Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1

    The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Written by Kyojiro Kagenuma
    (Reviewed by Gabriel Knight)








    Let me first begin by saying that hunting down and reading the online materials regarding the various explanations on the Realization Hamster has been painstaking. However, many of the literature and commentary that I have read were indeed helpful even when I do not agree with some of them. I am going to take the opportunity here to address some of the commentary that I find relevant as a starting point to the Hamster discussion.

    The Rationalization Hamster is a combination of Self-Discrepancy, Cognitive Dissonance and Rationalization theories: AGREED - Yes and my theories actually support these theories as much as these theories support mine. Read them to get a better perspective of the Hamster. Kudos to bsutansalt of TRP and vote this up if youíre a member.

    The Hamster implies women are stupid: NOT EXACTLY - This one is taken from KittyHamilton -- a Blue Pill woman -- in the PurplePillDebate Subreddit. If you read my article on Solipsism I explain the difference between stupidity and having a solipsistic view. My definition of the Rationalization Hamster implies that women are insane and infantile to varying degrees; and I have given evidence why I can sufficiently claim so.

    The Hamster is a Logic Wheel: FALSE - If you read my article on Solipsism, you know why this is false. The Hamster is not spurred on logic; it is driven by emotions and desires thus are often irrational. The Hamster appeals to your feelings, not your rationale.

    Men have the Hamster too: WRONG - This myth is prevalent among Blue Pill and Red Pill women. The argument is that men rationalize their behavior as much as women. This is fucking bogus and Iíll tell you why.

    First, rationalization means giving excuses; this is what a child does and we forgive children because they donít know any better. Women give excuses far too often and they receive the Pussy Pass. But when men give excuses, we condemn him (as we should) for acting like a child.

    Men donít forgive other men for their excuses; we punish him when heís doing wrong. What men do is not rationalization but justification. We give evidence to attempt, prove and convince others that what we say, do or think is right. Rationalization is pleading to another personís emotional sense while justification is convincing anotherís intellectual sense; thatís the difference.

    And if you see any man and woman making excuses for his or her actions without just cause, reprimand them and donít let them get away with it or youíll just enabling their behavior.

    Spearheadís Article ĎWhy the Realization Hamster is Right:í RECOMMENDED it is actually a good read but I disagree on one point the writer Ethic (2013) came to. He implied that the goal of arguing the Hamster is to win; understandable but no. The goal is not to win against an opponent who will never admit defeat; the goal is to make them feel defeated.

    You can use the Hamster to your advantage (in game): WHATEVER - This one is made by veggie_girl in TRP. Yeah, I donít care.

    Now that we have covered that, I will move on to explain what I believe the Hamster really is. Now I admit that as far as the theories in this series go, this one is the hardest to pin down simply because there hasnít been anyone to have really studied it.

    This is my attempt to investigate the Hamster but much like a Black Hole swimming in the ocean of the vast universe, you can only speculate Ė with some approximation and within a reasonable margin of errors Ė the nature of the Hamster in the subterranean and convoluted recesses of the female mind.

    I will admit, that I might be entirely wrong and making a fool of myself but I donít think I am.

    Regardless, I think this article is a good starting point to really understand what the Hamster is, how it operates, why does it seem invincible and how does it sustain itself with the added bonus of some personal suggestions on how to fight it.

    The Number of the Beast






    The Relationship Between Female Egocentrism, Narcissism and Solipsism



    Let us recap.

    In parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series I explained with evidence of apparent Female Psychoses. From there, we know that most if not all women are Egocentric, Narcissistic and Solipsistic to varying degrees and these 3 mental conditions are related and support each other as shown in the diagram above.

    The relationship between these 3 separate but similar mental conditions is crucial because it highlights the psychology of the female mind and the Rationalization Hamster is born from that. So, if you have not read the previous parts of this series, I suggest you do or you will not be able to fully appreciate the nature of the Hamster.

    So what definitions do we have when people talk about the Hamster? One definition says that

    íIt is the tendency for women to use rationalization to resolve mental conflict and avoid cognitive dissonance. The core mechanism that allows women to say one thing and do different a thing.í
    The Red Pill




    This definition is too general and implies that men have the Hamster too which men do not. The problem with this definition is the Ďcore mechanismí part of it. I explained in previous articles that women say and do different things because of the naturally occurring egocentric nature of Relativistic Hedonism which is apparent in all children who have solipsistic view of the world.

    Also, this definition implies that the Hamster rationalizes first before the woman acts and this is contradictory. If we look at how children behave, they will act first before thinking and when they have committed a faux pas, they would then give excuses. Rationalizing only comes after a misdeed and not before hence the above definition is inaccurate.

    The Private Man (2011) probably offered the best explanation of the Hamster;

    The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the womanís thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decisions, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity. When the hamster rationalizes successfully, a woman can divorce herself from the consequences of her bad decision or behavior.
    My only criticism of this however, is that it is an explanation of what the Hamster does, not what it is. Despite that, Private Man has laid down some fine observations regarding the Hamster.

    For one, he observed that the excuses become more incoherent when women behave erratically, thus we can safely presuppose that the Hamster is a product of a larger and systemic female psychosis.

    Second, Private Man observed that after the Hamster successfully rationalizes a misdeed, the woman self-vindicates from the results of her actions; this statement here is key and I agree with this observation for it alludes to the core purpose of the Hamster.

    You see, we know women are crazy and that they rationalize their madness but we never asked why women act insane; we always assume that they were born that way (which is controversially true) but what need does a woman have to be mentally ill when we know they are capable of critical and rational thought. This is the contradiction and I believe all of this goes back to the female psyche of Egocentrism, Narcissism and Solipsism.

    Hence, I hypothesize that below is what the Hamster really is.




    Kyoís Model of the Female Psychosis: The Rationalization Hamster


    Please note that even though I tried my best to make it sensible, this is still a working model. If anyone would like to enhance this, be my guest. Note, that I wonít covering the actual excuses the Hamster gives; we have all heard them and like what Private Man rightly observed, the end result is always ďitís not my fault.Ē What I would like to do is expand on The Private Manís observation.

    Schism
    In part 1 of my series, I stated that for the Egocentric, they can only see their point of view and hence are often unable to accost or acquiesce with the facts of reality. And again this is the key purpose of the Hamster; the egocentric is unable to reconcile her own wants and desires with the truth of reality and so she makes excuses for the purpose of escaping reality and retreat to the only place she knows to be safe for her which is her own mind.

    What the Rationalization Hamster is all about, is creating the illusion of a Safe Space for the woman.

    That is why women are solipsistic because they feel safe in their own minds where they do not ever doubt themselves. Women fear reality and they build defences and mechanisms to protect them from the harshness of the real world.

    Being unable to cope with real life, they would obviously feel ashamed of themselves but they cannot handle shame because that would imply being worthless which would cause them to doubt themselves and so, they rationalize their thoughts, speech and behavior in an attempt to convince themselves that what they had done is justified for them.

    And if you look at my model, you will notice that I painted the center black. This represents the womanís Insecurities. The womanís shame led to her Narcissism, her doubt for the world led to Solipsism and her fear for reality led to Egocentrism.

    Women subconsciously realize that they are wrong because in the real world dysfunctional behavior is unacceptable for adults but they refuse to accept their own weaknesses. So instead of dealing their insecurities like an adult should, they nurtured an extraordinary beast to protect them from those feelings of insecurities.

    The Hamsterís true purpose then is to protect the womanís Insecurities; from her fear of reality, from her own shame of her self-worth and from the doubt that she has in her mind. The Rationalization Hamster is the sentinel of a womanís Insecurities.

    And because the woman believes that only she is right and thus reality is wrong, and she cannot cope with her own insecurities, she makes effort to change reality to make it conform to her mental vision of a Safe Space in the real world. Feminism and Gynocentrism is that vehicle for her to realize that fantasy and to turn every place she inhabits into a safe space for her, even if it intrudes on others.

    Feminism here means "Women Only" or put it solipsistically "The Woman Only" or "I Only." Gynocentrism here means "For Women" or solipsistically "For the Woman" or "For Me." How feminists were able to fool all women into participating in this facade is by using the Hamster to appeal to other womenís insecurities against a make believe enemy that is vague but at the same time readily identifiable; the Patriarchy.

    The Patriarchy is a delusion made to represent the real world; a world full of Unsafe Spaces for the woman, a world that would humiliate her and make her doubt her own worth and image.

    And why do this fear, doubt and shame persists in the woman? It all goes back to part 2 of my series. I mentioned that men have good self-confidence and self-image because we evaluate our worth according to the work we do and not how people perceive us.

    Men donít give a fuck about what people think of us as long as we enjoy what we do and are good at it. Women, because they are afraid of the real world, they fear being embarrassed and fearful to admit that they are not all what they assume to be, found comfort and attention in the company of others and translated this as self-image and self-worth hence, they escaped the need to improve themselves.

    This means that the dysfunction and malfunction of women will never be resolved; there is and always will be a disparity between the female Safe Space and the real world. That is why women continue to want for more stuff Ė resources, status, security etcetera -- because these things do not fix the real problem, which is for those very women to grow up.

    They need to fend for themselves, confront the hardships of the world, learn to be humble and foster a strong confident self-worth that is not tied with public perception. To do that, we men need to stop pandering women and start making them compete Ė really compete Ė with us in the real world.

    We need to treat women like they are true competitive rivals. They need to work hard to get food, shelter and the comforts of life that they all take for granted.

    Wake Up
    Now that we have identified the Hamster we can devise strategies to defeat it and no, there is no polite way of doing it. The good news is MGTOW and Herbivore Men have correctly guessed how to defeat the Hamster and have taken the necessary steps.

    These are merely my suggestions on how to defeat the Hamster and though I have found that it worked for me, this is anecdotal at best and at worst isolated and circumstantial. Please consider first if it applies to your situation and if it does not, abandon my suggestions, form your own and share with as many people as you can.

    In my previous 3 articles you might have noticed that I did not address how to deal with each mental condition; that is because the best time to deal with egocentrism, narcissism and solipsism is when you are young. Since we are very late to the party, there was no point in me telling you how to deal with childrenís childish behavior. And since they had ample time to develop, all 3 mental conditions have consolidated into a tight mechanism.

    The Hamster is superbly proficient in deflecting, defending and retaliating against mental assaults, reason and criticism because all 3 of egocentrism, narcissism and solipsism are acting as a single unit and its rationalization is supported by society in the form of Feminism and Gynocentrism which include Misandry and the Pussy Pass. So you cannot use a single strategy to defeat the Hamster; it has to be a united and concerted siege campaign.

    If you look at the model, you can see that Feminism does not contribute directly to any of the mental conditions. This is because Feminism is simply a politicized manifestation of the Female Psychoses; it is a bigger version the Female Psychoses that only contributes to the expansion of the female Safe Space with the help of Gynocentrism. And Gynocentrism feeds the Hamster with Narcissistic Supply and the Pussy Pass.

    The female solipsism forms the basic tenets of Feminism that in turn, encourages society to be more gynocentric. Gynocentrism enables womenís maladaptive patterns of behavior and cognition thus allowing womenís narcissism to exploit men which is to serve Feminism. So, this reciprocity is analogous to the often irrational but highly effective female rationalization; you got to admit, this is some wicked ass genius system the Hamsters developed.

    I am sure you already guessed what our strategy to defeat the Hamster is but let me just spell it out. Our first priority, which has been reiterated by MGTOW and is practiced by Herbivore Men, is to stop feeding the Hamster and starve it i.e. No More Pussy Pass, no more attention, no more pandering and no more vagina for money.

    We need to stop being exploited by women either for slave labor or as an emotional tampon. We need to cut off the Narcissistic Supply just as the Herbivore Men did in Japan and women will be concern because they have just lost their meal ticket.

    The second strategy of our campaign which MGTOWs have correctly applied is the relentless assault on the beliefs held by Feminism. What we want to do is give more men the Red Pill because once they realize that they are being fooled, exploited and used; they will stop adhering to Gynocentrism and thus stop feeding the Hamster as well.

    Killing Me Softly
    How do we do this to the individual woman?

    Well, firstly no response is the best response. Do not pay them any more attention than they are due. Donít give them gifts, donít gossip with them and donít flirt with them in life or in social media. Just Donít. If you work with women then just focus on the work and not on the women.

    Then, make the women compete in the real world. Remember, you are designed as a Human Doing and are capable of fantastic feats that women find difficult to achieve. Donít waste your efforts by pandering to women and doing what they want you to do; let them do it themselves and force them to work hard.

    Make them feel the pain of working the same amount of overtime that you are doing. I assure you that over a long period of time, she will wake up from that experience and if she does not, then that is the kind of woman you do not want to be associated with anyway.

    You also need to start reprimanding women when you see them indulging in their depraved feministic beliefs. Remember, feminism encourages gynocentrism and gynocentrism is the exploitation of you. So you do not want women to be spreading propaganda that would enslave you to them.

    Argue with them if they have a misandric idea and prove to them that they are wrong by using examples, logic and reasoning. They will disagree with you Ė they are solipsistic after all Ė but the point is not to win the argument; the point is to humble them.

    Their Hamster will start to spin the wheel violently to find the most absurd counter-argument that has nothing to do with the topic; ridicule and patronize them when they resort to this. You will know that you have gotten to them when they retreat from the argument and start resorting to cheap insults and sarcasm to try and shame you due to their Arrogance and Envy; respond by pointing out their childish behavior.

    Remember to engage the fight in a calm and rational manner; take the intellectual and rational high ground so that when they become irrational, you can display their melodramatic, erratic and disturbing psychosis to the public. Pick your fights wisely; do not engage in a fight without taking documented evidence or she can claim sexual harassment.

    It is best to engage battles in public and record them so that you can disseminate the evidence for everyone to see. Always let women escalate the fight but if it seems that the woman can actually engage in a meaningful discourse, respond in kind. Otherwise make sure you expose womenís debauchery.

    The reason we are doing this is because we want to penetrate the Hamster and target the womanís Insecurities; that is the reason the Hamster is running. Force the woman to confront her insecurities, she needs to be taught humility, make her feel ashamed of herself, make her doubt her own abilities, make her truly assess herself objectively and make her grow up.

    Reward the woman if she succeeds in maturing and battle her again if she regresses. Again this is not a one-time event; it is a long continuous siege campaign so you really need to consider which fights you want to invest your time and effort in.

    Still, practice makes perfect and at least in the beginning especially in social media, you are going to need to engage in a lot of fights to learn what to say and how to say it.

    Lastly, I have to address on engaging the Feminazis; DONíT. Not unless you have an elaborate sure-winning strategy but even then, you need to consider the cost and the outcome. Feminazis are fanatic believers of Feminism; they have conviction in their beliefs and they wonít change.

    Whatís worse, there are Feminazis who are mature, working, rational, sensible but are just discriminatory against men. Their Hamster is not normal, itís a frankenhamster and I donít have a strategy on how to deal with those unfortunately.

    Iíll be sure to let you know if I come up with anything. If anyone has anything more to add; such as other strategies and tactics that they have seen or tried, I implore you to share them with everyone.

    I thank you in advance to everyone for reading this and I hope you enjoyed this series.


    Reference


    Ethic (2013). Why the Rationalization Hamster is Right. [online] Jun 20 2013 available at The Spearhead http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/06...ster-is-right/ [accessed Mar 11, 2013]

    The Private Man (2011) The Rationalization Hamster is Immortal. [online] Dec 12, 2011 available at theprivateman http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2...-now-immortal/ [accessed Mar 13, 2014]
    Last edited by jagrmeister; March 16, 2014 at 5:27 PM. Reason: corrections and blah Mar 16, 2014

  2. #2
    Senior Member College MGTOW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    287
    Reputation
    1058
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    I'm hearing more and more calls to action. Is this a recent phenomenon, Kyo?

    One of my plans in the nearer term is to join an Aikido school. Steven Seagal looks like a motherfucking badass when he's pushed into such a position. I've been wondering if perhaps such a concept - Letting the attacker expend the energy while the defender weaves out of the way to proceed to exploit the result - has a philosophical equal? Is there a way to simply let the feminist make an absolute fool of themselves, and then exploit the resulting position in a manner clear enough to show anyone but the most idiotic that they are truly in the wrong? If so, where would I want to read more on the psychology of doing such?

  3. #3

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by College MGTOW View Post
    I'm hearing more and more calls to action. Is this a recent phenomenon, Kyo?

    One of my plans in the nearer term is to join an Aikido school. Steven Seagal looks like a motherfucking badass when he's pushed into such a position. I've been wondering if perhaps such a concept - Letting the attacker expend the energy while the defender weaves out of the way to proceed to exploit the result - has a philosophical equal? Is there a way to simply let the feminist make an absolute fool of themselves, and then exploit the resulting position in a manner clear enough to show anyone but the most idiotic that they are truly in the wrong? If so, where would I want to read more on the psychology of doing such?
    This is thought-provoking, thank you college_mgtow,

    (Corrections and Clarifications in red. I'm actually sick right now and my brain is not working right so I'm sorry if I sound like an asshole).


    I don't have proof of it, but I think there is an inflow of new blood. 3 months ago, the movement was slowing down, youtubers were getting harassed, the old forum was collapsing and changes were taking place but the accumulated effect of it all meant that people started taking notice of the message and new people came in that wanted to fight.

    For example, Sandman started 6 months ago I think, he's relatively new and his videos are really influential. Also, I know there are a lot of Malaysians and Singaporeans lurking around MGTOW youtubers just learning and absorbing things. It's crucial that we build with this momentum and I intend to do exactly that myself. The reason why I'm writing is to translate it in multiple languages and then disseminate it in Asia but it's hard work; I'm thinking it will be a year to get it off the ground.

    About this

    I've been wondering if perhaps such a concept - Letting the attacker expend the energy while the defender weaves out of the way to proceed to exploit the result - has a philosophical equal
    Fantastic.

    If you're talking martial arts, many eastern martial arts deal with concepts of hard force and soft force e.g. Karate and Shaolin Fist is 'strong' while Judo and Tai Chi is 'soft'. I presume many westerners believe that eastern martial arts is about fighting but it's not only about that; martial arts in Asia is a lifestyle philosophy that can be applied it in our daily lives. The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi and Sun Tzu's masterpiece Art of War is also like this (clarification: I meant to say these books also have ideas that are applicable in our daily life). The problem is, it can sound sappy when talking about it in English - it's a translation problem.

    Gandhi's passive resistance also has a basis in this as some aspects of Buddhism. I don't delve in it because much of these philosophical concepts are based in eastern spirituality and religion and I know some westerners are skeptical of it. But what you say does have precedence. I would start with Gandhi, then maybe Buddhism (no need to read up the spiritual parts, just the concepts) as well as The Book of Five Rings and Art of War and these are revered text by many. Also, I think learning Aikido is definitely recommended. In fact, I think you may have given me ideas; thank you

    Wikipedia is a good start although it's just a start and people do need to always fact-check Wiki. For Western philosophies regarding passive resistance; yeah I got nothing but I am intrigued. I will definitely look it up.

    By the way, Steven Seagal is bad ass
    Last edited by Kyojiro Kagenuma; March 16, 2014 at 2:54 PM. Reason: Edit for clarity; not feeling too awesome this day.

  4. #4

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Did it all go wrong when girls' extracurricular groups (like the Guides etc) started only referencing themselves as opposed to judging their behaviours and obligations by an external standard? (... do my duty to God and to the Queen changed to "be true to myself")

    Just that I remember there used to be that sense of obligation to other than oneself...

  5. #5

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Brilliant work.

    How do you feel about engaging feminists via social media with the intent to speak to the blue pill or purple pills who are lurking?

  6. #6
    Administrator jagrmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,368
    Reputation
    15056
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad_Nine View Post
    Brilliant work.

    How do you feel about engaging feminists via social media with the intent to speak to the blue pill or purple pills who are lurking?
    Kyo will have his own view, but my opinion is that there is almost no Action which is less effective than inaction. In other words, rarely will anything you do to spread the red pill be counterproductive. In that spirit, the inertia should be to Do. Once you decide you want to spread the good word, then you have to think about where time is best spent. In general, I've found attempts to logically debate them pointless and may not have much value for lurkers either. You can see a mildly humorous example of it here.

    There are some excellent ways to "troll" well on those forums. One great troll I saw was when feminists were cackling at men buying fleshlights. A man responded, "Yes, that's true, good one. But I also read that dildos outsell fleshlights 10:1. What about that? Cheers."

    One never knows what will work until one tries. If you're so inclined, stop by our Action sub-forum. We need brave souls and ideas.

    Some of you may be wondering -- who is this Jagrmeister guy? Have a look at some of my posts from MGTOW Forums--> Jagr Archive (collection of my articles)



    Stuff I do: Box, Surf, Tennis (3.5/4.0), Downhill skiing. I lift 4x a week and have for 10 years.
    Stuff I like: Comedy shows, NBA, Reading Non-Fiction (sociology, philosophy, biographies).
    Random facts: I admire Steve Jobs. Favorite travel spots (Russia, Central America).
    *If you're on Twitter, follow me: MGTOW_Jagr

  7. #7
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7418
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyojiro Kagenuma View Post
    I don't have proof of it, but I think there is an inflow of new blood. 3 months ago, the movement was slowing down, youtubers were getting harassed, the old forum was collapsing and changes were taking place but the accumulated effect of it all meant that people started taking notice of the message and new people came in that wanted to fight.

    For example, Sandman started 6 months ago I think, he's relatively new and his videos are really influential.
    There is definitely proof of it Kyo...

    MGTOW Google Trends.jpg

  8. #8

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    In general, I've found attempts to logically debate them pointless and may not have much value for lurkers either.
    Such action is best if you just want to troll them. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. If your posts aren't moderated into oblivion, you'll be attacked and shamed to the point where any logic gets lost in the flames. It's good for a laugh, but not good for spreading the word.

  9. #9
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7418
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by Ithit View Post
    Such action is best if you just want to troll them. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. If your posts aren't moderated into oblivion, you'll be attacked and shamed to the point where any logic gets lost in the flames. It's good for a laugh, but not good for spreading the word.
    It can help other lurkers. If you keep your cool, and your adversary loses their shit, you can convince the middle-of-the-road... Or at least throw sand into the gears of your adversary's recruiting efforts. They'll still attract the rabid haters and the impressionable idiots, but the clever lurker won't associate with your adversary if you can make them look like a nutter. So you won't deny your adversary all recruits, but you will help deny them the highest quality ones.

  10. #10
    Senior Member College MGTOW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    287
    Reputation
    1058
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyojiro Kagenuma View Post
    I don't have proof of it, but I think there is an inflow of new blood. 3 months ago, the movement was slowing down, youtubers were getting harassed, the old forum was collapsing and changes were taking place but the accumulated effect of it all meant that people started taking notice of the message and new people came in that wanted to fight.

    For example, Sandman started 6 months ago I think, he's relatively new and his videos are really influential. Also, I know there are a lot of Malaysians and Singaporeans lurking around MGTOW youtubers just learning and absorbing things. It's crucial that we build with this momentum and I intend to do exactly that myself.
    I'm proof of this myself. I avoided the title because I had to investigate it first, but on my time. Once I saw that it was more of a meeting of minds, whose ideas feature sharing the experiences we've had, distilling wisdom into a more traditional form with nearly infinite lifetimes afforded by our media (Storytelling and writing, the pen-ultimate form of immortality), similarities in a very small number of core concepts and space to tolerate others, that's when I begun to say, "Okay, so this must really be the proper label to what I feel."

    Why didn't I join earlier with this passion? It's not new. I've been doing this for many years, but I didn't have the kind of discipline I'm now capable of, to be able to give the kind of righteous support other men need. It's only been in the past year I learned that to be the best kind of leader of men, I must be able to take on hostilities and responsibility for things I didn't do but those under my charge did. That takes a certain level of insanity few possess - or should possess - anymore. If I'm capable of doing that, I can do anything. Including leading good and righteous men and showing them the difference between them and I is nothing but tangible things they can perform in their lives, and become an example of someone who not only doesn't shy them from hard work, but doesn't lie to them that it is, and don't shame them for doing it.

    Also, Sandman brought me here, as he remarked on the closing of MGTOW Forums. He is very easy to digest for West American natives, as he speaks in a ridiculously cool tone but without losing all of his intention and stress. Even when he seems angry, he sounds like a pussycat next to Barbar and Stardusk. But it hits me differently, when I listen to Sandman I hear the very same screaming I'm suppressing. It might be how I was raised to reserve my hostility (being as I was the tallest and wider than my peers in my childhood), but I hear me in Sandman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyojiro Kagenuma View Post
    I presume many westerners believe that eastern martial arts is about fighting but it's not only about that; martial arts in Asia is a lifestyle philosophy that can be applied it in our daily lives. The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi and Sun Tzu's masterpiece Art of War is also like this.
    It's a valid presumption, and it's something that comes out of our media. Forgive them, they're not bad, just stupid. During my youth, while I was finding my own religion (Theism has never been a stable thing for me), I had deeply traversed theology and realized myself that martial arts were not merely strikes and rolls, but a lifestyle. If I needed an art of battle, that's what Lacrosse provided me. Martial arts are not strictly about the art of battle. My own chi - if you will - reflects a naturally 'softer' style. However, the difference now is 'soft' stands for something different for me. Actually, I would dare say Aikido (I kept calling it Jujitsu; I was close but off by a few dozen years, I think I read) made more sense for me later in how it's applied. And now, I'm pretty sure I can actually keep up with the judicious rituals involved, now that I have the basis for the discipline required. Like school, I'd love to learn it to improve the already good basis I have, rather than rely on it to teach me in its entirety.

    The trick I had with Gandhi's philosophy is I often ran into points where the point for action was never taken, where self-defense from someone looking to make an assault was never taken. Sure, I can see where you can exploit this later, but it isn't compliant with a culture and lifestyle that demands immediate reciprocal strikes. I'm no longer willing to take the punches. I'm no longer willing to stand by as other men do. However, I'd be happy to dance around them and let them exhaust themselves against my fellow and I. And when they do, I'd like to be able to metaphorically stand aside and let them eat mud.

    Also, I bought The Book of Five Rings, and it's on my reading list for next quarter. It would be now, but instead I had to waste my time with some futurist whackjob journalist's book for English.

    When it comes to Western philosophy on passive resistance, it is very difficult since we reward overt action and risk. Passive resistance is seen as a weakness. However, we do reward - at times - unique resistances. But rarely does our resistance ever stay completely passive, as greedy people (the kinds we offer as examples) will be happy to prey on that. Beta male providers are an example of a passive resistance (they still protect their family from outsiders, except that the outsider is within their own home and heart and they miss THAT one) that greedy women and alpha men prey upon. I think the answer lies in a blending of the concepts, and I think Aikido could provide some unique perspectives.

    I'm going to take up Aikido starting next quarter, whole-hog. I'm certain that if I pick up anything useful to answer this question in the process, as well as anything else, you can be assured I will put it somewhere in this forum somewhere.

  11. #11

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Firstly I just want to say that this was an absolutely brilliant series Kyo, I can't emphasise enough just how impressive it is. Especially liked the mix of references and the contrast in writing styles (lowbrow vs highbrow if you will). Even aside from the marvellous content this challenge of formal writing in the 21st century has intrigued me and you have struck a great balance between an academic and a blog post style. So it's only natural that it would appear on a forum and not in either a periodical or a blog!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyojiro Kagenuma View Post
    You see, we know women are crazy and that they rationalize their madness but we never asked why women act insane; we always assume that they were born that way (which is controversially true) but what need does a woman have to be mentally ill when we know they are capable of critical and rational thought. This is the contradiction and I believe all of this goes back to the female psyche of Egocentrism, Narcissism and Solipsism.
    Quote Originally Posted by alcockell View Post
    Did it all go wrong when girls' extracurricular groups (like the Guides etc) started only referencing themselves as opposed to judging their behaviours and obligations by an external standard? (... do my duty to God and to the Queen changed to "be true to myself")

    Just that I remember there used to be that sense of obligation to other than oneself...
    Re; the above quotes - I favour Vilar's interpretation of the cause, found in this excerpt from 'The Manipulated Man':

    Quote Originally Posted by Vilar
    A woman, as we have already said, is, in contrast to a man, a human being
    who does not work. One might leave it at that, for there isn't much more to say about her,
    were the basic concept of 'human being' not so general and inexact in embracing
    both 'man' and 'woman.'

    Life offers the human being two choices: animal existence - a lower order of life - and
    spiritual existence. In general, a woman will choose the former and opt for physical
    well-being, a place to breed, and an opportunity to indulge unhindered in her
    breeding habits.

    At birth, men and women have the same intellectual potential; there is no primary
    difference in intelligence between the sexes. It is also a fact that potential left to
    stagnate will atrophy. Women do not use their mental capacity: they deliberately let it
    disintegrate. After a few years of sporadic training, they revert to a state of
    irreversible mental torpor.

    Why do women not make use of their intellectual potential? For the simple reason
    that they do not need to. It is not essential for their survival. Theoretically it is
    possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still
    be considered an acceptable member of society.
    What's great about this interpretation of the cause of the mentality of woman, is it asserts the evolutionary necessity for it, but not in any overdetermined biological sense. Which is great because it doesn't allow counter arguments using exceptional examples (as much as NAWALT logic should be dismissed regardless). It might be technically wrong in biological terms (equality at birth etc.) but in being wrong it emphasises the at least theoretical, or technical capacity of women to eschew hypoagency as a conscious choice. Whether or not you believe this is possible on a meta scale is a different question entirely, but the blame is placed on society and women themselves, rather than chalking it all up to biology. As an explanation for the 'Why?' of the feminine mentality it has many strategic uses.

  12. #12

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad_Nine View Post
    Brilliant work.

    How do you feel about engaging feminists via social media with the intent to speak to the blue pill or purple pills who are lurking?
    Hello Chad

    Short answer is I don't; I've been there, done that. What I do now is engage Blue Pillers and Purple Pillers in real life. Just today I met with a friend who is a Blue Piller and I gave him the Red Pill;

    He took it

    I didn't get angry or bitter unlike my posts (lol) but we calmly talked about his relationship with his family and the women he is involved with and he saw what I was saying. He agreed and he told me that, "It's really good to talk about this with someone and not think I'm crazy."

    I even told him about the Hamster -- we don't have a term for that here -- but after I described it, his eyes shimmered as if a lightbulb inside his head lit up. It was amazing to watch.

    And I'll continue to do so. As for lurkers, they've read, they can agree or disagree that's their choice.

    And thank you everyone for the kind response

  13. #13
    Senior Member flailer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Here, There, Most Anywwhere
    Posts
    811
    Reputation
    2695

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyojiro Kagenuma View Post
    ..... What I do now is engage Blue Pillers and Purple Pillers in real life. Just today I met with a friend who is a Blue Piller and I gave him the Red Pill;

    He took it

    I've been having really good luck spreading the Red Pill (here on the west coast of USA it isnt hard as the Leftist-Fems are all over the F'n place)

    But, I MUST add that the one person I wish to wake up more than anyone, several years my junior, he reacts VERY negatively to the topic. That said, I am sure he hears me, and i believe it makes a small dent, even if he is in denial.

    Any advice would be appreciated.

  14. #14
    Junior Member Aristotle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Euboea, Greece
    Posts
    27
    Reputation
    55

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    This whole thing is absolutely fantastic - should be done up in a PDF format as a White Paper ;-D Excellent work man !!!

  15. #15

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Quote Originally Posted by flailer View Post
    I've been having really good luck spreading the Red Pill (here on the west coast of USA it isnt hard as the Leftist-Fems are all over the F'n place)

    But, I MUST add that the one person I wish to wake up more than anyone, several years my junior, he reacts VERY negatively to the topic. That said, I am sure he hears me, and i believe it makes a small dent, even if he is in denial.

    Any advice would be appreciated.
    I only wanted to do a quick comment but....

    suggestions on how to engage the matrix

  16. #16

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    I have two remarks regarding this article.

    1. Improvment Suggestion
    : Adding node relation labels / verbs at every arrow

    Your diagrams were interesting and engaging to me from the first look even thought i started at part 4 and my context might have been limited. However even now, after reading all four parts I still find it difficult to read them in human language, that is, using sentences. If you added a verb at every arrow, it would be possible to read the diagrams in chunks, every chunk consisting of two nodes and one relation

    for example:
    (phenomenon1)--[enables]-->(phenomenon2),
    (phenomenon2)--[fuels]-->(phenomenon3).

    You'd have to choose the relation names carefully, so that every connection maintains its sense regardless the path one is taking.

    2. Critical remark regarding the form of the whole text
    Reading your deep analyses and insights kept me in anticipation of what it leads to. The longer I read the closer I get to the promised solution: a tactic. And when I read the final part I had mixed feelings for it. Let me break it down for you:

    * Your tactic towards a rationalizing, solipsistic, narcisistic egocentric humans is good. I developed a very similar protocol against pseudointelectuals feeling entitled to expres unsubstantiated / unfalsifiable claims dressed up as something protected from criticism. I offer discussion rules and when they are not agreed or broken I call them on their fallacies and trolling, ridiculing them in public. I trust you see how this lines up with what you say.

    * This is an elegant tactic towards all humans behaving this, way not only women. I understand why you put focus on such women when it could be generalized towards all such humans - you explicitly said that you use such generalisations because they apply to women especially. They do, but that does not change that this is unfair towards women.

    * Not only it would be less unfair if whenever you talk about shitty humans, you would not limit their demographic to women. This text would actually become more valuable because it offers tools to deal with such behaviour not only in women and thus could be read, applied and quoted by a wider group of readers.

    I don't expect you will gender-edit your article. I only offer you my insight (although I think it would be beneficial to all. It would seemingly deprive the readers of the promised tactic towards women (seemingly to someone not seing them as humans), but it would deliver a valuable wider perspective).

    Whenever you talk on behaviour of certain (but not nearly all) women, that can be easily recognized as behaviour of certain humans - don't limit the readers imagination to women unnecesarily. When you discredit a certain demographic for shitty behaviour, do not draw the line, or let your readers imagine you draw the line where there is no line.

    Respect for your piece of solid thinking and writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeijaFlor
    Note to "Involunarily Human," or more properly to anyone else who might read this post: Nice try, at dressing up your trollish snark-shots as 'constructive criticism.' (Examples are shown in this color.) No, we won't 'gender-edit' our article, but we will edit your apparent gender out of our member-list. You are banned. Take it back to the Agony Columns at the Huffington Puffington Post.
    Last edited by BeijaFlor; November 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM.

  17. #17

    Re: The Female Psychosis part 4: The Rationalization Hamster

    Great work putting it all together. Food for thought.


Similar Threads

  1. The Female Psychosis part 3: Solipsism
    By Kyojiro Kagenuma in forum Best of MGTOW
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 18, 2014, 2:29 PM
  2. Hamster Experieince Project.
    By Neo in forum Lounge
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: March 18, 2014, 2:52 AM
  3. The Female Psychosis part 1: Egocentrism
    By Kyojiro Kagenuma in forum Best of MGTOW
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 16, 2014, 3:09 PM
  4. The Female Psychosis part 2: Narcissism
    By Kyojiro Kagenuma in forum Best of MGTOW
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 16, 2014, 12:45 AM
  5. Feeling Fortunate (part 1)
    By fantasma in forum New Member Intros
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 21, 2014, 6:54 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •