Political Groundswell Against IMBRA

I have recently gotten the following e-mail, and I share it with CF readers because I think it is newsworthy:

Here is the latest on the upcoming court battle to fight the IMBRA law (dating site regulation), which is galvanizing the nascent Men’s Rights Movement. There are a number of US Senators who will not be reelected in 2008 without paying attention to men’s rights. We gave Conrad Burns and Jim Talent early retirement last year. If we do not see action from Republican leadership organizations like GOPAC, we will have to give early retirement to overly feminist-friendly Sununu and Coleman next year.

Please forward this message to important contacts and please do something about our getting an American female plaintiff quickly.

The linked article shows that the background checks on American men are not the main outrage of IMBRA. Please read this and the attached law review. The main outrage is that the requirement for foreign women to give “written approval” of every contact completely destroys communication when the women do not have email addresses or constant access to the Internet:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/24/
imbra-completely-stops-communication-between-adults-background-checks-
are-a-secondary-concern/


We have the active duty Iraq War vets ready to be plaintiffs. We have foreign women who want to be plaintiffs in a US federal courtroom.

But we need an American woman plaintiff to knock this bizarre law out of the ballpark. If I were living in the US, I could find one within 48 hours. But I live in Europe.

Here is why an American woman needs to volunteer to walk into a federal courthouse and lay down a Pro Se challenge to IMBRA before some male does the same but also asks the conservative courts to declare matters such as domestic violence to be States Rights issues. This would eliminate VAWA and the OVW at the Department of Justice.

It is in everyone's interest to prune back on legislation that has gone too far. This law, if upheld and enforced, will cause major backlash from the type of white male professionals who have supported feminist initiatives up to the present time.

Remember: In the 1980s, corporate sex harassers did not fight back as legislation was made against them. In the 1990s, stalkers did not fight back as legislation was made against them. But in the 2000s, innocent American businessmen and servicemen WILL fight back as legislation is made against them simply for wanting to say hello to women who want men to contact them.

And we are not going to give up:

1) IMBRA steals the right of anonymity from Internet communications. If someone is OK with laws that make it illegal to lie to someone on the Internet or cheat on one's spouse, the loss of anonymity would still be a huge loss.

2) There is no such thing as a Mail Order Bride. Every American on the street agrees that the US Government must stop using that term. Our plaintiffs will be the foreign women themselves besides active duty Iraq War veterans (currently fighting in Iraq). IMBRA takes away the right of foreign women to decide their own level of security. Women without email have the right to request to be phoned or telegrammed, both of which do not lend themselves to signing "written approval" of contact with a man. If this were a privacy issue, then the law would say that the foreigners should sign in writing that they are OK with being members of a social interaction site, but investigating the specific criminal backgrounds of the Americans and then getting the mostly impossible "written approval for each contact" goes way too far.

3) IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It causes excessive delays. Russian women without email want to be contacted immediately and they have the right to allow themselves to be called or telegrammed at their home address. Despite district court rulings to the contrary, there actually is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner and, no, contacting a gun shop owner does not require a background check.

4) The book 1984 dealt with a government interfering with a relationship and "disclosing" important information to the woman in order to break up the relationship.

5) There is no such thing as a Marriage Broker. The IMBRA definition says it is a social interaction site with less than 50% American women on it. That is insane. It could also include Adultfriendfinder and Match.com.

6) The Tahirih Justice Center is the main author and defender of the law. They do not represent foreign women, but rather rake in some good salaries while they claim to represent some battered women. Absolute proof that they are dishonest comes in the way they say "More than 50% of US women's shelters have reported some kind of abuse of a [foreign born Internet bride]". Anyone who knows statistics can easily see that it would not indicate any trend at all if 100% of US women's shelters had experienced at least one case of such abuse. The fact that only 50% of shelter's saw such abuse indicates that foreign brides are treated much better than domestic brides who suffer a 7% abuse rate that causes 100% of shelters to experience a case.

Tahirih actually used the phrase "mail order bride" in that sentence but I cannot bring myself to use that racist, derogatory phrase which is designed by Marxists to belittle their "wards" whom they say they want to "protect." In court, Tahirih will face real foreign women who despise how Tahirih is trying to run their lives and “represent them”.

7) Domestic Violence is not an enumerated power of the Congress and it should have nothing to do with how people meet each other.

8) One cannot allow the existence of new technology to make paper letter writing illegal. That would be like saying that riding a bike is illegal because the car was invented. You cannot ask a website or an American serviceman to take 3 months to send each man's background check by snail mail around the world and get a signed response back that contact is OK with that one man. IMBRA seems OK only because it would not hamper communications much if all women used anonymous webmail dating sites like Match.com. US legislators pathetically assumed that the world's women would "get with the program" and go high tech and go paranoid in their communications with men.

9) IMBRA is like the 1907 Expatriation Act where a male-dominated Congress tried to stop American women from marrying foreigners without loss of American citizenship.

10) You cannot take a subset of Americans and say they "tend to be violent" and take away their rights a priori. The government cannot enforce background checks on inner city black men who go to liquor stores and then use dating sites. One cannot ask gay men for AIDs test results before being able to say hi to gay men on Gay.com.

11) The trend in extra-jurisdictional lawmaking has to be stopped. The use of the Internet by Americans overseas for non-criminal purposes cannot be regulated.

We businessmen and veterans are not a criminal class to be background-checked because it is supposed to be "suspicious" that we travel.

The official definition of "marriage broker" is any social interaction website where the quota of American women is less than 50%. That is insane social protectionism. IMBRA was made by some insecure radical feminists to protect American women from competition.

Of course, IMBRA is also part of the $Billion "Domestic Violence Industry" as described in the following two articles:

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news10.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey193.htm

Finally, does anyone here agree with what a Republican Judge Thomas Rose said about IMBRA:

"There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner". May 26, 2006 (just before Memorial Day)


Jim Peterson

Veterans Abroad

www.veteransabroad.com

Fidelbogen says: Here we see the beginning of an organized lobbying movement for men's interests, along with an awakening male solidarity that uses the BALLOT BOX!! Let's keep an eye on this, and hope that the IMBRA campaign is just a taste of many things to come in the field of electoral politics.

By the way, if anybody has any doubts about the full scope of the feminist-instigated marriage crisis in the USA, these developments show pretty dramatically what a hot-button thing it truly is! A lot of people feel mighty strongly about this stuff, and it's plain to see that they aren't fooling around!

Addendum: I would encourage others in the Movement (such as my fellow bloggers) to visit the Veterans Abroad website linked above, in order to inform themselves on this and related matters of interest. And then, if it seems right to you. . . spread the word!

Feminists: Stop Spreading Lies About "Male Violence"!

Note: The text given below is a polished and expanded version of a comment which I posted at the following web address:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2007/10/02/
men_often_victims_of_sexual_assault

I hope that a few CF readers will feel 'moved by the spirit' to add their voices over yonder. While you are there, be sure to check out the excellent comment by Marc Angelucci just prior to my comment! (It looks like PO never took him up on his challenge! ;)
-------------------------------------------

We now possess abundant evidence in support of the conclusion that women are, in general terms, as evil as men in the realm of Intimate Partner Violence.

Even so, I admit this is still a field of controversy. Hence, I am willing to extend a certain leniency to the feminists by specifically not requesting them to discard their belief system outright—but rather to suspend it.

More to the point: while I do not foresee the feminists joining me on my side of the belief fence, I still think it would be a civilized gesture on their part if they would embrace an "agnostic" viewpoint, and chill out for a while—frankly admitting that the state of knowledge is in limbo for the present. In practical terms, I mean that the feminists should immediately CEASE AND DESIST from repeating certain items as "fact", when in fact nothing of the sort has been established.

Consider, for example, the widely circulated feminist "fact" that "men commit 95% of all DV in order to maintain patriarchal control over women". This is most emphatically not a "fact"! It is only an assertion that certain people insist on propagating despite weighty evidence of its being wildly untrue. To persist in such assertions is unethical, unscrupulous, dishonest and in a word, reprehensible—the more so when such assertions continue to serve as a propaganda subtext for anti-male agitation in all forms.

However, as said, I am willing to meet the feminists halfway. At the very least, they should have the decency to acknowledge that they MIGHT be wrong about certain points bearing upon these issues, and to stop repeating questionable data in a dogmatic tone of voice as they have long been accustomed to do. Rather, the feminists should adopt a mood of "wait and see", and insist that further studies be conducted (under rigorously professional standards) so that we can get to the bottom of this business once for all! In the meantime, yet again, the order of the day should be agnosticism all around!

Think about it. To assert roundly that a matter is TRUE when there remains considerable room for doubt, and to admit no illuminating footnotes that might serve notice of such doubt for the listener's benefit, amounts to a species of deception or, less politely stated, lying.

So let the feminists book themselves a room at the Halfway Hotel of honest skepticism. Let them book it for the season!

I think I am being more than generous in granting this degree of liberty. I trust that others in our Movement will assist to convey the burden of these sentiments toward the opposition through a variety of channels, and that the opposition will undertake a seemly diligence in the spirit of the counsel here proffered.

The Picture's Not Any Brighter: Andy is Still a Cad, Man!

Remember this post, here?

Well, they're back and they're at it again! Andy Cadman of Endemol UK has been in touch with Dick Masterson of MABTW, and Dick has posted the following (apparently extracted from an e-mail) on a forum thread:

"Dick,

"I am trying to contact people about a new TV programme that I am researching. We thought that some of the forum members might be interested in being involved!

"I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex. If any forum members feel this way or know anyone who feels this way, I would be extremely grateful if they would get in touch with me as soon as possible on andy.cadman@endemoluk.com. All correspondence will be dealt with sympathetically and in complete confidence. I am looking for UK-based individuals only so if you are from the UK and feel this way, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

"Many thanks for taking the time to read this.

"Andy"

Andy has tailored his approach rather noticeably. I think it is also evident that he has read my earlier blog post - the one linked above. Anyway, he's still looking for MRAs to sell out the movement!

My advice again: Don't touch!

Here is the forum thread at MABTW, where they discuss this a bit:

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/about2096.html

(I almost want to register at the MABTW forum just so I can make a little post about this . But nah. . .! Too much trouble; I'm lazy! )

The Growing Conspiracy of Silent Men

Ahh...yesss! The Conspiracy of Silent Men!

I like that! It has a ring to it, does it not?

In the immediately foregoing post, I directed your attention to an item at Ulrich's Inferno blog, where he reports upon the surprising growth of male political awareness among men in his own circle.

Just a few hours ago, by way of confirmation, the following was submitted (by "anonymous") to the comment log for the post in question. I present it here, only slightly edited, in order give it a spotlight:

"ive been lurking through the various MRA blogs for about a year now since i first discovered them though i havent posted ever. i guess i was starting on the bachelor road since i was 14 and said i would never get married. a few years ago at 18 i bought a tshirt which i still have and wear which says. "Not all men are stupid, some are bachelors!" the older i get ,which all in all so far isnt that old, the more that t shirt rings true. regarding your recent blog post i have also ran into the same thing...more men are in on this than we think.....here is a theory i throw out for everyone out there.


"men know how to keep secrets or at least keep their mouth shut.

"not just in that we have been conditioned...we have in some ways....but strategic instinct....its better not to let your enemy see you coming from miles away...surprise and hopefully victory are then easier to achieve

"i ran into a british guy (in his late 20s, business man, smartly dressed, etc) in berlin going through airport security and in about 1 minute we were discussing the nanny state of england. started off with security in general, then security in england, followed by bam!....unemployed "baby factories"(his words) on welfare with council flats and how whack laws are and how society is slanted...he was not in on the MRA blogs or movement though he had heard of it. these things were his opinions and he had done good research. he said most of his friends thought similarly. you would never guess he thought this way by looking at him or even talking to him in regular conversation. but this conversation also made me notice that change in the wind....like a stiff northern breeze is coming.

"times are changing boys...."

Yes! A stiff northern breeze. An arctic wind. As the iceberg once told me: "Outta sight, man!"

This post is dedicated to all you out-of-sight men, wherever you may be. You know who you are. If you are an "outta sight man", I salute you. I too, am such a man!

I know that one school of thought says, "we must break the silence" - and that school, to be sure, has its points. But then again, silence is cool and mysterious, don't you think?

And I can assure you that our network ALREADY circles the globe! We've got our signs, countersigns, passwords and secret handshakes. The mythical "old boys network" is no longer mythical. It is REAL, and feminism made it possible by making the growth of it predictably inevitable!

And for that, we owe feminism a debt of gratitude. Two cheers for feminism! Hip-hip-hurrah! Hip-hip-hurrah!

All right lads, that's quite enough for now! Shush up again! ;-)

Something Worth Reading at Ulrich's Inferno

Ulrich, he of the Inferno, has posted something on his blog that I think is worth reading, and I would like to share it with you here:

http://ulrich-inferno.blogspot.com/2007/09/silent-revolution.html

As you will note, I contributed a rather long comment to that post. And I decided - what the hell, why not make it into a CF post. So, you'll see it both there, and here:
----------------

"...I had no idea. I thought they were clueless, but it turned out that I was the clueless one."

Ha! Sometimes life does hand us those little ironic surprises, eh? Life is funny that way, isn't it? ;-)

That said, let me add that I have been noticing rather similar things - at least as far as my enquiries go. (I had an interesting chat with a young guy just about a week ago, along much the same lines that you have sketched!)

"I originally started blogging because I thought I had to help get the message out. I was wrong. The message is out there, and a lot of men out there have heard it or figured things out themselves. I don't see much point in continuing since I honestly don't have much to contribute."

Hey, don't sell yourself short - you might have more to contribute than you realize! Take a breather, recharge your battery, and let fresh data percolate into your reservoir. Then come back to share your fresh inspirations!

I agree that the awareness is out there. However, it is "silent", as you suggest. And what does this silence signify? It signifies that people are not YET talking to each other passionately and energetically - which signifies in turn that they aren't yet fully aware of each other. But then, why should they be? After all, the "silence" is deafening. One sees, that's logical!

However, what you have said (combined with observations of my own) would seem to indicate that the logic of events is moving toward a critical mass or critical threshhold of some sort.

And THAT...is exciting indeed!

By the way, you can also gauge the present change in the wind by lurking around and sampling the buzz at the various feminist blogs. Listen closely to what they are talking about and HOW they are talking about it. They too, are detecting the things of which you speak. They too, are sensitive barometers - and you can learn a lot by "reading" them! ;-)

Personally, I think that folk such as us bloggers need to continue getting the word out and....FANNING THE FLAMES. We need to keep "shovelling the gravel" as the MGTOW people would say. The more we do so, the faster we shall arrive at that critical tipping point of collective awareness - after which all hell will break loose! (Oh the fun!!) ;-}

(After all, it's difficult to know exactly how MUCH of the present growth of awareness is due to our efforts. Possibly a lot more than we suspect - these things can have multiplier effects that are difficult to measure!)

As for myself, I am feeling tired and burnt out! This occupation takes a toll - physically, mentally, spiritually! However, I don't intend to retire from blogging for a good while yet. Reason being: I have at least 10 big substantial blog articles buzzing around in the job queue in my brain, waiting to be written. And I feel like I owe it to somebody to bring this work into the light of day. Don't ask me why, but that is just the way I feel! Who can say why?

Anyway, I do hope you'll keep your blog on line, and at least drop by for an update from time to time - even if it's just a quick note every six weeks or so! :-)

All the best;

-Fidelbogen-

Feminists: Here is Someone You Will Enjoy Meeting!

Feminists, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to introduce you to a blog which I have recently chanced upon. It is called Wife of Faith, and the promising subtitle which it bears is "Encouraging women to be who they were meant to be."

And wouldn't you just LOVE to be "who you were meant to be"??

The authoress of this blog is a young traditional Christian woman whose second "gift from God" is slated for arrival in June of 2008. As per this, her response is "yay!"

But here is the link:

http://wifeoffaith.blogspot.com/search/label/feminism

The blog contains a number of articles which I am absolutely certain that feminists will ever-so-much enjoy reading, such as: How to Submit to Your Husband, How to Become a Stay-at-Home Mom, How to Revive a Sourdough Starter Gone Bad, Struggling at Homemaking and, The Role of the Wife.

Now, Wife of Faith makes it perfectly clear that she considers feminism a lousy idea. However, within the operative continuum of "hate the sin but love the sinner", she makes it equally clear that she isn't "out to get" feminists. In a post entitled "Disclaimer on Feminism", she says this:

"Another term that gets thrown around is counter-feminist. While this one is not as implicating, the people who associate themselves with this term have taken a malicious stance toward feminists, something I find appalling. For example, see this excerpt from a headliner on the Counter-Feminist blog:

'The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions. This 'feminism'...must be mocked and rudely handled, analyzed, picked apart, and mobilized against.'

Feminism is a serious matter that does need to be addressed, but should be done so in a loving manner with compassion for the women mixed up in it. Only when we submit fully to God and His plan for us can we truly utilize all of our gifts as women."

Well. It is absolutely plain to me that Wife of Faith wants no traffic with the MRA crowd.

But do you know what I say to that? I say: fine!

I have no problem with that. I have no objection to that. I think that's cool!

Yes, I respect that!

And I should think that you feminists would likewise respect that. Come on, you don't really want to hob-nob with all those nasty MRAs and CFACs, do you? In fact, I surely can't imagine why you wouldn't eagerly embrace the companionship of Wife of Faith and her spiritual kindred—they're out there if you dig around! They'll welcome you with open arms and Christian charity, and with every manifestation of sisterhood that your heart could desire! And you may be certain that they will happily share with you "God's Plan for us", and guide you in submitting fully so that you can truly utilize all your gifts as women! Hey, that sounds like a mighty sweet deal if you ask me!

Or is it possible that their embrace carries some manner of price tag not much to your liking...eh? I mean, only you would know—but it's always a possibility.

Well in that case, you can always nip back here for a neighborly chat with little old ME! Sure, I admit that I don't write articles encouragaing you to submit to your husband, but hey..... who's perfect?

But seriously: as the movement against feminism grows and grows, there will come a time when you will need to open negotiations with our side. And when that day arrives, WHO upon the big broad spectrum of non-feminism WILL you parlay with?

Seriously.

I'm not asking you this for my sake; I'm asking you to ask yourself this for your OWN sake!

Think about it, okay?

............................................................
Update: Wife of Faith appears to have deleted the blog post in question—I can't say how long ago, since I have only just discovered this.

The Two-Party System of Gender Politics

The objective political situation of men in Western civilization being what it presently is, it would be asking far too much of any male citizen that he should agitate for women's advantages, or trouble himself in the least with women's political issues. This means that women are on their own: when the "personal" became the "political", it gained the moral nimbus of the political—and the political does not entail any personal solicitude for the partisan interest of the opposition.

I say partisan interest, for it happens that feminist innovation in all corners of life has turned 'male' and 'female' into rival political parties, having dissolved by its corrosive acidic action the foundation for any sentimental connection that formerly existed. Look around you; study life; the proof is everywhere. The situation now established in law and public policy, where men live under numerous threats of false accusation as under a Sword of Damocles, sets the capstone upon all of this. It sets the final seal. Chivalry is dead, and women, I repeat, are on their own. Given the state of reality at the present historical juncture, they ought to feel surprised and flattered that men will even associate with them at all.

How many times have we known one feminist or another to say it is not their job to go to bat for men? I've heard many variations upon this refrain, and I respect the sentiment because it transmits a flavor of blunt honesty—honesty of any sort being a rare find among members of the women's movement!

Again, I respect the sentiment. But I ask only that men should enjoy the equivalent advantage at their own end of the bargain: it is not the job of men to go to bat for women! For now that relations between the sexes have been reconstituted upon a model of political competition, it is incumbent upon us all that we play the game with consistency and wholesome frankness, however harsh or contrary to our instinctual feelings its terms might appear.

Yes, I for one am quite willing to play this game, and to embrace both the asperity which it imposes, and the compensative gift of simplicity which it brings. I look every feminist or collaborationist on earth squarely in the eye while I say this, and would have them know that I know their worth, and that I know the vital part which they have acted in bringing the world to that state which now occupies our attention.

To summarize: Men as a group owe no extraordinary collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special favor to Republicans as a group. Given the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, where women have the whip hand, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would adapt itself.

Having coldly but briefly outlined the prevailing state of affairs, I turn to ponder the ramifications—especially as it might involve the future plans and policies of our movement.

What evaluation ought we to draw from this partisan state of gender politics? For example, how does it make us feel?

I would guess: not so good! Even one so cynical as myself laments that this state of affairs offers precious little ground for celebration. It is difficult to understand what desirable consequence might ensue from the status quo that now confronts us. One foresees little more than a harsh lunar landscape, bereft of air or anything else that customarily sustains life. Think of it: men and women are political adversaries working to get the better of each other or, stating it more plainly, to shaft each other! For such is the model which feminist ideological indoctrination has established. And can any social polity hope to endure upon such a foundation? That is a very serious question, yet I shall leave it to the reader to supply the answer as his or her wisdom might suggest—my present concern lies elsewhere.

Thinking in cold, practical, political terms, what does this partisan reality promise? What are the auguries? How might we profit by its ascendancy, and what adjustments shall it require of us?

I have already set out this matter in somewhat different terms, in stating that men as a group owe no extraordinary collective favor to women as a group. Yet to this I would add that men, either jointly or severally, have no longer any ordinary contractual social duty toward women—that too was washed away, abolished, annihilated, when feminism arrived on the scene and turned the world upside-down! This is harsh, but if we are to live consistently and accept the new lunar freedom which has fallen to our lot, we must abide by certain terms. We must take the bitter with the sweet, and the feminists must be made to see this. Women in theory are on their own, as I have stated.

I would parenthetically add, that present law and public policy are out of step with what I am explaining here—they are behind the times. Nor does it matter that they are backed by the coercive power of the state, for that power is now (at least in theory) superceded by a different order of sovereignty!

Very well, so women are on their own. Men have no obligation to agitate for their interests, or to assume any sense of collective responsibility for postulated historical wrongs, or even to shoulder the burden of normal contractual social duties. Men are free and sovereign in their dealings with the opposite sex regardless of any state-sanctioned laws or public policies, regardless of the fumings of pro-feminist intellectual pundits and other collaborationists, and most of all regardless of feminist dogma itself.

That all of this has cold and barren consequences, is perfectly understood by the present writer —who doesn't much care for what the future very likely holds, but knows there is little to be done about it given the nature of the present historical reality which feminism has helped so largely to create, and upon which feminists themselves even to the present day remain so intractably pigheaded and incorrigible. To us in the Movement, no other course presents itself than to plough our furrow doggedly into this future wasteland, since the alternative is worse!

The alternative is, of course, collaborationism—be a Schwyzer; be a Flood; be a ribbon worm; be a self-betrayer! However, as should be self-evident, collaboration is ruled out a priori if you don't intend to co-labor! And as a man going your own way, you know good and well where the road forks . . . don't you?

It is sad that you have no choice but view every woman you meet as a potential betrayer. The law no longer protects you, and although most women would never stoop so low, you can never tell. Therefore you must watch your back and keep your own counsel—and until the law changes, so it must remain!

In the interim, you are free to shrug a worthless bag of rocks off your shoulders, to revel in the new-found sense of ease and lightness, and to travel unencumbered in the desert. You don't "owe" women anything, not even the most elementary social considerations. Feminism has brought matters to this pass. Feminism—through its wanton destruction of formerly existing systems, and its failure to supply anything viable or equitable in their place—has freed you to go about your life in a spirit of mercenary calculation. It is none of your doing; you never asked for it, and they never asked you if you wanted it! Nor did they ask anybody else . . .

So as a man, you are free to treat any woman you meet purely according to her merit, and purely according to your own honor and goodness. You are free to negotiate a new social contract every time—and feminism dictates no marching orders here! Feminism provides no instruction manual whatever, for that book was long ago cast upon the highway and trampled into the dust by the endless parade of passing hooves and wheels.

This freedom: it makes life simple. It is profitable to you and me, and profitable to the Movement. It clears the air, it clears our eyes, it clears our minds. It allows us to see, and to think, and finally to ACT.

Let us act with wisdom and discretion, while standing clear of the destructive turbulence which is sure to come. We have no duty to restrain this turbulence, but only to predict its arrival and to exhort the other side to take responsibility. We can't do it alone. They must get off their duff and do their share, and admit their wrongdoing. When that day arrives, the world will become a very different place. I'm not giving up hope, but I see a long road ahead—most of it uphill.

Here, Let Me Show You How It's Done!

A couple hours of meticulous work in the fine Adobe Photoshop program has yielded what you see here. Ain't Photoshop just the greatest??

Friends, this is COUNTER-FEMINISM IN ACTION!

Will this offend somebody? GOOD! I dearly WANT to offend somebody! I lust to do so; I thirst to do so! In fact, I personally invite Dr. Michael Kaufman himself to crucify me upside-down in a barrel of shit! Come on punk, let's see ya do it!!

Get this into the meme-pool - that's all that matters!

Quite a few people in the USA will hear what this is saying. Damn near everybody in Europe will!

It's all yours; print it, post it on websites, stick in on t-shirts and coffee mugs!

In a few days, I will create a smaller version suitable to web-page headers and sidebars.

Here is the URL for the White Ribbon Campaign, in case you are curious:

http://www.whiteribbon.ca/