Rotherham: The Full Picture.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Even if the horrors of Rotherham – the mass rape of 1400 White girls by Muslim savages – was a one-off phenomenon not replicated outside of the town’s borders, it would still stand as one of the greatest crimes in British history. Standing alone, it would easily outrank the crimes of Jack the Ripper, the Kray Twins, and even the medieval Witch burners in its number of victims and callousness of execution.

Of course, the crimes of Rotherham are in no way limited to that small town. Evidence is quickly mounting that similar waves of rape have afflicted towns, villages and cities the length and breadth of the country. Sprees are rumoured in Greater Manchester, Leicestershire and Birmingham. They are known to have occurred (on an as yet undetermined scale) in Rochdale, Oxfordshire and Burnley.

What will the final figure be? 10,000? 20,000? 100,000? Nobody knows, but one thing becomes clearer with every crime discovered: we are dealing with something altogether unprecedented – something more destructive and harmful to our civic life than Ebola could ever be.

I wrote in a prior post that these rapes amount to war crimes, and I stand by that. The scale demands it. Let’s speculate that the final figure is something like 10,000. That is, 10,000 girls raped for ideological motives by a foreign population. Is that really a matter for the national courts or is it one for the Hague?

I would suggest the latter, given that this figure is not greatly inferior to those from Serbian or Sudanese warzones, both of which are considered provocations of international disrepute. It would also (incidentally) serve our cause greatly to have these crimes designated crimes of war, since that would place the issue in its proper historic context.

Though terror attacks seem to fade from the public brain with ever-increasing speed, Rotherham will take much longer to be forgotten, let alone forgiven. The number of lives ruined chills the blood. Children who should have been skipping along in a haze of innocence were forced to confront the adult world at its absolute worst. Experiences that would scar the imagination of a battle-hardened US Marine were etched by razorblade onto the soft, undeveloped material of infant brains.

I truly hope that some of this countless number grow up to understand why they were so mistreated. I hope that the liberal carwash of education doesn’t convince them that the biggest issue was a ‘failure in social services’ or some comparable nonsense.

If they come to know the truth, they are given the option of pride. There is nothing shameful or weak about falling prey to these creatures. We all have in one way or another. These children are martyrs. Their suffering may yet deliver us.


Citizen Khan: The Funny Side of Cultural Destruction.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I don’t watch much television (I prefer to read), but if I did, I understand that this month I would have been treated to the return of ‘Citizen Khan’, the BBC ‘sitcom’ which introduces (or seeks to introduce) the softer, funnier side of Muslim culture to our cynical, semi-hostile nation.

If you’re not from Britain, it’s probably best to think of this show as the British version of ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’. Though the storylines are different, the intended political function is the same in both cases: Make Muslims seem capable of humour and integration; disarm the country at large with the use of comedy.

I’ve only watched two or three episodes of Citizen Khan. That was enough to gauge the nature of the thing. It is a very amateurish production and the Islamic element is tacked on in such an arbitrary way as to seem irrelevant.

And that is obviously the point. The message intended is as follows: “Muslims are people, just like you. They argue about who left the toilet seat up, just like you. They use toothbrushes, just like you. They watch X-Factor, just like you. etc…”

This is the great liberal delusion about Islam; the idea that Britain would be the same in a prayer cap as it is in a trilby; that Islam is something private and therefore largely irrelevant to everyday life. This is the lie told by shows like Citizen Khan. Muslims might pray to a different God, but other than that, they are as English as battered fish. I simply don’t buy that, and for evidence, I call to the stand every sentient witness of the modern world.

Of course, I don’t doubt that Muslims who were born and raised here have picked up some cultural practices along the way. But, as the subjects riffed on in Citizen Khan accidentally demonstrate, these are usually the shallow and unimportant aspects of British life, many of which we could do without.

Even if Citizen Khan was funny (and it really isn’t, in any way), British Pakistani life is very difficult to make humorous after Rotherham – after the 1400. How indeed are the numberless victims of the rape-Jihad to feel when watching shows like this?

If British Muslims really wanted to use media to demonstrate their capacity to integrate, they would produce dramas criticising the demonic misbehaviours of their peers. They would own up and examine the rape culture (for once, that term is justified) in the Pakistani hamlets popping up throughout this otherwise harmonious nation.

And they would also concede that we are a long way from being able to laugh at their ways. We have been blown up by them, raped by them, threatened by them innumerable times, insulted and infiltrated in the most destructive ways imaginable. It will take more than jokes about the toilet seat to undo the harm that has been inflicted.


London Vs the United Kingdom.


, , , , , , , , ,


The time has come to treat London (the uber-rich city-state landlocked by rural England) as a separate country to the UK. For at least a decade, the alleged national capital has enjoyed a reality wholly distinct from every other part of the country and consequently can no longer be considered part of it.

The ethnic English are a minority in London, having been overtaken by the African, Asian, Russian, Polish and South-European communities, many of which are now established beyond the second generation. As a result, London’s culture is markedly different to that of England and its citizens are becoming increasingly aware of this.

The capital thrives on the artificial and the shallow-rooted. England looks back to the glories of the past and seeks to maintain a connection with land and ancestry. England is generally conservative and inward looking. London is multicultural to the extreme and its political class kindles an internationalist politics to match.

All of the things ‘England’ is internationally praised for belong in fact to London. When people from England do well in society they tend to emigrate to the Smoke as soon as they can, often looking back scornfully at the country they leave behind them. London sucks the talent out of England, leaving a swelling, increasingly dominant working class, disconnected from an elite playground they feel no relation to.

While England ostensibly has many ‘cities’ of its own, only London matches the global conception of a metropolis. The large towns of the English north like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle could only rival London if they were connected into a single city by a large underground rail network.

England is being deprived of a centre, of a capital and of a government. London’s government cannot speak the English language let alone understand the English heart. To the English, Londonians seem (and are) from another country. They are too slick and multiracial, too postmodern and accentless. Whenever they visit the barbarian territories of Stoke or Derby, they do so with the manner of charity campaigners visiting Africa to raise funds for a clean water supply. The barbarian natives of England who approach them and pitifully request that they ‘do something’ for their local ‘community’ are patiently patronised, just as an African would be in a Comic Relief short.

While it might seem as natural as rain, this internal divide has a lot to answer for. I know of no other country in which the mere mentioning of the capital city incites such deep-seated contempt.

There is even a movement, as yet marginal and undeveloped, to make London independent. If successful, this would destroy the United Kingdom as we know it and yet As things stand, the population of England would probably support this.

They are sick of the way things are. They are sick of seeing Londonian politicians visiting the Sub-Saharan classrooms of Greater London to launch pledges to an overwhelmingly White country. They are sick of a metropolitan ruling class dictating the pace to a predominantly rural nation.

The chemicals are gathered for an anti-elite explosion; a descent into the French-Revolution politics of envy and self-destruction. This isn’t something we can afford and something needs to be done about it.


Book Review: A Patriot’s History of the United States.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


I tend, as a rule, to avoid very long books. I more or less agree with Nietzsche’s sentiment that ‘if a man can write at all, he can write concisely’. Life is too short for books over 400 pages. Beyond that limit, they are just an indulgence of the vanity of their authors.

Still, exceptions to this often arise, and one such case is ‘A Patriot’s History of the United States’ by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.

This bulky volume, written in 2004, was developed as a counterweight to Howard Zinn’s critically adored ‘People’s History…’, and provides a very different, less politically correct version of the American past to the one we are taught in schools. The book’s subtitle is ‘From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror’ and this dizzying span is covered thoroughly with vibrant, partisan prose and well-referenced detail.

The facts contained in this work are so numerous and interesting that the reader risks becoming the pub bore for many weeks after finishing it. Did you know, for example, that liberal states managed to have it both ways on segregation by the over-use of IQ tests? That’s right, in liberal Northern states, Blacks were separated from Whites from a young age by the use of cognitive exams, despite the fact that at this point the Northerners claimed superiority over the racists in Dixie for the same (differently arrived at) situation.

Also chronicled are the hideous, racist roots of the Democratic party and how its behaviour contrasted with the morally beautiful conduct of the Republicans on the issue of African liberty.

As you’d expect, slavery is covered extensively in this book but (with the authors’ skill and determination) it mostly serves to illustrate the brightness that surrounds the aberration.

America might have a history riddled with controversy. It may have made mistakes. That’s not really in doubt. But, at its best, the country is a superhero among the nations; the St George who slayed the dragons of fascism and communism, and the sharpest weapon we possess against their gruesome Islamic inheritor.

I tend to go a bit watery-eyed when thinking or writing about America. That’s because every year I spend in Britain is a year spent away from where I want to be. One day, in the right circumstances and with my best efforts invested, I want to live within the picturesque suburbs of Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia. We all have dreams and that’s mine.

Beyond the personal, America is big enough, strong enough and radical enough to survive any of the criticisms made of it. It is the best hope we have for survival and the best model for our continued prosperity.



Stop Travelling to the Muslim World.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Each week, the world is treated to another episode of ‘Lend me your ears’, the oddly compelling news series fronted by an abducted war-photographer turned puppet of ISIS called John Cantlie.

In each instalment, no doubt to stall for time before his decapitation, Mr Cantlie, in a Guantanamo-Orange t-shirt and seated behind a black desk, puts admirable effort into the role he is cruelly being forced to play; a Westerner who has come to know and accept the arguments of the Islamic State (ISIS).

The beginning of each episode is the same. Mr Cantlie (with a strange, dull-eyed sincerity) states “I’m John Cantlie, the Westerner abandoned by my government”.  This line, almost certainly written by his jailers, is an effort to extract money for Mr Cantlie’s freedom, just as worked with the French government for the release of one Mr Cantlie’s former cellmates. It almost certainly won’t work with Britain.

The story of how Mr Cantlie fell into this morbid predicament is tragi-comic. The journalist was originally kidnapped two years ago by Islamist fighters in Northern Syria and was held hostage until moderates from the Free Syrian Army managed to secure his release. After heading back to Britain where he stayed for a couple of months, Mr Cantlie decided to revisit the increasingly lawless patch of Syria that provided him with his previous misfortune. He was soon re-captured, this time by ISIS, and now he seems to possess no hope of seeing the civilised world again.

I do sympathise with Mr Cantlie’s situation. I really do. But the question must be asked all the same: why the hell would any rational person – no matter what their objective and however noble it is – travel from the world of parliamentary democracy to a domain run along 6th century Islamic lines? What was the prize of such adventurism? A glossy shot of a corpse or a used tank shell? Surely the statistics reported by the Assad government and FSA sources illustrate the tragedy unfolding there in perfectly stark terms. What is the obsession with seeing everything?

The issue is broader than this one case of course. It isn’t just terrorism that potentially waits for you in the world of Islam, but uncountable instances of rape, abduction, sexual harassment (especially in Egypt) and ludicrous judicial punishments (in Abu Dhabi and Dubai).

The solution? Don’t go to the Islamic world. Stop travelling there. Whatever ancient (pre-Islamic) marvels, or professional thrills attract you, they are not worth your death or the tears of your family and friends.

If you want the ancient world, travel to Israel instead. Walk the hallowed streets of Jerusalem and Safed. Enjoy the thrill of seeing everyday people with assault rifles slung around their backs, charged with the maintenance of the civilised world’s frontline. See what happens to your political views when you try to imagine what it’s like living so close to the previous millennium that you feel its vile breathing.

Muslims are a generally dangerous people. It isn’t just a few bad apples. The whole barrel is rotten. And for the same reasons you wouldn’t travel to a Papuan jungle filled with cannibals, stop travelling to the Islamic world.


Is America Behind ISIS?


, , , , , , , , , , ,


Though they have been with us for millennia, Conspiracy theories are today enjoying their first golden age. The internet, social networking and the technology of instant global communication have made starting a rumour or advancing a minority viewpoint as easy as sending an email.

You’ll undoubtedly know the more popular theories… al-Qaeda didn’t knock the Twin Towers down for Islamic reasons. They did it for the military-industrial complex and their employer, the CIA. The Pentagon wasn’t hit by al-Qaeda at all and the evidence that it had been was achieved by a cruise missile, fired on government orders. JFK was taken out for taking on the federal reserve. Princess Diana was guided into a concrete pillar by an Israeli hit squad. etc.. etc..

Most ordinary, well-adjusted people take these claims with a pinch of salt. Looked at closely, none of them bear relation to historical reality, and the people that formulate them usually have a few skeletons in their own closet.

Nevertheless, we must never rule out conspiracy in general. Conspiracies do happen, and some of them have changed the World we live in.

The 6 million Jews destroyed like unwanted livestock by the Nazi State were the victims of a conspiracy. A conspiracy so bizarre in fact that it makes 9/11 Truth claims seem almost feasible. How much stranger is a false-flag attack than the secretly planned project to wipe out a people?

There is always an element of truth in a conspiracy idea, even if that truth has been doctored along the way in order to conform to a wrong-headed thesis. And sometimes, even if rarely, a theory that seems crazy turns out to be entirely correct.

Among those circulating on the internet today, I only want to look at one. Namely, the theory that Islamist movements are being directed, armed and sponsored by the United States of America in order to topple regimes it doesn’t like.

Proponents of this argument include Alex Jones; the excitable Texan radio host who sees everything from the warped angle of a comic book detective. The followers of Ron Paul and Glenn Beck have also voiced the same suspicion, and the theory has millions of adherents across the political spectrum.

On the face of it, this isn’t necessarily ridiculous. There has been a strange tendency of late for Islamists to wage war on anti-American regimes, and the American response to these cases compared to its view of Islamist struggles against pro-American regimes is (shall we say) messy.

When Islamists (of the most orthodox and brutal kind) toppled Muammar Gadhafi in Libya, America fully supported the project. Then, when Islamists (including ISIS) began a brutal war on the Assad regime in Syria, America was only narrowly persuaded out of intervening on their behalf.

Now compare these cases to those of Algeria and Egypt (both friends of the EU/United States). In these nations, Islamist revolutions have been brutally put down by the state at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. And on these occasions, the state forces were described by Washington to be the ‘lesser evil’ and the rebels were abandoned to their own destruction.

Is this just hypocrisy or something more?

Did the Syrian insurgency which later metastasised into ISIS arise organically, or was it with the co-ordination of American and British intelligence? Why is some violent Islamism acceptable to our elites and other variants not?

Regardless of the kind of people who raise them, these are valid and important questions and we have no right to ignore them. If the answers are not as we would expect, the implications for our democratic integrity are extreme.

Personally, I don’t believe America would be as morally corrupt as to unleash the forces of hell on innocent people. It’s more likely to me that Obama is a hypocrite and a liar, that he lied on Benghazi and on Libya more broadly, that he lied and blundered on Syria too, and that he’s not to be trusted and that his Presidency has been a disaster for the world.


A Post-White World is Nothing to Desire.


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The demographic outlook for ethnic Europeans is dire. That much is generally accepted by most academics and politicians today (even if they do not have the courage to mention it).

This process, when it matures, will split the world into two camps; those are approve of White decline, and those who do not. I would guess (though this is not certain) that people in the former camp will be those currently on the Left, and that the latter category will be staffed by those currently on the Right. Of course, many will defect either side of this divide as the process accelerates, and most of the defections will surely be Whites going Right.

In one way, I’m perfectly neutral about racial demographics. The relative increase in Latinos, Blacks and East-Asians is not something that keeps me awake at night. All of these groups are capable of civilisation, and nobody has presented to me a valid argument that they threaten my life or my aspirations.

In another way, though, I wonder if White decline might unleash the forces of chaos.

White supremacy (though it reverberates in the ear as a bad thing) has many happy consequences. Most of all, it provides what I would call a ‘global referee’ to keep intra-minority bigotries in check.

It’s fair to speculate that if the White race disappeared in a puff of smoke, the global measure of racism would increase, not decrease. Without a universal standard of civilisation, and without the liberal White attitude to ethnic difference, many festering rivalries would explode into life.

lot of minority folk pretend to eschew racism purely because they want to conform to White standards. But if these standards disappeared, terrible emotions would surely burst out of their restraints.

Chinese would turn on Japanese and vice versa. Mexicans would turn on African-Americans and vice versa. Kurds would turn on Turks and vice versa. Persians would turn on Arabs and vice versa. Japanese would turn on Koreans and vice versa. Dark-skinned Indians would turn on light-skinned Indians and vice versa. Mixed race people would turn on Blacks and vice versa. You get the point…

We would do well to remember that White civilisation was not just the author of slavery, the Holocaust and segregation, but also the first (and as yet only) civilisation to embrace the attitudes of liberalism.

No other culture the world over declares race to be insignificant. The Chinese President doesn’t attend equality seminars with Black Africans. Japanese TV hosts do not lose their jobs for saying the wrong ethnic signifier. These are quirks exclusive to the West and to the White peoples.

Food for thought.


The Plot to Kill the Queen.


, , , , , , ,


It’s been reported today that a plot to kill Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Remembrance Day has been successfully disrupted by the British secret service.

Radical Muslims linked to ISIS are said to be behind the plot, though no details were given as to how the attack was to play out. It could have been with an explosion or a bullet, or even a knife.

This is obviously shocking news, but seeing as we don’t yet have all of the facts, I won’t offer a lengthy analysis. Better just to speculate on what would likely happen should an attack of that kind come off.

If the Queen of England (and the Commonwealth) was injured or killed by a Muslim terror group, the most perfect of perfect storms would sweep across the cities, towns and villages of England. Mosques would be burned to the ground. Individual believers (and those who look like believers) would be targeted for assault. Calls would go up for the wholesale expulsion of Muslims from the British Isles. The national vote in 2015 would empty itself into fringe parties promising the most severe kinds of retribution. Given their moth-eaten royalism, even the conventional conservatives of rural England would be manhandled into agreement with those currently defamed as extreme. In this irrational spirit of fury, the kind of Monarchism suited to the medieval era would return to a dominant standing.

Prince Charles would probably be forced to reject the throne owing to his public embrace of Muslim ideas in the past, leaving William to become King and Catherine Middleton, Queen.

The Left wouldn’t dare raise a squeak of protest, at least for a few months after the occasion. In every European country facing similar issues, the Right would rise at the Left’s expense.

In short, the whole long, tedious argument about Muslims would finally end. The multiculturalists would be treated as traitors; Patriots would be treated as prophets.

It is our project and our moral imperative (as good subjects) to make sure the argument can be won before such an event occurs.


How Does Denial Work?


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ben Affleck, Bill Maher, Sam Harris

The showdown between Ben Affleck and Bill Maher (regarding Islam) has been widely publicised. Affleck’s warped arguments have been subjected to great and detailed criticism (including by ‘liberal’ Muslims) and yet the ideological trenches on both sides remain almost completely unmoved.

That’s no surprise, really. On the issue of Islam, people are only semi-rational. Left-minded folk especially are wedded to their ideas in a very intimate way. Arguments that go against their position are evil spirits. The orthodox defence of Islam is their religion.

I won’t therefore offer yet another analysis of the Maher-Affleck conflagration. I think it will be more worthwhile to consider the human aspect behind the politics; to pose the broad and vital question – How does someone deny the terrors of Islam in the modern world? If we answer this, we may be able to better understand how far we are from winning the argument.

Imagine for a moment that you are a ten-a-penny liberal. Imagine that every night you sit in front of Fox news and scoff at Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and all their stupid bigotries, that you know for certain that they are wrong and that you are convinced Islam is an unfairly maligned religion of peace.

Let’s say that on a single evening, newly severed heads are reported in Syria, Muslim women are reported to have been executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and terrorist plots are frustrated in America and London. As a liberal, your goal is to fail to integrate these events, or else to find an equivalent in the West or its allied nations. If you can’t, then the evil spirits will break through your defensive positions and your political identity is threatened.

Where do you go first? Perhaps Israel. Yes, Islam is surely no worse than Israel. What about all the heads severed by IDF missiles in Gaza? Perhaps if we didn’t bomb the Muslims, they would be perfectly friendly.

Where else? How about America? Damn right. The US army bombs Muslims all the time. So what if those bombs are dropped to liberate Muslims from tyranny? America is a fucking tyranny, right? It’s run by evil corporations and hook-nosed, cigar-sucking Zionists. If anything, the Islamists have come to liberate us.

But you’ve used these self-consolations before and this time, for some reason, they’re not helping. You feel that you might be lying to yourself. In a desperate mood, your mind reaches for the stronger stuff…

Well, what does Bill Maher suggest we do with the Muslims? Kill them all? Put into gas chambers and close the door on women, children and innocent moderates? So what if Islam is violent. Where is all this headed? This isn’t actually a bad argument and so it soothes your mind enough that you are able think about something else.

That’s the end of our experiment. You’re back in an educated, rational mind again. I hope that wasn’t too traumatic. The sort of thinking we have described here has a name. It’s called ‘bad faith’, for which the internet definition is as follows:

‘(in existentialist philosophy) a refusal to confront facts or choices.’

Sartre, one of the greatest popularisers of the concept, chose this illustrative example in his Magnum Opus ‘Being and Nothingness’:

“Let us take the case of a woman who has consented to go out with a particular man for the first time. She knows very well the intentions which the man who is speaking to her cherishes regarding her. She knows also that it will be necessary sooner or later for her to make a decision. But she does not want to realize the urgency; she concerns herself only with what is respectful and discreet in the attitude of her companion. She does not apprehend this conduct as an attempt to achieve what we call “the first approach”; that is, she does not want to see possibilities of temporal development which his conduct presents.”

This example fits our subject rather well. The Leftist does not fail to see what we see about Islam because he is ignorant, he does not see it because he does not want to see it. The Leftist has chosen a mindset, not a position. A mindset is invulnerable to temptations from other ways of thinking because it is bigger than the views it holds.

The Western Muslims who are content to smile and proselytise to us now, desire ultimately a society that offends the human spirit. We understand this intention clearly and would rather stop its potential altogether. The Leftists – so expertly cynical in other contexts – deliberately fail to recognise that potential, seeing only the pleasant signs and chastising those who notice the ominous ones. To put it simply, they deploy strategic ignorance.

I really do wonder how they sleep at night. Surely human dignity must naturally spring back from this poise and keep them disturbed. But perhaps I’m wrongly presuming that they retain any humanity at all.


Feminism Overreaches Itself (Part 1)


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The past month has been quite an eventful one for the practitioners of Western feminism. First, the movement received a much-needed injection of vitality in the form of Emma Watson and her speech to the UN. Then, whatever gains had been so made were all but wiped out by the laughable Saga of ‘Gamergate’; a regrettable combination of black humour, Anita Sarkeesian, and a lot of angry nerds.

In case you’ve never heard of her, Madame Sarkeesian is an Armenian-American feminist who has become famous of late for her crowdfunded YouTube series ‘Tropes vs Women’ – an examination of the allegedly misogynistic themes of video games. 

You might think that is a rather silly, pedantic premise for a publically funded campaign… and you’d be entirely right.

I’ve watched as many of Sarkeesian’s videos on this topic as I can stomach (that isn’t many, I concede) and not one of them raises a valid argument, let alone one that would justify the buckets of currency poured onto Sarkessians head for the bother of making them.

If women have the right to be outraged by their depiction in video games, how much more so do African-Americans (Grand Theft Auto), Arabs and Iranians (Call of Duty, Battlefield), Russians (Call of Duty), Black Africans (Resident Evil 5), the mentally ill (Manhunt), non-Christians (Left Behind) or Haitian-Americans (GTA: Vice City).

Few of these groups have made a lasting cause out of their mistreatment, and that’s probably a good thing to, as the aforementioned groups combined would embrace a hefty portion of the planetary population.

Let it be understood; people have the right to be offended and to state that they are offended. The rest of the society also has the right to call BS on their claims.

I am far from defending the internet trolls who have threatened violence and rape against Sarkeesian. These fools are as much a friend of feminism as she is. We must all understand that feminism, like any hate movement, thrives on our excess and willingly amplifies our errors. They will only present our (legitimate) anger as supporting evidence for their views. This is why they provoke us. Feminists, to all extents and purposes, are intellectual trolls.

Of course, GamerGate represents a far bigger issue than the petty one originally considered. Celebrity feminism is running rapidly out of ideas; the direct result of having overreached itself for too long.

The position of the sexes in the West today is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Women are raped, beheaded and stoned to death in the Islamic domain, oppressed and undervalued in China and Japan, married off without their consent in India and mutilated in Sub-Saharan Africa. But for Sarkessian, the greatest injustice today is that Lara Croft wasn’t anti-patriarchal enough.

What a tawdry and verminous movement Western feminism has become.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers