I would like to reply in advanced to an objection a fool might bring forward:
"I see you have no evidence for #44. Just a broken link on a German website, which might have never existed. How convenient that The Recusant, a 100% pro-Resistance periodical, is hosting this material which tends to make the SSPX look bad."
1. First of all, I'm glad this is a fictional objection, because I seriously hope no one is actually that stupid!
2. Who would suggest that The Recusant can just make up paragraphs of text, which sound like the authors and which are IN LINE WITH their recent positions and other statements, which we DO have paper and electronic evidence (live website links) for.
3. The Recusant even made up a 4-word German "SEO title" for the article?
4. But the most important rebuttal: no one in the SSPX has ever accused the Resistance of making up actual fake articles or "fake news". There might be a few low-end, uneducated SSPX parishioners who like to throw out buzzwords like "fake news" which is popular today (2019), but no real, serious, credible accusations have ever been made.
5. Related to #4, the SSPX has taken down many articles (or had such articles taken down), but it's always done silently and un-officially. Thus far, the SSPX has never gone further and attacked any websites quoting those "memory holed" articles as fabricators, fake news agents, authors of fiction, etc. That would be a new level of chutzpah, even for them!
6. My conclusion: The SSPX would never try to be so bold, because they know the article existed, and they also know that someone COULD HAVE made a screenshot or PDF of it before it was taken down. If they EVER came out claiming "fake news" against a website or person linking to a memory holed article, and a screenshot comes out proving the article existed -- what would they look like? They'd look like complete liars and frauds. They don't want to risk this.
7. Two words: Internet Archive. Or, "Wayback Machine". Or "Google Cache". Archive services keeps many a website owner honest...