01 January 2014

Elam's "Challenge"

This has become the type of sensationalist “hoo-hah” I’ve grown to expect from AVfM; having touched upon AVfM in my post “Denigrating Masculinity”, one of the many AVfM drones decided that I was out of order for mentioning them in a negative light, and wanted me to know about it on my Facebook link to the post. The guy’s name was ‘Gunther Schadow’, who has now been blocked from my Facebook page for the type of belligerence you always get from those who replace reason with unquestioning loyalty to their ideological camp.

I initially tried explaining to this drone that AVfM has become a bastion of cultural Marxist groupthink, turning the men’s movement into another mechanism for leftist identity politics. This wasn’t acceptable to Gunther, who claimed on one hand that he didn’t know much about the background between AVFM and myself, though still defended Elam and AVfM nonetheless (no bias there then). He also criticised a previous video that Bernard Chapin, Critical G, and I made on Leftist MRAs, saying it was “boring” (nice ad hominem).

He then decided that it was a good idea to stir the pot when I mentioned that Stardusk, Barbarossaa and Paul Elam do not debate. This assumption was based on previous experiences where Barbarossaa and Stardusk were asked to debate us. However, as usual with Alinskyite inspired ideologues, they hold your feet to the fire with every single thing you say, but go out of their way to avoid answering your genuine enquiries (as we shall see below). In this instance I was incorrect to state that Elam would not debate me, and I will fully acknowledge that here. On the other hand, I am certainly not incorrect in relation to Barbarossaa and Stardusk, who have expressed a refusal to do so in the past.

Gunther went on to stir the pot even further in a private Facebook exchange, which Bernard was added to, though I was not. You can hear about it in a video on Bernard’s channel. This resulted in Elam setting a “challenge” for a debate between Bernard and I versus himself, with a moderator from the AVfM camp, and streamed through Elam’s YouTube channel on Google+ Hangouts. The topic would be "Is men’s rights a left-right issue?" Having discussed this with Bernard in private, we both agreed that this would be easy for Elam to exploit in his favour, given that he would have absolute control over the entire broadcast. Therefore both Bernard and I asked that Elam have the debate in a neutral setting, with a neutral moderator, and I said as much in reply to a private message on YouTube that Elam sent me about this “challenge”. I even said I’d happily debate him one-to-one, as long as these terms were met. Elam, however, felt that the best way to do this would not be under these terms, but through exchanging videos.

Now if there’s one thing I’ve learnt about the AVfM drones/MGTOW cultists it’s that they love this setting. It allows them to troll the hell out of videos with comment attacks and sock account voting. I therefore asked Elam the following, after already being subjected to circular leftist dogma from Dean Esmay on my Facebook page before the “challenge” had even started:

“Since I’ve already had to deal with trolls attacking me from AVfM before the “challenge” has even started, who don’t even understand the difference between a collectivist and individualist, and don’t understand that calling yourself right-wing or conservative doesn’t make you an individualist, why exactly is it in my favour to expose myself to people that don’t understand basic philosophy?

 I doubt I’ll even gain many subs from this, since AVfM no longer has an individualist minded audience. This seems to be something that benefits you, not me, because you can reinforce your own beliefs among your audience, and get them to troll my channel, as I’ve grown accustomed to from certain groups. I doubt that you’d even agree with the premises above regarding collectivism and individualism, so that alone shows that we will quickly be talking over one another.”

Not only did Elam fail to reply to this enquiry, but he actually posted a bulletin on AVfM claiming victory. You’ll notice that he made no effort to reply to my question in relation to actual philosophical reasoning, i.e. the difference between a collectivist and an individualist, while Dean Esmay kept insisting that someone that says they are conservative is right-wing. This of course is nonsense to those that actually understand the following:


I have worked hard in 2013 to attract an audience that’s interested in breaking out of the collectivist straight-jacket that we presently find ourselves in today, and leave identity politics behind. I know that many people that follow my online endeavours can sympathise with how frustrating it is dealing with leftists. These people will have you go round in circles all day long, like a dog chasing its tail, rather than examine their own ideological ignorance in relation to what left and right actually means.
People like Paul Elam, Dean Esmay, and the vast majority of AVfM (and indeed MGTOW) will deny that rights belong to the individual, and call you “anti-gay” for upholding the natural rights of biological parents, as Tawil did in the comment section of Elam’s initial “challenge” bulletin (FYI Tawil, I did not get banned from AVfM for making “anti-gay” remarks, not that saying biological parents being the best candidates for raising children is at all anti-gay. I was actually blocked for sticking up for Bernard after one of Elam’s snotty little posts about him, akin to the ones linked here).

It’s clearly a waste of my time actually trying to have a meaningful exchange of any kind with AVfM drones. They don’t even know the difference between a collectivist and an individualist, and will make all the morally relativist, fallacious, and consequentialist arguments under the sun, rather than address logically consistent argumentation.

You only need examine the comment section of the bulletin where Elam claimed victory over the “challenge”, to see how pointless any exchange would be with these leftist drones; a commenter going under the name of ‘whiic” claimed that even though gay marriage is not a natural right neither is heterosexual marriage (I kid you not!). Little does this imbecile know that you don’t need a piece of paper for a bond between a man and a woman to take place, where a man exchanges his labour for a woman’s reproductive capacity (more than you could ever say about gay marriage). A marriage contract has always been a reflection of this, though leftists repeatedly try to suggest it’s about tax breaks and state subsidies (post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy much?), as they try to subordinate the natural rights of biological parents  – just like the puppies taken by Napoleon in Orwell’s Animal Farm and trained to be his attack dogs. Funny how they don’t think it’s a good idea to lower taxes for everyone, leaving natural reproduction the hell alone.

At this point it’s clear that Elam is just looking for any angle he can find to spin an exchange into something he’s won before it’s started. As such, I bid Elam and his drones adieu – I have nothing to gain by associating with a bunch of whiney professional victims, turning men’s rights into feminism 2.0 – au revoir!

67 comments:

  1. Him and Elam are really posterchildren for genetic misfits

    ReplyDelete
  2. The one who behaves like an attack dog is who? I have tried to mediate, because I always agreed with Mr. E. and Chapin and to this day I am agreeing with their political points.

    Men's rights IS INDEED a left/right issue. But many on AVfM actually agree. Only am I tired of being attacked and bullied when trying to think this through.

    But the hostility and the authoritarian behavior, along with the fact that Mr. E protects himself behind a pseudonym whereas I stand as a real person, all that frightens me about this movement. Imagine what would happen if we had political power? Authoritarian tyranny is what we would get?

    Let's find out how long this comment will stay on Mr. E's blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My pseudonym has nothing to do with this, though it's not hard to find my real name online anyway. I just don't advertise it.

      Stop playing the victim for one second and see that I used the attack dog description as a metaphor for authoritarians taking over parenting - it wasn't directed at you personally. You shit-stirred a lot, behind my back in fact. Bernard showed me what you said in the FB thread you started. You are most likely trying to kiss Elam's arse, in the hope that he'll give you some position on AVfM. That actually works a lot of the time, and you seem to be someone willing to sooth Elam's ego. That's how you come across, and I see all the signs of your pandering to AVfM's infallibility complex in your actions.

      Delete
    2. You claim I "shit stirred behind your back", Mr. E, I wanted to include you in the message thread, but I can not include you, you are not a person, you are only a page. There is no way I know to message a page. You see, you are so quick with assuming bad faith.

      I have been talking with Paul as I have with Bernard. I want Paul to debate you and you to debate Paul. Anything to settle this mess. I do stand behind my words that upset Bernard so much. I said "yes, Bernard should either put up or shut up" -- why? Because I fucking sick and tired of your false allegations about everyone at AVfM. Substantiate your claims instead of bullying me and others. That is all I want.

      I know Dean and Paul came out strong on verbiage, but hey, you too do that. So why do you complain about this?

      Stop the hostility.

      Be a man and step up to a Google Hangout On Air to substantiate your attacks against AVfM. It is not the political question. Men's rights is a left right issue. The issue here is whether your constant attacks at AVfM as a class are justified or not.

      The issue is to get back to a civil debate on the issues and stop the hostility.

      Delete
    3. So okay, I'm a "page" on FB, not a person to you. That doesn't excuse your apologist dismissal of the info I provided you with the post "Now Even Angry Harry is Wrong! and "What Happened to MRA+?" (links in the Popular Posts on the side), or the nonsense you keep spouting about what myself and Bernard have said and done. You're an AVfM drone who keeps suggesting that AVfM is infallible, claiming ignorance on one hand, and that AVfM is innocent on the other. That makes you look incredibly disingenuous, and anyone rational can see that.

      Anyone with a modicum of insight can also see you're fishing for a rise in your own status online, because Elam is susceptible to surrounding himself with snide weaklings. AVfM is turning into a leftist cesspit akin to a cult of personality, as leftist ideologues always reduce everything to.

      Don't bother posting again - it won't stay up. And cut the crap about "authoritarianism" because I choose who to associate on my online pages. Elam is by far the worst in this regard, and has no moral standard other than his own narcissism for who stays and who goes.

      Delete
  3. the bulletin on AVfM claiming victory seems to be gone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not gone, the link was erroneous.

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/rocking-mr-e-coward-numero-uno/

      Delete
    2. thnx for the link, btw AVfM is at least as weakminded as femini$$m-samesexuality are.

      Delete
    3. Sorry - should have double checked my links. All links works fine now.

      Delete
    4. Claiming victory over a battle that never took place... so AVFM, so Paul Elam....

      You could drop a nuclear bomb on Elam's house and he will still spin up some story about how he was the victor...

      Some of the claims they make on that site are hilarious!

      Delete
  4. Brave as your complaints may be, I do have to question your statement that an understanding of politics constitutes "basic philosophy". Philosophy has nothing to do with human rights or policies, unless one is basing one's ethics on the pursuit and love of metaphysical wisdom. It has nothing to do with the rights of an individual. Philosophy is more about the destruction of egotism, if anything.

    Why limit men's rights to reproductive or social control? Is that really the highest type of "rights" of a man? Surely there are more important frontiers, and better things to employ one's brain cells on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brave? Not going on a Google Hangout On Air with a moderator of your choice is brave?

      Delete
    2. It isn't brave but it is smart. It's too risky because the AVFM crowd will likely do something to make it unfair. Now screw off.

      Delete
    3. Kelly Jones, while philosophy is broad, we need to have a way to break through sophistry. Thus, if you're going to talk about rights then it needs to be logically consistent. Only by understanding the difference between collectivism and individualism, as well as using negative liberty to uphold unalienable natural rights for the individual, can this be achieved with said logical consistency. We also don't want a situation with the MRM becomes just as sophistic as feminism and leftist ideology, though that seems to be impossible to avert at this point.

      Delete
  5. Leftists and clowns will be around. Don't let them get you down, and take a break every now and then. Takes a lot of effort to broadcast what you want to say.

    Keep doing your thing, E. It's good to know fellas like you, Bernard, and G are around. I look forward to when ya'll get together again for another joint video.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your support. A joint video is definitely on the cards in the near future.

      Delete
  6. AVFM - the radical notion that being as narrow minded as your opponents is conducive to beating them.

    My conclusion after 2 years or so of frequenting that site was that, although there are some honest thinkers circling AVFM, they mostly keep quiet for fear of upsetting Paul and his hoards of useless idiots. Anger does not bring about answers and solutions and being that anger is that site's main commodity I realised there is no long term hope to be placed in AVFM.

    They are raising awareness and I suppose that is good but they have also created a den for people who a genuinely damaged and in need of help and people who are genuinely misogynistic in their outlook.

    The Chinese proverb "The problem with a broken clock is that it still tells the right time twice a day" describes AVFM and Paul Elam perfectly.

    I feel like an idiot for making donations to that website and Elam's snarky smug response to my decision to stop making donations was what made me realise I was an idiot for seeing something that wasn't there.

    The underlying problem in the gender war is without doubt Marxist ideology so just how AVFM is going to bring about reform using the same ideology is beyond me. Trying the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result is well, insanity.

    Paul Elam claims to be libertarian in his own views but is happy to employ leftist ideologies and techniques in order to gain a following. Clearly he is a man who has no issue departing from his own core values in order to get what he wants. I have no respect for people like this. It is dishonest and shows a lack of personal integrity.

    A man who is happy to throw his own values in the gutter for the sake of increasing a website's hit rate is man who deserves no respect from his peers.

    AVFM are really good at attracting attention to themselves but that is not a hard thing to do in a world that has become paranoid a la feminist fear mongering. They haven't achieved anything tangible as of yet and I doubt they ever will.

    I am a non-feminist myself and an anti-Marxist. AVFM has nothing to offer me and definitely does not represent me as a man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your story is becoming increasingly common. It is particularly sad how the few people that do have a certain amount of respect for individualism, on AVFM, are towing the line just to be a part of Elam's cult of egotism.

      Any man that would compromise individual freedom to line his pocket and mimic the very tactics he claims to oppose, does not deserve any respect. Sure, Elam's found an audience among leftists, but that isn't going to make any positive changes to the identity politics mire we find ourselves in.

      Thanks for your positivity.

      Delete
    2. I think I am a classic case of a disaffected guy who stumbled upon the wrong thing and wasted a lot of time before seeing through it all.

      I am grateful that I had the good sense to see through it all but I also extremely grateful that the likes of yourself and Chaplin are confirmation of what I came to realise.

      I am honestly glad I came across both of you guys.

      My only request would be that you both disengage from anything to do with AVFM (although keep up the criticism) in order not to lend even a tiny ounce of legitimacy to Paul and his ilk. Besides you are both far nobler and nicer guys than Paul.

      You are out there educating and enlightening people Mr E. Paul is just helping stupid people stay stupid.

      Anyway, keep up the good work and Happy New Year!

      Delete
    3. PS I would imagine that your refusing to debate Paul has hurt his ego a bit - hence his childish little victory speech on AVFM.

      Delete
    4. I just don't see any point engaging that crowd anymore. What will I gain other than hassle from trolls? Nothing I say will help them see reason - if nothing else that much is obvious by now.

      I see what you mean about not validating them. I guess a lot will depend on the circumstances. However, I won't hold my breath for any sincere amicability any time soon.

      Delete
    5. The question I would be asking myself is what do I stand to gain personally from having a one-on-one with Elam. Nothing is my conclusion. As an individualist I would think you have every right to consider the benefit to yourself personally before anything.

      I have just read his rant about Bernard's refusal to debate them. They are a really nasty bunch of ass holes man. Anyone decent person would be afraid of going up against them considering how nasty they can get. Bernard has been sensible in staying away from them.

      You and Bernard have quite a large combined following on Youtube (It's more than Paul's channel). This makes you a genuine threat to their current domination of the MHRM. I think you will both gain more legitimacy by keeping your distance - and you will have the enjoyment of being a constant source of frustration to them.

      I dunno, I don;t have a channel of my own so I am no expert on gaining a viewer ship but I do think you both have a lot to gain by actively refusing to engage on the basis that it only legitimises AVFM and it's leftist bullshit.

      Besides, this is the internet not parliament. You have no obligation to be democratic here. Blocking people and refusing to engage with them doesn't make you authoritarian. You don't have the obligation of political office on the internet.

      Delete
    6. Also (I am struggling to get this off my mind)...

      Those guys are accusing you of being a traditionalist conservative where the ideological left's definition of traditionalists are stuffy old men who think their wives belong in the kitchen.

      I guess you must be lying about being a stay-at-home Dad...

      Personally I do see you as a traditionalist but by my own definition which in essence means you are pooling resources with your spouse for the sake of your children. I mean surely that is what traditionalism was really about and it was just a response to economy and the nature of available work that saw men in the coal mine and woman in the kitchen.

      There is definitely an opportunity to take back the definition of traditionalism from the ideological left. I think this is far more important than debating the left on their own bastardised version of something humans have been doing since time memorial.

      Anyway, I have to get back to work!

      Delete
    7. Some great points all round. Your definition of traditionalism is similar to my own. It's just that the term seems silly to me overall. I often indicate that traditional is usually a manifestation of natural tendencies, though not always. But in relation to child-rearing that has stood the test of time, this is undoubtable when we look at the anthropological and biological evidence.

      Cheers for your detailed feedback.

      You're also correct that they really are a nasty bunch of people. I think it really bothers them that Bernard and I give as good as we get - which is exactly what you need to do with Alinskyites.

      Delete
    8. Well, it is my personal hope that you and Bernard keep throwing those punches :)

      And you both serve as a good safety net for guys like me who's disillusionment was only heightened by AVFM. Keep bringing the lads home ;)

      Human beings are a fluid dynamic bunch. The relationship between healthy well-minded men and women has been based on pragmatism for millennia. All the left has done is repackage that pragmatism given a new label and then set out to destroy it.

      They won't win. Human nature took billions of years of pragmatism for us to get what we are. Leftist Marxists are just a flash in the pan by comparison.

      My only criticism is that the t-shirt I bought on Bernard's advice still hasn't arrived!

      Take care,
      t

      Delete
    9. The left cannot win in the end. History shows that alone. They like to think their ideological values are inevitable. But the opposite is true when we look at the facts.

      Cheers again for your views.

      Delete
    10. PSS.

      Men's rights is not a left/right issue. However AVFM are a bunch of leftists with issues :)

      And, feminism and the MHRM are not the real issue at hand. They are merely symptoms of the underlying malady that is Cultural Marxism.

      But then we all know this and AVFM are desperate to avoid seeing this about themselves.

      And now I shall leave you in peace :)

      Delete
    11. "Men's rights is not a left/right issue."

      I assume you're being sarcastic here? Men's rights is clearly a left-right issue given that feminism, and its counterpart cultural Marxism, are products of collectivist ideology, and a war against natural and voluntary behaviour that can never be resolved with utopian ideologies.

      Only by respecting the unalienable natural rights of men, and accepting that certain roles are inevitable among the sexes (which leftists will never accept) is there any hope of resolving the issues of the present culture.

      Delete
    12. Hhmm, allow me to explain myself better by attempting to put together a syllogism:

      Men are human beings, all human beings have legally defined rights therefore men's rights are human rights.

      So on that basic logical premise, to say that men's right are a left right issue is tantamount to saying human rights are a left right issue.

      Experience has taught me that the left and right have their own versions of what "human rights" are and indeed both sides agree on at least some areas concerning human rights(Eg food, shelter etc). The left and right argue over the definition of human rights but, by default, I would say both sides do at least agree on the need for human rights.

      So to me it is illogical to say that men's rights are a left right issue as I see it rather as a difference of opinion and definition of men's rights rather than a "for or against" issue.

      You are going to have to correct me if I am wrong but from the videos of yours I have watched (quite a few but not all of them) you have mostly argued that MGTOW and AVFM are nothing more than ideological leftists who don't really differ from feminists. I don't ever recall you saying that men's rights are a left right issue.

      I absolutely agree with you that it is the ideological left that is eroding men's human rights but I don't see men's rights as a left right issue where men's rights are human rights.

      Something that bugs me immensely is that where I have understood your argument as being one of explaining AVFM and MGTOW as products of leftist ideology, Elam and Co. have already subverted you by proposing to have a debate about men's rights being a left right issue. Personally I have come to understand that you argue that AVFM/MGTOW is leftist but don't ever recall you clearly stating men's rights as a left right issue.

      If I am right (and correct me if I am wrong) my response to Elam's proposal would be as such:

      "Dear Angry Ugly Man,

      I hope life in your new condo is really smashing and I do hope your girlfriend has a nice new collection of handbags and shoes from Terence's donations to your shitty website.

      No I will not debate on whether or not men's rights are a left right issue. Men's rights are a human rights issue and I will happily direct you to the many articles on your site that state this.

      However, as I have often argued that AVFM and moreover yourself have resorted to nothing more than the same Marxist nonense we have seen from feminists for the past 50-60 years I will gladly debate you on this - specifically!

      You see Paul, you say I am the coward, but you are the yellow little idiot who has put words in to my mouth before the debate even started. My argument is that you yourself are a leftist ideologue who is using the same tactics as feminists to further your cause. This is my argument and therefore this is all I am willing to debate you on."

      Make sense?




      Delete
    13. Just to add....

      I don't see myself as either left or right (something I have said to you before)..

      However my view on human rights is that the only right a human being has is the right to exist. Anything else is a matter of personal responsibility and where you have taken the responsibility to improve your existence nobody has a right to diminish or impede your efforts to improve upon your existence.

      I don't see the above as right wing but the leftists would no doubt jump on that basic belief of mine.

      I don't believe in women's rights or men's right, I believe in human right where human rights are the definition I have provided above.

      I realised that is not the most well informed view but it is my view none-the-less.

      Delete
    14. I think you need to go back to core principles. In one sense you are advocating individual rights, but in others you are confusing the issue. Human rights are a collectivist term. See my video here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV9JwHjnGV8

      The only rights that exist are natural rights for the individual, based on natural actions of life, labour and reproduction. If these are not protected (negative liberty) then you become a slave. For example, if you have no right to decide what happens with your labour then you are a slave, or on the path to becoming a slave. See my video here for a more thorough explanation:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yRkiaeqWxI

      When we really put all this into practice we realise that the spectrum we now exist in is stuck in a leftist/collectivist one, where coercion and force create a zero sum game, Here is an old post of mine that explains the true political spectrum:

      http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2012/08/the-true-political-spectrum.html

      The true political spectrum has slavery (totalitarian and collectivism) on the far left, and freedom (individualism) on the far right. People that disagree with this are almost always invested in zero sum game collectivism, and want to see a world where ideologies all fight for dominance, once the individualists have been eradicated.

      There's a lot to get through there. I hope you'll take the time to broaden your mind in this regard, before giving a reply. I was hoping you understood this given that I’ve already been banging this drum over and over again in the main post.

      Delete
    15. I realised my last comments where with some niavity.

      Thanks for the links. I will watch when I get a chance.

      Have a good weekend,
      t

      Delete
    16. You too, and thank you for being an intellectually honest and reflective individual.

      Delete
    17. I am still quite new to all this stuff so honesty is the only way I could actually learn something.

      I do not wish to land up like Paul Elam.

      Anyway all thanks to you. Your followers can feel safe in the knowledge that you won't rip them to shreds if you disagree with them or feel the have more to learn.

      I do hope more people find their way to your valuable body of work.

      Delete
    18. I am open to helping anyone. I can sense dogma from a mile away, and you can safely say that Elam's crew are a perfect example of that, along with the MGTOW cult. Someone like yourself, who is open to philosophical reasoning, I have a lot of time for.

      I am however used to the types that like to drag you along a circular path, and have no interest in striving for truth. They have already decided what they want, and they are determined to use Alinskyite harassment on those that want genuine freedom.

      Delete
    19. That all makes so much sense.

      I was only just thinking how the tactics that Elam has chosen to employ only serve to fracture everything so much more.

      If you take a look back over history at how men have created governments, business enterprises, charitable organisation, religious institutions etc. it has always been achieved by installing a high degree of order in to those institutions.

      So along comes Elam who's only visible talent appears to be in perpetuating chaos, anger and hatred expecting to create a Men's movement out of it all.

      You might disagree with me on this but I feel that it is male natural tendency to want to create order. But the type of order that leads to freedom for both himself and his loved ones.

      Be it because I am a man or whatever, my greatest ideal for life is order, peace and harmony. But order, peace and harmony that is of my own choosing and not imposed by others.

      There is nothing to gain from those who only seek to create chaos.

      We will see AVFM sink. This I am sure of.

      We should take bets :) I say 3-5 years.

      t

      Delete
    20. "You might disagree with me on this but I feel that it is male natural tendency to want to create order. But the type of order that leads to freedom for both himself and his loved ones."

      I certainly agree.

      Unfortunately I also think that a major player will probably bankroll AVfM for the benefit of fracturing the family and creating tax slaves (just like with feminism), and creating a Huxlian control grid over reproduction. MGTOW are certainly onboard with this. These guys hate love more than anything, even if it involves the love of a mother and father to a child. This is especially true in a nuclear familial environment.

      Delete
    21. Yeah, I share your fears.

      There is a part of me that just can't help thinking that all this men's rights stuff is the next "wave" in the grander plan. That's leaning towards conspiracy theory of course but there is also such a thing as conspiracy fact.

      The male pill thing is scaring me a bit. Firstly because I could never stop being a Catholic lad no matter how much I tried and secondly because it seems very unwise to put something like that in your body. There could come a time when women have been brainwashed never to be in a relationship with a guy who is not on the pill and likewise guys won't get in to a relationship with women who are not on the pull. Full reproductive control!

      I read a book a good few years ago I wish I could remember the name and author. A lot of MRA types would find it a very interesting read. In essence the story was about a futuristic society where men and women were constantly taking pills to stay both young and sterile. They where encouraged to to constantly be sleeping with each other whilst never being allowed to form long lasting relationships. The state had developed machines to take care of making new humans and therefore there was no longer a need for love and families.

      I wish I could remember the name of the book and author. I must make an effort. A lot of MRA would benefit from reading it.

      Also, I have often wondered what else Paul Elam is associated with. This is definitely wacky conspiracy stuff but then it would have been considered equally wacky in the 60's to think that Gloria Steinheim was funded by the CIA.

      Well, if there is one thing we can at least be certain of; we live in interesting times.

      t

      Delete
    22. I think the book you're describing is Brave New World, though it was only women taking pills.

      I also think that the men's movement could be the next wave in such a scenario. Leftists constantly play both sides of the divide off against one another, and then control the outcome.

      Delete
    23. Ah yes, that's the book. I think I need to get myself a copy.

      I decided that my only involvement in the Men's Right's Movement is to observe from now on.

      I am not an angry person by nature and the MRM is full of it.

      An angry life is not a quality life.

      Anyway, have a good weekend. I am currently trying pluck up the courage to get all my hair cut off. Apparently I risk loosng all my powers! :)

      t

      Delete
    24. men are human beings is a sophism, males are human beings
      being human is genetically/naturally defined by being hetero, being male/female, being (grand)father/(grand)mother and being child, which defines normal familylife
      human rights shouls only represent natural rights, human rights however is collectivism made indeed
      there are flaws in human rights, f.i. human rights start by birth while life starts with conception, and, children&fathers are being biased, human rights are enslaving us all, human rights is about peoples rights not human rights

      past generations have been programmed with false concepts as 'respect', 'choice', 'responsibility', brainwashed under a false flag of love&peace etc.

      creation is making something out of nothing, humans can't create but only invent, make, produce, fantasy etc.

      because one male thinks&feels he makes order, peace and harmony doesnt ímply that such is a male natural tendency, making order, is rather a female control feature

      being angry is not a behavior problem, nor a mindillness, positivo's are in denial

      Delete
    25. i still don't use words properly which is most important, e.g.,
      - "because one male thinks&feels.." should be "because one men thinks&feels.."
      - "being angry is.." should be "feeling angry is.."

      Delete
    26. pffff and,
      - "is rather a female control feature" should be "is rather a feminine control feature"

      Delete
    27. I have struggled to make full sense of what you are saying Vader - sorry.

      Women seek order in their lives to. Some of them will even look to us guys for hep with such things.

      Order is something than help you to make sense of your life and can help to make it enjoyable to. It would make sense to derive that both the boys and the girls do seeks out some order in their lives.

      Now how individuals go about achieving order is probably down to the nature of that individual. There are bad natured people out there who try to achieve order by controlling others and there are some good natured people who have understood that order (and inner peace) can be achieved by controlling yourself.

      Now I am no philososophicaly expert like Mr E and what I describe above has been arrived at purely out of my own life experience but to me it makes good sense that a little bit of self control and self discipline can go a long way in life.

      PEACE,
      t

      Delete
    28. well, its not that difficult, btw chaos is natural order, of course everyone may feel&think what they want, having fun and feeling good experiencing that their way, humans are good and social by nature, but when wrong minded people have twisted feelings&thoughts, and why claiming peace or whatever empathic openminded reasonable sentiment, are you feeling like i'm making war?

      Delete
    29. I'm not under the impression that you are making war - not with me anyway.

      But for fear of insulting you I am going to step away. Your writing style is very convoluted and I am struggling to make sense of it.

      Apologies I just don't want to get in to a scrap on Mr E's site with one of his followers. We are both followers of this site which means we are likely to see eye-to-eye on many things. Also, I ask that you respect that I am probably not as well read as some of E's followers.

      Delete
    30. and why making sense of ones existence? asif otherwise one can't enjoy happiness? and that means happiness as in truth&love, developing human well being doesn't equal having fun and feeling good in a societal context.

      Delete
    31. indeed i'm not making war with anyone, and you don't have to fear insulting me as long as you don't play on the person, i learned much from RockingMrE, i don't write nonsense, just keep on topics and try to understand as i do, thats all

      Delete
    32. When I look back on my life so far I can honestly say that the happy times have always been when I wasn't concerned with finding happiness. I have learnt that there is much to be gained from just getting on with life.

      Anyway, I am sure we will chat more on E's site and I will get used to the way you put yourself across. For the time being I am definitely not under the impression that what you have to say is nonsense. I just need to get used to your writing style is all :)

      And since we are both Rocking Mr E fans then I consider it respectufl that this next song is dedicated to E himself :)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTaD9cd8hvw

      Best,
      t

      Delete
    33. even people trapped in pseudological lies 'think&feel' they're honest&sincere, i'm not putting myself across, i don't write about experiences, respect or whatever distractions, i'm not a fan of anyone, i'm only trying to understand the whole, holistic&integrative, english is my 2nd language, despite my writing style i realize that, thank you

      Delete
  7. PS This is an excellent article/post!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Looks so damn similar to the group attacks I saw from feminists over a decade ago.

    No substance, and they even refuse to engage in any matter that might contain it.

    We live in a population thoroughly indoctrinated in post modernism and cultural Marxism that it isn't surprising that any kind of men's movement would become just another outlet for identity politics.

    If we consider that women's rights became feminism when it took on Marxist ideas of deconstucting what were seen as oppressive class constructs. Then look at what that means in regards to binary oppositional deconstructivism, victimology, identity politics, and the utilitarian concepts of truth, morality and justice in order to justify confirmational bias as applied to science, history, theories, statistics and studies.
    Now apply that to a men's rights movement and decide when it becomes masculism.

    Or, to call a spade a spade, just another branch of cultural Marxism. That is, feminism for men.

    So why should this behaviour surprise you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be honest, it doesn't shock me really. But it is shocking to see the MRM increasingly copying the feminist dialectic of Marxist class consciousness.

      Delete
    2. heya MrE, can you make a Rocking vid on 'quenelle'?

      Delete
    3. The way I see it, anything that addresses the rights of a particular group is going to be derailed under the current social climate.
      I've watched feminist attacks on MRA's and MGTOW, and it's clear they're picking a fight on a particular set of terms. In other words, they're encouraging identity politics and cultural Marxism by using the same techniques that draw women into feminism. By encouraging hate, fear, mistrust and resentment any way they can. Given the psychological 'conditioning' most of our educations was all about, it really is just a matter of pressing the right buttons to derail the movement. Because of the Leftist dialectic you've very clearly covered, and how pervasive through modern society this is, most people just can't grasp any alternative way of thinking.

      The only solution that I can see is a movement based on objective reality/natural law as the only possible way of avoiding any social movement becoming just another expression of cultural Marxism.
      Considering the lifetime of Leftist conditioning most people have gone trough, introducing and developing ideas in peoples minds counter to this is a major and essential challenge.
      Given also, that most people are also resentful of ideas,because of the worthless and flaky Leftist ideas people have been indoctrinated with, just the presentation of an idea that asks something of them is considered by most to be too much.

      Delete
    4. Great points. I think that at the best of times most people struggle with being rational, at least in certain situations. When you combine this with statist indoctrination it's easy to see how collectivism is the conclusion for everything. Unless people start understanding this humanity is going to keep repeating the same leftist mistakes, as the MRM is now doing.

      Delete
    5. I thought early MGTOW was going to be the movement that did it.
      Turning their backs on identity politics and progressive stupidity. Many were refusing to even engage is discourse on such subjects. Acting on objective reality was their only course of action, and could have gutted the whole Leftist movement.

      I am now sorely disappointed. The act of carrying out a course of action in life based on a measurable objective reality was exactly what was bringing in so many people to the movement. We're starved for it. Numbers count and people are ready to listen if the movement is framed in a way that gets their attention.

      We can criticise Leftist ideologies for the rest of our days and never run out of subject matter. But how many listen? What's missing, that would set people on fire like early MRA's and MGTOW, is an exit with a destination, and a definition in a single term, acronym or expression.

      The appeal of MRA's was a voice for the resentment against society distancing itself from reality. The appeal of MGTOW was that it actually asked men to follow an easier path, and gave a lucrative alternative, with a destination. One that was presented as better than the path more commonly taken.

      Everything we say about Left and Right makes sense to us, but most people just want a path and a destination. But find a way of presenting it to people as easier, more appealing and more lucrative than the alternative the Left presents us, and maybe Joe Average will pay some attention.

      How that's done doesn't get enough attention, but to me it starts with asking people to have higher standards and requirements in the choices they make that effect their lives. Give them some really appealing alternatives, and show them the real outcomes of these decisions. Putting that all in a catchy acronym, a single all encompassing word, or even a sound byte is more than I can do at this point, but it's a great source of pondering. If that expression offers a path and a destination, people will pay attention.

      Unfortunately, despite your being correct about definitions of Left and Right, if you say you're right wing to most people, they've already switched off or prejudged your position. From there, it's an uphill battle.

      Delete
  9. The other part that I didn't make explicit, is that early MGTOW offered a man the right to make a choice based on measurable objective reality that benefited the individual making the choice. I know it's collecrtivising as we speak, but that initial appeal to the individual, and a real choice and action they can make, is what's missing in a lot of cases from the counter Leftist movements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree that right-wing choices offer no alternatives. It just requires personal responsibilities and non-coercive effort. That then leads to prosperity and freedom through free association. That's never going to appeal to a weak person or a narcissist. They prefer thug tactics, and will spread sophistry far and wide to suggest that they are virtuous. The fact is that it's only ever a small minority that are above this, and we are the future of humanity if it's going to continue existing. The leftist sociopaths will destroy everything if they have their way.

      Delete
  10. Mr.E,

    I very much appreciate your videos, and although we are ancient racial foes, you being of Hellenic ancestry and I being a Jew, I really feel your work deserves much praise for its important message and excellent honesty.

    When I first started visiting these sites years ago, it was a pleasant retreat from the feminism I was experiencing in my life on a daily basis... Like a Gentleman's club where expats would write about their experiences in different countries and disenfranchised single men would write about furthering intellectual pursuits in the face of this difficult period. Now, I feel as if most of the original contributors have either let loose and started their new life 'going their own way', and the young would-be successors are being co-opted into this hijacked Left-Wing monster that was once a quaint Gentleman's club. Would you oppose a religious movement that attracted young people to right-wing individualist negative-liberty philosophy? (Yes, I am aware that theocracy is a collectivist ideology, but humour me, for the purpose of this argument).

    At the risk of sounding like a concern troll (And I will admit, because of my past, I tend to behave pathologically altruistic sometimes), I would ask that people who post on your page should not waste your time and energy engaging you in idle discussion, much of what you are replying is already discussed in your videos. People should keep in mind that you have familial obligations, and it is extremely draining having to reply to certain kinds of posts, especially after perpetual regimens of troll refutation.

    I applaud you as a good father and husband, and for standing up for traditional marriage (Eventhough I myself am 'damaged goods' and will probably never marry because of my past - Feminism and collectivism is well alive in religious Jewish circles). Excellent videos as of late, and keep up the great work. Keep your family nuclear.

    Thanks

    Posted via anonymous OpenID account (OpenID will be discontinued Feb 2014)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not familiar with a particular rivalry between Jews and Hellenic cultures. I have no issues with Jews. I judge people for individual values, not as monolithic groups. No group is perfect, but I try to see past all that. Now ideology, that is another matter.

      A religion that encompasses "right-wing individualist negative-liberty philosophy" is a tempting idea. But I am sceptical that any groupthink can ever amount to anything positive anymore - as history shows. However, I am intrigued by what you mean by such an idea - purely out of curiosity that is.

      Don't worry too much about people wasting my time. I have a lot of time for genuine and supportive people, and even for those conducting genuine enquiry. Trolls on the other hand, no, I do not have time for them, for the reasons you describe. If I engaged with every hater and troll I get I would certainly have a lot less time for my family - and they are indeed a primary priority in my life.

      Delete
    2. ...Purely as a transitive stop-gap to Male Feminism (left-wing identity politics)...

      That means to say - young people who are researching men's rights are inevitably being drawn to left-wing philosophies... If someone created a channel that was void of religious preaching or proselytism, but at the same time used the Bible to support the idea of the nuclear family, would you oppose it? My intent being of course that later in their life, when their brain was more developed, they'd be free to choose between Theism or atheism.

      Let me put this into perspective by making use of your excellent 4 dimentional political scale. This channel would only quote parts of the Bible agreed upon by Right-Wing Atheists as being non-collectivist, in return, Right-Wing Atheists would remain balanced between Psychopathic Egotism and Pathological Altruism by allowing the use of the Bible in this manner...

      Thanks

      Delete
    3. If people can use reason to explain their religious views from an individualist perspective, that might work. But it's probably far easier to set aside the use of the word god altogether, and explain natural law in a secular sense. I am all for religious freedom however, as long as people respect rational natural law, while leaving specific religious scripture at the door. Saying that, there are some great parables and lessons in the bible, whether you're religious or not.

      Delete
  11. It is reassuring to know that you are a genuine individal with genuine concern for others. Keep up the fantastic work, and I will surely be looking forward to your next video. I think your support of religious freedom demonstrates that you practice what you preach. This sort of principled behavior is what sets you apart from other bloggers. I hope you have a well-rested weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  12. postmodernism pseudological frames anti&pro-tagonism, to promote democracy systematically, to claim truth as an insane reality is truth, bigots, hypocrites, the pot blames the kettle, asif smart, asif human, destroying all time goods to gayn unfair profits, sick..

    ReplyDelete