Sometimes, a story comes along, that seems to confirm everything you already know about a person. As we’ve talked about here on the site, Anita Sarkeesian is fraud. That’s now been confirmed. There’s no longer any reason to beat around the bush with this interloper. She’s a censorship lover, and a threat to the continued success and prosperity of gaming. So when I read this email tip the other day, I wasn’t too surprised. I figured it would only make sense that she also hates Japan. But, I wouldn’t expect her to sink so low as to make jokes about the atomic bombing they suffered. What kind of woman is this?

Here she is, quoted from a talk she gave in 2013. The interesting thing to note is, the guy is mostly positive about Anita, despite calling himself a critic. In fact, while he makes note of the quote, and says it was off-putting, he still gives her a pass. I’m not sure why. Perhaps the con is a lot more convincing in person. Nonetheless, here’s the quote:

“The US bombed them back to traditional values – feminism does not exist in Japan. While I don’t like judging an entire culture…that does not excuse them.”

I’m not sure exactly what she’s talking about, since Japanese society is different from ours in many ways, and those have nothing to do with the atomic bombing. I mean, some probably do. But think about it. This devious scammer is actually trying to say that feminism hasn’t caught on in Glorious Nippon because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The ignorance and offensiveness behind such a statement is staggering. I knew she hated games and the people who play them, but this is taking it to the extreme.

Anita Sarkeesian will likely get a pass on this from the media. They rarely, if ever, call out her lies…so why would they mention her insults, either? I’ve given up hope at this point, but I’m open to being proven wrong. In fact, I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong. The ideologues who run the SJW agenda media are not going to let that happen, though.

We have to keep smoking out unethical intruders like Anita Sarkeesian (and not in the Snoop Dogg fashion). They hate it when the sun shines on shit like this. I’m also thinking that some of our Japanese friends might not like these comments. Then again, they don’t really pay attention to SJWs over there at all, so they probably don’t give a shit. They’re too busy staying based, and making cool ass games for us to play. They actually love gaming, unlike Anita and #FullMcIntosh. Still, if some of them want to join the battle, that would be welcome. The SJW nutjobs will try to launch an attack there sooner or later. Join GamerGate now, and we can beat them back together.


  1. That’s some extreme bigotry. The media won’t hold her accountable because most of them are racist in gaming media. They trash Japan constantly. Just look at their friend Phil Fish. Blatant racism.

    1. She made the mistake of pulling the “suicide” card to get attention and got called out on it, so even if she wanted to get involved, she shouldn’t…she has to save face somehow =D

  2. Wow. That’s… impressive.

    I’ve always strongly supported the atomic strikes, for what it’s worth. We were at war, and the planned invasion of Japan was going to be expensive — especially in terms of human life. We’re talking six to seven figures of casualties.

    Was it a good thing? No, but very few things in war are ‘good’. I would say it was necessary, to break them and prevent further death.

    But to casually weave this into your feminist diatribes, without a concept of Japanese culture (which is VERY different from European/Western culture), that’s an astonishing amount of arrogance and hubris, not to mention bigotry.

    1. Sorry to rain on your parade/opinion, but the “six gorillion mahreens” who would have died is literally the same bullshit modern politicians have spun Iraq and WMDs into; or justifying “enhanced interrogation techniques”, that is to say it’s bullshit and never would have happened.

      You had generals of the army, the head of atomic energy, and several strategists and higher ups who stated a land invasion wasn’t planned or necessary, because they were landlocked with their entire military in Burma, their navy was effectively defeated, and the general civilian population was not only starving, but had never “thrown themselves off cliffs” or pulled some samurai bullshit and killed 100 marines per starving 8 year old japanese child with a folded ten-billion times katana.

      Not only this, but a third bomb was planned for Tokyo, America knew Japan was trying to surrender to the soviets, and some generals told Truman that they’d accept a surrender if it wasn’t so culturally destroying/shaming for no reason. The second bombing was delayed due to inclement weather, not out of some supposed mercy or humanism. Truman also said it was the “greatest thing ever” when he saw what happened to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and joked with someone about how it was hard to find targets so unspoiled to see the full effect of, since they were firebombing cities.

      Oh yeah, and roughly 60% of the casualties in both of those cities were under the age of 12. Know why? Because all of the fighting men were over seas. They didn’t tell the american public this little fact because, well, I’m sure you can imagine why.

      It was nothing more than a big dick-waving on America’s part to spook the soviets, and gee what do you know, how strange the cold war started so shortly afterwards. Didn’t help that America was threatening to nuke Russia and China over resources near them or just to act like a big boy with his dad’s gun.

      Oh yeah, then you have like 3,000 japanese americans who got mutilated from the bombings, and to this day America doesn’t talk about them or care for them; the Japanese government pays for their medical expenses – the Japanese government taking care of American health. Isn’t that something?

      tl;dr they were already broken, it was militarily unnecessary, considered a war-crime by pretty much the entire planet. The only reason America hasn’t gone to its version of a numbering trial is because we didn’t lose. I forget which general, but one of them after the war commented how he wondered how many Americans would hang if such a trial ever took place.

      Imagine in 70 years or so you have people talking about how we had to invade Iraq for “them WMDs” or what have you? It’d be ridiculous, because we’re more educated on political matters and can communicate ideas and facts to one another instantly; in the 40s, they didn’t have that, all you got from the goings on in the world was from uncle sam.

      P.S.: Just to dispel a random sentiment a lot of people have, no Einstein did not make the bomb, he was actually not allowed to work on or near it because he objected to the use of atomic energy as a weapon so vehemently. He regretted ever giving the military the idea that atomic energy could be weaponized. Also, you have everyone mention this supposed “invasion”, and they’ll state that “someone” said it had to happen. No one can cite anyone on that because no one said it. They just made it up after the bombings so there wouldn’t be public outcry on it.

      Shit, it really doesn’t help that back then if you questioned the Government, you’d be sent to prison as a “communist”. It’s all just a propaganda piece from a terrible era, it has no place in today’s informed world where we can actually discuss or criticize the government without fearing imprisonment.

      1. It’s sad that so many people whose country was involved in the genocide of civilians don’t even realize it and they glorify it.

          1. I honestly don’t, the did some horrible stuff, but two wrongs doesn’t make a right, especially if the ones punished are statistically at that time, most under 12 years old or elderly.

      2. You know, I really thought this kind of historical revisionism had fallen out of style. Guess some people can’t help but reflexively play the moral equivalence card.

        And I find it FASCINATING that when I invoked a six to seven figure casualty number, you automatically assumed I meant ALLIED casualties.

        There’s a reason Emperor Hirohito had to practically overthrow his own military generals in order to surrender, you know.

        1. You’re so off on these numbers.

          Read Contemporary Japan by Duncan McCargo or James McLain’s Japan: a modern history.

        2. He had no military authority. That’s what /started/ the entire war to begin with.

          And the “invincibruuu” japanese spirit that white american’s try to enforce upon Japanese people doesn’t coincide with the fact the Americans didnt drop all (three) bombs in the same day, due to inclement weather – not “becrause dem japonese samurai ninjuhs didnt accept duh nooks powah”

          Also you’re being an idiot either intentionally or otherwise. The “six million casualties” is only ever mentioned as magical Marines that didn’t exist, and thus would have had to be recruited in order to fill said numbers. Yes, some people who aren’t autistic inbreds like yourself, have the ability to use “objectivity” in their day to day lives. The lack of objectivity is what causes literal retards like you to spew misinformation and inaccurate bullshit to the point it’s accepted, because it’s so loud and obnoxious.

          tl:dr you don’t know shit, you don’t know history, you’re a brainwashed goy-toy bred by idiot government tools and your entire understanding of the world comes from backwards assed, ignorant old people.


          ^ This is you, and there’s nothing that can be done about it, so therefore, there’s no reason to further continue this discourse. You will forever be an old, dumbshit racist/moron. You are the modern day equivalent of the old white fuck who thinks the civil rights movement was a bad idea. Your kind will die out and be thankfully forgotten in a mere generation or two.

          You could also redeem yourself and do the world a favor and just kill yourself and your family before age does it for you, that would be nice.

          I mean jesus christ you’re a stupid faggot. I literally cite historical facts that contradict your terminal autism, and you still sit there and regurgitate this ignorant bullshit you can’t actually prove or back up.

          Kiiiiiillll yourseeeeeeeeeeelf.

  3. I’ve noticed that the most vocally “anti-discrimination” types are usually the most discriminatory in the first place. 3rd wave feminists treat women like they can’t think for themselves. The “Patriarchy” narrative is strongly against women actually finding success in life. Ideas like affirmative action or the absurd notion of “white privilege” are just modern-day rehashings of The White Man’s Burden. SJWs use racist mindsets and terminology like “colored people.” I could go on and on.

  4. Nope, you’re not wrong.

    People have known about her ignorance of Japan since her Bayonetta video. She basically endorsed segregated trains for men and women because Bayonetta was too sexy. There won’t be a call out of her behavior but it shows that she’s an ignorant bigot only interested in the money that she can get out of controversy.

  5. “Bombed them back to traditional values?” Does she think militarist Japan was some kind of feminist society?

    Sarkeesian has it entirely backwards. Women finally got the vote in 1946 in Japan, and someone who didn’t sleep through history class might note that this was during the US occupation – i.e. as a result of Japan’s surrender, which occurred within a week of the bombing of Nagasaki.

  6. Oh, I’m sure this will go over really well for her. It’s totally not like Japan is sick and tired of westerners telling them how to run their lives…

  7. There is a reason Sarkeesian gets the attention she gets, and it has nothing to do with what she actually says. It has everything to do with her being one of the most vocal and outspoken women in a movement that is still kind of looking for a female figure head. They don’t know who to turn to, so they turn to people like her, who say the things they want to hear. Anita has dedicated her life to a cause that she pushes to exist. Yes, it most certainly does exist, but like many SJW causes, it does not exist on near the level as the fervor that Anita makes it out to be, and as such, she has to dig deep and inflate what minute issues there are. I for one, choose mostly to ignore her because doing otherwise is pointless.

  8. These people are extremely japan-phobic arent they? trying to ruin books about jap devs, talking like that about nuking them…
    They have got some real issues and one doesnt need to look deep to see it.

  9. This isn’t surprising at all. The SJW’s and their supporters in the gaming and yes, even the Anime news sites hold this view from what I’ve seen. They tend to look at Japan and the games and shows they produce through the SJW goggles. Glad to know Japan ignores the shit out of them.

  10. Can I just point out that Sarkeesian is absolutely full of shit when she talks about Japan’s feminism issue? They have a high percentage of elderly who live by ‘traditional values’ which has led to skew whatever statistic she’s used. She’s also neglected to talk about how the amount of women in Japan who have chosen their career over having children has led to a massive fertility issue. This has been a problem for the past 30-40 years. Japan is having serious issues just because of how few children they’re having. But I’m sure Sarkeesian didn’t bother to read about that, it doesn’t benefit her argument so why should she?

  11. Japan’s integral era of feminism is actually already over, it ended about 20-30 years ago. Women all over the country have been satisfied with their social progression and society is equally fair on both sexes.

    Anita Sarkeesian is a typical illiterate westerner who thinks she understands even a percentage of Japanese history, culture or trade. She’s cementing herself as a degenerate.

  12. As we’ve seen with Tekken, the actual toxic people in this whole debacle are the batshit, lack-witted SJWs that harp on about pedantic bullshit because they have nothing better to do. Here in the west, we’ve been fighting for YEARS AND YEARS to get Japanese developers to localize and release more games to us.

    The Japanese are Agoraphobic by nature when it comes to this issue, and unintelligent vapid cunts screaming loudly about them doesn’t help us one bit. How are we going to ever get amazing games like Mother 3, when we consistently and constantly act like utter idiots that are completely undeserving of them?

    You want to know why Japan thinks we can’t handle Games like Mother 3? Because the extremely vocal minority like Ms. Sarkeesian keeps making us look completely unable to cope with real world issues like them. We need to let our voices be heard on this issue, we need Japanese developers to know that reactionary, tin foil hat wearing, two faced, brainwashed, patreon fueled professional victims don’t represent us, and that we can deal with social and political issues like goddamn normal humans.

  13. Feminist Hypocrisy, a topic so vast and terrifying in its scope, that I’m going to have to pivot a bit and look at it from another angle.

    You see, I could spend the entirety of this video listing bullet point after bullet point of specific examples of how modern Third Wave Feminism, informed by the triple threat of Postmodern bullshit, Identity Politics bafflegab and selective Fashion Victim rationalizations is all about claiming to do one thing and consistently doing another.

    In fact, why don’t I list a few of my favorites to start things off.

    First, the idea that Feminism represents a movement of equality for women that also, in some magical betterment through vilification, benefits men. Which is like saying the benefits of Kristallnacht was that Jews no longer had to do windows.

    The name itself. If one is for equity and egalitarianism, then why the name “Feminism”? Odd that a movement that seeks to render everything gender neutral, when and if convenient and where men are involved, ddoesn’textend the same neutering to its own name. Also, although they may fight to change the term “fireman” to “fire fighter”, the term “gunman” is pretty safe from revision.

    Although Feminists strive for parity in sought after careers and in communities that they did not build or sacrifice for, they are notoriously uninterested in achieving parity in dirty, dangerous occupations, general shit-work or, for example, in making women’s federal student loans dependent on signing up for Selective Service cannon fodder at the age of 18 just like everyone with a penis had to do.

    It’s an odd and completely self-serving parity whereby if Feminists are unrepresented in communities that they had no hand in creating, parity must be established. What others build must be handed over to Feminists and Social Justice Warriors once they stick their foot in the door. And that parity comes at no price because Feminists feel no obligation, on arrival, to do any real work except for taking a managerial position, telling everyone else what to do, and deriding those who do real work as shitlords. The Feminist ideal seems to be that women just are, and are valued for converting oxygen into carbon dioxide and generally taking up space. It’s not like they actually have to do anything. Except call you a misogynist should you get the least bit uppity.

    It’s not for nothing that the much cited “game developer” Zoe Quinn of ‪#‎gamergate‬ fame didn’t develop anything like what is usually recognized as a video game requiring talent, technical skill and the outlay of time and effort and instead takes her place as a “developer” based on a boring, puerile text-based “choose your own adventure” boilerplate. That, and having, well-traveled as it may be, a vagina.

    Of course, parity need not be maintained in areas where women are over-represented and increasing unequal representation of women in college enrollment, for instance, doesn’t mean that anything should be done to help men, rather, that inequity is equality and more should be done for women.

    To Feminists, the sexuality of women is to be celebrated, regardless of how tawdry and careless it may be, ever on the lookout for the merest hint of “slut shaming” while engaging in the dissection and micromanaging of every sexual thought, word or deed a man might potentially have.

    Feminists decry “fat shaming” and feel it is their right to determine what men, in general, may or may not find attractive. Men who do not find overweight women attractive are denied the excluded middle of actually preferring fit and healthy women and it’s claimed they want boyish, anorexic girls. At the same time, men who do find overweight women attractive are derided as fetishistic “chubby chasers” seeking women with low self-esteem despite previous bullshit claims that Healthy at Any Size women love themselves.

    And on and on it goes. Untangling the constant “giving it with one hand and taking it away with another” that Feminists engage in can be a full time job. As is having to issue the walking-on-eggshells disclaimers at every step.

    You know, like that by criticizing Feminism, which is a political and social ideology, not a gender, one is not criticizing women as a whole. Mostly that confusion is cultivated by Feminists every chance they get in the same way that some right-wing Fox News nutjobs in the United States will answer every critique of their self-serving programs with the question “Why do you hate freedom?”.

    This “woman as victim” feminism promotes an idea of women as people forever acted upon, not acting on things and so, to be against this view of women is not to be anti-woman, but rather, promoting the idea of women as fully formed adult human beings able to take the knocks, setbacks, and yes, injustices that are part of the human experience.

    Feminism – this view promoting the outrage and foot stamping of the perpetually dissatisfied woman-child– benefits only a small subset of mostly white, middle-class educated, white collar women and is otherwise perfectly happy to have “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” T-shirts made by underpaid and exploited women in the Third World. A prominent feminist women can advocate for women in the workforce, while mistreating her own help and paying them pennies.

    Feminism is, in the narrowest political sense, simply pork. Which doesn’t make it unique, it just makes it one more obsessive special interest group looking for the best way to AstroTurf its demands.

    This hypocrisy is bad enough when it’s limited to some cranks on the internet but the real potential for harm comes when the hypocrisy is made manifest and legislated. Take, for example, the “Violence Against Women Act” which codifies the idea that, in domestic violence, men are the perpetrators and women are the victims when it’s been known since the 1970s, based on numerous studies, that there is, in fact, parity in domestic violence. Women are just as much perpetrators of domestic violence as men, initiate it more often, and not in self-defense and where a weapon is used it is more often women wielding it.

    From almost the moment that Feminists claimed the existence of a “wage gap” it’s been proven time and again that once you allow from the different choices men and woman make, including investment of time and effort, no such wage gap actually exists. That Feminists persist in repeating a canard that has been rigorously disproven shows that they are all for the equality of women getting paid more for doing less on the job. And the proposed “equal pay” acts are attempts to ensure, despite all the variables, that forced outcome.

    Or demanding the full protection for women under the law, and even adding to the protection with “rape shield laws” while at the same time supporting the complete evisceration of due process rights for college men accused of rape until the mere accusation is enough. The rights delineated in the American Bill of Rights are considered to be innate and inalienable and the Bill of Rights exists not to bestow them but simply to prohibit government from infringing on them. And so there is not greater hypocrisy than doing an end-run in academia and treating those innate and inalienable due process rights as inconvenient and optional.

    Blah-blah-fucking-blah. I can literally go on doing this forever.

    The question is not where Feminist and Feminism are exercises in hypocrisy, but the why and how of the hypocrisy. That is, like being evil, no one consciously thinks of themselves as a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is made possible by a world view coupled with some particular mental gymnastics.

    Let me explain by means of what might seem to be a digression.

    Feminism, as it is practiced now, coming out of academia and online discourse, all too used to browbeating people into compliance, is a totalizing, dogmatic system.

    Like Marxism, Freudianism and Randian Objectivism, feminism is not only an ideology, but represents an all encompassing way of looking at the world that is insular and dogmatic as any religious doctrine. The simplest way to think of a totalizing system is to think of it as a construct that not only serves to explain everything, and there is literally nothing that does not come under the rubric of its ready-made explanation but, more importantly it comes equipped with a series of ad hoc rationalizations. These rationalizations guarantee that it explains everything and where it seemingly doesn’t, well, that’s just more evidence that it explains everything.

    The most overt example of this kind of thinking comes from Freudian Psychoanalysis where it relates to the psycho-sexual development of children, Freud, being a deranged, coke-fueled nutjob, figured that young boys are sexually attracted to their mothers, which causes much conflict and confusion. Freud referred to this as the Oedipal Complex. Carl Jung named the same phenomena occurring between young girls and their fathers The Elektra complex, but that was mainly to piss Freud off.

    Now, fun fact about the Oepidal Complex, at least the way Freud constructed it: There’s no escape. You see, if a guy marries someone who looks like or in some other way has characteristics of his mother, that’s a clear manifestation of unresolved Oedipal Complex. Of course, if the same guy marries someone who in no way resembles his mother, that’s “reaction formation” and like a two headed coin with Freud’s cigar fellating face on both sides, that’s still a manifestation of the Oedipal Complex. That’s also what’s called an ad hoc rationalization.

    And that’s the neat thing about totalizing systems with their ad hoc rationalization neatly lined up in case of emergency: They explain so much everything that in practice, they explain absolutely nothing. And that phenomena was what Carl Popper called “nonfalsifiability”, which is in no way a compliment or something that anything but sheer bullshit should aspire to.

    Thing about totalizing systems is they are kind of like a virus. They don’t care about killing the host, or generally making no sense whatsoever, provided they propagate themselves. The purpose of ad hoc rationalizations is not to really explain anything about the world, but to protect the a priori assumptions of the totalizing system and save it from refutation. The conclusions of these systems are not dependent on the premises, in fact premises can come and go, or be flipped on their heads, but the conclusion, at all costs, must be maintained.

    Think of how utterly immune from refutation concepts such as the wage gap, or rape culture, or that disagreement constitutes harassment are to those who have chugged the victim narrative Kool-Aid. Think how easily Feminist dodge and weave with “Not All Feminists Are Like That” Not only can’t you refute any claim of feminism — as far as the Feminist is concerned — but when push comes to shove, they will deny that they make those claims at all, or rather, those claims are made by some other feminists, which is like, to paraphrase Karen Staughan, foil fencing flatulence.

    Then, there’s the big one. The thing that explains everything: The Patriarchy. Otherwise known as The Man, the All Male Hegemony of Control and Oppression, the birthright to awesome cosmic power that Feminists attribute to all men. Which isn’t at all inexplicable considering the Feminist selectivity in that if you are not a man with power, that is, one they can get something out of, you are practically invisible. The one thing Feminists really hate to talk about, even think about, is class. Mostly because the middle and lower portions of it are just filled with men for whom they have no use.

    The Patriarchy is the big guns of a non-falsifiable, observation-laden construct preserved by ad hoc rationalizations. Something hurts Feminists? That’s the Patriarchy. Feminists hurt other women? That’s the Patriarchy too. Men get hurt by Feminism? That’s also the Patriarchy. There is, quite literally, nothing The Patriarchy can’t do. Or, at least, get blamed for.

    The Patriarchy is the high-octane fuel for the engine of the perpetual victim narrative.

    Now, the conclusion of Feminism of the Third Wave, fashionable kind is the preservation of a victim narrative. The victim narrative serves several purposes, first, it explains away the personal failures of the individual Feminist by externalizing them, it allows an emotional appeal to quash the sort of criticism that would be leveled were not the individual feminist a tender and bruised raw nerve libel to fly off the handle and go totally stabby at the first sign of resistance,

    Basically, it requires you to treat the Feminist as a strong and resilient intellectual Amazon warrior princess while, in practice, obligating you to coddle them like a teary-eyed six year old.

    Take, for an example of Feminists utter tone deafness when it comes to class. , the “Ten Hours of Walking” video, just one of several videos trying to create outrage for fun and profit by having a woman videotaped walking the streets for hours, generally in lower socio-economic class black and latino neighborhoods in order to document “street harassment”. After hours of trolling for harassment, what is actually demonstrated is not “harassment”, that is violent or threatening behavior, but ethnic guys having the audacity to say hello or otherwise seek acknowledgement from the young woman baiting them. The videos are supposed to prove something about how men and woman interact in public, but what it proves is that some women will completely overstate the case for harassment by treating any interaction as harassment. What’s more, although the videos claim just as much harassment comes from white men, the target audience for shaming, they could just as easily be used by racists to make the case of the perils faced by pretty white women at the hands of lustful black men and other minorities. However, unlike the “strange fruit” of days gone by, the goal of these sort of damsels in distress masquerading as strong women who can hold their own, is more ambitious. Rather than calling for the lynching of black men, men in general will do just fine.

    The real hypocrisy of these sorts of efforts is that they pretend to be about progress, about moving forward and redefining gender norms, while actually digging deep to mine the chivalrous psychology of a selective traditionalism and, perhaps, traditional racism.That is, traditionalism that women benefit from must be preserved, even if rebranded as something else, and that by not only demanding males behave in traditional ways, but also by plastering that over with additional and often contradictory demands. That men perform traditional roles as buffers and protectors – because the call is for men to take on men over supposed “street harassment” – while not expecting women to fulfill traditional roles, least of all respecting men for on the one hand saving the damsel in distress, while simultaneously extolling her virtues as a strong, independent woman capable of taking care of themselves.

    And that bit of hypocrisy bears repeating. Modern Third Wave Feminism is not a progressive movement, rather it is a selective rebranding of traditionalism for women, with no reciprocal rethinking of those traditional male roles that are of benefit to them.

    Now, let’s talk about how this all actually plays out.

    I’ve read somewhere that Tibetan Buddhists, and this may be coming from the Dalai Lama rather than a doctrine of Buddhism per se, that should Buddhist claims conflict with empirical fact, then the claims would be tossed out.

    Now, I don’t know whether or not that is true. At least, I haven’t seen a single instance of that being put into practice and, given the nature of dogmas, you can always count on just enough revisionist wiggle room that the jettisoning of established dogma wouldn’t actually happen.

    This is not unique to Buddhism either. I’ve heard the same claims made about Judaism and even Christians try to get in on the act that their dogma is taking part in the free flow of discourse and, therefore, open to refutation. The Catholic Church attempts to do this by claiming there’s no contradiction between Evolution and the Truth in the Bible more by opting out, claiming different magesteria rather than humbling themselves before fact.

    Now, why would otherwise dogmatic and insular religious doctrines make these sorts of claims, especially if, like me, you are cynical enough to think when such a thing was about to happen, they would find a way to weasel out of making good on the claim?

    I mean, very best thing that doomsday cults do isn’t calculating the end of the world. It’s recalculating the end of the world.

    You see, everyone wants to act like they are taking part in discourse, that they are fair salesmen in the marketplace of ideas. You want to make yourself out to be reasonable rather than, revealing that you are a bunch of close-minded, insular lunatics whose only interest in getting into the market of ideas is so you can shout people down and unload a canned speech on them.

    The problem is, that many of the sellers in the market place of ideas are exactly that. Snake oil merchants who have lied their way in to the market itself under false pretenses.

    And that is the greatest, most glaring hypocrisy of modern Feminism, and the same tendencies is on steroids for the online version: Feminists enter into spaces, intrude on them, claiming that they are there to right injustice, or raise consciousness. They are just there to talk. And what follows are blocking and shaming tactics, having people’s social media accounts suspended, people fired from their jobs, if possible, claims of abuse and harassment all direct towards one aim and only one aim: To have a monologue, to engage in the marketplace of ideas by shutting everyone else up, through harassment and proxy violence if necessary so they can run a re-education camp for a captive audience.

    That, to me, is the greatest hypocrisy of modern Feminism: It enters into spaces paying lip service to the idea of having a discussion, of having a dialogue, or being able to be persuaded by facts and common sense when, in fact, it’s just another totalizing system, another big bag of predetermined ideological nonsense, as much as any other crackpot theory or religious dogma, that can only operate in the a complete vacuum of dissenting voices and is more than willing to suck the air out of any room to accomplish this.

    And really, when it comes to that, it’s all just marketing. I wouldn’t claim that we live in an age or a culture where people are no longer coerced by violence. However, I would say that when violence is used, it can’t be used in broad daylight. Which explains why we live in a surveillance state where there are cameras literally everywhere, but cops will still crack your head for filming them.

    Because of this, we live in an age and culture of lies and fallacy and emotional appeal where the art of massive bullshit was perfected over a century of selling people shit they don’t need through marketing. And it’s no accident that Edward Bernays, the patron saint of 20th century public relations and propaganda used his Uncle Sigmund’s theories of Psychoanalysis to craft more and more refined ways to lie to people in large groups. The ad hoc hypocrisy of totalizing systems and marketing go hand in hand to the extant that, quite literally, the truth is regarded as whatever you can make people believe.

    Modern Feminism, which most of the time acts as a series of witch hunts and moral panics, hypocritically acts as if it is a fair seller in the marketplace of ideas when, in fact, it is simply marketing. Not surprisingly, some of the more successful online feminists have degrees in marketing, communication, and are selling the product of endless outrage that can only be cured by giving them your dollars. You can refute their claims on a Monday and they will be back repeating them by Wednesday. That’s because their claims, the victim narrative, isn’t something open for debate or beta testing. It’s a product that they simply intend to sell as is.

    And that is the most cynical, the most hypocritical thing of all.

  14. As a Japanese person, though born and raised in Canada, this quote actually pisses me off!!!

    To trivialize something so horrific and tragic as the atomic bombing of my “homeland” and somehow relate it to her take on “feminism” is just insulting and a slap to the face of all who suffered because of it.

    1. Welcome to leftism. Where the only things that have any meaning are the ones that advance their narrative.

      There’s a parallel in thought here between this and the recent debacle involving Greenpeace stomping all over the Nazca lines for a photo op.

  15. You are all taking away the wrong thing here. She just gave us the recepie to get rid of feminis. All countries needs to set off a nuke, just find somewhere remote, well survive the fallout, its less toxic.

  16. “Feminism doesn’t exist in Japan” I guess she means the rich white privileged brand of feminism.

    Entire country’s female population and their on-going struggles, erased in one sentence. I’ve heard people talk about how ignorant and racist some white feminists can be, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it in action. She really is a despicable person.

  17. … I can’t believe I’m actually going to defend AS.

    How is what she said a joke about the bombings? Ignorant, undoubtedly. Wrong? I know just enough about Japanese history to know that there really wasn’t any Feminism in Japan before 1945 and there was very little chance of it happening at that time. Even if Japan had remained mostly isolated and not gone out and attacked its neighbours, Japan wasn’t on any sort of course that would allow for Feminism to arise. So it seems like the idea that the bombings sent it “back to traditional values” is entirely wrong.

    Are people saying that she’s being flippant, or not taking the bombings seriously? I might be able to see that, but I wouldn’t consider that “joking”. I don’t see the quote that way – I see it as a serious comment (though wrong and ignorant) on why she believes there is a lack of Feminism (in her eyes) in Japan. I’m not even sure that this is hateful or biogted, to be honest – wrong and ignorant do go hand in hand with hateful and bigoted, but hateful and bigoted don’t go hand in hand with wrong and ignorant.

    (So what I’m saying on that front is that I need to see a hell of a lot more stuff from AS that is anti Japanese (and not anti-Japan) before I’m willing to be the guy in the Monty Python GIF pointing at AS and screaming “RACIST!!”.)

    Really, folks – she’s a horrible person and deserves to be criticized harshly for the opinions and “facts” she spouts. But let’s make sure that our criticism is accurate and warranted first.

    1. Notice how she always attacks the easy targets? I would love to see her actually make some disparaging comments about the treatment of women in the middle east including the taliban and ISIS. We know that will NEVER happen as that might actually bring real world consequences.

      1. She won’t attack the middle easts values she knows they don’t play around when it comes enforcing there shit and making sure no one insults it. She scared of them as she should be. It is kinda cowardly though she is brave went she won’t receive trouble but cowers when people that can and will murder her show

      2. Well duh. That’s also low hanging fruit, but it’s the low hanging fruit we jump for most of the time to use as ammo against our opponents. Even if she did come out against ISIS and the Middle East and institutional Islam (ie: places that follow Shariah law) she can’t DO anything about it. I’m a firm believer in equality between the genders and a firm believer in gay rights, but I know that I can’t do a thing about the Middle East or even Russia. But I CAN do something about issues here in Canada, so while I won’t be active in things that will directly affect the Middle East and Russia, I’ll be active in things that help women and gays in Canada.

        So while I do understand the sentiment… it’s low hanging fruit and not all that fair to criticize. There are far, far, far more valid points of hers to criticize than “She hasn’t made a “ISIS IS BAD” video yet.”.

  18. So they bombed them back in to traditional values but women only got the vote in 1947. Typical feminist ignorance of history.

  19. Anita, you are aware that Japanese Media by and large has more complex, intelligent, powerful female characters than the vast majority of American media? The vast majority of Japanese Media actually passes both the Bechdel and Mako Mori tests time and time again.

    But I’m not expecting her to do anything but dismiss these characters for some BS reason.

  20. Japanese women actually get off their behinds and write/draw the comics they want to consume. The manga market is thriving because of this, mean while, in the west, feminist women just spend their time complaining while demanding men cater to their needs…which are frankly not genuine to begin with because they just demand “ms male” content because acknowledging gender differences is a no no.

  21. Constitutional provisions (written by a feminist) making women equal to men were added after the war was over. The war was started by followers of Shinto, a very traditional religion, and the post-war occupation worked to dismantle its influence.

  22. The fact that the media is sucking up to this dim wit, and actually taking her serious is a huge indicator of how mainstream media works. All the BS they feed us, and most people sit, watch, listen and absorb the garbage they spew. She needs to disappear and never come back!

  23. I’d just like to add for anyone doubting this quote (Zennistrad in particular as well as the rest of the Ghazi drones) the person who wrote this blog and quoted this actually attended the conference whereas you did not. They were also speaking in their comment section with a feminist who spoke at the event and notice how she did not take issue with him quoting Sarkeesian in that manner even though she took issues with other things. That’s because she actually said it. You can deny it all you want but the guy still stands by this quote to this day and edited his blog post to reflect that so suck it you salty fuck. You’re so willing to believe she’s some kind of fucking god-like genius even though she couldn’t even bullshit her way into providing Colbert three fucking games. Also Anita never denied saying it.

  24. Just finding this quote here. It’s a good thing she’s already off my Christmas list.

    I’ve been blogging about Japan since 1998, and here’s a post on the issue of feminism and Japan, in case anyone wanders in and cares to read it.

    America and Japan are very different in many ways, and the relationships between men and women reflect this. Western-style feminism never took root with Japanese women because they didn’t feel it was right for them — while women want to be protected from discrimination and ‘seku-hara’ (sexual harassment) in the workplace, Japanese women who actively seek lifelong professional careers are rare, at least outside of large cities. While many women work as full-time OLs (“office ladies,” a Japanese term for any female office worker), other jobs that are popular with women include tour guides, flight attendants/ground hostesses, and language interpreters. But the greatest job a woman can aspire to in Japan is undeniably “joshi-ana,” or female newscaster (e.g. “announcer,” often shortened to “ana”). All throughout Japan, many women see these educated television personalities, so beautiful and well-dressed and usually fluent in English, and sigh with envy. By unwritten Japanese rule, female newscasters nearly always marry Japanese baseball stars.

    I once had an interesting experience while hitchhiking around Western Japan. I was staying at a youth hostel in Hiroshima, and there were people from all over the world staying there — it’s always fun to meet people from other countries, and youth hostels are great for that. I got into a conversation with a young Australian college student who was positively burning with the fire of American feminism, and was visiting Japan for the first time to try to awaken her “Japanese sisters” to issues of equality. A middle-aged Japanese woman who was very down-to-Earth joined our conversation, and I was trying to translate for the two women so they could share their ideas. On the one hand, the Australian girl had many logical arguments about the roles women should be able to take in a society, while at the same time the common-sense statements made by the Japanese woman were very logical, too. (“Only women can make the babies”) The bottom line is, ideas we take for granted in our own country don’t necessarily work the same in other parts of the world.

  25. I do not know who this whore is, but she can die in a fire with her ugly big nose.

    We were the only ones who feature transsexual characters in videogames, and have many games with cool female character, but she has no life and decide to make jokes about her country’s biggest war crimes? Filth. Does the west have shame?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.