Auteur Lu 21171 fois


  • *****
  • Néophyte
  • Messages: 29
The war against men.
* le: 06 juillet 2007, 05:51:42 *
* Modifié: 06 juillet 2007, 05:56:16 par Jacques *
The war against men
The War Against Men Men. Part One
A View from the Street
By George Rolph
When men are told that women are abusing them, or their brothers. When men are told that women are stealing the rights of men. When men are told that historically, they have been lied to, lied about and maligned in almost every possible way, by women. Their first and often honest reaction to this news, is to look at the speaker with eyes full of suspicion and say, “I love women!”

Men do this because of fear. The fear of appearing anti-women (Misogynist). Such a feeling is an affront to their sense of chivalry. After all, men are supposed to protect and even die for women.



Men are supposed to protect and die for women worthy of that sacrifice. Would you protect and die for Myra Hindley?
Would you protect and die for a women who slaughtered your children out of malice? Would you protect and die for the women dressed in SS uniforms who helped lead millions of other women and children into the gas chambers of Nazi concentration camps?

Somewhere, things have got a little mixed up haven’t they!

The Disempowerment Of Men.

All around men today, the most astonishing hatred is fired at them from every direction. The press, the TV and Radio. The politicians, the judges, lawyers and the schools. The social services, the medical profession. The universities and colleges. Books, magazines, advertisements, movies and of course, women. All spewing anti male hatred twenty four hours a day. So prevalent has this become, that men of every race and creed have become, the new, modern, niggers. If John Lennon were alive today, I believe he would be singing; “Men, are the niggers of the world.”

The problems begin when these facts are pointed out to males. Men instantly become defensive and begin asserting their love for all women, for fear of being labelled as, “a women hater.” It is this irrational fear - fostered in them by people with a political motive - that is the driving force behind their own disempowerment.

Alan Williams (name changed) got up one morning to go to work as normal. His wife got up with him and saw the children off to school at the front door. As soon as the kids were gone, the daily routine of abuse began. One hour later, Alan Williams was dead. Stabbed in the chest with a pair of scissors. At the trial, Mrs Williams played the abuse card and said she was just protecting herself from her husbands abuse. When her own kids denied abuse ever happened to her; she changed her story and said she was “depressed” and did not know what she was doing. When witnesses said they had never seen evidence of depression in her, she suddenly became a picture of a terrified, pathetic, victim and sobbed endlessly in court. It worked! She was given one year in jail. A male judge, ignored justice for the dead mans family in favour of misplaced chivalry towards a creature who was unworthy of it. An abusive man who stabbed his wife would go down for life! Alan Williams did die for her, but not because she was decent and worthy of his sacrifice, but because she was an abusive killer, with a heart of stone.

Who Programmed The Men?

Somewhere along the line, men have been programmed to consider all women, irrespective of their merit or character, to be worthy of goddess-like treatment and offered protection and sacrifice, even to those females that hate them.

When did this begin? Who did it and why was it done?

In an article of this size I cannot answer all these questions in detail without turning it into a book. Instead, I will sketch a brief outline now and fill in the details later in other articles.

When The War Began.

It began in the 1960’s when a group of women hijacked the Women’s Movement and turned it into the Women’s Liberation Movement. Now.., you cannot tell people they need liberation, without having an oppressor. This “oppressor,” this new political group told us was, the “patriarchy.” Most men, when they heard this the first time, had no idea what a patriarchy was. They quickly discovered that it was them!

The verbal whips began to crack and the fog of guilt began to descend. Suddenly, everything that was wrong with everything - and this is important - was your fault, if you where born male. No longer was it true that some men were rapists and most men were not. Now, we were told, “all men are rapists.” I listened one day as a member of this group said, without challenge, on a BBC radio broadcast; “A husband, is just a rapist who buys you flowers.” The all women group in the studio cackled - like the witches from Macbeth - with evil glee at their cleverness. A new sport was born:

Male bashing.

Real chivalry died and false chivalry took it’s place over the next few decades. Feminism began programming men to believe all kinds of lies about their gender and guilt, fear and emotional confusion stacked so high in their minds, that millions of men lost their greatest skill: The ability to reason logically. One of the lies they were told and which they believed was, “men refused to allow women to vote.” This was one of the first and greatest distortions of history ever uttered in Britain by feminists.

Men were now the oppressed and women the oppressors. Not all women, at first, but a steady growing tide of them. Misandry (men hating) became the new politics and men themselves began to loath other men and turn against anyone who dared challenge the lies they were being told. The feminist, feminised man was born and a more pathetic creature has never walked the earth. He is the product of cult-like brainwashing.

The rules had changed. Now, a man must not love and protect a worthy woman. He was commanded by his new masters to love and protect, even the vilest of women, including his oppressors. Many men did..,


A war between the sexes had begun. It was not just a ‘battle of the sexes,’ but all out war and, like any war, it was filled with propaganda. Like all propaganda, most of it was false or misleading.

In this series of articles I want to examine who is promoting that war. Who are it’s casualties. Where did this new army of “liberators” come from. What have been the consequences of the war and, most important of all, how to fight back.


  • *****
  • Néophyte
  • Messages: 29
The war against men, 2.
* Réponse #1 le: 06 juillet 2007, 05:55:48 *
The War Against Men Men. Part Two
The Power of Brainwashing
By George Rolph

Have men been innocent of all the claims made against them by feminism? No! Not at all! Any man who thinks that way has not really studied the evidence. However, this series of articles is not about what men have done. That has been pounded at us every day for forty years in one form or another. The questions I want to ask relate to whether or not men have been guilty of all we have been accused of and what, if any, have been the effects of the constant accusations levelled at the male race on a generation of men, women and children.

In order to think about the effects of feminism on modern men it is important to understand how men have reacted to feminism in the form it was imposed upon us in the 1960’s. How was it so successful in changing men? What were the techniques used to alter the way millions of men thought about themselves and women? Were the techniques used honest, or were they a form of oppression dumped on men?

How much do you know about the term ‘brainwashing?’ We have all heard of it, but do we really understand it? How is it done? Why is it done? Who does it? Can it be done to you? Has it been done to you?

A man on the street who decides to join the army is about to get brainwashed.

The civilian gets off of the bus at the army base and is stripped of his clothing. His external identity is removed. He is then screamed at, insulted, put down, forced to work and to “jump” when he is told to jump by his instructors‘. Now his internal identity is pulled apart and rebuilt. Over time he is almost completely broken down and rebuilt as a ‘good soldier.’ It is drummed into him that his loyalty is now to the army, his squad and his superiors. Only when the army is satisfied that the job is done, is he passed out to become a real soldier.

This passing out ceremony is his reward and great fanfare accompanies the ceremony. He is made to feel pride in the fact that he has lost his personal identity and become a tool for use on the battlefield. He has been reprogrammed. Brainwashed. His thoughts now belong to the army.

OK. Fine. He knew, or should have known, that this would happen when he joined up. Therefore, there is an element of voluntary choice in his actions. What happens though, when people are not given such a choice? When they are brainwashed against their will? Well, that is when they become slaves!

Let’s take the time to define brainwashing.


“Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favour of another set of beliefs. Usually associated with military and political interrogation and religious conversion, brainwashing attempts, through prolonged stress, to break down an individual's physical and mental defences. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.”

Note carefully the words “forces” and, “prolonged stress.” It is these words that separate brainwashing from education. When we educate someone we encourage them to take a rounded thoughtful view of the problems they are studying. When someone is brainwashed it is like saying: “Think THIS WAY or else.”

To brainwash a whole society is not as difficult as it first seems to appear. What is needed is to first identify that societies cherished beliefs and then to attack those beliefs over and over again. This induces confusion in the people. As the attacks progress and become ever more intense, to confusion is added, fear. When the confusion and fear have reached critical levels, one merely has to substitute a calm reassuring voice that says, “We have the answers to your confusion and fear. Listen to us.” The military, the police, Communist and other left wing (and right wing) regimes and religious cults, all use these techniques to varying degrees and with varying success, for various reasons. They can have devastating effects on people and even whole populations. Consider Chairman Mao’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ for example. David Koresh was another who used brainwashing to great effect in Waco and to this day, some of his followers still believe him to be a messiah; albeit, a dead one.

These techniques can be used, in malevolent hands, to turn whole sections of the people against each other, as happened in Nazi Germany. The people are largely unaware that they have been brainwashed and the messages they receive, constantly reassure them (or threaten them if the brainwashing has not been successful), into believing that any doubts or concerns they have will be removed, just by listening to the elites in government over them. It is a peculiar and dangerous effect of brainwashing that the subjects can be reduced to such a state that they come to see their brainwashers as their friends (Also known as Stockholm Syndrome).This leads them to defend their attackers and their attackers ideology, often very strongly. Where this happens, it is strong evidence that the brainwashing has been a total success in that subject and the effected subject may then be used to attack their previous friends, perhaps verbally, physically, by isolation, or a combination of all of these things.

The deprogramming of these people can be very difficult as long as the subject is in constant touch with their oppressors. This is because whenever the subject has doubts and voices them, his colleagues will reinforce his programming. Hence this process is called, ‘reinforcement’

The constant reinforcement of ideas can have a powerful effect. These techniques has been used by groups as diverse as the Ku Klux Klan, feminism and advertisers. Hollywood and the TV industry have often been accused of using reinforcement to help create violence and immorality in society, whether by accident or design and there is very little doubt that the constant dribble of violent and sexual images has had an effect on society. If reinforcement were not such a powerful tool, then advertisers would not spend billions on using it.

Having introduced this subject in what I hope is a clear and relatively concise way; in my next article I want to examine how radical feminists have used these techniques; beginning in the 1960’s through to today, to indoctrinate whole populations and create savage anti male hatred in their converts. I also want to look at the effects of this brainwashing on our political and social establishments and on you and I, in future articles.


  • *****
  • Néophyte
  • Messages: 29
The war against men. 3.
* Réponse #2 le: 06 juillet 2007, 05:58:43 *
The War Against Men Men. Part Three
Examples of Brainwashing
By George Rolph

I hope, that if you have read the previous two articles in this series, you will by now have a pretty good idea of what the term “brainwashing” means. In this article I want to look at the targets of that brainwashing by left wing feminist groups that were formed at the height of the cold war, in the 1960’s and which have had (and are still having) devastating consequences on families around the world.

It is of vital importance to understand that the abuse industry in the western world was NOT what the founder of the Shelter movement, Erin Pizzey,1. had in mind, when she opened the worlds first domestic abuse shelter in London, in 1971. Her refuges were forcibly taken over and the ethos she established thrown out and replaced by a new, Marxist/feminist one. It is from that root, that the whole abuse industry has grown and it was from that platform, among others, that the Marxist assault on the family began. (More on this in future articles).

An incredibly revealing article by Nev Moore entitled, “Inside A 'Batterers Program' for 'Abused' Women” can be found here:


Anyone interested in finding out about the effects of brainwashing should take the time to study this article very closely. It is deeply revealing and shows the feminist mind-set with great clarity. As it is a mind-set which has profound and far reaching implications for all men, women and children, I strongly recommend you take the time to analyse how this pernicious and vicious political weapon, is damaging your family and your children in particular.

I want to quote from Nev Moore’s excellent article and briefly, take a look at what she is saying the effects of this brainwashing has had on those working within the abuse industry and those people that these workers come into contact with. Before I do so, it might be good to refresh our memory about what brainwashing actually is, by looking at its definition once more.


“Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favour of another set of beliefs. Usually associated with military and political interrogation and religious conversion, brainwashing attempts, through prolonged stress, to break down an individual's physical and mental defences. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.”

If you click the link and read through Nev’s article, try to keep in mind the underlined parts of the above definition as you do so and you will quickly identify where those things were used, in her case, and in the case of the other women in the hostel. You will also see a glimpse of how these things played out with Nev, just by reading the paragraph I have reproduced below.

Nev Moore was forced to attend a Battered Women’s Group for “treatment” that she did not want, or need. Her article is a revealing report about what went on there. Here, she describes, in her own words, how they attempted to program her and became angry when they failed.

“Each week I continued to get chastised by the DSS supervisor, Larry Vadeboncoeur, for my poor attitude and "not accepting the message." I was, much later, to read in my DSS file that, if they forced me to attend those meetings, I would "relate to" and "form a bond" with the women there. (Translation: accept the indoctrination and embrace my victimhood.)”

Indoctrination can also be very subtle and the BBC are experts at this kind of brainwashing. By way of examples allow me to give you some idea of how this can operate.

On Saturday morning 4th November 2006 at around 6: am, one of our media monitors was listening, as usual, to BBC output. He was assigned to listen to BBC Radio London. I received his report minutes after this particular broadcast had begun. The report informed me that among the subjects being discussed that morning was, “What do men do that really drives you crazy?” Now, on its own, this is no big deal. However, when you consider it in terms of spreading anti male hatred and couple it with the over 700 instances of the same or similar “discussions” or “comment” output by the BBC network last year alone, it suddenly takes on enormous significance. Millions of female listeners and viewers are being encouraged, by just one network, to vocalise and own their negative feelings for an entire gender. Now, add in advertisements putting men down. Movies, articles, news reports that always begin, “A man was arrested today for…” (Very few stories tell us about female criminal activity in Britain). Stories of bad men killing their children, (often a cluster of these stories are broadcast just before the government announces some new initiative to bring out more anti male/father laws or, when the Fathers Movement is becoming influential and there is a “need” to discredit them, in order to “prepare” our thinking on the issue), and so on. It soon becomes clear that an agenda is operating that is not being discussed openly.

I called the station concerned and spoke to a female in the studio. I asked her why she and her friends were broadcasting sexist remarks about men. She was confused by my inquiry. I elucidated the point for her. “Can you tell me why you are encouraging your female listeners to hate men and vocalise that hatred on the air and, by that means, to spread it?” This time her confusion turned to honest shock. No one had ever questioned her in this way before. The shock did not last long and she soon lapsed into defending the BBC (Something their employees are very good at). Despite the fact that she could not bring herself to admit her wrong, what Angry Harry 2. calls, “A cognitive cluster bomb” had exploded in her brain and with luck, she may think about it some more in future.

As we men and boys become aware of the techniques used against us in this war, we can become ever more direct and creative in the ways we fight back. The gathering and sharing of information is vital, because we can use it when we are accused of “paranoia” or of being, “conspiracy theorists.” Accusations which are often used to try and stifle debate, but which are easily countered with good, hard-copy evidence. The advent of the internet means that we can now record instances of hate against men in video, document, audio, or photographic form and post it on the net. From there, other MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists) from around the world can gather the evidence together and use it in powerful ways to influence others and open their eyes to their own brainwashing. A good example of the power of this can be found here:

In the 1960’s the radical feminist movement exploded in our men’s collective consciousness in a way that left them reeling for the next thirty years. Accusations came thick and fast; were constant and unrelenting and some very harsh things were said about our gender. Confusion and naked fear was produced in men in those days, as their whole social and personal identity was decimated by these accusations. The brainwashing had begun and it has continued ever since.

Men who resist are insulted and called everything from, “Macho dinosaurs,” to “Neanderthal idiots.” Those who folded under the pressure are re-labelled, “New Men” and are pounded with “advice” about how to, “Get in touch with your feminine side” and become, “New Dads” that take over the traditional role of the housewife and mother at home. These new men become ashamed of their manliness and try to hide it. They are filled with guilt and are quick to defend feminists and their ideology. Unaware that they have abandoned their own masculinity, they often find themselves desperately trying, but failing, to relate to their own male children. Finding instead, a huge gap developing as the male kids regard their, “new feminine fathers” with contempt.

Pressure against the family has - as we all know - grown to destructive proportions and the effects on society are obvious and disturbing. However, as men become more and more organised and develop greater political and self awareness, we become a force, linked around the world by new technology, that is unstoppable.

By continuing to work together and by sharing information, we can not only pull down the feminist edifice that threatens our families, children and mental health, by exposing it to the public, but we can also win this war.

In my next article I want to look at the things said to men in the 1960’s that caused their breakdown in personal self esteem and left them so shattered and confused, that they became ripe subjects for the despicable brainwashing they were then subjected to.




  • *****
  • Néophyte
  • Messages: 29
The war against men. 4.
* Réponse #3 le: 06 juillet 2007, 06:01:53 *
The War Against Men. Part Four
Feminist Activities and Insults
By George Rolph

At the end of the 1960’s in the UK, the war against men had begun in earnest. The women’s movement had been taken over by radical left wing feminists and the accusations and insults that were to do so much damage to men over the next forty years had begun to flow.

In this article I want to look at what some of those accusations, repeated on a daily basis were. There is no better place to begin that with the utterances of Valerie Solanas in her S.C.U.M. manifesto. (SCUM was thought to mean: Society For Cutting Up Men)

Many people reading this will not be aware of who Valerie Solanas was. When they have read the things she was saying all those years ago, they may get the impression that it does not matter because she has long passed into history. That view could not be further from the truth. She is still influential today and her S.C.U.M manifesto is still being re-printed today. She died in 1998. Since her manifesto was first published, feminists have taken great pains to paint her, not as the deranged, man hating, lesbian she was, but as a hero of the feminist movement. That alone should give us plenty to think about!

Solanas was to find notoriety as the women who shot and tried to kill, the influential artist Andy Warhol and his friend and art critic Mario Amaya, in June 1968. Feminist Robin Morgan, who later became editor of Ms Magazine, demonstrated for her release from prison. (To read more. Go here: )

The influence of Solanas on other feminists during the 1960’s until today, should not be underestimated. Her insane ramblings gave other women the feeling that it was OK to make outrageous statements against men. Here are some of Solanas’ more infamous remarks:

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."

"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

"The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barrelling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants. Men who are rational, however, won't kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise."

The flood gates were opened and more and more women took the hint that it was OK to denigrate men. Robin Morgan was a member of the Youth International Party (Later to be known as “Yippies”) and who counted mass murderer Charles Manson among their membership. She later formed W.I.T.C.H in 1968. (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell). When her organisation broke up, she moved on to become a member of the Weather Underground Movement. This was a collection of communists seeking to overthrow the American government. Morgan was also the author of “Sisterhood Is Powerful” an influential left wing, feminist book.

The communist connections of radical feminists are of vital importance to understanding why anti male hatred was so stoked up in the 60’s and 70’s and continues today, as left wing feminists seek to gain control of western governments.

In an article of this length I do not have space to include all of the “sisters” who were members of the communist party in the 1970’s and who spearheaded the anti male drive we are all suffering under today. However, if there is the demand, I will write more on this subject later and fill in the blanks.

For men, who had always worked hard to provide for their wives and children, often at great personal sacrifice, the onslaught of male hatred that grew in crescendo doing the 1970’s was deeply confusing and painful to watch and hear. Their hard work had sent daughters off to university and college and those daughters were being turned against them by what they were being taught. It broke their hearts to hear their daughters begin denouncing them in savage and vicious terms. Many a father who had fought in world war two had his spirit broken by this ungrateful tirade of hatred, as thanks for all of his hard work and personal risk for his daughters freedom. Below is just a tiny sample of what those men were forced to listen to:

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." - Andrea Dworkin

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." - Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." - Sheila Jeffrys

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience," said Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life, in Time.

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed," said Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University in "Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women."

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, quoted in " One Woman, One Voice ", Wheeler, page 58.

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." Simone de Beauvoir, author of _The Second Sex_, the book that is credited with launching the mainstream of the modern feminist movement.

And so it goes.., on and on and on. Do you think that men could say any of these things were the genders reversed and not end up in jail under left wing hate laws?

For dads, brothers, fathers and sons, growing up in the decades from the 1960’s until today, there has been a constant stream of denigration of their gender. The effects of which have been to confuse, induce fear, create uncertainty about their role in life, and to breed a hatred for women in some men that is truly staggering. There can be little doubt that the increase in rape and other violent crimes against women are a direct result of this evil and persistent propaganda and each new incident fuels the hatred against men in a self perpetuating cycle. Men and women who have supported this evil have much to answer for, yet women in general are strangely silent. There are no large demonstrations attended by hoards of women calling for an end to this discrimination. Why? I think, largely because they benefit from it too much!

It was a broken hearted grandfather I met in 1978 who sat with me in an east end café crying like a child, who first awakened in me the realisation of what was going on.

“Son.” He said. “My generation fought two long and bloody wars to try and prevent what is happening today. We spilled our blood and gave our limbs to give you kids the chance to be free. We did not know then that the greatest enemy of that freedom was not the man in the grey uniform on the battlefield, but the women in the nice skirt; with the blinding smile and armed with the weapon of lies and insults. She is the one that will destroy our families. Not the German with the tank, but her.., with her lies.”

His rage at feminism was understandable. In this week, when people all over the world remember what his generation did for us. Can we afford to sit back and let their blood mix with foreign soil for nothing?

I believe that the most dangerous creature on the planet is a disempowered man. If I am right, then over the next few decades, the whirlwind sown by feminism will reap a terrible harvest on women. Only the pulling down and driving out of these people will stop it. Over the next few articles in this series I want to look at how that might be achieved and by whom.


  • *****
  • Néophyte
  • Messages: 29
Faute professionnelle féminine, donc "Encore un complot misogyne !"
* Réponse #4 le: 07 août 2007, 04:16:54 *
* Modifié: 09 mars 2012, 11:07:12 par Jacques *
Selon Stéphanie LeBlanc, parue dans l'inépuisable thésaurus de délire féminazi sisyphe, toute faute professionnelle, toute bavure policière féminine relève du complot masculiniste et misogyne :

Citation de: Stéphanie LeBlanc
Sexisme d’un autre siècle

    1er août 2007

    par Stéphanie LeBlanc

    J’aimerais aborder deux sujets. Premièrement, hier soir, une policière faisait feu sur un individu qui, sous l’influence de l’alcool, était devenu apparemment agressif après son arrestation. L’individu a été blessé au bas du dos. La policière était accompagnée d’une autre policière. À 12h30, à TQS, aujourd’hui, la question du jour était la suivante :

    "Devrait-on éviter les équipes de patrouille exclusivement féminines ?"

    Vous vous rendez compte ? Des tas de policiers de sexe masculin sont incompétents, abusent de leurs pouvoirs et parfois même commettent des crimes (on vient juste de condamner un policier pour avoir violé 8 femmes, dans certains cas, armé de son arme de service !) et il suffit d’une équipe de deux policières et d’un coup de feu dans des circonstances vaguement nébuleuses pour qu’aussitôt on remette en question la pertinence de placer deux femmes dans la même patrouille ! Le plus triste, c’est qu’une femme animait le débat...

    On se croirait dans un pays où le témoignage d’une femme doit être validé par celui de 4 hommes ! Comme si une policière avait besoin d’un homme pour la surveiller afin d’être sûre que sa "fragilité de femme" ne nuira pas trop à son travail ! Un policier de sexe masculin peut se permettre de disjoncter (et bien plus que ça !), jamais on ne parlera de son sexe comme d’un handicap qui le rend émotif et irrationnel ! Ai-je basculé dans un autre siècle sans m’en rendre compte ?

    Je ne dis pas que la policière a bien fait de tirer sur l’individu. Je n’étais pas là et une enquête est en cours afin d’éclaircir les circonstances de l’incident. Ce que je dénonce, c’est l’éternel système de "deux poids deux mesures". Pendant combien d’années, encore, les femmes devront-elles avoir à prouver sans cesse leurs compétences et leur solidité mentale ?

    Merde, il y a des gars qui se sautent à la gorge dans les bars seulement parce qu’il y en a un qui a regardé la petite amie de l’autre, et c’est nous qui passons pour des hystériques aussitôt que nous avons l’air plus énergiques qu’un géranium ! Au fait, sur le site de TQS, les résultats du sondages indiquent que 57% ont répondu oui à la question et 43% ont répondu non (ce n’est pas, bien sûr, un sondage scientifique).

    Le meurtrier semblait calme

    Voici le deuxième exemple.

    Ily a peu de temps, un homme divorcé tuait son ex-femme après que celle-ci l’ait dénoncé à la police pour menaces de mort. Les policiers ne l’avaient pas arrêté parce qu’il semblait calme devant eux ( !!!!!) Bien sûr, une heure plus tard, ils revenaient pour constater le meurtre...

    Suite à ces évènements, le débat du midi à TQS portait sur le sujet. Je ne souviens plus de la question, mais à la suite d’un appel téléphonique où une dame dénoncait le fait que la victime n’avait pas reçu l’aide qu’elle réclamait, l’animatrice (ce n’était pas la même) a dit, sur un ton de reproche, que la victime avait refusé de se rendre dans un centre d’hébergement pour femmes batues !

    Je n’en revenais pas ! Les médias n’ont pas arrêté d’atténuer la responsabilité du meurtrier en disant combien il était dépressif, ce n’était pas encore assez, il fallait qu’en plus, une animatrice reproche à une femme morte d’avoir, oh la vilaine, refusé de se terrer dans une maison pour femme battue ! Elle habitait dans une maison et il aurait fallu que ce soit elle qui "s’auto-foute" dehors pour aller dans un centre d’hébergement (où son cinglé d’ex l’aurait sans doute retrouvée), pendant que monsieur pouvait se promener en liberté parce que des policiers l’ont trouvé calme durant un gros cinq minutes !

    On devrait peut-être remettre en question la pertinence de permettre les patrouilles exclusivement masculines, qu’est-ce que vous en pensez ???

    Mis en ligne sur Sisyphe, le 1er août 2007
    Stéphanie LeBlanc

    Source - -
Jusqu'à plus ample informé, chez tous les animaux pluricellulaires pratiquant la reproduction sexuée, les hormones sexuelles orientent notre croissance, et organisent une division sexuée du travail. Seules les féminazies rejettent la responsabilité de la dite division sexuée du travail, mais cela uniquement dans les cas où cette répartition n'est pas favorable à leur toute-puissance, à un complot masculiniste et misogyne.

Jusqu'à plus ample informé, le maintien de l'ordre en présence de gens violents, éventuellement sous l'emprise de toxiques psychotropes - et l'alcool est du nombre - exige non seulement un calme à toute épreuve, mais aussi de la force, une aptitude certaine au combat rapproché, et une grande maîtrise du dit combat rapproché,  pour maîtriser sans blesser ni mutiler ni tuer. Jusqu'à plus ample informé, la testostérone comme hormone de croissance spécifiquement  musculo-squelettique, est beaucoup plus efficace que les hormones féminisantes.

De l'aveu même de Stéphanie Leblanc, la policière a tiré dans le dos. Elles n'avaient donc manifestement pas la force nécessaire pour maîtriser à deux l'homme qu'elles venaient d'arrêter.

Donc c'est encore un complot misogyne qui s'acharne sur ces deux femmes, voyons !



Remarquez, la dernière idée, nous sommes pour :

A quand l'interdiction des chambres aux affaires matriarcales exclusivement féminines ? Quand verra-t-on la parité des magistrats, un homme ET une femme dans chaque audience des affaires familiales ?

C'est justement un des quatorze points que nous soumettions aux candidats aux dernières présidentielles, de mai 2007 : la parité mâles-femelles en affaires familiales, pour chaque audience.

Parce que moi, j'ai toujours été le seul mâle à l'audience contre quatre femmes en parfaite connivence : les deux avocates, la magistrate, la greffière. J'ai toujours entendu maîtresse Zantafia plaider : "Vous pensez bien que [Jacques], puisqu'il est le seul mâle et le seul scientifique de nous toutes, est donc le plus fourbe et le plus faux-cul de nous toutes ! S'il écrit sa dénonciation du crime, alors que ne dissimule-t-il donc pas ?". Je l'ai toujours vue accueillie avec bienveillance, voire jouissance, par les autres, par mon avocate et  l'injuge V.  Maîtresse Zantafia pouvait bien falsifier les textes, me prétendre une adresse de fantaisie, démentie par les pièces mêmes qu'elle apportait, j'ai toujours vu l'injuge Agnès V. recopier telle quelle cette adresse de fantaisie, prouvant ainsi qu'elle ne regardait jamais les pièces qu'elle invoquait pourtant.


Ah, la sororité en affaires matriarcales ! Ah ! Quel poète dira la consororité des avocates en parfaite connivence pour appuyer le brigandage familial et spolier le mâle de tous ses biens et de ses enfants et petits-enfants ?


Bon, l'afflaire est caire, comme le disaient judicieusement messieurs Dupont et Dupond, [Jacques] est coupable de dénonciation de fautes professionnelles féminines systématiques et organisées, donc il est un complot masculiniste à lui tout seul... Vous voyez ce bûcher, là ?