The quality of pussy that Jian Ghomeshi kicked out of bed

Movie star, grad school.

Some white knight in the comments has been defending the virtue and chastity of womanhood and how warmly they treat nice guys, and how if you treat women as equals, or even better, the superiors that they naturally are, you will get laid.

Jian Ghomeshi’s procedure consisted of beating them up on the first date, having sex with them on the first date, and then brutally dumping them to make way for the next girl in line.

A woman will crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with her demon lover.  It is not in the nature of women to be chaste except that they submit to male authority.  If you are not having sex with your wife, she is getting it somewhere else.

Monogamy and chastity was invented by men to reduce conflicts between men, and imposed on women with a stick.

 

 

 

77 Responses to “The quality of pussy that Jian Ghomeshi kicked out of bed”

  1. Brandon Francis says:

    “Monogamy and chastity was invented by men to reduce conflicts between men, and imposed on women with a stick.”

    Christians need to be beaten over the head with this fact over and over again

    • AureliusMoner says:

      This is an elementary doctrine of Christianity. It is clear from the first pages of the Bible that woman is the more easily seduced, that her curse is to yearn for her husband as a master, etc. They are portrayed as conniving, naturally promiscuous slatterns throughout the Bible. All of the Fathers and Doctors and Medieval Philosophers spoke the truth very plainly.

      Perhaps you mean that latter-day Cuckstians, with all of their “companionate marriage” and misapplication of “there is in Christ neither male nor female,” etc., should be reminded of this? For instance, here is the ancient nuptial blessing in the form of a preface, of the Wedding Mass; it takes place at the summit of the Mass, after the Canon, Consecration, Our Father and its Embolism:

      “Look favorably upon Your handmaid, who, joined in marital partnership, asks Your protection to be fortified. May there be love and peace in this yoke; in Christ, may she be faithfully and chastely married; May she continue also to be an imitatrix of the holy women; may she be as lovable as Rachel to her husband, as wise as Rebecca, as longlived and faithful as Sarah. May the author of lies use nothing in these acts against her, and may she remain joined unto one marriage-troth in the bond of Faith and of Thy commandments; mMay she flee illicit men’s touch upon the marriage couch; may she defend weakness with the strength of her education; may she be serious in modesty, venerable in decency, erudite in celestial doctrine; may she be fertile in progeny; may she be proven and innocent; and may she reach the rest of the Blessed, and the Heavenly Kingdom; and may she see her children’s children up to the third and fourth generation; and may she reach a choice old age.”

      There are no prayers for the man, apart from joint prayers for the more explicitly spiritual effects of the sacrament (growth in knowledge, holiness, blessing, health, etc.). In other words, the entire concern is that the woman will learn to be decent, help her husband, not be a nag, let him put as many buns in her oven as possible, not behave like a slag, not cuckold her man or foist any bastards upon him, and, if she succeeds in all this, may she live to see her descendants and die a holy death in ripe old age. Christianity has always known these truths very well.

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    I don’t even know what a “white knight” is, in this context.

    • peppermint says:

      » But it was never possible to free a Jew from his convictions.

      » At that time I was still naive enough to try to make clear to them the madness of their ideas; in my small circle I talked until my tongue was weary and till my throat was hoarse, and I thought I could succeed in convincing them of the destructiveness of their Marxist doctrine of irrationality; but the result was only the contrary. It seemed as though the increasing realization of the destructive influence of Social Democratic theories would serve only to strengthen their determination.

      » The more I argued with them, the more I got to know their dialectics. First they counted on the ignorance of their adversary; then, when there was no way out, they themselves pretended stupidity. If all this was of no avail, they refused to understand or they changed the subject when driven into a corner; they brought up truisms, but they immediately transferred their acceptance to quite
      different subjects, and, if attacked again, they gave way and pretended to know nothing exactly. Wherever one attacked one of these prophets, one’s hands seized slimy jelly; it slipped through one’s fingers only to collect again in the next moment. If one smote one of them so thoroughly that, with the bystanders watching, he could but agree, and if one thus thought he had advanced at least one step, one was greatly astonished the following day. The Jew did not in the least remember the day before, he continued to talk in the same old strain as if nothing had happened, and if indignantly confronted, he pretended to be astonished and could not remember anything except that his assertions had already been proved true the day before.

      » Often I was stunned.

      » One did not know what to admire more: their glibness of tongue or their skill in .lying.

      » I gradually began to hate them.

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Monogamy and chastity was invented by men to reduce conflicts between men, and imposed on women with a stick.”

    This part seems good, but the rest is like down is up and up is down. Somehow the demon is getting what he wants, and the knight is a silly thing. Well, a dark coloured man who is wreaking havoc with his short-term time preferene needs to be driven out, certainly!

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      Well of course the demon is getting what he wants, and the knight is a silly thing.

      If females are allowed to choose, that is what they choose. If female consent makes sex right, and lack of female consent makes sex wrong, then their choices are apt to make black white and wrong right.

      As I said before, the normal healthy relationship between a man and a women has been illegal for about a hundred and fifty years, but these laws are so absurd, so outrageous, so contrary to custom and decency, that they were not actually socially and legally enforced until the late sixties, and most television shows and movies of the fifties depicting normal happy marriages depict them on the older, illegal, Pauline, pattern.

      However, these days all well socialized males are raised in compliance with official reality concerning the relationship of men and women, so, in order to have a normal healthy happy relationship with a woman, you have to have a fair touch of criminal and antisocial tendencies, in order to defy law and socialization.

      If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Well if the normal relationship between a man and a woman, the way things have been through all recorded history, is outlawed, only outlaws will have normal marriages.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Well of course the demon is getting what he wants, and the knight is a silly thing.

        You’re preaching a Satanic worldview, “Jim”.

        • peppermint says:

          in AJP world, isn’t white knight a reference to Trentian cavalry that gets slaughtered by longbowmen anyway?

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, you’re the one derailing the discussion by pointing to words like demon and knight and calling the discussion satanic.

            A proper knight would determine that the demon wasn’t married, neither was the girl, that they had had sex, and that therefore they were married. Or determine that the girl was a ho, that the demon had not paid her, and force the demon to pay for services rendered. Or determine that the demon had no right to touch the girl or be in the area and chase the demon off with his sword. Or see the demon trying to seduce the girl and defend her honor by attacking the demon, and, if successful, maybe get something out of the girl by showing himself as the stationary bandit.

            But men don’t have the authority to stop demons. That’s patriarchial and the woman has the right to consent to whatever she wants to consent to.

            That makes white knighting a fool’s errand.

            Call it satanic if you wish, but it is what it is.

            I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen girls receiving obviously unwanted sexual attention, men looking on confused because they know they’re not allowed to step in, and done nothing.

            So for the honor of those girls I couldn’t defend, I say to you, go fuck yourself.

        • Minion says:

          “You’re preaching a Satanic worldview, “Jim”.”
          Well, we are living in a Satanic world, so…

      • AureliusMoner says:

        Women want to be a bit afraid of their men; they want to see strength and power; they want to see that their man is in charge; they crave to be in doubt about his feelings, yearning for the occasional signs of affection betwixt the more regular demonstrations of his emotional independence and indifference to her continual self-absorption.

        The problem is that modernity has forgotten what it looks like for good men to be strong, formidable and intimidating. Catholic Knights slaughtered Moslems and defended their homelands out of goodness. Their hands wielded weapons of war to punish traitors and criminals out of goodness. Their goodness was not divorced from strength; their goodness did not make one feel comfortable – it had that keen edge of threat to it. They did not suffer from the modern sickness, where only meek passivity is “good.” In fact, they properly viewed this as almost the most base and degenerate form of evil, unless it was present in purely private affairs, especially in ascetics, for purposes of internal mastery and spiritual ascent… not out of an habitual preference for betraying one’s folk and nation and customs and traditions.

        So, I would say: the good man can get what he wants out of his woman just as well as the demon – better, even. But, since few modern men well understand how to be good in the strong and masculine way that is terrifying and exciting to women, the cads seem generally to be the only combatants on the field. A good man can pull it off, but it’s rare nowadays. Being a jerk is much easier. Being a cuck is easiest of all.

        • Dankeverry says:

          +1000

        • jim says:

          since few modern men well understand how to be good in the strong and masculine way that is terrifying and exciting to women, the cads seem generally to be the only combatants on the field. A good man can pull it off, but it’s rare nowadays. Being a jerk is much easier. Being a cuck is easiest of all.

          Exactly so.

          Because masculinity is deemed antisocial, and perhaps criminal, only antisocial men have a chance. Healthy men in a healthy society should bend to their society’s firm and forceful socialization, should conform, but in our sick society, if you bend to socialization, if you conform, you wind up like Scott Alexander.

          • Brian says:

            Who is Scott Alexander?

            • jim says:

              SlateStarCodex blogger. Very smart, very nice guy. Too smart to believe in PC, too nice to contradict it. Disastrous failure with girls. Eventually announced he had a girlfriend.

              Turned out the deal with his girlfriend was that he was allowed to spend money on her, allowed to chastely hug her, and got to have her weep hot wet sexy tears on his shoulder as she told him how badly the guys that she was having penis in vagina sex with treated her. Oh, and his girlfriend claimed to be a homosexual male, despite having a vagina, and using it.

              Much cruel hilarity ensued on the manospheric right, demonstrating that by and large the manospheric right are not nice guys.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          A.M.,

          You’re better saying Christian knights rather than Catholic knights, as Catholic, as a word, was only put into non-theological contexts such as this one much more recently by the Trentian heretics (those practising a religion originating from the 16th Century Council of Trent).

          Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

  4. Anon says:

    Seeing as how we’re in the latter stages of Rome (that is to say Nietzschean / Calhounian “Last Mannism”) what would you do if you were to redo Augustus?

    The answer is of course the Australian colony, as you’ve said before. But speaking practically this isn’t anywhere near feasible given the political climate of America and Europe. The only way this would ever happen is via demotic revolt and eventually fascism, which would have to be reformulated soon after into an an aristocratic system.

    I don’t think this will ever happen, nor is it even possible. It’s passed people up and it will again. Writing minus action makes you the Tocqueville and the Unwin of the blogosphere. Roissy is correct but Roissy is words. Anything short of the un-emancipation of women and the purging of all beta males from positions of power won’t cut it. To think otherwise is to indulge in a pipe dream.

    • jim says:

      But speaking practically this isn’t anywhere near feasible given the political climate of America and Europe.

      I disagree. The current official relationship between men and women is so artificial and unnatural, so contrary to nature, so perverse and obscene, that if we were to revert to the eighteenth century system (strip women of the vote, place women firmly under the control of fathers or husbands, and treat any fertile age women without fathers or husbands as a problem to be solved like lost children) the inconceivably shocking would suddenly become the entirely normal, just as Trump casually opened up the Overton window.

      When Trump said the unsayable, it suddenly became sayable. If the government were to do the undoable, it would suddenly become doable.

      You know how when you pass a harsh shit test the drama instantly goes away, and then after a bit, everything comes up roses. Emancipation is a shit test. Pass it, there will be no drama, and, after a short interval as women realize men are not kidding, everything will come up roses.

    • Robert says:

      I think we have to start small.

      Let him that would move the world first move himself.
      Socrates

      I have fought my wife for years, but she has come around, the feminism has all but been beaten out of her (sometimes literally). I have an eighteen year old daughter who I have arranged a meeting with a man this summer. I have not allowed them any control, all cars are in my name, the house is in my name, no shared bank accounts, when they throw fits I point to the door. It depends on the woman, but almost everything a woman says is a shit test, just do whatever you know to be right, regardless.

      • Minion says:

        >I have fought my wife for years, but she has come around, the feminism has all but been beaten out of her
        >(sometimes literally).

        You sir, are not a good man.

        You are a great man

  5. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    She’s not that hot and she looks batshit crazy.

    She looks like a girl who’d fuck on a first date because you choked her, and then accuse you of rape because you didn’t call her again.

    The Trailer Park Boys are funny as hell, by the way.

  6. Jack Highlands says:

    You’re doing a little chivalry yourself, Jim: in suitable light, Decoutere was a 33 yo 6.5 in 2003 when she first dated the mystery meat. Semi-famous actress might give her half a point cuz intriguing, but grad school takes it back.

    • jim says:

      That is a 2006 photo of her. Still hot in 2006,

      Yeah, she was getting a bit long in the tooth, but hey, nonetheless hot enough to be a movie star.

      Normally I do not have sex with women over thirty, apart from my wife of course, but for her in 2006, would definitely make an exception.

  7. Anglican says:

    Alfred, are you an American? What region do thou live in?

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Not really high quality. She looks like she belongs in front of that sign as a sort of an accidental pun, though.

  9. glenfilthie says:

    If you are referring to me, Jim, I do not defend the virtue of all women any more than I do for men. I reject your definition of those terms among others, in fact – I reject your views on human sexuality wholesale.

    So that is ‘quality pussy’ in your opinion? LOL. She’s built like a 12 year old, and I’ve seen horses with better teeth – but whatever. Movie star? if you say so. Five will get ya ten that in two years you won’t remember who she is either. For you boys that want to think of women as livestock – that’s your gal right there. She has the morals and ethics of a stoat – and has all the romantic potential of one too! No decent man would touch a woman that would roll in the mud with a coloured douche like Ghomeshi.

    To be precise: I am not a white knight, I’m an old world man raised in better times by better people. You see this sordid affair as a stud seducing and rejecting a beauty. I see it as two amoral idiots fucking and then fighting about it afterwards. This kind of idiocy is the rule of the day when stupid white women hop in the sack with coloured trash. Think of the gong shows involving Tiger Woods, or OJ Simpson. Such are the wages of mud sharking.

    Monogamy and faithfulness are virtues of smarter, more powerful people. We’re happier and wealthier than those that live in the hookup culture, and the legions of slutty women and unfulfilled men from that culture know it. If you insist on thinking of women like cattle…welp – those cows sure did a number on Ghomeshi, didn’t they? He lives in penury now, bankrupted by legal fees, he’s radioactive career-wise, and his future sexual prospects will probably be limited to a $15.00 gummer behind the Quickee Mart he’ll be working at on the night shift.

    Be smart, boys. If you insist on throwing your morals to the winds, and want a meaningless roll in the hay, pay for it and hire a reputable prostitute. At least they have discretion and they go away after your finished bumping uglies.

    • jim says:

      I have sons and a grandson, and a virtuous and obedient wife who was a virgin when we met. What do you have?

      • glenfilthie says:

        Much the same as you. But my daughter, sadly – was incorrigible and uncontrollable. She is a homosexual degenerate that I believe needs counselling and professional intervention. She will suffer for her moral failures and bad life choices just as Ghomeshi and his whores will, I suppose. I had done my best to impose my values on my daughter, but was thwarted by liberal and feminist in-laws, her teachers at school, and modern society at large. At some point, sometimes a father can do everything right and still fail. I have cut my losses and the liberal elements out of my family…and for us, at least, life has improved.

        Look, Jim – nothing personal, okay? I take exception to your theory and assumptions – not to you. One thing my daughter taught me is that for women to be good, they have to have some concept of pride and self respect. Without it, they become sluts, shrews, or degenerates. I see no reason not to hold women to a higher standard.

        No grandchildren for me, but that’s okay. I have dogs, guns, motorcycles and friends so I am doing as well as I can under the circumstances. These days a fella can’t ask much more than that.

        • peppermint says:

          » She is a homosexual degenerate

          Please keep in mind that dykes and fags are totally different.

          » that I believe needs counselling and professional intervention.

          Only to the extent that that “counseling and professional intervention” is in the context of a culture that has truthful beliefs about women.

          Sending your dyke daughter to an anti-dyke camp or anti-dyke therapist in today’s world is worse than useless, since she knows that the cute boys are going to back her up on refusing anti-dyke therapy and you know what Jim says about being willing to crawl a mile over crushed glass for her demon lover.

        • jim says:

          So, no grandkids, ever.

          I have one grandson, and another grandchild on the way. Plausibly hoping for quite a few more.

          One thing my daughter taught me is that for women to be good, they have to have some concept of pride and self respect.

          But progressives are always teaching women self esteem. Progressives teach women so much self esteem that they are apt explode with grandiose self importance.

          What women need is humility and obedience.

          11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
          12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
          13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
          14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
          15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

          In context, I interpret “saved in childbearing” to mean saved by performing the proper female role, of which childbearing is a synechdoche – that women are the morally weaker sex is to be rectified by proper subjection to proper male authority. Alternatively, that she shall be saved by accepting and enduring the curse laid upon Eve, which was both the pain of childbirth, and the desire to submit to and obey her husband.

          What I observe is that if a fertile age woman does not submit to proper male authority, she is going to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

          See also Matt Forney arguing that women have grotesquely excessive self esteem and that this screws up their sex lives.

          • peppermint says:

            I suspect that many fathers decided to go along with the female self esteem thing to try to keep their daughters off the cock carousel by telling them that they’re too good for a man who isn’t going to stick around.

            And then the men figured out that true self-esteem means making their own sexual decisions as they see fit and not letting anyone slut-shame them, and the daughters went along with it because it’s not like you can tell your daughter not to listen to sexy men unless you tell her to appreciate her limitations, obey you, and wait for your approval to date a guy.

            • jim says:

              I suspect that many fathers decided to go along with the female self esteem thing to try to keep their daughters off the cock carousel by telling them that they’re too good for a man who isn’t going to stick around.

              This of course fails catastrophically – because any man who might plausibly stick around is not good enough for her. She thinks Jeremy Meeks is going to marry her because she has a Master of Arts in African Basketweaving and a hundred thousand dollars of college debt.

          • Ray Manta says:

            > But progressives are always teaching women self esteem. Progressives teach women
            > so much self esteem that they are apt explode with grandiose self importance.

            F. Roger Devlin has pointed out that women’s problem isn’t insufficient self-esteem; it’s an innate tendency towards vanity and narcissism. A combination of good parenting, socialization, and customs need to be used to curb it down to manageable levels. Most of these forces are absent today in Western society.

          • peppermint says:

            » innate tendency towards

            how would you know? Because that’s what shows up in this environment?

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Earned self respect is different from phony self esteem, Jim. And as for humility and obedience I can name a few fellas that could benefit as well – I’m glaring at you, P-Mint!!!! HAR HAR HAR!

            Women, like men, are under no obligation to submit to shabby treatment. They are correct to rebel against it as a matter of fact, and when they do rightfully rebel – they can be forgiven for using any means at their disposal. They are at a marked disadvantage in relation to men as they are not as smart or strong.

            Ghomeshi treated women like crap. They reciprocated and he got crapped upon in return – as should any man that treats women like livestock. I grew up on a farm, boys – and we respected our livestock as much as possible.

            Good men eventually wind up with good women as I can attest. I suspect such is the case with our blog host too. Take heart, fellas, and don’t give up. There are still plenty of good women around – but you won’t find them hanging around turds like Roosh or Ghomeshi or the other manosphere frauds.

            • jim says:

              Women, like men, are under no obligation to submit to shabby treatment.

              But, in actual fact, women do submit to shabby treatment. Indeed, like Ghomeshi’s innumerable girlfriends, submit with great enthusiasm, and only made trouble when he blew them off and showed no interest in their continuing submission.

              There is nothing shabby about the role commanded by Saint Paul, of submission and obedience, in the context of an arrangement to always sleep with one man and never with any other, to raise children together. However, deprived of this natural and proper submissive role, females submit to Jeremy Meeks, which is indeed mighty shabby.

              Good men eventually wind up with good women as I can attest.

              But I am not a nice man, and yet I have a good woman. Further, Scott Alexander is a very nice man, and look what he got!

          • peppermint says:

            — Earned self respect is different from phony self esteem

            ?

            — Women, like men, are under no obligation to submit to shabby treatment.

            What’s an obligation? What’s shabby treatment?

            — They are correct to rebel against it as a matter of fact, and when they do rightfully rebel – they can be forgiven for using any means at their disposal.

            Now if only they could be trusted to use their right to rebel only against shabby treatment…

            — They are at a marked disadvantage in relation to men as they are not as smart or strong.

            Then why do you ascribe to them the same rights nd responsibilities as men? And by ascribe, I mean aentertain, because you’re not a scribe.

            — Ghomeshi treated women like crap. They reciprocated and he got crapped upon in return – as should any man that treats women like livestock. I grew up on a farm, boys – and we respected our livestock as much as possible.

            Cool story bro. Now if only that could happen to all womanizers and men seeking marriage weren’t viewed by women as cucks. But why is the word for womanizer womanizer.

            — Good men eventually wind up with good women as I can attest.

            Congratulations on raising a dyke.

            — There are still plenty of good women around

            There would be more if the government didn’t promote bad behavior…

            -– but you won’t find them hanging around turds like Roosh or Ghomeshi or the other manosphere frauds.

            …and you certainly won’t find them in the women’s studies lounge or LGBT safe space protesting Roosh or Ghomeshi. But wait, yes you will, there are lots of nice women get pulled into that scene by their friends. It’s almost like women are cattle who can be led anywhere and don’t really care where they’re being led until it’s clear that the guy they were following isn’t going to call them back.

          • peppermint says:

            PS. I r8 you cuckservative/10. Get rid of the implicit feminism and resubmit. Or call me a sexist and leave, that’s fun too.

          • Ray Manta says:

            Glenfilthie, on women:
            > Women, like men, are under no obligation to submit to shabby treatment.
            > They are correct to rebel against it as a matter of fact, and when they do
            > rightfully rebel

            You are very confused. “Rightful rebellion” does not involve perverting the rule of law to punish men.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            “But, in actual fact, women do submit to shabby treatment. Indeed, like Ghomeshi’s innumerable girlfriends, submit with great enthusiasm, and only made trouble when he blew them off and showed no interest in their continuing submission.”
            ————————————————————————–

            So it’s your contention that all women are closet S$M kinks? Errrr…pardon me – you are saying they are all masochists?

            LOL – and your cellar dwelling fan boys are shocked and dismayed when the girls they treat so shabbily want nothing to do with them. The comedy continues apace.

            • jim says:

              Few women get off on having the crap beaten out of them. All women want a master, want to be owned. And hence are attracted to the kind of man who beats the crap out of them.

              All women want to be in the kind of marriage prescribed by Saint Paul, but all women, finding themselves in such a relationship will resist and rebel, often with great and disturbing force, and believe themselves rebelling in all sincerity. But in fact the rebellion is merely a test, often a very harsh and difficult test. Should the rebellion succeed, the woman will be nervous, uncomfortable, and unhappy, and will look around for a stronger man, one who can give her the touch of the hand of ownership. She will find the man she has defeated creepy and slimy, will not want to have sex with him. Should the rebellion fail, the woman will comfortably attach herself to the security of ownership, will enjoy the touch of the hand of ownership.

              Woman covet male authority, but if they get it, loath it and discard it. They want what they do not want. They rebel, but if the rebellion succeeds, move on to another man, and feel nothing for the man that they discard.

              Female rebellion is a self hating, self destructive act. She longs for the possessive touch of the man strong enough to protect her from herself.

              She cannot stop herself from rebelling, but longs to be possessed by the man who can stop her from rebelling.

          • pdimov says:

            “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out.” – Lucy DeCoutere to Jian Gomeshi after being subjected to shabby treatment

          • pdimov says:

            Above is dated 05 Jul 2003. Later on, in an e-mail dated 17 Jul 2003, “I think you are magic and would love to see you.”

            She apparently sent him flowers on 23rd.

            Extra, extra, read all about it at

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/298456028/Emails-Between-Lucy-DeCoutere-and-Jian-Ghomeshi

            How does this fit into your world, Glenfilthie?

          • Ray Manta says:

            pdimov said:
            > Extra, extra, read all about it at

            > (url)

            > How does this fit into your world, Glenfilthie?

            Obedience to the Feminine Imperative runs strong in Glenfilthie. So strong that he believes it’s justifiable for women to use “any means necessary” to get back at men that have “wronged” them. That’s why Lucy Decouture’s morally repugnant bahavior (false accusations) while Jian Ghomeshi’s far less immoral actions (fucking and chucking women who threw themselves at him) don’t.

          • Ray Manta says:

            > That’s why Lucy Decouture’s morally repugnant bahavior (false accusations) > while Jian Ghomeshi’s far less immoral actions (fucking and chucking
            > women who threw themselves at him) don’t.

            What I meant to say:

            That’s why Lucy Decouture’s morally repugnant bahavior (false accusations) are forgivable to Glenfilthie while Jian Ghomeshi’s far less immoral actions (fucking and chucking women who threw themselves at him) aren’t.

          • pdimov says:

            The story so far:

            – Jim makes a post about Ghomeshi
            – Glenfilthie: LOL you boys, he only slept with skanks
            – People point out to him that no he didn’t
            – Glenfilthie: LOL you boys, you’re a riot
            – So Jim makes a post telling him the same
            – Glenfilthie: LOL you boys, Ghomeshi treated women shabbily, so they wanted nothing to do with him, as evidenced by them accusing him of rape 12 years after the fact
            – Glenfilthie is (again) shown Lucy DeCoutere’s e-mails

            (we’re here)

            – Glenfilthie: LOL you boys, NAWALT, you’re a riot

            or, more likely:

            – Glenfilthie again ignores
            – Jim makes a post about the e-mails
            – Glenfilthie: LOL you boys, NAWALT, you’re a riot

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            L.O.L., Mr Dimov, does anyone wonder if coloureds are capable of brutality?

            Yuck.

            A.J.P.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            “How does this fit into your world, Glenfilthie?”

            It’s a data point, I guess. Is it representative of women in general, or a statistical outlier? My mother in law is a fat, domineering cnut. Her husband defers to her on everything and often she treats him like shit…and they’ve been married over 50 years now. We have to be careful that we take all the data in, not just those points that satisfy our theories.

            “Obedience to the Feminine Imperative runs strong in Glenfilthie.”

            Look at you! MORE jargon! Aren’t you just the manliest intellectual the world has ever seen!

            Guys – I dunno what that even means. All I know is two stupid people got in the sack. One is a douche bag mudflap – the other is some celeb whore. Neither of ’em are fit to shine shoes in a whorehouse and they all got pretty much what they deserved.

            Most of what Jim talks about may or may not go on at the subconscious level. It may very well explain shrewish, slutty behaviour – it’s a theory, at that…but it does not excuse it and it does not justify men abusing women.

            As a farm kid I DO know this much: training trumps genetics and environment every time, hands down, six ways to Sunday. If women are raised right none of this chithouse psychology even comes into play. Women are acting like sluts and shrews because we allow them too. When they do what society and the environment encourages – they get treated like crap for it. It may be that is inducing a psychosis in them that would otherwise not be there – and nobody knows how to deal with it (or rather, nobody wants to go against your ‘cathedral’ to deal with it).

            For the record I ain’t saying you or Jim are wrong. I am saying there are holes and contradictions in your line of thinking that I am not happy with. I do know that to say Ghomeshi and his hags are representative of classical human behaviour…?

            Hmpffff.

            • jim says:

              It’s a data point, I guess. Is it representative of women in general, or a statistical outlier?

              1. If it was not representative of women in general, Ghomeshi would not have more quality pussy than he can handle.

              2. Direct personal observation. It is representative of women in general. All women are like that to a greater or lesser extent.

              Her husband defers to her on everything and often she treats him like shit

              Well of course. If you defer to your wife, she will treat you like shit. That is exactly what I have been saying.

              but it does not excuse it and it does not justify men abusing women.

              So, are you arguing that marriage as prescribed by Saint Paul constitutes abuse of women? That arranged marriage, marriage by purchase, and marriage by abduction is wrong?

              Or, are you arguing that what Ghomeshi did is wrong, but what I do is not necessarily wrong?

              But if we say Ghomeshi should be punished, well firstly there is no current law that he broke, and secondly if he should be punished, and women have agency, should not the numerous women lining up to get into his bed be punished?

              If we say he should be punished and women should not be punished, then we imply that women do not have agency. If women do not have agency, then they should be property, the property of fathers till they become the property of husbands, in which case we could then punish Ghomeshi for interfering with someone else’s property. But unowned women are like fish in the sea, and whoever catches a fish, that fish is his, to use as he pleases.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I’m saying that white women are not for coloureds. What is hard to understand about that, “Jim”?

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              To deny white women to coloreds, white women have to be owned by white men.

              Since collective ownership never works, have to be owned by individual white men.

              If white woman are unowned, will fuck around.

          • Ray Manta says:

            Glenfilthie said:
            > “Obedience to the Feminine Imperative runs strong in Glenfilthie.”

            > Look at you! MORE jargon!

            It describes a real phenomenon. For better or worse, it’s taken the presence of the Internet to rediscover ancient truths about the nature of the sexes and to expand upon them. Some of that has involved introducing new terminology.

            Let me repeat your own words:
            “Women, like men, are under no obligation to submit to shabby treatment. They are correct to rebel against it as a matter of fact, and when they do rightfully rebel – they can be forgiven for using any means at their disposal. They are at a marked disadvantage in relation to men as they are not as smart or strong”.

            The logical disconnect in the quotation above is very clear – you’ve just stated you’re willing to grant privileges to women you would not grant to men while simultaneously acknowledging their reduced agency. You cannot run a properly ordered society that way.

            > Aren’t you just the manliest intellectual the world has ever seen!

            You have been getting your head handed to you in this thread by multiple posters and making a horse’s ass of yourself in your lame replies. Your silly little mockery shtick is doing nothing to change that.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”, perhaps you have not considered the possibility of chasing down White Flight with “Diversity”. Allowing whites to escape without having Housing and Urban Development pushing coloured third-worlders into those escaping white communities would reduce the risk of so much “assimilating”.

            In this case, it’s not so much about sex as it race. White communities are intentionally “diluted”, whites more than any other have confidence sucked away by so-called anti-racists who are really only anti-white and that lowers the attractiveness for mating.

            Did you know that white women are often decried as “racist” for refusing the advances of somebody from a different race? Would that ever happen to a Chinese woman in China or a Venezualen woman in Venezuala if she were to refuse the advances of somebody from a different race? That factor is not sex, but _race_.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            In case you haven’t noticed, white women are participating in a sex strike against White Genocide. That’s why birthrates have fallen and marriage rates are down. Notice how being forced to live around coloureds has lined up very well with the marriage and fertility situation.

            The white women participating in this sex strike have chosen myself and a few others to give voice to their complaints since they don’t have the wherewithal to both strike and speak…The women on strike are fed up with the treacherous politicians pushing this White Genocide that really lowers their quality of life and future prospects.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              It hardly makes sense that women are protesting white genocide by failing to have sex with white men and get pregnant with white men.

              It would seem more likely that white genocide makes white men look unmanly, thus undesirable as fathers and sexual partners.

          • peppermint says:

            » Did you know that white women are often decried as “racist” for refusing the advances of somebody from a different race?

            And what effect does that have?

            Men care about being called racist because it’s illegal to have business dealings with racists that aren’t at arm’s length (Civil Rights Act of 1964), which forces men below retirement age who aren’t permanently disabled cripples to avoid any suspicion.

            Women care about what other people think about them, specifically, what the men they want to have sex with think, and those men act like they’re terrified of being accused of being racist, and are infinitely deferential towards diversities.

            Restoring miscegenation laws will not be necessary. Merely repealing the civil rights will be enough. Merely announcing that in the future the civil rights will be repealed will be enough. When that happens, the anti-White system will evaporate like a bad dream and you will find no one willing to say that he was a leftist, but everyone will have always been a 1488 edgelord from /pol/.

            Repealing civil rights also solves the problem with women, because they will be owned by their father, or, if they don’t have a father, their mother, or some family member somewhere, until they can be assigned to a husband. The reason this will happen immediately upon the repeal of the civil rights is that it’s so blindingly obvious and natural that it takes crimestop to keep glenfilthie from recommending it.

            AJP, you are not redpilled. You are half redpilled, but you have chosen to remain bizarrely cuckstain, but only to the extent that you believe in mainstream 1950s sex relations, though the Gospels are clearly much more sexist than they are racist, and you are clearly more racist than a mainstream 1950s dude who watched television and saw Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. give speeches.

            The 1950s were great for America because the rest of the world was bombed, increasing demand for American goods, while many Americans were dead, reducing supply of American labor, and outsourcing of production to reduce demand, insourcing labor to increase supply, and automation to reduce demand hadn’t happened yet. They were not great for America in terms of the values. Destroying Nazi Germany was a terrible crime.

            The values of the 1950s were absolute garbage, as Revilo Oliver points out. Playboy magazine. Divorce. Increasingly open communist agitation, including the nigger protest movements, and communist takeover of what have become jewniversities.

            It’s not enough to want to return to ’50s America. It’s not enough to be racist. You must also be sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. You must want to return to the ’30s in Germany, or the 1490s in Spain. Don’t forget, the ’50s became the ’60s.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            It seems quite reasonable to me, which is why I encourage, indeed, even sponsor the white women sex strike against White Genocide. The smarter and most attractive ones know what is their own forte, where their own strength lies. The public forum of words and heated arguments is not for them yet they do need a representative.

            #WWSSAWhiteGenocide

          • pdimov says:

            “In case you haven’t noticed, white women are participating in a sex strike against White Genocide. That’s why birthrates have fallen and marriage rates are down.”

            Low birthrates are a mechanism to effect #whitegenocide, not a consequence of it (or a protest against it.)

            https://twitter.com/wcsoto/status/716589061159395328

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “As a farm kid I DO know this much: training trumps genetics and environment every time, hands down, six ways to Sunday.”

            Oh! You grew up on the farm where they had a pig milking operation. That training trumping genetics and environment!

        • pdimov says:

          “One thing my daughter taught me is that for women to be good, they have to have some concept of pride and self respect.”

          The universal solution to every societal problem, known today as “fix the schools”.

          People without agency just need to have agency and everything will be fine.

          Stupid people just need to be smart and everything will be fine.

          People with high time preference just need to have low time preference and everything will be fine.

          No, no and no. You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Religions are successful not because they tell people “just make the right decisions and you’ll be fine”, they are successful because they tell people what decisions to make, and enforce it.

        • Kudzu Bob says:

          Glenfilthie can make anything. He made his daughter a dyke.

        • Dave says:

          Glen, gardening taught me that you can’t just throw seeds on the ground and come back at harvest-time — your plants will drown, die of thirst, get eaten by slugs, or any of a thousand other disasters. You have to check every plant every day, or just not bother.

          Maybe in the old days a man could work hard and trust the social matrix to keep his kids on the right path. Now that that matrix has gone septic and poisons our children against us, men have to do everything themselves. I married a foreign woman, and stay home raising my kids in a rural town away from my liberal parents and sister, with no TV and no school.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        1. Jim – could you define for me what you mean by ‘quality pussy’? Do you judge a woman’s worth by her cunt? We can agree on the fact that he certainly couldn’t handle them, I suppose. In the end they destroyed him.

        2. Ghomeshi owned his quality pussy – and REALLY got treated like shit! To me this looks to me like two extreme positions with the happy medium being somewhere in between. Your mileage may vary.

        Marriage by arrangement/abduction/theft/purchase: that would depend upon how it’s done. If it is mishandled the result is blood feuds and even wars. Cam you even call that ‘marriage’? Marriage by voluntary contract is my preferred option. Going back to my inlaws and my cnut of a mother in law – if she were allowed to arrange the marriage of her daughter she would have made her life miserable too.

        The key word here is ‘contract’. To make one work, both parties have to be responsible adults, they both will need to make concessions and understand the concept. If you want to elevate this into some kind of human behaviour case study – I would submit my thesis thusly:

        The instinctual sexual contract that is hardwired into us at the genetic level works like this: women exchange sex for provision and protection. It’s that simple. Ghomeshi – being an uncivilised, unevolved simian mudflap – violated the contract. He rode those whores like a rented mule and then didn’t even feed them afterwards! This unmanly and uncivilized behaviour led to his downfall. If he’s still nailing ‘quality pussy’ I would be astonished.

        Technically Ghomeshi wasn’t punished. Allow me to digress and re-define a term for the purposes of our discussion, fellas. “Social justice”” – as it SHOULD work – goes like this: actions have consequences. If you do something stupid and mean – you will get what you give and you probably won’t like it.

        Ghomeshi ran in feminist and celeb circles – both communities are NOTORIOUS for producing the worst moral and intellectual cripples that western society can create. If there is any ‘quality pussy’ to be found in that lot – you probably can’t afford it. This should have been intuitively obvious even to a low IQ/low skill mutt like Ghomeshi.

        Let us forget that uncultured baboon – and look at the women. Women thrive on attention. They revel in the attention of the press and their peers, crow about how they laid the man low, revel in the phony sympathy thrown out by all…and every beta male panty sniffer in the cultural sewer of Toronto will be wanting to get into their pants – and they will have the coin to pay. Ghomeshi isn’t a stud; he’s a fool – played by women that were using him for purposes of their own. How many times through history has this scenario played out? How many men climbed on top of some stupid cow only to lose his balls to her later? Quality pussy indeed! LOL!

        “If we say he should be punished and women should not be punished, then we imply that women do not have agency.”

        Bingo. Ya see boys – the law isn’t quite clear here. In point of fact, Ghomeshi got off lucky. Canadian courts are infested with social justice warriors, femcunts and liberals that would have loved to publicly castrate him if given the lead to do so. Justice is not the purpose of the liberal court – law is, and women are writing a lot of the laws these days.

        It’s a dangerous time to be a man – and a real bad time to be a stupid one, as Ghomeshi found out.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Exactly, G. I would only say that if in fact you do mentioned certain negative aspects about your own family (which would be entirely unnecessary in an anonymous internet setting) it would undermine the important point you are making about the disaster that is interracial marriage, sometimes called “assimilation”. Not that I believe K.B., who mentioned your own.

      T.W. and O.J.S. are great, great examples of what happens when there is:
      ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

      • glenfilthie says:

        I have no problems being honest with our host, Al. He’s got a sharp mind and he has caught me in some fuzzy thinking in the past.

        One thing I’ve learned from watching the human animal is that when you deal with them you can do everything wrong and still succeed – and vice versa; you can do everything right by them and still fail. If Jim has a valid point I want to hear it.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          G.,

          It’s sort of brutal the way he yanked you off your pro-white message, though. Ouch.

          A.J.P.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Well Alan – as I said, I’m just here for the conversation with our host, not to score points against his fanboys.

    • peppermint says:

      » I’m an old world man raised in better times by better people.

      like Trump’s father

      » You see this sordid affair as a stud seducing and rejecting a beauty. I see it as two amoral idiots fucking and then fighting about it afterwards.

      WRONG. It’s an amoral idiot and a woman. The fact that you can’t say woman is the reason your kids will grow up to be cucked by Jian Ghomeshi.

Leave a Reply