Monday, September 28, 2009


Are our streets safe for women?
You got it backwards lady: are your women safe for our men?
We shall take back the night!
No problem, we shall take back the daylight you have stolen from us!
Marc Lepine you are a monster, you are all monsters!
Thanks to feminists like you, my 15 minutes of fame lasted more than 20 years. Just go on, and I will be immortal soon.
It is all your fault!
No, your fault!

Friday, September 25, 2009


You can kill all the babies you want, ladies. For what I care !

''But it's my body''
Of course it's your body, problem is: nobody wants it anymore.

Remember: the more babies you kill, the more you are telling things about you.

One out of two babies you kill now would have become a feminist, so by all means ladies, please continue!

Lesbian couples do not need abortion, so go lesbian girls!

If you don't let any man approach you, you will never need an abortion, ever. So, run like hell and do not let men approach you.

But if I got raped? An abortion of course. I know a clinic that will give every fifth client a free shotgun.

Don't get me wrong: you can create an ocean of blood if you want to, but if you do, remember just one thing: in doing this you are definitely telling the world something about you.

You can say anything you want about abortion, but these women are far better killers than I ever was: more resolve, totally heartless and bloody, yes awfully bloody!

And now get the hell out of here, and take your ''shit body'' with you.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009


A woman was an active feminist in college in the 1980s. Was it an unreasonable thing? They say the feminist movement had legitimate grievances then, and that many male college students of that era were sympathetic. Is it ludicrous to hold someone like that woman personally responsible for the excesses and problems that followed and that feminism has created since? In other words, are the likes of Lepine wrong and is their anger unjustified. Some mangina university professor may state something like: ''many of the problems men and fathers face today were not created by feminism. Some of them were created by chivalrous males and conservatives, some were created by lawyers and government bureaucrats and others were created because the average man is far more likely to be concerned about injustice and problems that women face rather than take care of his own.''

A mangina professor will always say things like that: that feminists of the 1980s were blameless and Lepine had no reason to open fire. He will insist that some of the injustices happened because men as a whole have not done much to defend themselves. The farthest he could go is to admit that feminists bear only part of the blame for the problems that men and fathers face today. If in the 1980’s feminism was peaking in terms of popularity, wasn't it because women back then thought they could ''have it both ways'', like they always have? What attracted such women to the movement, wasn't it the cheap sentiment that they could support “equality for all people” and at the same time quit their hobby job when it suited them?

Men must see that by being understanding or even taking an apologetic tone with women, they hand feminists the moral high ground before even starting to state the case for men’s rights. Didn’t feminism bash men, both collectively and individually, as soon as they got the chance? Blaming all men for the bad things any particular men had done to them, while demanding more goodies for women. It is our belief that the majority of women ARE NOT innocent. Plenty of women say they supported feminism in their days, but insist they weren’t radicals but merely searching for “equality”. They won't admit the equality they were searching for is of the kind of those who will ''carefully go to the restroom the moment the dinner check arrives''.

The truth is that women double dip all the time and enjoy it, they just don't like to be caught with their hands in the cookie jar. When they do get caught, they give you this wide-eyed look of a child and say “I didn’t know I was doing anything wrong!”. Nonsense. Feminism justified getting all these goodies for women based upon the “fair treatment of all people”. Feminists didn’t just ignore the sexism that existed against men, they exploited it to the maximum! All what hypothetically repentant women would need to say really, is that they were mistaken and that feminism was really about man-bashing. They shouldn't try to get off easy though and come across as if they didn’t know what was going on. It is like in Germany just after the Nazi era. Everyone will tell you they didn't know about atrocities and that they are completely innocent.

For most women, equality looks like this: ''after her hausband had been working his 60 hours a week, he should be happy to do the dishes, while SHE goes diamond shop with HER income!''. Reality number one: it is impossible to have equality between everyone, unless you do it the feminist way. Which means finding and selecting a target group, white males for instance, and then depriving them of rights so that the other group can pretend to be “equal”. Women can’t marry up in income and leave their hobby jobs when it suits them, AND still earn as much as men. It is impossible and is known in America as ''wanting to have it both ways''. Expecting men to constantly pay all the real bills, while women are being given special privileges in the workplace is a recipe for disaster. Then one day the men will be fed up and pick up that gun, just as Marc did.

If we try to sum it up here: calling for “equality” while enjoying feminine privileges is DOUBLE DIPPING. The gall of what feminism is, that is: bashing their historical protectors and providers, is a surefire recipe for inheriting the wind some day. Storms of resentment take sometimes years to build, but once they are unleashed they have a tendency to be unstoppable and everyone is sorry! Women who say they are innocent and absolutely not to blame for what feminists did have to think again. They sat and said nothing while men were villified, slandered, legislated against, oppressed, driven to suicide, their families wrecked and their children taken from them. They did NOTHING. In my book, it looks very much like criminal negligence: The great excuse. Wise men say: “there are consequences, my dear, for inactivity, for what we call the effects of CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE. Maybe you should get thee to a nunnery”. “But I was not aware of those nasty injustices that feminism caused” will the American woman say with increasing frequency. Remember how German civilians and military personnel were uniformly “unaware” of the concentration camps when questioned.

The truth is that feminazis of the 1980’s held men personally and collectively responsible for real and imagined injustices, they were NOT seeking “equality” any more than they are today. They were seeking ADVANTAGES – criminal, civil, reproductive, and social advantages for women…… and only a few women have spoken up then. That is the truth of the FEMINAZI movement: ALL feminist women are responsible for the evil done to men. American women have NEVER had legitimate grievances against men. There has NEVER been an organized effort to impose evil by men onto women, however there HAS been an organized effort to impose evil onto men, for well over 40 years, but the FEMINAZI empire is crumbling now, and soon could begin the search for WAR CRIMINALS.

There has never been a need for any type of feminism in America, then females have ALWAYS been privileged in the U.S. Throughout history, no matter how bad women had it, men’s lives were always harder. It was the work of MEN that created everything we take for granted today: housing, roads, skyscrapers, automobiles, planes, ships, telecommunications, the internet, nanotechnology, police protection, the economic system, even democracy. But women want more, the expense of men’s rights. There has never been a need for special rights and privileges for women, they already had them, and they continue to have unfair advantages in business, the law, the goverment, the family, and reproduction. If most American women tolerated extremist ''men haters'' for so long, it is because they thought it would help them squeezing some more materialistic goods out of men and society. In the past, women always wanted ''to marry up in income'', now they don't even have to ''marry an income'', then they already make more money, and if they don't, the government gives them money.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Cho Seung Hui and Marc

Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter, was an "eccentric loner" who has written "disturbing" essays and plays. Some were worried about a repetition of the aftermath of Columbine, when American high schools went crazy and started expelling kids who wore too much black, or wrote compositions too full of teenage angst, or affected a pose of rebellion that was just too unnerving. It was the usual insane overreaction to a tragic event, and one that went toward virtually outlawing normal teenage behaviour. In Canada though, they don't have to expell children, because they drop out of school of their own accord.

Cho was more than just an eccentric loner, he wrote poetry so disturbing that
classmates refused to come to class and ended up getting one-on-one tutoring. And there were naturally feminist complaints about harrassment. Disturbing poetry: way to go Cho!, then schools are so boring and the curriculum so irrelevant to real life that students are dropping like flies since at least four decades. Harassment, feminists always complain about all kinds of harassment, even when they are clearly the abuser. In other words, Cho's behaviour was merely eccentric and the real guilt for this shooting, like all those others lies in those who had bullied him for years, and those groups of giggling girls on campus, forever putting down, making fun of, cruelly ridiculing, and taunting. Bullies and vicious female tormentors are always those who complain afterwards. ''We didn't do anything wrong, it was just a bit of fun''.

It is true that such spree-shootings are very rare and hardly ever occur. This is, in fact, the best reason why such ideas as "if people at VirginiaTech had been allowed to carry guns, this wouldn't have happened" are deemed ridiculous and universally recognized as a stupid line of reasoning. The few people who COULD carry a gun WOULD NOT carry one, because there is little self-defense rationale, since the odds of a spree-killer appearing on campus are so very small. In Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand, a dozen Tech style massacres happen every week, and the fact that everyone carries guns over there doesn't help. It doesn't mean that we can't do anything though, as so many are saying. Saying that you can't prevent this kind of things, and that no one did anything wrong, is a human tendency to not review the situation for fear someone could be blamed to have done something wrong. But as a clever species, surely we could, without playing the blame game, look rationally at the system and try to better it, rather than tell everyone that nothing can be done.

Of course, what happened at VTech could happen at any institution. It happened in Canada (a country with much stricter gun control laws), at Dawson College in Montreal, and everyone recalls the other iconic shooting of Dec 6 1989. Gun control laws are certainly an issue, but there are no easy answers when it comes to guns. General bans are not going to occur in America. They are very hard to enforce and not particularly effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Knowledge of how to manufacture firearms is disseminated, the means to make them cannot be banned, and it would be hard to prevent them from flowing in illegally. The real problem is the violent nature of part of the population; it is deep within the local culture itself, and it would be difficult to extract it. The answer might be education, but the problem is already with education and the educating system, so...

About fighting back and disarming the gunman single-handedly (the pipe dream of Mark Steyn and cie.), fighting back in such situations is not per se as ridiculous as some would think. Someone armed with a gun is not invulnerable, that is a fact. If only one or two people had the presence of mind to rush and attack the gunman physically (and this might had the effect of encouraging others to participate), the worst that can happen is that those two would have been shot dead or beaten with the rifle butt. But they might have got lucky and succeeded in disarming him. Who knows? There is certainly no guarantee. There may have been a lot fewer dead if they had tried, or maybe more if they had failed. Some will say there is no point to wait in fear to be shot, if you can't hide or escape. Others will contend that the idea of an unarmed person subduing someone armed with a gun, let alone two, IS ludicrous. True: life is not a bad kung-fu movie. Furthermore, the US Army has long studied the reactions of men under fire, and found that the instinct to take cover is extremely hard to overcome. Despite all their training, armed, trained soldiers very frequently freeze under fire. So, Mark Steyn expects college kids, attacked in separate groups, by someone carrying two guns, to subdue him without any problem!

It is unrealistic to suggest that these kids were somehow at fault for exhibiting a reaction the US Army isn't able to completely train out of its own soldiers. Some who survived did so by playing dead, getting out of the building or by sitting tight in hidden rooms waiting for the cavalry to arrive. There is no evidence that attacking the gunman would have accomplished anything. We are asking why people don't defend themselves when cornered. This isn't a question of courage, but of what is your best option for living when trapped with a maniac armed with a pistol. The fear involved is difficult to overcome, but we should encourage people to do so, then spreading the meme that it is futile to oppose someone armed, is not useful. True, the USA is a "gun-saturated society", but it does not make Americans braver. The noise of a gun going off in a confined space is shocking enough to stop most of us from moving. The victims should not be blamed.

They confronted something most of us will never experience. Most of them had never experienced the noise of a handgun going off in a confined space. They really shouldn't be expected to be able to react. All we are saying is: if someone is shooting at people, and you still have your wits about you, your best chance is to go at him for the gun, and it isn't a very good chance, but it is only slightly better than diving under a table and waiting for him to walk up to you and blow your brains out. It takes exceptional training to get people to move towards a firing weapon, especially when surprised. If even people in the military, with the exception of the elite or very experienced vets who just saw months of combat, will not tend to do the required when ambushed, which is to attack in the direction of the firing weapons, how can we expect unarmed college students to do the right thing when all hell breaks loose? Even Rangers or Marines hesitate under fire.

Some are sick of stories about guns, and how the blessed Founding Fathers wanted every little patriot baby to grow up with a Kentucky long-rifle over the mantle. They say it's a lie and a myth: a concoction by people who want to believe something regardless of the facts. They are sick of people claiming that "guns don't kill people, people kill people''. It is true that we do not see random shooting in countries where the tools of violence are confined to the authorities. Idiots with an agenda might pretend that what happened at Virginia Tech is not because there are too many damned guns in this country, but we know better. People should know the difference between something that is useful for hunting, and something that replaces the manhood you never attained. If you want more, join the Army. A particular brand of NRA stupidity is the myth of the Wild West: "if they just had allowed all those students to have guns, this lunatic at Virginia Tech wouldn't have got far". But many could have died in a cross fire from untrained kids at that time, and in fights before such a tragedy. So, carrying a concealed gun is definitely not a solution.

In the old west, you surrendered your guns when you rode into town. It was about keeping people from shooting each other over minor disputes. In big cities, it is still just basic common sense to support a ban on handguns. But this isn't about rifles or shotguns! The underlying problem is that some characters are behaving in a certain way, because they think they have a right to, that it is justified. The myth of the second amendment is one of the central inspirations to violence, corruption and social conservatism, because the myth allows people so inclined to imagine they have some inherent right to be the final arbiter of whether to kill someone or not, when hysteria becomes 'self-defense' and they just can't take it anymore. Lynch mobs, bigotry and the right to carry guns are closely related. The most questionable thought though, coming from that conservative side remains the iteration of those who are still complaining that the students should have rushed the gunman etc. We could doubt their ability to judge people in such difficult situations.

Friday, September 18, 2009


The Canadian public never seems to tire of the annual Dec. 6 tribute to the 1989 Montreal Polytechnique shooting massacre of 14 women. Indeed, the power of the mourning industry burgeons with every anniversary: The theme of violence against women dominates the media: new physical memorials are constructed, additional programs decrying domestic violence against women are entrenched in school curricula, masses of white ribbons are distributed; more stringent gun control is more strenuously urged. The cumulative effect of all this is to link all Canadian men to a global conspiracy against women of jihadist proportions.

Public tributes to the fallen can bring out the best or the worst in Canadian national character. We see the best in the real Remembrance Day ceremonies (about WWII), bringing forth national pride and cultural confidence, reminding us of a time when real heroism was considered a quality deserving of public recognition. But now, November 11 is perhaps the only day of the year when feminist ideologues refrain from overt misandry. We see the worst on December 6th, a day when truly the unethical motion of denouncing an entire gender for an individual’s behaviour is given free reign, and we all acknowledge that something like that would be inacceptable in the case of race or religion.

Commemorative ceremonies, as an edifying rite, should unify rather than divide the nation. Mourning for national tragedies usually aim at strengthen the collective resolve, not demoralize. Unifying is the key word here. We should not tolerate nor fund grief rituals that nurture conspiracy theories and phobias. Tributes that become a propaganda mill for scapegoating half the population should not be tolerated. It is high time we turn our attention and public funds to worthier commemorative projects.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009


On 06 December 1989, Marc Lepine walked into L'Ecole Polytechnique, an engineering school in Montréal, and killed fourteen women. The Violence Against Women industry immediately claimed that Marc Lepine's actions were typical of male aggression and adopted the Montréal Massacre as an annual Remembrance Day of all female victims of male violence. That time of year, every newspaper, radio station, and every television station in Canada is pumping out the charged rhetoric about how awful Canadian men are and how horribly abused Canadian women. They show the marches of angry women and the quiet gathering of apologetic-looking men. People hand out white ribbons in commemoration not of the fourteen victims of one man who decided to go on a rampage, but of the horrible day when one man acted out what all men secretly wanted to do. And there are all those men handing out white ribbons, but white ribbons make real men see red.

Apart from prejudice and hatred toward men, there are two things that the white ribbon stands for, and nobody likes them: first the simple remembrance of an event that happened on 06 December 1989, an horrible tragedy that those fourteen young women were murdered, but we wonder about something else: why this tragedy in particular? Why don't we remember other tragedies this way? Why don't we remember other victims of violence? Why don't we remember the police who die each year protecting us from other kids of violence, for instance? Why does the fact that the fourteen people murdered were women and the person with the gun was a man somehow imbue this event with additional tragedy?

One might argue that L'Ecole Polytechnique murders were exceptional because of the number of victims, but the reason why many won't wear a white ribbon is that they refuse to acknowledge that Marc Lepine's shooting rampage is more terrible than other similar crimes, simply because women were the victims. They refuse to wear them, because white ribbons stand for the culpability of all men: the supposed complicity in the Montréal Massacre. The idea that the attitudes of all men contributed to the actions of the one man, that even though most men are peaceful and protective, they should all be ashamed because one chose to be violent and murderous. This is what the majority rebel against.

We despise men who wear a white ribbon on December 6th in the spirit of publicly apologizing to everyone for their maleness. and also despise their concern for only one kind of crime and only one kind of victims. These men are not progressive. In fact, December 6th is having a bad effect on us all, it is causing us to close our heart to these victims. Whenever we see another professional Violence Against Women advocate talking on TV about women as victims of society, whenever we hear another newscast about the tragedy of the Montréal Massacre, we turn the TV set off. We have heard enough. These people have been pushing our buttons for so long now that we are numb to the whole issue.

The vast majority of men are just normal people, they go to work, support their families and help raise their children to be normal people. They support and work together with their wives, whom they don't beat. But if you believe the Violence Against Women people, there is hardly a wife in Canada who isn't regularly slapped around by her spouse, and the rest of the men are on the sidelines cheering. The truth is very different. The Violence Against Women lobby asks the following question about men: ''if you're going to be attacked, who is more likely to be attacking you? A woman or a man?'' To be honest, they should ask a very different question: ''if you're going to be rescued from an attacker, who is more likely to rescue you? A woman or a man?'' If they would be honest, feminists should grant that the male rescuer is absolutely not responsible for you being attacked, and that the majority of men are blameless.

Why are all men supposed to carry some kind of blame because a very few men decided to be violent? Why should they be holding a parade every 6th of December lamenting the fact that they are all guilty, bowing their heads in shame every year? This is a scandal. And while we're at it, maybe Marc Lepine had good reasons to do what he did? It used to be very depressing to go on the internet, choose a search engine and make a search on "Marc Lepine". Anything that also contained the words "Montreal" or "Polytechnique" was sure to bring at almost every entry an unbridled hate-fest against men. But it has changed, then there are Lepine fan sites now, and not just one but quite a few.

Monday, September 14, 2009


Are school killers rebelling against Compulsory Public Education? Are they perhaps rather rebelling against Bad Education: a form of anarchism?

In Ontario, Canada, the literacy rate of the general population was 90.5% in 1893, even 94.22% for those between 10 and 20 years of age. In 1990: the reading skills of 16% of Canadian adults (2.9 million) were too limited to allow them to deal with the majority of the written material encountered in every day life. A further 22% of Canadian adults (4.0 million) could barely use reading material to carry out simple reading tasks within familiar contexts. However, this group did not have sufficient skills to cope with more complex reading contexts. — straight from Statistics Canada, Survey of Literacy Skills.

Compulsory public education added to feminism seems to have caused functional illiteracy, while at the same time conditioning students to be the compliant workers of tomorrow. Is that perhaps why some are increasingly ''going postal'' against the education system and planning a ''good old school shooting''? The use of politically correct policies and feminism in post-secondary educational institutions is another reason to see red and want to pick up a gun. Acts of vandalism and arson could be explained as a reaction against the attempt of the system to control students and condition them to becomes "slaves". Compulsory public education might be seen as a threat to liberty, but the bigger threat seems to be its bad quality. From Columbine to L'école Polytechnique, it might be the bad quality of the system that was targeted and not so much the students.

Such of course is a completely novel interpretation of the facts: not payback against bullies, or teacher or the administration, but perhaps a rebellion against compulsory public education, and even further: rebellion against its bad quality that brings in poor results and produces functional illeteracy. Killings by Seung Cho, probably a Columbine copycat (just like the shooting spree at Dawson College) could now be interpreted as an open rebellion against the side effects of bad education, much more than classic explanations such as bullying and racism (that might have played a minor role nonetheless). Fantasy explanations abound after a killing. The most common is to say that such acts are a rebellion against patriarchy, and in some cases even the white-dominated patriarchy. Some would even call Marc Lepine's killing an anti-sexist act (because he separated the men from the women), and say he was actually fighting against the reverse racism that feminism had brought about. So, after the deed bogus explanations can be found virtually everywhere: Marc being a victim of matriarchy, but also of patriarchy, etc...

Some will say that school mass killings are unconscious forms of protest against something: be it compulsory education, or ghetto mentality, etc... why not against bad education for a change? Of course, the favorite explanation to school shootings is to say that they are not a reaction against education itself, but a reaction against bullying. Bullying is intrinsic to a competitive, hypercapitalist/corporate/market oriented and homophobic society and it happens everywhere: in the family, in the workplace, etc... . Killings like this also happen in those places. They will say the problem with Public Education is that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse, so that children in public schools who are different: emotional, "weak", shy, geeky, or anything but "normal" are at the mercy of thugs and monsters who prey on them. Killing another is of course one of the most authoritarian and hierarchal acts one can commit. As we know, the end does not justify the means for the simple reason that the means make the end. Therefore, killing to improve the quality of education is highly questionable, but on the other hand: isn't such bad quality already killing us? It seems that Marc hardly had a fair choice, at best one between two bad options!

But let's call a cat: a cat, and a dog: a dog. There are unavoidable facts here: first, that modern feminist education produces illiteracy and long term failure for boys for over thirty years now. And second, that single-parent households produced widespread criminality for over two generations now. This is clearly the fault of feminism. What is the solution? There is no easy one: at first, possible solutions have to be extreme. Therefore, boys should drop out of school as early as possible and settle for self-education (Autodidacticism). They should leave their single-parent home at as young an age as possible and search for their fathers. And, it appears that school shootings are a legitimate way to get back at the system and denounce the scandal and the injustice of our schools, and of society as a whole. Marc Lepine might have been a visionary in his time.

So to wrap it up: if you stay in the system, you will come out an illeterate, so you have no choice but to drop out. If you stay in the system, you will fail, then the system has been rigged to allow only girls to succeed. Therefore, the temporary solution is to drop out of school and resort to autodidacticism in the meantime, or to go to a private college if you got enough money. Another solution, which isn't one really, would be to resort to a school shooting to make public the failings of the system: a bad idea that might not be one after all, considering...

Friday, September 11, 2009


There is an interesting article from (Lady??) Purtek titled What Happened in Montreal at

It says that what happened in Montreal in 1989 was an act of hate, resentment and fear. An act of entitlement, ...''the act of a man who felt that he deserved something, that he was entitled by birthright to a privileged education, with all of the socioeconomic benefits that this would entail''. It was the act of a man who believed that others were taking this entitlement from him, that women and feminists were blocking his access to what was rightfully, morally, unequivocally his.

Damn right it was! Should we let women and feminists take away everything from us? We have done that for two generations and the women still want more. What Lepine did was to draw a line in the sand and say ''No more''. Who can blame him? Feminists were appalled when next day scores of men approved of the killings on talk-radio shows. Men had been silent for so long, letting organized feminism do as it wished. Now was the time to say ''enough''. Marc Lepine was right: he deserved an education, feminists were standing in the way, they were trying to take this entitlement from him, and he had the right to a measured response. ''Problem is, he was carried away by the elation of the deed''.

They say ''what happened in Montreal was male privilege at its worst, and its most blatant''. We say, what happened in Montreal to those 14 women did happen because Marc Lepine felt he deserved something that they had, and that they had gotten unjustly. It was something he was entitled to, and that they had taken away from him. Certainly what happened in Montreal did happen because of what we call male privilege. But it is the stealing of that privilege that made Marc mad that day. It is true that Marc Lepine was not “society’s fault”, that he was expected to control and take responsibility for his actions. It is also true that, as a human being, he had the right of dissidence, of rebellion, and the ultimate painful option to reject some of the dictates of society, even society as a whole, if he chose to. Marc exercized his option and paid the price.

When we hear men expressing sentiments ranging from entitlement, to resentment, to anger, to rage at what they have lost and what has been taken from them by feminists and women, we should bear in mind that they have the right to do so. No one should be expected to be glad to lose something, especially something not given but taken away from you. Everyone has the right to be angry at what was lost, and wish revenge. Revenge is natural. What is not natural however and never has been, is the Christian ideal of forgiving and loving your enemies. It is so unnatural that Christianity was never able to apply it correctly. So, if the whole of Christianity was never able to live up to it in more than 2000 years, how should you expect me, my friend Marc and all the other men to forgive feminists? Are we supposed to love them? As soon as they touched our money and our privileges, they were in breach. And don't say we were not patient, we waited 50 years to react and tell you these things. The more I think about it: Marc did good to pick up his gun; it is the only way they will ever understand, then otherwise they never listen.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009


In the past, whenever the United States was engaged in a war, it's always been on foreign soil. American combatants were always male citizens - most of them drafted. American sleazebag women never got the slightest inkling of what a war is really like. While the American men were serving the country, women were serving themselves by furthering their education or careers, or just 'kicking back' and enjoying the good life. Osama bin Laden threw a big monkey wrench into that routine when he ran passenger jets into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.At least 500 of the 3000 deaths on 9/11 were malingering American females. Osama bin Laden achieved then, what no former enemy was able to accomplish: he killed a shitload of previously untouchable American women. Marc Lepine also proved in his time that women are not untouchable anymore. In the 1950s any man attacking women would have gotten in serious trouble with other men rushing to their help. Two decades later, many men refuse to help and defend. Lepine is not so much a visionary or a hero: he is simply a ''revealer'', having showed us that day how much things have changed. For the first time in history, men were either unable to- or simply bluntly refused to help these women in need, as Mark Steyn is so prone to remind us. THEY DIDN'T HELP for the first time, there must be a reason.

If the likes of Mark Steyn were really intelligent, instead of blaming the men they would start to look for reasons, then a new paradigma is definitely emerging. Men unable to help: quite shocking, men unwilling to help: rather disturbing. What if the future defeat was not caused by a few Quislings but by a sizeable portion of the population that says ''enough''. No we won't obey, no we refuse to help and fight. We have seen very arrogant officers (even in Napoleon's time) completely broken when their men refused to obey. ''What if...'', pray that it won't happen! Then if a majority of American men suddenly sees the truth, not only the feminists are finished but also the privileged political class is in trouble. Maybe what happened at Polytechnique that night was that all the men present got a brief glimpse at the truth, and were (take your pick) either incapable or unwilling to act. Small wonder if Steyn is scared out of his wit by that, his kind feel threatened at a primal level.

So, what is the message? The message is, ladies and gentlemen (but especially for you ladies), that NO ONE IS UNTOUCHABLE ANYMORE.

Monday, September 7, 2009


Some lunatics may advocate Alternate Endings to the Montreal Massacre but these are just pipe dreams and their proponents certified idiots. Let's see. They begin by saying that Lepine single-handledly changed the face of Canadian gun politics and became the embodiment of everything that man-hating feminists despise. In their horror and their fear they lashed out at every Canadian male, and continue to do so today.

Gun enthousiasts say that “the blood of these fourteen women are not on the hands of every man”, and they are right. They continue with asking what the real problem was in Montreal that fateful December day: was it a lack of “gun control”? Certainly not. With the unlimited ammunition and time that Marc Lépine had available to him, he would probably have been able to achieve similar results even with a conventional readily accessible hunting weapon. Was it the failure of mental health officials? No. We didn't have “thought police” in 1989 and until the event, the shooter apparently didn’t exhibit much in the way of abnormal psychology. Was it the failure of police responding to the scene? Probably, yes. They formed a perimeter and sat outside waiting. No, what gun enthousiasts will tell you is that these are not the cause of this failure and of the high death toll.

OK then, what is the real problem, and what have these gunnuts to propose as a solution? They will say the failure of that day was with our manhood (Mark Steyn and cie) or the lack of it. They will point out that for thirty years, men had been “trained” to be obedient, to do what they’re told, to be more “feminine” and less “manly”. So they did exactly what the lunatic with the gun said. They left the room and abandoned their sisters to an horrific death. Let us point out that these women were not our sisters but feminists: the enemy. Although there is maybe some truth in them talking of the feminization of American men, they may have a point there in saying that it did these feminists a disservice that day.

The gun nuts will continue by stating that if a single one of those men had the courage to say “No!” and simply stormed Lepine, surely he might have been shot, even killed, but his actions would have showed clear leadership, and surely one or two other men would have joined in the battle. Lepine would have been taken down in the very first classroom, with perhaps three or four wounded or dead. Now that's gunnuts' first Alternate Ending. Apart from that’s never going to happen and who in their right mind is going to confront an armed madman in a school shooting? Let's give gunnuts their first victory, maybe it's a viable scenario!

Now let’s look at their second Alternate Ending, one that may disturb many Canadians today. Imagine if our laws were different and permitted to arm every Canadian, imagine our government permitting concealed weapons and lawful carry for any law-abiding citizen that can meet the same proficiency with firearms and use of force training as police officers. What happens then? Had there been a single law-abiding citizen with a concealed handgun in Montreal’s l’Ecole Polytechnique that fateful day in 1989, the outcome would have been different. It would have been swift and effective, so they say. They would have stopped Lepine dead.

Gunnuts say that every school shooting in North America happened in “Gun-Free Zones”: such schools that had as a published policy no legal firearms permitted. Gunnuts insist it didn’t help in Columbine, at Virginia Tech, in Dawson College, and it didn’t help in l’Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. So, the solution, according to them, is to permit a reckless Yahoo Texas culture to take over and having our streets filled with guns. Great! The next time a few people have an argument, say a family argument in a restaurant, everybody being armed means that everyone will start shooting. If you successfully vote and institute a policy like that, just don't forget one thing: an ample supply of body bags!

Coming back to Lepine, what if one or two citizens on site had a concealed weapon on them? They would have returned fire certainly! But what if one of them misses? He or she could wound bystanders, adding to the panic and the confusion. Lepine returns fire and take them both out, but is wounded in the process. Now Lepine is mortally wounded, but still has enough ammo. So, instead of wandering aimlessly, he decides to go slow and finish off everyone he has wounded. The result: Lepine dies of his wounds, having have time to shoot dead the last wounded. Total death toll: 28 victims (twice as many). Is that the happy ending that gunnuts wanted? If yes, then generalize gun ownership like in the happy dysfunctional Yahoo States, and see where this John Wayne mentality leads you. No problem!

Saturday, September 5, 2009


If feminists run the schools now and continue to teach anti-male hate, then maybe they didn't get the point that Marc and Cho wanted to make in their days, and maybe school shooting could be seen as a necessary periodical therapeutic activity, just like fingernails clipping. If feminist Public Schools have become a toxic environment as many claim they have, if the education system has been taken over by feminists and lesbians who preach a daily diet of hate, violence and discrimination against males despite pretense of "tolerance", "non violence" and "inclusiveness", if all these recent reports are indeed true, then it is high time that some young patriot picks up his gun or his sword and... Girls wearing anti-male hate clothing, slogans on T-Shirts taunting a killing: of course after the events have taken place and everyone mourns, it would be cruel to say "they had it coming", but it is the truth.

Witness these pamphlets issued by the Canadian Federation of Teachers about the situation in Afghanistan that show exclusive concern for women, girls and female babies and absolutely none for the males despite the fact that boys are the ones being forced to carry a gun, kill and be killed, the ones traumatized, and this starting as early as eight years old. They emphasize that the girls have been denied schooling, and forget the fact that the boys had been denied schooling too... and been traumatized for life on top of it.

A favourite feminist teachers' tactic is the following: they show videos in classrooms blaming all date violence on males. Once the video has been shown, the girls overflow the room with anti-male hate statements, while the boys are afraid to speak up. Of course the video's depiction is false but the feminist teacher will insist that it is the absolute truth. We hear that such indoctrination tends to become the norm in North American schools. Let us not forget the omnipresent "Women's History Month" posters on the walls. In some classrooms, the boys are so abused by their feminist teachers that they cannot even whimper, even after repeated attempts to get them to say anything at all. Grade-12 students nearing their graduation are virtually depressed about the climate of ever-climaxing anti-male hate.

Talking about work condition of male teachers or substitutes, they are routinely discriminated against at every level of employment with no recourse to authorities. In substitute teaching, patterns emerge such as gender-cleansing (Men need not apply). The substitute clerks want women, and when they can't get them (a rarity), a man can get called at the last minute. To be in teaching is to be immersed in femininity. Wall-to-wall women, everywhere; the students, the teaching staff, the curriculum, the posters on walls, the celebrations, the laments, the teacher unions, the student unions. Half of humanity counts for nothing in schools, except to be harmed, of course. The typical photography of all students of a classroom is usually a 4-page issue of about 30 students, an average of 27 women and 3 men. The text at the bottom reminds us that men, especially white men, are all advantaged and women disadvantaged, and this stated on a perfect void of evidence.

The ideology taught in school is women-as-victim and men-as-victimizer. In the real world though, 96% of job-caused deaths might be male, but women are still speaking in frenzied hate at our universities, and insist that the proper world order should be save-the-women/kill-the-men. They distort facts: they will say about suicide that female depression is 50% higher than male depression, but will fail to mention that male suicide is 400% higher than female suicide. Other examples: student unions have handbooks which blame all date violence on men, walls and front office windows have prominently displayed posters about date violence which also blame all on men. Annually, the unions take part in the Marc Lepine remembrance day ceremonies at universities... which again blame everything on men. Universities have Women's Studies and of course no Men's Studies, and a "Womyn's Center" and of course no Men's Center.

The poster "greeting" men to the Womyn's Centre" has the arrogance to say: MEN: Welcome to the Womyn's Centre. This is a SAFE PLACE for Womyn and Womyn identified people only.
MEN are asked to KNOCK before entering and to use the space briefly. Only to access the resources such as: pamphlets, free stuff and books in the Library. Thank you for your respect and understanding.

"No thanks for the disrespect and hate" is the normal reaction of any man reading the above. One might regret in such moments that Marc didn't bring more ammo... and used it, but let's get back to the problem at hand and ask ourselves seriously: WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THOSE SCHOOLS? Sadly enough, it seems that the title of our little essay here is not at all exaggerated. We stated MORE MASSACRES MIGHT BE CALLED FOR, eh bien, it seems in all probability that more are, in fact, called for. It is as simple as that! Would someone kindly take a shovel or a gun, there is a thorough clean-up job to be performed at these schools here!

Thursday, September 3, 2009


Some corruptions of reason are so evil that the name ‘fallacy’ is wholly inadequate, such as ''feminist bigotry". Feminists do not see a man as an individual, but only as a representative of an entire category of people: the ones they hate. ''Some men have been unfair to us, you are a man, so you must be evil''. It is a terribly twisted way of thinking and is at the very core of racism and other forms of bigotry. People for centuries have thought this way: having some feature in common with certain other individuals is enough grounds to condemn any given person. Feminists think that way.

Such violations of reason are committed in Canada on a massive scale every year. The "end violence against women" campaign is one such violation. It is the most outrageous application of this kind of thinking. Month after month Canadians are bombarded with appeals that they should oppose "violence against women", reaching a crescendo on the anniversary of the killing of 14 women by Marc Lepine. Why only violence against women? Isn’t physical assault on anyone a terrible wrong? Does not violence against men also matter enough to mention? What reasons have those who promote this campaign for excluding half the human race from their feelings of concern?

The reasons are as follows. "There is much more violence against women", which is demonstrably false. Every single source of statistical information on the subject, from police records to public survey, reveals that men are more often the victims of serious violence in society. But those who wage the "violence against women" awareness campaign do not claim there are greater amounts of such violence, however they offer grounds for ignoring all male victims that are absolutely not valid, such as: "there has been less concern for female victims of violence in this society'' (which is false), ''we are merely expressing the compassion which has been absent in the past" (false also).

Feminists apply a very distorted thinking to everything: they claim that there has always been widespread hostility toward women in our culture, in their eyes, Marc Lepine was merely acting out what large numbers of others feel. Women’s pain and suffering have always been ignored, etc... Many who support the "violence against women" campaign believe these fallacies because they do not know better. Other grotesque claims are: "women are more vulnerable to assault than men", ''they are not given any protection'' people show less concern about them than about the lives of men, and other inaccuracies. The feminist discourse is riddled with such lies.

The truth of the matter is that most serious violence involves weapons, to which the typical man and the typical woman are equally vulnerable. Those who make gun control a "violence against women" issue know perfectly well that a bullet is as deadly to a man as to a woman. In fact, more men are killed by guns each year then women. Feminist fallacies and bigotry explain why so many are willing to ignore violence against men. They give the following twisted reason: "the great bulk of the violence in society is committed by men". For the manginas and women orchestrating the awareness campaign, the Male victims of violence do not deserve as much sympathy as female victims (or no sympathy at all), because the people committing the violence are usually also men. "Whether you are personally innocent or not is unimportant. If you have some feature in common with your assailant, you share the blame for your own victimisation and therefore merit no compassion".

This is the pure evil of feminist reasoning: Hypocrisy all over

This kind of reasoning is responsible for vast amounts of hate and injustice in the world. Indeed, it is responsible for much of the violence in the world. Someone who has been victimised by a member of a certain ethnic category sees it as merely righting the scales of justice to harm in turn, not the individual who committed the wrong, but some other person of the same ethnicity. The same goes with feminists: all men are guilty. But feminists cannot officially be labeled wrong, because theirs is a "politically correct" kind of bigotry. And the main people committing this bigotry are not the ignorant and the reactionary; they are progressives who claim, in the very act of doing it, to be advocating compassion and equality. Really: Hypocrisy all over.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009


The feminist doctor just delivered a baby boy and handed it to the mother, saying: “Congratulations! It’s a murderer.” Let us look at the litany of the “boys and their toys” accusations making all men potential murderers and the one of feminist peaceniks who portray women as natural born nurturers. How come that, worldwide, 75 percent of children under age 6 are killed by women? And above all, how come that child-killing women are ''hands-on killers'': women are more likely than men to use their hands and feet as weapons to kill children (54 percent versus 22 percent)? Doesn't it mean a more serious intent, more rage and more hate? Nurturing? Think again!

Young, unmarried females are more likely to commit infanticide by suffocation or strangulation, whereas older married females beat them to death. What does this suggest? Younger women are more compassionate in their killing and older women more full of rage? Anyhow, “the shame is that most men, from the beginning of time, have remained and continue to remain silent, turning a blind eye, accepting this female cruelty, rarely speaking out against such monstrous behaviour”: making up excuses. The unescapable fact is that the dominant killers of children are women. And let us not forget that children are the most vulnerable and innocent of victims.


Malevolence exists in equal proportions in both genders, it manifests itself in an unlimited number of ways. For those who believe in equality, some might say that the Montreal mass killer "Marc Lepine" was not a typical Quebecois, that he was culturally conditioned by his Moslem upbringing to misogynist malevolence, and that it was that which he unleashed at L'école Polytechnique. But to say that it was not normative North American male values which spawned his hatred of women does not help, and neither does to emphasize that he did not come from a typical Canadian family. Then his revolt was just, and his grievances were real: so real that most masculists still identify with them today.

It may be true that Canadian men have been unjustly scapegoated for the actions of whom we call ''this madman'', but deep down, even those bigot enough or racist enough to take exception at his upbringing, family culture or ethnic background, even they must admit that ''much of his revolt was just''. Right wingers of any provenance have at least one thing in common with him, that is: ''they don't like feminists''. Saying that the Montreal massacre cannot be blamed on normal north American male values is the lame excuse behind which bigots hide, saying that the tradition of responsible civilian firearms ownership has been tainted by the gesture is the lame excuse of gun nuts and NRA enthousiasts, the fact is that Lepine's revolt is bigger than any of us.

Hell, why do you think police officers (especially those who suffered a nasty divorce) and other authority figures secretly understand his reasons? True, they would never side with him openly, not yet anyway... , but still. Don't say that these pertinent realities were unknown to you, and don't ever say that it sends a chill up your spine, then you know that secretly many of you approve of the killer. It is just that you cannot say it yet: peer pressure, your family, your wife, the women you know, society at large. But what will you do the day even women will start to like him and understand his reasons?