Tag: SJW

A flawless end

Tell us more about how you don’t see color, white man. Because everyone who isn’t white sees it just fine.

In life Steven Otter castigated his fellow whites for their “misperception” of black crime in South Africa. Yet in one of those harsh racial ironies the country is famous for, he was stabbed to death by two black robbers in his home on Reconciliation Day 16 December 2016, dying in the arms of his coloured partner, Nathalie Williams — in front of her 7-year old daughter.

Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. That’s not merely a fitting end for a white cuck, it’s a hilariously apt one, given the day on which he died. I just wish every self-described “pro-black” white individual would be forced to live in black-majority neighborhoods and given the choice of a) remaining there for life, or b) joining the KKK.

I’ll bet the average white SJW wouldn’t last a month before putting on a bedsheet.

And to think some say the Devil doesn’t have a sense of humor.

I disavow Gab

As I am reliably informed that it is chock full of notorious white supremacists. And I can’t be associated with anyone of whom Vox.com does not approve. I mean, it’s VOX.COM!

Prominent feminist and author Lindy West deactivated her Twitter account this week, and she was blunt about why: The social media platform, she alleged in an essay published by the Guardian, has refused to curb harassment carried out by members of the white nationalist, misogynist alt-right movement, thereby contributing to a global political crisis….

Ironically, Twitter’s November launch of anti-harassment tools and concurrent banning of many alt-right accounts inspired many alt-right Twitter users to leave the site for the white supremacist-friendly, “free speech”–touting social network Gab.

Gab’s logo is an easily identifiable likeness of Pepe the Frog, an image explicitly associated with white supremacy, and Gab’s verified users include known white supremacists. But a Gab spokesperson has stated emphatically to Vox.com that the platform is “not an alt-right or anti-semitic site” and that it “[does] not represent any one particular political ideology or movement.” The same spokesperson also insisted that Gab’s logo is not Pepe the Frog, but rather “drawn from antediluvian and Biblical sources,” and stated that Gab “rejects the notion that we represent ‘white supremacy’ in any shape or form.”

Be that as it may, white supremacists are blatantly flocking to Gab — Heimbach even promoted the site to the Washington Post after he was banned from Twitter on January 3. In essence, though Twitter has attempted to follow the letter rather than the spirit of its harassment policy, even its cursory efforts have made it unpopular with the very users who are driving progressive voices like West away from the platform.

This mass exodus of hateful trolls may sound like a win for those who are still using Twitter — but many people have already given up waiting for the site to change, and progressive “why I left Twitter” pieces like West’s are becoming increasingly frequent.

You have to enjoy the total incoherency of this article.

  1. Twitter is full of Nazis and white supremacists.
  2. Eradicating Nazis should be Twitter’s primary, secondary, and tertiary priority, according to “prominent feminist and author”.
  3. Twitter has set up a Trust & Safety Council to harass, suspend, and ban everyone who tweets anything even remotely right-wing. Seriously, they will suspend your account for nothing more than linking to this blog. (NB: none of my Twitter accounts are suspended, I just don’t use it anymore.)
  4. The Alt-Right and tens of thousands of conservatives have largely abandoned Twitter for Gab in a mass exodus; another 30,000 joined yesterday.
  5. But this abandonment of Twitter isn’t enough for many progressives, who have left Twitter as well in response.
  6. Because Nazis. Or something.

Of course, as we all know, the real reason those progressives are leaving is that they can’t play the victim and get the attention they are seeking in an SJW echo chamber, as there is nothing left for them to do but play the game of oneupvictimship and see who can out-virtue signal and out-hoax the other. That is why some of the very progressives who have been most publicly whining about Nazis and white supremacists on Twitter are now clamoring to join Gab.

Also, since when did “prominent” become a synonym for “obese”? I like it though. It’s usefully subtle. “Have you SEEN Lindy?” “Yeah, she’s increasingly prominent these days.”

Of course, what is particularly interesting about this article is this little note: Updated by Aja Romano@ajaromano Jan 6, 2017, 1:10pm EST. You see, the original article said “Gab’s verified users include notorious white supremacists like Vox Day”, which is both false and defamatory, as I am not a white supremacist, much less a notorious one, despite the efforts of Jeet Heer and Olivia Nuzzi to create that false Narrative.

It would appear the lesson of Gawker is beginning to percolate through the SJW media. What a shame it did not register with Amazing Stories or Foz Meadows.

The 2nd Law of SJW in action

They always double down, even if it requires eating one of their own. Glenn Greenwald appears to be somewhat surprised that they would turn on him, of all people.

I’ve done some, you know, pretty controversial and polarizing reporting in the past decade when I’ve been writing about politics. And when you do that, you obviously get attacked in lots of different ways. It’s not just me; it’s everybody who engages. It’s just sort of the rough and tumble of politics and journalism. But I really haven’t experienced anything even remotely like the smear campaign that has been launched by Democrats in this really coordinated way ever since I began just expressing skepticism about the prevailing narrative over Russia and its role that it allegedly played in the election and, in particular, in helping to defeat Hillary Clinton. I mean, not even the reporting I did based on the Edward Snowden archive, which was extremely controversial in multiple countries around the world, not even that compared to the attacks now.

And the reason is very, very obvious, which is that it has become exceptionally important to Democratic partisans to believe that the reason they lost this election is not because they chose a candidate who was corrupt and who was extremely disliked and who symbolized all of the worst failings of the Democratic Party. It’s extremely important to them not to face what is really a systemic collapse on the part of the Democratic Party as a political force in the United States, in the House, in the Senate, in state houses and governorships all over the country. And so, in order not to face any of that and have to confront their own failings, they instead want to focus everything on Vladimir Putin and Russia and insist that the reason they lost was because this big, bad dictator interfered in the election. And anyone who challenges or anyone who questions that instantly becomes not just their enemy, but now, according to their framework, someone who’s actually unpatriotic, that if you question the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support this theory, that somehow your loyalties are suspect, that you’re not just a critic of the Democratic Party, you’re actually a stooge of or an agent of the Kremlin.

And obviously we’ve seen this rhetoric for decades during the Cold War, although back then it was the far right using it against Democrats for wanting to have better relations with Russia. We saw it in 2002, when people who questioned the sufficiency of the evidence about Saddam’s WMDs were accused of being apologists for Saddam or agents of Iraq. We’ve seen it repeatedly through the war on terror. Whenever anyone questions the policies of the U.S. government, you get accused of being pro-terrorist or on the side of al-Qaeda. These are the kinds of bullying smear tactics that have become very common.

But because Democrats are so desperate to put the blame on everybody but themselves for the complete collapse of their party, they’re particularly furious at anybody who vocally challenges this narrative. And since I’ve been one of the people most vocally doing so, the smear campaign has been like none that I have ever encountered. I have been accused of being a member of the alt-right, of being an admirer of Breitbart, of being supportive of Donald Trump, of helping him get elected and, of course, of being a Kremlin operative. And it’s just this constant flow, not from fringe accounts online, but from the Democratic operatives and pundits with the greatest influence. In fact, Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, went on Twitter three weeks ago and said, “I think it would be really interesting to find out whether The Intercept is receiving money from Russia or Iran”—something that he obviously has zero evidence or basis for suggesting, but this is what the Democratic Party has become.

Welcome to the Alt-Right Neo-KKK, Mr. Greenwald!

This, and not dancing for the media, is how people are converted. They speak what they know to be truth, and are attacked for it. That is why we need to resolutely stand by the truth in every dialectic encounter.

All their base

In which we are reliably informed that their base, such as it is, are now belong to us. A rhetorical strategy courtesy of the Evil Legion of Evil’s Xcruciator, which, uncharacteristically, does not involve wood, nails, or hammers.

Ordinarily, which is to say ordinarily when dealing with a sane enemy, it would be considered unwise to do him a small injury, or to motivate him to greater efforts. And, were we still dealing with the old mainstream Democratic Party, especially the party as it was before the Dixiecrats became Republicans, it would be a mistake to provoke them in minor and non-ruinous ways. Happily or unhappily, that party is deader than chivalry. What’s left are mostly the Trigglypuffs, along with the genocidal lunatics – like the aforementioned incestuous child molester, Lena Dunham – who want straight white men extinct, reinforced by the left-wing professorial freakshow, and egged on by myriad self-righteous and unutterably stupid assholes, molesting innocent women and their families, on public conveyances, when said women have had the bad judgment to be fathered by men the assholes don’t like.

Oh, yes, yes, there are, no doubt, some sane men and women hovering around the top echelons of the Democratic Party. But if they’re sane, they’re equally corrupt, venomous spiders, dripping with poison, at the center of left wing insanity. However, those spiders aren’t really in control of the movement anymore. Nobody is. Instead, the left is largely a bunch of self-willed, albeit unintelligent, bombs, just like Trigglypuff, waiting to go off at the slightest emotional jar.

And we – yes, we right wing knuckle-draggers – control those bombs because we can emotionally jar them. Hence, to paraphrase, ‘somebody set up them the bomb.’


Take Off Every Zig…

where “zig” is equal to “act , to include speech, perpetrated by the right that causes Social Justice Warriors to emotionally explode.”

Now think about that, for a bit. As I began, quoting Jean Raspail, the left is humorless and grim. They cannot take a joke. Indeed, they have only one joke: “He’s stupid,” as they have only one insult, “you’re stupid.” (Why is that? Well…it’s because they’re rather stupid, really. Exceptions are just that, exceptional.) We can provoke them at will, easily, any time we like.

Moreover, the more we do provoke them, for the next four years, provided we do so with humor, hence the more we can get them to act like the fascisti they are, the more likely it is that the Democrats cannot return to power, because social justice is now at the core of their base, so much the core, in fact, that they cannot repudiate it. White men? Hell, white people? Pretty much gone now, and apparently not broadly welcome to return.

That’s how we got Trump elected, really, that working class whites – and not inconsequential numbers of high quality blacks and Hispanics, too, be it noted – got tired of being ignored, except to be disadvantaged, and tired of being insulted. That’s why we’re in control of both House and Senate. That’s why we have a fairly hefty majority of state governorships. And that, o, most blessedly, is why we, not the left, are going to set the immediate tone for the Supreme Court and quite possibly create a supermajority within it that will last generations

But to make absolutely sure of that, to save the country, we need to keep the left out of power not merely through 2020, but all the way to 2024 and maybe beyond.

To that end I propose the following highly amusing program. I am going to drop a line to every right wing pundit I can think of, from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh, referencing this column and suggesting that we should greet the ascension of Donald Trump to the oval office, this 20th of January, by flooding the internet, the airwaves, and the legacy media with the old but still fun meme:


All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Make it so.

An unamenable authority

Notice how Apple attempts to utilize its position as a market gatekeeper to force other companies, such as Gab, to jump through various hoops, and potentially, even converge itself, in order to access the customers Apple controls.

An abbreviated summary of Gab’s travails, as described by Andrew Torba:

They want us to include our guidelines in the app and update guidelines to include the NSFW language. It’s absolutely beyond ridiculous the hoops they are forcing us through. Every rejection has more requirements. We will get there. Or we will raise hell about it.

Folks this is what we got back from Apple. Every time we fix what they want, they magically come up with new requirements. It’s absolutely disgusting. They want us banning people. They want us to add blocking. They want us removing content within 24 hours. This is insane.

Folks we are pushing back on Apple bigly.

  • We have feed filters. 
  • We have user muting. 
  • We have the ability to flag content.

There is absolutely no way this app should not be approved. Submitting an appeal, then raising hell on this issue in a very public way. Apple wants to play? We will play.

Here is our reply to Apple folks.
-We have feed filters.
-We have muting.
-We have flagging for illegal content.
-We review flagged content and can address it quickly if it breaks the law/guidelines.
-We can certainly show examples of “objectionable content” on any other social platform.

Now, as anyone who has been on Twitter or Wikipedia knows, there is a considerable amount of NSFW content, none of which is marked as such. But it’s pointless to try to base an argument on this obvious double standard, because SJW-converged corporations are shamelessly hypocritical and they don’t hesitate to play ideological favorites.

Just as a right-wing employee will be fired over the smallest perceived infraction that doesn’t even violate company policy while an SJW employee can violate multiple company policies at will without suffering any consequences, every Alt-Tech organization will be, to at least some extent, obstructed and frozen out by the SJW-converged tech giants.

That’s to be expected. The problem will get worse before it gets better, but it is only a problem in the short run, because whether the Alt-Tech organization runs the gauntlet, as Gab has, or elects to simply ignore it, as Infogalactic has to date, the experience will only make the Alt-Tech stronger and more disruptive.

The price of thought-policing

Is eternal vigilance. Fortunately, several intrepid Wikipedia admins are up to the task of patrolling the Wikipedia page devoted to me. It’s rather amusing; first David Gerard, who is an admin and is so neutral on the subject that he cited Phil Sandifier as a reliable source, removed all references to Infogalactic and tried to deny my involvement with it.

  • (single source and that questionable; see talk page. it is entirely unclear this warrants mention *at all*, let alone two subsections. get consensus for inclusion first.)
  • (rm infogalactic – cut’n’paste of multiply-deleted article, closest it has to third-party coverage is one Breitbart article; not notable in mainstream or its field)

He even tried to justify his own patrolling of the page on the basis of his own bias.

I might note, I just today published a negative review of a Castalia book on Phil’s site, so I hold the WSJ-certified typical opinion of Vox Day, but that I find doubles my caution and I’m second guessing myself – David Gerard (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

However, when editors kept putting mentions of Infogalactic on the page, he finally gave up, although he was careful to add an irrelevant detail concerning something we have not only never denied, but have repeatedly pointed out to others.

In 2016 Day launched an online encyclopedia called Infogalactic,[25] forking the content of Wikipedia.

This is how the Wikipedia admins police thought there, by constant nibbling away at the edges. Infogalaxians chronicles how two admins, David Gerard and Dragonfly Sixtyseven slash repeatedly away at the page over the course of a week in the interest of removing all the material they think they can justify removing.

The reason they do all this repeated nibbling and sausage slicing is because the editors eventually start to notice something isn’t right.

  • Day published his recommendations in his blog, which is the primary source but in the article, this is now also documented through secondary sources, i.e. SF magazines. I think it’s a good idea to include both, as it allows the reader to independently verify the information. The primary sources show that respected publications like Slate and the Guardian in this case are clearly unreliable. Pkeets (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I’m kind of appalled looking at some of these articles from sources that are usually considered reliable. It looks like they didn’t even talk to Day when writing these articles about him. Kelly hi! 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Or, do any research about the subject. They seem to have worked off assumptions. That means identifying bias and reliability in the sources will be important in establishing a neutral POV info in the article. Pkeets (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I’m far from the only individual targeted in this way. Another tactic, which was previously utilized unsuccessfully against my page, is the “denial of notability”. In this case, they use the fact that the mainstream media ignores massively successful self-published authors – in this case, one of the top 20 SF authors on Amazon – in order to claim that they are not notable and delete the page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. V. Larson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The “keep” arguments are considerably weaker in terms of policy and guidelines, and often add up to “but he’s very commercially successful, so he must be notable”. Well, not according to our inclusion guidelines, as Tokyogirl79 points out. Her thorough analysis of the available sources hasn’t been seriously addressed by those wanting to keep the article, which also weakens their side of the argument.  Sandstein  17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Non notable author with no adequate references for notability. none of his books are held in more than 80 libraries a/c Worldcat; Technomancer has 79, and the others are fewer than 20. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete References now on page (Amazon.com, Audible.com) cannot support ntability. He gets a few press mentions, Here: [1],and here: [2], news google search on his name [3], but not enough to source a page or support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I found the same results: he’s brought up occasionally as a WP:TRIVIAL mention, but sadly he has never received the type of coverage that Wikipedia would require to satisfy notability guidelines for authors. He’s pretty much one of many authors whose works are self-published (either partially or entirely) or indie that has a fan following, but not one large enough to attract attention from places Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the sources I found were either WP:SPS or in places like SFFAudio, which are kind of squiffy as far as whether or not they’d pass Wikipedia’s fairly strict verification guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is well-reasoned, but the sources still don’t add up, from what I can see. Essentially, in the reliable sources (newspapers, mainly, and the one book) Larson is merely “name-checked” — that is he is mentioned by name in sentences like: “…self-published writers including B.V. Larson and A.G. Riddle.” And that’s all. What we need is for there to be an article ABOUT him, or at least that goes into some depth, in such a source. That’s what WP requires for notability. Sources that aren’t neutral (like Kindle, which publishes him and therefore has a vested interest in making him look good), can’t be used; nor can personal web sites and blogs. One of the sources starts out “Guess what! My cousin Brian is also a science fiction and fantasy author!” That’s obviously not a neutral source. I agree with you that it’s unfair that self-published authors don’t get more attention, but until they start getting reviews in established sources, we have no reasoned way to separate wheat from chaff — and, quite honestly, from the few self-published books I’ve opened up, there’s a lot of chaff. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think that going platinum as an author would be one adequate way to separate the wheat from the chaff; selling a million books is inherently notable. This is why Infogalactic is so important, and why it will be necessary for us to ruthlessly crack down on admins and editors who want to play the same shady game of shaping a particular narrative to suit themselves, regardless of what it is.

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.