Categories
Uncategorized

A Voice for Men tries to distance itself from Roy Den Hollander’s violence … by citing an article they published by him threatening violence

Paul Elam and Roy Den Hollander: Two-headed monster?

By David Futrelle

A Voice for Men is trying its best to distance itself from Roy Den Hollander, the rabidly antifeminist lawyer thought to have gunned down the son and the husband of a federal judge and who seems to be linked to the murder of a rival Men’s Rights attorney in California.

But they’re going about it in a mighty strange way — by citing the violent portion of an article that Den Hollander published in AVFM in 2010.

In a post on AVFM yesterday, Robert Brockway complained that the media were making too much of that one article — and its literal call to arms.

Den Hollander wrote one article for A Voice for Men (AVfM), which was published on October 24, 2010 – nearly ten years ago. A quote from this one article has been widely circulated in the media as it attempts to link AVfM to violence. The mainstream media focuses on the mention of firearms. 

Boy, it’s puzzling that the media would focus on the mention of firearms in a piece written by someone who gunned down three men, killing two of them.

Here’s the quote in question from Den Hollander:

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. At some point, the men in this country will take the Declaration of Independence literally.

Brockway continues his attempted whitewashing by pointing out that AVFM head boy Paul Elam later turned down another piece by Hollander allegedly based upon the premise that “the best way to preserve men’s rights is with a gun” — as if Elam’s rejection of this second post somehow erases that fact that they published the first one. (And, though Brockway never mentions it, that Elam also praised Den Hollander effusively in a post from 2011.)

The fact is that Den Hollander wasn’t the only one advocating violence in the pages of A Voice for Men. Indeed, the site once hosted, for several years, a manifesto by Men’s Rights activist Tom Ball, who committed suicide by lighting himself on fire outside a courthouse in hopes that his act would inspire other men to begin firebombing courthouses and police stations in protest of alleged anti-male bias in family courts. He wrote:

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. …

You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

AVFM did remove a small portion of Ball’s manifesto in which he offered specific tips on how to make effective molotov cocktails.

Despite hosting this manifesto in AVFM’s “activism” section Elam insisted that he and his fellow MRAs weren’t actually advocating violence themselves, just “predicting” it. As Elam explained it,

Thomas Ball represents a tragic, dysfunctional reaction to chronic, systemic abuse. There are many possible reactions. Some even worse than his. And while we cannot, must not, condone violence, we had better learn to expect it as long as an ideological war against men is allowed to make a battlefield in our justice system and within the heart of our own families.

AVFM took the manifesto down shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013.

For another example of Elam “predicting” violence, see here.

Meanwhile, in addition to “predicting” violence, Elam has won himself something of a reputation for publishing assorted fantasies of violence over the years. Consider the infamous article in which he suggested “satrically” that Domestic Violence Awareness month be replaced with “Bash a Violent Bitch” month, celebrating those men who responded to domestic violence directed at them by female partners by beating the shit out of said partners.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess … .

He cautioned men from taking his advice literally — not because he felt it was wrong to beat the shit out of “violent bitches” but because it

isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.

For more on this, and on Elam’s violent rhetoric more broadly, see here.

In short, Paul Elam is the world’s least convincing pacifist. He can’t disassociate himself from Den Hollander’s fantasies of violence any more than he can disassociate himself from his own. I can only hope that, unlike Den Hollander, Elam doesn’t attempt to turn his violent fantasies into reality.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

Elam insisted that he and his fellow MRAs weren’t actually advocating violence themselves, just “predicting” it.

This is a classic abuse and terrorism tactic: tell your enemy you’re not threatening them, just that you know something bad will happen if they don’t submit to your demands.

who gunned down three men, killing two of them.

It really does seem like he didn’t care much about men if he was willing to kill them. MRAs love to mention Valerie Solanas’s assassination attempt on Andy Warhol as evidence feminists hate men. One of their own killed 2 more men than Solanas.

I can only hope that, unlike Den Hollander, Elam doesn’t attempt to turn his violent fantasies into reality.

Elam is in his 60s and his site isn’t very popular now, so he himself is probably low risk. OTOH, there are many MRAs who are likely terrorists, so it’s better to keep an eye on them rather than Paul.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
10 months ago

@Naglfar:

This is a classic abuse and terrorism tactic: tell your enemy you’re not threatening them, just that you know something bad will happen if they don’t submit to your demands.

Artist’s impression: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x75bt6

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
10 months ago

@Naglfar

This is a classic abuse and terrorism tactic: tell your enemy you’re not threatening them, just that you know something bad will happen if they don’t submit to your demands.

In what way is that not a threat? I don’t want to give specifics because it will immediately identify me to the person who made the threat, who also reads this site, but I was threatened with something personal once by someone trying to force me to give in to something. When challenged about this threat, they stated that it was not a threat, merely an observation. They truly seemed to believe this, or put up a very good front of it. What is the psychology at play here? I really do not understand it.

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
10 months ago

@Big Titty Demon

This is a classic abuse and terrorism tactic: tell your enemy you’re not threatening them, just that you know something bad will happen if they don’t submit to your demands.

In what way is that not a threat?

This is absolutely a threat.

I don’t want to give specifics because it will immediately identify me to the person who made the threat, who also reads this site, but I was threatened with something personal once by someone trying to force me to give in to something. When challenged about this threat, they stated that it was not a threat, merely an observation. They truly seemed to believe this, or put up a very good front of it. What is the psychology at play here? I really do not understand it.

Maybe this person believed their own statement. Maybe they didn’t. It doesn’t matter: it’s a threat. My guess is that they thought that phrasing a threat in a cagey way might impress a judge or jury. Oh well, that’s okay. That was just an observation. But I think that they’re they only one impressed with their own trickiness.

I’m really sorry this happened to you. I don’t know much about your situation, but you could at least keep a diary of this person’s remarks. If push comes to shove, mention that you have recorded all of their “observations.” Stay strong.

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
10 months ago

I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess … .

So the author of this is associated with an alleged murderer? Of two people?

This is my thunderstruck face.

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
10 months ago

@Big Titty Demon

As far as I can tell, it’s Plausible Deniability (or as I refer to it, ‘implausible’ deniability 🙂 ). i.e. trying to phrase a threat in such a way so that they can claim it’s an ‘observation’.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

This is a classic abuse and terrorism tactic: tell your enemy you’re not threatening them, just that you know something bad will happen if they don’t submit to your demands.

In what way is that not a threat?

It is 100% a threat, but these dudes like to pretend that:
“If you don’t do what say, you’re going to be beaten/shot/etc.” and similar sentiments are equivalent to a statement like :
“If you go out in a thunderstorm waving a big metal pole, you’re probably going to be struck by lightning.”

Abusers find it very useful to try to make people believe that their abuse is an entirely predictable and unavoidable natural consequence of “bad choices” on the part of their victim, instead of horrible predatory behavior that the abuser actively chooses to engage in. “Look at what you made me do” and all that kind of bullshit, essentially.

Crip Dyke
10 months ago

OT, but Trump decided to pay Dr. Birx a compliment, and it was about … her ability to wear scarves. No joke.

Here’s the text:

“An unbelievable woman. A woman of tremendous substance. And style, frankly. She has an amazing style. She walks into the room and she can take a scarf and do 15 things with it.”

A lot of people think she sacrificed her credibility to avoid contradicting Trump, but there’s no doubt she’s got brains, education, and accomplishments.

So of course, this made me catch a whiff of Beef Stroganoff.

And though I like that article, I would have linked to David, but it seems like he might never have covered it. Weird.

TacticalProgressive
TacticalProgressive
10 months ago

@Naglfar

It really does seem like he didn’t care much about men if he was willing to kill them. MRAs love to mention Valerie Solanas’s assassination attempt on Andy Warhol as evidence feminists hate men. One of their own killed 2 more men than Solanas.

I always found it kind of interesting, even telling, that MRA’s, Incel’s and MGTOW’s and other anti-feminist and Misogynist ilk waffle about “Misandry”; and yet: while being virulent and militant Misogynists; they also oddly seem to be so very deeply and equally Misandrist against their fellow men?

It’s like their Misogyny against women is so excessively extreme and off the rails that it manages to boomerang and turn into Misandry against other men.

Only question is: if it’s a bug, a feature, or maybe an equal helping of both?

I, personally, like Miguel and Tulio: would say “Both.”

occasional reader
occasional reader
10 months ago

Out of topic, but this is tickling me since the beginning : do not Den Hollander and Peterson have somewhat a lot of common face features ? I find them strangely look alike.

Moggie
Moggie
10 months ago

@Crip Dyke:

“An unbelievable woman. A woman of tremendous substance. And style, frankly. She has an amazing style. She walks into the room and she can take a scarf and do 15 things with it.”

Let’s see: garrote, blindfold, noose, gag, wrap oranges in it to administer a beating…

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
10 months ago

@Kat

I have had to do this with the diary, because after the threat in question it only got much worse.

@Catalpa

Aha! This was my disconnect, then. I always viewed it as a threat and in no way my fault, and was therefore unable to parse the logic behind framing it as an “observation.” Such an attempted manipulation in addition to the bald threat is absolutely in character with this person.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
10 months ago

It’s not just a blindingly obvious threat, it’s the classic cliché faux-mafia threat – so well-worn it’s probably got its own tropes page: ‘nice X you got here, be a pity if something were to happen to it’.

Implausible deniability indeed, Fishy Goat!

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
10 months ago

@Big Titty Demon
Sorry to say it, but abuse gets worse. That’s what a domestic violence counselor told me years ago. She turned out to be right.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Big Titty Demon

In what way is that not a threat? I don’t want to give specifics because it will immediately identify me to the person who made the threat, who also reads this site, but I was threatened with something personal once by someone trying to force me to give in to something. When challenged about this threat, they stated that it was not a threat, merely an observation. They truly seemed to believe this, or put up a very good front of it. What is the psychology at play here? I really do not understand it.

Apologies if I was unclear, I am saying it is definitely a threat but that the person threatening will try to claim it isn’t. Sorry to dredge up unpleasant bits of the past. I’m not a psychologist, but I think what is at play is they’re trying to pretend not to be an abuser and sound “reasonable” to outside audiences, thereby framing the situation to favor themself.

@Catalpa

Abusers find it very useful to try to make people believe that their abuse is an entirely predictable and unavoidable natural consequence of “bad choices” on the part of their victim, instead of horrible predatory behavior that the abuser actively chooses to engage in.

That also appears to be a form of gaslighting, as it tries to make the victim believe that their perception of the situation is wrong when that is not the case.

@Crip Dyke

“An unbelievable woman. A woman of tremendous substance. And style, frankly. She has an amazing style. She walks into the room and she can take a scarf and do 15 things with it.”

Is this a challenge to find more ways to wear a scarf? If so, challenge accepted.

@TacticalProgressive

Only question is: if it’s a bug, a feature, or maybe an equal helping of both?

I would say that their self hatred of themselves and other men is linked to their misogyny, so I’d say it’s a feature. It also means a lot of their arguments against feminists are probably projection, like how they talk about “male disposability” whilst actively killing other men.

@opposablethumbs

so well-worn it’s probably got its own tropes page

Here it is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShameIfSomethingHappened

Moggie
Moggie
10 months ago

@Naglfar:

Is this a challenge to find more ways to wear a scarf? If so, challenge accepted.

Don’t overlook non-wear uses. Bandage, tourniquet, swab…

EyeHeartSpiders
EyeHeartSpiders
10 months ago

Welp, time to go tie a scarf around my cat.

Moggie
Moggie
10 months ago

@EyeHeartSpiders:

Welp, time to go tie a scarf around my cat.

Take another one to wipe up your blood.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Moggie
A few years ago when I had access to a loom I wove a bunch of scarves. Time to put them to good use. Folding art, bondage, wrapping gifts, towel, face mask…

@EyeHeartSpiders
I would try to put a scarf on my dog, but I feel like she’d react similarly to the time I tried to put a bandana on her and immediately shred it.

Moon Custafer
Moon Custafer
10 months ago

@Moggie:

Or a face mask, I suppose. Somehow I doubt any of that is what Trump was trying to say.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I’ve got to wonder if AVFM is distancing himself because Den Hollander – despite being a big misogynist – has as far as we know only managed to kill men. If he’d killed only women, they’d probably have essays up defending him.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@WWTH
That could be it, but I don’t think misogynists are all that deterred generally by killing men, they seem to see those men as collateral damage. For example, most of Elliot Rodger’s victims were men but incels still worship him.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

Well, 2010 was quite a lot time ago, and the political environment was very different. And Den Hollander was even on mainstream media like the Colbert Report.

I’m not much of a fan of AVFM, though. They’re clowns who were only relevant for a few years in the mid-teens.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

I always found it kind of interesting, even telling, that MRA’s, Incel’s and MGTOW’s and other anti-feminist and Misogynist ilk waffle about “Misandry”; and yet: while being virulent and militant Misogynists; they also oddly seem to be so very deeply and equally Misandrist against their fellow men?

It’s a way to excuse the violence that men commit. There are two popular ways to do this, that I’ve seen in action. The first is to deny that men commit any sort of disproportionate amount of violence, using, for instance, massaged statistics on DV perpetration to supposedly demonstrate that women are just as violent as men, if not more so.

The other, and the more common in my experience, is to excuse male violence by saying it’s just the way men are, and they can’t help it, and you can’t hold them responsible for violence any more than you can hold a lion responsible. The “what did you expect when you left the house wearing that” response to rape is a subset of this excuse, as though your average man is a rapist waiting to happen if he sees too much female skin. It’s just like waving raw meat in front of a hungry dog, they say, with no apparent cognizance of the misandry inherent in comparing a man with an animal. This way of thinking, in an attempt to excuse male behavior by analogy to animal behavior, results in tons of misandry.

It’s like their Misogyny against women is so excessively extreme and off the rails that it manages to boomerang and turn into Misandry against other men.

You’re not wrong. They grasp at any possible explanation for male behavior that isn’t “men sometimes act out because they feel entitled to women” and wind up smacking other men in the face in the process. Eventually it becomes an ingrained habit, and applies even when women aren’t in the equation at all.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Motte and Bailey

Well, 2010 was quite a lot time ago, and the political environment was very different. And Den Hollander was even on mainstream media like the Colbert Report.

He was still a misogynist, though.

@PoM

You’re not wrong. They grasp at any possible explanation for male behavior that isn’t “men sometimes act out because they feel entitled to women” and wind up smacking other men in the face in the process. Eventually it becomes an ingrained habit, and applies even when women aren’t in the equation at all.

Exactly. A lot of misogynists (including MRAs but also groups like Christian fundamentalists) have very negative views of men, like that they can’t control themselves, are unintelligent and driven solely by instinct, et cetera. Most feminists seem to have a much more positive view of men than that.

I’m not sure if it would be accurate to borrow feminist vocabulary and call this “internalized misandry,” but maybe the term could fit as a parallel to internalized misogyny.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

I’ve got to wonder if AVFM is distancing himself because Den Hollander – despite being a big misogynist – has as far as we know only managed to kill men. If he’d killed only women, they’d probably have essays up defending him.

A bold accusation. If only there was a way to test this theory – would AVFM defend a murderer of women?

Actually – we can! AVFM has been around since 2009, and many women have been murdered by men in that timeframe. Has AVFM “defended” or in any way celebrated these murderers? No?

How about that.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Motte and Bailey

we can! AVFM has been around since 2009, and many women have been murdered by men in that timeframe. Has AVFM “defended” or in any way celebrated these murderers? No?

Weird that they defend beating women then. Maybe murder is a bridge too far for them, but they clearly have no qualms defending other abuse.

Ariblester
10 months ago

Motte and Bailey wrote on
July 23, 2020 at 9:51 am:

Well, 2010 was quite a lot time ago, and the political environment was very different. And Den Hollander was even on mainstream media like the Colbert Report.

I’m not much of a fan of AVFM, though. They’re clowns who were only relevant for a few years in the mid-teens.

That’s prevarication. It is clear from how AVFM covered him even back in 2010 that they were treating him and his ideas seriously, not satirizing and mocking him, unlike Colbert and the rest.

Also, I’m gonna give you the side eye for having being even a little a fan of AVFM, especially since your username is a LessWrong meme (about how to argue in bad faith, no less).

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

mainstream media like the Colbert Report

Are you … are you familiar with the Colbert Report??

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

Weird that they defend beating women then. Maybe murder is a bridge too far for them, but they clearly have no qualms defending other abuse

As we know, AVFM’s articles about “beating women” were meant as satire – frankly poor satire, but nonetheless not prescriptive.

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
10 months ago

@Kat

Yes, unfortunately it’s true. However in my case, again not wanting to provide too many identifying details, the situation has stabilized due to permanent separation.

@Naglfar

Sorry to dredge up unpleasant bits of the past.

There is no way you could know this, no apology necessary.

@Motte and Bailey

I’m not much of a fan of AVFM, though. They’re clowns who were only relevant for a few years in the mid-teens.

Only a little bit of a fan, eh? I, too, despise people who cannot remain relevant for longer than a few years. While one might look back at history and suppose that misogyny is timeless and also the bigger issue at stake, you have correctly nailed the real issue on the head. Relevancy or bust, and AVFM did indeed bust.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

Has AVFM “defended” or in any way celebrated these murderers? No?

Personally, I don’t think that AVFM is quite bold enough to explicitly condone murder.

That said, one of their contributing writers has defended/celebrated the murder of Heather Hayer, just not directly on the AVFM site, as far as I know.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2017/08/15/neo-nazi-who-says-heather-heyers-murder-was-justified-used-to-write-for-a-voice-for-men/

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@PoM

Are you … are you familiar with the Colbert Report??

I recall at least a few conservatives who thought he was serious. Not sure if our visitor is one of them.

@Motte and Bailey

As we know, AVFM’s articles about “beating women” were meant as satire – frankly poor satire, but nonetheless not prescriptive.

One of the key parts of the alt right is claiming after the fact that they were joking to reduce suspicion. I’m pretty sure Paul was at least somewhat serious when he said that the thought of assaulting feminist women gave him an erection. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been so obsessed with the idea.

@Catalpa
I’d almost forgotten about that. Really shows what kinds of company they attract.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

I’m pretty sure Paul was at least somewhat serious when he said that the thought of assaulting feminist women gave him an erection

It was “the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection”, or near enough to that. Which is conveniently just vague enough that he can claim he meant metaphorically fucking feminists shit up, like through the use of FACTS and LOGIC, instead of through physical violence.

Really shows what kinds of company they attract.

It certainly does. Of course, the people who don’t want to see the pattern aren’t going to spot it.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

Mmmhmmm. Let us consider some of the writers The New York Times has published:

Vladimir Putin

Adolf Hitler

The Taliban

etc.

Isolated demands for rigor all up in here.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Catalpa

It was “the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection”, or near enough to that.

Yes, that was it. I paraphrased it for the purpose of argument.

Which is conveniently just vague enough that he can claim he meant metaphorically fucking feminists shit up, like through the use of FACTS and LOGIC, instead of through physical violence.

And from there springs their Plausible Deniability™, which the alt right relies on. That reminds me, though, that the alt right really likes metaphors about violence. Their videos are always “Ben Shapiro destroys X” or “X owned by Jordan Peterson” or something to that effect. Very telling, really.

@Motte and Bailey
And your point is? I don’t see anyone here defending the NYT for publishing Hitler.

Ariblester
10 months ago

@Motte

Yes, the op-eds by Putin and Haqqani are giving dictators and terrorists an undeserved platform, but Hitler, oddly enough, cannot be counted among them:

From the foreword to the NYT’s publishing of excerpts from Mein Kampf during WWII,

Germany is now waging a psychological war against this country as well as a military war in other parts of the world. That psychological war is based on the principles of propaganda laid down by Adolf Hitler in his autobiography “Mein Kampf.” Below the book’s most important passages on propaganda are published.

That’s obviously not meant to be laudatory, and is meant to show the perfidy of the enemy that the USA was fighting against.

If you are cherry-picking examples, at least read them first!

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

The New York Times is, y’know, a newspaper. Their job is to provide information about the things going on in the world, which (often) includes people committing horrific human rights abuses.

I don’t agree with their decision to have op-eds from a leader of the Taliban or Vladimir Putin, but having a one-off opinion piece from a politically relevant source isn’t the same thing as hiring on that shitty person to be a regular contributor to your publication. (Though it’s still bad.)

(Also, the New York Times didn’t publish Hitler, they only featured an excerpt from his book. By that metric, David has published Paul Elam on We Hunted The Mammoth.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-op-ed/)

Christopher Cantwell has written at least 4 articles from the site which are nigh-on indistinguishable from the other offerings on the website, which is (ostensibly) intended to be a place where everyday men can speak about their rights and struggles. It’s a bit different, but given that you’ve shifted the goalposts from “AVFM would never condone murder!” to “well, other places have shitty contributors as well!!!”, I don’t think you’re acting in good enough faith to acknowledge that.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

I have to step away for now – I have a job, unlike many of you – but I’ll be back.

With respect to Hitler and the NYT: OK, but I would still consider posting a long excerpt from his book, with minimal commentary, effectively “publishing” him. There’s an important distinction here: the platform they provided is fundamentally his, not that of some anti-Hitler person who just quotes him a few times.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Well, AVFM did defend Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. And they compiled a kill list of women they don’t like called Register Her. Archived here
http://web.archive.org/web/20110701151709/http://www.register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

I mean, they tried to claim it wasn’t meant to incite violence, but it clearly was.

So, I don’t find it hard to believe that they’d find a way to defend a murderer in their ranks.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

I have to step away for now – I have a job, unlike many of you – but I’ll be back.

Are you, by chance, an actuary?

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

I have to step away for now – I have a job, unlike many of you – but I’ll be back.

Are you, by chance, an actuary?

He’s definitely either that or a 329-year-old engineer.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

Aww I missed the troll because of my job, how sad.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

Don’t worry, Lainy, the troll promised to return!

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

Christopher Cantwell has written at least 4 articles from the site which are nigh-on indistinguishable from the other offerings on the website, which is (ostensibly) intended to be a place where everyday men can speak about their rights and struggles.

Christopher Cantwell is a ridiculous attention-seeking troll with no ideology beyond getting people to talk about him. He used to be a hardline libertarian, too – are they tainted by association? Answer: no, because there’s no ideological line from his libertarianism (or his men’s rights activism) and his Nazism. Looking at it from that perspective is missing the point: Cantwell puts on these politics like Halloween costumes.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@Motte

Wow you didn’t stay away very long did you? what happened to that job lol

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@Policy

oh I know they will. They always do. Kind of like a virus or a staff infection. I got a while until my next class anyways.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

This guy sounds a bit familiar.

@Catalpa

He’s definitely either that or a 329-year-old engineer.

He’s 329 and doesn’t have anything better to do than come here to defend AVfM? If I live 329 years hopefully I’d have accomplished more than that.

@Motte and Bailey

He used to be a hardline libertarian, too – are they tainted by association?

I’d say they are, if they didn’t call him out.

Answer: no, because there’s no ideological line from his libertarianism (or his men’s rights activism) and his Nazism.

I’d say there is quite an ideological thread, as a lot of libertarians (in the American sense of the word as right-libertarians) are white supremacists and a significant amount of alt right people self identify as libertarians. If there wasn’t an ideological thread I would expect there not to be much overlap between libertarians, Nazis, and MRAs, but there is overlap.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

Answer: no, because there’s no ideological line from his libertarianism (or his men’s rights activism) and his Nazism.

Well, that’s quite the assertion to make, considering that libertarians and Nazis/white supremacists have made quite comfortable bedfellows before.
https://bennorton.com/the-libertarian-fascist-alliance/

More basically, then, from a pragmatic perspective, libertarian ideology conveniently grants the fascist just the alibi they need. A fascist can justify their desire for a segregated, white-only community with an appeal to libertarian principles (“It’s our right to do so; if you try to stop us it’s aggression, force, tyranny”).

And given the migration of folks like Chris Cantwell, Milo Yiannopoulos, Sargon of Akkad, etc from MRA-adjacent activities to right-wing idealogues, I don’t think that men’s rights activism has nothing to do with Nazism either.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

hardline libertarian, too – are they tainted by association?

Hardline libertarians are tainted by being hardline libertarians.

1 2 3