How to Protect a Nation Against Feminism, Marxism and Sluttiness by Matt Forney

http://mattforney.com/2014/09/15/how-to-protect-a-nation-against-feminism-marxism-and-sluttiness/

 

Living in the Philippines has been an eye-opening experience for me in just about every respect. One thing it’s made me think twice about is the effect of education and work on the female psyche. Filipinas have just as many rights as American women: they go to college, get jobs and can do just about anything a man can, exempting joining the army or any other career field that requires masculine strength and virtue. There are even policewomen here. Yet the girls in this country are affectionate and feminine to a degree that I thought was impossible for humans to be. Even the girls studying or moving into more masculine career paths—for example, I briefly dated a girl who was headed to law school—would make even the more feminine ladies back home look like dick-clitted dykes.

The college, career and smartphone fetishes that American girls are afflicted with are completely absent here.

Keep in mind that the Philippines should have been absorbed into the American cultural orbit decades ago. Not only is American culture worshipped here—the Philippines is the most pro-American country in the world—Filipinos’ fluency in English deprives them of one of the biggest barriers to Americanization in most other countries. What gives? Is it because of poverty? It can’t be: the horrors of the favelas haven’t kept Brazil from going balls-to-the-wall feminist. Christianity? Somewhat, but not entirely: the religiosity of Middle Americans hasn’t prevented their nation from becoming the new Gomorrah. What makes the Philippines so damn special?

The answer: family.

In the U.S., women view themselves as a class in the Marxist sense, wholly separate from and in opposition to men. Men are also viewed as a class by women, though men themselves don’t see themselves as a class (which is why the men’s rights movement is doomed to failure). American women (and women from other Anglosphere countries) instinctively side with their class against the men in their lives on every issue of importance. From personal matters to political ones, American girls are conditioned to stab their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, and sons in the back to protect the interests of women they don’t even know. Mothers will side with in-laws against their own sons; co-eds will promulgate lies about “date rape” to cover for promiscuity; conservative female politicians are ideologically indistinguishable from leftists.

The tendency of girls to back their fellow women over the men in their lives was once lampooned as “Team Woman,” but I don’t believe that all women everywhere are doomed to this. Just as a culture can encourage certain character traits, it can also tamp them down.

The class consciousness of American women is an invention that came about due to the destruction of the family.

In the Philippines, women do not identify with each other as a class, nor do they define men as a class. Filipinos and Filipinas see themselves as part of a cohesive whole; one cannot exist without the other. Filipinos are fiercely loyal to their family and friends, wives are devoted to their husbands, and mothers defend their children. The antagonistic gender feminism loved by American women—the feminism of “rape culture,” work fetishism and mythological glass ceilings—would go over as well as a wet fart here. Filipinas can vote, hold down jobs and go to college: feminists have nothing to offer them aside from unhappiness.

In a culture where your family is the most important thing in your life, why would anyone side with their sex over their own flesh and blood?

The strength of the family unit is why the Philippines—and nations like it—are resistant to feminism and cultural Marxism. The family is a dead entity in the U.S. Single motherhood, divorce rape, homosexual marriage and the propaganda pumped out of the mainstream media has transformed Americans into 300 million little atoms with no sense of community. In the absence of strong family bonds, women andmen are susceptible to alternative identities foisted on them from the outside, and the left has been all too happy to provide women with a class identity that paints them as powerless victims.

The corporate feminism of the post-Reagan era is the perfect ideology to keep women in chains, using a combination of Nietzschean slave morality—“I’m superior because I’m oppressed!”—and empty empowerment to turn women into cogs of the government-corporate complex. Men too are defined by this feminism, defined in the negative as oppressors, exploiters, enemies. How can men and women view each other as anything but adversaries in this kind of environment?

Government, corporations and academia profit from spreading a worldview that severs the most basic bonds between human beings.

This is why the left despises the family unit. This is why they push for gay marriage and tranny acceptance, why they oppose Christianity and homeschooling, why they advocate for condom-on-cucumber lessons in elementary schools. Their entire program is focused on stripping husbands of their authority over their wives, and parents of their authority over their children. A healthy, loving family cannot be manipulated into becoming fast food-addicted, boob tube-watching wards of the state. They have no need of big government. Lonely, atomized individuals turn to anything to fill the void that family ordinarily does: shopping, sex, drugs, tree-hugging, government handouts, the list goes on.

The most surefire way to resist cultural Marxism is through a strong, loving, extended family unit.

Note the “extended” in that sentence. The nuclear family so beloved of American conservatives, the norm in Protestant, northern European countries, is a weakened family unit. It was precisely the weakness of Protestant nuclear families that provided the fertile soil for cultural Marxism to grow. Third-wave gender feminism of the man-hating variety holds less sway in traditionally Catholic European countries such as Spain and Italy because of those nations’ larger family units. Indeed, first-wave feminism in the U.S. died outin part due to the clout of patriarchal Catholic immigrant communities such as the Irish and Italians.

And that’s why cultural Marxism is on its way out.

The left is quickly approaching their singularity, the point of no return. They’ve aborted and contracepted themselves out of existence, with illegal Mexicans their only hope of maintaining power. The future will belong to the nations that protect, nurture and defend the traditional extended family. The atomized, masturbating hordes that the left thrives on make good slaves but poor soldiers.

“Manspreading” Shows The Social Retardation Of Young Women

In the past couple months, there’s been a sudden explosion in articles decrying anti-social behaviors that men apparently are guilty of. The most well-known is “manspreading,” the idea that men spread their legs too wide on subways, encroaching on womens’ rightful space. Indeed, in part due to pressure from hypersensitive millennial women, the MTA has launched a campaign against “manspreading” on the New York City Subway.

“Manspreading” is far from the only “man” behavior that women in the media whine about. There’s also “manslamming,” the idea that men don’t move out of the way of women on the sidewalk fast enough, as well as “manterupting,” the claim that women are frequently shouted down by men at business meetings and the like. “Mansplaining,” a term feminists use to describe men who infringe on their feelings of narcissistic superiority, has been around for a few years now.

It’s easy to dismiss these crybaby articles as first world problems; indeed, it’s a testament to how good Western women have it that the only thing they have left to complain about is men bumping into them on the street. But the agita over “manspreading” and its sister afflictions speaks to a deeper pathology in modern women. American girls have a deep-seated fear of masculinity and men, created by cultural Marxism, and this fear is the central reason why male-female relations are so dysfunctional.

 

How Men And Women Became Enemies

The adversarial relationship between men and women is one of those aspects of American culture that you don’t really notice until you’ve spent some time outside the country. In my case, it took three months in the Philippines to realize that American sexual mores aren’t just actively harmful, they have almost nothing in common with the way the rest of the world does things.

Unique among world cultures (except maybe the Middle East, which has its own problems), American and other western societies are extremely age- and sex-segregated. Boys and girls grow up in same-sex cocoons, consuming sex-specific entertainment and having no real interaction with the opposite sex until their teen and college years. This shift can be seen in pop music: in contrast to the aggressive male musicians of the past such as Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, millennial girls prefer either grrl-power acts like Lady Gaga and Beyoncé or unthreatening boy bands like One Direction.

In the specific case of girls, they’re also fed a constant diet of anti-male propaganda. They’re told that they’re special just for having a vagina and victimized by virtue of having that vagina. The lies about the pay gap, the prevalence of rape and other debunked feminist bugaboos steadily condition girls to resent and fear men. At the same time, mass media’s constant depictions of men as stupid and evil (in commercials and TV shows etc.) leave girls without any positive male role models.

The problem with this is that while girls may fear men, they still want to sleep with them and have to interact with them on a daily basis. This lingering unease in American women—being attracted to that which they’ve been conditioned to fear—is the genesis of America’s screwed up sexual landscape. Roosh V Forum member AnonymousBosch has correctly identified millennial girls as having a “dismissive-avoidant” attachment style, characterized by narcissism and an inability to form relationships with others.

 

more at http://www.returnofkings.com/53991/manspreading-shows-the-social-retardation-of-young-women

Real Women Don’t Want A Feminist Boyfriend By D.C. McAllister

http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/08/real-women-dont-want-a-feminist-boyfriend/

 

Feminism has promised equality with men, but has delivered women who feel uncomfortable with their feminine natures, preferring masculine power over feminine vulnerability.

In” How to find a feminist boyfriend ”, Lisa Bonos at the Washington Post wants to find the perfect man who is “cute, smart, funny and . . . yes, feminist.”

“But how do you spot a male feminist if he’s not at an abortion rights rally wearing a ‘This Is What a Feminist Looks Like’ T-shirt?” she asks. According to Bonos, you put a label on it—he needs to conform to the feminist creed. What is that? “Here’s how I’m defining it,” Bonos writes. “Feminist daters—male or female, gay or straight—aren’t constrained by gender roles. Anyone can do the asking-out, the feelings-confessing or the initiating of any kind.”

Bonos has unwittingly revealed a big part of what’s wrong with the feminist movement today. She is so caught up in labeling herself that she has lost her “self.” She’s a “feminist.” The man she wants to be with must be “feminist man.” Then they’ll be a “feminist couple.” Before that, they’re “feminist daters.”

Feminism is what defines her. It’s who she is, which is why she wants a man who is a feminist and who accepts her as one. She doesn’t see herself as a woman or the man as a man. Everything is defined and perceived through the grid of feminism, and feminism is contrary to being feminine, because being feminine is to be vulnerable.

Women—Humans—Can’t Exist Without Vulnerability

Feminists have constructed an image of themselves as self-assured, strong women, which makes it “harder to access the more feminine parts of yourself that could be more positive.”

“There’s this persona we create for ourselves that doesn’t compute with vulnerability,” Bonos quotes one feminist as saying. But, she writes, we don’t want to be vulnerable “because a woman at her most vulnerable could be taken advantage of. And that’s no one’s feminist fantasy.”

Exactly. This is the fantasy feminists today have perpetuated: that women can exist without vulnerabilities, that they are better, more evolved by becoming more like a man. Their persona is Henry Higgins’ musings come to life.

Feminists who put their feminist creed before their identity as women create a tension in their own being because their femininity, their natural identity as women, is a liability, a weakness. Everything, then, becomes a power play. This is what many men react to with feminists who identify themselves as such. It’s about power, control, and demands for equality where no equality can truly be achieved. The only equality we have is equality before the law. Equality in value as human beings. Equality in worth. The desire for equality that the first-wave feminists fought for has been achieved. We still need to be vigilant in maintaining this, of course, but is this what we’re really talking about when we’re discussing personal relationships, which is what Bonos’ post is about?

See Me As a Feminist, Not a Woman Dodgy Dodgy

In demanding to be seen as a feminist and to date a feminist man, Bonos isn’t just concerned about respect, she wants to be treated like a man—a mirror image of the man sitting across from her. Or, she wants some distorted image of herself to be reflected back on the man. Either way, neither are being true to themselves as a man or as a woman. They’re being defined by feminism.

She talks about women navigating the waters of being both strong and feminine, yet she recoils at vulnerability, and demands that a potential boyfriend see her first as a feminist, not as a woman. She creates this tension in herself by abandoning her identity as a woman for the feminist persona.

Women need to stop living the feminist fantasy. They need to stop trying to strap on a penis. They need to grab a mirror and take a look at what’s down there. It’s a vagina, ladies, Whip and it has a power all its own—a beauty all its own. You’re different from men. You’re a woman. That’s your natural identity. You’re a human being and you’re a woman. You don’t need to grapple with that, or navigate, or struggle with it. You don’t need to be afraid of it simply because it can make you vulnerable to men. Being vulnerable isn’t the end of the world. The answer to being safe is not to become more like a man (or to make men more like women), but to foster love and respect between the sexes—and to cultivate your own strength as a woman.

Feminism has robbed women of their true selves. That needs to end. Women should be free to be themselves as women. They need to embrace their vulnerabilities (and their feminine powers) and understand that the only way those vulnerabilities can be respected, honored, and not abused is through love, not power plays.

How Is it Romantic to Ask Permission For Every Kiss and Touch?

When you date, look for a man who is a man—who is true to himself—and who loves and respects women. Let him be who he is. If he is a loving person, he will let you be who you are. It’s about mutual affection and honor between the genders, not about gender roles or conforming to a label or abandoning who you are and becoming something else.

Living the feminist fantasy robs everyone of their true identity, as men and as women. Some women, for example, love for the man they care about to grab them and kiss them. She trusts him because they have developed love. He’s strong and the aggressor, as men are designed to be, and she loves it because she loves his masculine strength. She revels in it. She trusts him as a man, and he respects her as a woman.

But if it’s all about power between the sexes, then, no, such behavior isn’t allowed or even understood in the right context. The man is weakened, emasculated, and the woman is degraded, her feminine vulnerabilities—and the beauty that comes with them—rejected.

The feminine fantasy needs to be replaced with the reality of being a woman. When women allow themselves the freedom to be real women, then men will be free to be real men. But it doesn’t stop there. The two need to cultivate love and respect, not morph the man into some kind of feminist perversion or lose the woman in a feminist persona.

Be Yourself, Not a Label or Category

Women need to stop with the feminist label. Feminism in this context is no different than any other form of fundamentalism that robs people of their true selves because it defines them by an external creed, not by how God made them. Let men be men with all their masculine glory, and let women be women with all their feminine glory (and the power and vulnerabilities that come with it), and there will be peace—if, and only if, the relationships are cultivated in love. The greatest quality of love is that it is not “self-seeking.” The feminist who wants a man who is a feminist is a self-seeker, looking for a man who will change who he is to love a label, not the woman behind the label.

While feminists have many legitimate concerns regarding shared work, roles, earnings, honoring one another’s bodies, etc., at the core of hyper-feminized thinking is a woman’s self-loathing of her own gender. That truth seeps out in all sorts of ways. She hates her perceived vulnerabilities and hates Nature’s God, who made them. She hates that she has a vagina—or to be more specific, that she has a womb. Dodgy

To feminists like this, I just want to say that the message real women want to send to other women is not, “Declare yourself a feminist and find a man who lives up to your creed!” We want to tell women: If you like your vagina, you can keep it! Banana Be who you were created to be: a woman, with all your vulnerabilities, challenges, and differences. Cultivate love, not power, and find men who are concerned about cultivating that love, too. If you don’t, you’ll be miserable because you will be living a lie, a fantasy, you will be existing as a label, not living a full life as a self-aware individual, as a woman.

False Rape Accuser: Erica Kinsman

 

 

..

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/jameis-winston-rape-accuser-offensive-sundance-article-1.2091739

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/24/jameis-winston-s-rape-accuser-tells-all-in-sundance-documentary-the-hunting-ground.html

 

 

 

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-44490.html

 

1.) She tried to extort him for 7 Million

Quote:According to the letter — obtained by TMZ Sports — the alleged victim’s lawyer, Patricia Carroll, demanded $7 MIL to settle her client’s claims against FSU and Winston, telling Cornwell, “If we settle, you will never hear from my client or me again — in the press or anywhere.”

Link

2.) She claimed she never slept with, or would sleep with, a black guy. When her boyfriend was black

Quote:Cornwell also says Carroll claimed her client’s sexual encounter had to be rape, because she would never sleep with a “black boy.” Fact is … the alleged victim’s boyfriend at the time was black

Link

3.) She had multiple semen on her.

Quote:Meggs said there was a 2ND MAN’S DNA discovered … insinuating the accuser slept with another person around the time she had sex with Jameis. Meggs said the 2nd man’s DNA belonged to an unidentified person.

Meggs says Jameis’ DNA was on the accuser’s underwear … and the 2nd person’s DNA was on her shorts. He also said there were no outward signs of trauma.

Link

4.) She stated she was very drunk. She lied about that

Quote:Meggs said the accuser’s blood alcohol level was .04 at the time it was taken … which Meggs described as “not very high.”

Link

Take this into fact that this is on the weekend that reminds us that Former USC coach Pete Caroll, who is in the superbowl, was going to sign Bryan Banks before he was falsely accused of rape and served time at the prime of his life and lost out in untold millions not included the freedom he lost in a barbaric environment.

 

Islamophobia Is Perfectly Natural

During the #YesAllWomen movement, there was an meme that went viral saying, “You say not all men are monsters? Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poisoned.” This is exactly how I feel about Islam.

The Myth of the Radical Minority

Except it’s much more than 10% of Muslims who are ideologically poisonous. Consider this video from Ben Shapiro exploring a 2009 Poll by the Pew Research Center of radical Islamic beliefs:

 

 

A couple hard stats: 13% of American Muslims say violence against civilians can be justified, and 19% say they were either favorable to Al Qaeda or “didn’t know.” The stats are similar in France, victim of the recent Charlie Hebo terror attack, where 16% of of French citizens – not Muslims, but French citizens – support ISIS. The number rises to 27% when you look at citizens age 18-24. 40% of British Muslims support sharia law, and 20% support the 7/7 bombings.

That’s just Muslims in western countries. The percentage is much higher in predominantly Muslim countries where an overwhelming majority support honor killings, Sharia law, and unprovoked terror (More stats here.)

If the baseless claim that “10% of men are poisonous” is enough for the media to say we “need to have a conversation about masculinity,” call masculinity toxic, and demonize an half the population’s unchosen gender, then one of the most respectable research organizations in the world finding more than 10% of Muslims support violence and tyranny should be enough for us to examine that groups chosen religious beliefs.

Just as many men responded to #YesAllWomen by saying NAMALT (“Not All Men Are Like That!”) many will respond to me by saying that not all Muslims are like that. Statistically speaking however, radical Islam, “extremism,” or whatever euphemism western leaders want to hide behind actually represents a large percentage of Muslims, not a fringe minority. NAMALT is not a valid argument.

 

http://www.returnofkings.com/53063/islamophobia-is-perfectly-natural