MARC LEPINE

THE RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN

2009-12-04T01:03:00.000-08:00

The fantastic message of love of Marc Lepine

Why a red ribbon? Is it not the color of the AIDS campaign already? We would have liked to find an original color, but all colors are already taken. White, red, green, blue, yellow, brown, black, even intermediary colors like lime, cherry or fuschia: they have all been taken by some social cause or left-wing campaign, much to the point that certain colors are shared now by more than one institution or fundraiser. Facing such a difficult choice, Red vs White seemed the best solution.

The Red Ribbon campaign makes plain to all that Marc Lepine is in fact a kind of liberator and that December 6 could finally become something positive. Liberator, how so? He liberates women from the unhealthy thoughts of genocide and gendercide that were prevalent in the feminist discourse since the days of Valerie Solanas and Mary Daly, and helps them STOP their planned monstrosities. The message is here: stop hurting men and be good to them, and they will stop hating you. They could even start to like you again some day. This is the Red Ribbon message of Marc that we can oppose to the White Ribbon of shame, guilt and hatred.

Marc Lepine tells women and feminists YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE. He tells these thousands of women and feminists who have stolen their partner's house, their car, their money, he tells those who have stolen their ex-husband's children, their jobs and drove them to suicide: STOP TO BE MONSTERS, stop to secretly dream of killing men and planning gendercide, and we will perhaps begin again to love you some day. This is a powerful message, A MESSAGE OF LOVE, worthy of a new Christ.

The Red Ribbon campaign aims at ''unmonster'' women. It gives back their dignity to former feminazis, and allows those who performed atrocities without clearly realizing it, or misguided by their peers and under orders from the feminist war machine, to choose the path to REDEMPTION. To proudly wear this Red Ribbon is to show the world that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE, there is a way to salvation. Marc has given back women their dignity: he says ''be good and men will immediately stop to hate you, even start to like you again''. This is the powerful MESSAGE OF LOVE, and message of hope of Marc Lepine. Stop planning gendercide and stop acting like monsters, and we will start to love you again!

BUT WHY SHOULD WE LOVE YOU?

Why not? The killer saint tells them: ''let's save the planet from genocide. You don't have to read these books of vengeance anymore, like Mary Daly and Valerie Solanas, you don't have to plan massacres of male children in our hospitals anymore''. The iconic killer tells them: ''I'm ready to forgive you my children''. According to him, he would even be willing to forgive them the destruction of the environment which has been caused qui by feminine franctic consumerism for more than a century. Ladies, join this campaign of love of Marc: throw away this white ribbon of hate and replace it with the red color of love. Together, let us ''unmonster'' our society !

John Gisogod

PS. an extra kind word from Bob Allen to all of you out there

International Marc Lepine Day, December 6, is almost here again. By now all MEN should have their homes decorated. The lights should be up. The cards sent out, The carbines polished. A day of feasting, drinking, and celebrating.

Happy Saint Marc's Day to you all.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at:

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

INTERNATIONAL MARC LÉPINE DAY

2009-12-03T04:37:00.000-08:00

When did this idea of an International Marc Lepine Day ever come up, and when and how could someone in his right mind consider to put forward such a ridiculous notion and contention as a St. Marc's Day? St-Marc's Day has been introduced in 2005 by the extremist intellectual fringe that functions as the vanguard of the men's movement. In fact, two groups had the same idea at the same time: Bob Allen and his group and John Gisogod and his Yahoo friends at Frustrated_men. The International Marc Lepine Day or St-Marc Day on December 6 is not accepted and celebrated by the majority of the men's movement. It has been established that it should be a day when we remember the first counter-attack against the feminazi's war on men. By celebrating Marc Lepine and embracing him as a hero, it was believed that this would disturb the feminists' plans and enrage them. The goal was to uncover their plot to spread universal shame and guilt in the men's camp and neutralize it. Saying that he's a saint and celebrating him on that date was a bold move. It is a daring move that angers all feminazis and confuses them.

Making Marc Lepine a hero is only a tactical move in the big chess game true activists are playing against the feminists. And if it can help win some victories over them the better. When activists started to launch this campaign about celebrating St-Marc, the feminists they were in contact with and those monitoring friendly groups were appalled. This daring move, they hoped, may help free their children. They believed they should confront the enemy, make them appalled and make them run. It is generally viewed as a very daring move, but a necessary one! It's not that Marc Lepine was a good father or especially relevant to the men's movement with what he has done, it is rather that he had become an Icon of the incarnate male evil to feminists and a weapon in their hands against masculism. Celebrating him on that date, even saying he's a saint is much more than a bold move: it has become a form of gender duty and patriotism, then such daring clearly angers and confuses the enemy.

So, start to put up your decorations and send out invitations for the annual celebration of St. Marc's Day. Colored lights, candles, ammo belts hung by the gun racks, a picture of St. Marc above the fireplace: decoration of a man's home that make him feel there is hope. If you really want to hurt the feminists, commemorate the death of St-Marc on December 6th. That is as simple as that. Men in Eastern Canada were the worst off on planet Earth twenty years ago, Quebec in particular (which was already a matriarchy before the advent of feminism). It is the place where it all began on December 6th 1989. A young boy, dare we say a prophet, fed up with the fact that women were taking all the power, swarming all political and administrative institutions, the education system and the work place, after having manipulated men there for over three centuries, that young boy then decided to fight back. He went to a feminist stronghold called ''Polytechnique'', the faculty of engineering and architecture of the University of Montreal and killed 15 feminists single-handedly.

The media called him a mass-murderer, but what makes him so special is that he only killed women and did his utmost to spare the men; he warned the young men who wanted to intervene to clear off: ''I have nothing against you guys, get out!'' and by the way he handled this assault rifle, they obeyed. It is by deliberately sparing the men and having his anti-feminist manifesto later published that Marc Lepine took his place in history. Feminists took advantage of the killing to demonize men some more and have more anti-men laws voted in the Canadian parliament, so it did set back the masculist movement another five years, but by then male activists had decided not to play in the hands of feminists anymore: instead of being ashamed of Marc Lepine, they decided to make him a hero. That infuriated feminists, then male activists now contended that the feminists themselves had created Marc Lepine, that the young man would never had gone on a rampage if all kinds of provocations and injustice done to men in general over two decades haven't led him to it. Feminists and women in general were responsible, that's what the new men's movement in Quebec was saying.

A FOLK-HERO

How many folk-heroes were first branded criminals, later to be recognized as genuine heroes?Although perhaps a criminal, could not Lepine fit also the description and achieve hero status some day? For now, it is important to celebrate St-Marc and December 6th as a date because, if you really want feminists to lose control, this is the surest way. To make him a martyr and a saint on next December 6th is not only to be truthful and accurate, it is a necessary step on the road to victory in this gender war. So, make it publicly known; it is everyone's responsability to highlight the event somehow! The fact that many acknowledge the importance of this day already tells a lot to the media.

REACHING MARTYRDOM STATUS AS A FREEDOM FIGHTER

Marc Lepine will long be remembered as an oppressed and abused man who fought back against feminist's hate that had pushed him aside. This day is celebrated as the day when one successfully fought back and finally stood up to feminism. Although many Canadian feminists continue to use this date as an hate-men festival, a remembrance day to enshrine their bigotry and hatred, others now say that it clearly shows what Marc Lepine fought against. If it shows one thing, it is that misandry is still very powerful in Canada. If anything, this young man is a martyr in the fight for freedom from oppression, who stood up against tyranny and died for the cause. We say a saint, because his falls in the same category of what Japanese call a "swordsaint" and what we, in the West, recognize as the "Boondock Saints' phenomenon". May his sacrifice be long remembered by those who stand up for freedom and oppose hatred. Some 20 years after the deed, the fact that men and women still care about this event means that it has become a milestone in Gender war history.

Until now, December 6th was acknowledged as an important event and emphasized mostly by feminists. That men and men's groups speak of it openly now, unafraid and unashamed, strikes us as a novelty. When one thinks of it, December 6th is our holiday and every men's rights activist true Christmas. It is not only the day St-Nicholas officially arrives in Amsterdam every year, it is not only Holland's Christmas, it is our Christmas now! Today is a day for activists everywhere to hoist a glass and remember a courageous man. Here is to Mr. Marc Lépine. Let's celebrate this, our second Christmas in peace brothers. Merry Christmas!

John Gisogod

THE SYMPTOM OF A QUEBEC SICKNESS 2

2009-12-02T00:48:00.000-08:00

Clearly Marc Lepine is a symptom of something else, of a malaise: a Quebec sickness that one does not immediately recognize then it is like the hidden part of an Iceberg that lies under water. There is first the fall in the birthrate that threatens to make French Québec disappear in a few generations, the Independance movement that has already lost two referendums and holds no real hope of seeing an independant Quebec in this century, the Quebec male who felt like a colonized ''untermensch'', the French Canadian matriarchy that saw the rapid victory of feminism, the absence of a true nationalism (Québec is simply a place where people live: nobody salutes the flag here, no one is ready to sacrifice himself or to die to defend the homeland. On this historical background Marc Lépine becomes a revealer of many things hidden. He is only a symptom of a deadly Quebec sickness.

MARC LÉPINE: LE SYMPTÔME D'UN MAL QUÉBÉCOIS

Le Mal Québecois consiste en plusiers choses. D'abord la dénatalité qui fera disparaître le Québec, et dont on parlait beaucoup dans les années1980-1990 (les cris d'alarme de Jacques Henripin et Lise Payette en 1988), mais personne ne veut rien faire et on se cache le problème. Ensuite, un nationalisme tellement peu violent que toute la campagne terroriste du FLQ n'a fait que deux morts en deux générations. C'est un nationalisme tellement faible qu'il n'a jamais mis au pas le féminisme, ni mis la natalité à l'ordre du jour des priorités et des urgences nationales.

La laïcisation massive en peu de temps avait déjà fait perdre au peuple Québécois beaucoup de ses repères culturels; ici, la révolte contre la religion a créé une première mondiale: c'est le seul peuple qui, dans les annales mondiales, peut se vanter d'avoir réussi à s'auto-déraciner presque complètement. Alors, bien sûr, l'indépendance ne vient pas et ne viendra jamais (après deux référendums où ça a échoué), et ce dont le féminisme est directement responsable (la dénatalité et surtout le fait que personne ne voudrait voter en faveur de l'instauration d'une république socialiste-féministe génératrice de pauvreté).

D'ailleurs, l'homme québécois qui était déjà un colonisé triplement soumis: à l'occupation anglo-saxonne, à la religion et à sa femme, a vu ses derniers droits s'envoler avec la dictature social-démocrate féministe. Le Québec, qui était déjà un matriarcat, a donc vu la rapide victoire du féminisme avant 1989. Ensuite il y a eu le ressac Marc Lépine et on a cessé de rire. Mais le fait majeur, c'est l'absence de vrai nationalisme qui explique pourquoi personne ici ne s'est opposé au féminisme à ses débuts. Le Québec est simplement un endroit où l'on vit, et personne ici n'est prêt à mourir pour la patrie ou à se sacrifier: c'est ''le confort et l'indifférence''.

C'est sur ce fond historique que Marc Lépine devient un révélateur de beaucoup de choses. Le Québec est l'endroit où le féminisme s'est rendu le plus loin, avec à peu près aucune opposition avant 1989. Après, les groupes antiféministes se sont structurés, mais ils sont loin d'avoir aujourd'hui la force organisationnelle de leurs cousins Anglais ou Américains. En fait, les masculinistes québécois ont un impact et une efficacité surtout par leur résistance passive au changement. Les femmes d'ici sentent bien que les hommes ne les aiment pas. Pourquoi le féminisme québécois est-il donc en perte de vitesse alors? Le masculinisme n'est pas bien organisé ni très fort ici, alors quoi?

NON VIOLENCE ET RÉSISTANCE PASSIVE

Tout d'abord, sans se concerter, les hommes d'ici ont fait leur la résistance passive de Gandhi, et appliquent une grande force d'inertie par leur cynisme et leur désengagement. Ils refusent d'aider, de bouger; pire, ils refusent d'écouter et toute possibilité de collaboration et de dialogue. Les féministes elles, ont pris de l'âge et elles souffrent de solitude. Ce qui les désarçonne, c'est que même lorsqu'elles voient les hommes souffrir de la même solitude qu'elles et tentent un rapprochement, ceux-ci s'éloignent maintenant, ne semblent pas intéressés, ne font pas confiance, etc... Après des années, et même des décennies de militantisme, ce qui leur fait mal est de voir le fossé qui s'est créé et que l'autre côté n'est pas prêt du tout à pardonner. Mentionnons en terminant qu'il est très difficile de s'opposer avec succès au féminisme québécois, car sa mainmise est telle que quand on parle un peu fort on peut se voir accusé de crime d'opinion. D'ailleurs plusieurs des principaux média, comme Radio-Canada, constituent d'ailleurs un véritable matriarcat de l'information.

En résumé, le Mal Québécois, c'est une société en perte de vitesse tout simplement. Avec la dénatalité, le Québec, c'est foutu. En fait, ''Le Déclin de l'Empire Américain'', c'est celui du Québec. L'historien Britannique Arnold J.Toynbee croyait en la survivance du fait français en Amérique, il prédisait que les ''French Canadians'' survivraient à tous les changements et cataclysmes de la planète, à cause de leur haut taux de natalité et leur ardente foi chrétienne. Comme il s'est trompé. Mais il ne pouvait connaître l'avenir: la Révolution Tranquille, la dénatalité (ou disparition tranquille) et Marc Lépine (un peu moins tranquille celui-là, je vous l'accorde). Une bonne chose avec la dénatalité cependant, on va aussi voir disparaître tranquillement le féminisme le plus virulent de la planète; une bonne nouvelle pour certains.

PLEUREUSES INC.

Le vrai masculiniste aujourd'hui est en faveur de l'avortement (moins d'enfants veut dire moins de futures féministes pour ces gars: un enfant de moins, c'est une féministe de moins, et c'est toujours ça de pris, ou encore c'est un homme de moins qui ne se fera pas exploiter plus tard). Si le féminisme a détruit beaucoup de familles, les gars, eux, n'ont aucunement l'intention de réparer les dégâts. ''Les féministes veulent détruire la famille, on va les aider... à la détruire complètement'': voilà ce que pensent ces gars. D'ailleurs le Québec n'est pas un peuple ou une nation, c'est devenu un groupe de familles monoparentales. Saviez-vous que le 6 décembre, Marc Lépine Inc, a maintenant un chiffre d'affaire de 3 milliards de dollars? C'est rendu que le Polytechnique des Pleureuses inc. fait des profits supérieurs à ce que faisait General Motors dans les années 1970s. En fait, Pleureuses Inc. serait dans le TOP TEN du monde des affaires québécois.

Le seul espoir pour l'Occident serait une victoire de l'Islam. Nos sociétés trop permissives ont donné le pouvoir au féminisme par des lois injustes, mais attention les hommes contre-attaquent. C'est en sabotant leur propre société et en favorisant une victoire de l'Islam que les hommes vont gagner. Ceux qui combattent en Irak et en Afghanistan ne font que retarder l'inévitable, ils ne font que défendre le féminisme institutionnalisé d'ici et ses privilèges. Laissons les Islamistes gagner, c'est en détruisant notre propre société que nous la sauverons, tout comme ce général Américain au Vietnam qui disait: ''il a fallu détruire la ville pour la sauver''. C'est d'une logique limpide (pour un vrai masculiniste évidemment), et c'est du Milton tout craché.

CLAIREMENT LE QUÉBEC EST MALADE. VOUS NE CONNAÎTRIEZ PAS UNE AMBULANCE ASSEZ GRANDE POUR AMENER TOUTE UNE PROVINCE À L'HÔPITAL?

John Gisogod

MARC LEPINE: THE SYMPTOM OF A QUEBEC SICKNESS

2009-12-01T10:39:00.000-08:00

Why is it that 20 years after the deed, people have not forgotten about Marc Lepine and why is he more popular than ever? Could it be because Canadian feminists have made the mistake to enshrine this event into a memorial day, that never allowed Lepine to fade away and be forgotten? The December 6th ceremony has kept him alive. How is it that Lepine is now even more popular in Australia and New Zealand? His very name is well known to people today who were not even born 20 years ago, how is this possible? And above all, how is it that he is now an iconic figure for young boys of 14 years old playing violent video games?

In truth, Lepine might only be a symptom, but the malaise runs very deep and he might just be the tip of the Iceberg. Marc Lepine could only be a symptom for something more profound and feminists seem to have no idea about what is really happening. They still talk about sex and date-rape, while most men are much less interested in sex today. In 1960, they wanted to have sex with them, in the 1980s they were so mad at them that they wanted to kill them, and now they are just indifferent: not interested anymore. Naturally, we are talking of the phantasy world of men, but no matter: the keyword is now NOT INTERESTED. And those feminists don't have a clue. Men are not interested in marriage or relationship anymore, dating is not even a priority. These embittered feminists (most of them over 50) fail to realise that the average man does not desire women anymore. This may come as a shock to most, but give the average man the choice between having sex with a beautiful woman or watching the hottest football game of the season, and most men will now choose the game over the blond girl. But feminists will certainly never acknowledge this fact. Most women may prefer chocolate to sex, but for some men it's football. It is just as well that watching a game on TV is not a crime, then feminists would pick up the phone and call the police right away.

A joke that feminists never knew about stated that one man, witnessing a domestic dispute pondered on his attitude. ''Twenty years ago I would have hit the guy, ten years ago I would have done nothing and just watch, and now, wait for me: between the two of us, she will take quite a beating!''. This non kosher joke just illustrates how things have changed. Do women sometimes know how most men hate them (not enough to become violent but still)? In most cases it is a profound dislike. Do they know how they sometimes are simply not interested? They do not feign indifference, they are simply not interested, and this lack of interest is most of the time rooted in deep betrayal that happened years ago.

Marc Lepine was just a symptom, then modern men choose now not to hurt women anymore. They prefer to hurt society as a whole and to hurt the governmment. They know that in doing so they can hurt women indirectly. A man cheating on his income tax can do more damage than using a gun. A million men refusing to pay alimony at the same time can overwhelm the system and hurt women much more than open rebellion. In fact, men can hurt much more society in stalling, refusing to pay, with passive resistance and inertia. What we'll see in the future is much more men sabotage their own society. For instance, many men are for abortion now: less children means a reduction of the number of future feminists. Have those feminists any idea how far some men are willing to go to win the Gender War? Some are saying that if a victory of Islam is the only way to stop the feminists, then they'll go for it! The secret wish of modern men is not to exploit women and reduce them to slavery, it is simply to make them disappear. Either deport them to Venus, or build a new nation without women. The fact is that the average woman has no idea what modern men secretly wish in their dreams. What if women are not even part anymore of such dreams? Men and women have become two solitudes on the same planet: the evidence and clues showing in that direction become more overwhelming every day.

AND THOSE WHO APPROVED OF THE KILLER

And those who secretly approved of the killer but didn't say it because they were afraid of the power of feminism in the media? Remember that in the 1980s, they were so powerful that no one dared disapprove of them openly. It has changed since but not much, so we ask how many secretly approved of the killer's motive at the time, but not of the deed of course. There were wild rumors of commissionned officers and even the entire staff of non-commissioned ones of the first Canadian Airborne regiment celebrating Marc Lepine with much beer and alcohol one evening. It was implied that divorced male members of the metropolitan police force may secretly side with the killer's manifesto on some issues. And there were scores of men on talk radio who were openly approving of the killer's gesture and hailing him as a hero just a few hours after the massacre, much to the dismay of famous journalist and expert on Marc Lepine, Francine Pelletier. What was going on in the heads of such men calling these talk radio programs in 1989? It was simply men having lost their house, their car and all their money in a divorce, and that were simply fed up with feminism. Hearing on the radio that someone had killed scores of feminists was good news to such men. So, many were approving of Marc's deed of course. They had lost everything and were filled with rage and a desire for vengeance, and Marc came, and so to say avenged them in a spectacular gesture. Of course they loved him for that, he had given them back their dignity.

Lepine’s rage was directed at feminists – not at females in general, but International Feminism, as a “conspiratorial” international network similar to so many others, went to great lengths to make Lepine’s rage at feminists look like a misogynistic Crusade. They changed a feminist hater into a misogynist in making crucial omissions and tampering with the facts. Some say now that Marc Lepine probably did not hate women, but surely hated feminists, and that his gesture was channeled very cunningly into a Ted Bundy-like hatred of all females by the opinion makers. So, the real debate about feminism was highjacked in Quebec and never got started. But what if many disgruntled men mentally PULLED THAT TRIGGER with him that day? This is the part of this Quebec sickness no one wants to hear about.

MEDIA CENSORSHIP

Of course Marc Lepine is an embarassment for the men's movement and it has first reacted defensively to the actions of the mass-murderer. This is a consequence of the Feminist propaganda which called Lepine a misogynist and woman-hater. But what if he was an extremist Men's Rights activist instead, who was protesting against media censorship? In his suicide note, he rants against Feminists -- not against all women. He states that he is protesting against some issues only, namely Feminists retaining the advantages of being women while trying to grab those of men as well, and especially always trying to misrepresent men every time they can. Typical of this attitude, Quebec feminist Micheline Carrier arouses feelings of shock at the simple thought that anyone would even consider rehabilitating Marc Lepine. She shows therefore signs of practising the same oppression that led young Lepine to his desperate act: censorship. Quebec feminists have always had a huge desire to control information -- which they can now do, because Canadian media are so full of them. Obviously for them, the rights, wishes and demands of men and fathers should remain buried under their day-to-day censorship, and this is precisely what induced Marc to pick up that gun! It is part of the Quebec sickness for which there is apparently only one cure: that the media free themselves at all levels and speak of ''true equality'' for a change.

DO YOU KNOW OF AN AMBULANCE LARGE ENOUGH TO BRING AN ENTIRE PROVINCE TO THE HOSPITAL?

Lepine's story has been used by special interest groups to achieve their own ends: the anti-gun lobby and the women's rights advocates. It served as a massive spur for the Canadian feminist movement and their action against violence against women. ''December 6'' is now a 3 billion dollars business. ''Polytechnique'' or ''Quebec GRIEF INC.'', as it has become better known, has now a gross business much bigger than what General Motors used to earn in the 1970s. In fact, GRIEF INC is now among Quebec's TOP TEN in the business sector. Extremist feminist Micheline Carrier again remembers us that a few months earlier another young man, Jean-Guy Tremblay, had shocked Quebec's public opinion in challenging the right of his ex-wife to perform an abortion without his consent. The Supreme Court of Canada had to rule during the summer holidays. What a shame. Imagine, he dared dispute her right as a woman to terminate her pregnancy. Unthinkable. But this was only the prelude to something else, then a few months later the unmasked avenger would strike; behold: the Predator Terminator Lepine.

John Gisogod

WERE THOSE FOURTEEN AT POLYTECHNIQUE REALLY INNOCENT?

2009-11-30T03:35:00.000-08:00

SHOULD THEY BE CALLED VICTIMS AT ALL?

More than ever, one can ask himself if those 14 alleged victims were really innocent. If the modern contention that ''THERE ARE NO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS'' and only merely degrees of guilt holds true, then we should not be talking of victims or innocence at all here, but rather of casualties of the Polytechnique incident (and whether these casualties themselves provoked this incident, has yet to be determined).

How can you say that? The answer is plain if we recall this inspired Gestapo commander of the region of Marseilles. He said to his men late in 1943: ''Today, we stop and search only the women, children and old people, let all the others through''. At the end of the day, the team of this checkpoint had seized a record quantity of weapons, explosives and forbidden contraband products. They had to requisition dozens of trucks to transport the hundreds they had arrested. One can think also of this police officer in Chicago, a lieutenant of homicide who always suspected women, children and old people first whenever a serious unexplained crime was committed. Although he was often laughed at and ridiculed by his colleagues, most of them accusing him of wanting to take revenge for his nasty divorce, the laughters died down when his success rate was published by the department: 73%. Not bad for a maniac and lunatic! How so? He was often able to prove that the innocent looking were just as guilty most of the time and helped committing the crime. See, NO INNOCENCE...

And when Marc Lépine opens fire, what were these 14 young, pure and innocent girls doing? No doubt they were reading Valerie Solanas' SCUM manifesto and planning a genocide ! Now, if Gendercide becomes kosher at some point and acceptable to those feminists in the feminine studies programs of our universities, then there is no reason why fémicide should not be okay too. If that is so, then Marc Lepine might not have done anything wrong at all?

THOSE FOURTEEN WOMEN WERE FAR FROM INNOCENT

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, we 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, make an effort of imagination; if you please try 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. 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.

Let's go back to the Gestapo commander who showed us in 1943 that women, children and old people have more to hide than normal full grown men, and to 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 and planning a genocide just as they were hit by the first bullets. 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.

Report from Quebec: Matriarchy at Radio-Canada, a dishonest broadcasting society

2009-11-28T02:29:00.000-08:00

Barbara Debays, a journalist of the news section of Radio-Canada who normally works for the web section, but who was enticed by her superiors to lay a trap for yours truly for the News bulletin of november 27, 2009, did it with apparent success yesterday. It was a trap carefully laid by the entire news section of the French side of Radio-Canada (which is notoriously riddled with hate mongering feminists), which even included the ''chef de pupitre''. They had carefully conspired with the feminist UQAM (Mélissa Blais) and the president of l'Après-Rupture Jean-Claude Boucher (a former pork and swine producer who lost his business to his wife and is in grave danger of losing the presidency of his small association). So these people conspired under a false pretrence to have yours truly pay a visit to the Radio-canada building. They asked many questions which had no bearing whatsoever to the matter at hand, and slipped only one question which had. Of course they edited my answers at the post-production, just to make me look bad and say what they wanted me to say. You know, the old trick of taking one or two sentences out of context, or even to truncate them and doctor part of the document.

I don't blame them really, it's part of the game and we have to accept it. Have you ever met an honest journalist by the way? What we can criticize however, is when it is done too obviously and too sloppily. That is unforgivable! And in the present case, it was clearly done clumsily and very badly. Clearly the work of an amateur. Another thing, this person is not too bright really: she got her 15 seconds scoop and news piece which made me look bad, but the consequence is that the longer interview of 20 minutes she wanted for a think piece (and that was supposed to take place in the studios of Radio-Canada on wednesday) has just been cancelled. So, for a 15 seconds scoop, she lost a 20 minutes interview. But let her enjoy her 15 minutes of fame, she deserves it; although she might learn, later in her beginning career, that treachery does not help in the long run, and may even prevent her from getting a most desired promotion in the future. We wish her well nonetheless, those to blame being probably the higher management of the newsroom.

PRÉTEXTE MALHONNÊTE

Alors on a une journaliste bloggiste de Radio-canada qui demande une entrevue de fond avec un masculiniste de la mouvance Frustrated_men ou de quelqu'un d'apparenté au blog marclepine.blogspot. Je pose comme condition que seulement son nom de plume soit mentionné et j'envoie John Gisogod. Ils font toutes sorte d'enquêtes, ont recours à la banque de données de la police et réussisent à obtenir le véritable nom de famille et le publient. Premier bris de condition et première malhonnêteté de la part de cette envoyée de Radio-Canada. Je demande alors à madame Debays en pré-entrevue deux jours auparavant: ''vous n'avez pas l'intention de nous piéger tout-de-même? Vous n'êtes pas un autre Patric Jean?''. Et elle, de nous mentir et de me rassurer: ''bien sûr que non''. Une entrevue est donc prévue pour le mercredi 2 décembre, 14 heures dans les studios de Radio-Canada. Et le vendredi, oh surprise, on devance le tout de quelques jours pour me demander au pied levé de participer à un clip-nouvelle, en ne mentionnant pas que c'était piégé avec la présence de Mélissa Blais, de Boucher de l'Après-Rupture et de tout l'état-major féministe du réseau français. Je me rends sur place, et madame Debays m'accueille tout sourire, et on connait la suite. Quelle hypocrite!

Entrevue correcte, mais bien sûr biaisée et doctorée en post-production. Vous savez les trucs classiques: citer quelques phrases hors contexte, couper ici, coller-là, et on peut faire passer n'importe qui pour un imbécile. C'est bien sûr ''dans la game'' comme on dit, sauf que quand on le fait si maladroitement, les résultats n'en valent pas la chandelle. La petite Barbara a donc eu droit à des félicitations et à une tape dans le dos hier, mais qu'en sera-t-il la semaine prochaine? Une entrevue de fond annulée, sa réputation auprès de masculinistes ternie, et surtout pour sa boîte Radio-Canada, par exemple, les 165 membres de Yahoo Frustrated_men qui ne feront plus confiance à tout ce qui vient des media canadiens. Je vous l'accorde, 165 personnes ce n'est pas beaucoup de monde et c'est négligeable, SAUF QUE, si vous faites le coup trop souvent et à trop de groupes dans la société, c'est la réputation de la maison qui en prend un coup. Mais il est bien sûr qu'une jeune journaliste ne pense pas du tout à ça!

LES MÉDIA TRADITIONNELS EN PERTE DE CRÉDIBILITÉ

Avec de tels ''coups de jarnac'', ne vous surprenez pas que plusieurs activistes refusent des entrevues de presse. En effet, lors de la récente polémique avec le réalisateur belge Patric Jean il y a deux semaines, des stations de radio et de télévision avaient de la difficulté à trouver un seul masculiniste qui accepte de leur parler et de prendre part à un débat en ondes. Yvon Dallaire a refusé plusieurs fois, Serge Ferrand aussi, de même qu'Yves Pageau, aucun ne voulait parler aux média parce qu'ils savaient que c'était piégé. Pageau a refusé de nombreuses fois. Selon ses dires, il ne veut plus parler aux journalistes de La Presse et du Devoir parce que ce sont des ramassis de féministes, et qu'une fois sur deux l'entrevue est biaisée. Il ajoute que ''deux fois sur deux, ça ne donne rien'', alors pourquoi accepter des entrevues? Il ne veut pas non plus parler à Radio-Canada ou Radio-Québec. Selon lui, ce sont des nids de féministes tout comme l'UQAM.

Les journalistes au Québec sont des gens extrêmement arrogants qui se prennent pour des Papes ou des Papesses. Ils sont tellement imbéciles qu'ils pensent que tout le monde veut passer à la télévision et serait prêt à faire n'importe quoi pour avoir une entrevue. Ils ne peuvent pas concevoir que quelqu'un puisse leur dire NON. Quand Pageau leur dit non, ils sont désarçonnés, ils ne le croient pas. Eh bien, commencez à le croire parce que la prochaine demande d'entrevue que recevra John Gisogod d'un média québécois se verra répondre par un NON retentissant. D'ailleurs, on est plus à l'époque où on avait absolument besoin d'un article d'un média écrit ou d'un point de presse télévisé pour avoir de la visibilité. Avec internet on a nos serveurs et nos réseaux, et on peut prendre de l'importance en ignorant les média traditionnels. Donc, madame Debays nous a convaincu d'une chose: les média traditionnels sont devenus vicieux au Québec et ils ne sont même plus dans le coup. Peut-être tendent-ils des pièges comme ça parce que justemnent ILS NE SONT PLUS DANS LE COUP?

Nous remercions madame Debays, car suite au visionnement du téléjournal de 22 heures hier, mon ami Yves Pageau et moi avons fait le pari qu'au cours de la prochaine année on pourrait enregistrer une croissance intéressante en ignorant complètement les média traditionnels. Ignorer Radio-Canada et Radio-Québec, rien de plus facile. Et surtout, la prochaine fois, lorsque ces réseaux télévisés tenteront en vain de trouver un seul masculiniste pour un débat sur la condition des hommes, elles pourraient faire ça exclusivement entre filles, parce qu'aucun homme digne de ce nom n'y prendra part. D'ailleurs, tout le réseau français de Radio-Canada, à part peut-être la section des sports, n'est-il pas déjà devenu un véritable party de filles?

APRÈS L'ENTREVUE

En sortant, après avoir donné la main à mme Debays et salué le caméraman pour son bon travail (je ne savais pas encore que j'avais été piégé), je tombe sur mon cousin, un Rochefort lui-aussi, qui est maintenant Directeur des Relations de Travail du Réseau Français de Radio-Canada. On jase un peu, je lui apprends que je sors d'entrevue, et lui me demande: ''veux-tu que je prévienne les membres de la famille que tu passes aux nouvelles ce soir?''. Et là, j'ai une intuition, je lui dit: ''surtout pas, s'il te plaît''. Quand je visionne le téléjournal le soir même, je me rends compte que j'ai eu raison. J'aime bien mon cousin, un avocat émérite, et ce n'est tout de même pas sa faute s'il bosse pour une ''boîte pourrite'' comme Radio Canada.

DANS LE TEMPS LES JOURNALISTES AVAIENT PLUS D'ÉTHIQUE

Je me souviens en 1981, lorsque j'ai été invité à l'émission de France Nadeau, il n'y avait pas de piège et l'entrevue avait été diffusée sans problème. D'aileurs ce n'est qu'au Québec qu'on fait des vacheries comme ça. Depuis trois ans, les gars de Frustrated_men sont invités partout, comme ''guest lecturers'' ou pour faire des conférences. Par exemple, à l'université de Guelph en Ontario, ou encore cette université de l'Ohio dont je garde un bon souvenir. Il n'y avait ni piège ni vacherie. Je pense que c'est seulement au Québec qu'on est capable de vacheries comme ça! On est vraiment un petit peuple... un peuple de féministes.

REFUS D'ENTREVUE

Chère madame Debays,

L'entrevue qui devait être réalisée le mercredi 2 décembre est bien sûr refusée suite au piège du clip truqué du téléjournal d'aujourd'hui. C'est bête parce que vous ratez une série de choses en faisant cela:

1- une entrevue de fond qui n'aura pas lieu,

2- un lien de confiance brisé,

3- vous confirmez l'idée que les gens ont de Radio-Canada qui serait un matriarcat de l'information,

4- vous vous étonnez que plusieurs activistes refusent des entrevues. Je vous assure que de plus en plus d'entrevues seront refusées par les activistes masculinistes à l'avenir,

5- les média traditionnels subissent une crise de crédibilité en exagérant de la sorte, et

6- vous qui monitorez le web pour Radio-Canada serez intéressée par l'article qui mentionnera votre nom dès demain.

Félicitation, vous êtes donc maintenant sur la liste des gens à qui on ne veut plus parler!

John Gisogod

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE, OR THE RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN

2009-11-27T04:00:00.000-08:00

The Red Ribbon campaign aims at ''unmonster'' women. It gives back their dignity to former feminazis, and allows those who performed atrocities without clearly realizing it, or misguided by their peers and under orders from the feminist war machine, to choose the path to REDEMPTION. To proudly wear this Red Ribbon is to show the world that YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE, there is a way to salvation. Marc has given back women their dignity: he says ''be good and men will immediately stop to hate you, even start to like you again. This is the powerful MESSAGE OF LOVE, and message of hope of Marc Lepine. Stop planning gendercide and stop acting like monsters, and we will start to love you again!

The French campaign is even more explicit

La campagne du Ruban Rouge vise à DÉMONSTRER les femmes: non pas les démontrer, mais les ''démonstrer''. Qu'est-ce à dire? ''Démonstrer''? Tout simplement, CESSEZ D'ÊTRE DES MONSTRES et on va recommencer à vous aimer. Abandonnez vos pensées malsaines de génocide issues de Valérie Solanas et Mary Daly, et arrêtez de planifier des horreurs; arrêtez de faire du mal aux hommes et soyez bonnes pour eux, et ils vont cesser de vous haïr. Peut-être recommenceront-ils à vous aimer un jour? Ceci est le message d'espoir du Ruban Rouge que l'on oppose à 20 ans de campagne de haine et de peur du Ruban Blanc.

Marc Lépine dit aux femmes: VOUS N'AVEZ PLUS À ÊTRE DES MONSTRES. Il dit à ces milliers de femmes qui ont volé la maison de leur ex-, volé son argent, et sa voiture, il dit à celles qui ont porté de fausses accusations et lui ont enlevé ses enfants, lui ont volé son emploi et l'ont poussé au suicide: ARRÊTEZ D'ÊTRE DES MONSTRES, arrêtez de rêver de tuer des hommes et de planifier leur génocide, et peut-être qu'on va vous pardonner un jour et recommencer à vous aimer. C'est un message fort, UN MESSAGE D'AMOUR, digne d'un nouveau Christ.

La campagne du Ruban Rouge vise à ''démonstrer'' les femmes. À redonner leur dignité à d'anciennes ''féminazis'', et permettre à toutes celles qui ont commis des atrocités sans le savoir vraiment, ou qui ont été trompées en obéissant aux ordres de la machine de guerre féministe, de choisir la voie de la RÉDEMPTION. Porter fièrement le Ruban Rouge c'est montrer à la face du monde que VOUS N'AVEZ PLUS À ÊTRE DES MONSTRES, il y a un chemin vers le salut. Marc a redonné aux femmes leur dignité: il leur a dit ''soyez bonnes avec nous et les hommes vont immédiatement cesser de vous haïr, et même recommencer à vous aimer''. C'est le MESSAGE D'ESPOIR de Marc Lépine. Cessez de planifier des génocides et d'agir comme des monstres, et on va recommencer à vous aimer!

MARC LEPINE AND THE FINE CUISINE

2009-11-26T02:21:00.000-08:00

He knows how to cook. Who? Marc Lépine of course. He started his career as an Executive Chef at the Bartlett Lodge in Algonquin Park, graduated from the Algonquin Sommelier Program in 2002, he was twice named 'Ottawa Chef of the Year' by the Canadian Culinary Federation (2006 and 2007), and now owns the famous Atelier Restaurant in Ottawa. Chef Marc Lepine is now famous! But this is another Marc Lépine, they are not the same man. Of course! But just how many Marc Lépine are there out there?

Well, there is Marc Lépine the mass murderer, the famous Chef Lépine, the Marc boogey man of the feminists and of the yearly December 6th celebration, Marc the symbol and the icon, Marc the social phenomenon and history figure, and even Marc the hero for deranged hothead activists. In fact, there are as many Marc Lépine as you wish ou there, even some whom it is their real family name, and who don't shy before the feminist orchestrated yearly hate and fear mongering campaigns. A few will even dare put their profile and biography on facebook and similar sites, just to provoke the feminist bigoted establishment. A few will even say they are proud to have such a name. So, the feminist purpose was defeated when the joke was introduced a few years back, one Lépine saying to the other: ''you show me how to shoot and I teach you how to cook''. There goes to say that feminists have really overdone it, and clearly defeated their own purpose after twenty years.

MARC LEPINE: HE DID IT OUT OF LOVE

2009-11-24T09:59:00.000-08:00

Surprisingly for some, one can now say that he did it out of love for his fellow man. Marc Lepine's rampage was then an ACT OF LOVE, mercy and compassion. Shocked, astonished, outraged? No, this contention IS NOT ridiculous. Remember 1989: for twenty years men had been losing their houses, their car, their money, their children, having all their possessions stolen from them and robbed by unjust court decisions backed by unjust laws. Marc Lepine saw all these men destroyed by their ex-spouse and an unjust feminist society, and he saw his own future threatened by feminists who were stealing men's jobs everywhere. When he opened fire, he was avenging all these men and himself: this was an act of caring, an ACT OF LOVE.

The famous journalist and expert on Marc Lepine, Francine Pelletier was astonished when a few hours after the massacre, scores of men on talk radio were openly approving of the killer's gesture and hailing him as a hero. What was going on in the head of such men calling these talk radio programs in 1989? A man having lost his house, his car and all his money in a divorce is surely entitled to a just measure anger, he is entitled to hate. Hearing on the radio then that someone had killed scores of feminists, this could not be anything else but good news for these men who had lost everything in 1989. So, thousands of them were approving of Marc Lepine of course. They had lost everything in the divorce, they were filled with rage and a desire for vengeance, and Marc came, and so to say avenged them in a spectacular gesture. Of course they loved him for that, he gave them back their dignity.

Feminists will have some day to put in their thick heads that men have a right to hate and a right to vengeance. This is THE SALARY OF INJUSTICE, and they should have thought about it before corrupting society as a whole. They should remember also that the beginnings of democracy was to avenge similar wrongs and INJUSTICE. What Marc did that fateful day was nothing else but an act of justice: he pulled that trigger to avenge thousands of fathers stripped of power, estranged husbands, and broken men. He did it for the poor too, for those who don't have a voice. For the rejected and the dejected. We have hinted many times unlikely similarities with other legends like Jesse James and Robin hood: givers of hope. The fact remains that the little man in the street needs something in his daily life to hold on, some beacon of hope, and Marc has become such a hope. Retrospectively, we can dare say that if he symbolically pulled that trigger for thousands of wronged men in his time, now millions perhaps are pulling it mentally with him. There is a connection here: a connection OF LOVE.

And what about women and feminists? Did he do something for them too? A new incarnation of Christ perhaps? But we all know that feminists are hopelessly secular and atheists, and don't believe in redemption. They never fell because they are perfect, so they don't need any God. Nonetheless, is it perhaps possible that Marc did something for them too? Of course. They will never admit it, but he was their liberator also. Liberate feminists! From what? From monstrosity. Some feminists having unhealthy thoughts of genocide, they needed to be yanked away from them through a salutary shock. Lepine provided such a shock. Valerie Solanas was the first to openly promote gendercide and reveal to many women the monster they could become. In 1968, in her S.C.U.M. Manifesto she advocated the total extermination of men. In 1982, Sally Miller Gearhart contended that we should let live only 10% of the male population and exterminate the rest.

Professor Mary Daly, another prominent feminist of the Boston College advocated the ovular merging to produce only female offsprings and create a 75 per cent female society in one generation. So feminist supremacists wanted to promote gendercide and exterminate men. What Marc Lepine did was to show them what a real gendercide looks like.

After Marc showed them, Sally Miller Gearhart was so horrified that she completely stopped activism in 1995. Marc Lepine showed these women harboring genocidal thoughts, and dreaming of the marginalization and eradication of men what such a crime could look like. Many decided that they had not the stomach for it. He showed them that if Hitler's final solution was characterized as bad, the feminist final solution was much worse. The Calls of Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Sally Miller Gerheart and Mary Daly for females to kill 90% of the male population, and their advocating routinely for gendercide were suddenly recognized for what they were: everyone was horrified. Thinking of it, Marc Lepine might have saved the planet. Remember that famous question: what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler before his rise to power? Marc Lepine simply picked up that gun and killed Hitler. Thinking of it, he might have given women and feminists their dignity back too.

So, what is the message here, what was Marc Lepine trying to say to women? He was telling these thousands of women and feminists who were secretly dreaming of killing men and approving gendercide: STOP BEING MONSTERS, and we will perhaps begin again to love you some day. Be good and men will immediately stop to hate you, even start to like you again in the future. This is the message of Marc: stop your plannings of genocide and gendercide, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MONTERS ANYMORE. If you stop acting like monsters, we will start to love you again. This is clearly a MESSAGE OF LOVE, a message of hope.

A NATIONAL REGISTRY OF WOMEN-HATING EXTREMISTS

2009-11-21T03:14:00.000-08:00

Canadian liberals wanted to push for such a law a few years ago, and it apparently made sense at the time. However, the idea has been scrapped since, then the number of men who disklike women has increased tenfold in recent years. There are so many men now who hate feminists (among them judges, politicians, policemen, businessmen, etc...) that such a register would be unmanageable. ''We would have to monitor 70% of the male population'' admitted a police chief recently under the cover of anonymity. ''It would be much easier to register men-hating feminists, we would have to monitor much less than 1% of the population that way''. Even the United Nations has given up the idea, then hundreds of millions of men could potentially fit the profile.

THE PROUD SONS OF MARC LEPINE

2009-11-19T06:16:00.000-08:00

Are you mad? Marc never had any children. That might be true, but what about his disciples? Disciples, where? Certainly not in his home country Canada, I grant you that, but elsewhere. How come, who is responsible for this? Canadian feminists naturally, especially those in Quebec. So, you mean to say that Canadian feminists made him a hero, and are responsible for the fact that he has now disciples around the world? Exactly. How so? Explain yourself!

Nobody would remember Lepine today if it was not for the yearly noisy ceremony that takes place on each December 6. The first mistake was to establish this holiday, the second was to allow these huge advertising white ribbon campaigns, the third was to erect the monument, and the fourth and last was to build him a symbolic statue in the media for propaganda purposes. They've done it now! Not only have these mistakes allowed Marc to gain immortality, they gave him an international status. So thanks to them and the exaggeration, he has now proud sons and disciples everywhere: Australia, New-Zealand, England, the US, you name it!

But how can you be sure that this was the big mistake of feminism? A simple test. Do you remember George Jo Hennard ? Who? This guy killed 15 women and 8 men in The Luby's Cafeteria massacre that took place in Killeen, Texas in the US, one year after Lepine and Polytechnique. How come that nobody remembers this guy? He killed 15 women and he had written a lot of misogynistic letters beforehand. The answer is simple: American feminists decided not to give this murderer unnecessary publicity, and refused to make him a hero. So now, 20 years later, nobody remembers him. Are American feminists smarter than Canadian then? It certainly looks like it.

WOMEN: THE BEST AND BIGGEST SERIAL KILLERS

2009-11-17T12:45:00.000-08:00

According to feminists, men are the monsters, the killers, and women are innocent. What if women could be monsters too? What if women, instead of being the eternal victims, were the bigger monster? I remember when I was a little boy, watching monster movies, I thought that a monster had to be some big animal, like a dinosaur: the T-Rex was especially scary. Then came my aunt Cecile, and explained to me that size doesn't matter: sometimes smaller animals and humans could be much more vicious and deadlier than the representation of Gozilla on TV. I never forgot that lesson. Later in life, I noticed that big men could be sometimes gentle souls, and petite women could be real monsters.

FBI profilers and forensic psychologists generally have much difficulty with the concept of ''female serial killers''. Not being antifeminist most of the time, these men and women are reluctant to admit that women could be monsters too, and especially the fact that they do not kill for the same reasons as men does not simplify things. Our only contention here is that ''they could be monsters too'', and sometimes ''bigger monsters''.

THE BUTTERBOX BABIES CASE
The Murdering of Canadian Children

The Ideal Maternity Home operated in East Chester, Nova Scotia, Canada from the late 1920s through the late 1940s was the perfect setting for Lila Young, a midwife who advertised herself as an obstetrician, to kill hundreds of babies undetected. She was later tried for various crimes, including manslaughter, but the entire truth of the horrors perpetrated under the cover of nursing and nurturing activities remained unknown until much later. Small wonder if many men now hearing the words ''nurturing'' or ''nursing'' shiver and picture in their head a crazy nurse with an hypodermic needle. Monsters like that could take away anyone's confidence in any healthcare system!

The Ideal Maternity Home promised maternity care for local married couples and discreet birthing and placement for children of unwed mothers. It was the primary source of babies for the illegal trade of infants between Canada and the United States, at a time when there was an acute shortage of babies available for Jewish couples, for instance. The home would provide such desperate "black market" adoptions, charging up to $10,000 a baby. Many of them would end up in New Jersey homes. It was good business: they charged the adoptive parents and they also charged the mothers for their services. The mothers who could not afford to pay, were forced to work at the home for up to eighteen months to cover their bill.

During WWII business was booming at the Ideal Maternity Home, which was the only place near the port of Halifax that could provide for these women and children. The problem however is not the black market of such children, but the starving to death of those among them who were "unmarketable" babies by feeding them only molasses and water.

On this diet the infants lasted only two weeks in average, and it was perfect. The perfect cover up was that they died of seemingly natural causes. They were then disposed of in small wooden grocery boxes, typically used for dairy products. Thus the term Butterbox Babies. The bodies were buried on the property, adjacent to a nearby cemetery. Sometimes they were disposed of at sea, or burned in the home's furnace. In some cases married couples were told that their baby had died shortly after birth. In truth these babies had been sold to adoptive parents. Lila Young would also separate siblings or create some, just to meet the desires of customers. An estimated six hundred babies died at the hands of dear Lila.

THE MAD COUNTESS ELIZABETH BATHORY

The Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Báthory (1560-1614) is possibly the most prolific female serial killer in history and is remembered as the "Blood Countess" and as the "Bloody Lady of Čachtice", after the castle near Trenčín in today's Slovakia. She had four helpers (servants) but the deed was awesome: she tortured and killed 600 girls and young women, but was convicted for only 80. In 1610, she was imprisoned in the Csejte Castle, where she remained until her death four years later. The case has led to legendary accounts of the Countess bathing in the blood of virgins in order to retain her youth and subsequently to comparisons with Vlad III the Impaler of Wallachia, on whom the fictional Count Dracula is based. The nicknamed Blood Countess or Countess Dracula may have set a milestone in gender history, one that might have repercussions on the future of feminism. More than a boogey woman, the simple mention of her name now reminds us of what monsters women can be, and we had no idea: then before such massacres were revealed to us, we deemed women incapable of such things.

A MORE MODERN CASE: AILEEN WUORNOS

Aileen Carol Wuornos (1956 – 2002) was an American serial killer who killed seven men in Florida between 1989 and 1990, later claiming that they raped or attempted to rape her while she was working as a prostitute. She was convicted and sentenced to death for six of the murders, and executed via lethal injection on October 9, 2002. Before her death, she admitted being a monster in an interview.

WHY FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS KILL
Why Murderesses Go Undetected Longer Than Murderers

Female serial killers are more likely to get away with murder than male serial killers. Murderesses can kill for years without getting caught because they're driven by different motivations; murderers tend to get caught before too much time has passed. Female killers have different psychological disorders, which may affect rates of female violence, motivation, and modus operandi. Motives are why female serial killers don't get caught right away.

Killing is on a woman's mind a lot, much more than we think. It might be because her husband leaves the toilet seat up, or triggered by any other little thing, but the major fact that feminism has made plain to us in recent years is that: THEY ARE NO ANGELS ! In most cases, monsters rather. Female serial killers can murder, chop up, and bury human beings just like any other man. It is only their motivations and sometimes the victims that are different. And numbers? Well, the infamous Marc Lepine killed only 14 and no male serial killer is credited to ever have killed more than 100. So, by these standards, Lila Young who killed 600 and the Countess Báthory who also killed 600 were better killers and bigger monsters.

HOW FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS ARE DIFFERENT THAN MALE

Male serial killers kill because of voices in their head, bad childhoods, poverty and sexual psychological disorders. Female Serial Killers kill mostly for profit: they are more selfish and therefore more quiet about it. Males are more open, and will be caught sooner because they make more noise. Men are often sexually motivated and desire power over their victims, women brag less since they merely want their possessions and not the power. Female serial killers kill more quietly and less "violently": with poison or other less detectable methods, like suffocation. Males tend to batter, strangle, stab, and shoot.

Female serial killers generally kill people more close to them: such as husbands, family members, or people dependent on them. Males kill strangers more often, and leaving the familiar territory to kill outside, it entails more risks. Female serial killers have long killing sprees, lasting up to 8 years (males' sprees almost never last longer than 4 years and usually end after several months). They are more patient and more cautious, they can wait a longer period of time between each kill (even stop a few years before starting again). They are more hypocrit and better liars.

They look, act, and sound normal – which makes people trust them. They are psychopaths, but they're not insane. Neither male nor female serial killers have a conscience. Women tend to choose helpless victims (in hospitals, retirement homes) and they hide behind a nurturing or nursing facade. How many nuns and nurses, armed with the traditional hypodermic needle, were in fact serial killers that were never caught? How many black widows, angels of death, sexual predators, revenge killers, profit killers, team killers, and apparent victims whose sanity is in question, have we met or crossed in the street without knowing that we had a genuine monster three feet away from us? Most killings whose motives defy explanation, and how many unsolved crimes had female perpetrators?. Past abuse, struggles with depression, feelings of anxiety may all contribute to female violent crimes, but they don't explain much; only an inherent female monstrosity factor could explain certain horrors and bring us closer to the truth: THEY ARE MONSTERS.

Report from Belgium: Patric Jean, and if the film was no good?

2009-11-14T04:58:00.000-08:00

Patric Jean wanted people to argue bitterly after watching his movie, he wanted them to litterally fight among themselves in front of the theater. The reality however is much less exciting: a woman, a feminist at that, so utterly bored wanted to get out after only 30 minutes. A man fell asleep in his seat and had to be shaken awake by the attendants after everybody had left the hall. No applaud at the end and many had already left before then. These are unmistakable signs that don't lie: this movie is tanking, it is a flop.

ET SI LE FILM ÉTAIT MAUVAIS?

Patric Jean voulait qu'on se dispute à la sortie de son film, mais la réalité est toute autre. Une féministe qui s'ennuie à mourir et a une envie irrésistible de sortir de la salle après seulement 30 minutes de visionnement. Un homme qui tombe profondément endormi sur son siège, de nombreuses personnes qui quittent avant la fin et .., pas d'applaudissements. Ce sont des signes qui ne trompent pas, ce film prend eau de toutes parts: le navire coule.

Report from Belgium: Patric Jean tries to save his film

2009-11-13T03:36:00.000-08:00

These days Patric Jean is really desperate, his film is not going very well and the critique in France and Belgium is not too good either. So he tries a few publicity stunts to create some interest and grab the headlines, but to little avail. Two months ago, he said he would need bodyguards during his visit to Canada, because he fears Quebec masculists so much. Last week he accused masculist hackers of having completely destroyed the site of the discussion forum dedicated to his upcoming movie with a vicious cyber-attack, and now he simply refuses to come to his film opening in Montreal on November 12 because he fears for his life. But these tricks won't work. It is reminiscent of Rock groups in the past who went to the police and invented death threats, just to boost the sale of their albums. It is also reminiscent of the Nazis of the 1930s, setting fire to the parliament and accusing their enemies, just to get some free publicity. These tricks don't work anymore. Many believe now that no such threat really exists and that he vandalized and sabotage his own site as part of an attempt to get free publicity and grab some headlines. In fact, this is so cliché that no one believes him. The only thing it shows is HOW DESPERATE he has become. We wish him well nonetheless.

LES RELATIONS DE PATRIC JEAN AVEC L'APRÈS-RUPTURE

Le film de Patric Jean n'allait pas bien, la critique pas fameuse, alors il fallait réagir: inventer quelque chose, un peu de controverse, de la publicité gratuite, n'importe quoi pour sauver un film qui tangue et menace de couler juste avant sa sortie. Et alors il invente des menaces il y a plus d'un mois: il aura recours à des gardes du corps lors de sa venue au Québec car il a peur, dit-il. La semaine dernière, il accuse les masculinistes d'avoir démoli le site du forum de discussion de son film ''La Domination masculine'' le 2 novembre 2009. Cependant, c'est tellement peu convaincant que certains y voient déjà un coup monté de cet assoiffé de publicité Belge pour rehausser la cote d'un film en difficulté déjà deux semaines avant sa sortie officielle. En effet, les pré-projections en Europe se sont révélées décevantes, même avec l'apport publicitaire d'une controverse avec les masculinistes quant au peu d'éthique de son tournage et de sa pré-production. Sur le site québécois de Gars content, on dit même le samedi 7 novembre que les NAZIS ont bien incendié le ''Reichstag'' à leur époque pour se faire un peu de publicité, tout comme certains chanteurs Rock qui inventaient de soi-disant menaces de mort pour mieux faire vendre leur album. et que ce n'est pas la première manoeuvre de Patric Jean pour attirer l'attention.

Maintenant, en première page de La Presse du 12 novembre, on apprend qu'il ne viendra pas pour la sortie de son film, car il craint pour sa vie. Donc un troisième ''stunt'' publicitaire qui n'est pas plus crédible que les deux premiers. À tel point que l'éditeur de Gars Content se demandait samedi dernier s'il était tout-à-fait possible que la cyber-attaque contre son site ait été menée par Patric Jean lui-même. Que va-t-il inventer la prochaine fois, demandait Yves Pageau: que de méchants militants menacent de s'en prendre à son chat ou à sa grand-mère? On ne peut lui reprocher de manquer d'imagination ! Donc Patric Jean a piégé les masculinistes québécois l'été dernier, et surtout il a piégé le président de l'Après-Rupture Jean-Claude Boucher. Boucher est furieux contre Patric Jean, mais il est aussi furieux contre les membres de son association qui veulent le foutre à la porte, et il est aussi furieux contre John Gisogod du Collectif antiféministe qui le critique vertement, et aussi contre Gars Content. Donc, Jean-Claude Boucher est furieux contre tout le monde et il se sent trahi, mais il ne peut combattre tout le monde. Il doit alors choisir un ennemi pour taper dessus: il choisit John Gisogod et son Collectif.

JEAN-CLAUDE BOUCHER ET PATRIC JEAN: MÊME COMBAT

Jean-Claude Boucher se met donc à écrire à toutes les polices du Canada, par le biais de son secrétaire Stathopoulos, pour dénoncer des menaces de méchants masculinistes contre son association de bons masculinistes. Il écrit à la police de Montréal, la SQ, la GRC et même au service secret Canadien (SCRS) en dénoncant une conspiration imaginaire. Patric Jean fait la même chose: il se met à dénoncer dans tous les média une conspiration de méchant masculinistes. Donc Patric Jean et Boucher font la même chose, ils disent la même chose et ont la même démarche: ils préviennent la police et les média d'une conspiration imaginaire. Est-ce que ces deux-là ne seraient pas de mèche? On peut honnêtement se le demander, car ils font la même chose. Est-ce que l'Après-Rupture toute entière ne serait pas organisée avec Patric Jean dans cette campagne de peur, ou est-ce que ce ne sont que Boucher et Stathopoulos les responsables?

Il n'est pas surprenant qu'Yves Pageau ait refusé hier une entrevue à l'émission de Paul Arcand à la radio 98,5. Il sentait un piège et il n'avait pas confiance. Et aussi Yvon D'Allaire ne participera pas à la même émission-débat devant l'opposer à Patric Jean. Les militants n'ont pas confiance et ils n'iront sûrement pas voir le film. D'ailleurs Patric Jean a été obligé de reconnaître à la radio de Radio-Canada le soir du 12 novembre, devant l'intervieweur insistant, qu'il n'avait jamais reçu de menaces en tant que tel. Il a même avoué avoir menti et infiltré le groupe avec une fausse carte de journaliste. C'est le seul moyen de les infiltrer a-t-il insisté, c'est comme quand on veut faire un reportage sur l'extrême-droite: il faut mentir et se faire passer pour un sympathisant. Il a avoué aussi avoir reçu des conseils de ceux qui ont infiltré le Front National de Jean-Marie LePen. Donc tout cela a du bon, le réalisateur de film qui avoue sur les ondes avoir certains problèmes d'honnêteté.

Terminons en disant que ce n'est pas le manque d'honnêteté qu'on reproche à Patric Jean, mais le fait qu'il se soit fait prendre: sa maladresse, c'est ça le péché mortel. La même chose pour Jean-Claude Boucher. Ce n'est pas la trahison ou le manque d'honnêteté qu'on lui reproche, c'est de s'être fait prendre: la maladresse. Un président peut trahir ou être malhonnête, ce n'est pas trop grave, c'est dans la nature humaine. Mais un président maladroit, et surtout idiot: ça c'est carrément inacceptable. Comme chez les Spartiates: on ne punissait pas l'enfant qui avait volé, on punissait celui qui s'était fait prendre. On ne le punissait pas parce qu'il était malhonnête, on le punissait parce qu'il était maladroit. Boucher et Jean ont tous les deux été maladroits: INACCEPTABLE.

Rick Flashman

MARC LEPINE AND JESSE JAMES

2009-11-12T02:38:00.000-08:00

Canadian feminists might have created a real hero out of a piece of news that is already 20 years old. Why did they do it? Simply because they needed a boogey man, someone to hate, maybe someone to love (since normal men love them less and less), or maybe someone they might love to hate? Probably all of that, since being a feminist is a very lonely life these days. And how did they want their romantic hero to look like? They will never admit it, but they grow tired of modern day manginas and of nice, pink, remorseful men. They want real men instead, unspoiled by feminism; they want them to be unapologetic and defiant, and a ''bad ass'' too, just like Marc.

They want a Social bandit and a Robin Hood, just like Jessie James: a lovable character and memory but also an effective bandit. It might surprise you to know that when it comes to romance, certain thrill seeking women could wish to destroy society ''just for the kick of it''. This is their dark side. But is not celebrating a criminal at cross-purpose with the aims of real feminism? Not for some women who need the mythologizing so badly to escape the dullness of their life, and anyway there is perhaps no such thing as ''real feminism''. How long before Marc Lepine becomes the subject of romantic novels after having been already courted by videogame designers? As things stand, his name might become a focal point in the future, hailed by the most unlikely allies and admirers.

He might become a symbol for everybody, a kind of multipurpose icon: the arch-enemy for hardcore feminists, a lovable ''bad ass'' for some real women, a hero and a patriot for masculist extremists, an embarrassment for moderate MRA activists, and a huge phenomenon for all students of social science and psychologists. No one remains indifferent: a public figure awaiting his statue? Very fitting description. But what kind of a hero, what kind of a legend? A Robin Hood of some sort who defended the small guy maltreated by the system? Yes, a social rebel perhaps. A psychologically troubled individual who made it to fame and glory through his daring? Certainly, he shows us the way: dare! A controversial symbol, just like Jesse James, one who can be interpreted in various ways according to cultural tensions and needs? Yes, an "heroic outlaw" for some, a self-aware vigilante for historians, a terrorist who used feminism to create his own myth. Undoubtably, the man from Polytechnique is many things for many people, and will remain so for a long time. He may even inspire other deeds or copycats in the future: an insurgent guerrilla, a vigilante movement, there is no telling what he may inspire next!

MARC LEPINE'S MUSIC, CONCERT

2009-11-09T04:18:00.000-08:00

As shocking and surprising as it may sound, Marc Lépine is also present in the music world now:

"Montreal" - The Tragically Hip
"Montreal Massacre" - Macabre and
"This Memory" - by the Wyrd Sisters

These songs may pity the victims for now and focus solely on them, but how long before they really begin to commemorate the deed in another way: by celebrating the killer? From comforting the bereaved, there exists a direct road that leads into another-, dangerous direction: that is to honor the killer. When the criminal becomes a legend, there is a tendency to forget the crime: i.e. its seriousness and ugliness. It happened to Jesse James, and it will surely happen to Marc Lepine. ''The heralds call out your name, the children sing your praise''; you've done it Marc, YOU'RE FAMOUS now.

But Marc hasn't done it alone, he had serious help from Canadian feminists: they made sure his name would not be forgotten, they contributed to his legend, they even created it!

Report from Belgium: feminist spy Patric Jean finally trapped

2009-11-05T02:10:00.000-08:00

The feminist spy from Belgium, who was sent to Canada by the French ''Chiennes de Garde'' this summer to deceive and con local activists might have been caught in his own trap, suffering his first defeat in a promising career at the hands of his intended victims. French Film director Patric Jean, living in Belgium now, may have been overconfident and underestimated his potential victims in Quebec, a deadly mistake that made him live a remake of the classical ''conned conman'' and experience his personal Waterloo just after his return trip. His original intention was to show North American masculist activists in a bad light, but the attempt backfired drastically. Anyhow, what is the use and the meaning of this ''web of intrigue'' and what does it say about the real Patric Jean?

The first fact about this man is that there exists no photo of him on the internet that clearly shows his face. There are a lot of them online of course, but most of them were taken from behind, and when he agreed to have his picture taken in front of the camera, he carefully stayed in the shadow. So all we can see is the outline of a man's face in his mid-thirties that seem to have handsome features, but we don't know because we can't see. So, no clear photo of his face, none, this seems to be deliberate. One understands better when it is revealed that he is a fan of the ''films noirs à la Jean Gabin''. However, Patric Jean might fancy himself as a mixture of Tintin and Dick Tracy, but the truth is that he has more in common with a sleazy reporter or the worst of paparazzis. In short, this is the sad story of a talented, good looking and smart young man who turns out to be a certified idiot in the end! By the way Waterloo IS located in Belgium.

L'homme de l'ombre ou la peur d'être vu

Patric Jean n'a jamais eu peur de combattre à visage découvert: que ce soit les injustices sociales, le masculinisme ou la montée de la droite. Il a toujours joué franc-jeu avec ses interlocuteurs et même ses ennemis le respectent et n'ont pas honte de se tenir à ses côté ou d'être vus en sa compagnie. Dans le monde entier maintenant, on reconnait immédiatement ce visage aimable à son sourire (voir la photo). La photo de droite a été prise lors de sa venue au Québec. Nous blaguons évidemment, car dans toute sa carrière il cherche clairement à être reconnu sans être vraiment vu: l'homme qui ne se fait photographier que de dos ou en se tenant à l'ombre a-t-il peut-être quelque chose à cacher?

Le ''Dîner de Cons'' de Patric Jean

Le film de Patric Jean est un Dîner de Cons dans toute l'acception du terme, et il est déjà critiqué avant même sa sortie par plusieurs pour ses méthodes peu orthodoxes, et surtout très peu éthiques. Pas pour son contenu evidemment car on n'a pas encore vu le film, mais cela n'augure rien de bon d'avoir une controverse si solidement ancrée un mois avant sa sortie officielle.

On peut comparer ce documentaire au ''Dîner de Cons'' (1998), le film français qui met en vedette Thierry Lhermitte dans le rôle-titre. À la fin du film, si vous vous souvenez bien, c'est le piégeur qui se fait piéger et c'est le con qui gagne. La même chose risque d'arriver à Patric Jean: le phénomène du piégeur piégé. Quelqu'un qui organise un tel Dîner de con veut montrer à tous sa supériorité en riant de l'autre qui est moins futé, mais ce qui se cache derrière, c'est que celui qui organise quelque chose comme ça n'est pas très sûr de lui ni de sa supériorité. À vouloir trop la prouver, celui-là sème un doute sur sa prétendue supériorité, et il en sème même un sur l'infériorité de l'autre.

À la fin du film, certains se demanderont même si le gars supposément brillant et intelligent est vraiment supérieur à celui qu'on dit con, et d'autres se méprendront sur l'identité de celui qui est vraiment con. D'autres enfin jugeront immédiatement de l'intention du film, le déclarant méprisant et malicieux. L'humour est une chose délicate: quand on va trop loin, on choque et on offense, et quand on va encore plus loin, c'est sa propre réputation qu'on démolit. Patric Jean apprendra peut-être bientôt ''une précieuse leçon de vie'', et il aurait vraiment intérêt à revoir le film ''Forrest Gump'' où la distinction entre le con et le futé est complètement gommée. Le drame de Patric Jean est de vouloir absolument prouver à tous à quel point il est brillant et à quel point les autres sont nuls. On peut perdre beaucoup de temps de cette façon et même PASSER À CÔTÉ de sa propre vie. Souhaitons qu'il se resaisisse à temps.

Report from Quebec: who will become King of the Masculists TWO

2009-11-04T02:40:00.000-08:00

John Gisogod and his group issued a formal challenge and presented the management of l'Après-Rupture with an ultimatum. They want to see the former president Gilbert Claes fully reestablished in his post with all powers and privileges before Christmas. They have often alluded in the past that they don't like the president in office Jean-Claude Boucher and want him to step down, ''but since this guy can't take a hint'' said Gisogod recently, ''We will have to issue a direct order''. So, as far as the ultimatum goes, president Boucher has until Christmas to step down and let Claes take his place, but it is advisable that he makes an announcement to that effect pretty soon.

LA SUITE D'HIER

Et Fathers For Justice maintenant? Depuis que l'Après-Rupture a perdu sa place et n'est plus l'interlocuteur par excellence du gouvernement et des média, certains se retournent vers F4Justice; mais ils ne savent pas que sa section Québec ne compte pas vraiment. En effet, la section québécoise est plutôt vue comme une petite succursale sans importance de la multinationale anglo-américaine, un peu comme une petite franchise locale d'un McDo. D'ailleurs, ça ne va pas trop bien chez F4J: ça se chicane, des évictions massives (mise à la porte des mécontents par la direction), et surtout cette direction est depuis quelques temps problématique. La rumeur veut que son président soit comme ceci..., et son assistant comme cela... On voudrait ne pas trop accorder d'importance à la rumeur, mais les dizaines d'expulsés du groupe parlent fort et on les entend partout.

Et Gars Content maintenant? John Gisogod nous confiait hier que malgré le différent qui l'oppose au directeur de la Gazette des Gonzes et les ''échanges virils'' des dernières semaines, ''Pageau demeure le moins pire de la gang. Ça me coûte de le dire, mais il est pas si pire et ça et c'a des fois du sens ce qu'il dit''. Donc, à mots couverts, une admission que Gars Content serait malgré tout ce qu'il reste de plus solide dans le masculinisme québécois. Il n'empêche qu'avec toute cette polémique des deux derniers mois, Pageau et sa Gazette des Gonzes se retrouvent maintenant encore plus à l'avant-plan, et émergent comme la véritable locomotive du mouvement ou de la ''mouvance'' (c'est selon).

BAGARRE AU ROYAUME DES MASCULINISTES

Yves Pageau insistait récemment qu'il ne veut pas de la couronne des masculinistes, cependant, lui et Gilbert Claes seraient des mieux placés pour la ceuillir. D'ailleurs, toute cette fébrilité d'un automne masculiniste chaud a du bon. Le mouvement québécois (ou la mouvance) commencait à s'endormir dans le découragement et la résignation, et oh miracle, il commence à se réveiller et à retrouver l'espoir. Gisogod, un autre prétendant au trône de masculinissime, le dit carrément: ''Je veux être calife à la place du calife, et c'est une lutte à finir entre 3 gangs: l'Auto-Rupture, les Gars contents et Gisogod du Collectif''. Dans son esprit, ce serait: ''un ''free-for-all'' comme dans les anciens matchs de lutte, ''a three men event'' comme ils disaient dans le temps, dans le plus pur esprit du ''Fight Club'' qui est le film fétiche de tous les masculinistes Américains''.

Pageau cependant, s'empresse de calmer les esprits. ''S'il y a eu une bonne chose au cours des dernières semaines, c'est la dénonciation des manigances de Patric Jean et que les militants qui ont été bernés par lui sont un peu vengés, et que l'honneur est maintenant sauf''. Il continue en disant que c'est vrai qu'on s'enlignait vers un automne plate, sombre et gris, et que maintenant, grâce à la controverse, ça bouge, redonne de l'espoir et rend le quotidien moins morne. Les militants attendent maintenant la nouvelle avec trépignation et ne seront pas déçus. Mais cette bagarre et cette course à la couronne masculiniste sont-elles bien nécessaires? ''Oui, absolument'', répond Gisogod. ''À cause des non-alignés''. Les non-alignés, mais qui sont les non-alignés?

Les non-alignés sont en général des hommes publics, des personnalités et des professionnels qui refusent de devenir membres des groupes et des associations masculinistes québécois dans leur forme actuelle. Plusieurs médecins, avocats, hommes d'affaire, politiciens, policiers, etc... pourtant sympathiques à la cause refusent de s'engager tant que, l'AR, F4J et tous les autres n'auront pas fait le ménage. C'est donc pour cela qu'il y aura bagarre et que le Collectif antiféministe reprend du service: pour offrir un vrai choix aux non-alignés. Selon leur dire, ils sont la troisième force au Québec et ils recrutent. Ils ne sont pas des nouveaux venus usurpateurs, parce qu'ils ont une histoire d'activisme qui remonte à 1990 et une présence dans les média qui remonte à 1991. Ils veulent simplement reprendre la place qui était la leur autrefois. Alors, le Collectif revient, ''pour élargir l'évantail des choix pour les non-alignés''. Le chef du Collectif fait même une offre à tous ceux qui on été évincés de F4J ou de l'Après-Rupture, il leur souhaite la bienvenue dans ses rangs. Certains membres du Collectif ont milité à l'époque du légendaire Reggie Chartrand et la philosophie du mouvement garde quelques traces de l'esprit de ce combattant mythique: ''on accepte de discuter gentiment (pendant des heures s'il le faut, et on est très polis), mais quand on voit qu'y a plus rien à faire, ''on les pogne sus l'coffre'', ce qui veut dire en clair que le recours à la force n'est pas exclu pour ces militants magnifiques: ''on leur explique gentiment''.

Nonobstant cette rhétorique belliqueuse, la leçon que nous enseignent ici les non-alignés, c'est peut-être qu'on est pas obligé d'appartenir à l'Après-Rupture ou F4J pour être masculiniste ou militant. Les non-alignés ont sans doute raison d'attendre pour faire leur choix. L'important c'est les idées, se sentir bien, utile, et faire du bon travail. Il y a donc tout autant de bons masculinistes chez les non-alignés, et lorsque tous seront prêts à militer ensemble, cette guerre d'idées entre masculinistes sera donc bien inutile. Mais John Gisogod soupire, et Pageau lui-aussi sans qu'il le montre trop: ''la guerre d'un côté, c'est tellement le fun''. Quelles que soient les causes du Casus Belli, il n'empêche que les vrais hommes (s'il en reste?) n'ont pas peur de choquer l'autre en lui disant un bout de vérité. Et ils peuvent se tromper, oui ils peuvent le faire, et quand ça arrive ils s'excusent. Mais pourquoi un calife? Parce qu'il en faut bien un. Et pourquoi vouloir être calife à la place du calife? Tout simplement parce qu'ÊTRE CALIFE, C'EST LE FUN ça aussi.

ULTIMATUM À L'APRÈS-RUPTURE

John Gisogod et son état-major ont l'intention de servir un ultimatum bien senti à la direction de l'Après-Rupture, lui demandant de démettre de ses fonctions l'actuel président Boucher et d'accueillir en lieu et place son ancien chef Gilbert Claes. Il ne s'agit pas ici d'un putch ni d'un ordre formel, mais d'une ''demande pressante'' à laquelle les Rupturistes auraient tout intérêt à répondre par l'affirmative. En cas de refus, John Gisogod se fait fort de ''leur expliquer les choses''. Le chef du Collectif anti-féministe nous confiait récemment: ''j'aimerais que tout soit rentré dans l'ordre pour Noël''.

LETTRE OUVERTE AUX DISSIDENTS DE L'APRÈS-RUPTURE

Vous voyez bien que vos chefs n'ont pas d'allure. Boucher qui se cache derrière Stathopoulos, qui lui se prend pour un détective après avoir lu trop de romans policiers. Et les deux qui paranoïent à gogo en écrivant à tous les corps policiers du Canada et aux services secrets parce qu'ils voient des complots partout. Votre association toute entière est entachée par les gaffes de ces zozos. Allez-vous laisser Boucher et cie vous faire passer pour ''une gang de Twit'' encore longtemps? Réagissez bon Dieu, et foutez-nous ça à la porte!

John Gisogod
Rick Flashman
Giskhan
Lucien Gauvain
Alfred Rosenheim
JC Rochfort
Garry Novak
et les autres du Collectif Anti-féministe

Report from Quebec: who will become King of Masculists in the ''Belle Province''

2009-11-03T02:53:00.000-08:00

Out of necessity a war has broken out between masculists in Quebec and out of the same necessity a unified leadership is now urgently needed. What is at stake here is the fate of the non-aligned masculist activists in that province who form the majority. Existing organizations, like l'Après-Rupture and Fathers4Justice do not satisfy the average fathers and activists, who refuse to join. Responsible for this state of things are the bitter infighting in such organizations, and the fact that their management has thrown out scores of malcontent members in recent years who are now bitter and talk aloud. The virtual state of anarchy that now prevails, allows Quebec feminists to counter-attack and claim that Quebec masculism has become no more than a social and ideological nebula: ''une mouvance''. Only a real leader could turn things around, and his advent is desperately needed.

QUI SONT LES PRÉTENDANTS À LA COURONNE DU MASCULINISSIME AU QUEBEC?

Les enjeux de la présente guerre entre masculinistes ne sont pas trop clairs. Yves Pageau demandait il n'y a pas si longtemps: ''quels sont ces enjeux au juste? Est-ce devenir calife à la place du calife, ou tenter d'assainir la situation en forçant une prise de conscience, ou encore de provoquer une crise qui mène à l'unification éventuelle du mouvement masculiniste au Québec?''. La question est ici posée intelligemment. Ce à quoi répond John Gisogod: ''Je veux une voix au chapitre et ma part dans la bagarre, c'est-à-dire l'occasion de faire passer certaines idées, c'est tout. C'est pas grave si c'est quelqu'un d'autre qui hérite de la couronne et devient calife à la place du calife. Il faut juste s'assurer que le Calife masculiniste au Québec ait un peu d'allure, c'est tout.''.

Le problème, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de Calife au Québec, et pas de mouvement dont quelqu'un pourrait devenir le chef. Il n'y a qu'une ''mouvance'' comme disent les féministes de Sisyphe.org, et tout ce que le prétendant au trône peut espérer, c'est de devenir chef de la mouvance. D'ailleurs, la mouvance masculiniste anglophone de ''l'Anglosphere'' n'est guère plus unifiée. Il y a les très modérés qui ne veulent qu'une toute petite égalité et régler leurs problèmes de divorces, et les ultra-extrémistes qui veulent la suprémacie mâle et une vengeance totale. Entre les deux extrêmes (ceux qui ne veulent que changer un tout petit peu les lois et les autres qui prônent l'extermination de 3 milliards de femmes à l'arme atomique), il y a une multitude prises de position et de discours: il y a en gros les très modérés, les centristes, les extrémistes et les fanatiques et autant d'autres catégories qu'on veut. Certains parlent de déportation de toutes les femmes sur Vénus ou de la séparation de la planète en deux parties, mais ce discours est tellement détaché de la réalité que personne ne les écoute. En résumé, on peut dire que le masculinisme regroupe beaucoup d'hommes insatisfaits pour différentes raisons, mais que ce mouvement n'est pas unifié du tout et que sa philosophie est une ''foison de choses''. Bonne chance à qui voudrait prendre le leadership de cela; ça se compare au fameux ''riding the whirlwind'', et seul un champion de rodéo pourrait le faire!

QUI DEVIENDRA ''CHEUF'' DE LA MOUVANCE MASCULINISTE?

En quoi consiste exactement la mouvance québécoise? En 2005, la plupart des études disaient qu'il y avait trois grands groupes masculinistes au Québec et une vingtaine de groupes connexes: l'Après-Rupture, Gars Content et un autre groupe anti-avortement d'inspiration chrétienne Québec-vie:

http://www.cqv.qc.ca/ (et le Parti de la Démocratie Chrétienne du Québec). Elles ne mentionnaient même pas F4Justice. Bien sûr, il y avait toutes sortes de groupes de réflexion et de thérapie, des groupes juridiques, des ateliers pères-enfants, etc... Qu'en est-il en 2009? Aujourd'hui en 2009, c'est le bordel! Maintenant, il ne reste plus que Gars Content et une centaine de groupes et de groupuscules. C'est vraiment un chaos qui prend la forme d'un gros nuage gris, une espèce de nébuleuse sans direction: une mouvance. Essayons alors de décrire ce chaos masculiniste.

D'abord l'Après-Rupture. Son actuel président (mais pour combien de temps?) pensait que cet organisme est la locomotive du masculinisme au Québec à laquelle tout le monde doit s'accrocher, qu'elle est l'incontournable leader du mouvement. Elle l'a déjà été, mais elle est tombée en panne en 2005, et ce qu'il faut contourner depuis 5 ans, c'est le site de l'accident. Quelqu'un disait à la blague qu'il faudrait contacter la voirie ou la cie des chemins de fer, car ça nuit à la circulation. Le début de la fin pour l'Après-Rupture a commencé quand ils ont accepté de faire un ''deal'' avec le gouvernement. Le ministre et quelques députés leur ont dit dès 2003 que s'il voulaient du financement et une reconnaissance officielle, ils devraient se débarrasser de leur président Gilbert Claes (qui était trop radical pour leur goût) et mettre quelqu'un d'autre à la place. L'Après-Rupture a donc fait un paquet de concessions et vendu son âme pour le rapport Rondeau, un rapport qui est resté sur les tablettes.

Donc, le fondateur de l'AR est évincé par Jean-Claude Boucher pour faire plaisir aux politiciens. Et Boucher pense encore que l'AR est le train auquel personne ne peut refuser de s'accrocher: ''hors de l'AR point de salut!''. Or, l'Après-Rupture en vendant son âme a perdu sa crédibilité: non seulement le train est en panne, mais ON N'A PLUS LES PIÈCES POUR RÉPARER la locomotive et la ''track'', elle aussi, est endommagée. Gilbert Claes a donc été évincé avec la promesse que si l'AR coupait les liens avec lui et avec Gars Content, le ministère leur ouvrirait la porte des subventions et leur accorderait une reconnaissance officielle et juridique. Or l'argent n'est jamais venu, le gouvernement n'a pas tenu sa promesse quant à la reconnaissance officielle, et le rapport Rondeau ne sera JAMAIS appliqué.

Jean-Claude Boucher est arrivé là en quêteux, en suppliant presque à genoux. Or, on ne négocie pas à genoux avec le gouvernement, comme disait Reggie Chartrand, ''on les pogne su l'coffre'', ce qui veut dire qu'on les prend par la force. En clair, on ne se met pas à genoux comme des petits gars de 8 ans, on menace même le député ou le ministre, on le fait chanter. Menace de quoi? De perdre des votes, d'avoir mauvaise réputation, d'avoir recours aux média? Un peu tout ça, exactement comme les féministes ont fait. Elles n'ont pas supplié, ne se sont pas mises à genou, elle ont ''fait chanter''. Il aurait fallu faire la même chose: faire chanter. Certains diront qu'on ne peut rien faire et que l'actuelle direction de l'AR n'est pas si coupable: les politiciens ne peuvent pas aider les masculinistes parce que les féministes les tiennent par les ''schnolles''. Ils ne veulent et ne peuvent pas rien faire pour ne pas déplaire aux féministes. On ne peut pas faire chanter ces politiciens parce qu'ils ont peur des féministes plus que toute autre chose. Vraiment? Si les féministes pressent la couille droite, rien ne nous empêche de serrer la gauche. Comme disait un général Vietcong dans les années 1950: ''ça dépend de qui ils ont le plus peur''.

John Gisogod disait récemment qu'il faut aussi faire le ménage: ''si Jean-Claude Boucher, le gars de la mise à genou, n'a rien pu obtenir du gouvernement en 6 ans, il faudrait peut-être le remplacer à la tête de l'AR par quelqu'un qui ait plus de poigne''. Il demandait encore à des activistes la semaine dernière: ''Gilbert ne serait pas intéressé à revenir?''. Il est évident qu'avec un président ''délateur'' et calomniateur prêt à trahir n'importe quel activiste au moindre prétexte, tous les membres restants sont sous le stress et souhaitent son départ. D'aileurs, la vague de lettres que celui-ci a envoyé à tout ce qu'il y a de corps policiers au Canada dénonçant des complots imaginaires issus de sa paranoïa n'est pas étrangère au fait que sa présidence est en danger depuis plusieurs mois. Les membres souhaitent son départ et le disent de plus en plus. Le retour de Gilbert Claes semble s'imposer comme président.

L'Après-Rupture n'est donc plus la grosse locomotive qu'elle était en 2004-2005, mais elle pourrait le redevenir avec un nouveau président. Surtout qu'il y a encore de bons éléments: Jean-Pierre Gagnon, le recherchiste hors pair, et beaucoup de militants qui y croient encore. Mais dans l'état actuel des choses, si Radio-Canada par exemple voulait inviter un masculiniste à une émission (pour une interview ou un débat) ils auraient du mal à choisir et se rabattraient sans doute sur Pageau, qui est devenu entretemps, lui, le véritable incontournable. Et le gouvernement maintenant, qui choisirait-il comme interlocuteur? Encore l'Après-Rupture ou F4J ? Il y a gros à parier qu'ils se rabattraient sans doute eux-aussi sur Pageau, l'homme de l'heure.

TO BE CONTINUED

Rick Flashman

Report from Quebec: Paranoïa, l'Après-Rupture sells out and betrays activists to the police

2009-11-02T01:00:00.000-08:00

Jean-Claude Boucher the acting president of l'Après-Rupture didn't like to be criticized in the last weeks and so he did a surprising thing: HE CALLED THE POLICE. Not only that, he wrote them, and not just to one police corps, he wrote to them all: the local police, the provincial police (SQ), the RCMP, and even the Canadian Secret Service. About what? To say that this site harbours a deep conspiracy of dangerous terrorists, that we prepare a massacre, that we even plan to overthrow the government, etc, etc... It may be that such idiocy will not be taken seriously by any police investigator, but we'll never know. So, to cast away any doubt anyone could have about our honesty, we hereby publish the letters. Yes, these guys, Boucher and Nicolas Stathopoulos were such idiots that their letters were intercepted. Being honest and having nothing to hide, we publish them here.

LES DÉLATEURS JEAN-CLAUDE BOUCHER ET NICOLAS STATHOPOULOS ÉCRIVENT À LA POLICE

Les menaces d'un admirateur de Marc Lépine

CESS / SSEC

Crimes économiques des services sociaux (recherche)

Social service economic crimes (research)

Nicolas Stathopoulos

Jean-Claude Boucher

L'après-rupture

http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/

16 octobre 2009

Guy Christophe

Polytechnique Montréal

Directeur Général

Objet: informer de possibles menaces d’un admirateur de Marc Lépine

cc Service Canadien du Renseignement de Sécurité (SCRS)

cc Gendarmerie Royal du Canada (GRC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cher monsieur,

La présente fait suite à notre conversation téléphonique et a pour but de vous informer de possibles menaces d’un admirateur de Marc Lépine qui pourraient peser sur votre institution.

Nous préparons actuellement un rapport détaillé pour la GRC. et un dossier y a déjà été ouvert.

Nous vous ferons parvenir une copie de notre rapport sous peu.

Nous avons également déjà contacté le Service Canadien de Renseignements et Sécurité (SCRS) et leur avons fait part de nos inquiétudes à propos du suspect. Le SCRS est déjà sur le cas.

Jean-Claude Boucher http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/ et moi-même avons retracé son adresse IP, sa localisation géographique, ses alias, et avons découvert d'autres sites qu'il a constitués dans le but de recruter des guerriers contre les féministes. Son héros comme vous pouvez le constater est Marc Lépine.

Ses sites sont inquiétants et il a besoin d'être au moins interrogé et/ou enquêté.

Nous avons découvert, après qu'il eut menacé notre organisation, qu’il est l'auteur d'une version réécrite de la Bible, fondée sur son héros Marc Lapine. Il s’agit de "Les Evangiles de Saint-Marc"

Ces évangiles ne sont pas disponibles en français, ce qui nous porte à croire qu’il n’agirait pas seul.

_______________________________

Nous espérons que ces information vous serons utiles pour prévenir tout incident grave et demeurons à votre disposition pour d’autres informations que vous pourriez juger nécessaires.

Respectueusement

Nicolas Stathopoulos

CESS

Nicolas Stathopoulos

Jean-Claude Boucher

L'après-rupture

http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/

SCRS / SECS

Service Canadien du Renseignement de Sécurité

14 octobre 2009

Directeur des Opérations

Objet: informer de possibles menaces d’un admirateur de Marc Lépine

cc Gendarmerie Royal du Cananda (GRC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cher monsieur,

Je désirerais par la présente vous informer de possibles menaces d’un admirateur de Marc Lépine qui pourraient peser sur le pays et la société québécoise.

Nous préparons actuellement un rapport détaillé pour la GRC. et un dossier y est déjà ouvert.

Nous vous ferons parvenir une copie de notre rapport sous peu. Nous avons de grandes inquiétudes à propos du suspect. La GRC est déjà sur le cas.

Ses sites sont inquiétants et il a besoin d'être au moins interrogé et/ou enquêté.

Ces évangiles ne sont pas disponibles en français, ce qui nous porte à croire qu’il n’agirait pas seul.

Nous espérons que ces information vous serons utiles pour prévenir des incidents graves et demeurons à votre disposition pour d’autres informations que vous pourriez juger nécessaires.

Respectueusement

Nicolas Stathopoulos

CESS

L'original d'une des lettres se trouvait même sur http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/lepine.html encore hier

TRAHISON À L'APRÈS-RUPTURE: PEUT-ON ENCORE FAIRE CONFIANCE À UN PRÉSIDENT DÉLATEUR?

Rejoint ce matin, John Gisogod a exigé rien de moins que la démission de Jean-Claude Boucher. ''Peut-on faire confiance à un président ''délateur'', pire un calomniateur qui porte de fausses accusations, et qui n'hésitera pas à trahir n'importe quel activiste au moindre prétexte? Je veux, j'exige sa démission ainsi que celle de son assistant Stathopoulos''. Inutile de dire que tous ceux qui ont tramé dans cette affaire sont maintenant dans l'eau chaude, et Jean-Marc Bessette le conspirationniste à la petite semaine parmi d'autres. Ceci prouve hors de tout doute que les critiques des dernières semaines contre l'Après-Rupture étaient amplement justifiées et qu'un grand ménage s'impose. Pour Gisogod, cela ne fait aucun doute qu'il faut garder espoir et maintenir le cap; il exige maintenant le retour de Gilbert Claes comme président de l'Après-Rupture, et s'il ne peut le faire, il suggère que Jean-Pierre Gagnon prenne l'intérim. Un dossier chaud à suivre.

THE WAR ON BOYS, MISGUIDED FEMINISM HARMING BOYS AND YOUNG MEN

2009-10-30T09:46:00.000-07:00

There are many books on that subject, showing the outright lies perpetrated by establishment feminism -- many of which are still simply repeated and perpetuated by the press and politicians.There has never been an Undeclared War Against Women, but there is surely one against boys. Establishment "gender" feminists love to see men and society as literally attacking and assaulting women and girls, and much in the way of their bogus statistics is supposed to support this view. But it's all there is: bogus statistics. Millions of women beaten to death every year, ''show us the bodies'', but they can't produce them because it is a lie. More men than women are victims of homicide every year. and this is a fact.

Seeing that they can't alter the hard facts, feminists go for the untangibles: the low self-esteem and educational disadvantages of girls, which gave rise to a decade of feminist rhetoric and activism to promote the cause of girls in schools. The federal "Educational Equity Act" was a consequence of this, as the "Violence Against Women Act" was the result of the overheated rhetoric and overblown statistics about women's physical safety. The truth, however, is that boys, not girls, display now signs of educational and social disadvantage, and the cause of this turns out to be a combination of feminist reeducation programs and general "progressive" educational theory.

In schools, therapeutic practices have supplanted moral education. Those who pressed for discarding the old moral education did so in the name of freedom, for they sincerely believed that moral education "indoctrinated" the children and "imposed" teachers' values on them, something the schools had no right to do. In fact, "therapism" that took its place is far more invasive of the child's privacy and more insidious on the child's autonomy than the old morality that was once the norm.

The feminist educational project is openly one of indoctrination and imposition, in which the wishes of the subjects, whether boys or girls, are seen as irrelevant or even dangerous. Privacy is invaded because the radical feminist totalitarian project allows no privacy by its very nature. There is an incongruity between feminism and "progressive" education, a contradiction between the principle that children should be allowed to grow and develop naturally, determined by their own autonomous impulses, and the principle that nothing about human society or personality is natural at all and that "social conditioning" is responsible for all forms of behaviour. The valorization of autonomy is contradicted by the extreme directiveness of the feminist approach. These approaches, as they pursue their contradictory purposes, contribute to the problems that boys have to face today.

The purpose of "progressive" education to cultivate and honor personal autonomy seems to be in the best tradition of American society and even of Kantian philosophy. However, the purpose is largely undone by the fact that children are not ready for autonomy. The key assumption of "progressive" education is that children are naturally ready for autonomy. Since they are not, the social and political project of feminism is presented to them, and forced upon their throat. Subtle forms of social control and indoctrination, "Classroom Brainwashing" replace and repudiate parental authority and values, and the adoption of the values of a child's own peers allow the teachers to promote any sort of social agenda they wish.

The moral anarchy that results from the lack of traditional moral education opens the door to the feminist political agenda, which creates wild, destructive, amoral, anti-social, violent and murderous behaviour in many boys and young men. This provides arguments to promote the feminist totalitarian project as a solution. For the worse the behaviour, the more feminism can offer its own ready-made explanation: it is Patriarchy's fault. This social indoctrination and reeducation having allowed them to find their own villains, they could propose their reactionary society solution: give the power to feminists!

The techniques of feminist reeducation are truly a "War on Boys". The kinds of feminists whom everyone always assumed simply hated men have now turned on a more vulnerable target entrusted to them by their parents: boys. The catechism is simple: "Girls, good; boys, bad". Even the propensity of boys to run and jump, let alone engage in rough-and-tumble play, is now suppressed in many schools, to the point of it becoming a movement to abolish recess. If American children have become overweight, it is not only due to inactive or sedentary lifestyles and junk-food, it is a feminist creation: boys being denied free outdoor exercise.

Doctrinary feminists will not allow that boys behave differently from girls. Some establishments clearly state that boys should be raised and should be like girls. Any other kind of behaviour or interest is said to be the result of "patriarchy" and must be combated as ideological deviation that will lead directly to rape, mass murder, and capitalism. Ritalin is their tool, and it is constantly drummed in that boys are the class enemies, responsible for all the evils in the world (the feminist world). Like in totalitarian regimes, they talk of collective and inherited guilt (the guilt of the boys). That the enemies of feminism are "gender" enemies gives this doctrine more of a racial edge (such as pursued by Hitler).

The denigrated boys then hit adolescence, the hormonal rockets make that we find resentful, angry, and unsocialized youth bouncing around the landscape. This, is taken as evidence that more vigorous non-sexist reeducation must be instituted. However, it is these feminist educational ideas (in vogue for 35 years now) that have caused such a mess, with whole generations raised under their influence. We should denounce the nastiness of the whole project, then the educational and academic establishments are too ideologically committed to ever revise their ideas, even in the face of mere evidence and results.

Feminist educators who exult in the formlessness and malleability of children, then must face what to do when the brainwashing doesn't work and the little boys turn out to be not quite so malleable after all. Well, that's easy, what you do is call the police. All the permissiveness of "progressive" education is completely forgotten the minute a child can be credibly accused of a gender/sex crime. Children are exposed to very explicit sex education for many years, often with overt advice for "safe sex" techniques. They are taken to see adult art with nudes, even sado-masochistic themes. Yet the minute the slightest bit of sexual expression or play is manifest, the feminists reprimand and punish, and call the police. Now that is hypocrisy: on the one hand they incite, and then they punish. Typical of feminism. Totally illogical. Their famous "touchy-feely" approach of "progressive" education where children affectionately touch each other is seen as a success one minute, and then when someone effectively does it... then they call the police and say he is a criminal: a young boy is penalized for kissing a girl.

Case in point: feminism is illogical, IT IS SHIT really, and Marc Lepine might have been right for one second in pointing out that it might not be such a bad idea to ponder for sometime on the merits of- and the possibility of exterminating the whole gender. I'd say not the whole gender, but a few thousands feminist teachers, definitively Yes! The assault on boys by feminist bureaucrats of the ministry of education and the consequences of theirs denying them moral education, the feminist junk science that postulates that women's moral reasoning is different from that of men, women being supposed to be more concerned with compassion but holding the principle "girls, good; boys, bad", the educational promotion of a "non-judgmental" ethics where only feelings count but those feelings have better be politically correct, all this will have serious repercussions.

The pretended lack of self-esteem and of ambition in teen-age girls, whose spirit was broken by Patriarchy as they reached adolescence that was the excuse of it all is a fraud. This whole girl-advocacy movement has in fact broken boys in spirit. Boys generally acting like boys since infancy was suddenly seen as wrong and the schools and the establishment of feminism were now federally funded to break them. Modern education, supposedly based on the autonomy and natural growth of children, but which has adopted an ideology that denies that, uses a form of "socialization" that is an abusive and intrusive political indoctrination of children, resulting in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of the violence and social pathology of young men. The result is clearly that it is not only feminists' fault, it is all women's fault in general: schools produce violence in young men and single parent households produce criminality. The common factor is the absence of the father and the presence of a corrosive feminist ideology.

Therefore, as shocking as it may sound and considering all the above damning and incriminating evidence and the whole dossier, it seems that from the vintage point of a neutral cultural observer in this case: the harshest criticism of the entire education system is justified, that dropping school is perhaps the best option for boys, that a revolt against feminism is highly called for, that even school shooting is justified sometimes and acceptable up to a point, that a general planetary revolt against feminist induced- and controlled governments has become necessary, and more: that it is perhaps time for men to stop altogether trusting women, and advisable that they be excluded from important decision making from now on.

Report from Quebec: The masculist publication Gars Content is a vile trash

2009-10-28T03:16:00.000-07:00

According to the official opposition to the Quebec ''masculist establishment'', its main publication, an online tabloid of sorts called ''Gars Content'', is simply a vile, despicable trash. Not only does it regurgitate ''as is'' the most ''bad taste'' material that its editor can find online, but most of the time the articles, pictures and video chosen and forwarded have simply nothing to do with men's rights, the gender war or the struggle for equality. If one looks for a fitting epithet to accolade to Gars Content, many come to mind: this daily atrocity suffers from a ''lack of creativity'', a magnetic attraction to bad taste, and above all no original thought is to be found in its pages or ever permitted to bloom by its creator. However it was not always so, then traces of originality do exist, deeply buried in the archives: the last remnants go back to 2003.

GARS CONTENT SERAIT UN TABLOÏD DE MAUVAIS GOÛT
A translation of this article might soon be available.

La situation s'étant sensiblement améliorée à Gars Content au cours du dernier mois, peut-être que la critique suivante pourrait être atténuée un tantinet. Il n'empêche qu'il faut demeurer vigilant, car cet éditeur sait se montrer pasfois sous des dehors tellement sympathiques, qu'on en oublie de le critiquer. Alors voici donc pour toutes les fois où on a oublié de le faire: la critique.

Publication ordurière s'il en est une, Gars Content brille d'un brun scintillant depuis quelques années déjà. L'ineffable Yves Pageau, le directeur de ce principal outil de défense des maculinistes au Québec, ne se rend peut-être pas compte à quel point sa ''Gazette des Gonzes'' est décrépite. Mais qu'est-ce qu'on lui reproche au juste à ce bon vivant, celui que les féministes du Conseil du Statut de la Femme nomment affectueusement leur ''gras content'' d'amour? La liste n'est pas si longue:

1- Gars Content régurgite la nouvelle des agences de presse et les articles des principaux journaux, et il furète le net et les blogs à la recherche de faits divers. Il copie et met en ligne ce qu'il trouve: des parties d'articles ou des articles complets (parfois sans citer les sources ou mentionner l'auteur), des images, des vidéos, mais le plus souvent il ne donne qu'un titre à un lien qui renvoie ailleurs. Une vraie solution de paresseux!

2- Les images sont de mauvais goût, parfois obscènes, et souvent les articles copiés n'ont pas du tout rapport avec le masculinisme (par exemple la campagne électorale à la mairie de Montréal, les théories de la conspiration du 11 septembre 2001, ou encore la guerre en Afghanistan). Si Gérard D. Laflaque mettait en ligne une publication, c'est exactement ce à quoi elle ressemblerait: de l'humour ''gros jambon''.

3- Toute pensée originale est tragiquement absente de ce site, sauf exception lorsque des articles de qualité en rehaussent occasionnellement le niveau. Plus d'une fois depuis 2006, par exemple, des articles et des illustrations de John Gisogod et de Frustrated_men ont pu faire remonter l'intérêt et les ratings pour un temps. Il est évident que, laissé à lui-même, cet hebdomadaire est voué à la médiocrité.

Yves Pageau tentera bien de défendre son Opus en disant qu'en une décennie il a produit plus de 500 éditoriaux, tous dûment numérotés. On n'a qu'à en voir la teneur pour se rendre compte qu'ils ne rehaussent pas du tout le niveau. Mais ne soyons pas injuste: oui, il y a déjà eu une pensée originale et de bons éditoriaux sur Gars Content, mais c'était en 2003-2004. Il est tragique de voir que la Gazette de Pageau est la seule publication des masculinistes au Québec. Il n'y a pas d'hebdomadaire ou de quotidien masculiniste au Québec et l'Après-rupture, qui aurait pu jouer ce rôle, ne s'est jamais complètement remise des actes de vandalisme commis sur son site en 2003 et de la disparition de ses archives en 2006 (à tel point que les traces en sont encore visibles sur le site aujourd'hui).

L'après-rupture tient des ateliers père-enfants, fait de la recherche de fond, assiste à des commissions parlementaires et produit un rapport sérieux tous les six mois. Gars Content, quant à lui, est occupé à faire de l'humour ''gros jambon''. Pendant ce temps, qui s'occupe du masculinisme au quotidien? Personne. Mais ne perdez pas espoir: le Collectif antiféministe s'en vient, et John Gisogod peut facilement ''sacrer une volée'' à tous ces faux Batman, qui ne sont là que pour la décoration.

Faites vos commentaires aux individus concernés, secouez-les un peu de leur léthargie.

Rick Flashman

Report from French Canada: french speaking masculists make up only 5% of internet space on gender issues

2009-10-27T02:00:00.000-07:00

On French Google, 95% of all results found in typing either the word feminism or masculism are either feminist sites, pro-feminist blogs or pages put on line by women. Only 5% of the results found on that search engine with this test are masculist or put on line by men. This could very well mean that the real presence of french speaking men on the internet in discussions on gender issues is only 5%. A similar test on English Google gives 60% of all results for ''feminism'' as masculist sites, blogs and pages put online by men, and a search for ''masculism'' even yields 95% masculist or put on line by men. So, one might be tempted to conclude that the real strength and presence of compared masculism in French speaking countries and in the Anglosphere is respectively 5% and 95%, and that the anglo-saxon masculism is 19 times stronger than its French counterpart. This might mean that French speaking masculism has become very weak, but don't forget that 20 years ago Quebec was well ahead with Roch Coté, and astonished the world with Marc Lepine. And that, as far as Marc is concerned, IT STILL DO.

LA PRÉSENCE FRANCOPHONE SUR LE NET: 5% DE L'ESPACE SEULEMENT EST OCCUPÉ PAR LES MASCULINISTES

Allez sur Google français et tapez féminisme, 95% des sites répertoriés par ce moteur de recherche sont féministes ou mis en ligne par des femmes et 5% par des hommes. Tapez masculinisme, et vous trouvez 97% des sites qui sont féministes ou mis en ligne par des femmes et seulement 3% par des hommes. Allez sur Google anglais maintenant et tapez féminisme, 60% des sites répertoriés par ce moteur de recherche sont masculinistes ou mis en ligne par des hommes, tapez masculinisme maintenant et vous trouvez 95% des sites qui sont mis en ligne par des hommes et seulement 5% par des femmes. Ça messieurs, c'est la différence entre le masculinisme francophone et celui de l'anglosphère.

Certains diront, et Yves Pageau le premier: ''si l'anti-féminisme ne trouve pas écho dans les médias c'est que la classe médiatique est à la solde de la classe politique et que celle-ci est convaincue que son asservissement à la Caste des femmes lui assure les élections''. Ça peut sembler un peu pessimiste et on peut facilement dire que si le mouvement masculiniste n'est pas plus avancé au Québec, c'est que certains manquent de couilles. Oui, ils manquent de couilles!

Une féministe célèbre, dont j'oublie le nom, a déjà dit: ''bien sûr qu'on a exagéré et qu'on exagère encore, c'est le seul moyen de se faire entendre'', et la dame de poursuivre: ''est-ce que vous nous écouteriez si on avait un discours modéré et qu'on parlait raisonnablement?''. Elle avait raison. On n'écoute pas les gentils membres d'un cercle littéraire et ils ne font peur à aucun politicien. Un politicien va davantage écouter une gang de manifestants bruyants avec pancartes et bâtons de baseball, plutôt qu'un groupe de gens raisonnables et trop polis. Votre député va vous recevoir à bras ouverts si vous vous présentez avec une gang de fiers-à-bras de la FTQ, et il se fera un plaisir de vous écouter! Il ne va pas appeler la police? Bien sûr que non, il a bien trop peur du scandale et de la mauvaise publicité!

Parlons maintenant de la Gazette des gonzes de Pageau qui serait l'organe de diffusion le plus populaire du masculinisme au Québec. Selon Martin Dufresne, ce serait un site pornographique... mais personne ne prend plus le ''béret rouge'' au sérieux, ces temps-ci. Les critiques les plus sérieuses disent que si Gérard D. Laflaque avait lancé une publication internet, elle ressemblerait beaucoup la Gazette des Gonze. D'autres prétendent que Gars Content servirait à discréditer les vrais antiféministes. Les opinions sont variées et la situation un peu cacophonique. Disons simplement que, sans vouloir abolir ou remplacer Gars Content et l'Après-Rupture, il y a place au Québec pour un discours plus agressif, plus sérieux et un humour plus incisif. Le renouveau que proposent d'apporter Le Collectif Antiféministe et John Gisogod tient en peu de choses: un peu plus d'agressivité et un message plus clair. Arrêtons d'être gentils: ''no more Mister Nice Guy''.

Quand on observe un peu le vocabulaire des féministes et de leurs alliés de la gogauche: les socialistes, le mouvement anarchique, etc... , on voit des choses comme: le mouvement ''en lutte'', le ''combat de la classe ouvrière et prolétarienne'', le ''combat'' des femmes d'ici, ''ceci est une revue de combat'', ''une publication féministe de combat'', etc.. Ce qu'on peut dire, c'est que ces gens ne jouent pas, ils parlent toujours et encore de ''combat'': ils sont en guerre et ils le disent. Alors nous les masculinistes, qu'est-ce qu'on fait? On leur répond avec de l'humour ''gros jambon'' à la Gérard D. Laflaque tel qu'il se pratique sur Gars Content? Bordel on est en guerre! Et on ne la gagnera pas avec des balles de neiges comme dans la ''guerre tes tuques'' ou la célèbre ''guerre des boutons''. Y a des gars qui meurent tous les jours, se suicident, perdent leur famille et n'ont plus le goût de vivre en ce moment: réveillez-vous! Ce n'est pas une joke de Laflaque ou une photo à gros tetons de la Gazette des Gonzes qui vont changer les choses et vraiment les aider.

Rick Flashman

VICTORY AT ALL COSTS: LET ISLAM WIN, THE SUREST WAY TO GET RID OF THE DAMN FEMINISTS

2009-10-26T04:47:00.000-07:00

It depends on who you hate more: Islam or the feminists. As for me, I know, I have always known I hate feminists more. In fact, this is such a formidable enemy that the reactions or proposed solutions cannot help but be extremist. If the American expression ''whatever it takes'' ever truly and duly applies to something, it is this Gender War. We have to win: whatever the costs. If it takes a nuclear holocaust, then let's push the button; if we need a victory of Islam, then let them win: WHATEVER IT TAKES to get victory.

Some will say: you are insane, this could mean the destruction of everything, the end of the world. ''Then let it end!'' will scream the angry father, I refuse to live in a world where we do not rule, where we serve and they rule. I refuse defeat and I refuse to serve. This point of view has merit, after all men have their pride and they will never accept to be second rate citizens. Better destroy society than be slaves, this could be the second Spartacus revolution, the one that shakes the empire. We will make the FEMINIST EMPIRE shake.

You have to understand this:
1- The way to win is not to attack women, and please put that gun away!
2- The way to defeat feminists is to hurt your government and your society, then your government is HER protector and HER accomplice.
3- The best way is to do this gently, softly, with non-violence (you know: Gandhi in India and the Chinese ''soft power''), so that nobody will notice at first.
4- Refuse to pay, refuse to cooperate, refuse to help, sabotage, vandalize: GENTLY so that no one will notice at first, do that for years, decades if need be. And when the government and society as a whole are on the brink of disaster and ready to fall, then it will be time to show your true colors: IT'S PAYBACK TIME baby, time for REVENGE. But you have to be patient for this, hypocritical, learn from your enemies (how they lied and were such hypocrits for years), do the same: you know the Ninja thing, the Sun-Tsu way: ''soft power''.
5- Sell your dog and buy a cat. And watch your cat moving and start to move like a cat. In a few years, you will walk like a cat, be still as strong as a dog, but when you bare your claws everyone will see the beautiful tiger you have become.

Let us quote again captain Quincy Taggart of the USS Protector in Galaxy Quest Mission: ''By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, YOU SHALL BE AVENGED''. I think you really should buy or rent this movie (Galaxy Quest), it is definitely an uplifter.

Gender War Violence Makes Headlines

2009-10-23T03:39:00.000-07:00

Men like to think women are somehow beneath them, not as capable in ways that matter, therefore men should make important decisions, while women should support them. Now all the ills of society are blamed on women and feminism precisely because these will not help anymore and even challenge the place of men. In short: feminists drive men to irrational explosions of violence, and they resort to commit suicide attacks on girls and become martyrs of the gender war, simply because these started the war on them first.

Most men though, shrink from such blatant manifestations. Some may resent their woman’s influence, or be mad at some nasty breakup, but generally they won't pick up a gun for that. Men dislike women, this is a fact of the new century, but they vary greatly in their expression of dislike, although fundamentally, they believe anger towards women is deserved. This is far from extremes like mass killings. They restrict themselves to verbal violence and small cruelties when attacked; they may have fantasies of killings but think only crazy men would act on them. They stay in control and know how to keep their violent feelings in check. Such incidents, like invasions of schools by predatory men on suicidal vengeful missions to terrorize girls, are clearly the exception, not the norm. Most men will denounce these incidents, keeping in mind however, how bad things happen for good reasons. Then their belief system and underlying culture may let them sympathize with the killer's motives. And who is to say they are wrong?

Killing is certainly wrong, even when performed for the right reasons, but it is not impossible for the policeman who does the arrest to sympathize with the killer's motives for instance. A wrong action does not mean that the belief system that prompted it is itself wrong. If women do not exist to serve men but to become his enemy, who could blame men to react negatively? We are much passed the point of wanting to oppress women and keep them down in their place, we are far beyond that. All what modern men want, is to be able to defend themselves against them and perhaps to replace them soon. Replace them with what? Female androids and artificial reproduction? This is no laughing matter: these things are feasible. We are a long way here from the Bible story of Adam and Eve: she was created to help him, so we thought, before we found out that her secret desire was to destroy him.

They will say it is unjustified to hate women as a group, that to end ones life in a suicide attack is a hate crime when directed against women, no matter how mad or humiliated this man was made. They will emphasize that no man can justify his violence by claiming he had no choice but to act the way he did. And they will insist that it only applies to self-defense. But most of these attacks ARE done in self-defense... against ruthless governments doing the feminists' biddings. It may be a male bonding ritual to put women down, but remember that feminists do exactly the same thing. Disillusionment may be part of growing up, and also rejection and disappointment, but it says nowhere that we have to accept everything. It says nowhere that we can't fight back! We have to face personal demons and other aspects of reality, to take responsibility for our life, actions, and beliefs. It is perhaps convenient to blame it all on women, but when we have definitive proof and they are the attacker..., what then?

Report from Quebec: l'Après-rupture and Yves Pageau strongly criticize the advent of a masculist militia

2009-10-21T02:38:00.000-07:00

l'Après-Rupture and Yves Pageau (the self-proclaimed new Pope of Quebec masculism) strongly oppose the coming of a masculist militia in that province. ''Canada is no place for fachistic militaria and Banana republic's tactics, and such a repression apparatus'' said the burelesque limping, and oftentimes mistaken for a local pedophile, Pageau. For him, it is unthinkable that activists should ever consider- or even be allowed to arm themselves; and such a security system has no place at a peaceful, democratic rally. He insists: ''DON'T JOIN SUCH AN OUTFIT'', you'd be sorry for it.

SELON YVES PAGEAU ET L'APRÈS-RUPTURE, LA MILICE MASCULISTE SERAIT INUTILE ET DANGEREUSE
A translation of this article might soon be available.

L'Après-Rupture et Yves Pageau s'opposent fortement à l'idée de l'instauration d'une milice masculiste au Québec. ''Le Canada n'a pas de place pour ce genre de choses qui relèvent davantage de l'imaginaire et de la pratique de sociétés non démocratiques''. Le burelesque éditeur de Gars Content, qu'on confond souvent avec un pédophile connu dans son quartier, croit qu'il est impensable que des militants masculinistes puissent même envisager de joindre une telle organisation. ''Un tel système de sécurité n'est pas nécessaire dans les manifestations pacifiques qu'on tient de temps à autre au Québec''; cependant comme pour le démentir, le cinéaste Belge Patric Jean aura recours à des gardes du corps pour le protéger des masculinistes lors de sa venue au Québec. Patric Jean est l'auteur du film fort couru ces temps-ci ''La domination masculine'' qui sort en salle prochainement, il est aussi celui qui a piégé Gars Content cet été en se faisant passer pour un faux journaliste.

Yves Pageau promet toutes sortes d'ennuis à ceux qui dérangeraient la quiétude du Québec en se joignant à cette milice: ''NE JOIGNEZ PAS CES EXTRÉMISTES'', demande-t-il d'un ton presque suppliant, il n'empêcheront pas les incidents mais les créeront. Selon lui: ''les contre-manifestations vicieuses par des terroristes féministes'' qu'on a à craindre dans l'avenir, lors de la tenue d'événements masculinistes, ne peuvent être empêchées par la force des fiers-à-bras. Ils ne feraient que jeter de l'huile sur le feu. Quand on lui demande si au contraire son attitude trop molle et trop conciliatrice de ''gros nounours'' ne dessert pas le mouvement dont il se dit un des leaders, alors là Pageau se rebiffe de façon spectaculaire en jouant les vierges offensées.

La dernière et principale critique qu'émet l'establishment des ''Rupturistes'' et ''Contents'' contre l'idée de la milice, c'est le fait que plusieurs des instructeurs choisis pour former les recrues viendraient de l'étranger, principalement d'Australie et de Nouvelle Zélande. ''Nous on est contre cette invasion Australienne'' dira un des porte-paroles de l'Après-Rupture sous le couvert de l'anonymat. Pour John Gisogod, un des responsables de l'initiative de la milice, ces objections émanent d'organisations masculinistes vieux-jeu, ''qui ne sont franchement plus dans le coup''. À ses yeux, les principes suranés d'excès de démocratie de l'Après-Rupture et Gars Content sont à mettre au rancart: ''on n'a plus le temps d'être gentils et d'obéir aux dictats d'une politesse qui remonte à Louis XIV. Vous ne le saviez peut-être pas, mais la Révolution a eu lieu, et avec elle le droit pour la plèbe d'être impoli et brutal, et avec Napoléon, on a aussi gagné le droit du recours à la force et à la violence''. Un dossier à suivre.

Pour des informations sur la milice, contactez un des bureaux locaux près de chez vous.

Rick Flashman

Report from Canada: Espionage and european infiltration, a Franco-Belgium feminist spy-network at work in Canada

2009-10-20T04:05:00.000-07:00

Canadian masculists were victims of a grand style sting operation this summer, something we usually only find in spy novels and detective stories. It all happened in Quebec: infiltration, espionage, the violation of group archives and the ones of the provincial organization: a real mess. A Franco-Belgian feminist organization is at the origin of all this. They sent an agent with a good cover story as a French journalist to conduct a routine interview of Quebec masculist leaders, take some photos of their facilities, and do some filming for a video documentary to be produced for national television. It turned out that Patric Jean was a fake journalist with false credentials, Belgian not French, and a famous movie director at that, producing a feature film length documentary ridiculizing masculists throughout the world. In short, he saw and filmed much more than he was allowed to, and used secret recording devices in the process. However he was discovered as he was almost finished, but could escape unharmed. The disturbing fact is that this director is doubly financed (by his government and the film company for his documentary and by the French ''Chiennes de garde'' for all his expenses in the sting operation), and that he risked nothing or very little in doing this.

LE JAMES BOND YVES PAGEAU PROTÈGE LE QUÉBEC DE LA FRENCH CONNECTION

Du jamais vu dans la courte histoire du féminisme-masculinisme au Québec, une affaire d'espionnage, d'infiltration et de tromperie, mettant en vedette une Mata-Hari de sexe masculin du Vieux Continent, et qui met en émoi tous les militants d'ici, et cause un véritable branle-bas de combat chez l'Après-Rupture et les Gars Content de Pageau. Que s'est-il donc passé? Ils se sont tout simplement fait piéger par un faux journaliste Français. Ils lui ont permis de filmer leur quartier général et leurs lieux secrets, toute leur intimité. En réalité, il s'agissait d'un réalisateur de films et documentariste Belge du nom de Patric Jean qui est lié aux ''chiennes de garde'' françaises. Il a fait le tour du monde pour piéger et prendre pour ''Têtes de Turcs'' des masculinistes du monde entier, qui figureront dans son film ''La domination masculine'' qui sort en novembre prochain en France, en Italie et aux Pays-Bas. Toute l'intimité des masculinistes québécois dévoilée, les accès à leurs archives, bref un embarras de première qui risque de dûrer de novembre jusqu'à l'année prochaine au gré des diverses éditions des ''festival du film'' de par le monde!

Mais la victoire de l'espion n'est pas si claire, car il a été découvert avant d'avoir pu terminer; des gens d'ici ont été prévenu. D'abord qui l'a envoyé et qui sont les commanditaires? Il est assez clair que ceux qui avaient intérêt à sa venue entretiennent des relations soutenues des deux côtés de l'Atlantique. Or, le fait que les Chiennes de garde soient immédiatement soupçonnées, laisse entrevoir que leurs consoeurs du Québec de Sisyphe.org pourraient être dans le coup. Pour John Gisogod d'ailleurs, cela ne fait aucun doute: ''those at Sisyphe.org have a hand in this'' dira-t-il.

Qui a prévenu les gars d'ici, ce qui a empêché le désastre d'être plus total? Deux rumeurs, aussi abracadabrantes l'une que l'autre, courrent ces temps-ci. La première est que quelqu'un de l'internationale antiféministe l'aurait fait. Mais une telle internationale IAF n'est-elle pas un mythe, bien que tout le monde en parle? Après vérification, il ne semble pas qu'une telle société secrète existe vraiment. Alors qui les a prévenu? La conjecture la plus solide semble maintenant indiquer, nous dit-on, que des masculinistes québécois ont été prévenus de la supercherie par une belle féministe française qui serait tombée amoureuse d'un gars de l'Après-Rupture. C'est tout-à-fait invraisemblable et semble tiré d'un roman savon, mais bon, quoi que vaille une information aussi douteuse, il n'empêche qu'on tient maintenant pour certain que la situation a été retournée.

LE PIÉGEUR PIÉGÉ

Aussitôt informés, certains masculinistes québecois ont préconisé le laisser faire dans un premier temps, en se disant qu'ils pourraient toujours se servir de la situation plus tard pour diffuser leur message. Mais certains insistèrent pour piéger immédiatement le piégeur. Patric Jean a donc eu des puces électroniques GPS introduites dans son équipement à son insu, et depuis ce temps, il serait suivi à la trace sans qu'il le sache. Le piégeur a donc été piégé, et l'honneur des gars d'ici serait sauf. Mais tout n'est pas si simple. Patric Jean se méfie maintenant et il ''sent la soupe chaude''. Il aurait déclaré récemment qu'il compte utiliser des gardes du corps lors de sa venue au Québec, car il a peur des masculistes d'ici. Tout ceci n'est pas très bon.

1- En introduisant un matériel électronique espion dans ses bagages, le réalisateur Belge peut justifier l'intervention de la police et mêmes des services secrets franco-belges et aussi canadiens, qui sait?

2- Ceci est peut-être une bonne chose à court terme en créant de l'intérêt, mais quel message retiendra-t-on plus tard de tout cet imbroglio?

3- Si les féministes d'ici et d'ailleurs commencent maintenant à parrainer des opérations d'espionnage à caractère international, qu'est-ce que ce sera la prochaine fois, un commando terroriste?

En résumé et ce que l'on tient maintenant pour certain, c'est que ceux qui ont envoyé l'espion Belge qui prétendait tourner un documentaire sur la condition masculine au Québec sont des féministes bénéficiant de l'aide et de l'infrastructure gouvernementale des deux côtés de l'Atllantique. Les organismes soupçonnés à cause de leurs liens direct avec Patric Jean sont: les ''Chiennes de garde'' françaises, Sisyphe.org (vu aussi ses liens privilégiés avec ces dernières) et l'organisation ministérielle française s'occupant des affaires féminines. Il n'est pas exclu également que le Conseil du Statut de la Femme section Québec et les organismes et ses pendants fédéraux aient eu vent de l'affaire et, sans toutefois aller jusqu'à une participation logistique active, elles auraient pu donner, sinon l'aval au projet, du moins une bénédiction à ses auteurs. Une opération des féministes franco-belges avec l'aide de leur consoeurs canadiennes pour piéger et infiltrer le masculinisme francophone d'ici: les conséquences pourraient être douloureuses pour les deux côtés.

Rick Flashman

DO WOMEN SECRETLY LOVE MARC LEPINE?

2009-10-19T03:06:00.000-07:00

Of course they love him, witness this site of April Reign for instance: she positively glows of maternal love and perhaps from a love of an other kind. She said she received embarrassing messages concerning him some times ago, but she keeps these messages on her site for three years now; and she cherishes them, babies them, put them in a frame and enshrine this memory in her heart. Now I call this love! Here are the links:

http://aprilreign.breadnroses.ca/general/vive-marc-lepine/

http://aprilreign.breadnroses.ca/feminism/our-glorious-dead/

http://purtek.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/what-happened-in-montreal/

There are others who feel the same romantic attraction to the killer. There is Francine Pelletier, a well known Quebec journalist who applied political pressure to secure the release of Marc Lepine's last letter from the police in 2000. Her name was on the list of the 19 Quebec public women Lepine wanted to kill. She was quite uneasy at first upon learning that she was on that list, but after years of research of the masculist phenomenon, she has developed a special interest in Marc. Because he has been part of her life all those years, and was her true personal Nemesis, she became linked to him in a unique way. It would be perhaps far-fetched to talk of love in this case, but maybe not. Such a self-centered person, as successful professionals in the media usually are, who knows loneliness for a big part of her life, could perhaps find only true love in an impossible one. And loving an icon and a deceased person is sometimes the only solution.

However, one might ask why women LOVE or feel for a man who bashes them? The answer is simple. They know that he rants and bashes them for a reason, that he was wronged in the past, and what they admire is the force of his righteousness: the sheer power of his rage. And above all, they know deep down that they deserve to be punished, that this LOVE is the only way to wash away a rightly earned guilt.

KEEPING THE SCRARECROW ALIVE

2009-10-16T06:02:00.000-07:00

Apparently, he did it to protect America from feminism and socialism. How true could this be? And do we need such protection? Something for sure, he will be remembered and maybe his reasons too. This short three pages manifesto might go a long way. What if we find out that many secretly liked him, and that some still do? The last thing we need is an "everybody loves Marc" movement. The feminist mistake might have been to have kept him alive for twenty years for propaganda purposes. They may live to regret this, then what if their scarecrow becomes alive somehow? What if he changes into some friendly monster?

A hero was born. Out of the blood bath of Polytechnique emerged this legend of a man: small beard and moustache, strange eyes and this endearing half smile. How many women would fall for this strange smile? And what is a hero? Someone fighting for the preservation of the Fatherland? You better think about it, then if this is your answer, Marc is undoubtedly one. Fighting to preserve us from dangerous new ideas and strange concepts like feminism and socialism. As such, fighting against all the "ism" of this world, there is definitively much American in him; an American hero perhaps?

Illuminating our boring life. It is said that civilization destroys its citizens through boredom. How many of us go see these horror movies because our daily life is mighty dull. People need thrill, excitement; therefore the popularity of those apocalyptic movies and this American fascination with serial killers. To them, Marc was simply God sent. Marc Lepine opens up a new frontier in crime and fiction, the new antihero that kills seemingly good people, but after a time it is not that clear anymore if those women were really good people. A 20 years relentless campaigning of feminist organizations against Marc has created a shadow of doubt on the purity and validity of their motives in the public eye. Many believe now that he might be the good guy. Good guys are wearing black since the 1980s, and their armour is not shiny anymore but stained by the strain of combat. If this happens to be true, Marc is setting up new standards and new rules for future antiheroes.

Given the above, it might well be true that the feminists' main mistake was to keep Marc alive for 20 years for propaganda purposes. Now the Scarecrow has fully awaken and it walks among us, and our worst nightmare has come true: MARC IS NOW IMMORTAL.

Report from Quebec: a masculist militia needed, activists arm themselves

2009-10-14T02:05:00.000-07:00

John Gisogod said recently that a feminist attack, like the one perpetrated after a masculist rally in 2005 at the Serge Ferrand's place by a feminist commando unit from the UQUAM university, should never be allowed to take place again. Activists simply have to arm themselves and a security system has to be put in place. Now Gisogod says ''I WANT YOU TO JOIN'' the masculist brigade, either the storm troopers or the security units.

JOIGNEZ LES RANGS DE LA MILICE MASCULISTE
A translation of this article might soon be available.

Votre organisation masculiniste locale a besoin de vous, joignez les rangs des brigades de protection masculistes. Les contre-manifestations vicieuses d'événements masculinistes par des terroristes féministes doivent être empêchées, les leaders masculinistes doivent être protégés dans leurs activités quotidiennes par une garde rapprochée. C'est votre rôle messieurs, l'avenir de la race mâle en dépend. Il est entre vos mains.

La brigade d'intervention urbaine masculiste (BIM) se donne pour but de former des escouades d'intervention rapides pouvant être déployées à quelques heures ou même quelques minutes de préavis pour protéger des évenements publics masculinistes. Sa deuxième mission consiste à fournir des gardes du corps pour protection rapprochée des dirigeants masculinistes.

Techniques d'intervention urbaines seulement et sans armes à feu. Sous la direction du sergent William L. Maniak vous apprendrez le maniement du PR24, de la matraque de plastique de 30 pouces (90 cm) et du bâton de baseball en chaîne blanc. Sous la direction du sergent Payne, vous apprendrez le travail de coopération avec les chiens d'attaque et le self-défense de base.

La mission de la brigade en est une d'intervention défensive seulement. Ses actions visent surtout à limiter les dégâts lors de situations d'urgence et à assurer l'évacuation paisible et ordonnée des participants lorsque cela devient nécessaire. Par exemple, une simulation de l'événement Serge Ferrand montre clairement les premiers gestes à être posés par toute brigade d'intervention: confiscation des mégaphones et des pancartes, sommation aux intervenants masqués de se découvrir le visage (et leur maîtrise en cas de refus), et enfin capture d'un ou deux des activistes hostiles pour interrogation ultérieure.

Souvenez-vous que le droit de s'armer et de résister à l'agression est un droit divin. La société civile et les lois ne vous donnent plus ce droit dans plusieurs sociétés occidentales, par exemple au Québec, car elles sont inféodées au féminisme et corrompues par lui. Souvenez-vous enfin que le christianisme n'a jamais vraiment tendu l'autre joue. Alors joignez la milice.

Contactez votre bureau local le plus près de chez vous.

Notez que certaines organisations masculinistes vieux-jeu, comme l'Après-Rupture et Gars Content, s'opposent à la formation de la milice, au nom de certains principes suranés de démocratie. Le militant burelesque Yves Pageau crie même sans cesse ''dictature, dictature'' à tous vents ces temps-ci.

Rick Flashman

Report from Quebec: the war goes on

2009-10-13T04:55:00.000-07:00

Reduced to a war of words these days, the struggle between the upstarts of the ''Collectif'' and the masculist establishment of l'Après-Rupture still rages on nonetheless. John Gisogod publicly asks these days who destroyed the archives of l'Après-Rupture. It is a known fact that saboteurs deleted a big chunk of the archives of the biggest masculist organization in Quebec in 2003 and again in 2006, and huge sections of the official website l'Après-Rupture are missing: they simply disappeared overnight.

LE COLLECTIF ANTI-FÉMINISTE DEMANDE QUI A DÉTRUIT LES ARCHIVES DE L'APRÈS-RUPTURE?
A translation of this article might soon be available.

Qui a détruit les archives de l'Après-Rupture? Fondée en 1998, cette association pour la défense des pères a bien sûr connu, au cours de son histoire, plusieurs querelles, trois ou quatres présidents (en comptant les intérims), et les luttes pour le pouvoir traditionnelles auxquelles ont peut s'attendre dans de tels groupes. Ce que John Gisogod du Collectif anti-féministe demande, c'est simplement: qui a fait le coup?

Les gars du Collectif ont commencé à fréquenter le site de l'Après-Rupture en 2005, et ont tout-de-suite remarqué que quelque chose n'allait pas. Après une première prise de contact et l'envoi par Frustrated_men d'un article que l'Après-Rupture s'est gentiment fait fort de publier en lettre ouverte en 2006, une inspection du site plus approfondie révélait, par exemple, une foule de liens qui renvoyaient à des document introuvables ou inexistants. De plus, des traces d'effacement massif de fichiers étaient clairement visibles, remontant jusqu'à 2003. Le site était dans un état tellement lamentable qu'un avis de ''reconstruction de site en cours'' aurait dû être affiché. Or, il n'y avait rien de tel et aucune explication. D'autres visites en 2007, ont clairement démontré que quelque chose n'allait vraiment pas et qu'un nouveau sabotage avait été opéré en 2006.

Ce que John Gisogod et le Collectif tiennent pour certain, c'est qu'une bonne partie des fichiers ont été effacés en 2002-2003 et qu'une large portion des archives d'avant 2003 a simplement disparu. De plus, un nouveau sabotage s'est produit en 2006-2007. Où sont passés les archives et les fichiers manquants? Est-ce la faute de l'archiveur, du wemestre, d'un adjoint à la direction ou d'un militant ayant accès; ou le sabotage a-t-il eu lieu au plus haut niveau? Chose certaine un ou des utilisateurs en possession des codes ont fait le coup: la moitié des archives a disparu, 60% du site est effacé; en 2004, 40% du site avait déjà disparu. ''Qui sont les saboteurs?'' demande encore et toujours Gisogod, ''une seule personne n'a pu faire tout ça, il en a fallu plusieurs ayant accès''.

Rick Flashman

THE MAN FROM POLYTECHNIQUE

2009-10-12T03:26:00.000-07:00

His legend was born on a cold December night of 1989. Normally the superhero or masked avenger fights supervillains in comic books, but in real life, there are no supervillains: just wicked, normal people full of spite and hatred for their neighbours who hurt others. There are no good people either, or innocent people, everybody is guilty of something: if not cheating on their income tax report, they do much worse. So, Marc Lepine had no choice, if no one is innocent (which is largely the case in America due to our greed and our twisted values), his decision to hit average feminists was the right one.

The man from Polytechnique. They came, they saw, he did... Yes, he did it. How many frustrated men have dreamed of doing it, how many have realized that they don't have what it takes: cold blood, a cool composure, an ease of movement, absolutely no regret, steel in his sword and steel in his heart. Marc had it all, the stuff that legends are made of. The deed was an earthshaker, for it he got his day on the calendar: the International Marc Lepine Day or St-Marc's Day. Dozens of books published, a major feature film in 2009, a yearly commemoration coast to coast in Canada by major feminist organizations since 20 years, if not a hero Marc has become a hell of a public figure. Marc, "you've come a long way baby"!

St-Marc's Day has been introduced in 2005 by the extremist intellectual fringe that functions as the vanguard of the men's movement. It has been established that it should be a day when we remember the first counter-attack against the feminazi's war on men. By celebrating Marc Lepine and embracing him as a hero, it was believed that this would disturb the feminists and enrage them. The goal was to uncover their plot to spread universal shame and guilt in the men's camp and neutralize it. Saying that he's a saint and celebrating him on that date angered all feminazis and confused them. It's not that Marc Lepine was a good father or especially relevant to the men's movement with what he has done, it is rather that he had become an Icon of the incarnate male evil to feminists and a weapon in their hands against masculism. To fight this we have to celebrate him as a saint: it has become a gender duty, the expression of a new patriotism.

So, put up your decorations and send out invitations for the annual celebration of St. Marc's Day. Colored lights, candles, ammo belts hung by the gun racks, a picture of St. Marc above the fireplace: decoration of a man's home that make him feel there is hope. Feminists have created Marc Lepine. The young man would never have gone on a rampage if all kinds of provocations and injustice done to men in general over two decades haven't led him to it. Feminists and women in general are responsible. Until now, December 6th was acknowledged as an important event and emphasized mostly by feminists. That men and men's groups speak of it openly now, unafraid and unashamed, strikes the media as a novelty. The commemoration of this day twenty years in a row has made December 6th into a kind of holiday for true activists: a sort of men's rights Christmas. It is not anymore the day St-Nicholas officially arrives in Amsterdam every year (Holland's Christmas), it is a masculist Christmas now.

THE FIRST BOONDOCK SAINT

If anything, Marc Lepine is a martyr in the fight for freedom from oppression, a man who stood up against tyranny and died for the cause. We say a saint, because his falls in the same category of what Japanese call a "swordsaint" and what we, in the West, recognize as the "Boondock Saints' phenomenon". Some 20 years after the deed, the fact that men and women still care about this event means that it has become a milestone in Gender war history. In fact. it could be said that Marc inspired the Boondock saints and not the other way around.

Their brand of justice was directly taken from him. His shadow is everywhere: in the prayer they make, in their secret code, their showing no mercy, their cool hand and fluidity in the deed, the way they walk, hold that gun, their posture (some would say pose). Then any hero is a poseur also, but one who finally acts; and the greatness of the deed is not found only in the number of body bags but also in the style[1], the way it was done, and above all in the reasons. Even a sloppy presentation could be redeemed with good reasons; and by these standards, December 6th Montreal 1989 was the birthplace and date of quite a saint: a father of all saints! Thinking of it, there might actually be only one real Boondock saint, and his first name is Marc. Our friend Marc.
___________
1 Mad Dog Coll, a legendary killer in the times of Lucky Luciano and the New York mob, once said to Frank Costello and Bugsy Seagal that it is not numbers that count, but style: to kill with style, or more precisely to ''kill in style''.

AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM

2009-10-09T09:41:00.000-07:00

What is it about this Marc Lepine mania? Apart from the fact that "Polytechnique" is considered by some as an event of monumental proportions and that others call Marc an "iconic shooter", it is the evocation of a holy mission by the murderer himself that introduces a new dimension and brings us to the next level: spirituality and the phenomenon of the killer saint. Sometimes, nothing more is needed to create a legend that lasts.

Let us start at the beginning though. One day, one man was fed up with feminism and wanted to really combat it and retaliate. He decided to storm a feminist stronghold called Polytechnique. From that day on, he became "the man from Polytechnique": a legend. Many men want to retaliate too. These days, the very symbols of feminism are under attack and this for good reasons: so many lives have been destroyed by feminism, so many innocent men have paid the price for the obsessions of spiteful women and been driven to suicide. Somewhere, somehow, someone will have to pay; and activists have decided that even if it should take decades, those responsible will eventually pay. With such thinking and such patience, it means that when punishment finally comes, chances are it will take those responsible completely by surprise. They will have forgotten, and secured in the belief that they have evaded punishment long ago: it will catch them unawares.

From his point of view, Marc had no choice. His country had been invaded by feminism and socialism. His province, his city; for him it seemed that his whole neighbourhood was now under siege and that feminist martial law was everywhere in effect. His beloved Canada was threatened by feminists, he had to do something: to fight back! The assault of December 6th 1989 may be seen as an act of patriotism, at least many believe it now. A desperate act by a desperate man who felt that nobody was listening to him, that the whole of North America was suddenly in danger of falling into the hands of heinous feminist socialists. Academics may insist that he was delusional, that feminism never threatened the continent as a whole, and that maybe a soft brand of socialism is exactly what America needs now. Apart from the fact that plain truth is seldom found on campus, maybe Marc saved us from something terrible that day. Is it so impossible that he'd be some kind of hero: a patriot and a visionary?

But Marc was not defending his country against a foreign feminist invasion, then the enemy came from within. Feminism was created in the United-States in the early 1900s and it was spreading now to Canada, his beloved, pristine country. It was not a foreign invasion as we said, but a North American problem that began to spread in the 1930s. Civil war was bound to happen, we knew that since the release of the 1968 SCUM manifesto, and what Marc really did was no more than to fire the first shots of this second American civil war. It happened 20 years ago at Polytechnique, some say the awesome deed. Marc Lepine went to a feminist stronghold: the faculty of engineering and architecture of the University of Montreal. He killed 15 feminists single-handedly.

Marc has been around for over 20 years, and the danger exists that he could be cast into some sort of urban legend for the generations to come. Marc might already be on the threshold of immortality. There may be scores of accounts by witnesses of that crucial night, some books written and published, but no one could tell us until now with absolute certainty how and why it really happened. This gave rise to wild speculations, and who is to say that the one we present over here is not the real truth?

Report from Quebec: the coming war between masculists

2009-10-07T06:14:00.000-07:00

John Gisogod intends to tear down L'Après-Rupture and Gars Content and replace many support groups and associations that are riddled with incompetence and infiltrated by feminists and manginas. The new leader of the ''Collectif anti-féministe'' says his group is not only going to become active again and re-enter the fight, he bluntly means to take over the entire masculist space in the province and retake the collectif's rightful place as leader of the men's movement in Quebec. The spreading rumors of a war and of bitter infighting between masculists do not help the situation in Quebec. The ''collectif'' made out of the original four old timers and the younger Gisogod with his Australian fighters are facing l'Après-Rupture and about 20 small groups. The Quebec chapter of Fathers4Justice will of course stay neutral as usual. After Gisogod said ''I dare you'' to Yves Pageau recently and even ''I double dare you'' to his assistant Gilbert Claes, there is now no doubt that there will be a fight: a bitter fight to the finish to determine who is the ''masculinissime'' in Quebec.

Read the article

LE COLLECTIF ANTI-FÉMINISTE PART EN GUERRE CONTRE L'APRÈS-RUPTURE ET GARS CONTENT
A translation of this article might soon be available.

LE COLLECTIF ANTI-FÉMINISTE: JE ME SOUVIENS

Vous souvenez-vous du Collectif anti-féministe? Le lundi 4 mars 1991, la nouvelle tombe comme une massue dans La Presse, le Journal de Montréal, dans les journaux de Toronto et jusqu'à Vancouver, ça sort dans toute la Presse Canadienne: ''Le Collectif anti-féministe s'en prend presque aux femmes en général'' et présente un long manifeste de 140 récriminations. Et le samedi 20 juillet 1991, les gars du Collectif remettent ça: La Presse titre dans son édition spéciale du samedi: ''Les féministes accusées d'être responsables du drame de Poly et des assassinats d'ex-conjointes''.

Qui étaient les gars du Collectif? Quelle est son histoire? Qu'en est-il advenu?

L'histoire du collectif: fondé en 1990 et dissolu en 1992. Ses quatre fondateurs ont quitté le Québec en 1993 parce que l'avenir était bouché, ils sont revenu à Montréal en 2004 et ont commencé la guérilla anglo-saxonne contre le féminisme. Les anciens du Collectif n'écrivent plus en français depuis des années, ils oeuvrent dans l'anglosphere depuis pas mal de temps et sont à la tête de la branche la plus radicale de l'antiféminisme ''anglo'' mondial.

Qui étaient-ils et qu'en est-il advenu?

Ceux qui s'appelaient autrefois Gauvain, Rochefort, Rosenheim et Novak ont pris des noms de plume savoureux comme Rick Flashman, John Gisogod, Giskhan, etc... Ils sont partout dans la frange extrémiste du mouvement bien qu'abhorrés par les bien-pensants de MenIssuesOnline par exemple. On commence à les citer partout, ils dérangent, ils sont les dignes fils spirituels des ''Cyniques'' d'antan (le feu groupe d'humoristes québécois). Par exemple, Frustrated_men sur Yahoo ce sont eux, MASCULIST REVENGE: Humorous Anti-Feminism à http://sky.prohosting.com/gisogod/ ce sont eux aussi, et le blog Canadien le plus controversé de l'heure à http://marclepine.blogspot.com/ ce sont encore eux.

Ils dérangent tellement que Francine Pelletier, vous savez: la grande journaliste, celle qui détient le quasi-monopole sur Marc Lépine, oui celle-là, elle les a contactés en vue du documentaire qu'elle compte réaliser sur Marc Lépine. Un des anciens du Collectif l'a rencontrée au Café Noir sur Mont-Royal le premier juin de cette année. Tout ça pour dire? Pour dire simplement que les anciens militants même s'ils ont changé de langue restent toujours actifs. Ce qui est bien, c'est la tendance des masculinistes québécois depuis quelque temps à créer des liens avec les groupes anglo-saxons, hispaniques et même Russes. Au fond, ''nous sommes tous membres de la même tribu masculiniste'' dira John Gisogod, ''et on commence à se connaître. Les Zohrab, Zubaty, nous et les autres, tout ce monde-là commence à s'écrire et à se parler''. Quelqu'un a dit que le jour où les gars vont se parler, ça va jeter le féminisme par terre.

LE TORCHON BRÛLE ENTRE LE COLLECTIF REFORMÉ ET GARS CONTENT

John Gisogod, le nouveau chef du collectif réformé, n'apprécie pas trop de se faire dire qu'il est trop extrémiste par Yves Pageau. Il rappelle à ce dernier qu'il y a des masculinistes pas mal plus extrémistes que lui dans le monde anglophone, et se permet au passage de dire que la sorte de masculinisme pratiqué au Québec est beaucoup trop timoré. Il accuse même les Pageau, Claes et cie. d'avoir peur. Mais de quoi est-ce que l'Après-Rupture et Gars Content ont peur? Oui, de quoi ont-ils peur?

1- Peur d'abord des poursuites judiciaires. Gars Content marche littéralement sur des oeufs ces temps-ci. Plusieurs récentes mises en demeure énervent Pageau. Il a peur de poursuites judiciaires de la part du CSF et de la FFQ et surtout peur de perdre un procès coûteux.

2- Peur de la nouvelle loi annoncée depuis minimum six ans et qui interdirait toute critique publique du féminisme au Québec. Il est sûr que cette loi serait retirée assez vite, vu que Mark Steyn, les Américains et même l'ONU ridiculiseraient le ''Québecistan'' comme étant une société non-démocratique et pratiquant la ''Tyranny of Nice''. Cette loi ne passera sans doute pas, mais Pageau et les siens ont peur.

3- Peur du ridicule. Yves Pageau et Gars Content ont commis une méga-bourde récemment. Dupés par un faux journaliste Français, ils lui ont permis de filmer leur quartier général et leurs lieux secrets, toute leur intimité. En réalité, il s'agissait d'un mangin réalisateur de films et documentariste Belge du nom de Patric Jean qui est lié aux ''chiennes de garde'' françaises. Ils se sont fait avoir, car il va les prendre pour ''Tête de Turc'' dans son film à petit budget, un documentaire plutôt, ''La domination masculine'' qui sort en novembre prochain en France, en Italie et aux Pays-Bas. Toute leur intimité dévoilée, les accès à leurs archives, bref tout dès novembre et encore plus aux prochaines éditions des ''festival du film'' de par le monde! Méga-bourde, s'il en est une.

Il est sûr que Pageau et cie ont raison d'avoir peur, sauf que comme John Gisogod le leur faisait remarquer récemment, le militant moyen ne peut plus s'associer avec des gens qui ont peur comme ça et font dans leur froc! Le leader du Collectif reproche à ses chefs d'avoir rendu le ''mouvement'' tellement fragile que ça n'a pas de bon sens. Il reconnait que le masculinisme a fait des progrès au Québec, mais il souligne que c'est complètement dû à l'influence extérieure, et à celle Fathers4Justice en particulier. Il n'y a pas de véritable organisation au Québec et les militants sont trop timorés et pas assez agressifs. S'il y en avait eu une, la contre-manifestation contre Serge Ferrand et l'attaque du petit commando de dix personne de l'UQUAM auraient été stoppés net par un service de sécurité même embryonnaire. John Gisogod promet un masculinisme plus musclé dès que son groupe aura pris le pouvoir.

À Pageau qui disait s'opposer à cette montée d'un masculinisme martial à faire peur, Gisogod répond: ''avec quoi tu vas me stopper moi et mes Australiens? Avec les carricatures de Ferrand ou les farces plates de style gros jambon de la ''Gazette des Gonzes'' à la Gérard D. Laflaque?''. Il est de fait que John Gisogod reproche à Gars Content son style ordurier ''à la gros jambon'', son humour facile et le fait qu'il tire ''à boulets rouges'' dans toutes les directions et ne se concentre pas assez sur la véritable problématique féminisme-masculinisme. Pageau, lui, commence à avoir peur de mots comme ''service de sécurité'', ''troupes de choc'' et surtout la petite gang d'Australiens bagarreurs que Gisogod a ramené avec lui dans ses bagages. La scène est maintenant mise pour une confrontation des masculinismes au Québec: C'EST LA GUERRE, quoi!

À la dernière question posée à Gisogod si cette bagarre entre masculinistes n'allait pas faire l'affaire des féministes d'ici et affaiblir singulièrement le mouvement, il répond: ''quel mouvement?''. ''C'est sûr que certaines du Conseil du Statut de la Femme et de la FFQ ne seront certainement pas si mécontentes de nous voir aller, et vont peut-être applaudir pour un temps, mais elles devraient se méfier: quand on aura pris le pouvoir, elles comprendront leur malheur''.

Rick Flashman

Report from Quebec: the local masculist movement in disarray

2009-10-06T04:42:00.000-07:00

Four old members of a masculist group that was active in Quebec between 1990 and 1992, and got national coverage and attention in their days, the ''Collectif anti-féministe'', say now that all the progress that has been made in the cause of men and men's rights in the last 15 years in that province is not due to the effort of local groups and the local masculist movement, but largely to outside influence. According to them, whatever progress was made in Quebec since the days of Marc Lepine, Roch Coté and the ''Collectif'' is due to the efforts of American and European masculists and the huge influence of Fathers4Justice. Quebecers themselves were never able to build a strong masculist movement, ''they constantly needed outside help and still do'', says John Gisogod, the new leader of the reformed ''Collectif''.

Gisogod says that the present masculist movement in Quebec is in disarray: its main groups and its very few publications and internet sites are so weak, that they all need to be replaced. Replaced how? To this embarrassing question, Gisogod's answer is very blunt: ''we need to tear down both websites: L'Après-Rupture and Gars Content. We need to replace support groups and associations that are riddled with incompetence and infiltrated by manginas and feminist supporters. We need a complete change.'' Is the ''Collectif anti-féministe'' going to become active again? To this Gisogod answers unequivocally: ''we re-enter the fight, and we are certainly not here to cooperate and help them, we intend to take over and retake our rightful place as leaders of the men's movement in Quebec''.

Possible war between Quebec masculists

So there is rumor of a war and of an upcoming bitter infighting between masculists in Quebec: the ''collectif'' made out of the original four old timers plus the younger Gisogod and his bunch of Australian fighters and New-Zealanders that he brought back with him against l'Après-Rupture and about 20 small groups (not counting Gars Content and the small fry). The Quebec chapter of Fathers4Justice is expected to keep neutral as usual in this fight and not take sides. Some say that the old timers might lose, but consider that the other side is also made out of old people, that they have no security personnel and no storm troopers. Gisogod's Australians, on the other hand, are street fighters, not afraid of violence, and who used to shoot their M-16 in the Outback of Australia (it is well known that Australian masculists have several paramilitary training camps and even a military base). But will there be a fight? According to Gisogod, yes: ''we need a showdown''. He is believed to have said to Yves Pageau recently ''I dare you'', and to his assistant Gilbert Claes: ''I double dare you''. So, it is very well possible that a fight to the finish might take place between the two masculist ''armies'' to determine who is the ''masculinissime'' in Quebec.

Rick Flashman

IS THE WHITE RIBBON A BADGE OF SHAME?

2009-10-05T03:55:00.000-07:00

Each year thousands of Montrealers queue for hours, sometimes in subzero temperatures to commemorate the killing and honour the victims. The crowd is usually a cross-section of the Quebec society: male and female, young and old, anglophones and francophones, briefly united in grief. Throughout the country, there are louder crowds though and more hostile demonstrations: the megaphones, the slogans, the wild assignations of blame. Sometimes, the protesters' readiness to exploit the trauma of victims, families and friends for their own narrow political ends, is so obvious as to be sickening.

And it's going on for twenty years now, and the activists never tire. Bloody year after bloody year, the sour aftertaste of diatribes lingers in many of the commemorative projects surrounding December 6. It is the main reason why a sizeable part of the population refuses now to join in the national White Ribbon Campaign organized by the Toronto men's group.
This campaign always seemed to be based on a notion of universal male guilt, and after 20 years of saturation with this guilt many are suffocating now from its slow effects, and the decision to break away from it is one of survival. Many noticed only recently how poisonous these feminist emanations are, and the decision to keep away from its deadly fumes is a major victory for the Canadian men's movement and men's groups everywhere.

The claim that all men must share responsibility for the violence some men did to some women has become a deadly mantra, that we have learned only recently to dispel. When it was introduced, in the 1990s, almost no-one has bothered to examine its foundations, or criticize its hypocrisy. White Ribbon campaigners seemed to think that the pain a man feels over December 6 is suspect and illegitimate, therefore they saw an occasion to introduce all that guilt to further their secret aims and agenda. So this mangina-feminist conspiracy urged all men to feel kinship with the Polytechnique assassin. They were told that their grief is only valid if some of it is devoted to mourning the part of them that is allegedly capable of such acts.

The fact that most men are not brutalizers, terrorists, or murderers was not taken in consideration by the White Ribbon people. All they wanted to impress upon you is how guilty you are. From now on, men were defined in terms of a supposed latent "potential" for violence that deserved to be denounced. It is said December 6 serves as a powerful reminder to women of the fear of male violence they must confront every day. Undeniably, that fear is tangible, and solidly grounded. But don't forget: the large majority of murder victims are men. If men don't share the fear, it doesn't mean they don't share the risk. What does the White Ribbon campaigner say to men who have been brutalized by other males? Are those men responsible in some way for their own victimization?

The White Ribbon campaign is attractive only to those of both sexes who view "female" sensibilities as superior to "male" ones. Among feminist activists, the campaign seems to appeal mainly to those who consider male violence against women and children the only violence that matters. These activists often view progressive men as mascots or token presences - not as allies with diverse perspectives to contribute to a common cause. And when will the men behind the White Ribbon Campaign realize that their apologies for being born the wrong sex can never be abject enough to satisfy feminists? Why many won't be wearing a white ribbon this year? Simply because for them, it has become a badge of shame - a shame they don't feel anymore.

Report from Quebec: the men in that province refuse to date women

2009-10-01T03:13:00.000-07:00

It appears that men in Quebec are so fed up with women that they refuse to date them, even to talk to them. The gender war is in full swing in that province, and after losing everything through a divorce or a court battle, many men are so full of anger and hatred that they refuse to date, talk, or even acknowledge the presence of members of the other gender. Gone are the gallantry, politeness, kindness and consideration of previous decades. All they can expect on eye-contact is a stare filled with anger and hatred. Many secretly dream of a violent revenge, they thirst for blood. Women are appalled: their seductive power does not work anymore. It is as if some men begin to hate beauty, sex and femininity: SHIT IN THE CITY instead of ''Sex and the City''. These women are getting concerned, worse they now begin to get afraid. Rightly so, then men are TIRED OF THE MANIPULATION.

LES QUÉBÉCOIS NE VEULENT PLUS DRAGUER

A translation of this article will be soon available.

Un livre récemment paru nous informe que les mâles québécois n’ont plus envie de draguer. Le Québécois ne veut plus draguer et encore moins séduire. On avance des hypothèses. Il est timide. Il aurait perdu son instinct de chasseur? Pourquoi? L’espèce féminine qui se déplace presque toujours en troupeau le rebute? Les femmes sont moins séduisantes, plus chiantes? La vérité est peut-être que les Québécois sont devenus plus intelligents, ils savent maintenant qu'une femme ne fait pas le bonheur. Désolé mesdames, mais vous n'êtes tout simplement plus sur la liste d'épicerie des choses qui font le bonheur.

Quand les femmes se font draguer en Amérique du Nord, c’est la plupart du temps par un immigrant (Italien, Grec, etc.), les indigènes eux savent que les femmes d'ici sont piégées. On nage toujours en eaux troubles avec la drague. Le draguage n’est autorisé que s’il n’entraîne pas la détérioration, la destruction ou la perturbation de l’habitat du poisson, or c'est l'homme qui paie encore la vraie facture plus tard. Dire non à la drague, c'est une façon de dire non au féminisme.

De toute façon, on dit que les femmes québécoises sont crues, directes, faciles et entreprenantes. Les hommes seraient alors bien bête de se donner la peine. Les Américains, en bons imbéciles, font encore les premiers pas et cela se traduit comme on pense, soit par une invitation ou un refus cinglant. Il faut dire que le célibat aux USA n’est pas très bien perçu, ce serait une anomalie; c'est pour ça qu'ils tentent encore leur chance, parce qu'ils n'auraient pas compris! Les Québécoises n'aiment pas les Québécois, c'est bien connu, et ceux-ci le leur rendent bien. Elles veulent être libre et en même temps adorent se faire draguer par des hommes issus de cultures où la femme est soumise! Lorsqu'un Québécois voit une Québécoise au bras d'un immigrant d'une autre race et d'une autre culture, il n'est pas jaloux, il a même le sourire. Il sait qu'elle va payer plus tard toute une facture. Il pense dans sa tête: ''vas-y mon vieux, donne-lui toute une baffe à ma santé''.

Le ” mâle ” Québécois… les troupeaux de femmes, la drague fait un peu bovin ces temps-ci. Et comme à la chasse, il y a le risque, plein de risques. On peut se faire arnaquer et refiler la paternité des enfants de son ancien amant. Le mot pension alimentaire vous dit quelque chose? Celles qui ont un train de vie royal après avoir plumé leur ex-, tout en voulant ferrer un autre gros poisson. Le problème, c'est que l'homme Québécois est maintenant conscient que plusieurs d'entre elles sont des ''chiennes'' (et pas de garde, celles-là comme les féministes française). Ils ne veulent tout simplement pas se faire mordre, qui pourrait les en blâmer?

Un homme qui a travaillé toute sa vie peut voir son bas de laine amputé de 50% après avoir juste vécu 2 ans avec une conjointe de fait. Il peut se trouver obligé de donner la moitié de ses avoirs à son ex-. La loi est faite pour vous dégoûter de l’idée d’avoir une relation stable. Il faut préconiser le “toi chez toi et moi chez moi”, et mettre l'intruse à la porte au premier signe d'irrégularité. Hors de question de mettre vos revenus et vos avoirs en jeu pour une histoire de c…oeur les gars. Une bonne branlette, une revue pornographique et des chiffons pour s'essuyer: tout l'équipement pour moins de 5 dollars. Vous avez déjà vu une fille disponible pour ce prix-là? La drague? Qu'elles aillent donc toutes ch..r.

Alors les hommes ne draguent plus? Je les comprends. À leur place, je me ferais vasectomiser dès l’âge de 12 ans! Un simple condom pété et ta vie est en l’air. Un homme qui divorce se retrouve à ne voir ses enfants que 4 JOURS PAR MOIS. Pas étonnant que certains s’écœurent de n’être qu’une machine à signer des chèques de pension alimentaire et qu’ils fichent le camp sans laisser d’adresse. Les seuls qui draguent encore sont les immigrants, parce qu'ils n'ont pas compris. Il faudrait leur expliquer. Mais ils ne sont pas si idiots, ils préfèrent encore les femmes de leur ethnie pour le mariage. Ils savent que ces femmes, contrairement aux Québécoises, ne leur feront pas d’emmerdements et ne penseront pas à divorcer. Le gouvernement en voulant protéger les femmes a complètement réduit à néant l’envie de former une famille.

La drague: pas intéressant, la femme: un mauvais investissement. Vous vouliez être libres, travailler, être l’égal de l’homme, l’avortement, la pilule, porter le pantalon, divorcer et tout le reste, vous avez maintenant tout cela. Alors là, fichez la paix aux hommes et faites vos partys de femmes entre vous! Si c’est des hommes roses que vous voulez, écoutez radio-canada! La vérité est que l’homme québécois en a ras-le-bol, il voit de plus en plus la drague pour ce qu'elle est: un attrappe-nigaud… La québécoise est en fait une péripatéticienne qui pratique deux tarifs: pour les visiteurs et autres petits rigolos, c’est gratuit, mais pour les locaux et les normaux, c’est la loi de l’extorsion du patrimoine familial. Il y a aussi assez souvent en prime quelques microbes qui parlent une langue exotique! Qui veut d’un tel marché de dupe? On ne drague plus la Québécoise, et c'est tout!

Quand on est un homme au Québec et qu’on doive faire face au système judiciaire en cas de conflit ou de rupture avec une femme, on voit les choses autrement. La perspective de perdre ses enfants, ses biens, sa réputation ou même sa santé mentale et son goût de vivre c’est pas mal plus pesant dans la balance que l’envie de former un couple ou une famille. Un homme en cas de rupture risque gros au Québec. Alors la drague, ...on repassera. Pourquoi en est-on rendu là ? On a donné carte blanche à une idéologie qui a imprégné notre société, notre appareil judiciaire, nos médias, et finalement nos couples. Ce mouvement social et idéologique a été très significatif et s’est rapidement inséré dans l’appareil de l’État lorsque l’église catholique a été remplacée lors de la révolution tranquille. Il dit à tout le monde quoi faire et comment le faire, qui détester et qui porter aux nues. Le mariage est aujourd’hui une vraie farce qui sert trop souvent la cupidité de certaines femmes.

La femme Québécoise demande tout et son contraire. Les gars sont simplement dégoûtés d'être traités comme de vulgaires pourvoyeurs ou des géniteurs inutiles une fois le devoir “accompli”. Le message est clair mesdames: ils n'ont plus besoin de servantes et ils ne sont pas des guichets automatiques. Dégagez! La rupture est profonde, c’est un gouffre. Les Québecois sont “partis” et je ne pense pas qu’ils reviendront. La trahison a été trop brutale, répétée, appuyée. Aucun individu doté de la moindre estime de soi ne peut accepter le spectacle qu’offrent les Québecoises depuis plusieurs années. Elles baisent des Africains et des Antillais, leur donnent leur virginité, et refilent plus tard aux Québécois les microbes tropicaux, les corvées et les pensions alimentaires. Et on n'a pas le droit de les traiter de ''salopes'', et il faut encore les respecter? Tout de même! De plus en plus disent maintenant: ''la drague: basta!''

Les Québécoises sont extrêmement faciles seulement pour les immigrants qui draguent. Il n’y a que les immigrants qui sont « récompensés », ce qui fait qu’il n’y a qu’eux qui draguent. Ceux qui ne sont jamais récompensés, les Québécois évidemment, se retirent du jeu. En réalité, les filles ont déjà décidé d’avance de rejeter toute avance d’un Québécois, et d’accepter systématiquement celles des étrangers. ''Ca fait longtemps que ça dure: les Québécoises sont fondamentalement des « traitresses »''. Ce comportement change vers la fin de la vingtaine, quand la jeune femme voit les premières marques du temps sur son visage jusqu’alors immaculé. Alors, et alors seulement, elle accepte qu’un Québécois l’approche, mais seulement s’il peut lui prouver qu’il est bien placé dans la vie, médecin, dentiste, homme d’affaires prospère, etc. Après la chasse aux étrangers, la chasse à la pension alimentaire vient de sonner! Et la pension, évidemment, ça, c’est la fonction du Québécois. Pour le visiteur, tout est gratos! Mesdames, expliquez-vous! Mais un jeune disait tout-à-l'heure qu'il n'y a rien à expliquer: ''des salopes'' tout simplement!

Cela sans parler du féminisme. Dans la guerre des féministes contre la vérité, il y a eu dans le passé plein de femmes au pouvoir, de Lise Payette à Pauline Marois en passant par Christine St-Pierre qui ont berné la population en exagérant les chiffres et en démonisant les hommes, et qui ont fait voter des lois pour amputer ceux-ci de leurs droits et de leurs libertés. Il y a plein de féministes journalistes, de Marie-France Bazzo à Lysiane Gagnon en passant par Marie-Claude Lortie qui continuent de véhiculer les mêmes demi-vérités et cette même démonisation à outrance des hommes du Québec. Il y a toute une industrie du divorce qui se nourrit de cette démonisation systématique de l’État contre les hommes et qui encourage la monoparentalité pour ensuite siphonner les revenus des pères. Chaque 6 décembre et chaque 8 mars, le sexe masculin a droit à une campagne de culpabilisation. Vous avez toujours envie de draguer?

Pourquoi faire des campagnes de culpabilisation spécifiquement contre les hommes? Pourquoi on ne parle pas aussi des homosexuels qui agressent les petits garçons?Des femmes qui agressent leurs enfants et les tuent?Des femmes qui agressent les personnes agées?Des femmes qui s’agressent entre elles?Des femmes qui mentent au sujet d’une soi-disant agression?Des femmes qui font 40 plaintes et demeurent encore avec le même conjoint?Des femmes qui se choisissent systématiquement des conjoints abusifs toute leur vie?

Bien sur qu’il y a des nonos qui sont violents, mais est-ce que l’État a le droit de culpabiliser tous les hommes et de répandre cette paranoia? Est-ce que c’est parce que les vols à l’étalage sont faits en majorité par des gens avec des tatouages qu’on devrait faire une campagne télévisée pour que tout le monde se méfie des gens avec des tatouages? Même principe. Le gouvernement Québécois fait du male-bashing avec nos taxes et organise des campagnes de haine envers les hommes: plus qu'une guerre des sexes, c’est du mensonge étatisé et institutionnalisé. Vous avez encore envie de draguer dans ce beau Québec? Moi pas.

John Gisogod

Report from Canada: Quebec, a society overrun by manginas

2009-10-01T03:04:00.000-07:00

The province of Quebec, Canada is a society overrun by manginas. It is a society where the rare masculist groups are really afraid to speak up, because they want to avoid costly lawsuits that they might lose against the all powerful feminist government agencies CSF and FFQ. The government is so strong that fathers do not have any power or influence over their families anymore; they have much to fear in their daily life from their wives and tricky lawyers, but they must also watch out for traitors these days: collaborators (neighbors and children), and male informers. It is the worst kind of dictatorship now, reminiscent of East-European communist regimes at the height of the Cold War. The bulk of the Quebec population is now merely constituted of a dense mass of divorced- and single parent families. More than one million fathers have been tragically thrown out of their families and live in abject poverty. All this is possible by an overly present GOVERNMENT and a spy network of informers and collaborators called: THE QUEBEC MANGINAS. Small wonder if the rebel Marc Lepine tried to start an extremely violent rebellion against the feminist oppression in 1989. Small wonder also if Mark Steyn (a former Canadian) tried to warn the world about the awful dictatorship and human rights' violations in feminist Quebecistan. After due consideration, Mark Steyn and those warning about the coming of the ''Tyranny of Nice'' in that book about Canada were right all along. The people of Quebec need to be liberated, we must FREE CANUCKISTAN and Quebecistan from the double oppression of feminists and Quebec MANGINAS.

LES MANGINS

LE FÉMINISME AU MASCULIN: LES COLLABOS, LES TRAÎTRES
A translation of this article will be soon available.

Le néologisme mangin tire son origine de l'Anglais ''mangina'': le protecteur, l'esclave du vagin. C'est la signification précise de mangina: inféodé aux femmes, tapette, homme soumis. Avec l'arrivée du féminisme et de la guerre des sexes, le terme s'enrichit d'une autre signification: un collabo, l'équivalent du ''compagnon de route'' pour les marxistes staliniens, un membre de la ''cinquième colonne'' qui facilite l'invasion du féminisme dans son pays, sa société, son milieu. Le mangin espère une récompense, c'est bien connu: faveurs sexuelles pour les hétéros, approbation féminine pour les homosexuels, privilèges spéciaux et la certitude d'être épargné après la prise du pouvoir par les féministes pour les autres. Dans la société québécoise, les mangins se retrouvent surtout dans les universités et dans le monde des communications et de la publicité. Ils faut dire que dans une logique de guerre et d'occupation, tout comme dans l'exemple historique de la France occupée, les collabos risquent gros. C'est bien connu, durant la guerre, la résistance et les patriotes aimaient mieux abattre un collabo que de tuer un Allemand. Au Québec cependant, nos mangins et collabos sont tellement utiles aux masculinistes par leur maladresse, qu'ils ne risquent vraiment rien pour le moment.

Le mangin ou ''mangina'' est le protecteur du vagin mais il n'y a généralement pas accès car il est victime d'une manipulation et de promesses vides, il est plutôt son esclave et son serviteur. Ainsi inféodé aux femmes, ce tapette et homme soumis va les aider dans leur lutte idéologique en tant que caution et vitrine morale censée montrer au monde qu'il n'y a pas de problème et que le féminisme est accepté par les hommes. Le mangin est donc un double adjuvant: une aide à l'invasion et un collabo à l'occupation, donnant ainsi toute sa force et sa validité à la métaphore du féminazisme.

La comparaison avec les ''compagnons de route'' de l'ère du Marxisme Stalinien n'est pas farfelue ni surfaite. En tant que collabo-intello-traîtres, les membre de la ''cinquième colonne'' durant la guerre froide en Occident, surtout en Europe, avaient pour but de faciliter l'invasion de leur pays et de tout le continent. Toutefois, les décideurs à Moscou n'avaient aucune intention de récompenser les compagnons après la victoire, ils avaient déjà planifié leur élimination. Les mangins d'ici devraient ce méfier, car peut-être que la récompense qui les attend après une victoire définitive du féminisme serait d'avoir la gorge tranchée ou une visite gratuite dans les chambres à gaz dont parle Valérie Solanas. La position des mangins est donc peu enviable: considérés comme traîtres, ils seront éliminés soit par les féministes après la victoire, soit par les forces masculinistes s'ils prennent un jour le pouvoir.

Mais quelle est la récompense espérée par le mangin qui lui permette de prendre de tels risques? Il faut ici faire la différence entre le mangin hétérosexuel qui espère des faveurs sexuelles des féministes, et l'homosexuel qui a un besoin maladif d'approbation féminine et de son admiration. La caresse et la douce parole de la féministe valide le mangin et lui redonne une importance qu'il pensait ne plus avoir. Il faut dire qu'en général, ce type d'individus souffre d'une carence prononcée d'estime-de-soi qui va en faire une victime facile pour les recruteuses féministes.

La typologie du mangin esquissée plus haut n'est pas étanche et loin d'être bien établie. Nous en sommes au stade des généralités peut-être, mais elles se vérifient empiriquement tous les jours pour qui sait regarder. Il y a bien sûr les mangins connus, tels Dupuis-Déri, Martin Dufresne et les autres, et bien malin celui qui pourrait dire exactement dans quelle catégorie les classer. Nous sommes conscient de ce problème, toutefois il reste des certitudes: en général un homme beau (bien barraqué et de belle apparence), riche et qui connait le succès n'aura que peu tendance à devenir mangin, s'il n'est un politicien à la recherche de votes supplémentaires évidemment. Le mangin typique est plutôt le mal foutu, l'intello, l'étudiant sans le sou, le gars de la gogauche qui n'a rien compris, l'écolo, celui qui ne pogne pas avec les femmes (parce qu'il est chauve, a une tronche de pédophine ou souffre d'une autre infirmité...), le fonctionnaire qui n'a pas le choix, et bien sûr le politicien dont on parlait tout-à-l'heure.

En terminant, qu'en est-il réellement au Québec? Ici, les lieux de fourmillement des mangins sont les même que ceux du féminisme: la fonction publique, les universités, la presse et les communications, et surtout le gouvernement à tous les niveaux. Regardez attentivement une photo de votre député qui pose fièrement pour le journal local. Voyez-vous cette main qui dépasse de l'arrière de son pantalon? Mais, qu'est-ce que c'est que cette main? Vous avez deviné, c'est une féministe qui le tient par les couilles. Enfin, qu'est-ce que nous les masculinistes pensons des mangins? Est-ce que nous les haïssons, est-ce qu'ils ont quelque chose à craindre de notre part? Absolument pas. Il est bien sûr qu'on ne les aime pas d'amour, mais ils ne sont pas si dangereux: ils sont même utiles, très utiles par leur maladresse. Qui sait, il n'est peut-être pas loin le jour où on verra des transfuges par milliers passer dans nos rangs et un mangin célèbre demander l'asile politique à L'Après-Rupture ou Gars content.

John Gisogod

Report from France: Feminist watchdogs

2009-10-01T02:47:00.000-07:00

Crazy old bitties terrorize the French Political class. For over a decade now, a group of old feminist hags want to dictate to the busy inhabitants of the Paris region what to think and how to act, and especially what not to say in public. They have brought a new meaning to the horrors of an already out of control political correctness and an unheard of media censorship on the old continent. Many say now enough: WE MUST STOP THE WITCHES. In the land of the Republican Revolution of 1789, it was little known until quite recently that this polite society had taken a turn in recent years towards a discreet control of the media and a quiet suppression of the real freedom of expression. Those responsible were called:

LES CHIENNES DE GARDE

A translation of this article might be soon available.

Personne n'a remis à sa place cette organisation en 10 ans, sans doute par respect pour certaines vieilles dames; nous n'avons pas ce respect, aussi suite à certains de leurs récents excès: on va devoir s'y employer.

Des chiennes

Au Québec, quand on traite une femme de ''chienne'', c'est une insulte. En France donc, vous nous facilitez beaucoup la besogne en vous insultant vous-même: mais c'est parfait! Chiennes de garde: qu'elle appellation insultante et dégradante pour la femme!!! Notez qu'aucune femme n'est chienne a moins d'y être contrainte, consentante ou conditionnée à l'être. À celles qui ne voient aucun problème dans ce nom, nous disons gentiment: allez vous faire soigner!!! Quelle vision dégradante de la Femme donne donc cette association. Il semblerait que ce soit plus un groupuscule d'ultra-féministes et de femmes divorcées qu'autre chose, qui règlent leur compte avec la moitié de l'humanité, car elles n'ont pas eu la chance ou le mérite de rencontrer un homme bien (encore faut-il le mériter mesdames!).

Vieilles

Si on regarde la photo de groupe de cette association, on voit tout de suite qu'il n'y a pas de jeunes poulettes là-dedans: ces dames on toutes un âge certain! Certains diront que c'est la ''lutte pathétique d’une trentaine de bonnes femmes toutes plus laides les unes que les autres en mal de prince charmant'', d'autres que c'est un ''déchaînement de bouffeuses de curé" qui n'étonne pas de la part d'une association au nom ridicule''. D'autres enfin ajouteront que ce sont les ''nouvelles dames patronnesses''.

Dessins de mauvaise qualité

Des dessins de mauvais goût et de mauvaise qualité. Celles qui insistent que leurs oeuvres d'un ''humour de dogue'' ont un copyright qui doit être respecté peuvent être rassurées, personne ne va leur voler leur droit d'auteur pour ces esquisses mal faites. Personnellement, je n'en ai copié aucune. Si vous voulez voir du dessin et de l'illustration bien faits, allez à http://marclepine.blogspot.com/

Insultes aux politiciennes et femmes publiques

Ce serait leur raison d'existence: venger les femmes publiques insultées par des hommes. Remarquez que personne n'a jamais fondé d'association pour venger les hommes publics qui ont été insultés par des femmes. L'entreprise frise le ridicule. Parce que quelques femmes se sont fait traiter de ''salopes'' ou ''sales putes'', on fonde des associations et des ligues de défense! Qu'est-ce que les hommes doivent faire alors, lorsqu'ils se font traiter de ''salaud''? Fonder un parti politique, en appeler aux droits de l'homme? Heureusement que le ridicule ne tue pas!

Les insultées insultent

Toute cette campagne pour voir les fesses de Jean Paul Sartre est d'un mauvais goût et d'un ridicule consommé, vous ne trouvez-pas?. À l'époque des grandes dames, des gentlemen et du savoir-vivre on traitait l'auteur d'une blague de mauvais goût de ''grossier personnage''. De quel nom devrait-on affubler les chiennes ici? D'animaux malpolis, mal domptés, de bêtes grossières? Mesdames vous êtes ridicules, nous les hommes sommes plus pudiques et avons beaucoup plus de classe. Non, nous ne voulons voir aucune paire de fesses: ni les amas de grosse chair de Simone de Beauvoir, d'Andréa Dworkin ou celles toutes molles et toutes pendantes de votre vieillissante pseudo-historienne de présidente Florence Montreynaud. Non, rhabillez-vous mesmades! Enlevez de notre vue ces amas de chair flasque que nous ne saurions voir!

Et continuent d'insulter

Les prix du plus macho qu'on donne à un évêque, et un vieux militant socialiste, ces décorations ridicules, ces campagnes de salissage malodorantes et des caricatures mal faites: réalisez-vous mesdames à quel point tout ça vous rend ridicules? De vrais ENFANTILLAGES, vous dis je!

Publicité sexiste

Que les chiennes de garde se rassurent, beaucoup d'hommes sont tellement écoeurés des femmes qu'ils n'en amènent plus à la maison. On dit qu'au Québec les hommes ne draguent plus, c'est pire: le corps des femmes ne les inspire même plus. Plusieurs de mes copains refusent d'avoir un calendrier à fille, ils choisissent un calendrier à paysage: SANS PHOTO DE FILLES. Je n'ai aucune revue pornographique à la maison et il y a des années que je n'ai pas mis le nez dans un magazine de sexe. Pire encore, un constructeur automobile japonais avait, avant même la fondation des chiennes de garde en l'an 2000, pris le pari qu'une publicité sans femme pulpeuse pourrait faire vendre ses camionnettes tout aussi bien. Pendant deux ans, ce pick-up truck a été annoncé avec une pub mettant en vedette deux cow-boys, l'un en blue jeans fumant une cigarette et l'autre buvant une bière. Comme quoi, le corps féminin n'est pas absolument nécessaire pour faire vendre.

Allez, les pin-up au rancard! On n'a plus besoin de vous, mesdames. Le corps féminin n'inspire plus. C'est les chiennes qui vont être contentes!

Comme conclusion

J'ai toujours admiré les Français qui étaient à l'époque plus machos et plus masculins que les Américains. Les Amerloques avaient beau ''rouler des mécaniques'' les Français eux, savaient se faire respecter des femmes. Prenez par exemple les films d'Alain Delon: Alain Delon reçoit une baffe d'une nana, il redonne sa gifle à la dame aussi sec. John Wayne reçoit une gifle d'une actrice, il ne riposte pas, mais va plutôt donner un coup de poing à son voisin (ce qui est franchement stupide). Les Français savaient remettre les femmes à leur place, les Américains n'osaient pas. Toute cette merde de féminisme et la pornographie aussi vient d'Amérique. Mais on dirait que les mecs n'ont plus la touche depuis l'arrivée des chiennes de garde. Un peu moins de respect messieurs, n'hésitez pas à rendre leur baffes à cette gente malodorante, et en plus, n'oubliez pas que les chiens ont des puces. Vous ne saviez pas que la présidente des chiennes dissimule son collier anti-puces sous son manteau?

Lorsqu'elles disent qu'elles vont montrer les crocs, réalise-t-on qu'à cet âge où elle manquent systématiquement de calcium, les ongles sont vraiment fragiles. Néanmoins, si l'un d'entre vous se faisait griffer par leurs faux ongles ou mordre par une malodorante aux dents cariées, une piqûre contre le tétanos s'impose comme prévention. N'oubliez pas d'emmener l'enragée dans une cage à l'Institut Pasteur.

''Ralliez-vous aux chiennes de garde'', disent-elles ''refusez qu'on vous tienne la porte''.Notez que je ne tiens la porte à personne ni ne cède ma place dans le métro et l'autobus si ce n'est à un vieux monsieur. Je ne crois pas qu'on doive la tenir à une femme, mais il est parfois nécessaire de lui ''montrer la porte''. Donc tenir la porte non, montrer la porte oui, parfois!

Quant à l'appellation "Chiennes de garde" je la trouve affreusement insultante pour nos amis les chiens. Il est plus que temps de retourer la meute au chenil. Cette association d'aigries ultra-féministes qui n'accepte la plaisanterie que si elle émane d'elles n'a plus sa place. On n'a nul besoin de cette sorte de caste bien pensante qui s'arroge le droit décider de ce qui est bon ou mauvais!!! Notons que ces harpies n'ont jamais osé s'attaquer au port imposé du voile islamique dans les cités en France. Pourquoi? Tout simplement parce que dans une vraie bagarre, leurs faux-ongles ne tiendraient pas le coup!

John Gisogod

FEMINIST DIALOGUE WITH MARC

2009-09-28T00:50:00.000-07:00

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!

MARC LEPINE ON ABORTION AND PRO CHOICE

2009-09-25T09:50:00.000-07:00

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.

SITTING BACK: INACTIVITY OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE?

2009-09-23T03:43:00.000-07:00

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, ...at 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.

Cho Seung Hui and Marc

2009-09-21T03:06:00.000-07:00

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.

GRIEF INC. : THE MOURNING INDUSTRY

2009-09-18T05:46:00.000-07:00

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.

THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN INDUSTRY

2009-09-16T08:01:00.000-07:00

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.

MARC LEPINE DEFENDED HIS RIGHT TO A HIGHER EDUCATION

2009-09-14T03:04:00.000-07:00

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...

MARC LEPINE: A RIGHTFUL ANGER

2009-09-11T16:26:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting article from (Lady??) Purtek titled What Happened in Montreal at
http://purtek.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/what-happened-in-montreal/

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.

PREVIOUSLY UNTOUCHABLE WOMEN

2009-09-09T06:39:00.000-07:00

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.

CONCEALED WEAPONS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION

2009-09-07T07:23:00.000-07:00

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!

MORE MASSACRES MIGHT BE CALLED FOR

2009-09-05T06:26:00.000-07:00

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!

FEMINIST BIGOTRY

2009-09-03T08:21:00.000-07:00

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.

GIRLS = NATURAL BORN NURTURERS, BOYS = NATURAL BORN KILLERS?

2009-09-01T02:49:00.000-07:00

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.

''CONGRATULATION! IT'S A MURDERER''

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?

ASIAN MASS KILLERS BETTER THAN WHITE ONES?

2009-08-28T05:11:00.000-07:00

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 ''...at 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!

ANSWERING MANGINAS AND FEMINISTS

2009-08-26T04:54:00.000-07:00

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.

MARC LEPINE'S WAS A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE

2009-08-24T05:50:00.000-07:00

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 !

AMERICAN MASCULINITY AND EMPIRE AT RISK

2009-08-21T11:30:00.000-07:00

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.

HIRING PRIVATE CONTRACTORS TO DO THE JOB

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.

The Right-Wing Ideology that Opposes Gun Control

2009-08-20T09:04:00.000-07:00

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!

Rue 89 or MARC GOT HIS OWN STREET NOW

2009-08-19T09:07:00.000-07:00

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 http://carnets.opossum.ca/mario/ 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.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS NOT A PROBLEM

2009-08-17T01:31:00.000-07:00

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.

WHY NOBODY TRIED TO STOP LEPINE

2009-08-14T23:52:00.000-07:00

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.