Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Justifying Marc Lepine's Murderous Rampage

One of Lepine's victims.
The 21st anniversary of the Montreal Massacre this Monday naturally inspired some discussion anongst Men's Rightsers and Men Going Their Own Way. And so it was only a matter of time until someone posted something essentially justifying Marc Lepine's murderous rampage. On NiceGuy's MGTOW Forums, Kargan3033's only real objection to Lepines' actions was that he picked the wrong targets -- women who weren't actually feminists. Here are the key parts of what is his own Lepine-style manifesto. It's badly written, and full of typos, but it's worth slogging through simply because it is so utterly vile. I've bolded the creepiest parts.

Was ML right in doing what he did?, in my opinion yes and no, yes that he had the right idea and no that he picked the wrong targets.

If I was ever to pull an ML, I would go to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and start handing out some FMJ [Full Metal Jacket] love notes to them, not some innocet person in the streets that I would run into, why you might ask, that simple to make it clear to the femanazis and their goverment whore misters that "You keep pushing and abusing men you will pay for it with your live's blood personaly" and by taking out the femanazis and the evil scum sucking traitors who sold out their fellow men for a wiff of pussy and more power you would be sending a clear message to the public that one you are not some crazed gun man who walked into the local walmart and capped off a bunch of random strangers and second of all that the reason why you went postal was because of the shit and abuse that you suffered because you are a man thanks to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and you settled the issue with them Personaly which would give you more respect in the eyes of men and most of socity at large because you delt with the ones who pushed you to far instead of gunning down innocent men, ladies and child who happened to be in the worng place at the worng time.

Also by taking out the femanazis and their goverment puppet masters you will inspire other men who are to the snaping point to got after their True Abusers and not innocent people.

All in all we are going to see more and more MLs as the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies keep puting the screws to men which in turn will cause them to tighten the screws to the men and boys which will inspire more revenge and the spilling of their blood untill western socitey tears it'self apart. 



Kargan3033 was so proud of this comment he posted it to AntiMisandry.com. He was quick to add that it was "not a call to violance" [sic]. Really?  Then what on earth is it?

People like this aren't just wrong. They're dangerous.

28 comments:

  1. Wait: STOP THE PRESS!

    Are you telling me there is another no name nobody MRA that's not only filled with hate but is also a really bad typist and speller?

    Amazing!

    Now that is what I call a hard-hitting issue!

    If I were a woman: I would so want to have sex with you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 800 posts from now when David is still posting these quotes and comments from major MRA blogs every MRA will still come here talking about how IT'S JUST ONE POSTER, YOU'RE JUST LOOKING FOR STUFF TO MAKE US LOOK BAD.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "People like this aren't just wrong. They're dangerous."

    In a way, aren't we all dangerous?

    No seriously, Kargan3033's comments are WAY out of line. I hope he gets some medical help and anger management training.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @magdelyn:

    "In a way, aren't we all dangerous?"

    Speak for yourself.

    @Nymeria:

    How do we know that you are not secretly "Kargan3033"? Trying to make them look bad.
    How do we know who the hell this person is?

    Honestly, quoting comments from no-name nobodies seems silly.

    Oh, and about the previous post here...

    It seems that Davee wanted some attention from me.

    Sorry if I hurt your feelings Davee.

    Let me know when you want more attention.

    Just feel free to take what I write out of context.

    @notanmra:
    ARE YOU A WOMAN????

    ReplyDelete
  5. kargan3033 has made 463 posts on the NiceGuy forum. If he's secretly a feminist troll, well, that would have to be one dedicated troll.

    Sure, kargan3033 is a nut. But the thing is, this is considered within the realm of acceptable discussion on the site.

    No one there who has responded to his post has actually criticized him for promoting? threatening? advocating? fanatsizing about? the murder of feminists, in grisly detail. No one has called for him to be banned from the site.

    Indeed, the only person calling for banning in that discussion is coldfire -- the same guy who posts here as cold -- and he's calling for ME to be banned, not kargen3033, and not for behaving badly on their forums (I haven't) but simply for pointing outsiders to comments cold doesn't want the outside world to see.

    (Cold: Didn't you complain about me using the banhammer here the other day? Doesn't that make you a complete hypocrite?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ScareCrow

    How do we know you're really ScareCrow? You could be David, trying to make ScareCrow look bad. (It would certainly explain the majority of your comments.)

    What if I'm you? WHAT IF I'M EVERYONE? Trying to make everyone look bad??

    But seriously, you're saying that pointing out shitty things people say on forums or websites can't be reliable because we don't know who anyone is? The fact that people can say those sorts of things on MRA forums and sites does say something about the MRA movement.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Nymeria:

    I knew I wasn't me all along!

    I knew it!!!

    DAMN YOU DAVID FUTRELLE!!!!!!!!

    I'll get you for being me!

    @Nymeria:

    I knew you were up to no good. Now I know why everybody looks so bad - ITS YOU!!!!

    DAMN YOU NYMERIA!!!!

    I'll get you for this!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's another one...

    Jean-Claude Rochefort, of Quebec, an MRA, or as he calls himself, 'masculinist activist', who was arrested and held for threats on a blog he authored dedicated to Marc Lepine.

    http://marclepine.blogspot.com/

    According to the Toronto Sun, the court maintained that his blog "invited men to kill women solely because they are women."

    In this same article he is quoted as saying that he had been "writing on different sites of that kind in the United States, but I never thought that by launching this site in Quebec that it would do as much damage or that the consequences would be as severe." He was possibly posting on the same MRA sites where I found links to his Marc Lepine blog or discussions about his blog - MGTOW and Anglobitch (whose author has the link to the blog as a site he follows).

    I don't know what the outcome of his case was, he was to stand trial in May. There were some charges that were dropped and a bill was introduced to try to change a law that would close a loophole that prevented Rochefort from being tried on those. I don't know if he was tried and is in prison, or is out and lying low, possibly back to posting anonymously on the U.S. MRA websites.

    There is some disturbing content on his blog, that's for sure.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/760692--quebec-judge-calls-marc-lepine-blogger-troubling

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/31/13429581-qmi.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anyone who threatens to or wants to hurt someone just because they belong to a group (especially a group they can't control like their sex, gender, race, and so on) is pretty sick.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David Futrelle said...
    .....the thing is, this is considered within the realm of acceptable discussion on the site.


    No, it is not considered as 'acceptable discussion', but as MRAs we talk with men who are showing up with such an opinion nevertheless.

    No one there who has responded to his post has actually criticized him for promoting? threatening? advocating? fanatsizing about? the murder of feminists, in grisly detail. No one has called for him to be banned from the site


    This is not true, read the entire thread. All 35 postings, and what you say here in your blog is purposely distorted and taken out of context.

    David, you are like Hugo, who is also trolling our forum, both of you are cowards as you operate only out of hiding. Both of you never post anything and never sign up with your true name in our forums and blogs.

    Of course you are nitpicking again some sentences out of context, and ignore all the other comments of members who do not agree with kargan3033's opinion or similar views.

    However our policy is not into deleting and banning. That's feminist style only. We do not push angry men away.

    We are MRAs, so we try to talk and to calm down such members and try to correct their aggressive behavior.

    We do the final step - the kickout of a member - only in very extremly hopeless cases after several warnings.

    Our moderation policy is totally different from feminist publishing, there is no censorship, there is no party-line.

    Further, it's still up to us and not up to you and some other radical feminists to decide our moderation policy and how we run our forum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah cute - deleting my posts eh...

    It's all good...

    I can understand why.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Cold: Didn't you complain about me using the banhammer here the other day? Doesn't that make you a complete hypocrite?"

    No. In order for me to be a complete hypocrite I would have to complain about you banning quote miners, which I haven't done.

    I suggested to the mods/admin that you be banned on the grounds that your only purpose in registering is to mine for quotes that you can use in your smear campaign. I see no reason why they should facilitate your efforts by letting you have an account, but luckily for you they see things differently.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Futrelle is a hypocrite.

    I am not allowed to express my opinions of two women accusing a man of rape.

    He however is allowed to express his opinions that OJ is a murderer (assume that he is one anyway).

    My opinions get called "vicious" even though the only thing I "speculate" about them is that they remind me of man-haters.

    His opinions are of course not "vicious" - even though he is ASSUMING somebody is a MURDERER.

    Like any feminist, his brain has no logic or reasoning capabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Uh, were you around for the OJ trial? There's oodles and oodles of evidence that makes clear he killed his ex wife and Ron Goldman and that the "not guilty" verdict was a travesty. By contrast, you based your speculations about the two accusers on two snapshots.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And what about you? Where YOU around for the OJ trial?

    Your comment is totally biased - as a male feminist you PRESUME the MAN MUST be guilty...

    Simpson's trial was 1995, and reading back this article it seems, his case was not so clear.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

    Simpson appeared unable to fit in those gloves which was highly damaging to the prosecution's case.

    Prosecutors contended that the presence of O. J. Simpson's blood at the crime scene was the result of blood dripping from cuts on the middle finger of his left hand. Police noted his wounds on June 13, 1994, and asserted that these were suffered during the fatal attack on Ronald Goldman.

    However, the defense noted that none of the gloves found had any cuts.

    Plus, both prosecution and defense witnesses testified at not seeing any cuts or wounds of any kind on Simpson's hands in the hours after the murders took place.


    If this is not reasonable doubt then what it is reasonable doubt?

    ... store receipts indicating that Simpson had purchased a 12-inch (300 mm) stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. The knife was determined to be similar to the one the coroner said caused the stab wounds.

    The prosecution did not present this evidence at trial after discovering that store employees had sold their story to The National Enquirer for $12,500.

    The knife was later collected from Simpson's residence by a court appointed special master, who took control of the knife. Prosecution tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on knife, thus, the knife had never been used.


    And what shall the jury do now?

    On October 3, 1995, after only four hours of deliberation the previous day, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I will leave it to you and OJ to track down the "real killers."

    ReplyDelete
  17. @yohan,

    You're in over your head on this one. You don't know enough about the case to have an even halfway intelligent conversation about it. You should find someone else to use as an example of a victim. OJ Simpson is no victim.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The decision of the jury was clear, not guilty.
    Like it or not.

    Interesting that you question the American justice system.

    OJ Simpson is not a victim, he is a thug.

    However if you claim he is a killer and he was using a certain knife and it turns out the knife was never used... and you claim he used certain gloves, but it turns out these gloves are too small...

    Just out of wikipedia...

    Where YOU around for the OJ trial? It seems you don't know enough to have an even halfway intelligent conversation about it ...

    A knife never used and gloves which do not fit are surely not enough for a conviction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @yohan,

    Most of the time, the system works, but it has its flaws. And, yes, I was around. I followed that case from the night of the murder when he ran from the police to current day.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Yohan, please learn the basics of the legal system and burdens of proof before you speak of it again. "Not guilty" is not the equivalent of innocent. The prosecutor has to show someone is 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' to win, which means that the court is all about the prosecutor's ability to prove that. No criminal court in the US EVER finds a defendent innocent, they only find that the prosecutor has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendent is therefore 'not guilty'. The US criminal system is designed to prioritize minimizing false conviction of the innocent even at the risk of letting the guilty walk free. In the civil wrongful death trial, where the burden is preponderance of the evidence, the victim's families won soundly. If you go by just the jury verdicts, how sure we are that OJ is a killer is less than beyond a reasonable doubt but more than beyond a preponderance. (Though it is worth remembering that there were some intensely controversial evidence battles in the criminal trial and things like the 911 tapes did not reach the criminal trial jury).

    @Christine "Most of the time, the system works, but it has its flaws." So true. Also, the courts are often blamed for the foolish laws made by the legislature. The court that convicted someone caught with a joint of felony possession of a controlled substance did not make the marijuana laws, nor did it convict someone who had not violated the law. False conviction does exist, but the real rampant problem in the US system is not false conviction, but legistlatures making really rididulous things crimes with harsh punishments. Don't blame a judge for being corrupt for impartially enforcing a foolish law made by the legislature, blame the legislature for passing the foolish law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Yohan, please learn the basics of the legal system and burdens of proof before you speak of it again. "Not guilty" is not the equivalent of innocent.

    I never used the word 'innocent' for OJ Simpson in this thread. I said 'not guilty'. So what is your point to ask me to learn the basics?

    The word 'innocent' is however used when charges are dropped.

    For example:
    North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent ...

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Yohan, no this "North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent" is incorrect. There is no such legal finding as 'innocent' within the US legal system. "I never used the word 'innocent' " No, but you are clearly confusing the concepts of being "not guilty" and being innocent of committing the crime. A jury finding of not guilty is not proof that the person did not actually commit the crime, it is only proof that the prosecutor did not show that beyond a responable doubt. The phrase "not guilty" has a specific meaning in a legal context, and you clearly do not understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5200238

    04/11/07-- RALEIGH) (WTVD) -- Statement from North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper on the Duke University lacrosse rape case.


    The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

    The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

    .....

    Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges ...


    The word 'guilty' or 'not guilty' were not used in this statement. The link will give you the full text.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Christ, Yohan. I've been a lurker here for a while (great blog, David) but you've finally drawn me out of the woodwork.

    The statement from the Attorney General was not a court ruling. Therefore, "innocent" can be used in this particular instance. It will never, ever be used as a legal finding.

    Please read up on the justice system before you attempt to comment on it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @anthonybsusan

    What nonsense are you talking ?
    How can be a court ruling, if false rape allegations never make it up to a trial?

    Did I ever mention anything about a trial?

    (my previous posting) Yohan: The word 'innocent' is however used when charges are dropped.

    For example:
    North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent ...


    I said, the word 'innocent' is used when charges are dropped.

    Read up... before you comment...good advice from you...look in a mirror...

    ReplyDelete
  26. The attorney general has said that he and the other investigators personally believe the players are innocent. They were not actually declared innocent by anyone. You can't declare someone innocent, legally. You either drop the charges or you take them to court and receive a verdict of guilty or not guilty. That is reflected in the wording of the attorney general's statement.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What an interesting statement:

    A man accused for a crime which never took place is not innocent, but not guilty.

    A malicious woman, who did such accusations is not guilty but innocent...

    This woman, Crystal Magnum (not her real name btw, but a name she is using on the stage as a stripper) who made this malicious accusation is now under investigation herself for other crimes, which include severe violence and arson.

    Crystal Magnum Charged With Arson And Attempted Murder

    http://www.dreamindemon.com/2010/02/18/crystal-magnum-charged-with-arson-and-attempted-murder/

    And feminists of course remain silent ...

    ReplyDelete
  28. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/02/18/2010-02-18_crystal_gail_mangum_stripper_in_duke_lacrosse_rape_case_charged_with_arson_and_a.html


    The exotic dancer was charged with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, resisting arrested, child abuse and other offenses.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis