Alt Skull's Charnel House

Every institution in Britain was involved with either the perpetration or coverup of this industrial scale child rape — cops, hospitals, schools, social services, state media, etc. You'd probably have to capitally punish at least half of the public sector to fix that country.

I doubt that grooming gangs were covered up to "preserve social cohesion" or because everybody was terrified of being called "racist." We know British cops were, and probably still are, raping kids. How likely is it that people higher up the British political system are implicated? Starmer covered up 13,000 cases and they made him prime minister. How do grooming gangs related to broader criminal underworld in Britain? Money laundering, fraud, narcotics, etc.?

It's clear that grooming gangs are primarily operated by ethno-religious mafias, and that South Asian muslims commit the vast majority of these heinous crimes, but I don't believe a coverup of this scale would be conducted merely in the name of "anti-racism."

Regarding the rape gangs: I don't think "fear of being called racist" is correct. I think that is a cope we assign to the enemy. To give them an out. I think most of the people involved did the things they did because they wanted to. They knew and it gave them a thrill. Tingles if you will.

“What is the capital of the U.S.?”

Japanese street interviews.

@AltSkull48

Women in power

🇬🇧 The Rape Gang Inquiry Report.

250,000+ British girls.

What's included in this report is fucking harrowing:

- A baby was abused and had cigarettes stubbed out on it while the mother was forced to watch; the baby was then killed.
- Girls were set on fire.
- Girls were sent to “red rooms” to be tortured, some of them killed, some of it livestreamed.
- One girl was raped by a dog while men bet on whether it would vaginally or anally rape her.
- Girls were forced to have abortions with knitting needles.
- Glass bottles, keys, baseball bats, and other objects were forced inside them, some shattering.
- Girls were gang-raped by dozens of men at a time in “party houses.”
- Girls were whipped, hung upside down, suffocated, and urinated on.
- Girls as young as 5 or 6 were tied up and abused.
- Girls were locked in dog cages.
- Girls were branded with an “M” for Muhammad.
- Girls were threatened with being killed and fed to pigs.
- Girls were mocked for wearing a crucifix during the rapes.

All of this was carried out by predominantly South Asian, Pakistani men, with smaller numbers from Somali, Iranian, Syrian, Turkish, Bangladeshi, and Iraqi men.

And yet perpetrators were let off, authorities turned a blind eye, and it continues to this day because people are scared of being called racist.

Anyone who covered for this needs to face the death penalty alongside all of those who hurt these girls.

I'm glad Rupert Lowe and everyone else behind this put this together; it needs to be seen by everyone.

https://x.com/gardirms/status/2066988564290863257

You’ll often hear certain women and woman-bureaucrats in particular talk a lot about “feeling safe”.

But I’ve noticed that their idea of “feeling safe” has little in common with actual safety.

You have to remember that words are just noise and a means to an end. What one creature really means when it spits out a certain word might not have much to do with that word’s literal definition.

A normal person would assume the term “safe” means protected from or not exposed to danger or harm, but that’s not what the system-ladies mean when they appeal to safety.

“Feeling safe” is a remark associated with control, equality dogma and so-called “inclusive environments” (read: ideology, more women and more migrants).

“Feeling unsafe” is the noise made concerning “the Far Right” (read: White guys and the discussion of facts, respectively).

But White guys are statistically far less likely to pose any physical threat to women. They’re less likely to assault them, less likely to murder them and almost never rape them.

Migrants of certain demographics rape, assault and murder women (and girls) at dramatically higher rates.
Actually, the danger migrants pose to females increases in direct proportion to the fewer White guys there are in a respective area.

Women can’t and don’t effectively protect other women from harm. Only men will do that and statistically, White men do it most often.

Women may literally be more safe when they’re in the company of White guys than they are in any other environment, except perhaps a panic room.

The more White guys there are and the fewer migrants, the safer women are. These “hate-facts” are cold data.

So what are the government ladies actually talking about when they claim to be “feeling safe” or “unsafe”?

Well these terms are not just an imagined female experience, they’re a power-play which ironically just ends up making society far more dangerous for women.

If you pay attention, “feeling safe” means: “Feeling right and in control of a verbal exchange.” While “feeling unsafe” means: “Being proven wrong and feeling stupid or without power”.

When a woman-bureaucrat in parliament for example says “I feel unsafe” she doesn’t mean she is being threatened or at risk of any measurable harm. She means “I am being made to feel wrong or stupid by a fact, a general consensus or by what someone else is saying.”

In summary, it’s far more important for government-women and their equivalent male-effeminates to feel right and in-control than it is for anybody to be safe. These lawmakers will actually sacrifice the safety of all of society’s women in exchange for power or even just the feeling of power.

It’s eery to think that as a country, while importing the third-world we are gleefully shutting down open discussions, censoring facts, limiting speech and banning political parties all on the basis of very obvious language manipulation and just so women can feel powerful.

"communist propaganda was for the purpose of humiliating" moment.

They know and they make that image because they get off on it. They get off on rubbing it in your face. They get off on transgression. Thats why we call it gay.

Cry, bitches!!!

@AltSkull48

King Richard I (the Lionheart) ordered the mass execution of approximately 2,700 Muslim prisoners from the captured city of Acre on August 20, 1191, an event known as the Massacre at Ayyadieh.

Context and Motivation

The massacre occurred during the Third Crusade after Richard’s forces captured Acre, holding the Muslim garrison as hostages for a ransom and the return of the True Cross.
Richard executed the prisoners in cold blood, in full view of Saladin’s army, because he believed Saladin was deliberately delaying the payment of the ransom and the release of Christian captives

No women in politics. In any capacity. Ever. If you want a civilization.

Yes, it was mostly the men chanting send them back, but a large contingent of women protested. Apparently, they’d rather be raped and killed than send them back, because some of those migrants are lovely people! https://x.com/daily_romania/status/2067277804270420335

This image is a compilation image of a jew reacting to the Grooming gang report of 250,000 White girls being tortured, trafficked and raped. These creatures are not human