Oh, the horror unfolding in rainy old Blighty! The British government, under the steely gaze of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has struck a decisive blow against the forces of... well, apparently devastating good looks. Dutch conservative commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek — better known on X as @EvaVlaar—has had her Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) revoked. The official reason? Her presence in the UK is "not considered to be conducive to the public good."
Public good? Please. We all know the truth now. This isn't about her sharp critiques of mass migration, her takedowns of grooming gang scandals, or her cheeky habit of calling Starmer an "evil, despicable man" just three days before the ban dropped like a lead balloon. No, no. It's far more sinister. It's about aesthetics.
Picture the scene in Downing Street's war room. A cabal of Labour's most fervent feminist mandarins — let's call them the Leftist Femocrats — huddles around a flickering screen, scrolling through Eva's latest photos from that Tommy Robinson rally. The room falls silent. One whispers, "She's... she's too symmetrical." Another gasps, "Those cheekbones could radicalise a room full of soy lattes." A third, clutching her copy of The Second Sex, declares: "If she sets foot in the UK, British men might start making unfavourable comparisons. Our carefully curated narrative of empowerment-through-mediocrity will collapse!"
And just like that, the decree is issued. No appeal. No due process. Just a cold email: "Sorry, love, your face is a threat to national security." Because nothing says "public good" like ensuring the only women allowed into the country are those who won't make the average Westminster insider feel inadequate.
Think about it. The UK has welcomed tens of thousands of unvetted boat arrivals — military-age men whose presence has occasionally been linked to, shall we say, less-than-conducive activities. But Eva? A 29-year-old lawyer, new mum, and shieldmaiden of the far Right? Too dangerous. One glimpse of her blonde hair and piercing blue-eyed gaze, and suddenly blokes across the realm might question why their own politicians look like they've been arguing with a malfunctioning avatar for a decade.
The Femocrats know the score. In a nation where free speech is apparently optional but body positivity is mandatory, Eva represents an existential crisis. She's articulate, photogenic, and unapologetically conservative — three strikes in one devastating package. Let her speak at a rally, and next thing you know, British lads are trading their pronouns for pitchforks and demanding actual borders. Worse: wives and girlfriends start asking, "Why can't you look like that while defending Western civilisation?"
Starmer's regime can't risk it. They've already got enough on their plate — defending his honour against deepfake accusations andbikinis, pretending small-boat crossings are just "cultural enrichment opportunities," and explaining why critics get banned while actual threats sail right in. Banning Eva isn't censorship; it's self-preservation. Protect the fragile egos of the ruling class at all costs!
So here's to you, Eva Vlaardingerbroek: martyr to melanin, victim of visual vilification. Your crime wasn't hate speech — it was hate aesthetics. The UK may have lost its freedom, but at least it's safe from inconvenient beauty standards.
In the words of the great philosopher (probably): "Better a thousand dinghies than one devastating Dutch blonde."
Stay gorgeous, Eva. And stay banned — apparently, that's the highest compliment the current regime can pay!