something that “‘Reality’ Doug” said about himself in the 3/13 “Tucker Carlson For President” thread. I have no pity for the sick; but I wrote this because noblesse oblige.]
LikeLike
Lying in bed her tit was on top my arm and Cell down
We were laughing our assess off at the unfairness that the poor titty didnt have hands to be able to hold on
He he he
Course i was making the thunk
Sound and reenacting titty trying to hold
On but failing rofl
LikeLike
I guess develop knack for turning potentialy ordinary into
Extraordinary
LikeLiked by 1 person
If a titty falls and noone males a joke out of it
Its just wasted opportunity
LikeLike
A crazy hotter chick says ”you’re an asshole”/ ”you never bring me to anywhere else like others did”, we made out and she slapped me on the face i never looked back.
LikeLike
Number one way
They want to spend eternity with you
LikeLike
Their version of heaven got you in it
Hot
Hot
Hot
😁
LikeLike
Dance Monkeys Dance
LikeLike
Fuck yea blare some fucking Metallica country
Wide where the fuck is the English brawl vid
LikeLike
Catch em dick gazin
Buat There clit about it
Catch em again
Till ya got em biting your fucking
Leg again
And pull their head into
Your lap
And dry jump face while they laugh
I am a one man entertainment
Committee
I have no tv on room lol
I am real world tv
I never seen that much laughing with a tv though
He he he
LikeLike
H was right real love
Slices through all the bullshit
LikeLike
She is inspirasional though
LikeLike
Course of She dick gazing know what time it ia
She asked me while washing me down why i was laughing about it
I said cause cute too much
But yea i guess some shit aint a joke
Rofl
But yea we fucked
LikeLike
Reverse the one finger spanking
To half full hand spanking for the fuck of it they say owww
Then do the
Comfort super level
Awww don’t cry but
Awwwwwwww don’t cry
Combined with the cheeklift
Rofl
Got to switch it up
Plus then when you go serius voice
They know your fucking serious
LikeLike
Mrs. Under the DRADIS expresses her love with 30 minute tirades in Spanish that include endearments such as “plasta de mierda”, “hijo de puta”, and “animal”.
LikeLike
Dam
LikeLike