Categories
a voice for men antifeminism grandiosity hypocrisy MRA oppressed men paul elam terrorism threats

Does A Voice for Men really think that firebombing is a form of non-violence?

Reading through some comments on Men’s Rights hub A Voice for Men the other day, I ran across a fairly bloodthirsty contribution from an MRA with the charming nickname Brutal Antipathy, suggesting that the Occupy Wall Street protesters needed a bit of what he called “the ol’ Tienanmen Square treatment.”

Mr. Antipathy’s rhetorical outburst struck me as fairly typical of the tough-guy rhetoric that the site’s regulars love to indulge in — though usually the targets of the rhetoric are feminists, not Occupy Wall Street activists.

So I was a bit surprised to see site founder Paul Elam respond with this:

It seems a little odd for Elam to claim to be shocked — shocked! — to find such rhetoric on his site. Elam, after all, seems to positively revel in making his own vaguely threatening pronouncements towards his ideological enemies.

In a recent fundraising appeal, for example, Elam let out all the stops:

We now have a team of individuals that goes beyond what we advertise on our pages, and we are gearing up to add a new doomsday prophesy to 2012.  Let’s put it this way: The fembots better hope the Mayan’s were right about next year, because they would rather deal with that than the things we are cooking up. …

Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.

Elam is purposefully vague about just what he means by “inflicting pain,” but it is hard not to read this comment as a threat of something dire.

Others on the site are similarly fond of this sort of vague, threatening language. MRA blogger Fidelbogen, recently brought on board as a contributor to AVfM, let loose in a recent comment on those who think MRAs should tone down their rhetoric towards feminists and other enemies:

Apparently, Elam believes that the deliberate vagueness of these kinds of threats makes them shining examples of Gandhian non-violence — or at least that it gives the site the requisite “plausible deniability” if — when? — someone actually moves beyond the threats to actual violence.

It’s ok, evidently, to talk about “inflicting pain” on your enemies, so long as you don’t specify just how. It’s ok to boast about frightening your enemies, to muse about “stalking” individual feminists, to post their personal information online, and so on and so on.

Heck, apparently it’s not even a problem if someone, using the personal information provided on the site, actually tracks down individuals targeted by Elam and pals and quite literally kills them. As AVfM managing editor John the Other put it in a recent post (which I wrote about here):

And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate.

Nonetheless, JtO, like Elam, insists that “I do not and will not lend myself to the support of violence, or indeed, of murder.”

But all this dancing around the issue of violence is rather a moot point, given the one rather striking exception that Elam has allowed to his “no explicit advocacy of violence” rule.

And that is the terrorist manifesto he’s been hosting on his site since last summer.

I’m referring, of course, to the lengthy manifesto written by Tom Ball, a man who burned himself to death on the steps of a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire last summer in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court.

Ball has been hailed as a hero in numerous articles on AVfM, and he is mentioned in an “invocation” in the new theme song for AVfM Radio.

The manifesto is posted on AVfM — in its “activism” category.

What sort of “activism” did Ball advocate? Hint: It involves Molotov cocktails, and government buildings.

In his words (emphasis mine):

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. … [T]he dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.

There is no evidence that the police, courts, or government is planning to do anything different in the immediate future. And they will not do anything different until we make it so uncomfortable that they must change. Bureaucracy at its worst. So burn them out. This is too important to be using that touchy- feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA

At this point the AVfM editors cut Ball off in mid-sentence, and insert this “Editor’s note”:

Editor’s note:

Several paragraphs in this copy of Mr Ball’s original letter have been omitted. The omitted paragraphs contained detailed instructions on the manufacture and use of simple incendiary devices.

If you are really interested in seeing the omitted sections, you can find the complete manifesto elsewhere in the Mansophere.

Ball was quite serious about all this, and hoped that his self-immolation would inspire other “activists” to “manufacture and use” his favored sort of “simple incendiary devices,” as the AVfM editors gingerly put it. Ball himself was a bit more blunt:

I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out. …

And bring a can of spray paint to these fires. Paint the word COLLABORATORS ( two L’s with an S on the end) on the building before you burn it.

Ball frankly acknowledged that if others followed his suggestions, people would die:

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.

How does Ball’s explicit advocacy of terrorist acts directed at government buildings, acts that if carried out would almost inevitably mean the deaths of people within those buildings, square with Elam’s purported no-advocacy-of-violence policy for his website?

You’ll have to ask him. I have no fucking clue.

294 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
10 years ago

would help the *

Lettow-Vorbeck
Lettow-Vorbeck
10 years ago

Your conclusions that Mr. Elam is advocating violence are unfounded. He knows that people don’t change unless they are given an incentive to. That means making people feel the consequences of their actions. Mr. Elam does that by dragging these people out into the daylight where everyone can see what they are doing. That’s how he puts the hurt on them. He doesn’t need violence to FTSU.

Your unrealistic characterization of him makes you look silly.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
10 years ago

I want to give myself the title Product Quality Facilitator for the Joplin branch of Manboobz.

Zarat said

PRESUMPTIVE 50/50 physical does not prevent:
(1) voluntary modification of the 50/50 schedule if agreed by both parents.
(2) involuntary modification if one or both parents are demonstrated to be unfit.

Parents oftentimes come up with mutually agreed upon custody arrangements for themselves. They can also decide for themselves to change the parenting plans as the need arises. If the parents are unable to work out these issues for themselves, they can resolve the issues in mediation. If either parent is accused of being abusive, then they will need to work out their issues in court. If you want to know how custody is arranged in Missouri, I have included a link to better explain the process, because it can be complicated. The link also explains how to modify child support orders.

Pecunium
10 years ago

Holly: If you look at the responses (e.g. Fidelbogen), you see that what they do is repeat the vagueness, as if that were an actual disavowal.

In short, yeah, it would be nice if they were honest about it; but they are more fond of the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge, Know What I Mean?!?”

And, as they say, a wink is as good as a nod.

And We do have NWO, who avodcates openly.

Balanced by Meller, who says what he means, but does a shuck and jive when someone actually quotes him.

Oh, and we have the ManTraitor (says so right in his blog header 🙂 ) refusing to engage and pretending that’s some sort of deep and penetrating insight to the nature of the problem.

I particularly like the oxymoronic attempts at wit.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Can my title be “Publisher of Inane Comments On Arizona?”

Seraph
Seraph
10 years ago

lj4 – Now I remember why you got off to such a bad start here.

Well, it wouldn’t be the first time someone wandered into an internet forum with a history and culture they didn’t know and got hammered to Hell when they said the exact wrong thing in the exact wrong way. As you may have noticed with the whole MRAL saga, it is possible to start again around here, if that’s what you want.

Kyrie
Kyrie
10 years ago

“Your conclusions that Mr. Elam is advocating violence are unfounded.”

Please educate us on the meaning of “The time has come to fuck your shit up” repeated many time in his song. With details on why we shouldn’t view that as a threat to women.

Pecunium
10 years ago

So wait… editors? That implies actual responsibility, which implies liability. When I was editing newspapers I was carrying libel insurance. The reporters didn’t, because part of my responsibilities was to make sure any inadvertent libels were cut before the piece went to press.

But if there are titles to be had…. Heck, I never know what to ask for.

lj4adotcomdan
10 years ago

Seraph: I welcome anyone who wishes a fresh start with me to do so, even those with whom I have “feuded” with previously.

Hell, one of my friendships that started on the net began as a month long argument with insults and everything… much worse than anything that happened on here. So I am always open to reevaluating first impressions.

Pecunium
10 years ago

AlekNovy: Dave, you do realize that:

A) Libel is illegal

AlekNovy: You do realise that libel is a tort, not a crime? And that truth is an absolute defense?

You do realise that public figures (which includes those who thrust themselves into the limelight on specific issues) have limited protections against libel (Times v. Sullivan) and that the libel has to be 1: a false stamment, and 2: made with a malicious disregard for the truth.

Dave has no worries, unless Elam has the money to pay, out of pocket, for a libel lawyer willing to lose a case; a case not likely to get (assuming the lawyer willing to take on a frivolous lawsuit can be found) past the filing stage.

Pecunium
10 years ago

In other words, you blindly accept Futrelle’s framing of Elam’s words and actions without question? Why?

Assumes facts not in evidence. I happen to think David is being more tolerant of the subtext than the text deserves. I think this because I’ve read Elam’s actual words, and I’ve looked at the things he hosts, and agrees with.

He is a supporter, and advocate, of violence; full stop. He weasels to cover his ass; because he’s a chickenshit. I don’t think he, personally, has the stomach to commit violence, but when he sees it he likes it, approves of it, and cheers it on.

So no, I don’t agree with Dave. I think Elam is worse than that.

Leni
Leni
10 years ago

Oh, Holly, the Clown revolution is already here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10290638

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8037744/Circus-clowns-protest-over-evil-Alton-Towers-attraction.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13801279

Clowns all over the world are united in their struggle against anti-clown bigotry and fearmongering! Vive le Clowns!

PS 😀

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-wtf-protesters-ever-photographed/

Happy
Happy
10 years ago

@ AlexNovy

C) AVfM has huge funds, and many lawyers as members who will work on the cheap.

This is truly one of the funniest things I’ve read in quite some time.

AVfM are trying so incredibly hard to get someone prominent to sue them. But it doesn’t work, because no-one has heard of them. No-one cares. At all.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
10 years ago

Down with the Clown Coup! We shall rise in reaction and take back our country!

caution no longer tolerating female abuse is a threat of violence
caution no longer tolerating female abuse is a threat of violence
10 years ago

Nothing in Paul’s posts suggests violence on the same scale as feminism’s SCUM efforts. Nor does it even suggest violence, in all a culture shock can come in the form of large-scale PEACEFUL protests, which Paul has suggested. I mean seriously you are adding a bunch of bullshit terror tactics to a movement that literally use facts and science over feminism’s dogma. It is literally impossible for men to get into college, much less employment but when we do we put in more work and are more likely to die at work ergo, men EARN more money. Hell I have seen more calls of OPEN violence and eugenics against men by feminists. Hell feminists literally chased Erin Pizzy out of her own country with death threats. I swear you have no spine.

Viscaria
Viscaria
10 years ago

It is literally impossible for men to get into college, much less employment but when we do we put in more work and are more likely to die at work ergo, men EARN more money.

It is literally impossible that this thing happens! But let me tell you how it goes when it happens!

By the way, what is up with all of the thread necromancy lately?

pecunium
10 years ago

We have no spine because we chase people out of countries with our hounding and our death threats?

As opposed to the MRM, which complains about something published after the author was dead, by a man, more than 40 years ago, and whines that it’s timely, and important in the lives of feminists.

While people who say rape should be legal, people who are alive; and saying it right now, aren’t worth talking about.

Who’s the whiny-ass titty-baby?

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Nothing in Paul’s posts suggests violence on the same scale as feminism’s SCUM efforts.

SCUM was satirical, and published by a dude who wanted to make money off of people mocking feminists for their extremism at any rate.

Nor does it even suggest violence,

Ahahaha, “There will be violence if our demands are not meant” is a suggestion, dude. More than that, it’s a threat.

I mean seriously you are adding a bunch of bullshit terror tactics t

Wait, sorry, are you accusing us of terrorizing MRAs for… writing a post about Elam pussyfooting his way around calls for violence? Do you know what ‘terror’ is?

that literally use facts and science over feminism’s dogma.

No, no it doesn’t. I wish you idiots could use either of those things, but the fact of the matter is, that facts and science are against your idiotic claims. That’s why you try to pretend sociology is like creationism, f’rex.

It is literally impossible for men to get into college,

Y’sure about that? Really?

much less employment

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Journal-Managerial-Issues/193141029.html
Bullshit.

t but when we do we put in more work

Heh. Don’t I wish.

and are more likely to die at work ergo

You’re also more likely to ignore safety restrictions. These things are not random coincidences.

ergo, men EARN more money

The pay gap has nothing to do with who earns more money in total; That’d be the wealth gap, and it has FAR more tod o with the fact that men dominate the upper crust than anything else. The pay gap covers pay within a single profession, after controlling for other factors. It is bullshit to claim, absent evidence, taht men ‘put in more work’.

Hell I have seen more calls of OPEN violence and eugenics against men by feminists.

No, no you haven’t. I cruise Radfemhub, y'[all’s ogre, just to check this shit. There’s a lot less calls for violence. About as much racism and cis-sexism, decidedly less heterosexism.

L
L
10 years ago

Seems you really like BA enough to blog about him, so here’s his blog for you to fully enjoy.

http://brutalantipathy.blogspot.com/?zx=a3f11ca6c36455f4

1 10 11 12
%d bloggers like this: