- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
Prove me wrong then. Go hang out with your friends, take a photo with them with a timestamp.
Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger) 2: The Revenge
- Thread starter Saney
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
MARC LEPINE: THE SYMPTOM OF A QUEBEC SICKNESS[/paste:font]
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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
WERE THOSE FOURTEEN AT POLYTECHNIQUE REALLY INNOCENT?[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 3:35 AM 12 comments:
MARC LEPINE: THE SYMPTOM OF A QUEBEC SICKNESS[/paste:font]
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.
I am too stupid to come up with an actual retort.
Monday, November 30, 2009
WERE THOSE FOURTEEN AT POLYTECHNIQUE REALLY INNOCENT?[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 3:35 AM 12 comments:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
Exactly. You don't have any. Not even LoveShy members like or respect you. You're only tolerated because @fschmidt needs fuckboy disciples to spread the gospel of lonely virgins.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
Monday, October 19, 2009
DO WOMEN SECRETLY LOVE MARC LEPINE?[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 3:06 AM No comments:
and if i wanted the pics of my friends to be shared by rape worshiping animals like you they wouldn't be my friends
Friday, October 16, 2009
KEEPING THE SCRARECROW ALIVE[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 6:02 AM No comments:
Labels: antihero, approve of the killing, folk hero, hero, immortal, legend, propaganda, social phenomenon, special interest groups
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
DO WOMEN SECRETLY LOVE MARC LEPINE?[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 3:06 AM No comments:
exactly. if i wanted my pics to be online they'd be online.
and if i wanted the pics of my friends to be shared by rape worshiping animals like you they wouldn't be my friends
Friday, October 16, 2009
KEEPING THE SCRARECROW ALIVE[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 6:02 AM No comments:
Labels: antihero, approve of the killing, folk hero, hero, immortal, legend, propaganda, social phenomenon, special interest groups
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
@Holden, seriously. It's annoying. Stop doing the copy/paste textwalls. Either put them in spoiler tags or post a link. Then people can read your shit at their leisure.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
I'm not sure who you're trying to convince at this point. Gotta be yourself since we already know we have your pics and name. You really don't know how the internet works, this is evidenced by your threats and ultimate failure to dox @flossman. You couldn't even dox me when I told you how to find it.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Because that money would go to even more meth. Yes, we know.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
purple, why again would i post pics of me and my friends? do you think anybody sane would do this to their friends, seeing as you have no qualms about putting up any pic you think is mine, without thinking of those poor people?
namazuros
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
i could never get enough money. i'd need hundreds of thousands for just one trip.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
and, yeah, even with that there's no guarantee. i don't know anything about albiania. maybe it's already destroyed by feminism. maybe it's extremely tribal and foreigners can't get near their women. maybe i'd just be unlucky.
Monday, September 28, 2009
FEMINIST DIALOGUE WITH MARC[/paste:font]
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!
Posted by Rick Flashman at 12:50 AM No comments:
Labels: antihero, feminism, gender war, guilty, immortal, misandry, monsters, social phenomenon, victims
Monday, September 28, 2009
FEMINIST DIALOGUE WITH MARC[/paste:font]
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!
Posted by Rick Flashman at 12:50 AM No comments:
Labels: antihero, feminism, gender war, guilty, immortal, misandry, monsters, social phenomenon, victims
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
Having pictures of yourself on the internet isn't really an issue for people that don't make outlandish tough guy threats they can't back up.
See? I'm not worried.
P.S: You never told me if you like your picture.
namazuros
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2014
So when you say you can't, you mean you won't. You could get a job and save up.
And bullshit, you could find cheap flights.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
it seems to be enough of an issue for you, since you're not even ready to show your own entire face or a timestamp.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Do you... have a concept of money? I realize that exchange rates fluctuate, but hundreds of thousands of dollars would get me a flight to damn near anywhere in the world and then enough money to buy a house there.
Well, no, you only want timestamped vaginas.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
i don't have 10 years to spare and even then only to risk trying. i can't stand being like this for 10 more months, let alone so much. why do you think i turned to terrorizing women here? because i know that going abroad isn't an option.
you don't seem to have it. i'm not talking about dollars
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
I've shown it to the people here that matter. You don't. And I'm pretty sure the handdrawn image that's dated is close enough to a timestamp.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
where have i done so?
haha, ok, chump. did it ever occur to you that you also don't matter to me?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
SITTING BACK: INACTIVITY OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE?[/paste:font]
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.
Posted by Rick Flashman at 3:43 AM No comments:
Labels: feminism, gender war, guilty, innocent, matriarchy, media censorship, misandry, monsters, social phenomenon, special interest groups, victims
Newer PostsOlder PostsHome
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status