Friday, August 28, 2009


We're not talking about serial killers here, which seems to be still a mostly white domain and a white occupation: the exclusive province of nice WASP boys and girls, but of spree killings of the true Rambo type. Anyway, Rambo is a myth: everyone knows that Asians are much better killers than whities (much to the displeasure of some supremacists). Take away his technology, superior weapons and especially air cover, and the white man is not an impressive warrior anymore. Mano a mano, the Asian seem to be much superior. And where do you want to go this time, Flashman, with such a ridiculous contention?

Nowhere in particular. I merely want to see where it leads us, my new theory. Spree killing seems to have become somewhat of a Competitive Sport, there are now very serious Spree Killing Organizations that give information and statistics on spree killings, do the counting of body bags and attribute ranks to killers. I wonder if they give medals? One thing for sure: spree killing has become an extreme sport, witness this:

... RANKING UPDATE including Rank, number of Kills, Name, Date, Location, and Weaponry ...

Woo Bum-kon comes first for having killed 57, on 04-26-1982, at Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea, with one rifle and grenades.

Seung-Hui Cho comes in fourth place for having killed 32, with a Walther P22 and a Glock 19, on 04-16-2007 at Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.

According to those statistics, Marc Lepine comes merely in twenty first place, with 14 confirmed victims that he killed on 12-06-1989 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada with a Ruger Mini-14 and hunting knife.

Here is what Lepine's statistics look like

21 14 Marc Lépine 12-06-1989 Montreal, Quebec, Canada Ruger Mini-14 and hunting knife

As Full Force Frank was very prone to remind us: ''Remember that fatalities are what count, not the wounded that eventually recover. If you worry about your rank, ratings and place in history, you should be worrying about body count.''

In general, whities are poseurs: it took two guys at Columbine, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, to kill 13, and the worst of them all is Kimveer Gill who killed only one and injured 19 at Dawson College (a hell of a flop). Clearly, as far as body count are concerned, Asian killers are much more impressive.

Some would have wished that ''Cho Seung-Hui had been Billy Bob Johnson'', talking about ''the VA Tech shooting and anti-Asian stereotypes'', some lament at the potential for bigotry and racism entailed, but the simple facts of the matter are really that Asians are better killers: more resolve, more cool, agility, fluidity, even grace and style, and on top of it: an exalted body count. For you, afficionados of Myamoto Musashi, you have to admit a fleeting admiration that escaped you for a moment, but that you immediately covered with this reasonable look you carry so well.

As those university professors will tell you, ''mass shootings seem clearly linked to one man’s colossal rage at an individual man or woman''. Quite true, but the problem is that all the ''anger management therapies'' in the world cannot change the fact that this world has tend to become more and more hostile and less just to its male citizens. Scores of ethic books, and for that matter the entire Western philosophy of democratic thinking, will at some time ultimately admit that in extreme situations there is a right to rebellion, a right to ''lash out'' that can be exercized at one's discretion. Of course there is a price to pay, and all who have done it have paid. But sometimes there are rewards: look at Lepine's immortality.

Some will say that the race of the shooter did not play a vital role in the Virginia Tech events, that if he had been white, the horror of what happened would be no less, nor greater. They talk about deeply-held stereotypes though, about men of various ethnic backgrounds, and it is true that those exist. It is true that ''we live in a white-dominated culture that exaggerates the athletic and erotic capabilities of black males'', and it is also true that '' the same time it denigrates those same possibilities within Asian men''. Stereotypes will say that: ''Asian men are near-sighted; always slight of build and small of penis, good in science and math, emotionally inarticulate (more than white men) and inscrutable''. But these painful, cruel, and inaccurate assumptions, even if they sometimes do real damage, are just that ''stereotypes''. Everyone knows they are not true. The truth is that the white man gets his ass kicked everywhere now and has for sometimes: from Vietnam to Afghanistan.

Some parts of the stereotypes may be true though, that young Asian men, from Korean and Chinese families, may be under pressure to do very well academically and to keep all emotions repressed. Small wonder then if, when they go on a killing spree, all that rage comes out fearfully. Also, it is quite understandable that young Chinese-Americans have a liking for extremely violent video games and role-playing games, because of all that emotion that is repessed at home. Asian boys definitely need an outlet. If we would be honest and true, we should recognize that, since the Korean war at least, the facts clearly show that Rambo is an Asian, and probably an Asian American at that!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009


Manginas are men supporting feminism, a fair amount of which are male homosexuals. They follow the same pattern as the so-called ''companions'' did during the second half of the XXth century (the supporters of old Stalinist marxism). They believed that they might get special treatment after a communist victory if they helped, but they were wrong. Historically, Russian Stalinists planned to eliminate the ''companions'' after seizing power because they did not trust this bunch of bourgeois intellectuals. Similarly, manginas would be eliminated after a feminist victory.

One such mangina is Sam Diener, editor of Peacework Magazine. He asks us to stop male violence. Let's see:

On Femicide: End Men's Violence
How many massacres perpetrated by men against women will it take before we as a society, especially those of us who are men, work seriously to end men's violence?

To this we evidently answer:
Stop the institutionalized feminist violence against men, and they will cease to be angry. Stop stealing their house, their money, their children, stealing their jobs, their future, stop destroying their families and putting them in prison with false accusations and drive them to suicide and maybe, yes MAYBE, they will forgive you and stop. The load of injustice done to men has reached a critical mass, enough to set a giant explosion that will destroy the world. It is only justice that men should be entitled to a revenge somehow, the only problem is that the total wrong done to them is of such magnitude that not even the destruction of the entire planet would be enough to atone for it. So, the few massacres perpetrated until now are but a few drops of water in the ocean. Much more are needed, yes you heard me right, much more such violence is needed if we want to only begin to address the problem and the vast injustice done to men, and satisfy the powerful thirst for revenge of the world's male collective.

Such sad occurences are not hate crimes at all, they are merely oulets for unbalanced individuals, prisoners of a world of injustice. As long as generalized injustice prevails, some might be tempted by such violence. Feminists should understand that only in giving up undue privileges and stopping the present assault on fathers and masculinity, could they prevent the coming of a Spartacus revolt: a revolt of the slaves. Real Men do not accept to be reduced to second rate citizens, they do not accept to have everything taken away from them and sit quietly, as modern society continues to destroy them and their families. They will not disappear silently into the night, that is the message of such acts of violence. They will take the lives of as many of their enemies as they can before they die. You say you don't like that? You should have thought about it before you started this war. In war there are casualties as you know, and if one side is ready to die in producing a maximum amount of damage, the other side has to live with it. YOU have to live with it. The only mistake of feminism is: THEY STARTED THIS WAR, now they have to pay the consequences.

LA Fitness Massacre, August 2009
And now a feminist, Louise Roth, about the LA Fitness Massacre in early August 2009.

She says she was a university student living in Montreal during the Montreal Massacre on December 6, 1989. She says Marc Lepine separated the men from the women and claimed he was “fighting feminism, that he was specifically targeting women, and killed 14. She insists that saying that he was “crazy” and “psychotic” or to blame his mother does not help at all and only masks the truth. She asks us to recognize that the Montreal Massacre was an anti-feminist attack and an extreme form of violence against women.

Now that is obvious. Feminism creating problems for over 50 years now, and one young man becomes unhappy, refuses to accept things as they are and decides to protest violently. All this is perfectly understandable. She continues in saying that Lepine blamed women for taking the education and the jobs he felt entitled to have as a man. Now what was he supposed to do? Accept the situation? He chose not to, and what shocks these feminists out of their wits is that some might approve of that. Of course we approve! If feminists say one thing, we will certainly not automatically approve. And what if we say NO? What Marc lepine really did, was merely to draw a line in the sand and say ENOUGH. What enrages feminists is that Marc said NO, a little bit emphatically I'll admit (with a collateral damage of 14), but his main sin remains to have said NO to feminists. They damned him for it!

Roth continues in pointing out that in his suicide letter, Lepine said that feminists had always ruined his life and that he planned to send them “to their Maker”. He was enraged because women were taking away men’s traditional advantages in education and in the workforce, without relinquishing women’s traditional advantages. What she fails to mention is that anyone seeing someone else taking away his traditional advantages in education and the workforce without relinquishing her traditional advantages, anyone seeing that would become angry, quite understandably. So, Lepine became mad, QUITE UNDERSTANDABLY, as anyone else would. So, his reaction is NORMAL. Therefore, targeting such a group as his enemies (whoever they might be) could still be seen as ''normal''.

I know there is the moral issue here that killing is wrong, and the Christian belief that one should forgive, but when one feels his very future threatened, then: to hell with forgiveness! Historically, christianity has never lived up to its high principles of forgiveness and turning the other cheek; so why do you expect a young man to do it? We do not deny that this was an antifeminist attack as Roth is so prone to remind us, but when she speaks of the wider issues of violence against women, she should not forget that feminism is a violent and hate filled movement making war on men for over a century now, and which aim is not to take its fair share but to take away everything. The very survival of men hangs in the balance. Fighting this war has become a necessity, and maybe Marc's gesture was really only one of survival.

Monday, August 24, 2009


Was Lepine storming Polytechnique perhaps a preemptive strike? While Valérie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly, Sally Miller Gearhart and Gloria Steinem were planning genocides in advocating the extermination of all men, or were preparing their extinction and biological demise in wanting to generalize Parthenogenesis and ovular merging, a young boy began to see red and took an historic necessary step to save the men. His was perhaps the first concrete gesture of a modern campaign to save the males. What Marc did on that day was to answer the thousand times asked hypothetical question: ''what would you do if you were back in time in 1926, with a loaded revolver in your hand and had Hitler right in front of you?'' Marc Lépine answered in picking up his gun and went to shoot Hitler and his feminazis.

In the 1980s, it was certainly a good thing to ''save the whales'', but now it is high time to think about us and ''save the males''. In a sense, what Marc did could be called collective legitimate self-defense on a symbolic level: he killed the bad women who were planning the extermination of men. No, it is not science-fiction: the writings of Solanas, Dworkin, Daly, Gearhart and Steinem clearly state the genocide and were available and largely published at the time. What is more, they were bragging about it, they were screaming from the height of their pulpit and University chairs their intention to get rid of the men and exterminate them. Lépine simply saw red in listening to their ineptitudes and foolishness and did not bother to ask himself if they were perhaps talking figuratively and if this was merely a symbolic discourse. He leaped into action to the greater good of us all;
then as the horror passed and with a 20 years distance, many are now asking if he was perhaps not a little bit right, worse: some will claim outright that he was completely right !

Friday, August 21, 2009


We all know that the American empire is now at risk: the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, has filled the news of this entire decade, but what is less known is that the American masculinity itself might be threatened as well. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Two indicators really: the number of bullets it now takes to kill a man and the news of the army hiring private contractors to watch over its luggage and supply routes. What? Let me explain.

How many bullets does it take to kill a man? How many rounds of ammo do you need to kill an old blind man?

Masculinity is in trouble when you need more than, say 30 rounds of ammo to kill one man at 20 yards. Recent events are troubling, you remember this very publicized police shooting where it took 6 policemen 59 bullets to kill a man threatening suicide, and not even aiming at them with his rifle, which is very reminiscent of another shooting that happened in New York City two decades ago, when it took 52 bullets to half-a-dozen policemen to finally kill an hearing-impaired unarmed shopkeeper who failed to hear their command to stop.

What is troubling in the ''59 bullets incident'' is that only 43 bullets were fished out of the body by employees at the City morgue. Where had the other 16 slugs gone? They missed! This represents a 27% failure. Is this significant? Do these members of the force need extra-training and to spend more time at the shooting range? Don't get me wrong here: I'm not complaining about police brutality or excess of force, I am merely pointing out that perhaps, yes PERHAPS, the standards are falling. What happened to the times of Davy Crockett, or John Wayne for that matter, when a shootist needed only one bullet, one eyed to hit dead center? They didn't have giant magazines then, the ones that hold 15 or more 9mm bullets for pistols and 50 rounds mags for carbines, they only had six shooters and had to make every bullet count, and before that: it was even worse with the single shot flintlocks... one could not afford to miss!

Were masculinity and courage bigger then, when you didn't have to empty an entire clip to kill your man? Probably.


And now, let's talk about the empire. We heard on the news some weeks ago that the US Army is now hiring private contractors to watch over its supplies, depots, munitions' dumps and its very supply routes. What is wrong with this picture? If I remember correctly, Napoleon's soldiers were perfectly capable of watching their own luggage and supply routes, they posted a few guards and the depot and the armoury were safe. Even WW2 American soldiers were able to do that. What has happened? Now the Army needs private contractors to perform tasks that were taken care of by its own soldiers in previous wars?

Of course, we can understand that the army, for instance, hires private companies to transport its heavy equipment oversees (tanks, artillery and armoured personal carriers), then the navy sometimes lacks ships to do that, and there is the question of costs. It has done so for years, and there is no problem. But the bottom line question is: how much of your tasks can you delegate to the private sector without becoming completely ineffective and a wimp? Will the army ask private contractors some day to do its own fighting? Firms like Blackwater provide so many services that it has become embarrassing for the American government and armed forces.

1- they provide security for American diplomats
2- watch over the supply routes, depots and logistics
3- provide training and personnel for special hit-squads
4- maintain Drone bases in the middle-east
5- even provide training for satellite communication experts of the army, etc, etc....

The problem is that Blackwater and other private contractors are now doing the job of several government agencies and the job of the government itself. They replace the secret service, the CIA, the ground forces and some special branches of the air force, doing their job for them, taking away their task and their workload, but also taking away their legitimacy and their dignity. What happens when Blackwater fights the army's wars for them? When it fights oversees and on the front, AND GETS ITS ASS KICKED.

The Fall of the Roman empire was due to the fact that the legions could not fight their own battles anymore, they needed the help of mercenaries. Even the chaos in Italy and Germany during the Renaissance was due to this resorting to mercenaries. One has only to read Machiavelli to see the dangers of the ''Blackwater'' case.

Are there any solutions?

I don't have any, but let's use some humour for a change. In the case of the trigger happy policemen who have a hard time hitting the target with so many bullets, I'd say look up your great grandfather, yes, the one who has known Davy Crockett in his time, pay him a visit and ask him ''grandpa, could you show me how to shoot?'', or watch a John Wayne movie (this is just as good)!
As for the army general, sticked with the Blackwater problem and his annual budget: I'd say ''give back the army jobs to the soldiers''. It might cost more, but you could always cut expenses in fighting one war instead of two.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Right-Wing Ideology that Opposes Gun Control

Since the assault on Dawson College in Montreal, there has been a great deal of public discussion about what causes certain young men to become deranged mass killers. Every time there is a school massacre in Canada or the United States, the same arguments follow. We hear psychologists, psychiatrists, cultural analysts and others discuss if it is possible to spot the danger signs in advance of a mass shooting and perhaps prevent it. Which ones of the lonely, quiet, marginalized, social misfits having fantasies of wiping out those who oppress them, should we suspect and detain preventively?

The problem is that the profiles of the eventual killers fit too many young men to be of much use. It may be a good idea for secondary schools, colleges and universities to establish programs to keep an eye on the misfits, to try to counter social exclusion that drives some of them to the edge. Some unhappy young men can be coaxed back into a healthy life this way.
The problem is that this method of anticipating the identity of the killers is sure to be a crap shoot most of the time. Next year or five years from now, we’ll go through the same agony in the aftermath of a mass shooting at another school.

Perhaps the shooter will be a student of that school, but maybe not. The warning signs in the behaviour of the killer that should have been obvious, will go innoticed because there is no way to monitor the nation or the whole planet that closely. The governments don't have the budget for that and the planetary dictatorship necessary to accompliish this would never be accepted by the population. So, we have to admit that in most democracies, there is little or nothing to do, to prevent the next mass shooting.

One way to get at the problem would be serious gun control, but although it will perhaps bring better results, it is not perfect. The shooter could always purchase the gun illegally on the black market. There is always this possibility. Even if we vote a law that would mandate the confiscation of every restricted weapon in the land, there will always be ways to evade such a confiscation or avoid the restrictions of the gun registry. The Dawson school shooting was not halted by the gun registry, therefore it is useless and should be scrapped. All the played out rhetoric about guns not being responsible for how they are used will be heard once again. Sensible people will respond to past tragedies by saying that we need the Gun Registry more than ever and perhaps a ban on handguns. Surely, we could be suspicious of responsible people who hesitate at registering their guns. Guns kill, so why do shooters of the nation insist that to register their guns hurts their basic freedom?

The Canadian gun culture is influenced by the gun culture in the United States. In the U.S., the National Rifle Association and millions of gun owners cling to their right to own guns, a right protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. American gun advocates have an interpretation of history from ancient to contemporary times whose moral is that an armed citizenry is a free citizenry. They accuse those who want gun control to promote an unduly expansion of the power of the state, and ultimately facilitate the coming of a dictatorship. The gun lobby speaks for a highly defined constituency of overwhelmingly white male gun owners and their sympathisers, who advocate a right-wing foreign- and domestic politicy. The lobby defends the right of citizens to own and carry semiautomatic weapons and armour-piercing bullets.

The political idea that underlies the American gun culture is that the only way to sustain a free society is to ensure the right of people to own and carry guns freely. Any infringement of that freedom will lead to the confiscation of guns and the choking off of liberty by an all powerful state. Allowing the state to assemble a list of gun owners (a gun registry) poses a threat to freedom. It is said that some day, the state will come and snuff out freedom when they take the guns away. So, clearly for these people: GUNS ARE FREEDOM. But a dangerous freedom one might add, a freedom that can kill other people or enslave them. Canadians have no need for such an ideology of gun culture. The American Revolution and the Second Amendment are not our founding myths and they have no place in our society. We have to deal with the very real threat posed by allowing deadly weapons to fall into the hands of potentially deranged people. Therefore, we have no time to deal with references to a rancid ideology that has nothing to do with our history. More gun control, alas, is perhaps what Canada needs.

But Marc and Cho were so good looking dashing with their guns and firing, Clint Eastwood was so cool with his .44 magnum, and what about this dream .475 Wildey Magnum, a wet dream for the likes of Marc Lepine! All quite true my friend, what we would gain in practicality and safety, we would lose with less mythology, less colorful, less dashing and less iconic. Safety and comfort can be so boring! But never fear, we will always have television, and Gozilla and John Wayne to entertain us!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009


Some will say you're insane: the Rue89 is NOT a Marc Lepine site and it's NOT a Marc Lepine street, but we can argue otherwise. Rue 89 is a French website created by former journalists from Libération. It was officially launched on 6 May 2007. Its news editor is Pascal Riché, former Op-ed editor of Libération, and its chief editor and president of the society Rue 89 is Pierre Haski, former deputy editor of Libération. According to its editor, the name Rue89 has been chosen as a reference to freedom, through French Revolution (1789) and the fall of the Berlin wall (1989) as much as the symbolism of the street (in French: rue) as a place of meeting and discussion.

But we very well know that the real World Revolution against feminism started in Montreal on December 6th 1989, therefore Rue 89. So, Marc, you got your own street now! But it's very little to go on, will say some incredulous hardliners. Well, consider the blog of Patric Jean giving long accounts of Rue89's admiration for Lepine (and his own secret one), Mario tout de go à craving more and more Lepine and Martin Dufresne's own demons (his secret love for the December man). Clearly: MARC HAS HIS OWN STREET NOW: Freedom 1989.

Monday, August 17, 2009


Violence Against Women Is Not the Problem, ...Violence Is

Since Marc Lepine gunned down 14 engineering students at l'École Polytechnique 20 years ago, feminists have not forgotten and launched a huge crusade against Violence Against Women since. The fact that all 14 victims were women was no coincidence. Lepine hated "feminists" and mass murder was his revenge, but more important: feminists had declared war on all men worldwide in the 1960s.

Ever since the Polytechnique incident, feminists have come together every year to commemorate this anniversary. But would it be so wrong to say that they are actually ''celebrating'' on that day. What could they be celebrating? Victory over sexism, over patriarchy, erecting a totem to the evil that is Violence Against Women and distributing white ribbons to men as a Mark of Shame. What they did with Marc Lepine was to turn a historical crime into an icon, and they used that icon as a metaphore for all society's ills. Now Lepine stands for the day-to-day sexism in our society, which is a great way to blind us to the real cause of violence (which is not only expressed with firearms, but also with road-rage, vicious words and even the still-present but mostly forgotten nuclear Armageddon threat).

Violence against women is not a problem, it is only a symptom. The statistics about "violence against women" in Canada that feminists throw at us daily state that, for instance, in 2002:

28,953 women were victims of domestic violence.
67 were murdered
514 were sexually assaulted
21,774 were assaulted.

They fail to mention that 206 women and 376 men were murdered in Canada in that same year 2002, according to
Statistics Canada. So, much more men than women are murdered every year. If being murdered is your criteria, then it is far better to be a woman than a man in this society. There should then be a blue-ribbon campaign every year to remember the men who are victims of violence in Canada, that is: if society and feminism were fair. But as we know, feminism and society are hardly fair to men in Canada.

It doesn't matter if the majority of the murderers were men. What matters is that the majority of victims are men. And who is to say that many women did not contribute to these murders of men? The point is not that most murderers are men, the point is that the women victims are only a minority. The point is: violence is a problem, but women are not the main victims. So, the white ribbon campaign is a fraud, the violence against women campaign is a fraud. Men are the real victims. The murder-rate statistic is the least amenable to manipulation by political interest groups, or people who don't trust the police. A body is a body and someone has to count it.

If violence against women was really a problem, how come so many women are seen walking the streets alone at night in big cities? They get a ride home from the subway station after 9:00 o'clock in most cities without thinking about it. Lone women are safe in our cities; they got plenty to eat, a roof over their heads, a good job and can manipulate any man they want. Don't forget: the homeless and the poor are predominantly men. Feminists fail to see that and to say it, theirs is a privileged class. But it won't last forever, and the day men will revolt: then you will see what REAL VIOLENCE looks like!

What does this mean?
If more men than women are murdered every year, does it mean we live in a sexist society that discriminates against them, and that men are valued less than women? It seems so. Does it mean that we live in a hierarchical society in which men are preyed on by other men with the help of women? It pretty much looks like it. If anyone is suffering from injustice then and needs revolting, it is the men.

The problem with the White Ribbon Campaign is not that it is trying to help female victims of violence or working towards gun-control, the problem is that it offers a cartoon instead of a schematic. Most men don't rape, don't beat, and don't murder their partners; they don't get into drunken brawls and murder their neighbours at the bar every week. The White Ribbon Campaign uses the image of Marc Lepine to denounce complex social problems without addressing the real problem of violence itself. The problem isn't that some men kill women, it is that some men and women resort to killing at all. Leaving aside the minority of murderers clinically insane, what we are dealing with is a problem of violence. The White ribbon is a symbol that does more to separate us than to unite. It makes the assumption that women are not individuals, but members of an oppressed group. It fosters an us-against-them mentality that leads "both" sides to forget the real issue in favour of a group-think that men are perpetrators, women are victims. It ignores the fundamental fact that we are all individuals and that the problem is violence, not violence against women.

Friday, August 14, 2009


Many at the scene would have been in shock, especially those who had been in direct contact with Lepine, taking orders from him or watching him murder these women. Nevertheless, there must have been opportunity to challenge or confuse Lepine as he targeted and shot these women, all the while ignoring both pleas and fervent claims that they were "not feminist". The likes of Mark Steyn will insist that there must have been opportunities to take action of some sort. After all, Lepine climbed stairs, spoke to and separated people, went in and out of rooms and hallways, was very loud as he shot randomly or targeted women. So, he must have been vulnerable at some point, offering someone the opportunity to ambush him somehow, or storm him and wrestle the gun (risky though this might be). The students, staff, faculty, or security forces, no one mounted any attempt to stop Lepine, and the women he targeted did not have the ability to influence the misogynist shooter; indeed, their words might have fuelled greater tragedy.

Most readers were shocked, dismayed, and ashamed that no-one attempted to avert this tragedy. Foreign analysts, especially American media people, had a field day and were prone to criticize and take cheap shots at Canada: the Steyn pack calling their Northern neighbour an ''unmanned Dominion''. Everyone was telling jokes about Canuckistan, the land of the ''Tyranny of nice''. And then came Virginia Tech in 2007, and suddenly everyone was embarrassed. Those making bad jokes and taking cheap shots at Canada were silenced, then the question was raised: ''what did you do, you proud sons of the country of John Wayne, to stop the killer at Virginia Tech?''. Where were the famous Virginians when the iconic Cho irrupted in 2007? In this land of heroes, there was no one to stop him! Captain America was sleeping, Jack Bauer was gone after they dismantled CTU, and Jesse James had been shot in the back.

Even Mark Steyn had to come to his senses in recognizing that ''if Virginia Tech has proved anything, it is that Amerika certainly fares no better than Canuckistan or Quebecistan in cases of school shootings, in terms of slow response by the police and inability to stop the killer.

To say that only a man or group of men might have altered the bloody history of l'École Polytechnique or Virginia Tech is wishful thinking at its worst. The women who were Lepine's target could not possibly be expected to reason with the enraged man. The few women who tried to convince Lepine that they were not feminist were killed first. The men present should have tried to reason with him, but no one did. Can we go so far as to say that men were compliant in the Massacre? Maybe. They took no action nor control, responding only to the orders from Lepine to leave the premises. Could it be that they approved of the killer? Could they be expected in a situation of such horror and magnitude, to try to stop one of their own, belonging to the ‘brotherhood of man’? Some manginas will say that they are unable to comprehend why no man has attempted to even talk Lepine out of his plan, they will go so far as to imply that this makes all men present at the time of the massacre complicit in Lepine's misogyny.

And what if...? Yes, what if many of the guys over there were fed up with feminists too, and secretly approved of the killer? Just as many women are secretly approving of Valerie Solanas and dreaming of exterminating men, if the guys at Polytechnique has similar fantasies, would it make them bad persons? We will come back later on the subject of trying to disarm a gunman empty handed in an other article we wrote on Cho Seung Hui. An interview with a Ju-Jutsu expert will show that it is not an easy thing to do, and that it is quite different to try to disarm someone holding a long gun than another using handguns. The most difficult is confronting someone with two guns, one in each hand.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009


Not only this site, becomes the reference about Marc Lépine himself but about everything that surrounds him as a phenomenon: Mark Steyn, Cho Seung Hui, copycats like George Sodini, the so-called combat masculism with secret antifeminist militias in Australia, we cover them all. We show the symbols, the mythology, the ideology of it all, but we want to go deeper than that and be more practical.

Here is a list of all upcoming articles till June next year (we are booked for the next 9 months):




Cho Seung Hui and Marc





The Right-Wing Ideology that Opposes Gun Control






This article is more delicate and touchy, let's say problematic, since it discusses in great details how to produce a real mass shooting: tactical considerations, the logistics, psychological assessment, the police response, chances to get caught vs readiness to die, etc...
There is of course a disclaimer and a Legal Notice, just to stay on the safe side and not to get in trouble with the Law.

THE DREAM SHOOTING (handy hints)
Part two of The Dream Shooting









MARC LEPINE'S MUSEUM (human resistance to tyranny)














Since its foundation, this blog has published 25 articles.


The film about Marc Lepine

INTERNATIONAL MARC LÉPINE DAY as Bob Allen saw it in December 06, 2006

HAPPY ST. MARC'S DAY or as Bob Allen saw it in December 06, 2007

Searching a meaning to the Marc Lepine mania



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

Marc Lepine wanted to rehabilitate men








Mark Steyn: the smell of fear



Mark Steyn: the power of confusion

Mark Steyn: the dream list

This blog becomes the reference about Marc Lepine




If you continue with us, we can go a long way: farther than even all the Roy Rogers of this world could ever conceive their ''Happy trail'' to lead. Thanks to Canadian feminism Marc Lepine has not only become relevant for society as a whole and the problems of modern history, he has become truly an international public figure and even a fact of civilization. Yes, this is a great site, simply because we witness and monitor a great phenomenon.

Monday, August 10, 2009


So, George Sodini, the Health Club gunman, went on a rampage over sexual rejection on August 4th, 2009. Three women were shot and killed while in an exercise class at the LA Fitness Center in Bridgeville. Before opening fire on the aerobics class, George wrote about feeling lonely and rejected (characteristics that put him in the company of other mass killers whose isolation helped create a murderous cocktail). Sodini's deadly rampage at a suburban Pittsburgh health club shares threads with other massacres analyzed by psychiatrists and legal experts, who say the line between lonely and homicidal remains hard to place. "These people get into a very self-centered, self-aggrandizing psychotic path, that enables them to finally get the attention they crave".

The 48-year-old Sodini fatally shot himself after killing three women and wounding nine others attending a weekly Latin dance aerobic class. He produced three guns, firing indiscriminately after shutting off the lights. Police says Sodini didn't know his victims. His 4,000 words blog is a monthslong diary lamenting his wrongful rejection by American women and talking of his plans. In his Web diary, he wrote that his anger stemmed from unfulfilled desires. This is typical of such type of killing. The perpetrator wants everyone to understand and appreciate why he did it. In his mind, to kill other people and not just himself, sends a broader message. Many mass murderers feel rejected by a "pseudo community" that exists only in their minds. Chronic failures with women, these isolated loners "divert their masculinity into destructive episodes that make them significant and larger than life". And it works, then in the end: they end up really LARGER THAN LIFE.

And now the critique. Three handguns is too much to bring to a massacre (it is overkill), only three dead is too little to qualify for a substantial mass shooting, and 15 injured is much too much (it is unforgivable and sloppy). The number one rule of a shooting is to finish off the wounded, then it directly affects the final kill-count. At best this murder-suicide qualifies for an emotional butchery with perhaps traces of legitimate grievances, but which definitely lacks style and finesse. The gunman fired 52 shots before committing suicide. This is way too many for the poor kill-count. The only explanation could be that he was extremely nervous and emotional, or perhaps a very bad shot. Putting off the lights might have been a bad idea. Another thing, as he walked into the aerobics room, there were about 30 to 40 women exercising. One cannot help but wonder, three dead is an extremely bad result for such a shooting. Three guns, a lot of ammo and less than 10% hit. The only explanation is bad shooting, bad planification and no technique.

1- First cover the exits, confine the victims, theoretically there should be no escape.
2- Good shooting techniques, immobilize your victims, for example: everyone on the ground.
3- Finish off the wounded, maximize the killcount.

By these standards, the Dawson college shooting and this one are miserable failures.

As for his reasons: extreme sexual frustration. Quite understandable since most modern women are very disappointing in this regard. ''Girls and women don't even give me a second look", he says further. Small wonder, most women are so preoccupied with themselves and so selfish that they wouldn't notice anymone near them, even a threatening presence. He wrote: "Women just don't like me... ". How could they, they don't even like themselves! The blog explained his contemplating carrying out the shooting. Sodini's gripes were more about what he believed women owed him sexually and did not deliver. He was quite right since they rarely deliver anything (sexually or otherwise). The suicide note apparently complained about how he had never spent a weekend with a woman, vacationed with a woman, or lived with a woman, and his sexual experiences were limited. Here we must differ: this may be frustrating, but hardly to die for.

His on-line blog documented his growing rage with women for rejecting him: these millions of women who rejected him in the past. What is tragic here is that he functioned with old stereotypes and an old paradigma that don't apply anymore. The truth of the matter is that women have very little left to offer to modern enlightend men, sexually or otherwise. Hell, why do you think Japanese men are now dreaming of- and building female androids? Simply because women in the flesh do not satisfy them anymore. Don't blame them for not delivering, they simply cannot: ARE NOT ABLE TO anymore. Objectification of women? Certainly. Why do you think they train in that gym in the first place? Because they care about their good looks, in fact: it is all they care about. If Sodini had known that, his life would have been turned around. What could have saved this man's life and these women, would have been him joining a men's group. I recommend joining such a group to all potential mass killers.

Thursday, August 6, 2009


So, Canada is the land of the Tyranny of Nice, a 2008 book written by Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere with an introduction of Mark Steyn, says it. You probably didn't know how Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights or that one of the oldest continuous constitutional democracies on the planet, is no longer a free society, so you will have to read the book to find out how. À propos Tyranny Of Nice, the only one I could think of before was the attempt of Disneyland to conquer the world and impose the views of Walt Disney to the whole planet. Now that is a real Tyranny of what is not especially nice, except for a bunch of share holders who want to force a cultural concept upon the throat of Europe and Asia! Is that not reminiscent of how a certain fast food giant tried to conquer the planet decades ago? Tyranny, certainly! Nice? I'm not so sure.

Want "nice"? Move to Canada. And give UP on human dignity, okay?
Those who say things like that imply that the US is not nice, but at least has human dignity. So, are the US dirty and Canada clean? By the way, was not ''Mr. Clean'' coming from the US? When Steyn says that the ''...freedom of expression, ...freedom to engage in the whole messy rough’n’tumble of vigorous debate that distinguishes open societies from lesser, stunted, insecure ones...'', does he give us the choice between cleanliness and basic freedom? Now, who wants it clean and who wants it dirty? That seems to be the question. Clearly, cleanliness has a price, and so if you want Canada to stay a pristine country, maybe we should give up some ''rights to jerkism''. Of course, the advocates of the talk radio culture will protest no doubt.

If Canuckistan has a chance to fight back at Amerika, is it not on the subject of mass murder? Now Mr. Steyn called the men of our ''unmanned dominion'' cowards, because unarmed Quebecers failed to stop the lone gunman in Montreal in 1989. And what did you do, you proud sons of the country of John Wayne, to stop the killer at Virginia Tech in 2007? I think at last, we'll have a field day over Steyn this time! So, where were the famous Virginians when the iconic Cho irrupted in 2007? What! In this land of heroes, there was no one to stop him! Where was Captain America? Sleeping, I guess. And Jack Bauer? You idiots dismantled CTU, remember! And Jesse James? You morons killed him. So, at last Mark Steyn will have to come to his senses: if Virginia Tech has proved anything, it is that Amerika certainly fares no better than Canuckistan or Quebecistan in terms of slow response and inability to stop the killer. What Amerika succeeded in however, was to give a fantastic exposure to Cho's videoclip through NBC.

Saturday, August 1, 2009



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, I 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, I would ask you to make an effort of imagination, I would ask you 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. What will you do with the corpses of so many guilty people? 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.

The Gestapo commander of the region of Marseilles who showed in 1943 that women, children and old people have more to hide than normal full grown men, and 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' SCUM manifesto and planning a genocide just as they were hit by the first bullets of the gunman. 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.