Nikki Gemmell - What are they thinking?

Nikki Gemmell does it again. (paywall)

Do they hate us that much? It's arguably Germaine Greer's most famous line: "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them."

Straight into it she goes. Arguing from a position of sanity is below our dear Ms Gemmell. A brief list of Greer's other lines (not in the article):

When a profession becomes female dominated - it turns to shit.

Journalism anyone?

Women in the military are fools.

Read more about this here.

Socialism is the only path to women's liberation.

Well, the kindest thing to say here is that women's liberation is a mirage.

In summation, there is no reason to hate Greer. Of course, she should have no political vote to propel us into her utopia.

Gemmell - on the other hand - is a vapid, insecure moron. She uses her platform to pretend to speak for other women. In reality, it is all about her.

What are you thinking? It was the question I never liked when I was a young woman, from the boyfriends, lovers, the men around me trying to get into my brain. Again and again, what are you thinking? As if they couldn't bear I had a secret part of me they couldn't access; they needed to find it out.

The author's most famous book was published anonymously. Seeing a pattern yet?

A woman disappears, leaving behind an incendiary diary chronicling a journey of sexual awakening. To all who knew her, she was the good wife: happy, devoted, content. But the diary reveals a secret self, one who's discovered that her new marriage contains mysteries of its own.

A multitude of reviews, written by women, is in the above link. Here is the most popular :

This book was basically irritating. It starts off with a letter from the anonymous author's mom to the publisher saying that her daughter disappeared, with her infant son, and her car/baby's stroller were found atop a cliff but no bodies were found. She found this manuscript though. So does the manuscript give insight into the woman's disappearance? Der- not at all. It's just this woman who is basically an asshole telling of her dissatisfaction with her brand new marriage.

Back to the car crash of an article.

What are you thinking? If only they knew. Because they really didn't need my honesty. They wouldn't have liked it, and it would have made my path through the world they'd created for themselves all the more difficult.

This is called agreeableness. Something women have in spades over men. It applies equally to relations with women also. Gemmell is an addict for blaming internal mental processes on other people. Just one reason why she is unable to connect cause and effect.

What was I thinking? That I hated the sex perhaps. Giving blowjobs. That I felt smarter and stronger and more together than the man trying to penetrate my mind, but was never allowed to articulate this and if I did, I'd be punished for it.

Classic. 'Never allowed'. By who, Nikki? By who? I love how she has turned the victim spotlight straight onto herself. Feminism al dente.

What are you thinking? That I may well be coolly assessing you, actually. That the man in front of me could penetrate my body but could not penetrate my mind. It was a survival instinct. Because I knew that to be loud, abrasive, honest - to tell them what I was really thinking - could cost me jobs and relationships. So I quietened. Hid my true self.

A survival instinct for being the war bride that she is in her head. Freedom doesn't exist. No matter her choices, she will feel entrapped. Not an adult.

What are we thinking? Rage. And now we articulate it. Last year's MeToo movement was a galvanising moment of insurrection but I fear complacency. Fear that we'll drift back to where we were.

Ah, of course. She was always writing this for da womyn. It had nothing to do with her.

Because women have always been the butt of hate. From Eve, that original transgressor through to the lionesses of the MeToo movement, those women who are different, disobedient, audacious, outspoken, will be punished. Women pay the price for male insecurity, again and again. Our voice is our weapon. Deploy it. To lift up those good men who get it, and to shame those who don't. What are we thinking? Guess.

'What are we thinking? Guess' - No, Nikki. What are you thinking? Completely predictable, solipsistic trash. That's an easy guess.

Shame is a tactic against females. Men are not women, and her shame based strategy reveals all. She wants to be top bitch. The pattern is unrelenting.

She started the article on Greer, then rapidly proceeded to the trash bucket. This article will close on Greer :

Reflections on Marriage

An Adam Piggott post, on game in marriage, with touching humility. I found this quite inspiring, as there are many ideas I need to revisit.

… as an adult I reserve the right to alter or change the following positions based on new and relevant information as it comes to hand. Contrary to what many of you may think, it is not a sign of weakness to act in this way.

When I first read the original article , I was struck as to how odd it seemed. To be in so obvious agreement with general manosphere principles - then to put oneself above it. Anyhow, he has partly corrected in the revisiting which you can peruse yourself.

Onward to declarations :

I am a man-boy. Raised in a single mother, feminist household from birth. My father was already in a new relationship when I was conceived. I was a product of last minute hope, of re-kindling. Not to be.

The amount of hate and vitriol I encountered towards men in my youth was immense. I doubt this is unusual. Many writers whom I admire have been through the exact same process. It wasn't until my twenties that I discovered the baseless nature - getting to know my father well. The picture he paints is completely different to the one my mother scribbled. In his old age he tends to repeat himself. One such utterance is, 'If your mother wasnt so spiteful and hateful, I would have stayed with her.' She would often rage about odd things while driving, or at other random times.

I had been in a de-facto relationship for over 20 years. At times, I lived by myself - but it was omnipresent. We have one child - a fatal mistake not to have more, and earlier. Keeping her busy with younguns is mandatory. I assumed my partner was an adult, in a way above me. This was very wrong.

MGTOW is an endless font of knowledge to me. Although I have often tried to place myself above it - the truths are obvious. It is a lifestyle I will never be able to stomach. As such, I also tried to rationalize it away as failed men espousing their failure to the world. It is only through understanding that it is a philosophy, not a political movement that I came to appreciate it. It can be utilized in any fashion when it comes to women - without taking it literally.

I failed in 'marriage' (I considered de-facto and marriage to be the same thing - again, very wrong.)
I became comfortable, and working from home was a killer mistake. Frankly stupid. The need to game & frame is constant. I relaxed, and ignored this.

Arguing with the ex, after the fact, was pointless. She had clouded her mind and seemed a shadow of her previous self. The verbal garbage she would spout was a huge shock. The same feminist, regurgitated crap I have railed against since time immemorial.

It is fair to point externally for factors affecting marriage nowadays. Although our modern living standards are the best ever - the internal mind grapples with the same problems. Hypergamy & feminism are out of control. It makes the proper formation of a family incredibly difficult.

The easiest rationalization I have made is that it is all my fault. I understand this is not strictly true. It doesn't matter. It is very relieving to take this burden and completely alter my outlook on women in the future. My terms are all that matter. This is how it must be. This is how it will be until I fail again.

Weekend reading 8th Sept

Science ain't what it used to be. Following the mould of the James Damore/Google shenanigans comes this bombshell from Quillette.

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women.

Quite simple, really. A backlash is to be expected. It certainly didn't disappoint.

“Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day I was left flabbergasted. Working mathematicians are usually thrilled if even five people in the world read our latest article. Now some progressive faction was worried that a fairly straightforward logical argument about male variability might encourage the conservative press to actually read and cite a science paper?

Irony is not a strong point with these knuckleheads. The paper is here. Couching it in calm language, as per the abstract & conclusion, is no bulwark.

In my 40 years of publishing research papers I had never heard of the rejection of an already-accepted paper. And so I emailed Professor Senechal. She replied that she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation, Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky. 

A longer summary of the appalling behavior can be found here.

------------

Very much related, 'Doug Casey on the “Politically Correct” Movement' 

I believe I first heard the term “political correctness” used on a Saturday Night Live show back in about 1980. And I thought it was just a joke—like most of the things on SNL. But it turned out to be a real thing, and it’s been building momentum, for at least the last two generations. Where is it going to end? I’m not sure, but it’s just one more termite eating away at the foundations of Western civilization itself. People that go along with this stuff aren’t just crazy. They’re actually evil. They’re the same types who rallied around Robespierre during the French revolution, Lenin during the Russian Revolution, Hitler in ‘30s Germany, and Mao in China. It’s a certain personality type.

A shorter interview rant than usual from Casey. 

------------

Andrei Martyanov brings us a brief insight into European politics.

An interesting feature, Chemnitz is Eastern Germany, it is former DDR. It still has German heart beating in it--Soviet "occupation" you say? Recall Stalin's Hitlers come and go, Germany remains. That wasn't the case of West Germany which eventually was turned into multicultural emasculated cloaca.

The first linked video provides the unbelievable quote :

If a person offends you, you have the right to stab them.

Integration proceeding at rocket pace, no doubt. The second video has no subtitles, and is dull.

--------------

From Robert Stacy McCain, an amusing write-up of Twitter solipsism.

Do I know that this is what he was thinking? No, as I say, we only have her side of the story, and have no idea whether this guy was sincere in saying he felt “intimidated” by his lawyer-fiancée’s career. Whatever the case may be, however, he really lost nothing when she left, and has every reason to congratulate himself on dodging a bullet. Better to have her walk out before the wedding than to be crushed in a divorce.

Whatever your interpretation of this story is, at least it’s instructive as a surefire tactic to get rid of a woman: “You intimidate me!”

-------------

Tom Luongo offers a double shot on the craziness in Washington DC. 'Clarity on the Road to Civil War'

And what is clear to me now is that the Deep State is done whipping the progressive Left into a frenzy over Donald Trump. They are now openly handing them pitchforks and mustering for a hostile takeover of the Oval Office.

From 'Destroying Trump Destroys More than America' :

It was plainly evident to a majority of Americans that the drama on Capitol Hill was closer to an episode of Arrested Development than The West Wing.

We simply knew inserting our own Michael Bluth into the mix would allow the insanity burble to the surface for everyone to finally be okay with tearing it all down.

--------------

Following on from Ann Coulter's excellent piece on immigration,

The gleeful destruction of our country may be less annoying than the insults to our intelligence necessary to pull it off. 

 Comes a condensed (i.e. still huge) breakdown of Hoppe's view.

The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with "free" immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic one-man-one-vote rule.

Further reading on this issue, Steve Sailer from 2016.

It’s fascinating to reread Democrats debating immigration a couple of decades ago because the intellectual quality of their arguments was so much higher back then.

A Roy Beck article from 2009.

Ted Kennedy's immigration policies aren't even good for the immigrants who already are here.

Australia, I haven't forgotten thee.

Speaking to an “Invasion Day” protest rally in Melbourne this year, Aboriginal activist Tarneen Onus-Williams, screamed: “Fuck Australia,” expressing her hope “it burns to the ground.”

------------

I learnt about the Orthodox Church :

After Byzantium fell to the Ottomans, the Moscow — the Russian church — became the de facto great power in world Orthodoxy.

1843 Suffragettes in South Africa

The Boer women had stood side by side with their men in the battle against the Zulus.As a result, they had received a promise that they would be given a voice in all future matters of state.

Finally some humour to round it off. Happy weekend.

Best Articles of July

America Bombs, Europe gets the Refugees. That's Evil by Eric Zuesse

Research and links to blow your mind. Dive deep, my friend.

Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts

An excerpt from Financial Times on Chinese perceptions of Donald Trump.

The Butler Did It : 'Gender Trouble' and the Academic Roots of the Trans-Cult by Robert Stacy McCain

The end result of the plague sweeping through universities.

#BasedArab by Didact's Reach

An atheist proselytises on the virtues of Christianity to fight Islam.

Israel passes 'Nation State' Law Enshrining Jewish Supremacy

Jewish Militants see White Nationalists as Natural Allies (linked interview)

At least be informed.

When the US invaded Russia

A little known piece of history.

World Cup: FIFA wants broadcasters to show fewer images of attractive women at games

FIFA steps in a gigantic dogshit. Feminists appear not to notice.

The Dollar Dilemma : Where to From Here? by Ron Paul

The clear implications of financial engineering.

Please comment on your picks from July.

Red Pill Test

This was conceived as a way to challenge my family, very gently, on ideas many hold. To demonstrate that much thinking is in fact reactive. Non-intellectual. To achieve this is the entirety of the goal.

Transmitting information is secondary. The impetus must come from within. Much like the desire to explore a rabbit hole. In this spirit, the links provided are only partial answers. They may be rejected, or scoffed at. Where possible (and it wasnt with all), leftwing sites are preferenced.

Unfortunately, this will have to wait until Christmas. It is February now. Its a running joke to me that this is not uncommon for many families I know.

The intent is to ask the questions in a round table manner. Control & mask my reactions as with a poker game. Allow any & all arguments (particularly with each other) to run at will. Perform only the role of quiz master, tallying the answers. Noting where emotion took over, and breaking it all down upon completion.

Further, I do not expect the quiz will be completed. I do see childish tantrums (of adults) will work its magic in psychic defense. The questions begin exceedingly simple. Then ramp up in complexity. I have also kept it as short as possible.

Try it yourself if you wish. Online, I don't believe it will be effective. Perhaps I am wrong.

Section A : One Word Answers

1) Who did the South represent in the US civil war?

2) Which party was Abe Lincoln the leader of?

3) In the 2016 US election, who referenced race & sex in every campaign speech?

4) Do you identify as feminist?

Section B

5) What happened to the politics of the US South in the 1960s?

6) What is a welfare state?

7) What is the purpose of a formal education?

Damore vs Google

I had the displeasure of reading this today. The title was an obvious misnomer.
"Google is being sued for discriminating against men & women. Both can't be true."
In a pre-feminist world, I would agree. That ain't the world we live in now.

Also of amusement was the sub header, "Thought experiment". A rigorous gedankenexperiment was beyond the pale. This was surely to be trash dressed up as journalism. Woe.

"Many of Damore’s claims rest on the premise that Google was violating the law by maintaining "rigid" hiring quotas for women and minorities. But private companies are allowed to take race and gender into account during hiring in a flexible way, particularly to remedy groups’ underrepresentation in their workforces. And Damore’s more specific allegations about Google’s hiring practices don’t necessarily support his claim that they were too rigid."

Again, this would be plain as day in a sensible world. What we have here is ideological bullshit. Perfectly permissible to run with.

"But taking steps to ensure a diverse hiring pool is not the same as maintaining an illegal hiring quota, and encouraging women and racial minorities to compete for jobs isn’t the same as guaranteeing they will be hired."

It's like emptying out a slops bucket. The stench won't hit until it all runs out.

"Meanwhile, in the wage discrimination case, lawyers and the federal government are arguing that the company systematically discriminates against women when it comes to both pay and opportunities."

We all know what this means. A simple case would be a business of 9 women & 1 man. If the man is on above average pay and position - it is discrimination. Never mind the rest of the picture. Selective vision is crucial.

"but equal pay case plaintiff Kelli Wisuri alleges that women comprised half of some sales-related jobs because those were low-pay, low-status jobs into which Google channeled women, even when they were qualified for more advanced positions."

Notice the key omission of MORE qualified. This is an irrelevance in the feminist world. I want it - so give it to me.

"In other words, what Damore sees as evidence of anti-male sentiment, Wisuri cites as evidence of Google’s bias against women."

The two 'thought experiments' do not run under the same rules. Refer back to the hiring gymnastics.

"Re-reading Damore’s screed, it's easy to understand the negative reactions: Relying on a list of controversial or debunked studies, it argues against the idea that “gender gaps imply sexism,” instead suggesting that the men’s innate “higher drive for status” explains the dearth of woman in tech."

Hmm, more idiotic denial. These things cannot be acknowledged. To do so would send the pantomine into a horror movie. We cant scare away the next generation of luddites who have only argumentative qualities on their side. Technically, she is correct in her status argument - but it gives the game away. Women should be given status. Men must earn it.

"In other words, Google says that Damore was fired not for being a conservative, but for undermining his women colleagues and making it harder for them to do their jobs."

The job in question is the domination of Google via hypergamy. Frankly, I'd be happy to see it happen, and Google waste away into the cesspit of politics it has become. Good riddance.

James Damore and David Gudeman 161 page behemoth complaint