Friday, December 4, 2009


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!


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.


Catch more of The World according to Bob at:

Thursday, December 3, 2009


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.


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.


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


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.


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?


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.


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.


John Gisogod

Tuesday, December 1, 2009


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 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.


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.


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



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?


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.


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 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 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.


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!


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?


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.


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.


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


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!

Thursday, November 26, 2009


He knows how to cook. Who? Marc Lépine of course. He started his career as an Executive Chef at the Bartlett Lodge in Algonquin Park, graduated from the Algonquin Sommelier Program in 2002, he was twice named 'Ottawa Chef of the Year' by the Canadian Culinary Federation (2006 and 2007), and now owns the famous Atelier Restaurant in Ottawa. Chef Marc Lepine is now famous! But this is another Marc Lépine, they are not the same man. Of course! But just how many Marc Lépine are there out there?

Well, there is Marc Lépine the mass murderer, the famous Chef Lépine, the Marc boogey man of the feminists and of the yearly December 6th celebration, Marc the symbol and the icon, Marc the social phenomenon and history figure, and even Marc the hero for deranged hothead activists. In fact, there are as many Marc Lépine as you wish ou there, even some whom it is their real family name, and who don't shy before the feminist orchestrated yearly hate and fear mongering campaigns. A few will even dare put their profile and biography on facebook and similar sites, just to provoke the feminist bigoted establishment. A few will even say they are proud to have such a name. So, the feminist purpose was defeated when the joke was introduced a few years back, one Lépine saying to the other: ''you show me how to shoot and I teach you how to cook''. There goes to say that feminists have really overdone it, and clearly defeated their own purpose after twenty years.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


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.

Saturday, November 21, 2009


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.

Thursday, November 19, 2009


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.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


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 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 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.


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 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.


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.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

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.


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.

Friday, November 13, 2009

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.


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 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

Thursday, November 12, 2009


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!

Monday, November 9, 2009


As shocking and surprising as it may sound, Marc Lépine is also present in the music world now:

"Montreal" - The Tragically Hip
"Montreal Massacre" - Macabre and
"This Memory" - by the Wyrd Sisters

These songs may pity the victims for now and focus solely on them, but how long before they really begin to commemorate the deed in another way: by celebrating the killer? From comforting the bereaved, there exists a direct road that leads into another-, dangerous direction: that is to honor the killer. When the criminal becomes a legend, there is a tendency to forget the crime: i.e. its seriousness and ugliness. It happened to Jesse James, and it will surely happen to Marc Lepine. ''The heralds call out your name, the children sing your praise''; you've done it Marc, YOU'RE FAMOUS now.

But Marc hasn't done it alone, he had serious help from Canadian feminists: they made sure his name would not be forgotten, they contributed to his legend, they even created it!

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Report from Belgium: feminist spy Patric Jean finally trapped

The feminist spy from Belgium, who was sent to Canada by the French ''Chiennes de Garde'' this summer to deceive and con local activists might have been caught in his own trap, suffering his first defeat in a promising career at the hands of his intended victims. French Film director Patric Jean, living in Belgium now, may have been overconfident and underestimated his potential victims in Quebec, a deadly mistake that made him live a remake of the classical ''conned conman'' and experience his personal Waterloo just after his return trip. His original intention was to show North American masculist activists in a bad light, but the attempt backfired drastically. Anyhow, what is the use and the meaning of this ''web of intrigue'' and what does it say about the real Patric Jean?

The first fact about this man is that there exists no photo of him on the internet that clearly shows his face. There are a lot of them online of course, but most of them were taken from behind, and when he agreed to have his picture taken in front of the camera, he carefully stayed in the shadow. So all we can see is the outline of a man's face in his mid-thirties that seem to have handsome features, but we don't know because we can't see. So, no clear photo of his face, none, this seems to be deliberate. One understands better when it is revealed that he is a fan of the ''films noirs à la Jean Gabin''. However, Patric Jean might fancy himself as a mixture of Tintin and Dick Tracy, but the truth is that he has more in common with a sleazy reporter or the worst of paparazzis. In short, this is the sad story of a talented, good looking and smart young man who turns out to be a certified idiot in the end! By the way Waterloo IS located in Belgium.

L'homme de l'ombre ou la peur d'être vu

Patric Jean n'a jamais eu peur de combattre à visage découvert: que ce soit les injustices sociales, le masculinisme ou la montée de la droite. Il a toujours joué franc-jeu avec ses interlocuteurs et même ses ennemis le respectent et n'ont pas honte de se tenir à ses côté ou d'être vus en sa compagnie. Dans le monde entier maintenant, on reconnait immédiatement ce visage aimable à son sourire (voir la photo). La photo de droite a été prise lors de sa venue au Québec. Nous blaguons évidemment, car dans toute sa carrière il cherche clairement à être reconnu sans être vraiment vu: l'homme qui ne se fait photographier que de dos ou en se tenant à l'ombre a-t-il peut-être quelque chose à cacher?

Le ''Dîner de Cons'' de Patric Jean

Le film de Patric Jean est un Dîner de Cons dans toute l'acception du terme, et il est déjà critiqué avant même sa sortie par plusieurs pour ses méthodes peu orthodoxes, et surtout très peu éthiques. Pas pour son contenu evidemment car on n'a pas encore vu le film, mais cela n'augure rien de bon d'avoir une controverse si solidement ancrée un mois avant sa sortie officielle.

On peut comparer ce documentaire au ''Dîner de Cons'' (1998), le film français qui met en vedette Thierry Lhermitte dans le rôle-titre. À la fin du film, si vous vous souvenez bien, c'est le piégeur qui se fait piéger et c'est le con qui gagne. La même chose risque d'arriver à Patric Jean: le phénomène du piégeur piégé. Quelqu'un qui organise un tel Dîner de con veut montrer à tous sa supériorité en riant de l'autre qui est moins futé, mais ce qui se cache derrière, c'est que celui qui organise quelque chose comme ça n'est pas très sûr de lui ni de sa supériorité. À vouloir trop la prouver, celui-là sème un doute sur sa prétendue supériorité, et il en sème même un sur l'infériorité de l'autre.

À la fin du film, certains se demanderont même si le gars supposément brillant et intelligent est vraiment supérieur à celui qu'on dit con, et d'autres se méprendront sur l'identité de celui qui est vraiment con. D'autres enfin jugeront immédiatement de l'intention du film, le déclarant méprisant et malicieux. L'humour est une chose délicate: quand on va trop loin, on choque et on offense, et quand on va encore plus loin, c'est sa propre réputation qu'on démolit. Patric Jean apprendra peut-être bientôt ''une précieuse leçon de vie'', et il aurait vraiment intérêt à revoir le film ''Forrest Gump'' où la distinction entre le con et le futé est complètement gommée. Le drame de Patric Jean est de vouloir absolument prouver à tous à quel point il est brillant et à quel point les autres sont nuls. On peut perdre beaucoup de temps de cette façon et même PASSER À CÔTÉ de sa propre vie. Souhaitons qu'il se resaisisse à temps.