Wikipedia Bias – The Example of Naomi Seibt

Wikipedia is biased. Water is wet. Nothing new under the sun. Still, I want to present a particularly egregious case.

Naomi Seibt is a talented Youtuber who graduated from college (actually the German equivalent ‘Gymnasium’) at only sixteen years of age. Whilst still in school she competed successfully in widely respected maths and physics competitions, winning second and first place respectively.

Wikipedia, though, paints her differently, very differently, you know … Nazi.

But, of course, this is not the word they used. The innuendo game is well-known already. Random voices are quoted that accuse her of ‘white nationalism’ and ‘antisemitism.’ Outright lies are included. Her poem ‘Sometimes I Keep Silent’ were about ‘nationalism’ when the title already says what it is actually about: the silence.
(Here is the link to her poem. Use an automated translation tool of your choice if you wish.)

One big inspiration of hers is Stefan Molyneux.
– You mean the Canadian Youtuber?
Thank you for asking. I’m not sure because on Naomi Seibt’s Wikipedia entries, both the English and the German one, he is also a “Nazi.” She also “dismisses” the allegations that she were a “puppet” of the right-wing. How dare you! The Heartland Institute – where she worked – is described as pseudo-scientific. And the culprit behind our lack of scientific knowledge is also found: the old white man.

Note: You found Naomi’s channel here. Youtube has banned it.

My video on Correct!v, the obsessive media outlet trying to dig up dirt on her, is here:


Google Memos Display Warring Factions

Finally the news about Google’s unacceptable bias reaches the most unexpected shores, the premises of Google.

When Danielle Brown, the new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, was hired, some of Google’s employees started a little revolt. Nobody got killed. It wasn’t about the President of Diversity and so on, who they apparently have, but the Vice President of all such things, and yet it was a little revolt.

An internal memo was written by one of the engineers. Left-wing news outlet Gizmodo who published the full ten-page document lets us know that the culprit was male. You can virtually hear the thunder already, feel tensions cracking, smell the manly odour of angry testosterone.

But not so fast. The document starts with a submissive discharge. Sentences like the following run through the entire document.

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.

Yes, this boorish man starts the document with an imperialistic ‘I’. He goes on to speak about Google’s shaming culture and the habit of misrepresenting other people’s views. The issue that it stifles discussions, leads to authoritarian policies like job discrimination for the less en vogue “races” or “genders” and protecting ‘sacred’ ideas that might be dangerous wouldn’t surprise anyone to find in such an outcry. The author also claims that…

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases.

I may add that I can hardly imagine them talking as much about their slow-motion-search-dysfunctional Google+ product, either.

I move forward and leave aside his mistakes about what is left and right, and his little theories about what makes men and women different. Google, he charges, offers a multitude of programs and career chances only to some individuals and that the under-representation of some groups [I guess Evangelicals, elder males…] may be even illegal.

His suggestions:

  • Demoralise the diversity issue (just look at pros and cons)
  • Empowering conservatives to get out of the closet
  • Addressing the fact that there are ideological biases
  • Stop (!) restricting programs to particular groups
  • A number of suggestion regarding redundant special ‘diversity programs’
  • Psychological safety for those whose voices had been suppressed before
  • Stop the ‘unconscious’ ‘microaggression’ courses
  • Rather add programs for unconscious ideological biases

Thank goodness they were all of his suggestions. I hope there won’t be programs about ideological biases and that they get their google+ thing producing something other than error messages.

Anyway, the document went viral, which is the revolt I was talking about. It stirred the pot so much that Vice President of Diversity, Integrity and something Ms or Mrs or zee (?) Danielle Brown responded with her own memo.

Looking down her nose she did not even show the courtesy of linking to the disputed document that she was answering.

I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Of course, she does not address one single of the suggestions. Instead she says the company will continue as before which she believes is a ‘change’ that is both ‘hard’ and ‘uncomfortable’ to some. Thank goodness she keeps her trite screed short. So I share a final eye-rolling moment with you and encourage the warrior rebels of Googlestan to soldier on!

We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.”

Thanks to Cliff Arroyo of The Worked Shoot

more about google on this blog

Germany Has Hardly any Conservatives

The most striking aspect about what is going on in Germany is the preoccupation with the migration crisis. I acknowledge it’s importance. What I can read between the lines, however, is that most Germans who bicker about it are perfectly fine with surveillance, censorship laws, media oligarchy, aggression against opposition and so on.

If the elites can cover up the scope of the migration matter, most ‘conservatives’ will go back to their government cheerleading mode.

Most, of course, don’t even notice that media lies go far beyond the migration issue. Although the border opening had the significience of Gulf War II in exposing the behavior of the media, many believe it is a matter restricted only to their pet issues.

Wrong. During the 2016 US General Election German MSM spread CNN/MSNBC tosh completely unchallenged. If you had watched an event on Youtube with your own eyes and heard what was said with your own ears, German media (and CNN) would tell you rather to believe what they wrote or presented than your own bloody mind (gaslighting). You can shrug off one of such incidents but it was systemic.


As polls showed a people showered with that kind of news, with little access to talk radio, FOX news, breitbart etc, votes for the Democrat candidate at a level of over 90%. That was not only true for Hillary Clinton, but also for Obama, Kerry, Gore and potentially goes back much further.

There is something deeply wrong and it goes beyond the migration crisis. Germans are to blame for it. Any government, even the most unjust regimes, can only thrive on the support of its people. And Germans are complicit.

%d bloggers like this: