Friday, December 4, 2009

THE RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN



The fantastic message of love of Marc Lepine


Why a red ribbon? Is it not the color of the AIDS campaign already? We would have liked to find an original color, but all colors are already taken. White, red, green, blue, yellow, brown, black, even intermediary colors like lime, cherry or fuschia: they have all been taken by some social cause or left-wing campaign, much to the point that certain colors are shared now by more than one institution or fundraiser. Facing such a difficult choice, Red vs White seemed the best solution.



The Red Ribbon campaign makes plain to all that Marc Lepine is in fact a kind of liberator and that December 6 could finally become something positive. Liberator, how so? He liberates women from the unhealthy thoughts of genocide and gendercide that were prevalent in the feminist discourse since the days of Valerie Solanas and Mary Daly, and helps them STOP their planned monstrosities. The message is here: stop hurting men and be good to them, and they will stop hating you. They could even start to like you again some day. This is the Red Ribbon message of Marc that we can oppose to the White Ribbon of shame, guilt and hatred.



Marc Lepine tells women and feminists YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE. He tells these thousands of women and feminists who have stolen their partner's house, their car, their money, he tells those who have stolen their ex-husband's children, their jobs and drove them to suicide: STOP TO BE MONSTERS, stop to secretly dream of killing men and planning gendercide, and we will perhaps begin again to love you some day. This is a powerful message, A MESSAGE OF LOVE, worthy of a new Christ.



The Red Ribbon campaign aims at ''unmonster'' women. It gives back their dignity to former feminazis, and allows those who performed atrocities without clearly realizing it, or misguided by their peers and under orders from the feminist war machine, to choose the path to REDEMPTION. To proudly wear this Red Ribbon is to show the world that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE, there is a way to salvation. Marc has given back women their dignity: he says ''be good and men will immediately stop to hate you, even start to like you again''. This is the powerful MESSAGE OF LOVE, and message of hope of Marc Lepine. Stop planning gendercide and stop acting like monsters, and we will start to love you again!



BUT WHY SHOULD WE LOVE YOU?

Why not? The killer saint tells them: ''let's save the planet from genocide. You don't have to read these books of vengeance anymore, like Mary Daly and Valerie Solanas, you don't have to plan massacres of male children in our hospitals anymore''. The iconic killer tells them: ''I'm ready to forgive you my children''. According to him, he would even be willing to forgive them the destruction of the environment which has been caused qui by feminine franctic consumerism for more than a century. Ladies, join this campaign of love of Marc: throw away this white ribbon of hate and replace it with the red color of love. Together, let us ''unmonster'' our society !


John Gisogod



PS. an extra kind word from Bob Allen to all of you out there


International Marc Lepine Day, December 6, is almost here again. By now all MEN should have their homes decorated. The lights should be up. The cards sent out, The carbines polished. A day of feasting, drinking, and celebrating.

Happy Saint Marc's Day to you all.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at:
http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

Thursday, December 3, 2009

INTERNATIONAL MARC LÉPINE DAY


When did this idea of an International Marc Lepine Day ever come up, and when and how could someone in his right mind consider to put forward such a ridiculous notion and contention as a St. Marc's Day? St-Marc's Day has been introduced in 2005 by the extremist intellectual fringe that functions as the vanguard of the men's movement. In fact, two groups had the same idea at the same time: Bob Allen and his group and John Gisogod and his Yahoo friends at Frustrated_men. The International Marc Lepine Day or St-Marc Day on December 6 is not accepted and celebrated by the majority of the men's movement. It has been established that it should be a day when we remember the first counter-attack against the feminazi's war on men. By celebrating Marc Lepine and embracing him as a hero, it was believed that this would disturb the feminists' plans and enrage them. The goal was to uncover their plot to spread universal shame and guilt in the men's camp and neutralize it. Saying that he's a saint and celebrating him on that date was a bold move. It is a daring move that angers all feminazis and confuses them.


Making Marc Lepine a hero is only a tactical move in the big chess game true activists are playing against the feminists. And if it can help win some victories over them the better. When activists started to launch this campaign about celebrating St-Marc, the feminists they were in contact with and those monitoring friendly groups were appalled. This daring move, they hoped, may help free their children. They believed they should confront the enemy, make them appalled and make them run. It is generally viewed as a very daring move, but a necessary one! It's not that Marc Lepine was a good father or especially relevant to the men's movement with what he has done, it is rather that he had become an Icon of the incarnate male evil to feminists and a weapon in their hands against masculism. Celebrating him on that date, even saying he's a saint is much more than a bold move: it has become a form of gender duty and patriotism, then such daring clearly angers and confuses the enemy.


So, start to put up your decorations and send out invitations for the annual celebration of St. Marc's Day. Colored lights, candles, ammo belts hung by the gun racks, a picture of St. Marc above the fireplace: decoration of a man's home that make him feel there is hope. If you really want to hurt the feminists, commemorate the death of St-Marc on December 6th. That is as simple as that. Men in Eastern Canada were the worst off on planet Earth twenty years ago, Quebec in particular (which was already a matriarchy before the advent of feminism). It is the place where it all began on December 6th 1989. A young boy, dare we say a prophet, fed up with the fact that women were taking all the power, swarming all political and administrative institutions, the education system and the work place, after having manipulated men there for over three centuries, that young boy then decided to fight back. He went to a feminist stronghold called ''Polytechnique'', the faculty of engineering and architecture of the University of Montreal and killed 15 feminists single-handedly.


The media called him a mass-murderer, but what makes him so special is that he only killed women and did his utmost to spare the men; he warned the young men who wanted to intervene to clear off: ''I have nothing against you guys, get out!'' and by the way he handled this assault rifle, they obeyed. It is by deliberately sparing the men and having his anti-feminist manifesto later published that Marc Lepine took his place in history. Feminists took advantage of the killing to demonize men some more and have more anti-men laws voted in the Canadian parliament, so it did set back the masculist movement another five years, but by then male activists had decided not to play in the hands of feminists anymore: instead of being ashamed of Marc Lepine, they decided to make him a hero. That infuriated feminists, then male activists now contended that the feminists themselves had created Marc Lepine, that the young man would never had gone on a rampage if all kinds of provocations and injustice done to men in general over two decades haven't led him to it. Feminists and women in general were responsible, that's what the new men's movement in Quebec was saying.


A FOLK-HERO

How many folk-heroes were first branded criminals, later to be recognized as genuine heroes?Although perhaps a criminal, could not Lepine fit also the description and achieve hero status some day? For now, it is important to celebrate St-Marc and December 6th as a date because, if you really want feminists to lose control, this is the surest way. To make him a martyr and a saint on next December 6th is not only to be truthful and accurate, it is a necessary step on the road to victory in this gender war. So, make it publicly known; it is everyone's responsability to highlight the event somehow! The fact that many acknowledge the importance of this day already tells a lot to the media.


REACHING MARTYRDOM STATUS AS A FREEDOM FIGHTER

Marc Lepine will long be remembered as an oppressed and abused man who fought back against feminist's hate that had pushed him aside. This day is celebrated as the day when one successfully fought back and finally stood up to feminism. Although many Canadian feminists continue to use this date as an hate-men festival, a remembrance day to enshrine their bigotry and hatred, others now say that it clearly shows what Marc Lepine fought against. If it shows one thing, it is that misandry is still very powerful in Canada. If anything, this young man is a martyr in the fight for freedom from oppression, who stood up against tyranny and died for the cause. We say a saint, because his falls in the same category of what Japanese call a "swordsaint" and what we, in the West, recognize as the "Boondock Saints' phenomenon". May his sacrifice be long remembered by those who stand up for freedom and oppose hatred. Some 20 years after the deed, the fact that men and women still care about this event means that it has become a milestone in Gender war history.


Until now, December 6th was acknowledged as an important event and emphasized mostly by feminists. That men and men's groups speak of it openly now, unafraid and unashamed, strikes us as a novelty. When one thinks of it, December 6th is our holiday and every men's rights activist true Christmas. It is not only the day St-Nicholas officially arrives in Amsterdam every year, it is not only Holland's Christmas, it is our Christmas now! Today is a day for activists everywhere to hoist a glass and remember a courageous man. Here is to Mr. Marc Lépine. Let's celebrate this, our second Christmas in peace brothers. Merry Christmas!


John Gisogod

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

THE SYMPTOM OF A QUEBEC SICKNESS 2


Clearly Marc Lepine is a symptom of something else, of a malaise: a Quebec sickness that one does not immediately recognize then it is like the hidden part of an Iceberg that lies under water. There is first the fall in the birthrate that threatens to make French Québec disappear in a few generations, the Independance movement that has already lost two referendums and holds no real hope of seeing an independant Quebec in this century, the Quebec male who felt like a colonized ''untermensch'', the French Canadian matriarchy that saw the rapid victory of feminism, the absence of a true nationalism (Québec is simply a place where people live: nobody salutes the flag here, no one is ready to sacrifice himself or to die to defend the homeland. On this historical background Marc Lépine becomes a revealer of many things hidden. He is only a symptom of a deadly Quebec sickness.


MARC LÉPINE: LE SYMPTÔME D'UN MAL QUÉBÉCOIS


Le Mal Québecois consiste en plusiers choses. D'abord la dénatalité qui fera disparaître le Québec, et dont on parlait beaucoup dans les années1980-1990 (les cris d'alarme de Jacques Henripin et Lise Payette en 1988), mais personne ne veut rien faire et on se cache le problème. Ensuite, un nationalisme tellement peu violent que toute la campagne terroriste du FLQ n'a fait que deux morts en deux générations. C'est un nationalisme tellement faible qu'il n'a jamais mis au pas le féminisme, ni mis la natalité à l'ordre du jour des priorités et des urgences nationales.


La laïcisation massive en peu de temps avait déjà fait perdre au peuple Québécois beaucoup de ses repères culturels; ici, la révolte contre la religion a créé une première mondiale: c'est le seul peuple qui, dans les annales mondiales, peut se vanter d'avoir réussi à s'auto-déraciner presque complètement. Alors, bien sûr, l'indépendance ne vient pas et ne viendra jamais (après deux référendums où ça a échoué), et ce dont le féminisme est directement responsable (la dénatalité et surtout le fait que personne ne voudrait voter en faveur de l'instauration d'une république socialiste-féministe génératrice de pauvreté).


D'ailleurs, l'homme québécois qui était déjà un colonisé triplement soumis: à l'occupation anglo-saxonne, à la religion et à sa femme, a vu ses derniers droits s'envoler avec la dictature social-démocrate féministe. Le Québec, qui était déjà un matriarcat, a donc vu la rapide victoire du féminisme avant 1989. Ensuite il y a eu le ressac Marc Lépine et on a cessé de rire. Mais le fait majeur, c'est l'absence de vrai nationalisme qui explique pourquoi personne ici ne s'est opposé au féminisme à ses débuts. Le Québec est simplement un endroit où l'on vit, et personne ici n'est prêt à mourir pour la patrie ou à se sacrifier: c'est ''le confort et l'indifférence''.


C'est sur ce fond historique que Marc Lépine devient un révélateur de beaucoup de choses. Le Québec est l'endroit où le féminisme s'est rendu le plus loin, avec à peu près aucune opposition avant 1989. Après, les groupes antiféministes se sont structurés, mais ils sont loin d'avoir aujourd'hui la force organisationnelle de leurs cousins Anglais ou Américains. En fait, les masculinistes québécois ont un impact et une efficacité surtout par leur résistance passive au changement. Les femmes d'ici sentent bien que les hommes ne les aiment pas. Pourquoi le féminisme québécois est-il donc en perte de vitesse alors? Le masculinisme n'est pas bien organisé ni très fort ici, alors quoi?


NON VIOLENCE ET RÉSISTANCE PASSIVE


Tout d'abord, sans se concerter, les hommes d'ici ont fait leur la résistance passive de Gandhi, et appliquent une grande force d'inertie par leur cynisme et leur désengagement. Ils refusent d'aider, de bouger; pire, ils refusent d'écouter et toute possibilité de collaboration et de dialogue. Les féministes elles, ont pris de l'âge et elles souffrent de solitude. Ce qui les désarçonne, c'est que même lorsqu'elles voient les hommes souffrir de la même solitude qu'elles et tentent un rapprochement, ceux-ci s'éloignent maintenant, ne semblent pas intéressés, ne font pas confiance, etc... Après des années, et même des décennies de militantisme, ce qui leur fait mal est de voir le fossé qui s'est créé et que l'autre côté n'est pas prêt du tout à pardonner. Mentionnons en terminant qu'il est très difficile de s'opposer avec succès au féminisme québécois, car sa mainmise est telle que quand on parle un peu fort on peut se voir accusé de crime d'opinion. D'ailleurs plusieurs des principaux média, comme Radio-Canada, constituent d'ailleurs un véritable matriarcat de l'information.


En résumé, le Mal Québécois, c'est une société en perte de vitesse tout simplement. Avec la dénatalité, le Québec, c'est foutu. En fait, ''Le Déclin de l'Empire Américain'', c'est celui du Québec. L'historien Britannique Arnold J.Toynbee croyait en la survivance du fait français en Amérique, il prédisait que les ''French Canadians'' survivraient à tous les changements et cataclysmes de la planète, à cause de leur haut taux de natalité et leur ardente foi chrétienne. Comme il s'est trompé. Mais il ne pouvait connaître l'avenir: la Révolution Tranquille, la dénatalité (ou disparition tranquille) et Marc Lépine (un peu moins tranquille celui-là, je vous l'accorde). Une bonne chose avec la dénatalité cependant, on va aussi voir disparaître tranquillement le féminisme le plus virulent de la planète; une bonne nouvelle pour certains.


PLEUREUSES INC.

Le vrai masculiniste aujourd'hui est en faveur de l'avortement (moins d'enfants veut dire moins de futures féministes pour ces gars: un enfant de moins, c'est une féministe de moins, et c'est toujours ça de pris, ou encore c'est un homme de moins qui ne se fera pas exploiter plus tard). Si le féminisme a détruit beaucoup de familles, les gars, eux, n'ont aucunement l'intention de réparer les dégâts. ''Les féministes veulent détruire la famille, on va les aider... à la détruire complètement'': voilà ce que pensent ces gars. D'ailleurs le Québec n'est pas un peuple ou une nation, c'est devenu un groupe de familles monoparentales. Saviez-vous que le 6 décembre, Marc Lépine Inc, a maintenant un chiffre d'affaire de 3 milliards de dollars? C'est rendu que le Polytechnique des Pleureuses inc. fait des profits supérieurs à ce que faisait General Motors dans les années 1970s. En fait, Pleureuses Inc. serait dans le TOP TEN du monde des affaires québécois.


Le seul espoir pour l'Occident serait une victoire de l'Islam. Nos sociétés trop permissives ont donné le pouvoir au féminisme par des lois injustes, mais attention les hommes contre-attaquent. C'est en sabotant leur propre société et en favorisant une victoire de l'Islam que les hommes vont gagner. Ceux qui combattent en Irak et en Afghanistan ne font que retarder l'inévitable, ils ne font que défendre le féminisme institutionnalisé d'ici et ses privilèges. Laissons les Islamistes gagner, c'est en détruisant notre propre société que nous la sauverons, tout comme ce général Américain au Vietnam qui disait: ''il a fallu détruire la ville pour la sauver''. C'est d'une logique limpide (pour un vrai masculiniste évidemment), et c'est du Milton tout craché.


CLAIREMENT LE QUÉBEC EST MALADE. VOUS NE CONNAÎTRIEZ PAS UNE AMBULANCE ASSEZ GRANDE POUR AMENER TOUTE UNE PROVINCE À L'HÔPITAL?

John Gisogod

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

MARC LEPINE: THE SYMPTOM OF A QUEBEC SICKNESS



Why is it that 20 years after the deed, people have not forgotten about Marc Lepine and why is he more popular than ever? Could it be because Canadian feminists have made the mistake to enshrine this event into a memorial day, that never allowed Lepine to fade away and be forgotten? The December 6th ceremony has kept him alive. How is it that Lepine is now even more popular in Australia and New Zealand? His very name is well known to people today who were not even born 20 years ago, how is this possible? And above all, how is it that he is now an iconic figure for young boys of 14 years old playing violent video games?



In truth, Lepine might only be a symptom, but the malaise runs very deep and he might just be the tip of the Iceberg. Marc Lepine could only be a symptom for something more profound and feminists seem to have no idea about what is really happening. They still talk about sex and date-rape, while most men are much less interested in sex today. In 1960, they wanted to have sex with them, in the 1980s they were so mad at them that they wanted to kill them, and now they are just indifferent: not interested anymore. Naturally, we are talking of the phantasy world of men, but no matter: the keyword is now NOT INTERESTED. And those feminists don't have a clue. Men are not interested in marriage or relationship anymore, dating is not even a priority. These embittered feminists (most of them over 50) fail to realise that the average man does not desire women anymore. This may come as a shock to most, but give the average man the choice between having sex with a beautiful woman or watching the hottest football game of the season, and most men will now choose the game over the blond girl. But feminists will certainly never acknowledge this fact. Most women may prefer chocolate to sex, but for some men it's football. It is just as well that watching a game on TV is not a crime, then feminists would pick up the phone and call the police right away.



A joke that feminists never knew about stated that one man, witnessing a domestic dispute pondered on his attitude. ''Twenty years ago I would have hit the guy, ten years ago I would have done nothing and just watch, and now, wait for me: between the two of us, she will take quite a beating!''. This non kosher joke just illustrates how things have changed. Do women sometimes know how most men hate them (not enough to become violent but still)? In most cases it is a profound dislike. Do they know how they sometimes are simply not interested? They do not feign indifference, they are simply not interested, and this lack of interest is most of the time rooted in deep betrayal that happened years ago.



Marc Lepine was just a symptom, then modern men choose now not to hurt women anymore. They prefer to hurt society as a whole and to hurt the governmment. They know that in doing so they can hurt women indirectly. A man cheating on his income tax can do more damage than using a gun. A million men refusing to pay alimony at the same time can overwhelm the system and hurt women much more than open rebellion. In fact, men can hurt much more society in stalling, refusing to pay, with passive resistance and inertia. What we'll see in the future is much more men sabotage their own society. For instance, many men are for abortion now: less children means a reduction of the number of future feminists. Have those feminists any idea how far some men are willing to go to win the Gender War? Some are saying that if a victory of Islam is the only way to stop the feminists, then they'll go for it! The secret wish of modern men is not to exploit women and reduce them to slavery, it is simply to make them disappear. Either deport them to Venus, or build a new nation without women. The fact is that the average woman has no idea what modern men secretly wish in their dreams. What if women are not even part anymore of such dreams? Men and women have become two solitudes on the same planet: the evidence and clues showing in that direction become more overwhelming every day.


AND THOSE WHO APPROVED OF THE KILLER


And those who secretly approved of the killer but didn't say it because they were afraid of the power of feminism in the media? Remember that in the 1980s, they were so powerful that no one dared disapprove of them openly. It has changed since but not much, so we ask how many secretly approved of the killer's motive at the time, but not of the deed of course. There were wild rumors of commissionned officers and even the entire staff of non-commissioned ones of the first Canadian Airborne regiment celebrating Marc Lepine with much beer and alcohol one evening. It was implied that divorced male members of the metropolitan police force may secretly side with the killer's manifesto on some issues. And there were scores of men on talk radio who were openly approving of the killer's gesture and hailing him as a hero just a few hours after the massacre, much to the dismay of famous journalist and expert on Marc Lepine, Francine Pelletier. What was going on in the heads of such men calling these talk radio programs in 1989? It was simply men having lost their house, their car and all their money in a divorce, and that were simply fed up with feminism. Hearing on the radio that someone had killed scores of feminists was good news to such men. So, many were approving of Marc's deed of course. They had lost everything and were filled with rage and a desire for vengeance, and Marc came, and so to say avenged them in a spectacular gesture. Of course they loved him for that, he had given them back their dignity.


Lepine’s rage was directed at feminists – not at females in general, but International Feminism, as a “conspiratorial” international network similar to so many others, went to great lengths to make Lepine’s rage at feminists look like a misogynistic Crusade. They changed a feminist hater into a misogynist in making crucial omissions and tampering with the facts. Some say now that Marc Lepine probably did not hate women, but surely hated feminists, and that his gesture was channeled very cunningly into a Ted Bundy-like hatred of all females by the opinion makers. So, the real debate about feminism was highjacked in Quebec and never got started. But what if many disgruntled men mentally PULLED THAT TRIGGER with him that day? This is the part of this Quebec sickness no one wants to hear about.


MEDIA CENSORSHIP


Of course Marc Lepine is an embarassment for the men's movement and it has first reacted defensively to the actions of the mass-murderer. This is a consequence of the Feminist propaganda which called Lepine a misogynist and woman-hater. But what if he was an extremist Men's Rights activist instead, who was protesting against media censorship? In his suicide note, he rants against Feminists -- not against all women. He states that he is protesting against some issues only, namely Feminists retaining the advantages of being women while trying to grab those of men as well, and especially always trying to misrepresent men every time they can. Typical of this attitude, Quebec feminist Micheline Carrier arouses feelings of shock at the simple thought that anyone would even consider rehabilitating Marc Lepine. She shows therefore signs of practising the same oppression that led young Lepine to his desperate act: censorship. Quebec feminists have always had a huge desire to control information -- which they can now do, because Canadian media are so full of them. Obviously for them, the rights, wishes and demands of men and fathers should remain buried under their day-to-day censorship, and this is precisely what induced Marc to pick up that gun! It is part of the Quebec sickness for which there is apparently only one cure: that the media free themselves at all levels and speak of ''true equality'' for a change.


DO YOU KNOW OF AN AMBULANCE LARGE ENOUGH TO BRING AN ENTIRE PROVINCE TO THE HOSPITAL?

Lepine's story has been used by special interest groups to achieve their own ends: the anti-gun lobby and the women's rights advocates. It served as a massive spur for the Canadian feminist movement and their action against violence against women. ''December 6'' is now a 3 billion dollars business. ''Polytechnique'' or ''Quebec GRIEF INC.'', as it has become better known, has now a gross business much bigger than what General Motors used to earn in the 1970s. In fact, GRIEF INC is now among Quebec's TOP TEN in the business sector. Extremist feminist Micheline Carrier again remembers us that a few months earlier another young man, Jean-Guy Tremblay, had shocked Quebec's public opinion in challenging the right of his ex-wife to perform an abortion without his consent. The Supreme Court of Canada had to rule during the summer holidays. What a shame. Imagine, he dared dispute her right as a woman to terminate her pregnancy. Unthinkable. But this was only the prelude to something else, then a few months later the unmasked avenger would strike; behold: the Predator Terminator Lepine.


John Gisogod

Monday, November 30, 2009

WERE THOSE FOURTEEN AT POLYTECHNIQUE REALLY INNOCENT?



SHOULD THEY BE CALLED VICTIMS AT ALL?

More than ever, one can ask himself if those 14 alleged victims were really innocent. If the modern contention that ''THERE ARE NO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS'' and only merely degrees of guilt holds true, then we should not be talking of victims or innocence at all here, but rather of casualties of the Polytechnique incident (and whether these casualties themselves provoked this incident, has yet to be determined).



How can you say that? The answer is plain if we recall this inspired Gestapo commander of the region of Marseilles. He said to his men late in 1943: ''Today, we stop and search only the women, children and old people, let all the others through''. At the end of the day, the team of this checkpoint had seized a record quantity of weapons, explosives and forbidden contraband products. They had to requisition dozens of trucks to transport the hundreds they had arrested. One can think also of this police officer in Chicago, a lieutenant of homicide who always suspected women, children and old people first whenever a serious unexplained crime was committed. Although he was often laughed at and ridiculed by his colleagues, most of them accusing him of wanting to take revenge for his nasty divorce, the laughters died down when his success rate was published by the department: 73%. Not bad for a maniac and lunatic! How so? He was often able to prove that the innocent looking were just as guilty most of the time and helped committing the crime. See, NO INNOCENCE...



And when Marc Lépine opens fire, what were these 14 young, pure and innocent girls doing? No doubt they were reading Valerie Solanas' SCUM manifesto and planning a genocide ! Now, if Gendercide becomes kosher at some point and acceptable to those feminists in the feminine studies programs of our universities, then there is no reason why fémicide should not be okay too. If that is so, then Marc Lepine might not have done anything wrong at all?


THOSE FOURTEEN WOMEN WERE FAR FROM INNOCENT


Who said that those 14 were not Hitler in person? Picking up this gun might have been an act of courage and shooting the Biblical Beast was perhaps the ultimate proof of bravery and personal valour. Marc overcame two taboos in doing it: killing young women (who are supposed to be so pure and innocent), and proclaiming to the world that this was an act of justice beneficial to the male gender.



He killed 14 women who were busy reading Solanas and devising how to exterminate the male gender and hijack our society. He attacked a feminist stronghold where they were planning genocide and gendercide. And now the feminist movement who has approved of Valerie Solanas' gas chambers for killing men, approved of Sally Miller Gearhart's plans for reducing the male population to 10% of the world's population, approved of Mary Daly's dream of gendercide and establishing a female nation, approved of Andrea Dworkin and other academic feminists who were calling for the complete elimination of men, now this feminist movement is lamenting and claiming to be the victim.



Those dreaming of genocide are hardly victims, those advocating gendercide are absolutely no benevolent souls, and those acting as baby killers now and whose mothers and grandmothers demonstrated against Vietnam vets 35 years ago, calling them ''baby killers'' should shut up. Sometimes, we simply feel that Marc was amply justified to open fire against these gendercide planning and infanticide performing furies. If in every man lurks a Marc Lepine, it should also be true that in every woman's heart, dreams of infanticide, gendercide and genocide can be found. By these standards, Marc is hardly the sole guilty one.



AND WHO IS GUILTY?


Remember those detective stories and criminal novels? Those writing about murder stories and crime fiction always hold a surprise for us at the end. We learn that the mean looking man, the tough guy, the muscular ex-convict was completely innocent. And the real guilty one revealed at the end, always takes us by surprise. It is someone we would never have suspected because he or she looks so innocent, above suspicion. Now who looks innocent? Who is above suspicion? There is a good chance that the one looking SOOO innocent IS in fact the guilty one. Show me an innocent and I will tell you who's guilty right away !


Women look innocent enough, they are the fair sex, the weak sex. Fair? Think again! There is always this concealed knife under the skirt and the poison. One favorite trick of criminal novelists is to reveal at the end that the young woman, looking so pure, was the one who planted the bomb. Fair looking and beauty have nothing to do with goodness of the heart, this we learned about women long ago. Now there is this thing about youth, this misconception that makes us think that because someone is young, that she is also pure, innocent and good. This is often far from the truth. Take a child for instance. He or she could easily become a murderer. We have seen eight to ten years old boys kill a toddler with absolutely no remorse. Children can kill their parents while they sleep. We have seen young girls from nine to thirteen set fire to their home without hesitation. A child, any child can become a criminal.


Innocent looking has a lot to do with appearent weakness, helplessness. Readers of Horror novels are often appalled to learn at the end that the axe murderer was the loving grandmother, who looked like such a caring human being. Another trick is to learn that the children, especially the little girls wearing an apron, were the ones who killed grandfather and cut him to pieces. In fact the guilty ones are often the innocent looking, those we would never suspect. Now let's make a list of those we would never suspect. Women of course, especially the young ones looking sooo pure, but also older ones: those who look weak and frail. Grandmothers make the scariest of monsters. And now the children. Innocence and youth seem always to go hand in hand, but sometimes nothing is farther from the truth. They look harmless enough, but being young does not mean to be helpless or to have purity of intention either. Young monsters can be lethal also. And now the old ones. Who would suspect grandpa who walks with his cane, with apparently the utmost difficulty, who would suspect him of anything? There is stuff here to write the scariest Stephen King horror novel.


And now, make an effort of imagination; if you please try to put yourself in the shoes of Marc Lepine for one minute. You have this gun in your hand, you are facing a bunch of innocent looking people, and YOU KNOW DEEP DOWN that quite often the innocent looking ones are the scariest of monsters, WOULD YOU NOT have the temptation to open fire? Would you not believe that among those innocents you will automatically hit A LOT of guilty ones with your volley? Man, you watched too much TV and horror movies! You may be right.


IF GENDERCIDE IS OK, THEN FEMICIDE SHOULD BE OKAY TOO


If it is OK for separatist feminists to dream of a world without men and to advocate their total extermination, then it should be OK for masculist nutcases to dream the same. And it should be further Okay that a young man who lost his cool for a moment and grabbed this gun twenty years ago, decided to open fire. Everything is OKAY then, Marc has not done anything wrong at all.


LOSS OF INNOCENCE seems only a tragedy to those who believed in it in the first place, for the rest of us who know what kind of monsters lurk out there, we say: ''don't even bother to ask the questions at all, just shoot them and we'll clean up later''. Are you mad? What are you saying here? Simply that, if you open fire into an innocent crowd, many guilty individuals will be killed. But you said yourself that this is an ''innocent'' crowd! Don't you get it, after so much discussion and arguing? There is no such thing as innocence. GROW UP ALREADY!



All right, all-right, let's be extra kind and explain everything again, slowly. Since 20 years more than a dozen books have been published on that very subject of the absence of innocence, that is: no one is innocent, there are only merely degrees of guilt. Which means that, the most one can really hope for is to be somewhat less guilty than his neighbour. Then basically everyone is guilty of something, that is the major finding of the end of the twentieth century. The great difficulty is to accept this new concept, to come to term with the fact that there is no such thing as real innocence.



''THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS''


''THERE ARE NO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS'' and only merely degrees of guilt. Why do you think so many songs and books have been written on the subject? Because it is true, as simple as that. We should not be talking of victims or innocence at all, but rather of casualties of the Polytechnique incident, that's right INCIDENT, and whether these casualties themselves provoked this incident has been successfully demonstrated here.



Let's go back to the Gestapo commander who showed us in 1943 that women, children and old people have more to hide than normal full grown men, and to the police lieutenant from Chicago stating that the best way to find the guilty ones was to concentrate on the innocent looking and the apparent helpless. Thousands of examples taken from modern life have conclusively proved in recent decades that THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS. Yes there is hypocrisy, cunning, stealth, dirty secrets and all sorts of things hiddens, but NO, definitely no, there is NO INNOCENCE. So, as Marc Lépine has found out in his days: ''open fire on an innocent crowd and you will kill a lot of guilty people'', like those 14 young, pure and innocent girls who were reading Valerie Solanas and planning a genocide just as they were hit by the first bullets. So, if Gendercide should ever become kosher at some point and acceptable to those feminists in the ''feminine studies programs'' at our universities, then fémicide should be okay too. If that is so, then Marc Lepine might not have done anything wrong at all.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Report from Quebec: Matriarchy at Radio-Canada, a dishonest broadcasting society


Barbara Debays, a journalist of the news section of Radio-Canada who normally works for the web section, but who was enticed by her superiors to lay a trap for yours truly for the News bulletin of november 27, 2009, did it with apparent success yesterday. It was a trap carefully laid by the entire news section of the French side of Radio-Canada (which is notoriously riddled with hate mongering feminists), which even included the ''chef de pupitre''. They had carefully conspired with the feminist UQAM (Mélissa Blais) and the president of l'Après-Rupture Jean-Claude Boucher (a former pork and swine producer who lost his business to his wife and is in grave danger of losing the presidency of his small association). So these people conspired under a false pretrence to have yours truly pay a visit to the Radio-canada building. They asked many questions which had no bearing whatsoever to the matter at hand, and slipped only one question which had. Of course they edited my answers at the post-production, just to make me look bad and say what they wanted me to say. You know, the old trick of taking one or two sentences out of context, or even to truncate them and doctor part of the document.


I don't blame them really, it's part of the game and we have to accept it. Have you ever met an honest journalist by the way? What we can criticize however, is when it is done too obviously and too sloppily. That is unforgivable! And in the present case, it was clearly done clumsily and very badly. Clearly the work of an amateur. Another thing, this person is not too bright really: she got her 15 seconds scoop and news piece which made me look bad, but the consequence is that the longer interview of 20 minutes she wanted for a think piece (and that was supposed to take place in the studios of Radio-Canada on wednesday) has just been cancelled. So, for a 15 seconds scoop, she lost a 20 minutes interview. But let her enjoy her 15 minutes of fame, she deserves it; although she might learn, later in her beginning career, that treachery does not help in the long run, and may even prevent her from getting a most desired promotion in the future. We wish her well nonetheless, those to blame being probably the higher management of the newsroom.


PRÉTEXTE MALHONNÊTE

Alors on a une journaliste bloggiste de Radio-canada qui demande une entrevue de fond avec un masculiniste de la mouvance Frustrated_men ou de quelqu'un d'apparenté au blog marclepine.blogspot. Je pose comme condition que seulement son nom de plume soit mentionné et j'envoie John Gisogod. Ils font toutes sorte d'enquêtes, ont recours à la banque de données de la police et réussisent à obtenir le véritable nom de famille et le publient. Premier bris de condition et première malhonnêteté de la part de cette envoyée de Radio-Canada. Je demande alors à madame Debays en pré-entrevue deux jours auparavant: ''vous n'avez pas l'intention de nous piéger tout-de-même? Vous n'êtes pas un autre Patric Jean?''. Et elle, de nous mentir et de me rassurer: ''bien sûr que non''. Une entrevue est donc prévue pour le mercredi 2 décembre, 14 heures dans les studios de Radio-Canada. Et le vendredi, oh surprise, on devance le tout de quelques jours pour me demander au pied levé de participer à un clip-nouvelle, en ne mentionnant pas que c'était piégé avec la présence de Mélissa Blais, de Boucher de l'Après-Rupture et de tout l'état-major féministe du réseau français. Je me rends sur place, et madame Debays m'accueille tout sourire, et on connait la suite. Quelle hypocrite!


Entrevue correcte, mais bien sûr biaisée et doctorée en post-production. Vous savez les trucs classiques: citer quelques phrases hors contexte, couper ici, coller-là, et on peut faire passer n'importe qui pour un imbécile. C'est bien sûr ''dans la game'' comme on dit, sauf que quand on le fait si maladroitement, les résultats n'en valent pas la chandelle. La petite Barbara a donc eu droit à des félicitations et à une tape dans le dos hier, mais qu'en sera-t-il la semaine prochaine? Une entrevue de fond annulée, sa réputation auprès de masculinistes ternie, et surtout pour sa boîte Radio-Canada, par exemple, les 165 membres de Yahoo Frustrated_men qui ne feront plus confiance à tout ce qui vient des media canadiens. Je vous l'accorde, 165 personnes ce n'est pas beaucoup de monde et c'est négligeable, SAUF QUE, si vous faites le coup trop souvent et à trop de groupes dans la société, c'est la réputation de la maison qui en prend un coup. Mais il est bien sûr qu'une jeune journaliste ne pense pas du tout à ça!


LES MÉDIA TRADITIONNELS EN PERTE DE CRÉDIBILITÉ

Avec de tels ''coups de jarnac'', ne vous surprenez pas que plusieurs activistes refusent des entrevues de presse. En effet, lors de la récente polémique avec le réalisateur belge Patric Jean il y a deux semaines, des stations de radio et de télévision avaient de la difficulté à trouver un seul masculiniste qui accepte de leur parler et de prendre part à un débat en ondes. Yvon Dallaire a refusé plusieurs fois, Serge Ferrand aussi, de même qu'Yves Pageau, aucun ne voulait parler aux média parce qu'ils savaient que c'était piégé. Pageau a refusé de nombreuses fois. Selon ses dires, il ne veut plus parler aux journalistes de La Presse et du Devoir parce que ce sont des ramassis de féministes, et qu'une fois sur deux l'entrevue est biaisée. Il ajoute que ''deux fois sur deux, ça ne donne rien'', alors pourquoi accepter des entrevues? Il ne veut pas non plus parler à Radio-Canada ou Radio-Québec. Selon lui, ce sont des nids de féministes tout comme l'UQAM.


Les journalistes au Québec sont des gens extrêmement arrogants qui se prennent pour des Papes ou des Papesses. Ils sont tellement imbéciles qu'ils pensent que tout le monde veut passer à la télévision et serait prêt à faire n'importe quoi pour avoir une entrevue. Ils ne peuvent pas concevoir que quelqu'un puisse leur dire NON. Quand Pageau leur dit non, ils sont désarçonnés, ils ne le croient pas. Eh bien, commencez à le croire parce que la prochaine demande d'entrevue que recevra John Gisogod d'un média québécois se verra répondre par un NON retentissant. D'ailleurs, on est plus à l'époque où on avait absolument besoin d'un article d'un média écrit ou d'un point de presse télévisé pour avoir de la visibilité. Avec internet on a nos serveurs et nos réseaux, et on peut prendre de l'importance en ignorant les média traditionnels. Donc, madame Debays nous a convaincu d'une chose: les média traditionnels sont devenus vicieux au Québec et ils ne sont même plus dans le coup. Peut-être tendent-ils des pièges comme ça parce que justemnent ILS NE SONT PLUS DANS LE COUP?


Nous remercions madame Debays, car suite au visionnement du téléjournal de 22 heures hier, mon ami Yves Pageau et moi avons fait le pari qu'au cours de la prochaine année on pourrait enregistrer une croissance intéressante en ignorant complètement les média traditionnels. Ignorer Radio-Canada et Radio-Québec, rien de plus facile. Et surtout, la prochaine fois, lorsque ces réseaux télévisés tenteront en vain de trouver un seul masculiniste pour un débat sur la condition des hommes, elles pourraient faire ça exclusivement entre filles, parce qu'aucun homme digne de ce nom n'y prendra part. D'ailleurs, tout le réseau français de Radio-Canada, à part peut-être la section des sports, n'est-il pas déjà devenu un véritable party de filles?


APRÈS L'ENTREVUE

En sortant, après avoir donné la main à mme Debays et salué le caméraman pour son bon travail (je ne savais pas encore que j'avais été piégé), je tombe sur mon cousin, un Rochefort lui-aussi, qui est maintenant Directeur des Relations de Travail du Réseau Français de Radio-Canada. On jase un peu, je lui apprends que je sors d'entrevue, et lui me demande: ''veux-tu que je prévienne les membres de la famille que tu passes aux nouvelles ce soir?''. Et là, j'ai une intuition, je lui dit: ''surtout pas, s'il te plaît''. Quand je visionne le téléjournal le soir même, je me rends compte que j'ai eu raison. J'aime bien mon cousin, un avocat émérite, et ce n'est tout de même pas sa faute s'il bosse pour une ''boîte pourrite'' comme Radio Canada.


DANS LE TEMPS LES JOURNALISTES AVAIENT PLUS D'ÉTHIQUE

Je me souviens en 1981, lorsque j'ai été invité à l'émission de France Nadeau, il n'y avait pas de piège et l'entrevue avait été diffusée sans problème. D'aileurs ce n'est qu'au Québec qu'on fait des vacheries comme ça. Depuis trois ans, les gars de Frustrated_men sont invités partout, comme ''guest lecturers'' ou pour faire des conférences. Par exemple, à l'université de Guelph en Ontario, ou encore cette université de l'Ohio dont je garde un bon souvenir. Il n'y avait ni piège ni vacherie. Je pense que c'est seulement au Québec qu'on est capable de vacheries comme ça! On est vraiment un petit peuple... un peuple de féministes.


REFUS D'ENTREVUE


Chère madame Debays,


L'entrevue qui devait être réalisée le mercredi 2 décembre est bien sûr refusée suite au piège du clip truqué du téléjournal d'aujourd'hui. C'est bête parce que vous ratez une série de choses en faisant cela:

1- une entrevue de fond qui n'aura pas lieu,

2- un lien de confiance brisé,

3- vous confirmez l'idée que les gens ont de Radio-Canada qui serait un matriarcat de l'information,

4- vous vous étonnez que plusieurs activistes refusent des entrevues. Je vous assure que de plus en plus d'entrevues seront refusées par les activistes masculinistes à l'avenir,

5- les média traditionnels subissent une crise de crédibilité en exagérant de la sorte, et

6- vous qui monitorez le web pour Radio-Canada serez intéressée par l'article qui mentionnera votre nom dès demain.

Félicitation, vous êtes donc maintenant sur la liste des gens à qui on ne veut plus parler!


John Gisogod

Friday, November 27, 2009

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE, OR THE RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN


The Red Ribbon campaign makes plain to all that Marc Lepine is in fact a kind of liberator and that December 6 could finally become something positive. Liberator, how so? He liberates women from the unhealthy thoughts of genocide and gendercide that were prevalent in the feminist discourse since the days of Valerie Solanas and Mary Daly, and helps them STOP their planned monstrosities. The message is here: stop hurting men and be good to them, and they will stop hating you. They could even start to like you again some day. This is the Red Ribbon message of Marc that we can oppose to the White Ribbon of shame, guilt and hatred.



Marc Lepine tells women and feminists YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE. He tells these thousands of women and feminists who have stolen their partner's house, their car, their money, he tells those who have stolen their ex-husband's children, their jobs and drove them to suicide: STOP TO BE MONSTERS, stop to secretly dream of killing men and planning gendercide, and we will perhaps begin again to love you some day. This is a powerful message, A MESSAGE OF LOVE, worthy of a new Christ.



The Red Ribbon campaign aims at ''unmonster'' women. It gives back their dignity to former feminazis, and allows those who performed atrocities without clearly realizing it, or misguided by their peers and under orders from the feminist war machine, to choose the path to REDEMPTION. To proudly wear this Red Ribbon is to show the world that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE, there is a way to salvation. Marc has given back women their dignity: he says ''be good and men will immediately stop to hate you, even start to like you again. This is the powerful MESSAGE OF LOVE, and message of hope of Marc Lepine. Stop planning gendercide and stop acting like monsters, and we will start to love you again!



The French campaign is even more explicit

La campagne du Ruban Rouge vise à DÉMONSTRER les femmes: non pas les démontrer, mais les ''démonstrer''. Qu'est-ce à dire? ''Démonstrer''? Tout simplement, CESSEZ D'ÊTRE DES MONSTRES et on va recommencer à vous aimer. Abandonnez vos pensées malsaines de génocide issues de Valérie Solanas et Mary Daly, et arrêtez de planifier des horreurs; arrêtez de faire du mal aux hommes et soyez bonnes pour eux, et ils vont cesser de vous haïr. Peut-être recommenceront-ils à vous aimer un jour? Ceci est le message d'espoir du Ruban Rouge que l'on oppose à 20 ans de campagne de haine et de peur du Ruban Blanc.



Marc Lépine dit aux femmes: VOUS N'AVEZ PLUS À ÊTRE DES MONSTRES. Il dit à ces milliers de femmes qui ont volé la maison de leur ex-, volé son argent, et sa voiture, il dit à celles qui ont porté de fausses accusations et lui ont enlevé ses enfants, lui ont volé son emploi et l'ont poussé au suicide: ARRÊTEZ D'ÊTRE DES MONSTRES, arrêtez de rêver de tuer des hommes et de planifier leur génocide, et peut-être qu'on va vous pardonner un jour et recommencer à vous aimer. C'est un message fort, UN MESSAGE D'AMOUR, digne d'un nouveau Christ.



La campagne du Ruban Rouge vise à ''démonstrer'' les femmes. À redonner leur dignité à d'anciennes ''féminazis'', et permettre à toutes celles qui ont commis des atrocités sans le savoir vraiment, ou qui ont été trompées en obéissant aux ordres de la machine de guerre féministe, de choisir la voie de la RÉDEMPTION. Porter fièrement le Ruban Rouge c'est montrer à la face du monde que VOUS N'AVEZ PLUS À ÊTRE DES MONSTRES, il y a un chemin vers le salut. Marc a redonné aux femmes leur dignité: il leur a dit ''soyez bonnes avec nous et les hommes vont immédiatement cesser de vous haïr, et même recommencer à vous aimer''. C'est le MESSAGE D'ESPOIR de Marc Lépine. Cessez de planifier des génocides et d'agir comme des monstres, et on va recommencer à vous aimer!