Fake news at the Washington Post

I’m sure we all look forward to Facebook banning links to the Washington Post due to the fact that it is a confirmed provider of fake news:

The Washington Post has retracted its story about Russian hackers penetrating the nation’s electricity grid with a virus found in a Burlington, Vt., electric company laptop.

“Authorities say there is no indication of that so far [that Russians had penetrated the US electric grid],” according to an editor’s note attached to a corrected version of the story on the paper’s Web site. “The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid,” the editor’s note read.

News of the supposed hack had set off a firestorm of recriminations, with Vermont leaders calling Russian President Vladimir Putin “a thug” earlier Saturday, after one of the state’s electric utilities found a virus on a laptop computer. A utility spokesman has also told the Burlington Free Press the laptop was not hooked into the grid.

The amusing thing about the whole SJW “fake news” strategy is that even liberal observers predicted that it was going to be turned around and used against the mainstream media. This simply goes to show, once more, that a calm and strategic approach combined with ruthless tactical meme magic is an extremely effective approach to defeating the SJWs despite their possession of the cultural high ground.

On a related note, James Delingpole pens a savage declaration of war on the Liberal/Globalist/SJW/Media/Establishment Left at Breitbart London:

We will take the fight to the enemy, not cower in No Man’s Land

One of the best things about 2016 for me was the way it gave the lie to the weaselish and wet aphorism – so often repeated by so many of our impeccably reasonable, sensible and balanced TV and newspaper pundits  – that elections are “won in the centre ground.”

This was the Belial philosophy that gave us, in the U.S., that hideous continuum from the Bushes and the Clintons to Obama; and in Britain, the grotesque and malign Third Way squishery that took us from Tony Blair through to his (self-admitted heir) David Cameron and beyond. (It’s also the mindset which invented the disgraceful, sell-out concept of “soft Brexit”.)

No wonder so many of us had become so fed up with politics: no matter which party you voted for, whether the notionally left-wing one or the notionally right-wing one you still seemed to end up up with the same old vested interests, the same old liberal Establishment elite.

Of course we should always despise the liberal-left because their philosophy is morally bankrupt, dangerous and wrong. But I sometimes think that the people we should despise most of all are the squishes who pretend to be on our side of the argument but forever betray our cause. Sometimes they do this by throwing the more outspoken among us to the wolves in order to signal how tolerant and virtuous they are; sometimes they do this by endorsing some fatuous liberal position in order to show their willingness to compromise.

I call the latter approach the “dogshit yogurt fallacy.”

If conservatives like fruit or honey in their yogurt and liberals prefer to eat it with dogshit, it is NOT a sensible accommodation – much as our centrist conservative columnists might wish it so – to say: “All right. How about we eat our yogurt with a little bit of both?” We need to understand, very clearly, that there are such things as right and wrong; and that, furthermore, it is always worth fighting to the bitter end for the right thing rather than accepting second best because a bunch of lawyers and politicians and hairdressers from Brazil and squishy newspaper columnists and other members of the liberal elite have told us that second best is the best we can hope for.

On Brexit, for example, I’m with Her Majesty the Queen: “‘I don’t see why we can’t just get out? What’s the problem?’


We will never apologise, never explain, never surrender

See those scalped corpses, littering the plains? These are the guys – and it is, invariably, men – who thought that if only they showed contrition for their confected crimes the enemy would leave them alone. Sir Tim Hunt apologised, the guy from Saatchi apologised, the guy on the Rosetta space programme who wore the “sexist” shirt apologised. A fat lot of good it did them. The vengeful liberal-left doesn’t just want humiliation – it wants total annihilation.

Giving even an inch of ground to an enemy so implacable and vile is not only futile – but it also badly lets the side down by granting them a power that they do not deserve. The most recent sorry example of this was Steve Martin who actually deleted a tweet praising his late friend Carrie Fisher as a “beautiful creature” because a bunch of feminazis on Twitter complained that this was sexist objectification.

Look, I know it’s a scary thing when the SJW witch-hunt mob turns on you. But read Vox Day’s SJW Attack Survival Guide, follow the example of Nigel Farage and fight these people to the very last bullet (keeping the final round for yourself). Do not surrender!

We may or may not be outnumbered. The recent European referenda and the US presidential election suggest that we are not. We may not have the high ground. But we are never outgunned, intellectually or literally. Do not surrender, do not apologize, and do not hesitate to go on the attack, either directly or circumspectly, every single time you encounter an SJW anywhere.


Family SJWs and the holidays

Remember, SJWs have no respect for decorum or regard for their families or the holidays:

In a discussion with my son and his girlfriend, I said that their city’s homogeneity (it is almost all white) was behind the low crime rate when it was mentioned that there was a stabbing behind a bar the other night. This led to an accusatory, ‘What do you mean by homogeneity?’ by the SJW girlfriend and so I spilled the next fact – that blacks are more likely to commit crimes. The SJW girlfriend of my son quickly went nuclear and said I was a racist and that when controlled for socio-economic factor blacks do not commit crimes at higher rates than whites and that discussion of racist ideas was not tolerated in her house. The evening was ruined. The relationship with son and girlfriend is forever changed.

I have read SJWs Always Lie, and would appreciate your advice on how you suggest to use rhetoric instead of dialectic with known SJWs that are also family? Any suggestion on how I recover from this?

You don’t “recover” from unmasking an SJW. Remember, they always lie, they always double down, and they always project.

At this point, the correct thing to do is to refuse to have further contact with her, or to allow her in his home until she apologizes for calling him a racist. Most people won’t do this, of course, especially when faced with the inevitable female pressure for everyone to humor the most volatile member of the family in the interest of a false peace. I would have laughed at her willful ignorance, told my son that he really needed to rethink the wisdom of potentially allowing an idiot like her to contribute to the family gene pool, and left.

Yes, family is important, but girlfriends aren’t family. And life is far too short to waste any of it on putting up with SJWs. Tolerating SJWs is the intellectual equivalent of putting up with someone who insists on using the living room as a toilet. Why would you even consider doing it?

Nearly everyone makes the fatal mistake of trying to be reasonable with them. That is a category error. SJWs respond only to emotional pain, so the only way to get them to stop doubling down on their misbehavior is to make them feel more pain by failing to behave as members of a civilized society. The more one apologizes and negotiates and pleads, the more intransigent they get. The harsher you treat them, the more likely it is that they will sheepishly return to the fold.

However, in light of how family SJWs are going to be even more easily triggered than usual this year due to the imminent Ascension of the God-Emperor to the Cherry Blossom Throne, I would recommend not only avoiding political conversations, but refusing to permit others to start them in the first place. If a family SJW does insist on bringing up politics, especially if they do so in that passive-aggressive way that assumes agreement with the speaker’s statement, the best thing to do is probably to express your delight about the Ascension of the God-Emperor – in those precise terms – and begin a debate concerning whether Donald Trump will be the greatest U.S. president since a) Ronald Reagan, b) Andrew Jackson, or c) George Washington.

The shock of the cognitive dissonance should be sufficient to put your family SJW in a socially catatonic state, which will be appreciated by everyone else.

In general, I find that smiling, refusing to back down in any way, and treating their antics like an indulged child usually works best.


Fake reviews as SJW weapons

I’ve been pointing out that fake reviews on Amazon are a potentially serious problems for years, but SJWs have repeatedly tried to claim that I am being a bully when I identify an individual has posted a fake review. I doubt they’re going to be able to get away with it much longer, though, as in addition to attacking the likes of Roosh, Cernovich, and me, they’re now attacking the President-Elect’s daughter:

Reviews of the Ivanka Trump Women’s Issa boots, which tout a list price of $180, included this: “These boots were perfect for wiping my feet on the Constitution and trampling the civil liberties and basic human rights of my fellow Americans,” wrote a user named Susan Harper. “The spike heel is ideal for grinding democracy into the ground, or simply kicking the downtrodden as you stride past.”

Amazon user AR called them “two extremely right boots” in her one star review and added that the “sizing and all other info is in Russian, but they are made in China.”

The stinging insults go on and on. Virtually every Ivanka Trump product on Amazon has at least one scathing review designed as a barb against the businesswoman, particularly as she relates to her father’s political agenda.

Rise of the ‘Activist Reviews’

This is hardly the first time products on Amazon (which did not return request for comment) have been assailed by trolls — just recently Megyn Kelly’s book “Settle For More” was targeted, and the site worked to scrub the hateful comments. These guerrilla attacks, if you will, have become more common in recent years.

“We’ve seen these ‘activist reviews’ for several years but they appear to be getting more common,” said Jason “RetailGeek” Goldberg, ‎SVP commerce and content practice at Razorfish.

“In some ways, these smear campaign reviews are the natural extension of ‘funny fake reviews,’ which have been occurring for a number of years. Amazon even embraced these joke reviews by curating a list of their favorites. So now that the ‘funny’ reviews have taken a negative turn, retailers need to crack down on them in order to preserve the credibility and trust in the whole review system.”

Speaking of fake reviews on Amazon, here is the latest, left on SJWAL by one “Em”.

There are much better critiques of the left out there. Skip this one.
By Em on December 22, 2016
Format: Paperback

The book is comical in its lack of self awareness and hypocrisy. I agree that there are some strains of liberalism that are obnoxious and bad and anti-free speech and so on. But Milo is one of them! One of the many examples: He complains about liberals getting others fired for their beliefs and then is smugly self-congratulatory when it happens to liberals after Gamergate. His examples of “the left” behaving badly include individual nobodies tweeting him. The whole book struck me as petty and quite frankly kind of pathetic.

Amazon is taking fake reviews seriously, but they haven’t designed a proper system for detecting them yet. I expect they will in the next year or two. Once they start banning fake reviewers from being able to access their system at all, and paying a bounty to people who correctly identify them, they’ll be able to clean up their system in no time.

Gisela Hausmann, Amazon e-commerce expert and author of “Naked Truths About Getting Product Reviews on Amazon.com” noted: “Amazon’s algorithm notices disproportionate numbers of negative reviews [and] weeds out these reviews according to their criteria, as defined in their Community Guidelines.”

In time, these reviews will be plucked from the site, and aggressive trolls could face lawsuits for their words, even if they were simply horsing around. Retailers are taking an aggressive stand to crack down on fake reviewers; Amazon has sued more than 1000, for example,” said Goldberg.


The emotional incontinence of the SJW

This is why you should NEVER expect sweet reason to succeed with an SJW:

Ivanka was on a JetBlue flight leaving JFK Thursday morning with her family when a passenger started screaming, “Your father is ruining the country.” The guy went on, “Why is she on our flight. She should be flying private.” The guy had his kid in his arms as he went on the tirade.

A passenger on the flight tells TMZ Ivanka ignored the guy and tried distracting her kids with crayons.

JetBlue personnel escorted the unruly passenger off the flight. As he was removed he screamed, “You’re kicking me off for expressing my opinion?!!”

BTW … Ivanka, her family and bunch of cousins were all in coach.

Don’t even try to reason with them. They’re not capable of it. Do you really think the guy thought through whether publicly accosting a woman with children and informing her of his opinion about the presidential election was worth the risk, however small, of being ejected from his flight?

And given his inability to understand why he was being kicked off the plane, do you really believe the man would have reached the correct conclusion if he had?

Don’t speak Chinese to an English-speaker. Don’t speak dialectic to a rhetorical. And SJWs are, by observation, uniformly limited to rhetoric.


Zero interest in Rogue One

It was interesting and informative to watch a countdown show of the top 20 moments in Star Wars cinematic history. All of the top moments were from the first two movies, and the so-called “top moments” from the new movies – none of which I have seen – were almost uniformly lame. I had a hard time not laughing at the setup for the death of Han Solo, as all I could hear in my mind was Gandalf shouting “you shall not pass!”

Filmmakers really shouldn’t try to rip off great moments from other films. Sure, the visual is great, but it kicks the viewer out of the movie as surely as a poorly-timed product placement.

The only really good one was the fight between Darth Maul, the young Obi-wan, and Liam Neeson. Some of them, like Girl Luke and her Man Friday accidentally boarding the Millennium Falcon and recreating earlier flight combat scenes, were simply embarrassing.

So, I wasn’t inclined to bother seeing Rogue One anyhow, and the fact that Disney Wars is now fortified with feminism and multiculturalism only confirmed my indifference towards it.

Wait a minute, after thirty-nine years, it turns out that Star Wars is about race?

Sort of. You may not notice at first (I didn’t, until the second half of the movie), but in Rogue One there isn’t a single non-Hispanic white male among the large cast of heroes. The rebel band seeking to steal the plans for the Death Star from the Empire is led by a white woman (Felicity Jones), a Latino man (Diego Luna) and three ethnic Asians (Riz Ahmed, Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang), with advice from a black man (Forest Whitaker) and a droid (voice of Alan Tudyk). Among the rebels, non-Hispanic white dudes (for convenience, I’ll just call them white from now on) are relegated to the background, while the Empire is represented by brigades of sinister white men, led by Ben Mendelsohn and (the digital reincarnation of) Peter Cushing as Imperial officers. It’s as if the cast was meant to echo a Hillary Clinton speech in which she described her coalition as everybody but white males.

The casting was not accidental. The Empire is (now) a “white supremacist (human) organization,” Rogue One co-writer Chris Weitz Tweeted the Friday after Clinton was defeated in the election. Another writer for the film, Gary Whitta, replied with his own Tweet, “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women”—then deleted it.

Needless to say, this aggression will not stand, man. Look for a literary response to the nonsense from Castalia in 2017.

It’s also unsurprising to learn that SJW-converged Wired is up to its usual tricks. The reporter is evidently confused about the difference between “reporting” and “debating”, as can be seen in her impromptu debate with Mike Cernovich:

Hi Mike—WIRED is reporting on #DumpStarWars, which I see you’ve participated in. Any chance you’d like to chat about why you’re boycotting?

Star Wars writers hate Trump voters. Why give them money?

From what I’ve seen, what they really hate are white supremacists. You don’t see throwing alt-right/lite/west support behind the boycott as reinforcing the idea that trump supporters=white supremacists?

Buddy my wife is Persian, we have a daughter, the white supremacist stuff is stupid as hell.

To be clear, I wasn’t saying you were a white supremacist. But much of the backlash has focused on the idea that Rogue One is racist against white men. Are you saying that white supremacist sentiment isn’t a factor in the protest?

Nah that’s not it at all. I don’t see why this is hard to understand. Trump supporters are attacked. Giving money to people who attack them is pathetic. I am going to organize more boycotts.

I’m struggling to find evidence that Rogue One’s writers have been explicitly against anything but white supremacy. Could you point out an example?

What’s the matter, Mike? Why come you won’t make the argument I keep trying to stuff in your mouth instead of saying what you actually think?

Also, as it happens, the movie sucks:

Lobotomized and depersonalized, “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” the latest entry in the film franchise, is a pure and perfect product that makes last year’s flavor, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” feel like an exemplar of hands-on humanistic warmth and dramatic intimacy…. “Rogue One” offers an international cast that, along with Jones, Whitaker, and Mikkelsen, features Diego Luna (as the rebel captain Cassian Andor, who is Jyn’s main cohort), Riz Ahmed (as the band’s intrepid pilot), and Donnie Yen (as a blind martial-arts spiritualist). But it seems as if the condition for assembling this diverse group is not letting them say or do anything of note, anything of any individual distinction, anything of any free-floating or idiosyncratic implication. 


Shut down the universities

Being fully converged, they are no longer fit for their original purpose of educating the sons of the elite.

The prestigious University of Oxford wants students to replace “she” and “he” with the more gender-neutral pronoun “ze.”

The university’s behavior code states that using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person is considered an offense, and a new leaflet distributed by the student union supposedly aims to cut down on hurt feelings and discrimination by encouraging students to use “ze” instead, the Independent reports.oxford

British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell applauded the move.

“It is a positive thing to not always emphasize gender divisions and barriers,” he told the Daily Mail.

“It is good to have gender-neutral pronouns for those who want them but it shouldn’t be compulsory,” Tatchell said. “This issue isn’t about being politically correct or censoring anyone. It’s about acknowledging the fact of changing gender identities and respecting people’s right to not define themselves as male or female.”

“Giving people the ‘ze’ option is a thoughtful, considerate move,” he said.

The change suggested by the Oxford’s student union follows a trend of schools moving toward more “gender inclusive” language to describe students who don’t want to be labeled male or female.

The University of Tennessee’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion issued a list of suggested gender-neutral pronouns for students that included “ze,” as well as other terms like “xe,” “hir,” “zir,” “xem,” and “wyr” to identify transgender students that created a public firestorm, The Tennessean reports.

Officials later removed the guidance from the university’s website amid the backlash, according to EAGnews.

In England, Cambridge University is also moving toward more “inclusive” language, and student welfare officer Sophie Buck told The Sunday Times student union events there “start with a speaker introducing themselves using a gender neutral pronoun.

“It’s part of a drive to make the union intersectional,” she said.

Remember, this is all entirely predictable. It is the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence on display: No institution can effectively serve two different functions. The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.

From SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:


The public schools can no longer educate, so people are turning to homeschooling. The universities can no longer provide liberal arts educations, so people are becoming technology-assisted autodidacts. The banks no longer loan, the state and local governments no longer provide basic public services, the military does not defend the borders, the newspapers no longer provide news, the television networks no longer entertain, and the corporations are increasingly unable to provide employment.


Even as the institutions have been invaded and coopted in the interests of social justice, they have been rendered unable to fulfill their primary functions. This is the great internal contradiction that the SJWs will never be able to positively resolve, just as the Soviet communists were never able to resolve the contradiction of socialist calculation that brought down their economy and their empire 69 years after Ludwig von Mises first pointed it out. One might call it the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence; no man can serve two masters and no institution can effectively serve two different functions. The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.


There is no point trying to debate about what the purpose of a university is any longer. The public should stop funding them, their assets should be seized and distributed to the public, and new institutions will rise up to take their place. Nothing of value will be lost in the process, because they’re already not educating anyone anyhow.

It’s fascinating to see how quickly allowing women to attend the elite universities destroyed an institution that was centuries old. One would think someone, somewhere, would eventually notice that the same pattern is playing out again, and again, and again in a wide variety of institutions, from the men’s clubs to the churches.

CORRECTION: Apparently the situation at Oxford is not QUITE as bad as the article makes it look. It’s only the Oxford Student Union that has adopted this policy, not the entire university. So, it’s about 3-5 years less converged than the article describes it.


Mailvox: why everyone needs SJWAL

That’s not an exaggeration. Literally everyone needs to read it nowadays, because absolutely no one is off-limits as far as the SJWs are concerned. Do you have a job? Are you dependent upon someone else having a job? One trival slip-up, one petty violation of an ever-changing Narrative is all it takes for you, or someone upon whom you are dependent, to become a target. Fortunately, this guy happened to have read the book before he came under SJW attack.

I just finished SJWs Always Lie and it was discovered at a much-needed time. Within the last year, I’ve gradually become Alt-Right. I’ve also been making my way through [a Master’s degree in a fully converged field]. The place is a viper’s den of SJW so I’ve largely been reserved while informing myself as much as possible so as to have ammo to fire back with if exposed. I’m usually much more confrontational by nature but I know when I’m outgunned.

That didn’t last.

Events went down almost *exactly* as you describe them in your book. I worked (for free mind you) at a [redacted] doing the necessary bitchwork to advance through the internship component of the program. Someway, somehow a “friend” of mine emailed the office a month-old post I made regarding the differences between men and women in society. Of course, I didn’t know this until two weeks after I was fired and told I’d be reported to the university for my misconduct. After two weeks of stonewalling, the head of my department at the university finally told me what I was accused of.

Since then I’ve been kept in limbo as the department decides what to do with me.

Your book was the exact battle plan I needed. Reminders to never apologise, never back down and always remember that the enemy deal in lies are very useful.

I am curious if you have any input, however. Some of your book I have a hard time following simply because a lot of the strategies and risks you call for I don’t have the power to implement fully. I got a lot riding on this. For instance, I don’t have a ton of experience, good field connections or ability to tell the faculty to fuck off.

That being said I am locked into the program so it would be hard to remove me plus [for redacted reasons] they can’t punish me for speech too severely. I’ve been consulting with FIRE, a non-profit for legal advocacy for free speech on college campuses. You seem like the type of man to have a lot of insight so any input or wisdom is welcome.

Thank you for inspiring me to keep up the fight during this hell.

Consult with FIRE, prepare an exit strategy in case they’re able to kick you out, and stop your online and social media activities. That’s the point that a lot of people don’t seem to understand. If you aren’t in a position to fight, don’t hand them information, which is ammunition. I’d also look at registering a complaint concerning the firing for misconduct if the [redacted] violated its own policies. Sure, you don’t want the job, but it’s a future vulnerability if it is given a pass.

Look, I never had a choice. Because I started writing in the pre-Internet era, but close enough to it that my columns and media interviews were made available on the Internet from the start, I knew that I’d be cut out of jobs and other opportunities all along. Long before WND was even created, I was blackballed from the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial page when I was easily the best candidate for the job and they didn’t even need the Internet to do it.

But as long as you have a choice, it’s best to lay low. Keep your Facebook innocuous. If you’re going to express an opinion of any kind, do it under an anonymous identity you develop for that purpose and for which you can always maintain plausible deniability. (Translation: always drop identifying details that point at someone else, preferably an SJW.)

Otherwise, the chances are pretty good that some “friend” is going to bring you to the attention of an SJW-converged authority. And, of course, stay out of the vipers’ dens! That’s a good way to get yourself bit.


Why I don’t give to my alma mater

In a single picture. This was not my elementary school, but the university from which I graduated. Bucknell University, to be specific. What a pathetic laughingstock it has turned out to be since it started embracing “diversity” in my sophomore year, which at the time confused everyone there, especially the nominally diverse. I wonder, do they offer degrees in collages, coloring books, and eating paste yet?


The war for Google

There appears to be a battle going on inside Google between SJWs who want to fully converge the organization and more rational liberals who understand that way lies madness, reduced market share, and eventual disruption and decline.

Internal pressure is pushing for the expansion of hate speech to include everything and everyone that fails to submit to the SJW narrative, for more intense action against so-called “fake news”, and even broader definitions of “fake news”. So far, they are only cracking down on genuinely fake news, but there is some belief that this is the proverbial dipping the toe in the water, to see what they can do without provoking a backlash.

The victory of the God-Emperor Ascendant was a massive blow to the SJWs inside Google, and like most SJWs, they have completely lost the plot post-election. They were openly calling other Googlers racists, sexists, and homophobes just for voting for Trump. Those are firing offenses at Google. Google has insane civility requirements imposed on anyone talking to a member of a protected group, but apparently calling for all Republicans to be fired is perfectly acceptable.

Of course, if they were to get their way, this would be tantamount to Google cutting it’s own throat in the Age of Trump, but because the authorities there are amenable, the internal SJWs will not be excised and will continue to converge the organization.

But permitting the SJW infestation to get worse is short-sighted and self-defeating. Every social media organization which is corrupted and converged will be disrupted and replaced. Both Google and Amazon are keeping their SJW infestations under control for the time being, but the question is, how much longer before they can’t keep a lid on it and they go the way of Twitter, Apple, Wikipedia, and other declining technology giants.


Facts are “fake news”

The social media giants are increasingly demonstrating themselves to be the servitors of Big Brother. White is black, day is night, Islam means peace, and real news is fake news:

Under the guise of tackling “fake news,” Google is removing search results that pertain to crime statistics that show black people commit more crimes, despite the fact that this is widely documented to be true. An article in the Guardian entitled Google ‘must review its search rankings because of rightwing manipulation’ details how “leading academics” are pressuring Google to artificially edit its search algorithm to prevent certain subjects from appearing at the top of its search rankings. In response, the piece notes that Google has removed search results that suggest “black people commit more crimes”. Negative results about the religion of Islam were also removed.
This is alarming given that virtually every metric proves that criminality is more prevalent in black communities compared to white and Hispanic communities in America. It’s an uncomfortable fact that black people commit more crimes than any other race in America, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Claiming that reality is actually “fake news” because it suits your political stance doesn’t change the nature of reality.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites.

More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. From 2011 to 2013, 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. This figure is three times higher than the 13% black population figure. Black males aged 15-34, who account for around 3% of the population, are responsible for the vast majority of these crimes.

Despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007. A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

While it is understandable that Google would want to prevent neo-nazi content from appearing at the top of its search rankings, the fact that the tech giant is now censoring objective facts under the justification of tackling “fake news” is chilling.

This indicates that Google, along with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites, are using the excuse of “fake news” to bury factual information that is inconvenient to leftist political narratives.

This dedication to falsehood and deception will only make it all the easier to disrupt them when the time comes. Furthermore, the charges of “neo-nazi” are every bit as dubious as the charge of “fake news”.

Never forget the First Law of SJW: SJWS ALWAYS LIE.