Wednesday, May 27, 2009
MARC LEPINE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE
AND IF LEPINE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE?
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.