MARC LEPINE: HE DID IT OUT OF LOVE

Surprisingly for some, one can now say that he did it out of love for his fellow man. Marc Lepine's rampage was then an ACT OF LOVE, mercy and compassion. Shocked, astonished, outraged? No, this contention IS NOT ridiculous. Remember 1989: for twenty years men had been losing their houses, their car, their money, their children, having all their possessions stolen from them and robbed by unjust court decisions backed by unjust laws. Marc Lepine saw all these men destroyed by their ex-spouse and an unjust feminist society, and he saw his own future threatened by feminists who were stealing men's jobs everywhere. When he opened fire, he was avenging all these men and himself: this was an act of caring, an ACT OF LOVE.

The famous journalist and expert on Marc Lepine, Francine Pelletier was astonished when a few hours after the massacre, scores of men on talk radio were openly approving of the killer's gesture and hailing him as a hero. What was going on in the head of such men calling these talk radio programs in 1989? A man having lost his house, his car and all his money in a divorce is surely entitled to a just measure anger, he is entitled to hate. Hearing on the radio then that someone had killed scores of feminists, this could not be anything else but good news for these men who had lost everything in 1989. So, thousands of them were approving of Marc Lepine of course. They had lost everything in the divorce, they 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 gave them back their dignity.

Feminists will have some day to put in their thick heads that men have a right to hate and a right to vengeance. This is THE SALARY OF INJUSTICE, and they should have thought about it before corrupting society as a whole. They should remember also that the beginnings of democracy was to avenge similar wrongs and INJUSTICE. What Marc did that fateful day was nothing else but an act of justice: he pulled that trigger to avenge thousands of fathers stripped of power, estranged husbands, and broken men. He did it for the poor too, for those who don't have a voice. For the rejected and the dejected. We have hinted many times unlikely similarities with other legends like Jesse James and Robin hood: givers of hope. The fact remains that the little man in the street needs something in his daily life to hold on, some beacon of hope, and Marc has become such a hope. Retrospectively, we can dare say that if he symbolically pulled that trigger for thousands of wronged men in his time, now millions perhaps are pulling it mentally with him. There is a connection here: a connection OF LOVE.

And what about women and feminists? Did he do something for them too? A new incarnation of Christ perhaps? But we all know that feminists are hopelessly secular and atheists, and don't believe in redemption. They never fell because they are perfect, so they don't need any God. Nonetheless, is it perhaps possible that Marc did something for them too? Of course. They will never admit it, but he was their liberator also. Liberate feminists! From what? From monstrosity. Some feminists having unhealthy thoughts of genocide, they needed to be yanked away from them through a salutary shock. Lepine provided such a shock. Valerie Solanas was the first to openly promote gendercide and reveal to many women the monster they could become. In 1968, in her S.C.U.M. Manifesto she advocated the total extermination of men. In 1982, Sally Miller Gearhart contended that we should let live only 10% of the male population and exterminate the rest.

Professor Mary Daly, another prominent feminist of the Boston College advocated the ovular merging to produce only female offsprings and create a 75 per cent female society in one generation. So feminist supremacists wanted to promote gendercide and exterminate men. What Marc Lepine did was to show them what a real gendercide looks like.

After Marc showed them, Sally Miller Gearhart was so horrified that she completely stopped activism in 1995. Marc Lepine showed these women harboring genocidal thoughts, and dreaming of the marginalization and eradication of men what such a crime could look like. Many decided that they had not the stomach for it. He showed them that if Hitler's final solution was characterized as bad, the feminist final solution was much worse. The Calls of Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Sally Miller Gerheart and Mary Daly for females to kill 90% of the male population, and their advocating routinely for gendercide were suddenly recognized for what they were: everyone was horrified. Thinking of it, Marc Lepine might have saved the planet. Remember that famous question: what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler before his rise to power? Marc Lepine simply picked up that gun and killed Hitler. Thinking of it, he might have given women and feminists their dignity back too.

So, what is the message here, what was Marc Lepine trying to say to women? He was telling these thousands of women and feminists who were secretly dreaming of killing men and approving gendercide: STOP BEING MONSTERS, and we will perhaps begin again to love you some day. Be good and men will immediately stop to hate you, even start to like you again in the future. This is the message of Marc: stop your plannings of genocide and gendercide, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE. If you stop acting like monsters, we will start to love you again. This is clearly a MESSAGE OF LOVE, a message of hope.

A NATIONAL REGISTRY OF WOMEN-HATING EXTREMISTS

Canadian liberals wanted to push for such a law a few years ago, and it apparently made sense at the time. However, the idea has been scrapped since, then the number of men who disklike women has increased tenfold in recent years. There are so many men now who hate feminists (among them judges, politicians, policemen, businessmen, etc...) that such a register would be unmanageable. ''We would have to monitor 70% of the male population'' admitted a police chief recently under the cover of anonymity. ''It would be much easier to register men-hating feminists, we would have to monitor much less than 1% of the population that way''. Even the United Nations has given up the idea, then hundreds of millions of men could potentially fit the profile.

THE PROUD SONS OF MARC LEPINE

Are you mad? Marc never had any children. That might be true, but what about his disciples? Disciples, where? Certainly not in his home country Canada, I grant you that, but elsewhere. How come, who is responsible for this? Canadian feminists naturally, especially those in Quebec. So, you mean to say that Canadian feminists made him a hero, and are responsible for the fact that he has now disciples around the world? Exactly. How so? Explain yourself!


Nobody would remember Lepine today if it was not for the yearly noisy ceremony that takes place on each December 6. The first mistake was to establish this holiday, the second was to allow these huge advertising white ribbon campaigns, the third was to erect the monument, and the fourth and last was to build him a symbolic statue in the media for propaganda purposes. They've done it now! Not only have these mistakes allowed Marc to gain immortality, they gave him an international status. So thanks to them and the exaggeration, he has now proud sons and disciples everywhere: Australia, New-Zealand, England, the US, you name it!


But how can you be sure that this was the big mistake of feminism? A simple test. Do you remember George Jo Hennard ? Who? This guy killed 15 women and 8 men in The Luby's Cafeteria massacre that took place in Killeen, Texas in the US, one year after Lepine and Polytechnique. How come that nobody remembers this guy? He killed 15 women and he had written a lot of misogynistic letters beforehand. The answer is simple: American feminists decided not to give this murderer unnecessary publicity, and refused to make him a hero. So now, 20 years later, nobody remembers him. Are American feminists smarter than Canadian then? It certainly looks like it.

WOMEN: THE BEST AND BIGGEST SERIAL KILLERS

According to feminists, men are the monsters, the killers, and women are innocent. What if women could be monsters too? What if women, instead of being the eternal victims, were the bigger monster? I remember when I was a little boy, watching monster movies, I thought that a monster had to be some big animal, like a dinosaur: the T-Rex was especially scary. Then came my aunt Cecile, and explained to me that size doesn't matter: sometimes smaller animals and humans could be much more vicious and deadlier than the representation of Gozilla on TV. I never forgot that lesson. Later in life, I noticed that big men could be sometimes gentle souls, and petite women could be real monsters.


FBI profilers and forensic psychologists generally have much difficulty with the concept of ''female serial killers''. Not being antifeminist most of the time, these men and women are reluctant to admit that women could be monsters too, and especially the fact that they do not kill for the same reasons as men does not simplify things. Our only contention here is that ''they could be monsters too'', and sometimes ''bigger monsters''.


THE BUTTERBOX BABIES CASE
The Murdering of Canadian Children


The Ideal Maternity Home operated in East Chester, Nova Scotia, Canada from the late 1920s through the late 1940s was the perfect setting for Lila Young, a midwife who advertised herself as an obstetrician, to kill hundreds of babies undetected. She was later tried for various crimes, including manslaughter, but the entire truth of the horrors perpetrated under the cover of nursing and nurturing activities remained unknown until much later. Small wonder if many men now hearing the words ''nurturing'' or ''nursing'' shiver and picture in their head a crazy nurse with an hypodermic needle. Monsters like that could take away anyone's confidence in any healthcare system!


The Ideal Maternity Home promised maternity care for local married couples and discreet birthing and placement for children of unwed mothers. It was the primary source of babies for the illegal trade of infants between Canada and the United States, at a time when there was an acute shortage of babies available for Jewish couples, for instance. The home would provide such desperate "black market" adoptions, charging up to $10,000 a baby. Many of them would end up in New Jersey homes. It was good business: they charged the adoptive parents and they also charged the mothers for their services. The mothers who could not afford to pay, were forced to work at the home for up to eighteen months to cover their bill.


During WWII business was booming at the Ideal Maternity Home, which was the only place near the port of Halifax that could provide for these women and children. The problem however is not the black market of such children, but the starving to death of those among them who were "unmarketable" babies by feeding them only molasses and water.


On this diet the infants lasted only two weeks in average, and it was perfect. The perfect cover up was that they died of seemingly natural causes. They were then disposed of in small wooden grocery boxes, typically used for dairy products. Thus the term Butterbox Babies. The bodies were buried on the property, adjacent to a nearby cemetery. Sometimes they were disposed of at sea, or burned in the home's furnace. In some cases married couples were told that their baby had died shortly after birth. In truth these babies had been sold to adoptive parents. Lila Young would also separate siblings or create some, just to meet the desires of customers. An estimated six hundred babies died at the hands of dear Lila.


THE MAD COUNTESS ELIZABETH BATHORY


The Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Báthory (1560-1614) is possibly the most prolific female serial killer in history and is remembered as the "Blood Countess" and as the "Bloody Lady of Čachtice", after the castle near Trenčín in today's Slovakia. She had four helpers (servants) but the deed was awesome: she tortured and killed 600 girls and young women, but was convicted for only 80. In 1610, she was imprisoned in the Csejte Castle, where she remained until her death four years later. The case has led to legendary accounts of the Countess bathing in the blood of virgins in order to retain her youth and subsequently to comparisons with Vlad III the Impaler of Wallachia, on whom the fictional Count Dracula is based. The nicknamed Blood Countess or Countess Dracula may have set a milestone in gender history, one that might have repercussions on the future of feminism. More than a boogey woman, the simple mention of her name now reminds us of what monsters women can be, and we had no idea: then before such massacres were revealed to us, we deemed women incapable of such things.


A MORE MODERN CASE: AILEEN WUORNOS


Aileen Carol Wuornos (1956 – 2002) was an American serial killer who killed seven men in Florida between 1989 and 1990, later claiming that they raped or attempted to rape her while she was working as a prostitute. She was convicted and sentenced to death for six of the murders, and executed via lethal injection on October 9, 2002. Before her death, she admitted being a monster in an interview.


WHY FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS KILL
Why Murderesses Go Undetected Longer Than Murderers


Female serial killers are more likely to get away with murder than male serial killers. Murderesses can kill for years without getting caught because they're driven by different motivations; murderers tend to get caught before too much time has passed. Female killers have different psychological disorders, which may affect rates of female violence, motivation, and modus operandi. Motives are why female serial killers don't get caught right away.

Killing is on a woman's mind a lot, much more than we think. It might be because her husband leaves the toilet seat up, or triggered by any other little thing, but the major fact that feminism has made plain to us in recent years is that: THEY ARE NO ANGELS ! In most cases, monsters rather. Female serial killers can murder, chop up, and bury human beings just like any other man. It is only their motivations and sometimes the victims that are different. And numbers? Well, the infamous Marc Lepine killed only 14 and no male serial killer is credited to ever have killed more than 100. So, by these standards, Lila Young who killed 600 and the Countess Báthory who also killed 600 were better killers and bigger monsters.


HOW FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS ARE DIFFERENT THAN MALE


Male serial killers kill because of voices in their head, bad childhoods, poverty and sexual psychological disorders. Female Serial Killers kill mostly for profit: they are more selfish and therefore more quiet about it. Males are more open, and will be caught sooner because they make more noise. Men are often sexually motivated and desire power over their victims, women brag less since they merely want their possessions and not the power. Female serial killers kill more quietly and less "violently": with poison or other less detectable methods, like suffocation. Males tend to batter, strangle, stab, and shoot.


Female serial killers generally kill people more close to them: such as husbands, family members, or people dependent on them. Males kill strangers more often, and leaving the familiar territory to kill outside, it entails more risks. Female serial killers have long killing sprees, lasting up to 8 years (males' sprees almost never last longer than 4 years and usually end after several months). They are more patient and more cautious, they can wait a longer period of time between each kill (even stop a few years before starting again). They are more hypocrit and better liars.


They look, act, and sound normal – which makes people trust them. They are psychopaths, but they're not insane. Neither male nor female serial killers have a conscience. Women tend to choose helpless victims (in hospitals, retirement homes) and they hide behind a nurturing or nursing facade. How many nuns and nurses, armed with the traditional hypodermic needle, were in fact serial killers that were never caught? How many black widows, angels of death, sexual predators, revenge killers, profit killers, team killers, and apparent victims whose sanity is in question, have we met or crossed in the street without knowing that we had a genuine monster three feet away from us? Most killings whose motives defy explanation, and how many unsolved crimes had female perpetrators?. Past abuse, struggles with depression, feelings of anxiety may all contribute to female violent crimes, but they don't explain much; only an inherent female monstrosity factor could explain certain horrors and bring us closer to the truth: THEY ARE MONSTERS.

Report from Belgium: Patric Jean, and if the film was no good?

Patric Jean wanted people to argue bitterly after watching his movie, he wanted them to litterally fight among themselves in front of the theater. The reality however is much less exciting: a woman, a feminist at that, so utterly bored wanted to get out after only 30 minutes. A man fell asleep in his seat and had to be shaken awake by the attendants after everybody had left the hall. No applaud at the end and many had already left before then. These are unmistakable signs that don't lie: this movie is tanking, it is a flop.


ET SI LE FILM ÉTAIT MAUVAIS?


Patric Jean voulait qu'on se dispute à la sortie de son film, mais la réalité est toute autre. Une féministe qui s'ennuie à mourir et a une envie irrésistible de sortir de la salle après seulement 30 minutes de visionnement. Un homme qui tombe profondément endormi sur son siège, de nombreuses personnes qui quittent avant la fin et .., pas d'applaudissements. Ce sont des signes qui ne trompent pas, ce film prend eau de toutes parts: le navire coule.

Report from Belgium: Patric Jean tries to save his film

These days Patric Jean is really desperate, his film is not going very well and the critique in France and Belgium is not too good either. So he tries a few publicity stunts to create some interest and grab the headlines, but to little avail. Two months ago, he said he would need bodyguards during his visit to Canada, because he fears Quebec masculists so much. Last week he accused masculist hackers of having completely destroyed the site of the discussion forum dedicated to his upcoming movie with a vicious cyber-attack, and now he simply refuses to come to his film opening in Montreal on November 12 because he fears for his life. But these tricks won't work. It is reminiscent of Rock groups in the past who went to the police and invented death threats, just to boost the sale of their albums. It is also reminiscent of the Nazis of the 1930s, setting fire to the parliament and accusing their enemies, just to get some free publicity. These tricks don't work anymore. Many believe now that no such threat really exists and that he vandalized and sabotage his own site as part of an attempt to get free publicity and grab some headlines. In fact, this is so cliché that no one believes him. The only thing it shows is HOW DESPERATE he has become. We wish him well nonetheless.


LES RELATIONS DE PATRIC JEAN AVEC L'APRÈS-RUPTURE


Le film de Patric Jean n'allait pas bien, la critique pas fameuse, alors il fallait réagir: inventer quelque chose, un peu de controverse, de la publicité gratuite, n'importe quoi pour sauver un film qui tangue et menace de couler juste avant sa sortie. Et alors il invente des menaces il y a plus d'un mois: il aura recours à des gardes du corps lors de sa venue au Québec car il a peur, dit-il. La semaine dernière, il accuse les masculinistes d'avoir démoli le site du forum de discussion de son film ''La Domination masculine'' le 2 novembre 2009. Cependant, c'est tellement peu convaincant que certains y voient déjà un coup monté de cet assoiffé de publicité Belge pour rehausser la cote d'un film en difficulté déjà deux semaines avant sa sortie officielle. En effet, les pré-projections en Europe se sont révélées décevantes, même avec l'apport publicitaire d'une controverse avec les masculinistes quant au peu d'éthique de son tournage et de sa pré-production. Sur le site québécois de Gars content, on dit même le samedi 7 novembre que les NAZIS ont bien incendié le ''Reichstag'' à leur époque pour se faire un peu de publicité, tout comme certains chanteurs Rock qui inventaient de soi-disant menaces de mort pour mieux faire vendre leur album. et que ce n'est pas la première manoeuvre de Patric Jean pour attirer l'attention.


Maintenant, en première page de La Presse du 12 novembre, on apprend qu'il ne viendra pas pour la sortie de son film, car il craint pour sa vie. Donc un troisième ''stunt'' publicitaire qui n'est pas plus crédible que les deux premiers. À tel point que l'éditeur de Gars Content se demandait samedi dernier s'il était tout-à-fait possible que la cyber-attaque contre son site ait été menée par Patric Jean lui-même. Que va-t-il inventer la prochaine fois, demandait Yves Pageau: que de méchants militants menacent de s'en prendre à son chat ou à sa grand-mère? On ne peut lui reprocher de manquer d'imagination ! Donc Patric Jean a piégé les masculinistes québécois l'été dernier, et surtout il a piégé le président de l'Après-Rupture Jean-Claude Boucher. Boucher est furieux contre Patric Jean, mais il est aussi furieux contre les membres de son association qui veulent le foutre à la porte, et il est aussi furieux contre John Gisogod du Collectif antiféministe qui le critique vertement, et aussi contre Gars Content. Donc, Jean-Claude Boucher est furieux contre tout le monde et il se sent trahi, mais il ne peut combattre tout le monde. Il doit alors choisir un ennemi pour taper dessus: il choisit John Gisogod et son Collectif.


JEAN-CLAUDE BOUCHER ET PATRIC JEAN: MÊME COMBAT


Jean-Claude Boucher se met donc à écrire à toutes les polices du Canada, par le biais de son secrétaire Stathopoulos, pour dénoncer des menaces de méchants masculinistes contre son association de bons masculinistes. Il écrit à la police de Montréal, la SQ, la GRC et même au service secret Canadien (SCRS) en dénoncant une conspiration imaginaire. Patric Jean fait la même chose: il se met à dénoncer dans tous les média une conspiration de méchant masculinistes. Donc Patric Jean et Boucher font la même chose, ils disent la même chose et ont la même démarche: ils préviennent la police et les média d'une conspiration imaginaire. Est-ce que ces deux-là ne seraient pas de mèche? On peut honnêtement se le demander, car ils font la même chose. Est-ce que l'Après-Rupture toute entière ne serait pas organisée avec Patric Jean dans cette campagne de peur, ou est-ce que ce ne sont que Boucher et Stathopoulos les responsables?


Il n'est pas surprenant qu'Yves Pageau ait refusé hier une entrevue à l'émission de Paul Arcand à la radio 98,5. Il sentait un piège et il n'avait pas confiance. Et aussi Yvon D'Allaire ne participera pas à la même émission-débat devant l'opposer à Patric Jean. Les militants n'ont pas confiance et ils n'iront sûrement pas voir le film. D'ailleurs Patric Jean a été obligé de reconnaître à la radio de Radio-Canada le soir du 12 novembre, devant l'intervieweur insistant, qu'il n'avait jamais reçu de menaces en tant que tel. Il a même avoué avoir menti et infiltré le groupe avec une fausse carte de journaliste. C'est le seul moyen de les infiltrer a-t-il insisté, c'est comme quand on veut faire un reportage sur l'extrême-droite: il faut mentir et se faire passer pour un sympathisant. Il a avoué aussi avoir reçu des conseils de ceux qui ont infiltré le Front National de Jean-Marie LePen. Donc tout cela a du bon, le réalisateur de film qui avoue sur les ondes avoir certains problèmes d'honnêteté.


Terminons en disant que ce n'est pas le manque d'honnêteté qu'on reproche à Patric Jean, mais le fait qu'il se soit fait prendre: sa maladresse, c'est ça le péché mortel. La même chose pour Jean-Claude Boucher. Ce n'est pas la trahison ou le manque d'honnêteté qu'on lui reproche, c'est de s'être fait prendre: la maladresse. Un président peut trahir ou être malhonnête, ce n'est pas trop grave, c'est dans la nature humaine. Mais un président maladroit, et surtout idiot: ça c'est carrément inacceptable. Comme chez les Spartiates: on ne punissait pas l'enfant qui avait volé, on punissait celui qui s'était fait prendre. On ne le punissait pas parce qu'il était malhonnête, on le punissait parce qu'il était maladroit. Boucher et Jean ont tous les deux été maladroits: INACCEPTABLE.


Rick Flashman

MARC LEPINE AND JESSE JAMES

Canadian feminists might have created a real hero out of a piece of news that is already 20 years old. Why did they do it? Simply because they needed a boogey man, someone to hate, maybe someone to love (since normal men love them less and less), or maybe someone they might love to hate? Probably all of that, since being a feminist is a very lonely life these days. And how did they want their romantic hero to look like? They will never admit it, but they grow tired of modern day manginas and of nice, pink, remorseful men. They want real men instead, unspoiled by feminism; they want them to be unapologetic and defiant, and a ''bad ass'' too, just like Marc.


They want a Social bandit and a Robin Hood, just like Jessie James: a lovable character and memory but also an effective bandit. It might surprise you to know that when it comes to romance, certain thrill seeking women could wish to destroy society ''just for the kick of it''. This is their dark side. But is not celebrating a criminal at cross-purpose with the aims of real feminism? Not for some women who need the mythologizing so badly to escape the dullness of their life, and anyway there is perhaps no such thing as ''real feminism''. How long before Marc Lepine becomes the subject of romantic novels after having been already courted by videogame designers? As things stand, his name might become a focal point in the future, hailed by the most unlikely allies and admirers.


He might become a symbol for everybody, a kind of multipurpose icon: the arch-enemy for hardcore feminists, a lovable ''bad ass'' for some real women, a hero and a patriot for masculist extremists, an embarrassment for moderate MRA activists, and a huge phenomenon for all students of social science and psychologists. No one remains indifferent: a public figure awaiting his statue? Very fitting description. But what kind of a hero, what kind of a legend? A Robin Hood of some sort who defended the small guy maltreated by the system? Yes, a social rebel perhaps. A psychologically troubled individual who made it to fame and glory through his daring? Certainly, he shows us the way: dare! A controversial symbol, just like Jesse James, one who can be interpreted in various ways according to cultural tensions and needs? Yes, an "heroic outlaw" for some, a self-aware vigilante for historians, a terrorist who used feminism to create his own myth. Undoubtably, the man from Polytechnique is many things for many people, and will remain so for a long time. He may even inspire other deeds or copycats in the future: an insurgent guerrilla, a vigilante movement, there is no telling what he may inspire next!