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.
AND WHO IS GUILTY?
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 GENDERCIDE IS OK, THEN FEMICIDE SHOULD BE OKAY TOO
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 INNOCENTS''
''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.