Fake ‘MRA’ and feminist ‘Honey Badger’ Hannah Wallen is now promoting an ‘anti-paedo’ Twitter vigilante group that was behind the infamous Hampstead ‘satanic abuse’ hysteria of 2015 – something that has ruined the lives of dozens of London schoolchildren, their parents and their teachers, and that was started by false accusations made by an ‘evil ex-wife’.
Police are hunting the “evil” mother who forced her young children to make claims to social services and in online videos that their father was the leader of a satanic paedophile cult.
Ella Draper is now being investigated by a specialist police team after the 42-year-old, pictured swanning in a cannabis field, tortured her children by making them make the false claims in partnership with her lover Abraham Christie.
The couple, from Hampstead, north west London, made the false claims against various members of the local community – including her former husband and actor Ricky Dearman.
Draper, who is believed to have fled abroad, is wanted for questioning by police over false allegations that continue to be made in online videos and articles, sparking fears of vigilante attacks.
A judge last week branded her claims that her two children’s father was leading a 100-strong Satanic paedophile ring based at Christ Church Primary School in Hampstead as “utter nonsense”.
She ruled that the youngsters’ “fantasy” accounts of abuse stemmed from “relentless emotional and psychological pressure” by Draper and Christie who beat them into concocting stories.
#opdeatheaters, a Twitter vigilante group that exists to expose supposed endemic paedophile satanic worship in the establishment, quickly latched on to the claims and not only promoted the false accusations online – that dozens of children in Hampstead, a leafy middle-class borough of London, were being sexually abused and even sacrificed in Satanic orgies by their teachers and parents – but outrageously published the names and addresses of the (real) children alleged to be victims. Of course, as the Internet never forgets, the names and personal details of these real children are still likely online, waiting to be discovered and used for whatever ends by real hardcore paedophiles that no doubt most of these ‘vigilantes’ themselves in fact are.
When the whole thing was exposed as a hoax created by the child abusing ex-wife, #opdeatheaters cowardly denied that they had been behind the publishing of the children’s details, presumably wrongly fearing that law enforcement in the USA or the UK might actually do their job and arrest some of them for endangering and harming children. But as far as I know, none of these crazed paedocrite vigilantes were ever arrested.
Those same crazy vigilantes are now promoting the idea that Hollywood is filled with Jewish paedophile Satan worshippers sacrificing and raping young trafficked children. And this is the point in which it officially becomes a men’s rights cause according to Hannah Wallen. Instead of making some nuanced argument regarding witchhunts, the demonization of male sexuality and ordinary flirting, the principle of innocent until proven guilty in court etc, with regard to the ongoing Harvey Weinstein hysteria, Hannah Wallen sees it as an opportunity to fan the flames of the most outrageous paedohysteria. Apparently disappointed that only one ‘child’ of 17 has so far made any suggestion that Weinstein might be a ‘paedophile’, Wallen has taken the opportunity to paint all men as suspected secret Satanic worshipping paedophile child rapists being protected by the establishment.
This is what the men’s rights movement of Angry Harry has been reduced to by Paul Elam’s ‘Honey Badgers’. Infiltrated and now led by grotesque middle-aged women, promoting Satanic child abuse hysteria straight from the middle-ages, and joining forces with crazed paedophile child abusing ‘vigilantes’ to do so.
I recently here provided evidence that resistance to feminist inflated and absurd ‘child sex abuse’ laws has always been part of the men’s rights movement. Looking at this in an unbiased and cool headed way, this should be so natural and obvious that it requires no further explanation. Feminist laws on ‘paedophilia’, ‘child porn’, and the age of consent, obviously target men, lead to millions of men being imprisoned, fearing imprisonment, shamed, or taking their own lives. Such feminist laws also clearly further feminist self-interest, in removing sexual competition and serving to demonize men and male sexuality. MRAs can see this perfectly when it comes to feminist laws against, definitions of, and opposition to (adult) rape, sex bots, MGTOW culture, prostitution etc, yet bizarrely assume that feminists are acting from noble selfless motives when it comes to their incessant ‘child protection’ laws.
Keeping silent on feminist age of consent and ‘child sex abuse’ laws is a complete contradiction for somebody identifying as a ‘men’s rights activist’. It is also wildly inconsistent with the promotion of other causes as leading men’s rights issues. For example, I have pointed out that age of consent laws (including ‘child porn’ and the rest) lead to the anal rapes in prison cells of thousands if not tens of thousands of men in the USA alone. This number is likely 100 times more than the amount of men ‘raped’ by women. We know it is more than the total number of women that are raped in the USA, and MRAs sometimes have pointed this out (and as being the real ‘rape culture’ in the USA). But the cause of this prison rape epidemic – the million American men on the sex offender’s register for breaking feminist sex laws, is completely off topic aside from the issue of false accusations. Hannah Wallen and Paul Elam even openly declare their support for millions more men to be potentially raped in prison through the raising of the age of consent even beyond their current high ages. And yet ‘male rape’ is supposedly one of the leading men’s rights issues, and in fact for the ‘Honey Badgers’ and Paul Elam, it seems to be the leading issue by far.
Similarly, it is almost impossible to read the news for a week without learning of some guy facing trial for ‘child porn’ offences or a historical ‘child sex’ offence committing suicide. In other words, men are killing themselves every day because of feminist child sex laws that were either introduced in the last 20 years or whose punishments have been raised by feminist lobbying in the last 20 years. This likely explains the rise in the male suicide rate over the last twenty years almost completely, something which is often held by MRAs to be the leading men’s rights issue., just as it almost completely explains the overcrowding in UK prisons. Yet not only is the likely cause of the rise in the male suicide rate – feminist child sex laws – completely ignored by other MRAs, those of us who do discuss it are denounced by the rest as ‘pedo apologists’!
The biggest irony and contradiction is that as feminist laws and definitions of paedophilia and child sex abuse become ever more absurd and draconian, and harm more and more millions of ordinary men, the less MRAs are willing to see these things as valid men’s rights issues, and the more willing they are to violently denounce the few MRAs such as myself and Eivind Berge as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’ for even raising these issues.
Can there be any explanation other than the obvious one – that these MRAs are simply covering their own backs and fearful that they could be exposed to internet monitoring etc which would put them in danger of prosecution? Perhaps young MRAs who have been brought up since birth under paedohysteria cannot even summon the conceptual framework to see the feminist hand behind these laws, they have been so brainwashed. Older MRAs certainly don’t have this excuse and must be able to remember a time before the current hysteria, when cool heads did debate these issues, before feminist driven hysteria made it impossible, as it has also only to a lesser extent, in the very same time frame, made the topics of rape, sexual harassment, domestic abuse very difficult to talk about rationally and publicly (as an anti-feminist).
I also should make clear that I don’t think for a moment that Paul Elam is a ‘pedo’, or at least no more than any normal man is, and would be certainly careful not to be breaking any feminist laws. He likely has the IQ to realize that a man of his ‘infamy’ is likely to be having his every move online and offline monitored, just as myself and Eivind Berge no doubt are, and have been for a number of years. In his case, a charitable excuse would be that as a high profile public MRA, he understandably doesn’t want to be branded a ‘paedophile apologist’, altough a more likely reason is his selfish interest in validating the feminist sex abuse industry which he personally is profiting from. No, what I’m talking about is the largely anonymous MRAs on Twitter and the like who so violently denounce myself and Eivind Berge as being ‘paedo apologists’ (and worse) whilst often themselves choosing anime avatars featuring skimpily dressed idealized pre-pubescent girls.
One argument frequently made is that such topics simply have to be off limits at least for now, while the Men’s Rights Movement is still establishing itself. This might have been valid several years ago, and I’ll hold my hands up and say that sometimes I haven’t been very tactful in approaching these matters (unlike, for example, Angry Harry). Some of my fellow MRAs who shared my views, were even less tactful, such as ‘Jay Hammers’. But this argument doesn’t hold water anymore now that the MRM has pretty much gone mainstream and is clearly here to stay. Further, that the ‘leader’ of the MRM during this time – Paul Elam – himself used similar inflammatory tactics to myself in order to wake men up from their White Knight slumber, including penning articles with titles such as ‘Bash a Bitch Week’, or making statements that a male member of a jury should NEVER believe a female rape victim. Would it really be so much more damaging to the Men’s Rights Movement, if Paul Elam had penned the occasional article attacking feminist ‘child porn’ laws that lead to men being imprisoned for looking at pictures of women in bikinis with small breasts etc.?
Compare with feminists and their complete lack of reluctance to openly speak against ‘child protection’ laws if they harm women’s interests – namely, the subject of abortion.
Jessica Valenti and millions of feminists across the world can openly proclaim the right to kill the vulnerable children growing inside of them and completely dependent upon them, as easily as swallowing candy, as a leading women’s rights issue.
On the other hand, if an MRA proffers the opinion that it is wrong for men to be imprisoned under feminist laws for messaging a 17 year old ‘girl’ and telling her she is hot, then such MRAs are condemned by the majority of their brothers as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’.
We might also consider whether the men’s rights movement has actively been infiltrated by paedophiles – that is, hardcore paedocrites, especially homosexual pederasts? We know that the MRM has certainly been infiltrated by feminists calling themselves the Honey Badgers, seeking to validate feminist sex abuse laws with the help of useful idiots like Paul Elam’. Sadistic, violent homosexual paedophiles may have been attracted by the MHRA/Honey Badger obsession with the rape of boys, as well as the David Futrelle Salo scandal, like flies to a shit smeared honey pot. It has to be noted that a number of high profile homosexual MHRAs have in the past few years began work as therapists for ‘abused boys’ (boys supposedly sexually abused and raped by women). One such MHRA who personally accused myself of being a paedophile, has even tried to set up a ‘men’s rights religion’ in Thailand, inviting local impoverished males of all ages to join him in some kind of communal woman free existence.
I often quote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in relation to the tactics a genuine MRA should pursue if he has real concerns that these issues are indeed too inflammatory in the current climate. ‘That which we cannot speak of, we must remain silent on’. If you call yourself an MRA, and yet can’t even manage that, and have to vehemently condemn and make accusations against those brave enough to speak out and who have nothing to hide….well, it’s a little too obvious mate.
‘Take him instead of me..He’s the one you want…he’s the thought criminal..’ (1984)
It is rather odd in the extreme, that the more absurd and draconian feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws and punishments become, the less the Men’s Rights Movement is willing to consider them as men’s rights issues. 100 years ago, and men who had sex with 14 year old girls were only prosecuted if the girl claimed she had been ‘seduced’. Yet Ernest Belfort Bax – the first MRA in history – felt this was enough to make it a serious men’s rights issue. 25 years ago, and only men who had sex with pre-pubescent girls had the book thrown at them by the legal system, and yet David Thomas – the first modern men’s rights author – felt this was enough to devote almost an entire chapter to in his classic men’s rights work ‘Not Guilty : The Case In Defence of Men’. 15 years ago, and punishments for looking at illicit child porn images were typically only a caution or a few months in prison, whereas now people are being sent down for years and then put on the sex offender’s register for life. Yet Angry Harry – the founder of the online men’s rights movement – still felt it important to raise the issue of such feminist ‘thought crimes’ as a men’s rights issue.
Ernest Belfort Bax is recognized as the first ‘MRA’ in history. Writing in Edwardian and Victorian England, the prolific Bax was a philosopher, socialist, literary critic, and free love advocate, as well as the first writer to discuss at length discrimination against men by an increasingly feminist society.
But the most atrocious instances of sex-privilege occur in
connection with the Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 1885. Whilst the abduction of a girl under
eighteen, or the seduction of one under sixteen,
involves the man concerned in serious penalties, the
girl or the woman gets off scot free, and this even
though she may have been the inciting party. This
is carried to the extent that a young boy of fourteen
may be himself induced to commit a sexual offence
by a girl just under sixteen — that is to say, nearly
two years his senior — and he can be sentenced to
imprisonment, followed by several years in a re-
formatory, whilst the law holds the inciting girl
absolutely guiltless. The villainy of such an enact-
ment is unparalleled, more particularly when one
considers that a girl approaching sixteen is often
practically a woman, whilst a boy of fourteen is
seldom more than a child.
However, it is clear from other writings of Bax, that his objection to the feminist age of consent was not merely its discriminatory application in relation to the double standard. Like most anti-feminists of the time, he regarded the feminist raising of the age of consent as a blackmailer’s charter. For example in another essay of 1908 entitled ‘Ernest Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics’, he writes :
That the present “Votes for Women” movement is only a phase of the anti-man crusade which Feminism has been carrying on for nigh two generations past with the aid of the Press, is shown, not only by the persistent efforts to represent “ man-made laws “ as unjust to women, but by the incidental remarks of Suffragette leaders in which the sex animus is shown, no concealment being made of the intention to use the suffrage for rivetting on man the chains of legalised female oppression. For example, Mrs. Pankhurst recently represented one of the functions of emancipated “Womanhood” to be the handing over of the luckless male to the Female blackmailer by raising the “age of consent” above sixteen!! The allusion made at the same time to the “daughters of the working class “ is a piece of demagogy too thin to deceive anyone as to the venomous sex-spite animating this outrageous proposal.
Elsewhere, in the essay ‘Problems of Man, Mind and Morals’, he mocks the feminist obsession with raising the age of consent, and points out the absurdity involved in simultaneously claiming that teenage girls need protecting from the sexual advances of men AND that girls are mature enough to be given the vote :
If there is one demand which is popular with the Feminists, it is for raising the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen or twenty-one years,at which latter age, presumably, the right to the Franchise, if conceded, would come into operation. They are therefore evidently of opinion that the woman who has only just ceased to need the protection of the law in the control of her own body becomes immediately fully qualified to have a voice in the management of public affairs!
In his classic work ‘The Fraud of Feminism‘, published in 1913, he similarly refers to it as ‘that favourite crank of the feminists’ :
“That favourite crank of the Feminist, of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to every unbiased person.”
I have still only read a handful of his numerous works, but there is no doubt that these quotes demonstrate that Bax, like every anti-feminist of the period, was opposed to the feminist raising of the age of consent. It had been raised from 13 to 16 in the 1885 Criminal Amendment Act, after years of lobbying from the feminist dominated ‘Social Purity Movement’. The act also criminalized prostitution and made homosexuality a crime punishable by death. It was based on a feminist/tabloid engineered moral panic over the myth of ‘white slavery’ – young teens being trafficked into forced prostitution. Feminists have always had the same modus operandi. Furthermore, it can be argued that the age of consent was the feminist’s original rasion d’etre (and still is today) – hence the comments by Bax on their obsession with it.
Victorian feminists/suffragettes did not originally campain for the vote as an end in itself – they had already been lobbying for anti-male sex laws, such as raising the age of consent, and started to demand the vote as a means to obtaining those ends. There is probably no single law that is more ‘feminist’ than the age of consent. There is almost certainly no single feminist law that has ruined the lives of more men and boys than the age of consent (of 16/18). Yet MRAs today are so stupid and/or cowardly, that they denounce any other MRA who question it as being ‘feminist infiltrators’.
David Thomas published ‘Not Guilty : The Case in Defence of Men’, in 1993, possibly the first modern work making the case for men’s rights. Like Bax, he wasn’t afraid to present arguments that today would have gotten him denounced and slandedred as a ‘pedo acceptance advocate’ by the Honey Badger guardians of the contemporary Good Men Project Men’s Rights Movement.
Whilst reading the passages below, keep in mind that the author was a father, arguing mainly from the perspective that this early paedohysteria was a feminist attack upon fathers and the family, as well as male sexuality in general. Notice that the chapter almost assumes without needing to state explicitly that any intelligent person reading, with a support for men’s rights and a distaste in radical feminism, would agree upon a definition of sexual abuse involving only the forced penetration of a child by an adult. It is to be noted that today’s MRAs, more often incels and MGTOWs rather than ‘father’s rights activists’, cannot even tolerate discussion of a man being jailed as a ‘paedophile’ for bringing a 17 year old ‘child’ to orgasm as a men’s rights issue, or even men being jailed for looking at pictures of 25 year old women with ‘small breasts’ under feminist ‘child porn’ laws.
“….By then an unlikely alliance of anti-family and anti-patriarchy ideologues, fundamentalist religious fantasists and misguided media celebrities, ever eager for a bandwagon upon which to jump, had managed to persuade the nation that one in three children suffered from sexual abuse administered by men. What they tended not to reveal was that their conclusions were a deliberate twisting of research which defined abuse in an extremely general sense. Far from it consisting exclusively of the forcible intercourse which most of us tend to imagine, however disgustedly, in these circumstances, the term was applied to any unwanted sexual experience of any kind. Any little girl who had seen a flasher in the park had, by that definition, been abused. Any little boy whose maths teacher had put his hand on his knee had been abused.
Penetration by a penis formed a small proportion of total cases of abuse. Of those cases, many occured between step-fathers and teenage daughters. Of the rest, most involved vaginal, rather than anal penetration. Only a minute fraction within a fraction comprised the activity alledged by the doctors at Cleveland, to wit, the anal penetration of small boys and girls by their fathers.
In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched. But, lest anyone doubt the harm that such obsession may bring, let me quote from a letter that was published in the Solicitors’ Family Law Association Newsletter, November 1991. It was written by a lawyer, whose name and gender were not revealed, although I presume from the account given in the letter that she is female.
“I was sexually abused over a period of approximately two and a half years by a male near relative who had been adopted into my mother’s family. The sexual abuse has, so far as I am aware, had little discernible effect upon me. The discovery of the sexual abuse and the trauma of the investigation by professionals have had a profound impact upon me.
When Esther Rantzen introduced her Childline, with the attendant television programmes, I watched, and found to my shock, that the description by one of the participants of the medical examination she had following the discovery of sexual abuse caused me to cry uncontrollably.
I will never forget the ordeal I was put through at the age of seven. I will never forget the feelings of shame, degradation and intense physical invasion when examined by a paediatrician. I have no doubt that the same paediatrician would, if questioned, have stressed the consideration, tact, and understanding he showed to me on examination.
My views were not sought as to whether I should be examined. I doubt if I would have had the knowledge or understanding to express or hold my own views. In retrospect, of course, I have strong views, but those are formed only with the knowledge of hindsight. I was seven : these were ‘grown ups’ who knew best what should be done with me.
How much needless suffering is caused by children who have been sexually abused by the professionals?…In my own view, the sexual abuse I suffered, was to quote a judge in a rape trial, ‘a pretty tepid affair’. The subsequent sexual abuse I suffered at the hands of a paediatrician will live me for the rest of my life.”
Later in the same Chapter, David Thomas continues :
“It is generally agreed that a child who is compelled to have sex with an adult against his or her own will suffers lasting damage. Certainly that would be a common-sense view, and one with which, as a parent, I would instinctively agree. In August 1992, however, the New Statesman published a special issue devoted to opinions that were politically incorrect. One of its articles, by Edward Barrie, suggested that the after-effects of sexual activity might be less traumatic to children than had previously been supposed. In particular, he said :
“An enormous investigation was carried out for the German police by Dr. Michael Baurmann, who reported his findings in 1983. His team carefully assessed 8,058 young people of both sexes (more girls than boys) involved in illegal sexual relationships. They found that in many cases no harm was done – neither emotional nor physical. About 1,000 boys under the age of 14 took part in the study, and not one of those was found to have been harmed. Harm to the girls, when it occurred, was sometimes (not always) a result of the sex act itself, and sometimes the result of heavy-handedness by police, parents and others in the aftermath. Bauermann has shown conclusively that a child may well become a victim purely because victimisation is expected. More recent police department follow-up studies have confirmed the findings.”
Those findings, astounding though they seem at first glance, tally with the experiences of the solicitor whose letter about her experiences of abuse that I reproduced earlier in the chapter. They make me question whether the important social issue which both British and American society needs to confront is not abuse itself, but our apparent obsession with it.
Barrie remarks : “Perhaps most sinister of all, a young woman university graduate working on a doctoral thesis and pursuing the ‘harm done’ aspects of abuse, with help from….overseas experts, was denied a grant unless she came up with findings that would help the authorities ‘detect peadophiles’. She found this distortion of her views unacceptable.”
At this point the truth is clouded with exaggeration and confusion that one cannot do anything other than speculate about what is really going on. But when celebrities que up to reveal ever more lurid accounts of their childhood experiences, or publicise abuse helplines, the sickness to which they bear witness may just be the profound suspicion with which the Anglo-Saxon world regards sex. That, and the belief that the quickest route to public approval is to label oneself a victim – even if one happens to be a millionaire rock star, or a candidate for the presidency.
Consider, specifically, the determination with which some women seek to paint a picture of rampant sexual abuse, practiced entirely by men. Is this motivated by an altruistic desire to cure a social malaise, or just a fearful hostility towards male sexuality as a whole? Are they simply projecting their own terror onto children? Is there anything to choose between the dysfunction that causes an adult to seek out sex with children, and the dysfunction that persuades a doctor or social worker that she is surrounded, on every side, by a raging sea of sex abuse?”
Angry Harry was and always will be, however much Paul ‘Ego’ Elam resents it, the founder of the online men’s rights movement. Although Harry was a conservative (libertarian), and made it clear that he was broadly in favour of the present age of consent, on multiple occasions he also made clear that he felt sentences were too harsh, feminist definitions such as ‘child rape’ for ‘consensual sex’ inflated and misleading, and above all, that paedohysteria was an expression of anti-male hatred. As I pointed out recently, he also crticised feminist child porn laws, referring to them as ‘thought crimes‘.
Most importantly of all, Angry Harry was vehmenently opposed to the billion dollar feminist abuse industry, a money making monster that first Paul Elam and then the ‘Honey Badgers’ have all happily validated and sought a piece of the financial cake in through the sexual victimization of boys and men.
The organism has become a monster, and it is feeding off the broken lives that it, itself, is creating. The abuse industry needs to be cut down to size so that it only has the wherewithal to deal with serious cases of abuse. As with most things in life, it is all a question of balance.
And the laws and the various definitions also need adjustment so that innocent people – and also those who have not done anything seriously bad – are not dragged through such a horrible mill.
Once again, it is all a question of balance.
In particular, Angry Harry repeatedly warned of the dangers of victim labelling, especially young children, and telling them that they will be damaged for life as a result of their ‘abuse’. This is the opposite of what Paul Elam, Hannah Wallen et al. are doing. In fact, Paul Elam and Angry Harry publicly fell out over this issue and Harry was only saved from being booted out of the movement he created because Elam reluctantly had to accept that the rest of the MRM would not allow such treatment of a figure loved and respected by everybody (I’m not sure if 90% of the current ‘MRAs’ even know who Angry Harry was).
Of course, victims of abuse – children or adults – might be horrendously damaged by their various ordeals, but when those in the abuse industry make blanket pronouncements suggesting that all cases of ‘abuse’ lead inevitably to significant permanent psychological harm, then they are talking absolute nonsense and damaging the most vulnerable victims in the process.
Most unwanted sexual abuse, for example, is probably a bit like having a car accident of some sort.
It might cause long term permanent damage – e.g. a major road crash – or virtually nothing at all – e.g. a minor scratch on the hood.
Most acts of ‘abuse’ as currently defined by those working in the abuse industry are, like most car accidents, relatively trivial. It is those working in the abuse industry who always try to make matters sound far worse in order to gain extra funding – and also in order to demonise men.
And, in doing this, not only does it damage people’s relationships, it causes significant harm to victims of both serious and trivial ‘abuse’.
Harry actually wrote countless articles on this subject and usefully collected them all through an image banner link in his sidebar. Oddly, I can’t see that anymore anywhere on his site. As his partner appears to have unwisely given ownership of his site to Paul Elam, I sincerely hope no acts of revisionism have taken place.
After Harry – How did feminist child sex abuse laws become off topic to the MRM?
We’ve seen that discussions on the validity of feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws, which are now completely taboo in the Men’s Rights Movement, were seen as almost taken for granted as mens’ rights issues by..
The first Men’s Rights Activist Ernest Belfort Bax.
The first Men’s Rights author of the modern period David Thomas.
The founder of the online men’s rights movement Angry Harry.
So how has it come about, not much more than a decade or so after Angry Harry first went online and set in motion the explosive growth of the modern men’s rights movement, that it is now completely taboo to even refer to feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws as men’s rights issues, except in relation to the problem of false accusations?
One figure looms large – Paul Elam. A person who admitted spending a significant proportion of donations received at AVoiceforMen on lavishly furnishing his home, Elam now makes a living off of the back of his MRA validation of the feminist child abuse industry by working as a psychological counselor for men. The fact that he recently referred to Eivind Berge as ‘a nutter’ – a man who the Norwegian authorities tried and failed to have declared insane for his men’s rights beliefs – shows just how much expertise he actually has in the field of male mental health (or real ‘men’s rights’). The MRM was little more than a personal vanity project for Elam. He even tried to rebrand it, Good Men Project style, as the ‘Men’s Human Rights Movement’ to distance himself from the 100 years that had gone before from Bax to Harry, to make it his own and to make it acceptable to feminists, and especially, the billion dollar feminist abuse industry. When that failed, he ‘sexed up’ the movement by employing wave after wave of middle-aged femiservative staff who quickly became known as the ‘Honey Badgers’.
Since Elam semi-retired in order to coin it in as a male ‘therapist’, the Honey Badgers have been left in virtual control of the MRM. As you would expect, these middle-aged women who feel betrayed by feminism for allowing their husbands to divorce them for younger females, will not countenance any attempts by ‘pedo acceptance advocates’ to speak about the age of consent, or to raise the issue of a million men being on the sex offenders register in the USA alone, increasingly officially classed as Untermenschen. Their only concession is to allow MRAs to campaign for adding a few thousand horny female teachers onto the register, and thereby validate both the feminist age of consent, and the feminist billion dollar sex abuse industry.
More broadly, the center of power in the MRM has shifted from its historical home of London to the puritanical USA. Ernest Belfort Bax, David Thomas, and Angry Harry were all British, and all based (at least for a time) in London. Not to compare myself to these greats, but if you are convinced by my arguments here that inflated feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws are fundamental to men’s rights issues, as the first MRA, the first modern MRA author, and the founder of the online MRM all clearly felt they were, then there is also an argument to be made that I am the last MRA – also British and formerly based in London – at least in that line. The last MRA (along with Eivind Berge, Steve Moxon (also British), Scarecrow and a handful of others) who can recognize that any feminist law that harms men is a men’s rights issue.
As I mentioned earlier in this article, in the early days of the modern men’s rights movement, opposition to discussion of the age of consent etc. would come almost entirely from the father’s rights faction who, along with Harry, built the movement. But even there it was rarely as vicious as the attacks that today come from the women and transngeders who have infiltrated and taken over the movement (the ‘Honey Badgers’) and the new crop of MRAs who are simply mirror feminists, seeking to grab all the victimhood for men that women previously enjoyed, including ‘sex abuse’. Father’s rights activists were men who had their lives turned upside down by the feminist court system. Men’s rights for them was about fighting real injustice and defending men from the abuses of the feminist legal system. It wasn’t about telling men who had had a little too much to drink before they banged a girl at a party that they had been ‘raped’, or obsessing with victim labelling 17 year old boys who had gotten lucky with a 25 year old female teacher. And if you weren’t an angry father, just a male who opposed the demonization of men, it was obvious (at least in the not so puritanical GB) that feminist child abuse laws and definitions were wildly inflated.
It should also be noted that 15 or 20 years ago, feminist sex abuse hysteria was still centered on the father as being the most common child sex abuser (of his daughter – which statistically, is in fact the case). The internet driven hysteria over the paedophile bogeyman always online, always waiting to groom and corrupt your teenage daughter, took over from the image of the father as being the typical abuser. Father’s rights activists were hardly likely to object to this.
What’s also changed over the last 20 years is the sheer global insane intensity of paedohysteria. Twenty years ago it was possible to speak about these things rationally and engage in relatively cool headed debate. Now you are almost literally taking your life in your hands if you put your head above the parapet, as Evind Berge – so proud of being a public MRA – recently discovered. Twenty years ago it was almost fashionable for liberals like David Futrelle to mock the satanic child abuse panics of the 90’s. Nobody would seriously accuse you of being a satanic child abuser yourself. Today, question feminist child porn laws that lead to men being imprisoned for looking at pictures of teens in biknis, and it’s assumed that you yourself must be ‘looking at kiddy porn’. Of course, the opposite is far more likely to be true, especially if you call yourself a ‘men’s rights activist’. It is surely suspicous enough that you are a men’s rights activist and don’t speak out on these issues, evern more so if you violently object that feminists jailing men for looking at pictures of clothed young women are not and never will be a men’s rights issue. (Especially when, unbelievably, a disturbing number of these ‘MRAs’ choose to have anime pictures of cute skimpely dressed 9 year old girls as their avatars).
The fact that as these feminist child abuse laws become ever more insane and result in ever more male lives being ruined, the less it becomes a men’s rights issue, makes no sense at all. One can only assume that most of the ‘MRAs’ who are willing to denounce real MRAs like myself and Eivind Berge as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’, and who are not a ‘honey badger’, are almost certainly acting from self-preservation at the thought of law enforcement looking at their browsing history.
I will close with some words quoted by David Thomas in his classic Men’s Rights book.
In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched.
“That favourite crank of the Feminist, of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to every unbiased person.”
Which disgusting, depraved and fake MRA said these words quoted above? Which shameless paedo acceptance advocate (to use the phrase of Honey Badger transgender Hannah Wallen) infiltrated the movement as a front for pedo apologism? Was it the ‘nutter’ Eivind Berge? Maybe the notorious ‘Schopenbecq’? Thankfully, both of these fakes have long been drummed out of the MRM by the fearless Honey Badgers and their feminist Twitter mob allies. So who was the pervert who uttered these lines, supposedly in defence of ‘Men’s Rights’ (chuckles)?
It was Ernest Belfort Bax, the first Men’s Rights Activist in history. A man even the likes of Paul Elam, with his ego the size of a galaxy, has to acknowledge as the founder of the men’s rights movement.
The words hardly need explaining. As the author states, they should speak to any unbiased person. Written in 1913, the classic ‘The Fraud of Feminism‘ stands as the first major declaration of men’s rights (in the context of anti-feminism). Ernest Belfort Bax, like every other anti-feminist of the time, bitterly opposed the feminist raising of the age of consent (from 13 to 16, and feminists have always wanted it higher). As his words suggest, it is the duty of an anti-feminist men’s rights supporter to oppose feminist laws that lead to men being imprisoned on the basis of feminist lies, hysteria, and vested self-interest. Incredibly, this has been forgotten today, but in terms of ‘men’s rights’ this is a very recent thing. I will show this more conclusively next week with a detailed history of the MRM from Bax to Angry Harry, up to the point it was hijacked by charlatans and puritan femiservatives and transgenders such as Paul Elam, Hannah Wallen, and the other ‘Honey Badgers’. Stay tuned.
It’s simply beyond belief that MRAs can fully grasp that feminists are running a cartel when it comes to opposition to prostitution, porn, sex robots, MGTOW, sex tourism etc., but somehow, feminists are acting from noble motives when it comes to the age of consent. It’s the one thing feminists have done right. When it comes to the age of consent, they nailed it, and we should support them. Feminists create laws that put men in prison to be raped as perverts for merely looking at a picture of a 17 year old girl in a bikini, because on this one issue and one issue alone, they are being completely selfless and moral and promoting purely the welfare of ‘children’. TBH, such MRAs are either stupid beyond belief, or it simply tells us how much they don’t want anyone looking at their browsing history.
Another classic Angry Harry article that needs preserving, that needs studying by anyone who claims to be a ‘men’s rights activist’, and that who thinks that forcing feminist definitions of rape and child abuse onto men and on to teenage boys is ‘men’s rights’. Before I link to the article and reprint the most important excerpt from it (but please read and then read again the entire original article), here are five brief points for so called ‘MRAs’ to consider:
1/ Modern age of consent laws are an entirely feminist invention. Their justification was, is, and always has been based upon feminist arguments, hysteria, and junk science advocacy ‘research’.
2/ Feminist age of consent laws lead to tens of thousands of men being imprisoned (and very often raped).
3 / Feminist age of consent laws lead to feminists telling both teenage girls and teenage boys (with the help of ‘MRAs’) that they have been scarred for life.
4 / Unsurprisingly, those teenagers do tend to develop into fucked up adults..
5 / In short, feminist age of consent laws lead to tens of thousands of men being raped in prison as subhuman nonces, tens of thousands of teenage girls and thousands of teenage BOYS having their lives unncessarily ruined, the demonization of normal male sexuality as paedophilia, the demonization of all men as paedophiles, daughters afraid of their fathers, girls and boys afraid of their (male) teachers, divorced wives given an easy false abuse claim option etc etc. Feminist age of consent laws do however make thousands of feminists rich (and Paul Elam). They also increase female sexual power by removing competition, which is why feminists also tend to be against prostitution, sex robots, MGTOW, sex tourism etc etc. What part of this is so fucking difficult for you simple minded frauds to understand?
Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child’s life.
What you could do is this.
You pretend to be very concerned about the child, and continually demonstrate what a trustworthy and credible person you are, and you tell the child, with full solemnity, sadness, and seriousness, that the little brown mole on the child’s back is a malignant cancer. You then go on to describe, on a daily basis, how painful and how damaging this cancer is going to be for the child.
The fact that the mole is utterly benign, and causes no sensation at all, is completely irrelevant. If the child is successfully convinced about it being a malignant cancer, and absorbs from you all the horrors that such illnesses entail, and, further, if the child is reminded about this constantly, you will certainly destroy his future well-being to a very large extent.
And yet this is the very kind of thing that the abuse industry does to children and adults, particularly over sexual matters.
In the case of adults, consensual sex can later be made to seem more like rape, and, in the case of ‘consensual’ child sex abuse, the incidents can later be ‘interpreted’ similarly, or, more commonly, simply as malicious acts of something akin to a form of psychological violence. And, in both cases, the victims can easily be led to believe that their respective moles are malignant cancers – ‘psychological cancers’ – with all the pain and misery that this gives rise to.
However, while it is definitely not a good idea for children to be sexualised – e.g. see Delay Delay Delay When it Comes to Sex – because there are many negative aspects to children engaging in ‘consensual’ sexual activities, the truth of the matter is that psychological trauma is not one of them.
And I must stress here that I have ONLY been talking about ‘consensual sex’.
Where ‘psychological trauma’ does appear to occur following ‘consensual’ sex, the major cause of it seems mostly not to derive directly from the events themselves, but from the way in which influential others respond to them. If these give out the message that the mole is a malignant cancer, then the emotional damage can be very great indeed.
See also another article (one of many on this theme) by Harry – written after Paul Elam had attempted to kick him out of the men’s rights movement for not going along with the AVoiceforMen feminist abuse industry agenda : http://www.angryharry.com/reTeaAbuse.htm
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!
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.
* 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.
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.
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 :
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.