There was a process I went through with several of my female partners and friends. Simply because they were saying things around me that either had to stop or I would completely walk away from them. Also, I knew that they were going to have problems with men for the rest of their lives unless I actively attempted to help them understand something: that they hated men. I didn’t say that to them from the beginning, and in fact I’d start by verbally saying the following or having them read it. With no introductions to the topic, no in lanes for them to know what I’m getting at, no indications of why we were having the discussion.
“It would require either a profound lack of humanity or a deeply ingrained nearly pathological hatred of a (Enter Identity Here: race, creed, color) when a person can look at truly horrific things being to do them and find sadistic joy and even laughter in the victim’s pain and suffering. There is no psychological profiling which excuses this behavior as anything but proof of a deranged personality disorder or conditioned pathological hatred. In psychological profiling, there’s no other way to define or categorize the ability to look at the pain and suffering of someone who’s been victimized in horrendous ways and find humor in the fact that they are wallowing in anguish.
To look at things like activities of the RUF in Sierra Leone where knives or machetes were used to permanently disfigure the victims; gruesomely attempting to inflict as much psychological and emotional torment as possible. Acts of heinous barbarism which leave a person so mentally, emotionally and physical scarred that they themselves are no longer able to function as a normal and natural human being. The victims of such brutality are often so mentally and emotionally tormented that they often resort to suicide, perhaps not right away – but with the passage of time the post traumatic stress combined with their inability to function as a normal person in conjunction with the constant night terrors. Replaying the events which forever marked them: becomes far too painful to bare any longer.
The lack of empathy it requires to look at such human suffering: abhorrent degrees of pain and anguish too great for a person to withstand, and find outright pleasure in it to the extent that it is in fact a source of humor. To look at rape, torture and mutilations and find not the concept of barbarity, but the pain and suffering of the victims, to be a source of delighted laughter and even mock the victims: requires either an absolute lack of humanity or a profoundly deranged pathological hatred of the victim.”
In my private one on one sessions with people, I’d read that to them and ask if they agree or disagree. 100% of people agreed, emphatically even. When they read the above or I say it verbally to them they are absolutely shocked and horrified at the idea that someone could be so perverse and sadistic to laugh at those kinds of cruelty. They can’t possible imagine what kind of person could do that. They react as if I verbally assaulted them, they become emotional about it as if they want to go find the person who could laugh at such things because the existence of that person offends them. Some people literally become outraged and start speaking very aggressively, they can’t agree enough and they can’t despise the people I’m talking about enough.
Then after verbally explaining all of that, or having them read it: I’d ask them, being that the nature of the barbarities above are so horrific, and so profoundly inhumane as to be considered in-human: is there any way to justify it? The majority of people respond, as if I had physically harmed them in some way. That just the notion what we had been talking about could be justified, physically harmed them in some way. I usually disarm the situation of the outward offense they have taken by then asking: what about the people responsible for having committed the barbarism in the first place? What do they deserve?
It changes their entire outlook, now they have some target for all the internal rage the conversation has caused. They have someone to take out their fundamental source of justice on: most of the time they respond with the classic revenge attitude which is that the people who committed those crimes should have the exact same thing done to them. Then I would ask, what do you do about the sadists who laugh at such things? Sometimes they say do those things to the ones mocking the victims and other times they would say kill them all because they’re inhuman filth, sometimes the person is so distraught that they simply say lock them up. That people like that can’t be permitted in society and they should be locked up in mental institutions.
After I gain their responses: I argue that certain acts of inhumanity are so wrong that no one deserves to experience them – even the people who committed the acts. That we cannot do such things are we would be no better. I stress the concept that ultimately some things are so wrong, and so innately evil in essence that they simply can never, under any circumstances by justified. Almost always with that attitude, the individual agrees and when questioned “Are there any circumstances in your mind which could ever justify the kinds of brutality we’ve been talking about?” And they are almost eager to say NO. I hammer that point, “Are you certain? There is no way to ever justify such barbarism, even against the original offender?” You can literally watch the processes of altruistic humanity battling their own sense of righteousness and the very real psychological need humans have for justice. Almost without a single divergence, they all eventually agree with me, when I take them through the steps of the higher road, the road less traveled. When I walk them down the path of humanity that some things are so wrong: they can never be right.
Then I point out, or ask, if they’ve ever heard a woman joking or laughing at a victim of castration/emasculation? Or if they themselves ever made some jokes about it? Or if their partners ever made such coercive comments, even as a joke?
And after all this righteous indignation they felt moments ago – you could just see their heart break. They didn’t realize: I was talking about them, individually – and every bit of outrage they felt about this unseen and wickedly evil person: they felt about them self or about someone they knew.
It’s a fascinating thing to see: to watch their heart just break right in front of me. I had indirectly broken down multiple psychological barriers and sets of social conditioning regarding their hatred and dehumanization of men – and exposed how abhorrent it was. They felt outrage over hearing about atrocities which left “people” so mentally, emotionally and physical scarred they couldn’t function as normal “human” beings and would often commit suicide. They felt righteous indignation that anyone would be so sadistic and so evil that they could mock and laugh at the pain and the suffering of the “victims.” They capitulated and made life altering altruistic ideological decisions about whether or not you can ever justify inhuman acts of barbarity, no matter who the target or what they had done. Finally at this last stage: they were informed -they- or people -they knew- were the ones laughing at “human” suffering, and those involved were the unseen inhuman beasts.
When it comes to conditioned pathological hatred and programmed dehumanization: you can’t identify the victim or the culprit directly. You have to appeal to the person’s humanity on a greater scale, you have to appeal to their altruism and tap into the more core human being inside of them. You have to reach in and touch that little feather stranded in the darkness, and give it a little tap to make it spin and shine light brightly outward. I believe in Anne Frank’s premise “In spite of everything, I still believe people are really good at heart.” And they are, but you have to -reach- them.
If you identify right away the victim and the abuser: you’ll just bang your head against their barriers. They’ve already dehumanized the victim so the victim in question doesn’t matter.
So you have to approach it from the side, dig under the wall, make it a faceless victim and a faceless abuser and say “Is this right?” THEN you can get them to feel normal human emotions about the SITUATION, they won’t feel anything for a victim they’ve already dehumanized: you have to get them to feel normal human responses to a faceless victim in a horrible SITUATION. Then you can navigate the walls and the barriers and psychological processes they’ve built in response to ingrained programming.
That’s how you deprogram people who have been brain washed by cults: you don’t attack their programming directly, you do it indirectly so that you can reach their core humanity. When you can get them to see a situation with nameless victims and nameless oppressors -THEY- will mentally fill in those blanks. THEY will mentally circumvent their walls by putting whatever faces are already deemed acceptable to them according to their programmed brainwashing: and the more you emotionally invest them in the scenario, and the situation – the better. The righteous indignation they feel becomes part of their new paradigm and they become enthralled in it because it feels good to feel good about yourself. It feels good to be on the side of what is right: every winning army in history thought they were righteous. It’s an innate part of the human condition to want to feel good and to want to do what one believes is right.
Then when you lift the fog, draw the curtain and expose who the victims really are: and who the oppressors really were – the walls shatter as if a bomb had gone off in their own psyche.
That’s why I would get them so emotionally involved in this new altruistic truth they were experiencing before I lifted the curtain for them. So that they have an out, they have an escape: they see themselves as monsters but they don’t have to -remain- that way.
It’s after I broke their walls and I’d see their heart just break right in front of me, and I could see the sudden sadness, and regret and profound sense of loathing sink in that I’d point out…. You don’t -have- to be that way, you don’t have to think torture is funny. That’s when the next stage begins, because I’ve got them – if I could stand or sit and talk for eternity they’d stay right there at that point. Now that you agree pain and suffering of human beings isn’t funny, and that it cannot be justified – why do you think it was you previously felt otherwise?
They’re always at a loss, they can’t explain it. It’s like they were hypnotized and woke up. That’s when I explain how conditioning and systematic dehumanization is used to basically brain wash people. When you hear the word “muslim terrorist” a million times a day than you become conditioned to look at muslims and assume they’re terrorists. Most people these days are aware of the concept of propaganda, they just never realized it was active -in them-, because they didn’t identify what was and wasn’t propaganda and what the source was.
You should just watch their faces contort as they slowly remember their childhoods, and they think about conversations and instances where they were conditioned to think these things were instilled in them over time. You can literally see the wheels turning in their head in careful consideration and slight glimpses of shock as they think back and see these little instances cropping up. It’s a glimpse of surprise: using their new paradigm of right and wrong they start to see all of these events they experienced where they look back and realize “No, that was wrong. That’s awful, how could you say that? That’s disgusting.”
As they start to see the connecting links you can watch them become more and more incensed to anger as they they realize they were conditioned to become horrible beasts who laughed at true suffering, by the conditioning they underwent. There’s a new out rage in place: violation. They -feel- *violated*, that they were poisoned by people to become inhuman.
That’s when the crying starts, and that’s three hours of her explaining every little detail she can recall of brain washing she underwent to dehumanize men and think of them as only evil and how angry she is at herself that she could ever think it was funny that a man be tortured in disgusting ways. And more crying, and then she really feels awful because she starts remembering all the things -she- said and how she was a horrible person that she’s now absolutely revolted by, and more crying about that.
It would usually take a while, but I’d hold them, play beta male for a while and let them get it all out of their system.
I don’t keep in contact with all of my former female counterparts, but most of them have had much happier and more successful relationships with men. Imagine that: you stop treating men like dirt and they’ll stick around a while. Go figure right?
Anyway, that’s how I got the women closest to me in my life to stop being man haters, However, the fact is, most women in America -are- misandrists. Simply because of the programming they’ve underwent. They’ve been conditioned with pathological hate, and dehumanization of men. They do think jokes about castration are funny, they do find the pain and suffering of the victims hilarious. They do on a regular basis make jokes about the topic, or use it as coercion even against their men – people they supposedly love. They’ve been so programmed that even the person they supposedly love, even their own children – simply don’t matter.
The above example, is absolutely in line with Michelle Maiese, graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium. In her essay “What it Means to Dehumanize” she wrote:
“Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one’s enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one’s fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.”
Could you possibly conceive a better way to define the mechanisms of female violence against men, boys and even infants? Not just feminists: average, everyday, run of the mill women in society today. The vast majority in fact: if we examine their behavior by how they think the suffering of victims of heinous torture is funny. That it’s acceptable to use coercive threats of the same against men they supposedly love. We -have- to conclude, the vast majority of women in America are vehemently baneful towards men. As a pathological hate, something they’re not even personally -aware- of, due to social conditioning. This is the society that second wave feminists created: they’ve changed the social fabric and perverted society so much that the vast majority of women in America are quite literally brain washed.
Proof of concept: if a woman says to her male companion – “You’d better not cheat on me, I’ll cut your dick off.” He’s expected to simply ignore it and then comfort HER “I would never cheat on you, you know that, I love you.”
Conversely: were a man to ever say to his female companion – “You’d better not cheat on me, I’ll rape you with a knife until you’re never able to have normal sex again.” She would be so horrified by the remark and terrified that he directed it at her, she would run from him arms flailing. Then fill out an order of protection.
Furthermore, coercive threats like the above from women directed at their male counterparts goes so far as to be a joke, and should the man become upset at said remark she’ll exclaim she’s only teasing. Once again, I dare say if he ever made the exact same “joke” towards her – she’d run for the hills.
Why is one acceptable: and the other not? Conditioning. In media today we see children cartoons with coercive threats of genital mutilation armed at male characters. this is what we allow our children to watch. A vast library of “comedies” employ this as a gag, or a quip or a plot point. Our children are taught from an early age that males don’t matter – male pain doesn’t matter – anything can be done to a male and it doesn’t matter. Which is only reinforced by the current state of society which paints men as evil.
The MRM and you honey badgers have taken on a really difficult task.
All alone, or in two’s,
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall.
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands.
The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand.
And when they’ve given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it’s not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger’s wall.
(“Outside the Wall”, Pink Floyd)
In response to:
“Honey Badger Radio: New Years Silent call in Lines” ( honeybadgerbrigade.com/radio/honey-badger-radio-new-years-silent-call-in-lines/ )
An official Reply from Observing Libertarian
- Collectivists: Seen one, You Seen ‘Em All - July 28, 2016
- Law of Causality: Actions Have Consequences - July 23, 2016
- Fiamengo File #22: The Doublethink is Palpable! - February 2, 2016
[…] Sometimes the greatest act of love is helping someone overcome their hate. Observing Libertarian offers some personal insights into the process of deprogramming women's hatred of men and how it imp… […]
[…] Deprogramming women’s hatred of men. We’ve got a long way to go all the way […]
A really good and interesting article. It’s really pretty sad that feminism is driving so much hatred.
Where does this hatred originate? I get indifference. The biological heritage of men on the Savanna where we evolved is to protect women, children, and the group. The biological heritage of women is to raise the next generation. I think this has made it more difficult for women to have the desire to understand men than it is for men to have the desire to understand and emphasize with women. However, this doesn’t explain hatred. Where does this prevalent hatred so many women have of boys and men originate?
Great article. Thanks.
This is the reason I found myself “googling” “deprogram” tonight.
Our servants are dividing and conquering. Make the blacks hate the whites, the Indians hate the Philippines and of course the women hate the men. Women did not build society. They did not bleed in the trenches for the freedoms that they so brazenly use to emasculate. They depend entirely the force of the state for their platform. It is through the blood of the men that women have gained the mocking gallery that they use to strip us of our freedom. Ever reflect what a woman says to you? It does not go well. In the end we are afraid of not bullets or starvation but a woman in the court who leaves us naked and homeless in the country that we built with our sweat, blood and tears. I feel for you brother. Gone are the days when a man stood on the gap for his family who would kill any one that touched his woman.