A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog

Since August, the New York-based news media was convulsed with news flashes from the most important city in the world, Ferguson, Missouri.

After all, what’s the worst that could happen if the Administration and prestige press in Manhattan and D.C. spend months egging on violent criminals in the St. Louis area?

Some white guy in St. Louis gets hammered to death?

That’s just collateral damage, well within acceptable parameters.

Only after the humiliating collapse of the Ferguson chapter of The Narrative did New York media attention shift from the August death of Michael Brown in Ferguson to the July death of Eric Garner in New York City Staten Island.

Okay, technically, Staten Island is part of New York City and is policed by the NYPD, but in terms of status, it’s just some weird chunk of Jersey that somehow got agglomerated in with New York.

So, let’s focus, people: Eric Garner died in Staten Island.

You know how there are bridge and tunnel people? Well people who live in Staten Island aren’t even bridge and tunnel people. You have to take a ship to New York like you are some Ellis Island immigrant in 1902. It looked romantic in Working Girl but it gets old fast.

So, don’t misinterpret the latest installment of The Narrative and go running amok assassinating cops in Brooklyn where nice people live. Granted, Bed-Stuy isn’t the nice part of Brooklyn … yet. But there are plans.

So, ix-nay on the Y-Nay.

Why?

Because we live here!

 

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s 17-year-old son robbed near North Side home
Posted: 12/20/2014, 07:30pm | Michael Sneed

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s 17-year-old son was robbed Friday night across the street from his family’s North Side home, leaving him with a chipped tooth and fat lip, a source told the Sun-Times’ Michael Sneed.

Zach Emanuel went outside to take a walk around 10 p.m. Friday and was jumped in the 4200 block of North Hermitage Avenue in Ravenswood, according to the source.

Nice neighborhood. I’ve been to that area a dozen times. It’s near the El’s short but select Brown Line, which has a relatively upper-middle class ridership. Chicago has a tradition that the mayor’s house in the city is supposed to be respectable but not lavish. (You weren’t supposed to ask about the Daley family’s summer house across the lake in Michigan.)

… Two people approached the teenager from behind as he was walking and talking on his cell phone, according to a police report that said one of them “placed his arm around the victim’s neck in a bear chokehold.” Then, the other attacker punched Zach Emanuel in the face, knocking him to the ground, the report said.

Accoridng to the police, the teenager dropped his phone, and his attackers took it, then patted him down and asked, “What else you got?”

Then, they forced him “to enter his security code to unlock the phone” and ran off.

Zach Emanuel was left with a chipped tooth and a fat lip, the source said.

According to the police report, he was treated by his “personal physician for a laceration and blunt-force trauma to the mouth/face.”

No weapon was involved, the source said.

The mayor, who attended the funeral Saturday of slain teen Demario Bailey, was “crestfallen” over his son being the victim of a strong-arm robbery, the source said. …

Earlier this week, the mayor spoke about his teenage son when asked about the trip the family was taking to Chile for the holidays.

“This is Zach’s last year before he goes off to college — if I don’t kill him before he goes there,” he said then. “But that’s a side note. That has nothing to do with the vacation. That just deals with having a teenaged boy at home.”

So I’m not sure if I totally believe the mugging story. Hizzoner gets a police cruiser parked out front 24×7.

There’s always something interesting going on with the Emanuel clan:

“Rahm and Ari Emanuel Beat Me Up”

The Flight from White, Emanuel Clan-style

Has Mayor Rahm learned from Israel?

The Subtext to Ezekiel Emanuel’s “Why I Hope to Die at 75″

So perhaps this will be one crisis Rahm lets go to waste?

But whatever happened with the Emanuels, their public story is what happened in private to my in-laws, who didn’t get round-the-clock police protection, a few miles west of there in the Austin neighborhood in 1967-1970. Except it happened three times to their children and their children were ten years younger. I’m sure T.N. Coates could explicate how, if you study the footnote on p. 322 of some sociology book, you can see how it was all the children’s fault, but I must confess to not being up to speed.

 

Economist Tino Sanandaji is running a Kickstarter campaign for “Moral Superpower: A book on immigration” in Swedish and English. He’s already 19% over his goal.

 

In the comments, Paleo Retiree of Uncouth Reflections writes:

December 18, 2014 at 7:26 pm GMT

Back when I was in college in the ’70s there were a lot of girls like Jackie around: passionate, confused, depressed, scared, romantic, silly, boiling-over with feelings and hormones, prone to futile romantic pursuits and stupid game-playing … But they didn’t have smartphones, they didn’t have access to much in the way women’s studies and rape-counseling, they hadn’t been raised by over-encouraging helicopter parents, and the culture around them wasn’t in the grip of a politicized moral panic. So their dramas were confined to the campus or, usually, their small groups of friends. They dropped out, or went into therapy, or grew up. I haven’t seen anything yet suggesting that Jackie’s other than a fairly typical overdramatic freshman girl. It’s all the other factors that have changed.

Girls are getting nothing but positive feedback these days. Their feelings can be sweet and touching, and girls are largely made up of feelings anyway, so they shouldn’t be put down for their emotionality. But they really need more feedback and correction, and they really need to hear that their feelings often don’t reflect reality accurately. What we’re seeing these days is what happens when girls’ imaginations and feelings receive nothing but encouragement. It all spins out of control and whirls off into (and creates) weird fantasylands.

I’m a critic, so I’m prejudiced, but my general assumption is that criticism tends to make people behave better. Thus, forbidding criticism tends to make people behave worse by making it easier for them to ignore that they are behaving in ways stereotypical of their protected group. Getting called out for being a living stereotype is embarrassing, but we have taboos protecting much of the population from criticism for their most stereotypical moral failures.

For example, Jackie’s behavior is extremely girly, but how often did anybody dare call her out for that? (As I pointed out last year in Taki’s, mid-20th Century American highbrow / middlebrow culture was distinctly anti-feminist due to women being responsible in part for Prohibition: Suffrage and Prohibition were a package deal, and women spent half a century living that down. My guess is that all that criticism from H.L. Mencken and his countless male fans among the literati made women behave better.)

Similarly, Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s mindset is poisoned by her anti-Gentilism, her bigoted, hate-driven assumption that Kristallnacht is a nightly occurrence on Fraternity Row. For example, it appears to really bother her that the University of Virginia was founded by Thomas Jefferson — and that students at UVA are proud of that fact — rather than by one of her own ancestors.

But “anti-Gentilism” isn’t really even a word, so how can Sabrina be embarrassed that she’s a walking stereotype when anybody who mentions the stereotype is greeted with incomprehension or horror?

Murdered NYPD officers Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos

After months of the White House, the Democratic Party, and the prestige press trying to angry up the black vote, things like this were bound to happen. So what if the Democrats’ 2014 campaign strategy has come home to roost. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, can you? Too bad Lu, Ramos, and Begic had to die for the crime of being non-black, but it was all in the good cause of trying to boost black turnout to benefit Democratic politicians. From the New York Post:

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops as ‘revenge’ for Garner
By Larry Celona, Kevin Fasick, Jamie Schram and Laura Italiano

December 20, 2014 | 4:07pm

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s ­assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

“It’s an execution,” one law-enforcement source said of the 3 p.m. shooting of police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.

Civil Rights Protester

The tragic heroes were working overtime as part of an anti-terrorism drill in Bedford-Stuyvesant when they were shot point-blank in the head by the lone gunman, identified by sources as Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, who had addresses in Georgia and Brooklyn.

Moments after killing the two officers, he too was dead, having turned the gun on himself on a nearby subway platform as cops closed in.

“I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,” a person believed to be the gunman wrote on Instagram in a message posted just three hours before the officers were shot.

“They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” the post continued, signing off with, “This May Be My Final Post.”

He used the hashtag #ShootThePolice, along with two other hashtags referencing Garner and Brown.

The Obama Administration and its allies in the national media have been following the strategy outlined in the 1997 Brimelow-Rubinstein article on how electing a new people favors the Democrats by building a larger anti-white coalition.

But as I pointed out in VDARE in 2009, while Asians and Latinos (such as the two murdered NYPD officers) might well be bribed and cajoled by the American Establishment into supporting the Anti-White Party, they have good reasons for being less enthusiastic about supporting the Black Party:

Being, in essence, the white party makes the GOP uncool. And that`s only going to get worse as the impact of decades of indoctrination in the uncoolness of white people by the school system and Main Stream Media continue to pile up.

… My suggestion: the only long-term option for the Republicans, the de facto white party, is to rebrand the Democrats as the de facto black party.

Not the Minority Party or the Cool, Hip, Multicultural Party—but the Black Party. Go with the flow of the fundamental Manichaeism of American thought: Black versus White.

Sure, it’s kind of retarded, but Americans, especially American intellectuals and pundits, aren’t good at thinking in terms of shades of brown. You can`t beat it, so use it.

Hispanics and Asians certainly will never be terribly happy with the idea of being junior partners in the white party. (Indeed, lots of white people have an allergy to belonging to the white party.) Hence, the alternative must be framed that if Hispanics and Asians don’t want to be junior partners in the white party, they get be junior partners in the black party.

Black or white: choose one.

Or they can not choose and stay home on Election Day.

The subtle cunning of the tactic of rebranding the Democrats as the black party is not to criticize the Democrats for being the vehicle of African-American political activism, but to praise them for it, over and over, in the most offhand “everybody-knows” ways.

Republicans can hurry along the coming Democratic train wreck by, for example, lauding blacks as the “moral core” of the Democratic Party. Respectfully point out that the Democratic Party is the rightful agent for the assertion of African-American racial interests, and that advancing black interests is central to the nature of the Democratic Party. Note that, while individual blacks wishing to vote for the good of the country are more than welcome in the GOP, black racial activists have their natural home in the Democratic Party. That’s what the Democrats are there for.

Don’t argue it. Just treat it as a given.

Moreover, Republican rhetoric should encourage feelings of proprietariness among blacks toward their Democratic Party. It’s not all that hard to get blacks to feel that they morally deserve something, such as, for example, predominance in the Democratic Party. African-Americans are good at feeling that others owe them deference.

This kind of subtle language, casually repeated, puts Democrats in a delicate spot. Either they insult blacks by denying this presumption, or they alarm their Asian, Hispanic, and white supporters by not denying it. As everybody knows, but seldom says, black political control hasn’t worked out well for places as far apart as Detroit and Zimbabwe. …

As the black sense of rightful ascendancy in the Democratic Party becomes more pronounced, Hispanics will be demanding that their burgeoning numbers mean that it’s now their turn. Meanwhile, more Asians will wonder why they are supporting an agglomeration dominated by blacks who don`’ share their values. And white Democrats will wonder how exactly they can prosper in a party where everybody else is allowed to speak out in internal disputes as representatives of a legitimately aggrieved racial group, but they aren’t.

The GOP faces a daunting future of their own making. Then, again, so do the Democrats. All Democrats should be helpfully assisted to confront this.

I haven’t noticed any Republicans following this machiavellian cleverness, but I sure have noticed a lot of Democrats in 2014 stupidly walking themselves into this trap. It’s easy to persaude blacks to behave badly. And that’s what Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the New York Times have been working to do since August.

 

The MIT Technology Review runs a long story about the Swedish heroes waging war against outmoded concepts such as privacy and freedom of speech.

It reads like one of those prolefeed stories that the Ministry of Truth generates in 1984 in which the moral polarities are reversed 180 degrees, but who notices little details like that anymore?

The Troll Hunters

A group of journalists and researchers wade into ugly corners of the Internet to expose racists, creeps, and hypocrites. Have they gone too far?

By Adrian Chen on December 18, 2014

We’ve come up with the menacing term “troll” for someone who spreads hate and does other horrible things anonymously on the Internet. Internet trolls are unsettling not just because of the things they say but for the mystery they represent: what kind of person could be so vile? One afternoon this fall, the Swedish journalist Robert Aschberg sat on a patio outside a drab apartment building in a suburb of Stockholm, face to face with an Internet troll, trying to answer this question. The troll turned out to be a quiet, skinny man in his 30s, wearing a hoodie and a dirty baseball cap—a sorry foil to Aschberg’s smart suit jacket, gleaming bald head, and TV-trained baritone. …

The goal of Troll Hunter is not to rid the Internet of every troll. “The agenda is to raise hell about all the hate on the Net,” he says. “To start a discussion.”

Back at the Troll Hunter office, a whiteboard organized Aschberg’s agenda. Dossiers on other trolls were tacked up in two rows: a pair of teens who anonymously slander their high school classmates on Instagram, a politician who runs a racist website, a male law student who stole the identity of a young woman to entice another man into an online relationship. In a sign of the issue’s resonance in Sweden, a pithy neologism has been coined to encompass all these forms of online nastiness: näthat (“Net hate”). Troll Hunter, which has become a minor hit for its brash tackling of näthat, is currently filming its second season.

From Wikipedia:

Robert Aschberg (born 19 March 1952 on Kungsholmen, Stockholm) is a Swedish journalist, media executive, and one of Sweden’s most popular TV personalities.[1] He works for the TV3. Robert is the grandson of Olof Aschberg, a Swedish-Jewish bank entrepreneur.

From Wikipedia:

Olof Aschberg (22 July 1877 – 21 April 1960) was a Swedish banker and businessman. Aschberg was a leftist sympathizer and helped finance the Bolsheviks in Russia. In gratitude, the Bolshevik government allowed Aschberg to do business with Soviet Union during the 1920s. Aschberg became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank.[1]

After 1917, the civilized world tried to choke off the Bolshevik regime with sanctions, but Olof Aschberg organized a way for Lenin to fence stolen gold, jewels, and other loot across the Baltic, which saved Communism (and made the Aschberg family a bundle). See historian Sean McMeekin’s History’s Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks for the full story.

Hate is having a sort of renaissance online, even in the countries thought to be beyond it.

It is generally no longer acceptable in public life to hurl slurs at women or minorities, to rally around the idea that some humans are inherently worth less than others, or to terrorize vulnerable people. But old-school hate is having a sort of renaissance online, and in the countries thought to be furthest beyond it. The anonymity provided by the Internet fosters communities where people can feed on each other’s hate without consequence. They can easily form into mobs and terrify victims. Individual trolls can hide behind dozens of screen names to multiply their effect. And attempts to curb online hate must always contend with the long-standing ideals that imagine the Internet’s main purpose as offering unfettered space for free speech and marginalized ideas. The struggle against hate online is so urgent and difficult that the law professor Danielle Citron, in her new book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, calls the Internet “the next battleground for civil rights.”

That Sweden has so much hate to combat is surprising. It’s developed a reputation not only as a bastion of liberalism and feminism but as a sort of digital utopia, where Nordic geeks while away long winter nights sharing movies and music over impossibly fast broadband connections. Sweden boasts a 95 percent Internet penetration rate, the fourth-highest in the world, according to the International Telecommunication Union. Its thriving tech industry has produced iconic brands like Spotify and Minecraft. A political movement born in Sweden, the Pirate Party, is based on the idea that the Internet is a force for peace and prosperity. But Sweden’s Internet also has a disturbing underbelly. It burst into view with the so-called “Instagram riot” of 2012, when hundreds of angry teenagers descended on a Gothenburg high school, calling for the head of a girl who spread sexual slander about fellow students on Instagram.

You know, that was actually a mob of Muslim students worked up into an Old Testament-style frenzy over imputations of sexual dishonor.

The more banal everyday harassment faced by women on the Internet was documented in a much-discussed 2013 TV special called Men Who Net Hate Women, a play on the Swedish title of the first book of Stieg Larsson’s blockbuster Millennium trilogy.

You know, Stieg Larrson’s blockbuster Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy is actually lunatic hate porn that Sabrina Rubin Erdely couldn’t top.

… In addition to Aschberg, a group of volunteer researchers called Researchgruppen, or Research Group,has pioneered a form of activist journalism based on following the crumbs of data anonymous Internet trolls leave behind and unmasking them. In its largest troll hunt, Research Group scraped the comments section of the right-wing online publication Avpixlat and obtained a huge database of its comments and user information. Starting with this data, members meticulously identified many of Avpixlat’s most prolific commenters and then turned the names over to Expressen, one of Sweden’s two major tabloids. In December 2013, Expressen revealed in a series of front-page stories that dozens of prominent Swedes had posted racist, sexist, and otherwise hateful comments under pseudonyms on Avpixlat, including a number of politicians and officials from the ascendant far-right Sweden Democrats. It was one of the biggest scoops of the year. …

Martin Fredriksson is a cofounder of Research Group and its de facto leader. He is a lanky 34-year-old with close-cropped hair and a quietly intense demeanor, though he is prone to outbursts on Twitter that hint at his past as a militant anti-racism activist. … The group currently has 10 members, all volunteers, including a psychology graduate student, a couple of journalism students, a grade school librarian, a writer for an online IT trade publication, and a porter in a hospital. The little organizing that occurs typically happens in Internet relay chat rooms and on a wiki. But analyzing the Avpixlat database, which contained three million comments and over 55,000 accounts, required a centralized, systematized process. An image on the main page of the intranet pokes fun at the immensity of the task. Two horses have their heads stuck in a haystack. “Find anything?” asks one. “Nope,” says the other. …

Since then, its members have investigated the men’s rights movement, Swedish police tactics, and various right-wing groups. Until the Avpixlat story they had mostly published their findings quietly on their website or partnered with small left-wing news organizations. “The official story is that we pick subjects about democracy and equality,” says Fredriksson. “But the real reason is that we just have special interests—we just try to focus on stuff that interests us as people.” …

Fredriksson is a member of a generation of Swedes known as “Generation 64,” who grew up tinkering with Commodore 64s in the 1980s and went on to revolutionize Sweden’s IT industry. His upbringing also coincided with the rise of a neo-Nazi movement in the 1990s, when he was a teenage punk rocker. He and his friends constantly clashed with a gang of skinheads in his small hometown in southern Sweden. “I was very interested in politics. I came to the conclusion that if I wanted to do politics I’d have to deal with the Nazi threat in some way,” he says. He joined the controversial leftist group Antifascistisk Aktion (AFA), which openly endorses the use of violence against neo-Nazis. In 2006 he was sentenced to community service for beating a man during a fight between a group of neo-Nazis and antiracists.

So, basically, the hero of the article is a violent criminal who has aged out of street fighting. But he’s a violent extremist leftist criminal, so he’s a good guy.

… The mass unmasking of Avpixlat commenters in 2013 was an accidental consequence of this curiosity. Avpixlat is an influential voice in Sweden’s growing right-wing populist movement, which is driven by a xenophobic panic that Muslim immigrants and Roma are destroying the country. The site fixates on spreading stories of rapes and murders committed by immigrants, which it contends are being covered up by the liberal establishment.

So the good guys are the ones trying to keep rapes covered up. The Left’s volunteer auxiliary thought police are targeting anyone trying to expose Sweden’s problem with Rape Culture.

Freud’s concept of “Projection” keeps looking better and better.

 

From today’s Washington Post:

‘Gentlemanly’ nonsense from frat at center of U-Va. sexual assault controversy

By Jonathan Capehart December 19 at 9:27 AM

On Dec. 5, Rolling Stone published an extraordinary “note to our readers” about a November story on an alleged “brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie during a party at a University of Virginia fraternity house.” On Dec. 9, the wife of the national president of Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity at the center of the U-Va. controversy and the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, called past and present members nationwide to alert them to a call with her husband.

As the holiday season approaches, we have decided it’s the perfect time to focus our efforts on being gentlemen who are courteous and cultured and showing respect to others. We will have Lorrie Bossart joining us on our call and we are certain you will enjoy her brief talk on gentlemanly conduct, good manners and etiquette…..

What jumped out at him in that tone-deaf message was “gentlemanly conduct.” …

Rape is beyond “ungentlemanly.” Even if a defense lawyer can strip the alleged offense of its criminality, sexual assault is morally wrong. It takes more than a “brief talk on gentlemanly conduct, good manners and etiquette” to instill the values that are supposed to be their underpinning. Fraternities need to lead by example. It is not enough for them to have online modules on “personal integrity” as Phi Kappa Psi has. They need to live out those good manners and hold those accountable whose behavior violate a code of conduct or break laws.

Yes, the controversy over the lax reporting undergirding Rolling Stone’s U-Va. feature casts doubt on “Jackie’s” story. But it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to ignore, mistrust or automatically doubt every person who comes forward with an allegation. …

Follow Jonathan on Twitter: @Capehartj

Jonathan Capehart is a member of the Post editorial board and writes about politics and social issues for the PostPartisan blog.

Hey, Jonathan, I’m not sure if you read the Washington Post or not, but it turns out there is no “frat at center of U-Va. sexual assault controversy.” In fact, there is no “center of U-Va. sexual assault controversy” at all, just lies, ignorance, and wishful thinking.

The Obama Administration is on the warpath against the epidemic of rape on America’s campus, what with one out of five coeds being raped. Of course, there are already harsh laws against rape, so the Obama Administration is actually out to stamp out “rapey” or “rape-ish” behavior.

The power structure can’t really come out and say this because most of the incidents are merely tawdry, depressing, and dubious, and thus non-galvanizing. (So, spokespersons like Sabrina Rubin Erdely feel the urge to punch things up a bit with a Nazi porn night of broken glass Cossack blond beast gang rape scene.)

But what is rapey/rape-ish behavior?

Strikingly, this has been a problem that translators of the Old Testament have struggled with for centuries. Granted, the viewpoint of the Patriarchs was somewhat dissimilar to that of the minions of the Obama Administration, but there are instructive parallels as well.

One of the more memorable stories in the Old Testament is the tale of Dinah, daughter of Jacob (and great-granddaughter of Abraham), and Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite (my favorite name in the the Bible), who dishonored her. From the King James Bible:

Genesis 34

[1] And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

[2] And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

BibleHub.com offers the following translations of Genesis 34.2:

New International Version
When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her.

New Living Translation
But when the local prince, Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, saw Dinah, he seized her and raped her.

English Standard Version
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her.

New American Standard Bible
When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force.

King James Bible
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, a prince of the region, saw her, he took her and raped her.

International Standard Version
When Hamor the Hivite’s son Shechem, the regional leader, saw her, he grabbed her and raped her, humiliating her.

NET Bible
When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area, saw her, he grabbed her, forced himself on her, and sexually assaulted her.

That might be the most Title IX compliant translation.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
When Shechem, son of the local ruler Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and raped her.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And when Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her and defiled her.

King James 2000 Bible
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

American King James Version
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

American Standard Version
And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; And he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And when Sichem the son of Hemor the Hevite, the prince of that land, saw her, he was in love with her: and took her away, and lay with her, ravishing the virgin.

Darby Bible Translation
And when Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her.

English Revised Version
And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And when Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

World English Bible
Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. He took her, lay with her, and humbled her.

Young’s Literal Translation
and Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, a prince of the land, seeth her, and taketh her, and lieth with her, and humbleth her;

But there then comes a twist in the story that makes it one of the most romantic in the Old Testament:

[3] And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

[4] And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife. …

[8] And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.

[9] And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.

[10] And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.

[11] And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.

[12] Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

This is basically the plot of all 1.25 romance paperbacks I’ve ever read: in the end, heroine wins heart of sexually aggressive high status male.

So, all’s well that ends well.

Except … Dinah’s brothers, two of the famous twelve sons of Jacob, had a rather contemporary zero tolerance attitude regarding Shechem’s white male privileged rapeyness toward their sister, thus setting a standard that even the most dedicated Title IX compliance staffer can only dream of emulating. I’ll put the full story under the fold.

 

Washington & Lee is a private college in Virginia that Robert E. Lee headed for the last years of his life. Although Sabrina Rubin Erdely was viscerally repulsed by the conservatism, broken glass, and overwhelming blondness she sensed lurking at the University of Virginia, I suspect that if Sabrina had visited Washington & Lee she would have spontaneously combusted out of fear and loathing.

But, no matter, with the Obama Administration threatening to cut off all federal funding to colleges that don’t bend to its will, Erdelyism is in the ascent everywhere, even at Washington & Lee. From the student newspaper at Washington & Lee, the curiously named Ring-Tum-Phi:

UVA story sends shock waves through more than one campus
Students and administrators must work together to promote conversation and stop sexual assualt

An article recently published in Rolling Stone revealed a gang rape at a fraternity house at the University of Virginia.

Margaret Voelzke
December 10, 2014

It has been three weeks since Rolling Stone released “A Rape on Campus,” and Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article is still making headlines and running rampant on social media.

Although the article, which told the story of the brutal, violent gang rape of a woman nicknamed “Jackie” at a University of Virginia fraternity house, has since had its veracity called into question, students at Washington and Lee University agree it has done something remarkable on campus—started a conversation.

“[These articles] give people leverage and inspire people to start talking,” said senior Anna Kathryn Barnes.

On a campus with statistics saying one in four women is sexually assaulted before graduating, talking about assault is surprisingly difficult.

“I think it goes down to the way we talk about sex,” said senior Annie Persons. “People don’t know what rape is… [And] there are probably women on this campus who have been raped and don’t even know it.”

When asked in a round-table interview whether or not students at Washington and Lee understand the severity of the university’s sexual assault problem, all four students agreed that the student body does not necessarily understand what is happening behind closed doors, and that continuing dialogue sparked by the Rolling Stone article is going to be integral to fixing the problem.

“It is really tempting to read the first part of the [Rolling Stone] article and say ‘that was a really extreme example and she was gang raped by seven men, but that doesn’t happen here so we don’t have to worry about it,’” said junior Kelly Douma. “But I think it’s something we need to keep talking about here and keep pushing and acknowledge the spectrum of it. It’s not just the super brutal, violent things that make the news… it’s also the micro-agressions in talking about rape.”

Those micro-agressions are something that the administration at Washington and Lee is aware of. …

According to Title IX Coordinator Lauren Kozak, Washington and Lee students who have been victims of sexual assault or misconduct have two options.

“When a report comes in there are two paths that we can take… [A] remedies based resolution or a more disciplinary approach,” she said. “[A] remedies-based would be anything that can help remedy the effects without doing discipline against the respondent… that can include anything from change in housing, some academic accommodations, perhaps even a no-contact directive between the parties.”

If students choose to take a disciplinary approach, Kozak and Dean of Students and First-Year Experience Jason Rodocker launch an official investigation into the victim’s claims.

From there, Kozak and Rodocker assemble a report that goes to the chair of the Student-Faculty Hearing board, who make the determination of whether or not to issue a charge against the accused.

“If a charge is issued, then a Student-Faculty Hearing Board panel will be convened,” Kozak explained. “They will read the investigative report and that will serve as the main evidence in the case, and then they can ask follow-up questions to the parties. And then they make a decision by the preponderance of the evidence whether they found that the policy was violated. If they find that the policy was violated, they will determine a sanction. If it’s a nonconsensual sexual intercourse case, the sanction is dismissal; it’s a mandatory sanction for that.”

For charges other than nonconsensual intercourse, “there is a range of sanctions the [Student-Faculty Hearing Board] can choose from,” Kozak said.

Although the process of reporting might seem simple, Barnes and Persons agreed that students choosing to report may face fears of ostracization and social fallout similar to Erdely’s account of “Jackie” in “A Rape on Campus.”

“I think people are rightly concerned that if they go through the procedure, people will find out and they will be ostracized. Particularly first-year women… I think that they wouldn’t necessarily want to hurt their chances of making friends, or getting a bid from a sorority or be that girl who reported,” said Persons.

Barnes noted that students can make small changes, like the language used to discuss sanctions for sexual assault, to counter fears of ostracization.

“Oftentimes the language we used [after someone has been dismissed from the university for sexual assault] is that the victim, he or she, got the accused, he or she, kicked out,” Barnes said. “That is unacceptable. The accused got themselves kicked out for their own actions, and I think those are the little things that we don’t think about.”

A male student who got himself kicked out of Washington & Lee on November 21, 2014, two days after Rolling Stone posted Erdely’s hoax story about UVA, has now filed suit against Washington & Lee for kicking him out. From the Roanoke Times:

Student claims he was expelled from W&L for consensual sex

by Luanne Rife Luanne.rife@roanoke.com

Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:15 pm

A day after Rolling Stone published an article describing a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house, a former Washington and Lee student claims he was expelled for having consensual sex with another student who eight months later regretted the encounter and claimed rape.

The former W&L student has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the private Lexington university discriminated against him because he is a male, and because it wanted to avoid the negative public scrutiny that UVa was experiencing. Moreover, the student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit, contends W&L’s Title IX officer advocates to female students that “regret equals rape.”

… W&L spokesman Brian Eckert said, “We don’t feel it is appropriate to discuss the specifics of a legal proceeding, but we’re confident that we correctly follow our established university policies and procedures, as well as federal mandates.”

That’s the scary thing, isn’t it? As they say in Washington, personnel equals policy, and six years of the Obama Administration choosing the personnel has had an effect.

John Doe claims that twice, he had consensual sex with a student identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe. The first encounter occurred in his room at the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity house where they went after an off-campus party on Feb. 8. Both had been drinking, he said.

Lots of salacious details ensue which you can look up for yourself, either in the news story or in the court filing. Keep in mind that we don’t have anybody else’s side of the story. The college inquiry was done in star chamber with no public records.

… He claims she spent the night, that he contacted her later through Facebook and that they had sex again in early March. He said she told her friends she had a good time. But at a Pi Kappa Phi St. Patrick’s Day party a few weeks later, Jane Doe left when she saw him kissing another woman, who is now his girlfriend.

Not Andrea Dworkin

It wasn’t until July that Jane Doe told a friend that she was sexually assaulted, the lawsuit claims. Then in October, Jane Doe, as a member of a student organization against sexual assault called SPEAK, attended a presentation by W&L Title IX officer Lauren Kozak.

I realize this is off-topic, but Ms. Kozak has the most distractingly blue eyes. Part of the genius of what the Obama Administration has been up to is converting the promotion of Rape Culture hysteria from the demented obsession of Andrea Dworkin-style she-beasts into a sensible professional career path for tasteful-string-of-pearls young ladies like Ms. Kozak. The Rockbridge Report noted on December 11:

W&L Title IX Coordinator Lauren Kozak agrees that the issue is nothing new. She attributes the news attention to the Obama administration which has made reducing campus sexual assaults a priority.

“The re-focusing and changing of some of the laws on how schools need to respond to misconduct, I think, also started a public discussion on the issue, and I think that’s continued,” Kozak said. “It’s just more light on an issue that’s been around for a while.

Kozak was hired this past summer to make sure W&L is complying with all federal guidelines for Title IX. … Kozak points to two main documents that focus on sexual violence: The April 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter and the subsequent Q and A clarifications.

In addition to the new Title IX guidance, changes to a federal law called The Clery Act were adopted this year to account for sexual misconduct offenses. The Clery Act now overlaps with Title IX in some ways and Kozak works with W&L Director of Public Safety Ethan Kipnes to put together the report.

Back to the Roanoke newspaper:

According to the lawsuit, Kozak shared an article, “Is it possible that there is something in between consensual sex and rape … and that it happens to almost every girl out there?”

Here’s the article recommend by Title IX coordinator Kozak. It’s on Total Sorority Move by HotPieceOfTSM:

Is it Possible That There Is Something In Between Consensual Sex And Rape…And That It Happens To Almost Every Girl Out There?

by hot piece of TSM

He wasn’t traditionally good-looking, but he was a notorious charmer with some serious bad boy in him that made him weirdly hot in a not-hot way. Even though we’d been strictly platonic since we met, I always felt a twinge of secret excitement when I had his attention, so when I found myself having a heart-to-heart with him in his bedroom, I felt a weird combination of emotions. Part of me felt as if I was 15 again. I was excited and nervous to be there. I was hyper aware of my body, and of his, wondering, maybe even hoping, he’d kiss me. Another part of me felt that this was wrong. Not in an “it’s wrong, but it’s hot and scandalous and I still want to do it” way–wrong as in not right, wrong as in uncomfortable. This was not a guy I wanted to get involved with. This was a guy who’d had anonymous girl after anonymous girl in and out of his bedroom since we were in the dorms. This was a guy with whom I’d had countless conversations about his inability to care about women, romantically.

So then they had sex. Why did she have sex with the sexy bad boy? Not surprisingly, Hot Piece of TSM has a lot to say on the subject, although it’s not particularly definitive:

Maybe I didn’t want to feel like I’d led him on. Maybe I didn’t want to disappoint him. Maybe I just didn’t want to deal with the “let’s do it, but no, we shouldn’t” verbal tug-of-war that so often happens before sleeping with someone. It was easier to just do it. Besides, we were already in bed, and this is what people in bed do. I felt an obligation, a duty to go through with it. I felt guilty for not wanting to. I wasn’t a virgin. I’d done this before. It shouldn’t have been a big deal–it’s just sex–so I didn’t want to make it one. …

We have inherited a masculine legal culture that is traditionally oriented toward coming to some kind of decision, such as guilty or not guilty. It’s in conflict with our current feminine therapeutic culture that is oriented toward talking for the sake of talking.

I certainly didn’t feel like I’d been raped. But what had happened the night prior was not consensual sex, and I didn’t like it. I wanted the flirting. I wanted the kissing. I wanted the sleepover.

Sleepover? I get the impression that this is a Thing these days. Back in the 20th Century, “sleep together” was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but now it appears to be something that girls expect to do with boys without sex. Or something. Or at least if sex happens she gets to decide later whether she wanted to or not. The young female mind seems more adept at projecting backwards than forwards in time.

This sleepover thing sounds like the weird old custom of “bundling,” which had died out by the 20th Century everywhere except among the Amish. From Wikipedia:

… it is understood the practice involved each of the young persons being put into a sack, or bag, which was tied closed at their neck. They were then allowed to sleep together, each in their own sack. They could cuddle one another, but that was as far as they could go.

Other bundling customs involved a board down the middle of the bed.

Maybe this is not a terrible idea? The Amish aren’t educated but they aren’t stupid. Mating is a big deal, and maybe the Amish have thought about it more realistically that the rest of us? But they made plans, such as sewing the young people into sacks so all they could do is cuddle. We don’t make realistic plans anymore.

Back to the Roanoke Times:

The article talks about alcohol-fueled sex in which the woman later regrets the encounter.

“Ms. Kozak introduced and discussed the article with the members of SPEAK to make her point that ‘regret equals rape,’ and went on to state her belief that this point was a new idea everyone is starting to agree with,” the lawsuit contends.

I can’t find anything on Google for a search of “Kozak ‘regret equals rape.’” I’m skeptical she said something that bald-faced. (Or maybe it’s just the blue eyes talking.) Of course, that’s what the Power Structure wants young women to take away, but they tend not to put it in so many words.

Five days after the presentation, Jane Doe reported to Kozak she was sexually assaulted but indicated she did not want to pursue a complaint, the lawsuit said.

By the end of October, Jane Doe changed her mind once she learned that both she and John Doe had been accepted into a program to study in Nepal for a semester, the lawsuit states.

So they were both scheduled to go to Nepal for an entire semester (is there really 15 weeks worth of stuff to learn in Nepal?) and she didn’t want to go with him what with him having a girlfriend, so she had expelled. Or at least that’s what the lawsuit claims.

So then on the day after the Rolling Stone article was published they had a kangaroo court (from the lawsuit: when the frat boy asked if he could get a lawyer, he was told by the administrators: “a lawyer can’t help you here. We won’t talk to them. This matter stays strictly within the school.” And on November 21 he was expelled on a 3-1 vote.

John Doe said that, since Jane Doe initiated sex, she, not he, would need to obtain consent. Therefore, “W&L engaged in blatant gender bias” by relying on gender stereotypes as to whom should be responsible for sexual assault.

Hey, John, what do you expect: we live in the “Who? Whom?” age.

As I said before, keep in mind that we don’t have the other side of the story.

I’m reminded of a comment on my blog by Buddwing:

December 16, 2014 at 5:22 am GMT

The Sapir-Whorf/Orwell effect of vocabulary is even more fundamental to this issue than you seem to realize, because it is not just the word “catfish” that is missing from the conceptual larder, but, in fact, an actual word for what allegedly happened to Jackie. The word “rape,” you see, is a euphemism, meaning abduction (related to the word “raptor”) with sexual relations only implied.

It is hard to draw boundaries around something only implied by the word that designates it. Searching the thesaurus, one only finds words that reference the idea of “honor,” such as “violate” or “despoil,” or legal subcategories, such as “sexual assault.”

I think that this points to a very important perspective. The idea of “Rape” as a crime is in important ways about controlling one’s and one’s family’s offspring, rather than sex or power. It is tied up with the idea of “honor,” particularly “family honor,” so much so that honor can only be restored in some cultures by the killing or suicide of the victim. This is the case in ancient Roman stories such as the Rape of Lucretia, as well as in present day news reports from Pakistan. An alternative method of restoring honor, for the bold or the powerful, was vengeance and vendetta.

Fortunately, the western world invented mechanisms short of death to restore a victim’s honor. These include societal mechanisms for impugning the honor of the perpetrator, the solicitation of sympathy for the victim, and the criminal prosecution of the rapist.

In the present day world of the college campus, we have a wide variety of circumstances and a lack of appropriate words. Thus everyone from Todd Akins (“legitimate rape”) to Whoopi Goldberg (“rape rape”) has struggled to express the distinction between the paradigmatic stranger assault with violence and the various forms of dishonor which the drunken coed might find visited upon herself. Without the words to divide categories, we find commentators citing the 1-in-5 college women are subject to some form of “sexual assault” as 1-in-5 college women are “raped” (self-righteously and with no sense that they have made a major categorical confusion).

We have women who want their “rapist” sex partners shamed, or expelled from campus, but not criminally prosecuted (I suggest, because they want their honor restored), while outside commentators cannot understand why they are not handed over to the police. Yet none of this seems to be discussable, because we lack both the vocabulary and the conceptual framework for conducting such a conversation.

Back in November, the Rape Culture hysterics wanted to have a UVA administrator named Nicole Eramo fired for not rousing a lynch mob to burn down the fraternity house where Jackie might (or might not) have told Dean Eramo she had been lured by Haven Monahan. Eramo was nationally denounced for saying nobody had been expelled under the UVA disciplinary procedure since the burden of proof was low and the procedures for determining justice in campus hearing were weak.

More strikingly, Erama implied that, in her experience, a lot of coeds didn’t want the boys they’d had sex with punished, they just wanted to tell off the boys in front of an authority figure who would validate their feelings.

This doesn’t make much sense, except in Buddwing’s framework of the girls wanting to feel that their honor has been restored by society.

My general impression is that we’re dealing with a lot of emotions of Biblical proportions — I’m reminded of the horrifying story in the Book of Genesis of Jacob’s daughter Dinah and Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite — and our postmodern worldview is inadequate for thinking about them.

With only fantasy & horror author Tessa Kum’s #IllRideWithYou hashtag standing athwart who knows what horror & fantasy Down Under, it’s worth checking into the latest atrocity: the stabbing deaths of eight children in Cairns. From The Australian:

5.32pm: Larry Woosup, a relative of the family, said the adults who lived in the house were his niece and nephew.

“I just heard about it, my family just rang because they’re worried about our sister,” he told the ABC.

“Some of them are my sister’s kids. I just got a phone call from my son’s mother from down Mackay because they had seen the news flash down there.

“It’s the end of the year and it’s a family thing, Christmas and New Year, and you get this sort of thing happening.

“This is a close neighbourhood this Murray Street, it’s sort of indigenous mob, [they] hang out together, especially my nephew you know?

“I’m desperate like everyone else to hear [what happened].”

I did a little Googling to find out what kind of name Woosup is and found this on the official website of the Australian Parliament:

Many of those attending the public hearings also spoke about the confusion surrounding the Queensland wild rivers legislation and how it overlaps with native title or the laws that govern national parks and state reserves.

Typical was Larry Woosup, a native title claimant for the Ankamuthi Traditional Owners Group north of Port Musgrave in Queensland. …

“We cannot impact on the environment. We know how to look after it because we were the custodians for 80,000 years.”

So it’s likely an Aboriginal / Islander thing. Generally, any kill-all-the-children horror like this is domestic crime rather than street crime or organized crime.

Since we’ll probably be hearing about historic white crimes against Aborigines shortly, here’s what I had to say in 2008.

 

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller got an email from a reader pointing out something interesting about one section of UVA dream date / gang rapist / figment of Jackie’s imagination Haven Monahan’s Glitch in The Matrix email. This is the messaged received by Jackie’s crush Ryan/”Randall” five days after Haven Monahan theoretically organized Jackie’s mass violation.

Amusingly, one paragraph was lifted from an old Dawson’s Creek TV episode.

More Googling reveals that much of the email is a pastiche of lines lifted from sentimental websites.

The Glitch email was transcribed yesterday by iSteve commenter Harold. It is structured as a forwarded message from the mysterious Haven Monahan followed by what appear to be Jackie’s musings on the adorability of Ryan.

First, as Chuck points out, this paragraph from the Haven Monahan email reads:

Ryan’s great, actually. I mean he’s smart. He’s sensitive. He’s funny. He’s a scaredy cat. If you creep up behind him, he’ll jump right out of his skin. It’s pretty amusing. He’s honest. He always calls them just like he sees them. You can [???] count[?] on getting the truth from Ryan, even if the truth hurts. He has the most incredible taste in music. He’s like this walking, talking music library. And he understands how truly important music is. He’s stubborn. He has this [???] way about him that can be so frustrating sometimes. And sometimes the things he says hurt. But he’s a really, really good friend. And loyal to a fault. He’s realistic[?] about everything. And I’m a dreamer so I mean, it’s good to have somebody like that in my life. He’s one of my best friends here, you know? He’s more than that… he’s everything.

Parts of that were clearly lifted from:

Dawson’s Creek (7)
from the TV Series created by Kevin Williamson

Here’s James van der Beek’s character describing Katie Holmes’ character:

Dawson: She’s great. I mean, she’s smart, she’s beautiful, she’s funny, she’s a big ol’ scaredy cat. If you creep up from behind her she’ll jump out of her skin. It’s pretty amusing. She’s honest. She always calls them just like she sees them. You can always count on getting the truth from Joey even if the truth hurts. She’s stubborn. We fight a lot. She can be so frustrating sometimes. But she’s a really, really, good friend. I know her to a fault. She believes in me. And I’m a dreamer so it’s so good to have somebody like that in my life. If she goes away, I don’t know what I’m going to do. I mean, she’s my best friend, you know? She’s more than that. She’s everything.

I never saw any episodes of Dawson’s Creek, but I did enjoy James van der Beek’s performance in last year’s cancelled sit-com Apartment 23 where he plays professional celebrity James van der Beek, still cheerfully raking in the girls who loved Dawson’s Creek.

(By the way, Williamson also wrote the Scream films. Yesterday I linked to a the scene in Scream 4 in which a Jackie-lookalike character goes through all the hard work of doing a competent frame-up, including doing a back dive through a low glass table. The moral of Scream 4 is that kids these days don’t want to put in the accomplishment to be real stars, they want to be fake stars by being victims, but being a genuine fake victim star is an immense amount of work. Perhaps that’s a lesson that Jackie and Sabrina Rubin Erdely should have taken more to heart before their slapdash collaboration. Granted, it worked like a charm for a dozen days …)

Beyond the Daily Caller article, I quickly identified three more bits of plagiarism. There’s this part of the Haven Monahan email:

He’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see him because you notice something new in a Where‘s Waldo sort of way. More like you can‘t stop writing third grade run on sentences becuase you can‘t even remotely begin to describe something, someone, so inherently amazing. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at him too long, you’ll prove your grandparents right that, yes, your face will get stuck that way… but you do‘t mind.

That is adapted from the following paragraph that pops up online in multiple places:

WHAT SHE DON’T KNOW WILL KILL YOU

This was an article that appeared in the UMass college newspaper, The Daily Collegian, written by Matt Brochu, dated November 21, 2003.

…. She’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see her because you notice something new in a “Where’s Waldo” sort of way. More like you can’t stop writing third grade run-on sentences because you can’t remotely begin to describe something . someone . so inherently amazing. But you’re a writer. You can describe anything. That’s what you do: pictures to words, events to words, words to even better words. But nothing seems right. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at her for too long, you’ll prove your parents right: that yes, your face will stick that way. But you wouldn’t mind.

The Haven Monahan email sentence:

Ryan has no idea what he does to me… he can make me feel more emotions in one second than I would normally feel in one year.

Resembles one found on a site called Organized Chaos:

you have no idea what you do to me. you can make me feel more emotions in one second than i would normally feel in one year.

Another sentence in the Haven Monahan email reads:

I mean, if I had the chance of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or just sitting in my dorm with him talking about music and watching a crappy TV show… I‘d choose him everytime…

That resembles this FanPop quiz question for fans of the show Scrubs:

“If I had the choice of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or sitting at home with you eating_____watching a crappy TV show, I’d choose you every time.”

In summary, this hoax that suckered most of the American news media for two weeks was never a masterpiece of careful planning. It just stumbled upon what our news media already wanted to believe, whatever the evidence.

From Chronicles:

Benjamin Franklin’s American Dream
Steve Sailer – DECEMBER 12, 2014

Today’s preferred way to think about immigration and the nation-state is exemplified in the title of a 1964 pamphlet that the Anti-Defamation League published posthumously under the name of John F. Kennedy: A Nation of Immigrants. The next year, the martyred President’s brother Teddy had his name put on the 1965 immigration act of such large and unforeseen consequence.

The pages of JFK’s little book are seldom read anymore, but its mantra of a title has proved wildly successful at sacralizing mass immigration as some kind of hereditary national onus. “My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. . . . That’s the tradition we must uphold. That’s the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come,” orated President Barack Obama as justification for his November 2014 demand that, when it comes to immigration, America must have a government of men and not of laws.

While the Preamble states that the Constitution is ordained so that “We the People of the United States” can “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” the concept of posterity has vanished from respectable immigration discourse. The Obama amnesty invokes a civil right to be here that illegal aliens inherit, but not from their ancestors: Like insanity, amnesty is hereditary; you get it from your children. After all, we live in an age of globalism and minoritarianism: The 300 million American citizens are the majority, while the 7 billion foreigners are the minority.

This slogan of a Nation of Immigrants has not proved terribly productive intellectually, fostering not unsentimental scholarship but schmaltzy ancestor worship. For example, when it was revealed in the press last year that Dr. Jason Richwine had earned his Harvard Ph.D. by quantitatively analyzing the achievements of Hispanics over multiple generations, finding that today’s illegal-alien “Dreamers” and their children were unlikely to live up to the fond hopes so casually invested in them, he was immediately shoved out of his job at a conservative think tank.

In sharp contrast to this dead end for scholarship, Benjamin Franklin’s arguments in favor of immigration restrictions were influential on the central avenue of Anglo-American thought in the human sciences.

Franklin’s 1751 pamphlet Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind offered a workable strategy for America’s future. These 24 numbered paragraphs were the cogent cornerstone of Franklin’s audacious scientific-strategic theory for the peopling of America, an interlocking series of arguments about how the world would work. Sociologist Dennis Hodgson observes that, in Observations, “Policy did not flow from theory[;] theory flowed from policy.” But the policy Franklin advocated was so fruitful over the next two centuries that the theory deserves respect.

Hodgson explains Ben Franklin’s American Dream:

Living in the mid-eighteenth century, [Franklin] had a vision of a middle-class society that was necessarily one in which the majority owned and worked their own lands. . . . His dream was of a prosperous and middle-class America, peopled largely by the English, that spanned a continent and confidently assumed a preeminent place among nations.

In 1964, four decades after mass immigration had been shut down, the country looked rather like Franklin’s vision. But the mechanisms Franklin had identified as crucial to American happiness have been increasingly forgotten during the ensuing Nation of Immigrants nostalgiafest.

This Founding Father’s insights on population and immigration are so out of fashion as to make his entire perspective almost incomprehensible to mainstream minds. For example, in his bestselling 2003 biography Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, the intelligent establishmentarian Walter Isaacson (the authorized biographer of Steve Jobs) issues a few baffled apologies for this epoch-making essay, then quickly moves on to more congenial matters.

Read my whole article there.

 

I want to thank everybody who contributed last week to my end of the year fundraising drive. But it’s not the end of the year yet, so it’s not the end of the end of the year fundraiser yet either!

I now have seven ways for you to send me money, including Paypal, fee-free bank transfers, Bitcoin (well, Bitcoin is coming soon).

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:Steve Sailer P.O Box 4142 Valley Village,CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution to VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) If you send VDARE a check make sure to put “I like Steve Sailer” on the Memo line. Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

 

Fourth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address(steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

 

Sixth: Google Wallet: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address(that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

I’ll put the rest of the instructions for Google Wallet and for Bitcoin (the link for which, unfortunately, seems to have stopped working over the last couple of months) under the fold. I will try to get Bitcoin working shortly.

• Tags: Panhandling 

From the New York Times:

Surviving Rape in the Military
By Evelyn Nieves Dec. 17, 2014

The issue of sexual assault in the military makes the news periodically, usually in articles with mouth-dropping statistics and official outrage.

Mary F. Calvert read such an article. It estimated that while 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults took place in the armed forces in 2012, only one in seven victims reported the attack and only one in 10 of those cases went to trial.

But Ms. Calvert, a photojournalist who documents gender-based human rights issues, often in the developing world, could not let the story go. …

Etcetera etcetera …

As I blogged in 2013 in response to a bunch of earlier NYT articles on The Epidemic of Rape in the Military:

Wow, 26,000 rapes in one year, and only 1 percent getting convicted!

Oh … wait a minute … the 26,000 figure, a projection from a survey, isn’t for “rape.” The author suddenly switched from talking about “rape” to talking about “sexual assault,” which is … well, what exactly?

The media isn’t in a hurry to provide examples of what’s just over the line and is therefore “sexual assault” and what is just under the line and is therefore not “sexual assault.” …

This murkiness is not unique to this latest sex scandal. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature when lawyers enlist the media in helping them target a deep-pocketed institution.

In lawyer-driven sex-scandals, it’s not uncommon for crisp sounding abstractions to mask a lot of murkiness.

Screenshot 2014-12-18 00.04.26During its interview with the three ex-friends of purported U. of Virginia fraternity gang rape victim Jackie, CNN briefly flashed onscreen at the 5:06 mark the “glitch in The Matrix” email. This is the one that friendzone friend Ryan (a.k.a., “Randall”) received from Jackie’s mysterious dream date / gang rape organizer Haven Monahan five days after the alleged outrage.

Ryan / Randall tells the camera:

“The email was called “About you” and it was from Haven Monahan –Haven.Monahan@Yahoo.com. And it looked like Haven had written, ‘You should read this. I’ve really never read anything nicer in my life,’ with a page worth of, you know, just an essay that Jackie had written about me. Which seemed really weird to me at the time, because here’s somebody who just allegedly, you know, led this brutal sexual assault on a friend of mine, and now he’s just going to email me this thing about me.”

For iSteve, commenter Harold transcribed off CNN’s blurry video image the essay by Jackie forwarded from Haven Monahan’s email account:

Well yeah… Ryan is fine. Ryan’s great, actually. I mean he’s smart. He’s sensitive. He’s funny. He’s a scaredy cat. If you creep up behind him, he’ll jump right out of his skin. It’s pretty amusing. He’s honest. He always calls them just like he sees them. You can [???] count[?] on getting the truth from Ryan, even if the truth hurts. He has the most incredible taste in music. He’s like this walking, talking music library. And he understands how truly important music is. He’s stubborn. He has this [???] way about him that can be so frustrating sometimes. And sometimes the things he says hurt. But he’s a really, really good friend. And loyal to a fault. He’s realistic[?] about everything. And I’m a dreamer so I mean, it’s good to have somebody like that in my life. He’s one of my best friends here, you know? He’s more than that… he’s everything.

Now, then there’s Ryan. And Ryan… Ryan’s incredible. I didn‘t fall for Ryan Duffin the first day I met him. Nor did I fall for him on the second day or the third day for that matter. But once I did fall for Ryan, you see, my world flipped upside down. Kathryn doesn’t understand what I see in Ryan. I guess I don‘t understand what she doesn’t see in him. He’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see him because you notice something new in a Where‘s Waldo sort of way. More like you can‘t stop writing third grade run on sentences becuase you can‘t even remotely begin to describe something, someone, so inherently amazing. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at him too long, you’ll prove your grandparents right that, yes, your face will get stuck that way… but you do‘t mind. You, like everyone else, may think I’m exaggerating, but then again, you probably don’t know Ryan Duffin. Ryan has no idea what he does to me… he can make me feel more emotions in one second than I would normally feel in one year. He makes my head spin. And the truth is, I‘m crazy about him, I mean, if I had the chance of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or just sitting in my dorm with him talking about music and watching a crappy TV show… I‘d choose him everytime… without a single false step. I know he doesn‘t like me. If someone really wanted you, they’d actually put some time and effort into trying to get your attention. Ryan doesn’t even like to be around me sometimes. And that really sucks. When you like someone more than he likes you, you‘ll do anything to switch the scales. The thing is, you can’t. You want to tell him how you feel but you know it will end with “It‘s just not going to work out.” How can I explain to him that I fell for him because of a million tiny things he never knew he was doing? I know I should just stop trying because he and I are never going to happen. He doesn’t like me, I’m not his type. I‘m not the type of person he could ever be with so I should just get over it. The problem is I can’t shake these feelings I have for him, I try so damn hard, but they won’t go away. I can’t move on becuase the only thing I can find wrong with him, is that he can find so much wrong with me. Gabrielle[?] said I shouldn’t give up, she said she read this quote once that said, “There’s nothing more beautiful than the way ocean refuses to stop kissing the shoreline no matter how many times it’s sent away.” She claimed that’s how Ryan and I are. I think she’s wrong. I think he was right from the get go. He’ll never see me as anything other than some girl and It’ll never amount to anything. He told Alex I‘m not his type and I’m a waste of his time. The things he says hurt more than you know but still… there’s something about him that makes me come back for more. All I know is, the girl who gets to be with Ryan [ten-or-so obscured words] that, then she doesn’t deserve him.

As Gerald Ford used to claim Henry Kissinger said, “Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes: there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

And as Rick James might have said, “Teenage girl hormones are a helluva chemical.”

Okay, so, now we know what happened.

A whole lot of people, however, are going to remember this story not as an utter hoax, but as a complicated situation in which the Rolling Stone reporter maybe messed up by violating some boring journalist protocol by not calling people to get their pro forma denials so that the whole thing could have been more of a He Said, She Said. The only thing that millions of people are going to remember is that Sabrina Rubin Erdely should have been a little more nuanced.

For example, it’s now more than a week after the Washington Post bombshell, and the Newspaper of Record still hasn’t admitted anything. The NYT is trying to Bury the Story in Boredom. Here’s the latest eye-glazing thing published by the New York Times on the case (December 16th):

The Bind of Silence

In all the hand-wringing about what Rolling Stone did or didn’t do right in the saga of the University of Virginia story, one unexamined question sticks out for me. Does the enforced anonymity around rape victims make journalism about rape inherently fraught? This is the subject of a smart piece by Geneva Overholser, former editor of The Des Moines Register who has gone on to many prestigious jobs in journalism and academia. She asks, trenchantly, “How do you size up a problem that’s largely hidden?” — Lydia Polgreen

So there’s a lot of hand-wringing about how on the one hand but on the other hand and it’s all inherently fraught and zzzzzzzzz …

No.

It is a complete hoax, one that gulled almost the entire media establishment for a dozen days. Why? Because they want to believe in Haven Monahan.

If the Cuban dictatorship stops stopping people from leaving Cuba, then the U.S. needs to change the current immigration privileges that Cubans enjoy. From Wikipedia:

The wet foot, dry foot policy is the name given to a consequence of the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who fled Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people found at sea. Since then, in what has become known as the “Wet foot, Dry foot” policy, a Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations (with “wet feet”) would summarily be sent home or to a third country. One who makes it to shore (“dry feet”) gets a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited “legal permanent resident” status and eventually U.S. citizenship.

There are 11 million people left in Cuba, more than three times the population of Puerto Rico. How has open immigration from Puerto Rico worked out for the U.S.?

Moreover, we need to end affirmative action privileges for Hispanics.

As I wrote in 2008:

Cuba has an enormous number of unemployed welfare bums. If a Cuban Deng took over intending to capitalize the place, it would be very tempting to do a Mariel boatlift and dump the bottom million or two Cubans on America.

A friend of mine who is a very orthogonal thinker has argued that the U.S. government should pay the Cuban government to take a few million of our welfare bums off our hands. The dollar goes ridiculously far in Cuba. I’ve never seen anybody agree with him, but he keeps bringing up the idea of a Reverse Mariel.

Here’s my 2006 VDARE article on the economic effects of Mariel. Here’s my 2008 article on the power of the Cuba Lobby.

 

Mrs. Obama.

Or at least that would be my impression from Charles Blow’s column in the New York Times:

The Obamas, Race and Slights

DEC. 17, 2014

The president and the first lady added their voices this week to the raging conversation on race following the protests that erupted in the wake of grand juries not indicting police officers who killed two unarmed black men — Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

In an interview with People magazine, Mrs. Obama recalled a trip to Target during which “the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new.”

Could the Target shopper who asked Mrs. Obama for help simply not have recognized her and needed, presumably, a taller person’s assistance? Sure, in theory. Or could the encounter have been disdainful and presumptuous, a manifestation of some inherent bias? Sure, that too could have been the case.

Could there have been some combination of those forces at play? Also possible.

The truth is, we don’t know. The lady asking for help might not even know. We are not always aware of our biases, let alone are we always able to articulate them. And people can sometimes be hypersensitive to bias when they are submerged in it.

All we know is that Mrs. Obama questions the encounter and has misgivings about it. For her, it’s a feeling. Others might hear this story and feel that Mrs. Obama possibly overreacted or misconstrued the meaning of the request.

But that is, in part, what racial discussions come down to: feelings. These feelings are, of course, informed by facts, experiences, conditioning and culture, but the feelings are what linger, questions of motive and malice hanging in the air like the stench of rotting meat, knotting the stomach and chilling the skin.

Seriously, the White House living quarters are not that expansive. Having the psychological equivalent of “the stench of rotting meat, knotting the stomach and chilling the skin” around all the time would have any husband telling Marvin Nicholson to call up Andrews AFB and let them know we’ll be coptering in for a quick 18.

 

How to fake being sent, as Sabrina Rubin Erdely would say, “crashing through a low glass table” as done by professionals in Scream 4. Notice all the shattered glass from 2:50 to 3:30 in this film clip.

NSFW for blood and language.

“What world are you living in? I don’t need friends. I need fans.”

 

Here’s a question about the analogy of the Rape Culture Hysteria of 2014 to the Satanic Daycare Hysteria of the 1980s: Wasn’t the 1980s frenzy more of a Bottom Up affair? My vague recollection is that the previous madness was promoted by, say, local prosecutors, disparate media outlets, and maybe some ambitious ministers rather than by the President, university administrations, and the New York media.

Here’s the Wikipedia article on the Day Care Sex-Abuse Hysteria from 1982 into the 1990s.

Pre-2013 P&G logo

I have a vague sense that the Satanic Daycare insanity was culturally related to the rumors being pushed by a few ministers around 1983 or 1984 that the logo of the Procter & Gamble company was a satanic emblem.

I was working on the P&G account at the time, and our boss called us in to tell us that P&G was being plagued by a stupid rumor about their 19th Century logo having satanic connotations and that we should never, ever make jokes about this because P&G was dead serious about stamping out these rumors. We would be fired if we joked about the rumors. (P&G was the biggest, most prestigious, and by far the most important client of the market research start-up where I worked, so nervous jokes were common: e.g., P&G stood for “Procter & God.”)

As a Chicago Lakefront yuppie, I’d never heard of the rumors before I was told never to joke about them.

My impression is that the rumor was pushed by a few preachers and Amway multi-level marketers and maybe preachers who were also Amway multi-level marketers. In 2007, P&G won a $19 million judgment against Amway for spreading the rumors in 1995. Here’s one of the chain letters that was going around in the 1980s: hicks-in-the-sticks stuff.

I don’t have any proof, but I suspect the satanic daycare craziness of the same era wasn’t too distinct in cultural / demographic origins from the P&G rumor: you might call it the Fringes of the Core.

In contrast, the current madness about Rape Culture on campus and in the military has been inculcated top down by the Core of the Fringes: the Obama Administration, the universities, and the Responsible News Media (e.g., the New York Times) as part of the Democrats’ campaigns and as part of the overall feminist ideological-industrial complex.

 

It’s pretty easy to use Google News to track how enthusiastically news outlets are covering the complete collapse of the U. of Virginia Gang Rape Story. Are they leaving it as a muddled … well, I heard it was a different fraternity house and it wasn’t seven rapists it was five and it was just oral sex and the Rolling Stone reporter should have cleared up these details? Or are they making it clear that the story was a complete hoax from the git-go featuring a made-up beau whom Jackie invented under the name “Haven Monahan?”

I had been trying the word “catfish,” but now we have a clearer search term. Simply go to Google News and type, between quotations marks:

“Haven Monahan”

Here’s what I get 21 hours after CNN revealed the name of the non-existent dream date / gang rape conspirators:

Full coverage

Friends’ accounts differ significantly from victim in UVA rape story

CNN‎10 hours ago‎
Was Haven Monahan a real person? Since summer orientation in 2012, Stock, Duffin and another freshman, Kathryn Hendley, had become friends with Jackie. Duffin said Jackie was much more interested in him than he in her. He said he was happy when …


There’s More Bizarre Evidence That UVA Student Jackie’s Alleged Rapist Doesn

Business Insider‎57 minutes ago‎
According to the friends, Jackie had told them she was going on a date that night with a UVA student named Haven Monahan, whom she had supposedly met in her chemistry class, CNN reports. Rolling Stone originally reported that Jackie’s date was with …


University Of Virginia Student’s Catfishing Scheme Revealed

Daily Caller‎Dec 16, 2014‎
The fabrication of the man, who Jackie told her friends was named Haven Monahan, adds another layer of intrigue to a bizarre saga which has unfolded after the publication of a Rolling Stone article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, who is now in hiding …

Wow, that’s a real feeding frenzy in the news media …

Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind