Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

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 and men 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 out in 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.

Read Next: A Nation of Crybabies

  • The extended-family culture being more resistant to cultural marxism is a great insight. It’s no co-incidence the individualistic, protestant work-ethic cultures of Northern Europe and the Anglosphere are the most contagious vectors of the progressive virus.

  • Zelcorpion

    You’ve got it down very well! The family unit was the greatest hindrance and potential trouble-maker for the long-term plans of the plutocracy.

    Some Asian countries are highly resisting it despite decades of constant propaganda and feminism. That is why I plan to move to Asia within 5-10 years. Even Japan with first world wealth and American influence since the 1940s has managed to keep the family bond sacred. They rather managed to feminize men than to indoctrinate women into deep “sisterhood” feminism.

    However the left and the right are controlled by the same group of people. Their goals are clear and they will certainly remain firmly in control. Not all men are to become weak-willed schmucks. The police and the military are their perfect warrior-slaves that increasingly sees us as “civilians” and “them” as a superior ruling force.

    Would be interesting what you make of the following book – this in reference of what else can keep a country together if the family is gone. Well – the plutocracy has it all planned out:

    Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces Hardcover – July 9, 2013
    by Radley Balko

  • You have hit the nail right square on the head with this one. Excellent analysis.

  • ray

    Good analysis by compare with Filipinos. I grew up with some, one of my favorite college profs was Pilipino writer N.V.M. Gonzalez, and you’ve described their cultural mindset well. Despite their (very real) warmth, they can go mondo on you if necessary, ask the Japanese.
    I don’t agree that the conflagration of Leftism/Feminism will die out naturally. Too much power and wealth riding on its maintenance, and too deeply embedded in western assumptive consciousness. Instead, you will see more ramping-up of propaganda, totalitarianism, and police-statism, to ‘protect’ the pore dahlings. The recent conquering of American athletics by feminism is a good example of the near future. The last secular bastion of masculinity already is d-e-d. I also think you much undervalue the effects of Christianity in aiding both family-loyalties and in resisting Total Femdom; the only long-term solution is there. Even ex-pat Filipinos in the US retain many Christian values and behaviors — which are both antithetic and antidotic to our feminist State and ‘churches’.

  • Dave6034

    “Filipinas have just as many rights as American women”

    Except one: The right to have babies out of wedlock, by various fathers, and raise them at government expense. That alone is a powerful incentive to find a good man and treat him well.

    Because of the drain it puts on the public treasury, feminism is a luxury good. Every society has as much feminism as it can afford. After the next economic collapse (of which Brazil has seen many), those proud feminists will be out on the street bartering blowjobs for bread.

  • Robert What?

    It is truly remarkable how similar the views on men and marriage is between feminists and “traditional conservatives”.

  • Communism takes a very negative view of the family, calling it a bourgeoisie invention. But they said the same thing about homosexuality. I think what happened is the kind of people attracted to Communism and other far left ideologies (Anarchism comes to mind) for hatred of the family and all things healthy, left the scene, to form the various New Left movements. It was never about economics or the working class for them. If anything, I sense a deep resentment for the working and middle class from the left. They may give lip service, praise Elizabeth “Won’t SOMEONE please think of the middle class!” Warren, but when the working class doesn’t vote their way, they get caricatures only match by the infamous cartoons from W.A.R. magazine (see uploaded cartoon). The reason minorities get a pass on homophobia, ethnocentrism, and sexist behaviour (as long as they’re not sports figures) is because they show up to the polls, and vote for the correct party in mass.

    I sometimes wonder if we do need a REAL working class revolution, not the one Marxist or leftist want, but one that represents REAL working class values: family, tradition, religion, and the love of power. But that all depends on there being a real working class left.

  • Jesse Myner

    Perhaps the shifting of America’s demographic towards more Latinos will also produce a resurgence in traditional values: focus on families, the cult of motherhood, Catholicism, etc. Latin America is much like the Philippines given its Spanish past. The move by progressives to open the borders may be their eventual undoing.

  • Spike Gomes

    I’ve never understood the anomie that most Westerners have for family. Even the most rural rednecks I’ve known don’t have the sort of attachment to family (and ancestry) that I do.In some ways it’s a real strong drag on individual and societal progress. I’m something of a personal example of it. But damned if it isn’t the best personal and social support network that a guy can have.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/09/17 | Free Northerner()

  • Wald

    In my opinion – this is your best post. I hope it gets as much attention as it deserves.


  • JamestheFin

    Excellent commentary. I’ll only add that Karl Marx openly expressed his desire to destroy the family in ‘The Communist Manifesto’. From Chapter 2(Link: );

    “Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the socialcconditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of
    commerce and instruments of labour.

    But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.”

    Why should anyone be surprised that Feminism, Sex Positivism, and the LGBT(Queer Theory) movements have sprung up since Marx?

    I would also point out that in Latin America, despite being Roman Catholic has seen popular Marxist(in their Economic, Political, and Cultural aspects) movements and figures rise to real levels of power. Liberation Theology, Peron, Hugo Chavez, Castro, etc. The PRI in Mexico didn’t just rise by accident.

  • citizen49a

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

    You’re on the right track, but I think you’ve misconstrued the dynamics of the process.

    Class consciousness didn’t arise DUE TO the destruction of the family. Class consciouness was CONCEIVED, SEEDED, and PROPAGATED through American society for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of destroying existing social institutions, the most basic of which was the family.

    Admittedly there’s a strong positive feedback loop, and once you start knocking out the foundations of the social order, institutions start to collapse at free fall speed. Kind of the way multi-story buildings do in NYC occasionally.

    But make no mistake. None of this is the accidental or organic result of history playing itself out. The women’s movement was intended to produce this result from it’s inception.

    By the way, the Philippines has even had a woman president – Cory Aquino. Sure, she rode her husband’s political fame to get into office, but that’s pretty much the pattern world wide for female political leaders.

    Interesting that some other countries in that part of the world with very strong extended family traditions have also had women at the top – Thailand and Indonesia. Both cultures are much more male dominated (at least nominally), with that domination evolving to a large extent out of the respective religious traditions.

    One would almost be tempted to posit that given a strong religious tradition to bind the social order (including the family) together, the increasing prosperity brought about under capitalism civilizes societies enough to permit women to venture outside the home and realize political and commercial ambitions, if they’ve a strong natural compulsion to do so.

  • citizen49a

    Unfortunately the Roman Catholic church has been very much the engine for the introduction of Marxist ideology in much of Latin America (Google ‘liberation theology’).

    But it’s got to be admitted that the state of political affairs in most of Latin American was pretty ripe for this kind of stuff to begin with. Most of these countries were/are ruled by tiny elites that have been in power since colonization. They control all the land and other resources, and consciously hold the masses in subjection to a significant degree.

  • Pingback: Fall Equinox Mini-Linkfest | Patriactionary()

  • Bo Jangles

    Thats a very good point Matt. I think they made strong inroads in Brazil because Brazillians are very individualistic, in the other South American countries its barely made a scratch. I know for me realizing that feminism wasn’t pro-women as much as it was anti-male that cleared my mind on the matter. You can figure out their position on anything by applying the test..Would a man like it? That is the only way you can explain their insane stances on things like male birth control (Against!) or prostitution (Empowered females acting slutty and making gobs of money!..oh but men like it-AGAINST!)

  • pauldrake

    Damn that is an awesome essay.


    We’ve also had TWO female presidents, while the Feminist States of America have none. Goes to show that Western Feminism’s trust of giving women ACTUAL power has its limits. While Christendom trusts its women to go and hold the scepter and wear the crown. That’s also no exaggeration: one of the founders of the Spanish state and by extension the Spanish Empire was Isabella De Castile, a woman who controlled much of the politicking in Spain’s early years. She tried to stop the persecutions of the Jews, in vain, unfortunately, and harshly criticized Columbus when he enslaved American natives, citing that “her admiral” has no such authority to do such things.

  • You may have hit on a key point that drives #WomenAgainstFeminism – we have had to fight an entire culture to make our families a priority. At every turn, we are met with obstacles and hindrances, and sneered at with contempt for our choices. But that strong family, especially one led by a Captain/First Officer team, renders most ideologies and government assistance programs obsolete.

    Changing our culture overnight involves paperwork. Make state benefits ONLY available to married families raising children. If the state is paying for your food, you have an obligation to raise decent, productive citizens, and that requires two loving parents present in those children’s lives. Wanna be a single mother? Go right the fuck ahead, but you will pay for that out of your own pockets, or you will surrender that child for adoption. Welfare is ONLY for families. Because creating functioning families is the only way you break the welfare cycle.

  • thats why normal familylife was redefined in the 90’s in ‘households with children’

  • seafrog

    I noticed the strong Family ties, and cohesiveness of race Filipinos had while in the Navy. While at sea or deployed, they would hang together and participate in group events such as card games, eat together etc. On weekends when we were in port, they would have Family gatherings, feasts, and fellowship. Just about every one else went home, sat in front of a boob tube and watched football while swilling beer. Much different culture – a much better one in most cases IMO. .

  • guber

    No way. Universal suffrage prevents this. It will never happen. The only way to fix this now is a general strike of tax payers. Which would need about 10% of higher income individual and corporations to refuse to pay taxes. Within 6 months the problem could be resolved, but it would be 6 nail biting months and it needs millions of heroes.

  • Laurie-Ann Lanberg-Stein

    Please don’t group all American women to be a feminist. Everything this article says about Filipina women I know I share the same view as they. The feminist and non feminine American women try to degrade and bully the feminine and traditional women. Fortunately for me I’m stubborn and never bow down to those type of women. I look up to and appreciate men. Unfortunately yes that is a rare find in this country but it is a find that needs to not be overlooked.

  • Pingback: How to Protect a Nation Against Feminism, Marxism and Sluttiness by Matt Forney | Living in Anglo-America()

  • Pingback: “Manspreading” Shows The Social Retardation Of Young Women()

  • Pingback: Book Review: Do the Philippines | Scar Tissue()

  • SnowFlake

    I’m jumping on this one quite late.

    Your article is good but fails to mention the roles American men themselves have played to turn their women to men in female bodies to compete with them rather than compliment them.

    After you guys have messed it up on your side, you run away to find a real female here in the east, and you suddenly realise “Oh I was not looking for a “Strong woman””. How childish!

    It is not possible to find a “strong, independent woman who knows what she wants”. Except it’s something very close to being a man.

    Yes, this silly American male thinking + lesbianism + capitalist money ARE the biggest reasons for why feminism had succeed so quickly and on such a large scale. Which is why we cannot wait for China to take over economically and Russia to take over militarily and stop the spread of this American Cancer once and for all

  • Pingback: Multiculturalism: America’s Destruction III | Economic & Multicultural Terrorism()

  • Dakila Isagani-Jazeera

    Filipino men and women treat each other equal even before the country was colonized. It was just changed when the Westerners came & shoved down ur sexist culture n our throats . Domestic violence against women still occur because of imbalance of power & the kind of thinking that “husband’s authority over their wives” thang. Fuck that shit! :/

  • Dakila Isagani-Jazeera

    prolly rampant teenage pregnancy due to ignorance or single parent by choice.

  • ray

    “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.”

    Good call, as currently we see that ‘singularity’ approaching in the U.S., with pressure finally coming to bear on the entrenched, institutional Left — reaching even to D.C. and the former Rainbow House.