Matt Forney is One Bad-Assed Amygdala Hijacker

Matt Forney writes some brilliant articles on leftists and Narcissists. Of particular note, he is a master of the amygdala hijack of feminists, in written form. I am awed, given that he apparently isn’t a natural like Gary Busey, yet his acquired technique is clearly of that caliber. I was reading his article on Narcissism and feminists here recently. He aggregates several pieces of interesting material in it. First, and most amusingly, he quotes a “leftist” commenter on another site who describes his own behavior as “rabbiting.” Tsk, Tsk. The Dread Ilk is everywhere.

Second, Matt links to a feminist, who read one of his amygdala hijacking articles, and immediately had an amygdala hijack herself. The feminist post is here. (Amusingly, in her description of herself, she specifically says that she likes rabbits.)

After she posts how awful Matt’s article is, she goes back to it and actually reads it (note that we have described how Narcissists and Liberals operate on vague perceptions of broad stroke stimuli, rather than laser focused, concrete, amygdala-driven analysis consisting of careful stimuli flagging and relevance weighing. We see crisp, clear ideas and complex relationships, while they see vague, ephemeral shadows, that trigger overwhelming emotions. They have probably learned to only see vague shadows, because of what happens when they look too closely at reality.)

After the feminist goes back and tries to carefully read Matt’s article again, and actually focus on the ideas in the article, she then returns to her post and adds the following edit:



That is an amygdala hijack, and it is that overwhelming, uncomfortable physical response which drives a whole host of negative behaviors in our political sphere, from a need to make guns just go away so they can’t be found, to an uncontrollable urge to feed people who disagree with your views into wood chippers and gas ovens. When that sensation is chasing you, there is no limit to what you will do to other people, to evade it. I am increasingly convinced that more evil is wrought by people fleeing that sensation, than all the greed and self-absorption in the world. We need to understand the amygdala hijack, because it is real, it is the source of our problems, and it can even be the solution.

Interestingly, those feminist sites have actually begun to post “trigger warnings” on reposts of manosphere material. Some readers have found that specific ideas (ie themes) trigger their amygdala hijacks, so they have begun to label their posts with “trigger warning tags.” These people who suffer from amygdala triggers actually know that certain themes are so painful to contemplate that they can’t read them, or they will throw-up, have a blackout, hyperventilate, etc.

Talk about a goldmine of tactical intelligence on the leftist cognitive model, and how to create themes which trigger amygdalae. There will be enormous power in the analysis of trigger warnings, as people perfect this art. If you can combine triggering themes with the Gary Busey-esque mechanical stimulation techniques, you will be a leftist amygdala-wrecking machine. Imagine, preparing for a Presidential Debate, with a feminist-compiled list of innocuous themes which perfectly disable liberal feminist brains, to the point that many feminists actaully black out just from hearing these ideas. Now imagine that the Democratic Presidential Nominee opposite you in the debate is Hillary Clinton, who is herself a feminist with exactly that type of cognitive model. That is dog-whistle heaven, and best of all, no observer even has to know you are doing it. Even if she doesn’t black out, in her degraded cognitive state, she will be much more prone to blurt out things like, “What difference does it make?” when you ask about piles of dead American bodies and America’s utterly destroyed economy. When you activate an amygdala, even with a weak hijack, the first thing which happens is cognitive degredation, which is useful in itself – especially in a highly stressful public setting like a debate.

As you read the hijacking article that triggered the feminists, notice how Matt moves quickly, delivering loud, stimulatory, aggressive hijacks like a rapid fire machinegun. Notice how he simplifies associations between criticisms to their basic elements, such as between antidepressant use, and the inability to get a man, and then delivers them with an amygdala-stimulating edge. If you use antidepressants, and you can’t get a man, and both of those concepts are seen as criticisms, then seeing those two things put together critically will trigger the amygdala prior to any conscious thought or analysis in a leftist – especially if the delivery is critical, colorful, and dismissive.

Of course in nature, the negative sensation is designed to drive such women to try being more considerate, and try finding a loving man they can share loyalty with, but instead these women choose to short-circuit the warning by seeking fellow travelers, ensconcing themselves in a bubble of perceptions that there are no good men, and then not reading any articles, or positing any thought about anything which might disrupt that amygdala-assuaging mechanism. (It is kind of a shame, because one can’t help but notice how such girls could find much greater happiness if they would just reach out for psychotherapy to rewire their brains to be less sensitive to criticism.)

Notice also how Matt’s original post unemotionally out-groups his targets, assumes the sale, and reinforces it’s outgrouping theme with simple statements that would easily appeal to an impartial observer. Matt relates a story about how a leftist says they talk to their brother about leftist stuff until the brother is irritated. Leftist reading that thinks, “I talk about politics all the time too, and people get irritated.” Matt then postulates a theme of, ‘Who wants to be around an irritating person? Irritating person must be defective, and the type of person nobody would want to be around, because they are irritating. People like that always end up with no group of friends, because nobody likes them, due to their personal defectiveness.’ It is a brilliant implementation of taking a theme designed to out-group, presenting it simply, masking it as a story, and then presenting it all unemotionally.

I often speak of theme presentation, and there is a reason. Theme presentation allows you to get an idea into the head of a Narcissist or Liberal who would otherwise disregard the idea immediately, without any analysis at all. Milton Erikson, the father of hypnosis, actually specialized in telling stories with themes that mirrored the lives of his patients. He noted that if he told patient X that they shouldn’t cling to their spouse so tightly, the patient would rebel, and reject the idea that they even clung to their spouse. But if he told the patient about a friend whose wife divorced him because he wouldn’t let her hang out with her friends, and added that the friend ended up losing his job, and dying alone and penniless, then the patient would stop clinging to their spouse and adjust their behavior. I suspect his patients had sensitive amygdalae, of the sort that looking too closely at their own lives was cognitively impossible. However, looking at the unimportant lives of outsiders would allow them to unemotionally examine behaviors that they themselves performed, and make changes in how they saw themselves and their behavior.

In essence, by presenting a theme, especially through metaphor or analogy, within a critical piece, Matt is instinctually doing the exact same thing that the greatest master of psychology ever, did all those decades ago, but moderating it to increase the sting. By moderating the degree to which he “themes” his attack, he makes the idea just distant enough from his target that their amygdala lets the idea in, and examines it. However, once inside and examined closely, the idea suddenly links the target with the criticism, and the idea explodes like a little flash bang grenade right inside their head – but by then it is too late. So tell a leftist they are irritating, and nobody would like them, and they will disregard it, probably while laughing like Joe Biden at the ridiculousness of the idea. However, walk them through a story in which they clearly see an irritating person they wouldn’t like, and then show how they are clearly just like that individual in a way even they can’t deny, and you can bypass this defensive mechanism, and shock their brain with the aversive stimuli they are otherwise so effective at ignoring.

The funniest thing is, after he attacks them, Matt’s targets then run off to spread his evil seeds far and wide throughout the internet, out of a compulsive need to find other fellow travelers to tell them that Matt is the evil one, and they are all sane. As you finish his piece, take time to marvel at his understanding of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and false realities, and his even more clever manipulation of it to generate massive blog traffic.

Utterly brilliant.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Matt Forney is One Bad-Assed Amygdala Hijacker

  1. O, Zorn! All the rabbits are utterly tharn.


  2. Bob Wallace says:

    My experience has been all leftists are narcissists, and once you puncture their grandiosity they collapse. They can’t handle being mocked or ridiculed, and if you do it to them they’d just as soon stick you in a woodchipper or an oven. They don’t think you’re mistaken. They think you’re evil.

    • I’ve seen the same thing. It’s why they are always trying to portray Conservatives as inferior – it’s like a shield against looking at themselves.

    • me says:

      Indeed. And using the Alinsky Rules that the Left in this country has internalized since before most people reading this were born, they appear to think that mockery and ridicule are valid tactics, but only for them and them alone.

      “…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

      …the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

      …The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

      It should be remembered that you can threaten the enemy and get away with it. You can insult and annoy him, but the one thing that is unforgivable and that is certain to get him to react is to laugh at him. This causes irrational anger. — P.134-135”

      And so on. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it. This is because, at base, Leftist philosophy is the credo of opportunists, cowards, the jealous, the weak-willed, the unhinged.

      The sad little faggots can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Alinsky’s writings presuppose that conservatives will always consider ourselves “too good” to climb down into the gutter with them and respond in kind. We’re starting to see what happens when that assumption breaks down. So far it’s highly entertaining.

  3. General P. Malaise says:

    great read and links


  4. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/02/26 | Free Northerner

  5. ron says:

    You can go even further back than that. When the prophet Shmuel approached Shaul and told him point blank the prophecy of God – of God! – Shaul protested! Imagine if the source of Absolute Truth, literally, the Definer of Reality and Truth informs you through one of His true prophets that you have screwed it up big time. You’d think you would accept it, right? Well, we see from here that odds are none of us would be able to handle that big a truth bomb. Because the person approached was not some run of the mill individual, but one of the least egotistical men in history. A hero in every sense of the word. Nevertheless, the Amygdala shock was too much even for him.

    Fast forward a bit to the second king of Israel, David. After his sin with Bathsheba, the prophet approaches him and this time instead of giving it to him straight he offers the event as an analogy and asks the king to judge it. And when he is told that the entire matter was an analogy, instead of protesting, David was able to realize the truth of his sin and make penance.

    It’s a good practice to use when you have to give someone over some hard truth to save his life.

  6. Pingback: the Revision Division

  7. chiiill says:

    This whole idea is irresponsible. What if someone really freaks out? Like, really, really freaks out, and kills themselves. Blood on your hands.

    It’s also intellectually dishonest. You shouldn’t have to incapacitate someone to “win” an argument. Are you saying you just know you’ll never win fair and square? This is embarrassing to conservatives.

    • I find it most amazing to see how you just accept the premise of the article as correct, and acknowledge that some of our enemies are so unstable.

      The general idea here is that leftists don’t care for honest debate. That’s why they use these techniques (“Yes, the scientific data says it will do no good, but we should do it for the children, so if you oppose it, you are against the children, and everyone will hate you.” ) Turn-about is fairplay. (Although I increasingly suspect that the outcomes of our political debates will be determined more by resource availability than human logic, reason, and debating skills.)

      At their core, Conservatives have one rule – leave me alone if I’m not bothering you. I don’t want to pay for your diaphrams, pay for your abortions, pay for homeless people to sit around all day drinking beer, or disarm myself and leave my family vulnerable, because guns scare you. I definitely don’t like being told to do those things while at the end of a gun. I want to deal with who I want, provided they will deal with me. You want big government, so it can intrude on my life for you, in all of those ways, and interrupt all of that. Without big government, you’d have no way to intrude yourself.

      Even worse, as you have violated this rule, you’ve created a financial situation for our government which will collapse it at some point. (By 2032, and probably earlier given how they lie, there will not be enough money to cover military, social security, Medicare, and debt service). I hate to break it to you, but I see us returning to the old historical accounts we used to read, and be shocked at. I don’t think human nature has changed substantially between then and now, and given the rise in stupidity and the reduction in resources, I think this time could be much worse. I see a lot of neighbors killing neighbors, savages preying on the weak, and the weak fleeing for their lives. You’re inability to see that coming, and moderate your demands in order to forestall it, is what will create it. And, surprise, surprise, I don’t want that.

      If someone is in the proces of pursuing stupidity, to the point that they will get other, innocent people killed, and they are so mentally unstable that pointing this out to them a certain way will cause them to freak out, and maybe hurt themselves, must I stay silent and let them hurt innocent people? Because I guarantee you, a lot of people will be getting hurt in the next couple of decades, and they don’t have to.

      What is the moral course of action? Stay silent? Or use every tool at our disposal, including the mental frailty of our enemies, to try and stop the collapse?

  8. Pingback: Hate Crime Hoaxes and the Evolution of Truthiness –

Leave a Reply