Paul Elam, Hannah Wallen – How they Killed the Men’s Rights Movement

This site – theantifeminist.com – is one of the last of the ‘first wave’ of men’s rights sites still standing. Next year it celebrates it’s tenth anniversary. I have been a men’s rights activist since I picked up Neil Lyndon’s classic ‘No More Sex War’ as a university student in the mid 1990’s. Admittedly, I didn’t take much part in the early internet newsgroups and so on. I think I was turned off by some (a few) of the ‘father’s rights activists’ and their anti-sex hostility. Looking back, it’s a shame I didn’t stay and fight my corner right then, rather than jump back in a few years later when the online MRM was really starting to take off (thanks to Angry Harry). It would have been a lot easier, and things right now might be very different.

It seems to me then, and if my memory serves me correctly, that the proto online men’s rights movement was largely British dominated, and was still a long way from being taken over by American puritan conservatives, let alone puritan femiservative American women (and ‘transgenders’) as it has today. Still, nearly 25 years a men’s rights supporter, and a decade at the heart of the online MRM, is not a bad track record.

As readers will be aware, I’ve stepped back both from this site for a while, and the MRM for even longer. This week, I stepped back in and it was something akin to walking through the gates of hell.

When you’ve been a men’s rights supporter for 25 years, it is a truly surreal and somewhat nightmarish experience to be told by a transgender feminist ‘MRA’ that you’re not an MRA, but simply a ‘pedo acceptance advocate’. Furthermore, that it did this using feminist arguments, to defend a feminist sex law, that leads to far more men (and even boys) being raped in the ass for real, in prison cells, than have ever been raped by women. What’s more, that transgender fraud ‘MRA’ then constantly retweets its slander in order to get a mob of similar feminist, beyond ugly, ‘female MRAs’ (as well as their lapdog male white knight ‘mras’) to attempt to bully and threaten me into silence.

It is decidedly byeond surreal and nightmarish to be told that you are a subhuman pedophile for claiming that is normal for a man to find a 17 year old girl like this to be attractive (17 year old Anna Kournikova)

when the thing shaming you and seeking to define what is and isn’t normal male sexuality looks like this :

So it’s men’s rights for hideously ugly middle-age femiservative ‘women’ to tell MRAs of 25 years standing that they are subhuman pedo advocates for admitting sexually fertile 17 year old women are attractive, and it’s not men’s rights to claim that it is an evil for society to classify men and male sexuality as paedophiles/paedophilia for any attraction to 17 year old women? Really? Hell, you can keep your ‘men’s rights movement’. I want no further part of it.

Perhaps it was before it infiltrated the movement, but I wonder if Hannah Wallen recalls the time several years ago when Paul Elam got an e-mail from three fifteen year old English schoolgirls and was posting/boasting about it as a ‘perk of the job’ within an hour on A Voice for Men? (the original article on AVfM, it seems now taken down, had a pic of three sexualized giggling (rather infantalized) bikini clad teen girls for illustration – presumably how Elam was picturing them as he read their mail in bed with a morning boner. But you can still read the text of it here : http://triggeralert.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/paul-elam-gets-email-from-three-uk.html)

I wish MRAs had shown the level of mob fury they can display against other MRAs who speak out against feminist sex laws, against David Futrelle and his readers when they were defending a sick child snuff porn movie – Salo – being sold in gay sex shops. Instead, I got a lot of MRAs (or ‘MHRA’s) coming here from AVfM denouncing me and defending Futurelle, claiming that Salo was ‘high art’ that I just couldn’t understand. Salo contains little else but graphic images of real naked children, chiefly boys (‘supposedly acting’) being forced to eat the excrement of their abusers before being tortured and murdered. The director of that movie – Pasolini – was a convicted homosexual paedophile who chose the child actors in his movies on the basis of their youthful good looks and would attempt to have sex with them. Looking back at the lack of support, or even opposition, amongst MRAs in my attacks on Futrelle and his love of that film, and you perhaps get an idea why they are so obsessed with the rape of boys, as well as furious at any attempts to stand up for normal male heterosexuality.

There is no conceivable universe which exists in which it is not a men’s rights duty to at least allow the questioning of the basis of feminist sex laws that imprison hundreds of thousands of men worldwide, that define those men as true subhumans not to have any sympathy or basic human rights, and that ever more define entirely normal male sexuality as ‘paedophilia’ – the greatest perversion on Earth. Hannah Wallen, the new face of the men’s rights movemnt, the movement that Angry Harry above all built, thinks that any man who so much as has a sexual thought regarding a 17 year old ‘child’ is a subhuman paedophile who should be locked up for life to be raped and beaten. This is a ‘woman’ who gets a twitter mob of its feminist and ‘MRA’ allies (many of them with anime avators featuring cute 9 year old girls) to literally threaten the life of Eivind Berge for holding a view that women can’t rape men (*I don’t entirely agree with Eivind on this, but the point is he holds that view, based on his deep understanding of evolutionary science, primarily because the view that women can rape men validates feminist sex laws rather than fights them).

In twenty years or less, it will be possible for law enforcement to look into the minds of men as easy as they can today look into harddrives for the traces of one single thumbnail of a ‘young looking’ 25 year old in school uniform, that might be enough to put you in prison to be raped as a paedophile nonce. Hannah Wallen and her feminist/MRA followers, argued that any man who has ever had a sexual thought regarding a 17 year old ‘child’ is a subhuman paedo who deserves to be in prison to be raped.

Without any exaggeration, this is Paul Elam’s legacy to the movement Harry built. The men’s rights movement of today, led almost entirely by women and transgenders, seeks to have virtually every man on Earth in prison, where they will be raped as subhuman paedophiles – something that the likes of Hannah Wallen and her honey badger pals – supposedly so concerned about male rape – find amusing.

TBH, I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time here. I accept that the men’s rights movement has been lost and the likes of paedocrite frauds such as Paul Elam and his sexy ‘Honey Badgers’ have ‘won’ but there’s nothing, nothing, nothing, that can change the fact that they are frauds and that the feminist war on male sexuality, including inflated definitions of paedophilia (in the context of the current global and medieval like hysteria over paedophilia) are men’s rights issues.

Even if it is true, that there are 100 ‘MRAs’ who will denounce me for every one that would agree with me on this issue, it means nothing. I remember a few years back when the MRM was still in its relative infancy that feminists made a concerted campaign to take it over via the infamous Good Men Project. For a while, these ‘men’ were calling themselves the ‘true MRAs’. What if the Good Men Project had succeeded? Would it make any difference to the fact that they were frauds, and that people like Angry Harry – who they denounced as sexist, pro rape, pro wife beating etc – would forever be the true MRAs? No it wouldn’t, and even the likes of Paul Elam might be able to see that. Similarly, people like myself and Eivind Berge..and indeed Angry Harry… will always be the true MRAs, no matter how many of thousands of pussy whipped ‘MRAs’ the Honey Badger feminists manage to control.

So..this is why I rarely post here now. The men’s rights movement is clearly dead. However, things are not that bad, despite this. The ideas of Angry Harry (and to a much lesser extent, the likes of myself) spread out and influenced wider movements, and the wider Web, and into ‘real life’ and politics, even if people don’t always recognize them as having a ‘men’s rights’ origin. Hell, we even have a President of the United States now who called 13 year old girls hot and who regularly referred to men’s rights arguments in his presidential campaign. To think that Paul Elam and the honey badgers would likely have kicked out Donald Trump as a ‘pedo advocate’ and incited their feminist/fake MRA followers to lynch him, if he had become an MRA instead of the President!

Angry Harry on the Thought Crimes of Chris Langham

A classic Angry Harry article on the ‘scapegoating’ of Chris Langham, the comedian who was convicted of downloading 15 child porn images, an offence which Harry argues amounts to ‘thought crime’. Harry correctly points out the problems that will be posed when brain scanning tech comes into play in a couple of decades or sooner, or at least problems for the paedocrites who are policing our thoughts if they themselves have to be examined by the scanner.

Honey Badger Hannah Wallen

* Note – I do not necessarily go as far as Harry on this occasion. Langham was convicted of downloading some images that were apparently genuinely abusive. However, the logic of his argument is on the whole sound and I don’t disagree with much of it. It’s also important to re-publish such articles by Angry Harry because thanks to the utter fraud that is Paul Elam, the MRM is now firmly under the control of repulsively ugly ‘honey badgers’ who openly argue that every man who has ever had a sexual thought regarding a 17 year old ‘child’ should be raped and beaten for the rest of their lives as subhuman nonces in prison. With the brain scanning technology that Angry Harry mentions in the article below fast becoming a reality and soon a tool of law enforcement, the men’s rights movement of 2017 is actually campaigning for virtually EVERY MAN ON EARTH to be classified as a subhuman paedophile and put in prison for life.

http://www.angryharry.com/es_chris_langham.htm

Chris Langham, a well-known UK comedy actor, was recently imprisoned for downloading fifteen illicit child porn images on to his computer, and in this piece I hope to demonstrate that the punishments being meted out for offences such as this are far too severe, that these severe punishments are largely imposed because of the abuse hysteria and male hatred that are continually being generated by the feminists, the media and the abuse industry, that these punishments are, essentially, for crimes of thought, that the real culprits whose activities very actively promote the sexual abuse of children are getting away Scott free, and that the underlying aim behind both the hysteria and the harshness is, quite simply, part and parcel of the unremitting drive to demonise men and to profit from doing so.

At the outset, however, it is probably wise to state that the argument is not that viewing illicit child material should be made legal, but that the current response to it is unwarranted and way overblown, and, further, that the hysteria about this issue is largely being generated by those very people whose activities promote child abuse in the first place, and that, basically, they are fomenting hysteria to cover up what they, themselves, are doing.

And the first thing that one has to strip away when trying to understand the arguments that follow is that there is no dispute over the fact that the downloading of such images is illegal – and that it should be so. But when we have done this, we are left with the fact that Chris Langham’s crime was trivial – certainly in comparison to many other crimes for which the punishment is slight.

For example, …

She Had Suffered Enough A woman who battered a nine-week-old baby in an horrific attack HAS AVOIDED JAIL after a judge decided she had already suffered enough.

Claire Thompson, 32, who had been entrusted with looking after the infant, was found guilty in March of fracturing its skull, breaking a rib and inflicting up to three leg fractures

But no jail time.

Chris Langham has not abused any child, nor has he promoted the abuse of children. What he has done is simply to look at images of abuse.

He looked at pictures.

But, in practice, he is being taken so horribly to task by the media, the public and, indeed, the law not because he looked at pictures – a trivial offence – but because of what this implies about what might have been going on inside his head and because various powerful groups want to hide the fact that they, themselves, are major promoters and purveyors of child sexual abuse; and, typically, they do this by protesting very heavily that they are outraged by such abuse and by passing the buck on to whomsoever else they can – with much success.

To get a better feel of what is going on here, imagine that Muslims were being prosecuted and vilified simply for looking at pictures of terrorist attacks; the argument being that simply by looking at such pictures, Muslims were both encouraging acts of terrorism and being turned on by them. Or imagine the same arguments being applied to people who watch programs that depict murder and violence – both fictional and non-fictional – viz; that the very act of looking at such material promoted murder and violence as well as indicated that the viewers themselves wished to perpetrate such things.

The whole notion, though having some considerable merit, would be completely unacceptable to the majority of people.

I suggest that the notion does have ‘some considerable merit’ because I actually do believe that if, for example, certain Muslims were persistently attempting to view images of terrorism then this would likely indicate that there was some fascination with the subject and also some likely desire on the part of such Muslims to be engaged in terrorism. I am not saying that this would necessarily be the case, but that there would be a strong likelihood that this would be the case. Furthermore, images of terrorism could easily inspire religious zeal for further terrorism.

And one could apply similar arguments in the case of people who persistently immerse themselves in matters to do with violence.

But we would not be publicly vilifying or prosecuting such people – for many reasons, which are too complex to go into in this article.

And yet Chris Langham is being heavily demonised for having looked at pictures.

Why?

Fifteen images hardly constitute evidence for a rabid obsession with their content – and even if it did, it still remains the case that the only ‘crime’ here is ‘downloading pictures’.

Indeed, one of the most aggravating aspects of this case is the almost unbelievably naive discourse that has been generated over the matter concerning the question of whether or not Chris Langham is a ‘paedophile’ – something which he denies. And those who believe that he must be so (which is the vast majority of people, it would seem) are mostly arguing that, therefore, he deserves a prison sentence.

But Chris Langham was not convicted of ‘being a paedophile’. He was convicted for downloading pictures.

And we would not, for example, convict a Muslim of ‘being a terrorist’ simply for downloading pictures.

We would be outraged at the very idea of such a thing.

Furthermore, of course, if it is indeed the case that looking at some fifteen pictures is, in fact, highly indicative of some significant moral defection when it comes to children then what, perhaps, should one make of, say, those police officers who choose to spend many hours every week looking at such material – and who choose to view thousands of pictures? And what should one make of all those therapists who spend hours of their time every week delving into matters relating to child sexual abuse?

Surely, if the desire to look at fifteen images is definitively indicative of say, ‘an unhealthy sexual interest in children’, then those who choose occupations that involve far greater engagement with such material should be viewed with even greater concern.

Indeed, I am almost certain that, one day, we will actually find this to be the case.

Putting this more bluntly; when, for example, brain-scanning technology allows us eventually to state with relative certainty who, exactly, is turned on by child sexual abuse, it will come as no surprise to me if we discover that a very large percentage of those who choose to work in this particular area are, in fact, at the top of the tree when it comes to ‘an unhealthy sexual interest in children’.

And, of course, given the current hysteria and the way that it seems to be heading, I think that men would be very wise to demand that such brain-scanning techniques were employed on such people before they were permitted to embark on any careers involving child sexual abuse. Apart from protecting children, this would also help to ensure that the various pronouncements of those who are involved in such matters were genuinely out of concern for the children rather than, say, the devious machinations of closet paedophiles attempting to gain further access to situations which excite them sexually; something which has happened time and time again over the past two decades; e.g. therapists (of various kinds) claiming that they are interrogating children about sexual matters because of their concern for their welfare when, in fact, they are simply exciting themselves.

And if the notions above suggesting that people should be investigated by brain-scanning technology if they wish to work with children and, further, that they should be penalised if anything untoward is believed to be going on inside their heads at any given time offends you in any way then, perhaps, you are beginning to understand what is being done to Chris Langham – and, indeed, to all men – in one way or another.

(The only difference here is that Chris Langham did not have a brain scan. Instead of such a scan, the fifteen images were used – by the public – as the ‘evidence’ for what was going on inside his head.)

After all, if, according to much of the public, Chris Langham, who does not work with children, deserves severe punishment for an alleged thought crime concerning child sex, then it surely follows that the minds of those who actually work in the area of child sexual abuse need to be investigated very closely indeed – and that if anything untoward going on inside their heads is discovered by a brain scan, then, presumably, they should be vilified much more severely than Chris Langham.

In short, Chris Langham is being demonised for an alleged thought crime.

And I emphasise the word alleged, because I see no evidence, thus far, to prove that anything particularly untoward was actually going on inside his head when he viewed the images.

Most people, however, do not accept this. They would say, “Yeah right. No sexy thoughts were going on inside his head, eh? Pull the other one.”

But hold on a moment.

In his testimony, Chris Langham pointed out that he, himself, had been sexually assaulted at a young age, and that his desire to view such material was related to his inner need to understand the situation from an adult point of view.

Is this really so far fetched? Well, why should it be? – given that millions of people buy books on ‘abuse’ – women mostly – allegedly in order to come to terms with events that they, themselves, have experienced.

Or so we are told.

Indeed, there are nowadays whole sections to be found in libraries and book shops that are solely devoted to tales of child sexual abuse; so popular has such material become.

So why is it so far-fetched to believe that Chris Langham was simply using images to do whatever it is that, for example, women claim to be doing when they immerse themselves in tales of sexual abuse?

Or is it, in fact, the case that people who read such books do actually turn themselves on sexually when they wade through book after book describing child sexual abuse? And, if so, then why are they not also being vilified – and prosecuted – for what is going on inside their heads to do with child sexuality?

The child-abuse hysterics surely cannot have it both ways.

Either people who flock to buy books on abuse are turning themselves on – in which case why are they not vilified and, possibly, prosecuted? – or they are using such books to resolve their personal issues (not for sexual reasons) which is exactly what Chris Langham says he was doing.

So why is Chris Langham being given such a hard time for doing what millions of people do? – with public approval.

And the answer to this question is that, quite simply, Chris Langham is a man.

Had he been a woman, you would not have heard much in the way of outrage from the media or from the public. On the contrary, I imagine that, if anything, we would have been very forcefully led to believe that the woman was a victim of some sort, that her viewing of illicit material was a cry for help stemming from some unwholesome past, and that the utmost sympathy should be accorded to her.

However, because Chris Langham is a man, it is nowadays taken for granted that he must have had some evil intent and that, therefore, he deserves to be treated very harshly indeed. And so he is being vilified for what might have been inside his head as he viewed the pictures.

When it comes to children, western men have been thoroughly demonised, and almost any contact (physical or mental) that they have with children – even their own – must nowadays always be viewed with suspicion, whereas, of course, when women have contact with children, their actions are always to be seen as benevolent.

But let’s leave the last word to Paul Elam. After all, tragic though it is, the men’s rights movement of Angry Harry is but a distant memory. It’s gone. It’s been killed. Having destroyed the movement that Harry built, Elam quit and left the hideous ‘Honey Badgers’ in charge while he cashed in by using his ‘men’s rights’ fame to earn money as a professional mental health therapist to the many male fans of his, quite a few of whom are encouraged to blame their unhappy lives on sexual encounters they experienced as teenagers. No vested interests there then in aggressively maintaining feminist definitions of sex abuse and paedophilia. But the following tweet gives an indication as to just how much Paul Elam cares about the devastating impact of mental health when he wants to use it as a personal insult against those who disagree with him :

Sex addiction theRAPIST jailed for rape of boy 14

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/06/harley-street-sex-therapist-jailed-after-raping-boy-14-at-gym-as-he-waited-for-his-mum-6908714/

A Harley Street therapist who specialises in sex addiction has been jailed for 17 years after he raped a child at a gym.

Nicholas Gully of Eley Crescent, Rottingdean, East Sussex, was sentenced at Hove Crown Court after he was convicted of raping the boy and two other sexual assaults against him.

The court heard how the 48-year-old followed the 14-year-old boy into a public toilets and then raped him in a cubicle.

During the 10 minute assault, the boy was too scared to cry out or fight back, it was said.

Yawnn…yet another quack hypocrite hiding his own sick predilections until the day he gets caught. While I’ve no doubt that the vast majority of these male ‘sex and porn addict’ therapists spend nearly every waking minute fantasizing about raping young boys, this case does seem a little odd on further reflection – even if the guy clearly is a hardcore hypocrite and pervert.

Follows a boy who he thought was over 16 into a cubicle, ‘orally rapes’ the boy while the boy ‘was too scared to resist’, nobody else at the public baths notices anything, boy cries and tells his friends he feels dirty when he gets home. Now serving 17 years in prison.

Well, the jury obviously had more access to the evidence than I have, so he is surely guilty as charged and deserves to rot in jail. Perhaps he can treat his sexually frustrated cellmates for their sex addiction (for free) before he gets raped and sodomized on multiple occasions, as he surely will be. But I can’t help thinking. Although we thankfully live in an age where homosexual men are no longer persecuted and discriminated against, never, never, never attempt to pick up a young male who looks remotely under 25, or you too could end up spending effectively the rest of your life behind bars.