Wednesday, May 27, 2009



What are you saying? This is insane, Marc Lepine IS a murderer ! No one disputes that, and no one disputes the fact that he was mentally disturbed: the guy was crazy, plain and simple. But in conceding the above, we should remind our readers, especially feminists, that everyone has been looking for answers since 20 years. Everyone wanted to know WHY, what really triggered this outburst. Since apparently no one has decided to follow in Lepine's footsteps in the last decades, but considering the disturbing fact that his approval rate has increased severalfold among extremists: the mystery remains. Maybe we need to look somewhere else for explanations. We definitely need a new theory here.

In those times, from 1970 on, people were talking loosely about the ''battle of the sexes'', about a WAR. Is it possible that Lepine took this too seriously, too literally? In 1968, Valerie Solanas published her S.C.U.M. Manifesto advocating the total extermination of men, she wanted to kill them all. In 1982, Sally Miller Gearhart contended in her manifesto titled `The Future–If There Is One–Is Female' that we should let live only 10% of the male population and exterminate the rest. The fact that these writings were not condemned by prominent feminists, but approved and embraced, tends to justify the assumption that thousands of women were secretly dreaming of killing men at the time. More than that, it suggests that a significant portion of the feminist movement approved of gendercide in those days: the genocide of men, their extermination.

Clearly this smells of war, and could be interpreted as a declaration of war of sorts. Small wonder if it set Lepine on the warpath. In this light, Polytechnique 1989 could be very well viewed as a military operation. And taking fortress Polytechnique became imperative in his mind.

The S.C.U.M. Manifesto of
Valerie Solanas, written in 1967 and published in 1968, the year she shot and wounded Andy Warhol. This text is still used worldwide at most universities in Women Studies programs. It advocates the extermination of all men, and this philosophy of gendercide (killing all men) was largely published in the 1970s and 1980s. Marc Lepine has certainly read it. It is our contention. No copy of the book has been found in his apartment by the police, but witnesses declare that he has certainly read it.

The scum manifesto is a badly written long piece of rant and recriminations (122 paragraphs). The language is horrible, filthy, full of swearwords. It is a bagful of insults and spite, but it is not the worst thing. Everyone has the right to use bad language, slang and dirty words to convey anger, revolt and strong emotions. This is accepted behaviour in the artistic- and literary world; but Solanas doesn't make sense at all, and what is more serious, she doesn't seem to care: illogical arguments, constantly contradicting herself, she finally ends up insulting herself and her supporters as well. Some may be harsh and say it is an insane document from an insane person, let us be milder here and say it is a document of little intrinsic value from a person of questionable sanity. The danger here is that the American anarchic movement, the libertarian movement, some socialist and feminist groups of a certain tradition and prestige echo this manifest, support it, publish it and help reedit it.

The entire text is a rant against her father, she hated him. Further, she talks about love but advocates murder, she talks of helping others but is totally selfish and preoccupied with herself (wanting to attain immortality and then saying that immortals don't need children). Solanas does not only want to kill men, she wants to eliminate children too. She constantly talks of thrill and being bored. She uses the same language as spree killers and serial killers, revealing herself for what she is: a spoiled child. Utterly selfish, she is exactly what she says she despises in men: incapable of any empathy.

''...The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live... Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy. ...''

''...A small handful of SCUM can take over the country within a year by systematically fucking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder: ...SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves... or they can go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and painlessly gassed to death.''

It is clear that Solanas is a supremacist, a hate monger inciting to murder and civil war, a Nazi wanting to eliminate an inferior gender, with gas chambers and incineration. The text itself perfectly qualifies for hate literature and propaganda, and its distribution and propagation (like any other hate literature) is a criminal offense in Canada. Any feminist group that approves of such a text can be deemed NAZI, more precisely: FEMI-NAZI.

' The Future–If There Is One–Is Female', the manifesto of Sally Miller Gearhart of 1982 calls for females to be given full responsibility for the human species and estimates that the male population should be brought down to 10 per cent of humanity. The first questions asked in this pamphlet is Why have any men at all? Analysts after reading Miller Gearhart consider that feminism is not benign at all and has definitely not the welfare of all of humanity and equal rights for all at heart.

''Why have any men at all? Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.''

That is exactly what Professor Sally Miller Gearhart stated in her manifesto. And she is not alone, the sentiment is shared, amongst others, by
Prof. Mary Daly, another prominent feminist who was forced to resign from the Boston College because she went too far. Gearhart advocates the ovular merging (the mating of two eggs) to produce only female offsprings. A 75 per cent female to 25 percent male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one half by ovular merging. According to Gearhart, it is for the good of humanity, then it will save these young men from a culture of male institutionalized violence.

Mary Daly in No Man's Land claims that the requirements to supplement the strategies of environmentalists to create and preserve a less violent world are that every culture must affirm the female future in giving the species responsibility to women, and the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at ten percent of the human race. She adds that if life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth (Does she means that men are a pollution, or should give their lives to depollute the world? No one knows). She thinks that a drastic reduction of the population of males is in order. She protests that people shouldn't be afraid of this, and she finds it shocking that anyone should be shocked by this. She speaks further of a separate nation for women as an interim stage to the establishment of the female empire. She ends by saying that she would be totally joyous to have a great community of women. And she ends with: '' I think it’s pretty evident that men are not central to my thought''.

These are women harboring genocidal thoughts, dreaming of the marginalization and eradication of men. Criminals? Certainly, they are worse than Hitler and Stalin. This is all part of a deliberate agenda, it seems. It follows that all those who help feminists are working at their own destruction: environmentalists, libertarians, anarchists, socialists. Especially pro-feminist men and homosexual activists are helping feminists carry out their elimination, facilitating the holocaust. How come that Hitler's final solution was characterized as bad, but the feminist final solution for men is supposed to be good?

These writings of Valerie Solanas, Sally Miller Gearhart, Mary Daly and especially the fact that they have such an important following and approval rate among feminist organizations, can be equated with a formal declaration of war against men. A quasi state of war already existed since the beginning of the 1970s. Calls for females to kill 90% of the male population, prominent feminists advocating routinely gendercide as a legitimate fighting tool for advancing their cause, any man would react to that. It was only a matter of time that someone would be crazy enough to take these writings at face value and act on it. 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.

What did you say? Simply that Solanas, Gearhart and Daly are responsible for that massacre. Why do you think Gearhart completely stopped activism after 1995? Because she knew she was guilty, that's why. In his mind, Marc Lepine was acting in self defense, and reading all the above, I'm not sure I disagree. Lepine reading these very popular extremist feminists (and interpreting them as a call to arms and a declaration of war against men), thought that if women suddenly had the right to exterminate men, he had the same right to exterminate feminists. There was ample provocation from the other side, enough to push an unbalanced and fragile young man to the edge.

The Luby's Cafeteria massacre

We said that apparently no one had decided to follow in Lepine's footsteps in the last decades, we may be wrong. There was a similar massacre that happened in the United States two years later on October 16, 1991: the so-called Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Killeen, Texas. George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck into a Luby's Cafeteria and shot and killed 23 people, wounded another 20 and then committed suicide by shooting himself. It remained the deadliest shooting rampage in American history until the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Hennard was reportedly a misogynist, writing a letter to Jill Fritz in late 1990 that read: Please give me the satisfaction of one day laughing in the face of all those mostly white treacherous female vipers. According to those who knew him, Hennard was open about his hatred and anger towards his mother, who was allegedly an abusive and domineering woman. Now the difference between the Luby's massacre and Polytechnique is that Lepine was more systematic, killing only women, deliberately sparing the men. Hennard was more mentally unstable than Lepine, he killed every one without discrimination. It is in the very act of discriminating and leaving behind a three page manifesto that Lepine sets himself apart.

Hennard shot 43 people, killed 23 (15 women and 8 men) and wounded 20.
Lepine shot 28 people and killed 14 (all women)

Both killings were gender killings (antifeminist killings), occurring in the same time frame (1989 and 1991), what was then happening in the beginning of the 1990s to our society to produce such events? A Canadian feminist named Sue Mc Pherson rightly points out that no significant and comprehensive study has yet been made on the real impact of feminism in those years (around 1990) in Canada and the US. We suggest that radical feminism, the destruction of the traditional family, and the loss of power experienced by men politically and economically have created a state of quasi-war in those years. We suggest further that radical feminism advocating genocide and gendercide have provided the excuse for a violent counterstrike in the mind of unbalanced, frustrated men. Clearly for Lepine and Hennard, what they did was justified: it was self defense.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009


Marc Lepine: Loner, champion misogynist and Canada's highest-count spree killer

Marc Lepine's father was an Algerian immigrant, a Muslim wife-beater who taught his boy how to hate women. Now that's the new post 9/11 explanation: an attack of a Muslim militant on Western women.

Another one: beyond the massacre itself, Lepine's story is interesting because it has been used by special interest groups to achieve their own ends: the anti-gun lobby and the women's rights advocates.

The massacre profoundly shocked Quebecers and all Canadians. The Quebec government and the Montreal city government declared three days of mourning. When Lépine's motive became clear, the event served as a massive spur for the Canadian feminist movement and for action against violence against women. December 6 is now observed as a memorial day, especially in Montreal; in 1991 Parliament officially designated December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. A white ribbon is used as a symbol of December 6 memorials. In Ottawa a memorial to victims of violence against women was erected as a reaction.

But this Half-mast mentality was profoundly disliked by war veterans, who were now asking: Does the 'Montreal massacre' means more to Canadians than the sacrifice of two world wars? Heritage Canada ordered all Canadian flags lowered to half-mast on December 6 for several years in a row, at every government building, military base and naval vessel. Ships stationed in the Arabian Sea as part of the country's contribution to the U.S. war on terrorism lowered their flags too. The policy outraged war veterans.

Mandatory gun registration came about as a result of Lepine's massacre. The massacre was a major spur for the Canadian gun control movement, which finally resulted in the passage of stricter gun control legislation in 1995.

These events occured at the right time to further the feminist agenda. Coincidental or not one clearly sees that THERE ARE AGENDAS and that events WILL BE USED TO FURTHER THEM.

What extremists like Micheline Carrier and the feminist Sisyphe group have to say about it

They postulate that a sympathy towards Marc Lepine has always existed in Canada. This sympathy they talk about was certainly not there in 1989 in male and masculist milieux, but thanks to their various excesses in a relentless twenty years hate campaign against men and everything masculine, they have succeeded in incurring the wrath of even the most moderate men. Now most Canadians cannot stand radical feminists anymore. They are merely tolerated in some media, and what they secretly feared most all this time has almost come to pass: many begin to feel sympathy now towards Marc Lepine. Some see in him a victim, others a friendly monster which reveals to us some ugly truths about our values and our society.

Micheline Carrier even admits in Opinions on 06/12/2002 that Canadian and Quebec media would have long made a hero of Marc Lépine if he would not have committed suicide. We could read in opinion in the daily Newspapers, hear him on the radio and watch him on TV calomniate prominent feminists. So, clearly the guy had charisma. But Lépine is not the only one who had identified feminists as his enemies. Some Quebec ministers have since proclaimed that feminists and their values could be sometimes viewed as obstacles to men's rights. Feminism has led women to reduce the rights of men in family matters, health and the education system. Pierrette Bouchard even wrote that «as mothers, women are suffocating, asphyxiating their spouse and their children; as single-mothers, their disciplin and leadership in non-existent; as teachers, they dictate their values to the school and the schoolboard and repress the free expression of boys; as feminists, they are castrating. As for the women's movement, it has unduly helped girls benefit from a preference treatment.»

The Montreal Massacre is much more than violence against women

Sue McPherson on December 1, 2005 wrote that Canadians should re-examine that terrible day and rethink the killer, the victims and the lives of others involved. The Montreal Massacre was an appalling tragedy which has now taken its place in Canadian history, remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women, but the reasons behind this atrocious event have never been adequately explored. Lépine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly, he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement by killing feminists before ending his own life.

Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that Marc Lépine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women killed represented innocence, and the feminist claim that these women were killed simply because they were women had suddenly a ring of validity.

Most of the writing on the Montreal Massacre has been done from the perspective of the obvious victims - the women who were killed. But the reasons why Marc Lepine did what he did have never been permitted to come to light, or were quickly dismissed. As time goes by, it becomes clear that no one has seriously tried to understand the effect feminism was having on Canadian society at the time? As a man, Marc Lepine discovered abruptly that the place that had traditionally been men's - in male-dominated fields at the university and in careers in this world - was suddenly being shared with women, no longer being men's alone. For this to happen, some men had to lose and accept it. But Lepine, age 25, refused to. Without support from his parents, not being even middle class, and not holding the same values as other guys his age, Marc Lepine was at a disadvantage when it came to being accepted at the engineering school.

Extremist Micheline Carrier again

... remembers that a few month 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.

Seriously fucked up Mélissa Blais
In Polytechnique - En souvenir de la féministe inconnue mercredi 11 février 2009, Mélissa Blais admits that all men are not Marc Lepines: "Évidemment que les hommes ne sont pas tous des Marc Lépine", but she adds that in a patriarchal society men profit from women and learn to protect them. The good patriarch is the one who knows how to protect HIS wife and HIS daughters. What is she trying to say?

"Le bon patriarche n’est-il pas celui qui saura protéger SA femme et SES filles ? Les femmes et les enfants d’abord... C’est d’ailleurs pour cela que des hommes ont eu un sentiment de culpabilité après le massacre : ils n’avaient pas su sauver les victimes, et certains leur en ont même fait le reproche publiquement…"

She says that "women and children first is wrong", that it is exploitation. She wants that the next time the Titanic sinks, men go to the lifeboats and let the women drown. We could oblige her of course, it suits most masculists perfectly these days to let feminists drown.

How come, she asks, that columnists and Newswriters have the unhealthy tendency now to separate good from bad feminists? Simply because there are bad feminists, I would guess. The bad ones being those who stir up the "Gender War", whereas the good ones are "les féministes du dialogue". She is offended that anyone could think that feminists have derailed the real meaning of the massacre, leading society astray for 20 years, that they still have to keep silent to respect the families of the victims.

Another whose sanity could be questioned: Élaine Audet
Après le film Polytechnique, le dit et le non-dit, mercredi 11 février 2009

She takes offense that anyone could ever think that feminists tried to exploit this tragedy. Saying that feminists have gone too far makes her real angry. She remembers Richard Martineau of Voir telling feminists to shut up to allow families to mourn in peace, and she holds a grudge against him since.

She can't stand the fact that many started to disapprove of radical feminism in Quebec in those years. "Et si le féminisme tuait ?", could anyone read front page in Le Devoir, of December 3, 1991. And also Audet remembers the pioneers Quebec antifeminists of those days, the Collectif anti-féministe du Québec (Montreal based) who succeeded in publishing front-page coast to coast in Canada on Monday March 4th, 1991 their 140 grievances against feminism. The Toronto Star, Journal de Montreal, La Presse, everyone printed it.

In July of the same year, La Presse titled "Les féministes accusées d’être responsables du drame de Poly et des assassinats d’ex-conjointes". The Collectif anti-féministe stroke again. But who were those guys who dared put in the mouth of every Newspaper in Quebec such words: "Marc Lépine et tous les autres hommes n’ont pas hésité à payer de leur vie leur engagement"? Those guys stopped to speak French altogether and became leaders in the Anglo-saxon world of antifeminism: Giskhan, Gisogod, Rochfort, Mark Rosenheim. These bad asses have kicked feminist butts since then.

Another one with a big title and a big ego from a little university: Micheline Dumont, historienne et professeure émérite, Université de Sherbrooke

Se souvenir du six décembre 1989 vendredi 6 février 2009

Dumont claims that many people in Québec accused feminists of having exploited this drama for personal gains and to further their agenda. In English Canada, on the contrary, these events have helped promoting awareness programs about violence against women. It helped the cause of English speaking feminists, while it produced a backlash in Québec. It was rather that men in Quebec finally started to fight back, with Roch Côté and his Manifeste d’un salaud in December 1990.

This selective assassination was really an iconic shooting on a world scale directed specifically agaist feminism, and making his perpetrator a legend. More than ever, Lepine could claim: "I am legend" much more than Will Smith. As journalist Francine Pelletier puts it: "the killer far from repeating mistakes of the past, stroke against what was really new in society: the rise of women". It is the reluctance of Quebec society to accept the political significance of the deed that worries feminists. But it never occured to them that no one is obligated to accept anything anymore.

Anyhow, this reluctance is shared by the authorities of l’École Polytechnique who still refuse to this day to admit that this killing was directed aggainst feminists specifically. Professor Daniel Leblanc wrote in 1990 that certain groups appropriated the killing to defend their claims. That they burdened the institution and the students with a cause too heavy to bear. From time to time, some lunatic loudly proclaims that he wants to "finish what Lepine started". The media gladly echo such words, but what is really starting to worry feminists in this country is when someone of stature dares say that feminism is obsolete and outdated. They begin to see red.

The rise of antifeminism worries them. The most profound change of the XXth century, that occured without spilling a single drop of blood, is now in danger because someone finally spilt some blood in 1989, and remembered us thereby that this political movement really started as a war of the sexes, and that this gender war is still aimed at men: directed and fought against them. The "résistance" however is gaining ground.

Mark Steyn
Excusing the men who ran away

The new film ‘Polytechnique’ sidesteps the old norm of ‘women and children first’, he begins to say. Does this guy ever heard of the official masculist position of what will happen the next time the Titanic sinks?

He continues: "To those who succeeded in imposing the official narrative, Marc Lépine embodies the murderous misogynist rage that is inherent in all men, and which all must acknowledge." We can't blame him for thinking that. But when he contends that:

“The defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lépine but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The ‘men’ stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and the killer walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.”

our dear Mark Steyn definitely crosses the line. What is this guy? A stirrer, a provocateur who takes cheap shots at Canadians? An idiot rather, who wants his 15 seconds of fame! Had he been there, Lepine could have obliged him with a bullet to the heart; or so could any of us striking his sternum with the flat of our hand, smashing his ribcage, impaling his heart and his lungs and letting him die of internal bleeding (no need of a gun for that). But experience shows us a better way, supreme with idiots like that: ignore them! (believe me, it works).
Barbara Kay from the National Post writes about how Marc Lepine's murder of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal in Canada is being used to promote feminist propaganda against men and especially against Canadian men. The title of her article is, “Lone gunman: The Ecole Polytechnique massacre was a freak tragedy. So why is every man made to feel guilty for it?”. Her article is right-on about the consequences of that long-running feminist propaganda effort, but it does not completely explains “why every man is being made to feel guilty for it,” although it makes clear that the goal of that propaganda effort is being met every year.

The evidence is clear: for days we watch news coverage of proceedings on Parliament Hill, we see the spectacle of grown, well-educated and well-informed politicians supporting the white ribbon campaign and advertising their atonement for the collective guilt of all Canadian men for the sins of one deranged gunman. But it is never a good thing to accept at face value anything feminists claim. They lie or accept as truth the lies of other feminists, and soon with the help of unsuspecting journalists, those feminist lies take on a life of their own.

Throughout history men did the dirty work for home and country. They died early deaths in horribly massive numbers on account of it, but although at times some were honoured for doing so, it is an accomplished fact that women were always treasured and even put on pedestals simply for being women. Men were the ones who were being subjugated, even before the Victorian Age. By the way, real men don’t wear white ribbons.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Marc Lepine wanted to rehabilitate men

Peter Zohrab
Acting President of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation

A feminist, Micheline Carrier arouses feelings of shock at the thought that anyone would even consider rehabilitating Marc Lepine. She shows therefore signs of practising the same oppression that led Marc Lepine to his desperate act: censorship. Zohrab finds in feminists a desire to control information -- which they can can do, because the media are so full of them. Obviously, the rights, wishes and demands of men and fathers should remain buried under the day-to-day censorship of the feminist media !

Zohrab says that Marc Lepine wanted to rehabilitate men. He wanted the media to free themselves -- however slightly -- from their preoccupation with "equality for women", in order to concentrate somewhat on the "equality for men", but he failed. A great article by Peter Zohrab that you will find at:

Media Censors: Extremist Protest Against Media Censorship or as Peter Zohrab saw it

The Men's Movement has reacted defensively to the actions of mass-murderer Marc Lepine according to Zohrab - concentrating on pointing out that most men are not like him. This is a reaction to the Feminist propaganda which called Lepine a misogynist - a woman-hater. Zohrab contends that Lepine was not a misogynist, but a Men's Rights activist (although an extremist one), who was protesting about media censorship. And the way the media censored the facts surrounding his actions retrospectively justifies his claim and protest !

In his suicide note, it is clear that he is against Feminists -- not against all women. He clearly states that he is protesting against various issues which are aspects of feminist sexism.

1. Feminists retaining the advantages of being women while trying to grab those of men as well. A very serious and valid issue.

2. Sexism in the Olympic Games (and in professional and amateur sports in general), where men and women compete in separate competitions for the simple reason that it suits women. If something suits women, it happens. If something suits men, it is banned on the grounds of "Gender Equity".

3. Feminists always try to misrepresent men every time they can. Feminists virtually control the information in western societies.

4. Military sexism. Feminists have the vote, are a majority of the electorate, vote in governments that declare war, only the men are conscripted, and after the war the Feminists reinvent history by insisting that women made an equal contribution to the war effort. Women may serve in the military as volunteers, but no modern country has ever drafted them to serve in the front-line.

Marc Lepine was character-assassinated in the same way that fathers are slandered in the divorce/family courts. Zohrab even claims that Lepine was not sexist, as the media stated, but that he was actually fighting sexism !

Zohrab concludes with those words that would haunt him for years in certain milieux: "Feminists control information. They are hypocritical, they lie, they tell half-truths, they distort truth. Democracy depends on the information that is available to voters and politicians. If this information is controlled by self-serving Feminist liars, Democracy is a sham, and the Marc Lepine way may become the way of the future. ..."

Saturday, May 9, 2009


A very disturbing article by Robert Lindsay titled The Smearing of Mark Lepine made us think about 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 a lot since. So, the question we ask is 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 in 1999 that divorced male members of the metropolitan police force may secretly side with the killer and his manifesto on some issues. I remember some of my friends who were horrified by the deed, but some days later uttered a loud YES in approval. The question we ask here about secret approval may be formulated somewhat differently and rather bluntly to: how many secretly pulled that trigger with him that night.

You may find Robert Lindsay's essay of April 16, 2009: The Smearing of Mark Lepine at

Lindsay begins by saying that Mark Lepine was a very bad man and a killer, that he murdered 14 completely innocent people, and that it was a hate crime that specifically targeted women. But he contends that the suicide note tells another story, namely that he hated feminists that had ruined his life but not all women, far from it. According to him, Lepine was an antifeminist but not a misogynist, and he adds that the media silence about this fact was overwhelming.

If we understand Lindsay correctly, Lepine’s rage was directed at feminists – not at females in general. He contends that International Feminism (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 (not acceptable in Lindsay's book).

Lindsay postulates that Marc Lepine probably did not hate women, but surely hated feminists, we know this. He insists that the two are not yet synonymous (thank God), and that Lepine’s homicidal rage at feminism 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 or never got started.

We will now quote Lindsay at full length here, who insists in ending on an outrageous note:

"I want to end on an outrageous note.
I don’t sympathize with the killer Lepine. But I sympathize with his mind. I agree! Kill the Western feminists! I mean that as a harmless intellectual sentiment, not as a call to action. .....
But in my heart of hearts, I am with Mark Lepine. I want to kill the Western feminists. I really do. Every last one of them."

Now that is a strong statement, one which has impact. It seems that to put that question was not so far fetched after all: WHO ELSE PULLED THAT TRIGGER THAT DAY?

Monday, May 4, 2009



There are thousands of great groups out there and others not so great. As the true chauvinist that I am, I only list and recommend the MRA groups and sites that are very close to me. As for others, I acknowledge their existence and I am not at war with any one of them, but I still keep my distance. It simply means that I preach exclusively to my parish and to no other; but I can greet those others from a distance, waving them from far away.



american vanguard

anti-feminist empire

Four geat allied groups: all veteran activists and all male antifeminist warriors

As for the sites, sometimes activists complain that there are not enough photos and illustrations in men's sites. Go to these, they are generally lavishly illustrated and fun:

MASCULIST REVENGE: Humorous Anti-Feminism




The extensive Lepine Gallery