12 February 2013

Now Even Angry Harry is Wrong

This is not the post I originally had in mind to write, but frankly, right now I’m angry, which is very apt, because the person I am going to support is Angry Harry, someone that even Paul Elam has previously called the father of men’s rights. It’s no secret to many that I’ve had my issues with members of the Men’s Movement, but to now see that even a prominent individual like Angry Harry is coming under fire when pointing out the shortcomings of what A Voice for Men now considers acceptable editorial policy, shows that it’s growing impossible to deny that the Men’s Movement has reached a schism.

Angry Harry has posted a commentary on his site based around the fact that A Voice for Men published an article on “recovered memory syndrome”. His concerns were very similar to my own; people in the men’s movement mimicking the behaviour of feminists. When Harry expressed such concern on the AVfM article comment section, he was lambasted by the type of hounds that now regularly frequent this space. Harry graciously went away and did his research before returning, but still expressed deep concern that AVfM has begun to tread a very dangerous path that creates the type of mentality that funds life destroying industries, such as the domestic violence racket used to prop up feminism.

Unlike Harry, who doesn’t mention AVfM directly in his article, I am past a point of pretending that the site he is discussing isn’t AVfM. You see, I can tell you first-hand that what Angry Harry experienced isn’t new, since I’ve also experienced it myself. It’s a product of a cult-like fervour of professional victims seeking to dominate the men’s movement through the filter of AVfM.

Back in June I was shocked to discover that AVfM was posting articles endorsing Marxism within the men’s rights movement. The first article was called "MRM Marxism", and the second was called "Political Dyslexia". As if this wasn’t bad enough, one of the authors of these pieces tried to deny how feminism and Marxism are cut from the same cloth, in spite of history showing us that wherever collectivist philosophy goes, it strives to reduce women, and indeed men, to another means of production. Whether it’s the Republicans of the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets, or the Maoists of the Chinese Revolution, all behaved the same way; children being raised by third parties, and women working for the benefit of economic productivity, and often in brutal conditions. After all, what good is a parent at home, when this person can’t be taxed, not to mention the fact that parents raising children keeps them away from institutionalisation?

You can imagine the concern that many of us had when we saw that Paul Elam felt that Marxism had a place being a part of the men’s movement, especially since it was Marxist propaganda in particular that manufactured so much social and biological agitprop that sought to divide men and women. Paul insisted, when clarifying his position, that AVfM was a platform for all groups, and that it wasn’t his role to dismiss differing opinions. I found this contradictory. I see no place where fascists have a voice. Anyone that knows Paul’s editorial stance will know that such voices are quickly moved on if they try to associate with AVfM.

Here lies the contradiction. Paul doesn’t see the leftists, almost at the point of total domination at AVfM, as comparable to fascism. There can only be a couple of reasons for this; either Paul only cares about genocide when it concerns politically incorrect groups like Nazis, or he’s too poorly versed in history to realise that Marxists killed numbers of Ukranians in one year that compare (and many believe actually surpass) the entirety of the Holocaust of Nazis against the Jews. Marxists will argue that Marx never endorsed such policies. This is yet another revisionist lie, since Marx and Engels were actually the first people in the modern era to endorse genocide.

 What did Paul do when I expressed my concerns in a video, after being vilified as a “conservative” and a “traditionalist” (common pejoratives by anyone that disagrees with the AVfM agenda) in the comments section of these pro-Marxist articles? He featured a pretentious response video to me on AVfM, consisting of snide criticisms of my use of words, and my guitar playing. The video also involved denials that the leftists I was warning others to be wary of existed, in spite of the fact that leftists actually wrote the articles I was critiquing (duh!). Nothing new there though; when do leftists ever admit that their agenda, let alone that they exist?

Thanks to Paul’s editorial policy, the type of people that perpetuate feminism have managed to worm their way into the biggest platform for the men’s movement on the internet. The fact even Angry Harry is now attacked if he points out the blatantly obvious dangers of repeating history, shows that AVfM is now almost totally lost to collectivist consequentialism. There are others that have been in the firing line of this animosity too, including Bernard Chapin. Many now congregating around the AVfM platform are so incapable of shaking off politically correct thinking, that they even parrot how two parents are what children generally require, as though parents being biologically related to children have no bearing. Kin altruism does however have a huge bearing on the happiness of children, which can be demonstrated in the fact that homes with two biological parents do better than any other group, while homes with step parents are far more likely to be dysfunctional.

There are some good eggs on AVfM, Erin Pizzey chief among them, not to mention my friend James Huff. Alas, these voices are being increasingly drowned out by the talking points and deflections of professional victims that denounce fundamental principles of individual liberty; inviolable rights, and of course a diminishment of the statist platform that makes feminism possible. What baffles me the most about the “social justice” mentality taking over on AVfM is how even Erin Pizzey has published an article on that very site, showing how yet again it was Marxist ideologues that destroyed feminism, reshaping it into a juggernaut of lies and deception which redistributed resources for an agenda of systemic control. Still the denial, wilful or otherwise, ensues.

I’m more convinced than ever that AVfM will eventually be widely considered a site that’s betrayed the original sentiments of the modern men’s movement. I don’t envisage this taking more than a year at this rate, and the attempt to alter the acronym of the MRM to MHRM (men’s human rights movement) by AVfM shows that those having their way with AVfM are looking to steer the MRM in the direction of pity party “human rights” politics, which has so seriously harmed a culture driven by merit and uninstrusive government. How long, I wonder, before the “men” part of that acronym is dropped by those that want to enforce a progressive stack of victimhood, where manhood is the last identity to have any issues addressed? Time will tell.


  1. Hello Mr E,

    I wanted to comment on this and the general fragmented state of the MRM.
    I was angry enough after a rubbish relationship that I looked into a lot of this stuff relating to MRM, I am 28 years old and feel at odds with the world and have time to stew over it since joining the endless dole queue. Within a few months I am utterly disillusioned with the whole thing, I am not a victim and don't want to be labelled as such, I am just a proud Yorkshireman who wants to keep hold of what little pride I have left. AVFM is typical American Hoo-Raah bollocks designed to blow smoke up the arse of Elam and these champagne socialists that frequent its forums of comment, who tend to be hateful towards women rather than trying to work with them to actually achieve something. As a wise man (Churchill?) once said "Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it." If this is the future for the MRM, I want nothing to do with it, why can't each side accept that it cant do everything without input from the other (same but different as it were) and then maybe, just maybe work together to make life better for both sides? You see, yes women have hurt me, but I don't see that as a problem with women as a whole, hence why I do not want to hurt them back as it were, I just want to be seen as a person with feelings and given a little respect for my right to exist, too much to ask? Probably... but AVFM is just like mumsnet for men, whining about problems regarding the opposite sex, with a load of people who will agree with you without question and pat you on the back and say "there, there". what is achieved from this? nothing but a place where bitter mistrust can be built up by damaged people. In the end nothing will be achieved by this and will just be used by those who seek to damage mens rights as a stick to beat it with.

    I hope this ramble makes sense and you can see where I am coming from with it.

    Best Regards


    1. You sir are an example of a man that can retain pragmatism, even during times of hardship. This makes you the salt of the earth! Many don't do this, and direct their anger and frustration outwards, feeling entitled. This is how demagogues take advantage, and there are several of those online now. The pot is beginning to boil over with angry men that simply want chaos. We should be careful not to underestimate them; there basically isn't thug or a criminal alive that doesn't have a sad story to tell.

    2. Richard, I agree a lot of the movement is off the deep end. RockingMrE's stuff on MRA though is pretty good, and GirlWritesWhat (from my adopted home town where I've lived most of my life! shout out) is pretty good as well.

      One doesn't need to become a Marxist and certainly not a woman-hater to support men's rights (although when you're hurting a lot, the temptation can be there, and I gather the same temptation can exist in women following negative experiences in relationships and dating for the same basic reason).

      Men should have natural human rights like everybody else.

  2. Well there's a thread of incipient -victim think- that's been evident for a long time and it's also been equally evident that those pointing out the obvious have been shown the door and dissent consciously suppressed. It should be no surprise that the culprits now feel secure enough to bring their troops in through the front door and confident enough to exercise exclusion tactics on someone like Angry Harry. It's a slide down a snake that's for sure but I made it a while ago and at least now maybe it's a bit clearer who's on which side of the battle lines. Maybe there's something positive to gained here, if recent events have rung enough alarm bells with people for them to kick the talking shop at avfm into the same cupboard as The Conscious Men and actually get done instead sticking their fingers up their noses. I'm not holding my breath though, the world as bloody insane, there's just another bunch of nutters you have to avoid.

    1. The trouble with leftists is that they often over-reach. They get over-confident or impatient, and then they slip up. We can see the cracks emerging now, so I doubt it will be long before AVfM is widely exposed for being a viper's pit for leftists. Once that happens then the MRM will purge itself of AVfM, and many will never trust Paul Elam and others on that site again.

    2. Mr. E, do you think the SPLC was right to label AVFM a hate group?

    3. No, because I think AVfM was generally on the right track before the SPLC did this. I have my suspicions with regards to the SPLC. There are rumours that they have infiltrated AVfM, and the swarming of leftists to that site does seem to coincide with just after the SPLC's antics.

  3. Generally, you are right. There are in fact too many leftists on AVfM.
    In one of my articles, regarding the French ban on paternity tests ( http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/ ) I wrote the following:
    „Is it really a surprise that a socialist government disagreed that men have human rights too?” - Which is a matter of fact, since France is ruled by a Socialist government.

    Well, what followed - you can see in the comments. I moderated some of them (because I have a higher level of tolerance for stupid leftist bullshit than some people - but it is still limited) - but there were still so many leftists insisting that I should not say „socialist government”. Basically, they were telling me to lie.

    Moreover, I caught Dean Esmay trying to edit out the word „socialist” and replaced it with „European”. When I confronted him, he backed out but warned me that „it might upset some people”. My reaction, normally, was the following: „So fucking what? People who are offended by the truth should not be here in the first place!”

    Anyhow, fortunately, I am not alone in this, as some other people are also quite upset about the fact that there is too much pushing for cultural Marxism (politically correctness) on AVfM.

    I do agree that there are too many leftists on AVfM and I do agree that something should be done. Hopefully, me and a few like minded individuals shall attempt that. If we will not succeed - then soon enough they will remain without rational voices.

    I agree with inclusiveness, but I do not agree with leftist propaganda on AVfM or slurs because someone (especially me :) ) dares to tell the truth.

    1. I knew AVfM was now falling apart, but to hear from you that those cultural Marxist shills have been trying to edit out words associated with leftist ideology is a disgrace. This is another clue as to why all we hear on AVfM now is SoCon this, TradCon that, or "Traditionalist", and a whole swath of pejoratives that deflect the fact that socialist ideology is overwhelmingly the cause of misandry. What do you expect though, since these people are obviously determined to render the MRM incapable of fighting back.

  4. However, I think Angry Harry exaggerated in some of the comments he posted on AVfM.
    Take this comment:
    „Of interest perhaps: Many years ago I actually came across two women who had had incestuous relations with their sons.
    In both cases, the situation was this.
    The sons had always been emotionally ‘distant’ from their mothers and from others. Perhaps they were slightly autistic or something. I can’t remember.
    And these two mothers were desperate to arouse some kind of positive emotional feelings in them. Trying to “wake them up” emotionally. Trying to make them feel positive towards them – as mothers – and towards other people.
    They did not want their sons to be emotionally dead zones.
    And so they initiated sex in the hope that this would spark some kind of loving responses in their sons.
    Well, in both cases, this did not work.
    But can you blame them for trying?” - This comment was written by Angry Harry on this article: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/the-rape-victims-they-refuse-to-see/

    Well, I am sorry - but this is excusing incestuous behavior from women to male sons. I cannot endorse this. And nobody should endorse this.

    1. I agree that the incestuous comment wasn't the best choice. But it wasn't necessarily totally invalid, since he was showing that there are a number of reasons for abuse, and they aren't all something that results in "trauma".

      This is what Harry was repeatedly trying to clarify, and the fact that he is deeply sceptical that, after 20 years, this James still considers his problems to be linked to one event.

      Anyway, I won't go into all the details here, but I think Harry just made a poorer example due to the pressure of the lynching he received on AVfM. This example he gave doesn't invalidate his primary points though.

    2. „This example he gave doesn't invalidate his primary points though.” - Yes, that is correct.
      To be honest, I was also skeptical with regards to this guy's article, but I guess I am slightly more tolerant to ever increasing piles of bullshit that are gathering on AVfM.

  5. I am very disheartened by all of this. I recommended and know that at least 20 of my friends have subscribed and support MRM issues for the last year, certainly the last few months but after last night's debacle, censorship, comment removal on videos, insane video rants from WBB calling people bigots and the treatment of Bernard Chapin, not to mention there is a bot changing all the old articles with the acronym MRM to MHRM (rewriting history essentially) on AVfM now. Some of my college friends where even thinking of setting up a talk/group for MRM issues in the coming months but now, I just don't know. I am saddened and I know things will never be the same after this.

    1. They are also saying the dissent from MRM supporters is because of gay issues but I cannot see any such grounded remarkes from a collect of supporters (apart from 1 or 2 trolls in the videos). All I am seeing is the MHRM advocates using criticism as a response (sword) and PC (shield) saying any opposing voices or counterarguments is actually a because people are homophobic. No it is not. I see several commentors on the videos who support the the move to MHRM are being censored/blocked on forums and channels such as WBBs "Let me Clarify" video.

    2. I share your concerns. Just take heart of the fact that the backlash will give these people what's coming to them. The AVfM crowd have now clearly begun to see themselves as a group "transcending" the MRM, and have grown extremely arrogant. It's not so much that they are blocking or banning people, which they are entitled to, it's the fact that they are trying to paint themselves as an inclusive group, and that simple isn't true. If you don't tow the PC line you are out of there.

      This whole gay rights thing is also ludicrous. Gay men should, of course, be entitled to be in the movement as men, but as far as gay issues are concerned, they are not an aspect of the men's movement. Besides, I don't see the LGBT movement advocating for straight men. The whole thing is a smokescreen designed to cover for mission drift.

    3. You might be interested in a short video I made about this topic

    4. I actually already watched and liked it. Good job.

  6. I guess it is only fitting Elam is male backwards, heading right to left.

  7. Mr E. The Men's Rights Movement isn't a Libertarian movement. You just have to accept it. The 'Rights' bit says it all. I would never call myself a MRA – but I'm interested in the movement for new ideas and ways of thinking. We all need to keep our distance.

  8. It certainly is sad to see that the MRM is becoming what we all hate, a special rights movement made of eternal victimhood. I had hoped that mentality would have stayed in the realm of masculinists, but it seems like it's spread onward and outward.

    Traditionalism isn't a bad thing, so long as it's voluntary, and that's what these nuts on AVfM are missing. Even GWW has pointed out that she has no problem with a woman in the kitchen with a husband who likes her in the kitchen, so long as the woman chooses to be in the kitchen.

    That's where the whole legitimacy of the MRM is breaking down for me, is when people start advocating for the application of force. AVfM keeps talking about how they're non-violent, in fact JtO often goes out of his way to point out his abhorrence to violence, but any time you appeal the authority of the state, you're appealing for the application of violence on your behalf, and I think that it's inherently dishonest to declare on one hand that you're non-violent in your activism and on the other hand seek to impose your values and will through the power of the state.

    1. The problem is that the movement is being filled far faster with people that want state solution to these problems. I blame Elam for this above all, but there are others that are responsible. There are too many people now that seem to think that their typically feminist approach will somehow not result in the same path as feminism, when in fact all the same mistakes are being repeated. There are many others that are counting on this though, and these are the ones to watch above all.

    2. "The problem is that the movement is being filled far faster with people that want state solution to these problems."

      That's simply because non-statists are in a minority.

      Indicators are showing that as little as 7% of the UK population hold libertarian views. And only another 10% hold Conservative views. Don't know about the US. We have to be realistic about our expectations.

    3. Realistic, maybe. But the price we pay for loss of liberty is a very high one. We are essentially slaves to the collective will, and I for one am not happy with that.

    4. We are just keeping the flame of liberty alive, is the way I see it. In the same way a few brave individuals held onto reason throughout the Dark Ages. Many didn't see progress in their lifetimes. I don't expect to see any either. But I just do what comes naturally to me and what I believe is right and just.

      I've seen people like Angry Harry start up movements, only to be castigated and used as a scapegoat when things fall apart – it's just human nature. For this reason, I try to keep my distance from mass movements. I don't expect any thanks or reward or recognition for what I do. This doesn’t mean I don't live a positive and rewarding life. I understand how frustrating it can be seeing parts of the MRM failing as possible vehicles to advance the cause of liberty, but we still have to keep things in perspective.

    5. Just happened upon this site, and i'm finding it hard to believe most of you standing by and not fighting for legislation to free men from false rape. Unless your position is a civil suite against the false accuser? Either way government intervention is required.

  9. The vaunted 'openess' of avfm is as much a front as any other useful deception tried by Paul Elam since his arrival on the Men's Rights scene. His attitude to marriage and good men-women relations were fairly clear to 'insiders' right from his take-over of Men's News Daily from Bernard Chapin, after Bernard's decision to focus his attention more personally. (The Inferno is now a firm beacon).

    One of Elam's first actions was to destroy the reputation and corpus of writings of a very long standing MND writer and supporter, David Usher. Why? Because David supported Marriage. He wanted it changed of course, as most MRAs do, but improved. Elam wanted any talk of marriage obliterated. He wanted David Usher obliterated.

    "You will be gone, like you were never there", he told David as he shoved him out. (I have the emails). He used the same phrase with me. I was MND's Chairman at the time and sought a 'collegiate' Board. Elam demanded sole authority.

    His autocracy matches his hatred of Marriage. His extreme language is a wonder to behold when he is in full flood. David saw him as a 'Feminist plant', intent on worming his way in to destroy the MRM. I did not agree at the time and still do not, although the consequences of his subsequent actions could easily have it seen that way.

    Anyone with an alternative to his firm convictions ( I call them that out of politeness) is soon identified and villified. Except the useful idiots of course. Hense these Marxists apologists and deniers he is encouraging. It took him less than a year to scuttle the Flagship of the MRM. Now he has his own little fishing smack he imagines himself as an Admiral.

    1. "His autocracy matches his hatred of Marriage. His extreme language is a wonder to behold when he is in full flood".
      That makes sense to me.
      As much as I sometimes agree with his comments at AVFM one thing that has seen me turn completely away from AVFM is his use of foul mouthed language. I don't have a problem with swearing in general, but when you're trying to bring about political change it just cheapens things and isn't a smart move. Give me someone more eloquent and statesmanlike like David Usher anyday, and that's not to say I agree with everything Mr Usher utters either. Just that he says it with much more dignity than Paul Elam.
      Much worse however is Paul Elam's occasional use of disgusting dehumanizing terms for folks he disagrees with. That was one of the last straws for me as I saw such behavior being mirrored by folks commenting on threads at AVFM. The fact is there's a raft of information on how using dehumanizing terms is used as a psychological mechanism to do unspeakable things to people who are regarded as less than human. A search of AVFM will reveal this, not in spades, but there nonetheless. The sad irony is it's something I've seen folks at AVFM rightly accuse some feminists of, yet they remain blind to their own similarity.
      So the bottom line is no matter how much I may agree with what they stand for on certain men's issues, there's no way I want to be associated with AVFM.

  10. I went and read the Angry Harry article. Do NOT fall for this hoax!

    Back in the 80'ies there was a phenomenon that ravaged Western civilization, strongest in English speaking countries as ideas are transmitted by communication, namely the Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare.

    Now, you might "SAY WHAAAAAT???? What the Hell kind of a topic is this to bring up?!" Well, it was a Moral Panic made up of a mix between Freudian psychology and religious zealotry.

    The hoax went that Satanists were either abducting or breeding babies and killing, raping or mutilating them in gruesome Satanic rituals. To offer evidence of this highly unorthodox claim they employed the Freudian theory of repression. You may know it and feel it if you watch the movie "12 Monkeys": it was that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" feeling you get.

    Basically, the theory went, if someone had suffered a bad trauma: 1) that trauma will be reppressed so that it is not available to the consciousness or 2) you might claim to remember it.

    Either way, if you claimed you'd be traumatized by such rituals - or had been a "breeder" it was taken as evidence for it having taken place. If you DENIED it it was simply because you were repressing the memories, which was then taken as evidence that it had actually happened. So ... both the presence and absence of proof was taken as proof of the theory. See where this goes? How unscientific it is?

    Incidentally, or more like ironically, the now-disgraced Eva Lundgren of Uppsala University, Sweden, was a prime proponent of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare in Sweden. As shown in the Swedish documentary, "Könskriget" (see YouTube), she was embraced by the radical feminist groups ROKS in Sweden that today has a lot of political clout.

    "Recovering" such "memories" is fraught with dangers. As Harry said the stories often become more and more unbelievable.

    Not only can this lead to a bona fide, modern witch hunt, but it's also a sure-fire way to harm genuine victims of rape and abuse. If a simple rape is turned into a fantastic tale someone will doubt it find NO hard evidence of this having taken place.

    Law enforcement, among them the FBI, did investigate these alleged crimes. In some cases entire schools and its underground was dug out, yet no evidence turned up. No secret basements with crematoriums to dispose of bodies. Not ONE traitor of this alleged conspiracy was found, NO network of baby murdering cultists was uncovered.

    As always the Ultimate Evil remained hidden and in the dark, just outside the range of the most powerful long range sensors.

    And it is sad. There's been research into the matter of such "recovered memories" to determine their true nature, but also to assist the police in best-practice interrogation methods. As it turned out a pattern began to emerge. Most people turned out to be immune to these Freudian therapists and/or hypnosis which creates such memories, but the research also uncovered a percentage of children and adults that were prone to mix the incessant, fantastic claims of their therapists and their own memories. Therapists would frequently pressure, knowing the patient's denial was actually an admission. Then what was once "no, that didn't happen" began to become "sure, I kinda remember that". But these poor, suggestible patients were just remembering what their THERAPISTS said and couldn't quite separate the therapist's fantasy from reality. Given enough patients, and knowing how mentally impaired people do seek help more often than not, quite a few of these suggestible people became indoctrinated. Reaper style, I might add.

    I highly recommend this book by Richardson, Best & Bromley that I read as a young man: "The satanism scare", by James T. Richardson, Joel Best, David G. Bromley (Eds.), New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991. 320 pages, paperback

    1. I've actually watched Konskriget. It is a horrifying testament to what happens when cultish fervour takes over. You are right to feel deeply concerned, and all we can do is keep reminding people of the dangers of history repeating itself.

  11. Read, also, "Victims of Memory" by Mark Prendergrast.

  12. I have (and still do) disagree with you on your position in relation to the arguments of biology and predispositions which you and Stardusk had it out over months ago.

    But you and Chapin have never been more correct in your assessment of the leftist ideological infiltration (and eventual takeover)of AVfM (AVfMHR? AVfMHR/LGBT/TGD?) or whatever it is they now call themselves.

    Nothing is worse than to see something with such promise get so comfortable with that old serpent, and begin it slow (then quick)spin right down the shitter.

    1. I'm glad to see you agree with us. But you have to realise that MGTOW is just as corrupted by leftists as AVfM. I am not saying that MGTOW cannot exist aside from this corruption, but unless people recognise that the MRM is seriously compromised by leftist shills then leftists will begin to dominate the movement more and more.

  13. Replies
    1. Don't push anything to do with child porn on this site either. I don't agree with Paul Elam about many major things. But when it comes to this I consider it to be a moral duty to protect children from people harbouring fetishism for children.

      As for age of consent, I will not discuss it with you because I find your views to be highly questionable. Consider this reply a warning.

  14. First off, I think I owe you an apology (if that was you that commented on my blog post about Paul and his merry band of sycophants). I am still not sure who I can 'trust' anymore, and am kinda waffling on whether or not it's time to bow out.

    Then, I see other LONG LONG TIME MRAs, being unceremoniously booted from a website they basically helped build, with a level of dismissive snark Andrea Dworkin would be proud of, for simply not being PC enough.

    PC....a PEE CEE requirement...for MRAs...jesus.

    This, by the way, is the end result of pursuing tactics designed to keep you from 'looking bad'. A fact I have stated nearly every day for years. Yoda knew his stuff when it came to fear.

    That said, I think it might be a good idea to begin to think about setting up another 'group' site, for MRAs. One which has a 'board' right from the outset, a board that is subject to both annual election, and impeachment if needed in between.

    AVfM got a lot of stuff right...but I can tell you for a fact most of those 'right' things were NOT Paul's idea...not even close. Besides, as Harry said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and if AVfM chooses this path, let 'em. We should set up an alternative site, and cater to those who find that level of 'inclusiveness' morally, even physically, repugnant.

    What say you?

    1. I don't recall you and I ever confronting one another, so there is nothing to apologise for.

      I really like the idea of another men's site. I don't think voting will solve much in the way of the problems on AVfM though, because appeals to popularity are primarily what seem to be flushing that place down the drain, not to mention the wider system we now live in.

      The biggest problem I observe with AVfM is that there wasn't a mission statement for the site baked into the cake. I don't know if you are familiar with James Huff's First Principles Initiative, but here it is:


      This is the type of principled approach that would prevent the MRM being co-opted by identity politics, political correctness, and other statist phenomena that would corrupt the movement from the inside. Those that want reform need to be very much against taking money and support from those that want to assimilate others into the system. Erin Pizzey talks about the risk in this area for example, as it relates to the domestic violence industry.

    2. ""The biggest problem I observe with AVfM is that there wasn't a mission statement for the site baked into the cake""

      Oh yes there was. It just wasn't made public. It can be sung along to the Helen Reddy hit song, "I am Elam, hear me roar, I will kick you out the door, you'll be gone like you were never ever there..."

  15. Just one thing, only tangential to the article. While I won't say Marx didn't endorse violence (specially because I'm underread on his ideas), I don't think he specifically endorsed genocide.

    I watched the video you've linked, in there there's a quote attributed to Marx, that ends with "They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust". The problem is, while the first part of the quote can be found in his writings, as far as I can see, Marx never actually said that second bit. Also, did the word 'holocaust' have the same meaning we give to it today already in the 19th century?

    As you might agree it's always good practice for one to apply initial skepticism specially of the sources one is already inclined to agree with beforehand.

    1. You are either lying or suffering with severe cognitive dissonance. This is similar to what Nazis suffer with when denying the Jewish holocaust, and should be treated with equal scorn. Marx's approach was part of Journal entries. Stop trying to revise this information, as other Marxist and Communist/leftist sympathisers do, crypto or otherwise.

      I have a zero tolerance approach to Marxist revisionism, since the entire of WWII onwards has been based on these appalling tactics. Marxism IS an ideology founded on revolutionary purges and holocausts, and your points are semantics at best, but I just call it lying.

      You will not get another chance to behave this way on my online pages.

  16. MRM needs people like Elam. We need sensationalism and perhaps even trolling to get this movement off the ground and into mainstream. It often feels like we're spinning wheels and getting nowhere. What we don't need is fragmentation. We don't need conflicting political ideologies involved or giving more ammo to the opposition. I think anyone calling them self an MRA does everything in their power to promote and defend men rights. That includes gamers and ownwayers. Egos do play a major role and as the old saying absolute power corrupts absolutely. Elam enjoys the power of bringing young into the flock and imposing his own flavor of MRM. We don't have to agree on everything but we need to agree on something. I've been a reader of AVFM for a while and lately it feels it's heading into fringe direction. We need a unified movement. There are two ways, follow feminist model and latch onto a political party or continue to chip at feminism hopefully someday to rise from it's ashes. None it is appealing.

    1. Elam is a typical "shock jock". He has no discernible values, and no, "saving teh menz" is not sufficient to be a credible value.

      The reason why the MRM hasn't been able to succeed up to now is for the same reason that the liberty movement can't. Collectivism is all around us now, and Elam wants to try and do what leftists always do; infiltrate. This will fail because leftists will lie and cheat more than anyone else to succeed. Elam's reputation will go down in ashes as he tries to reshape the MRM into something that adheres to PC dialectic. This has already begun.

      The MRM is dying because it lacks principles, and you can bet that it will continue to haemorrhage individualists that are disgusted by the pro-leftist crowd who feel that coercion is acceptable. To top it off Elam and his fellow MGTOW zealots are just as determined to crush the family as feminists. They really are two sides of the same coin - reshaping feminist dialectic to suit men is not a solution. It's part of the problem.

  17. Coincidentally, I( was watching Sky news this morning. There was a reformed radical muslim on the programme telling the story of how muslims are radicalised. 2 main tenets are - convincing them that they are a victim & convincing them that they have an oppressor. These same tenets are the major plank of feminism.
    I was going to draw the parallels on the UK Men's Rights facebook site when I thought - to some extent at least, the MRM are going down the same road.
    Still mulling the implications over in my head.

  18. Oh, you mean a person (on either side) could be right about some things, wrong about others, while still being sincere and well-meaning in their intentions?



    Anyway, as far as what Angry Harry and A Voice for Men were arguing about, I think Alice Miller is more or less right.

    10. For a number of years now there has been talk of a newly discovered disorder, the so-called "false memory syndrome." Do you think it conceivable that someone could wrongly imagine they had been treated cruelly in childhood?

    10. No. Our organism tends to shy away from pain, not to invent it. If we do invent a story it will ALWAYS be less harmful than the real, repressed one, was The False Memory Foundation is an interest group established by rich parents in the 1980s, suing those therapists whose treatment had enabled their adult children to recall the sexual abuse once inflicted on them by the parents. Unfortunately, many therapists were intimidated by this foundation, and this may be one of the reasons why childhood reality plays no part in most of the therapies on offer today.

    I totally agree with her main thrust, including that this is a missing ingredient in therapy. I wouldn't say that it could "never" happen, but I'd say that by and large, most people tend to idolise their parents as a (physical and emotional) survival strategy rather than the reverse.

    Credit where credit is due: I will forever be grateful to Stefan Molyneux for introducing me to Alice Miller's wonderful, life-changing work, which has and will continue to better children's lives and thus society as a whole: males and females both.

    1. Afterthought: While most memories of childhood trauma actually occurred or something else similar occurred, a man being, at least in the full-on penile-vaginal sex sense, raped by a woman is pretty rare, I would think, if only for reasons of mechanics.

      BUT ... apparently sexual assault is not that rare in lesbian relationships. So women are certainly capable of the motive.

    2. You are attempting to suggest that "false memory syndrome" is legitimate in "most" cases for children?

  19. It is not my purpose to get into a religious discussion here, I only site the on top of because it tends to illustrate my earlier point of a gay lobby and a strong "gay agenda.