The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Sarah Jeong on the UVA Gang Rape on Broken Glass Hoax: "I Believe Jackie"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Wayback Machine archive of SarahJeong.net:

Something Terrible Happened to Jackie

by Sarah Jeong

December 8, 2014

… You can believe rape allegations are being exploited for political and ideological reasons, that the outlet in which the story is being told is not reliable for any number of reasons—biases, ethical breaches, failures of fact-checking. But it doesn’t negate that it happened. That someone was raped. That something terrible happened to them.
***
I keep getting bogged down in the details of Jackie’s “unraveled” story. The party that wasn’t on the fraternity calendar. The date that wasn’t a fraternity brother. The wrong time of year for pledging. The more I see these “inconsistencies” and “discrepancies” touted as evidence of falsehood, the more convinced I am that Jackie is not lying. I go over them again and again in my head. I keep starting this conversation with my boyfriend. He tells me that that’s not even the point—the issue isn’t with Jackie’s story, the issue is with Rolling Stone’s decision to run the story without Jackie’s willingness, their failure to properly fact-check. I know, I know, I know, and yet I’m still stuck on the details, the way I’m still stuck on, “I’m wearing you.”

I believe Jackie. It’s a different kind of believe from believing that her story is a historical, factual account. But she’s not lying. Her story is one she’s pieced together through a haze of agony, even as every neuron in her brain worked to forget what had happened. She didn’t know her date’s actual affiliation with the fraternity. She didn’t even know which fraternity it was. (She says herself that she later pointed the building out to a friend, and the friend identified it for her).

Say there was loud music playing, and people drinking at the frat that night. Not a party, just a little get-together. Just a small something. But then people bring their friends and their friends call their friends and everyone BYOBs and now you have something that looks like a party to a naïve girl unfamiliar with the fraternity system, but of course it’s not a party—no one issued any Facebook invites let alone put it on the official calendar.

It’s loud enough that no one will hear her cries. It’s small enough that her assaulters aren’t afraid of random people wandering in. She hears some of her attackers shouting orders to the others. Later, she concludes it must have been an initiation of some kind.

Those details blur. What does not blur is, “Grab its motherfucking leg.”

***
I’m making shit up now. Maybe Jackie has gotten things more fundamentally wrong than that. It happens to survivors with PTSD. It’s something that’s well-documented, something that’s described with perfect clarity by Amanda Taub. There’s no way for me to know for sure. And yet instead of having doubt creep in, I’m transfixed on “Grab its fucking leg.” It’s clearly an important memory for her, based on both the Rolling Stone and the Washington Post articles. There’s something about it that’s the key to the entire thing for her—this terrible, bewildering, horrible, fundamentally un-understandable thing that happened.

It’s the same line that led Richard Bradley to call bullshit on the Rolling Stone story.

“Grab its motherfucking leg,” says the first rapist to one of his “brothers.” It reminds me of Silence of the Lambs: “It rubs the lotion on its skin…” But Silence of the Lambs was fiction.

It was fiction, and too horrible to be real. Too terrible to have happened. Too outrageous to be believed. These men, too monstrous to be University of Virginia fraternity members.
***
I shouldn’t say monstrous. Rape is not some rarified, exotic crime. It’s all around us. Our rapists are acquaintances, family members, boyfriends, girlfriends, partners, spouses, trusted friends. Rapists are people, not fictions.
I think about “Grab its motherfucking leg.” I still want to say monstrous.
***
There’s a tendency to mythologize the rapist into nothingness. He can’t be a rapist. He’s too nice. He’s too kind. He’s too handsome. He’s too famous.
How can she be a rapist? She’s a woman, and your partner at that.
They aren’t monsters, how can they be rapists?
And if the Rapist fades away into the realm of fiction, so does the Rape Victim. “Jackie is doing a disservice to the real rape victims,” you say.
Who are those? I want to scream. Not the ones who don’t struggle. Not the ones who never quite say no. Not the ones who drink. Not the promiscuous ones. And oh god, not the ones who do sex work.
Not the ones who accuse the famous and well-beloved. Not the ones who testify at trial. Not the ones who sue for money. Not the ones who don’t report. But not the ones who report to get famous.
Not the ones whose stories just don’t seem very extreme. Are you sure you didn’t want it? Not the ones whose stories are too extreme. But Silence of the Lambs was fiction.
Rape happens, but none of these are rape victims, and none of those they accuse are rapists. Somewhere, there is an ideal victim and an ideal perpetrator. But not here, not in the messy inconvenient spaces where victims aren’t golden-haired princesses snatched out of their towers and rapists aren’t nameless moral black holes with no past and no future, with only THE RAPE as the defining characteristic of their entire existence.
***
You can’t tell anyone. The system is designed to preclude the existence of your rape. Let the Title IX office wave its hands blandly. Let the police lose your rape kit. Let the prosecutor drop your case. And the journalist….
***
Of course no one should even be looking at the details. No one should be assessing Jackie’s truthfulness. The matter should have ended with Rolling Stone’s own failure. But the details stick out to me, nonetheless. Watery and weak “counterevidence” that picks away at mundanities like dates and times, that comes prepackaged in transparently selective denials on official letterhead.
Those details shouldn’t matter to me. But they matter enough to others, to men who were waiting in the wings, ready to scream LIAR, to post Jackie’s name and picture and address on the Internet, to present this as evidence of feminism gone too far.
And that’s why the details matter. They aren’t convincing, which means these people were ready to be convinced, ready to be knocked over by a feather. These aren’t people who are interested in finding the truth or in seeking justice. Well, I suppose, not insofar as I think of the truth or I think of justice. But I suppose not everyone thinks of justice the way I do.
In law school, after all, we learned that due process is what we get in lieu of justice. And what’s due process besides a series of rules that are meant to keep things as predictable as fucking possible?
But this is not the part where I complain about the legal system (though the legal system has certainly failed rape victims). It’s the importation of pretend legal standards into our everyday discourse, the slippery contortions of constitutional guarantees in order to come out with what we wanted to say all along: “Jackie’s story had to be bullshit. In order to be fair we have to call her a liar. In the interests of justice, her rape cannot have ever existed.”
***
Something terrible happened to Jackie. I don’t know what it was. Her suitemate doesn’t know what it was. I don’t even know if it’s clear to Jackie. But something happened.
Just insisting on this is heresy, of course. Jackie’s reputation as a liar is sealed away by a fraternity events calendar.
They own the words. They own the law. They own reality or at least what everyone acknowledges as reality. They own the Truth™, the Truth that makes up how we understand our society—the truth of what happened with the Duke lacrosse players, the truth of the injured burglar who sued the property owner, the truth of the McDonald’s coffee that was too hot. (No, this isn’t the part where I link you to what really happened in those cases. Why would you care about what really happened, anyways?)
***
As long as they own the Truth, they own our bodies and what happens to our bodies because what happens to our bodies every day is impossible and unbelievable and please, you’re doing a disservice to real rape victims.
***
Grab its motherfucking leg.
Why would the same line that convinced Richard Bradley it can’t possibly be true, have a different kind of effect on me? He doesn’t believe in monsters, I suppose. But I realize now, I’ve accepted monstrosity is the human condition.

In contrast to Sarah Jeong’s True Believership, here’s my blog post from three days earlier about how the timeline of how the hoax collapsed:

On November 19th, Rolling Stone posted “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Search for Justice at UVA” to immense acclaim.

On November 24th, veteran editor Richard Bradley asked on his personal blog Shots in the DarkIs the Rolling Stone Story True?

Below are the only comments made on Bradley’s post before I linked to his post on November 29th, after which the floodgates opened.

351 Responses

  • Steve Sailer 11/25/2014 6:25 am
    Wouldn’t the rapists get cut by the broken glass all over the floor, too? I guess they were such sex-crazed animals that they didn’t notice the glass cutting their hands and knees for the first three hours.
  • Steve Sailer 11/25/2014 6:51 am
    Perhaps this media furor about UVA has something to do with the murder of UVA coed Hanna Graham in September? With all the recent news stories of bad behavior against women by black men, such as Bill Cosby, Ray Rice, and the suspect in the Graham murder, there’s a real hunger right now for a tale of evil white men. That doesn’t mean this Rolling Stone story isn’t completely true; but, like you say, it sure complies with current prejudices far better than most of the recent stories of women being abused by men.
  • Steve Sailer 11/25/2014 7:57 am
    So this is a pre-planned, traditional annual fraternity initiation gang-rape, with two older fraternity brothers coaching the seven pledges but not partaking themselves? Yet, it doesn’t seem very well organized at all, such as leaving a glass table in the middle of the room to immediately fall over and smash. And the pitch darkness — or at least it’s dark enough so nobody can see where the glass table is, but not so dark that the poor victim can’t recognize her assailant from anthropology class — seems odd, too. Don’t these animalistic rapists want to watch? Presumably, the pitch darkness is to prevent the victim from identifying her assailants, but she can already identify the ringleader Drew. And how many pledges are there at this fraternity anyway? Seven? Then what good does darkness do to cloud their identities? Or say there are twelve pledges. Even if the victim couldn’t identify any (besides Drew) isn’t there a lot of worry that the police would just arrest all twelve and wait for one or two of the five who weren’t rapists to get cold feet and ID the real perps in return for immunity?
  • Steve Sailer 11/25/2014 11:14 am
    A problem with the plausibility of the story is the source’s insistence that she was sober and remembers every detail accurately. Relax that constraint and the story would seem less unlikely because inconsistent or improbable details could be chalked up to alcohol fog.
  • Steve Sailer 11/27/2014 4:20 am
    Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I’ve done some more thinking and here’s where the story falls apart: pitch darkness _and_ broken glass on the floor. The glass table is smashed, but nobody turns on the light to see what happened or where the broken glass is? Instead, each man, having heard the glass table get smashed, still gets down on the floor covered with shards of broken glass, risking not only his hands and knees, but also pulling out an even more personal part of his anatomy, one that he only has one of. Really?

Then, my readers followed up with numerous insightful comments on Bradley’s blog on November 29th and 30th. On December 1st, articles started appearing citing Bradley’s post in places like Reason, the WSJ, and Jonah Goldberg’s column in the L.A. Times.

From December 2nd, onward, the Washington Post took the lead, actually doing new shoe leather reporting. The New York Times, however, published only one wishy-washy story about doubts, then on December 4th published a long article on the supposed rape culture crisis on campus and in the military, credulously citing the Rolling Stone story repeatedly.

Today, Rolling Stone has apologized for the article and the Washington Post has much new reporting about it.

So score one for the WaPo over the NYT.

And here’s my Taki’s Magazine article from earlier this week “A Rape Hoax for Book Lovers.”

 

 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    In law school, after all, we learned that due process is what we get in lieu of justice. And what’s due process besides a series of rules that are meant to keep things as predictable as fucking possible?

    Okay, let’s bring back mob justice.

    We can burn Jeong as a stupid witch.

  2. t says:

  3. Anon[569] • Disclaimer says:

    This will likely be the final nail in her journalistic coffin. The NYT hired her — along with Uber whistleblower Susan Fowler — to push the sexism in tech narrative.

    Her tweets, along with support for rape-hoaxer Jackey Coakley, will cast a long, libelous shadow over any reporting.

    It has also put the NYT squarely at odds with big tech, which if so motivated, could basically halve the NYT’s readership overnight.

  4. Yeah we get it Steve: the media are a bunch of hypocrites. The same comment you’ve been writing since 2012. Gjhi5

  5. Anon, instead of due process how about lynching? This women is an example of the radical left media at it’s worst, “…a series of rules that keep things as predictable as possible.” Maybe like your Miranda rights that have allowed criminals to walk on a technicality. But, not surprisingly she will be a darling of the MSM, especially if the NYT decides that they have to let her go.

  6. Why is Sarah Jeong, a young person armed with a Harvard Law School diploma, not pursuing a career in the legal professions? Why is she still dyeing her hair pink and writing these stupid articles and sending out these immature tweets? Is she a trust fund hipster? Does Harvard Law have many more like her these days? And how earth did she survive classroom discussions with argumentation and reasoning skills like hers?

    • Replies: @Russ
  7. It’s easy to say “I believe Jackie.”

    Call us when she says, “I believe Juanita.”

    • Replies: @John Pepple
  8. syonredux says:
    @t

    Imagine if instead of lightly mocking white people’s rice cookery she had just said white people are intellectually inferior to Asians because of genetics.

    Then instead of bad racism it would be Forbidden Truths That America Needs To Hear, I guess?

    Dangerous territory for her. Someone might bring up Blacks…..

    • Replies: @D. K.
  9. Achilles says:

    Jeong is certainly a “True Believer” in her own group cause but it appears that she was less than a “True Believer” in Jackie’s account.

    I believe Jackie. It’s a different kind of believe from believing that her story is a historical, factual account.

    I’m making shit up now. Maybe Jackie has gotten things more fundamentally wrong than that. It happens to survivors with PTSD.

    Of course no one should even be looking at the details. No one should be assessing Jackie’s truthfulness…Those details shouldn’t matter to me. But they matter enough to others, to men who were waiting in the wings, ready to scream LIAR…

    …these people were ready to be convinced, ready to be knocked over by a feather. These aren’t people who are interested in finding the truth or in seeking justice. Well, I suppose, not insofar as I think of the truth or I think of justice. But I suppose not everyone thinks of justice the way I do.

    She’s clearly trying to set the goalposts at a place where the assertion that “something terrible happened to Jackie” is not falsifiable no matter what the actual facts are.

    This has become one of the first tasks of the SJW media narrative-builders, because in so many of these cases, such as Trayvon, Ferguson and Freddie Gray, the facts don’t actually support the media narrative.

    It reduces to an exercise of raw power, where the Left/Liberal/Neocon Jewish interest and its coalition partners simply impose a narrative with respect to a given incident on the nation and its institutions with little relationship of the narrative to the actual facts but with a strong relationship of the narrative to the coalition group interest.

    BTW, is she any relation to Ken Jeong, star of the ultimate frat boy movies, The Hangover series?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Logan
  10. Funny, she just deleted her text when the story became impossible to defend. No apologies to readers, no follow-up, no discussion. Search for “Jackie” in her site leads only to a ghost of the deleted text (just try googling Jackie site:SarahJeong.net).

    Such journalist. Much integrity.

  11. D. K. says:
    @syonredux

    Dangerous territory for Matti. Someone might bring up Puerto Rican’s. (Autocorrect will not allow me to get rid of the [expletive deleted] apostrophe!)

  12. syonredux says:
    @Achilles

    I believe Jackie. It’s a different kind of believe from believing that her story is a historical, factual account.

    A mystery of SJW faith……..

    • Replies: @WR
  13. Russ says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Why is Sarah Jeong, a young person armed with a Harvard Law School diploma, not pursuing a career in the legal professions?

    Perhaps the HLS sheepskin is no longer what it once was, and she must make do. Same with that fellow who moved out of 1600 Pennsylvania in January 2017 …

  14. Jeong’s missive is unreadable trash. Thank you for reading this garbage so that we don’t have to pollute our senses by doing so.

    When did it become cool for young women to throw around cuss words every 5 seconds? I notice in liberal cities that women swear much more frequently than men do.

  15. “It’s not true, but in my imagination it was true.”

  16. “I keep getting bogged down …

    … I’ve accepted monstrosity is the human condition.”

    I’m pretty sure journalism is now officially dead.

    All that’s left is crazy people working out their therapy issues in a public forum.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  17. @t

    When was the last time someone defended a badwhite faux pas as being only “lightly mocking,” I wonder…

  18. WR says:
    @syonredux

    Well, SJWism is a religion and its practitioners are quite fanatical. Jeong’s article is fascinating as it provides us with timeless insights into the deranged mind of our ink-shitting overlords

    For them, evidence is actually counter-evidence: “The more I see these “inconsistencies” and “discrepancies” touted as evidence of falsehood, the more convinced I am that Jackie is not lying”.

    They find hate-facts infuriatingly racist and/or sexist: “… mundanities like dates and times. Those details shouldn’t matter to me. But they matter enough to others, to men who were waiting in the wings, ready to scream LIAR…”

    Congratulations NYT, this lady truly deserves to be part of you team!

    • Replies: @Jack D
  19. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    The lesson here, and I have to learn it myself, is that each and every one of us has to stop reading the NYT, stop reading references to the NYT, stop quoting the NYT.

    They’re no better than Rolling Stone itself is now, and they’re not even pretending to be. Facts don’t matter to these people. Facts are the enemy. We know this about them–we knew it already. But still we wanted to believe they maintained a shred of integrity.

    We were brought up that way. And look where it’s gotten us.

  20. Rapparee says:

    This is NYT-worthy-author level prose? Why aren’t half of Mr. Sailer’s regular commenters currently writing for major newspapers? (Yes, we’re too well-acquainted with reality, I know). As a dreadfully bad writer myself, I can easily identify Ms. Jeong as one of our number.

  21. The Fake News NYT Editorial Director.

  22. Serious question: does a disproportionate number of third wave feminists experience rape fantasies and is this driving the moral panic about this phantom enemy of “rape culture”?

    A lady who worked in South County Dublin libraries in the 1970s when Ireland was ground zero for borderline theocratic Catholic conservatism told me about people who used to regularly accost librarians with over the top complaints about “filth” and “indecency” in novels. They would frequently have pages tabbed and the offending sections underlined and force the poor librarians to listen to each and every offending passage, word for word. It eventually became clear to the staff that most of these people were in fact unhealthily turned on by the material and complaining about its supposed indecency was an excuse to constantly read and repeat it whilst feeling a false sense of virtue.

    Which brings me to this Jeong lady and the likes of Sabrina Rubin Eardley, Lena Dunham etc, whose writings demonstrate, inter alia, an almost feral obsession with rape – in the aforementioned piece, the entire theme seems like some deranged excuse for using the word “rape” as many times as possible – so much so that it actually reads like badly written erotica or porn.

    I’m reminded of two key Sailer themes:

    1. The fundamentally correct observation that chick lit genres like Fifty Shades are basically thinly veiled rape fantasies where the reader gets to fantasize about getting an alpha male so hot under the collar that he loses control of his impulses and bursts upon her; and

    2. Sailer’s first law of female journalism, which is another right on the money observation about female journalists being, with ever rising frequency, being obsessed with recasting the social order to make themselves rank higher in the hotness hierarchy.

    How do the two interact? It strikes me that the typical third wave feminist is basically a classically intellectually vapid and slightly sex mad Mills & Boon trashy novel reading type who isn’t hot enough to visualize herself as the object of the alpha male’s uncontrollable lust and who dons a mantle of pseudo intellectualism and engages in confected rape hysteria as an excuse to make slightly steamy references to her body and of the male sex’s perverted desire to invade it – remember the late Andrea Dworkin’s obsession with the idea that men had nothing better to do than jump on her sweaty, dungaree-clad 200 pound firm?

    I suspect that one reason for this crap becoming so much more prominent in our culture is, quite simply, the fact that with the media’s profitability in free fall, it’s much harder for the like of the Times and the Post to compete for graduate talent with law and accounting firms, Wall Street, Silicon Valley etc, meaning that the typical younger journalist like Ezra Klein or Ronan (née Satchel) Farrow is a resentful mediocrity who couldn’t hack it in a more lucrative field and has journalistic interests which are trivial and pedestrian (an effect which is only amplified by the resentment they feel towards those who are smarter, hotter etc.).

    Overall, I suspect that the likes of the Sulzbergers are privately humiliated by being forced to scrape this particular quality barrel in order to stay solvent but what can they do? Appealing to smart readers with smart journalists is just too expensive so they have to make do.

  23. Logan says:

    I guess they were such sex-crazed animals that they didn’t notice the glass cutting their hands and knees for the first three hours.

    Even drunk evil men aren’t likely to want to put their personal private parts into close proximity to broken glass.

  24. Logan says:
    @Achilles

    She’s clearly trying to set the goalposts at a place where the assertion that “something terrible happened to Jackie” is not falsifiable no matter what the actual facts are.

    But, you see, they don’t believe “actual facts” exist. In fact, the idea that they do exist is nothing but an oppressive structure of the patriarchy.

  25. @Reg Cæsar

    Exactly. And I have to wonder if she’s ever said anything about Rotherham.

    • Replies: @Escher
  26. SteveM says:

    …I’m making shit up now…
    …Grab its motherfucking leg…

    Looks like the Times will have to update its Manual of Style and Usage to accommodate the journalistic brilliance of its latest Harvard genius.

    • Replies: @Escher
  27. Jack D says:
    @WR

    In fact, as someone else pointed out, this is just a classic feature of a witch trial and is not special to the SJW religion. The essence of a witch trial is that the verdict is predetermined – the accuser and her supporters already KNOW in their heart that the accused is a witch and the purpose of the trial is just to elicit evidence of the witch’s guilt so that the witch can be punished. So anything that points toward the witch’s guilt is accepted unquestioningly even if it comes from questionable sources, and anything that points toward innocence is disregarded or twisted to point even more toward guilt. The victim doesn’t remember what happened clearly and makes impossible accusations about being taken on a broom ride and being raped in the dark on broken glass – this just means that the witch must have cast a spell on her/she is suffering from PTSD.

    The witch trial re-occurs over and over in human history because it serves some deep human need. You have Stalin’s show trial, the trials of the nursery school sex abusers, the Duke lacrosse prosecution, etc. Haven Monahan had the good fortune of being a fictional creation or else he could have had his own witch trial.

  28. @Almost Missouri

    And here’s another gem.

    “the Truth that makes up how we understand our society—the truth of what happened with the Duke lacrosse players, the truth of the injured burglar who sued the property owner, the truth of the McDonald’s coffee that was too hot. (No, this isn’t the part where I link you to what really happened in those cases.” (my bold)

    Umm, why not? Isn’t that your job as a journalist? To explicate? To make plain? To make connections and draw inferences for the clueless?

    Always, they fold right when tradition calls upon them to step up and deliver. And they do so with a harumph of triumph. If she were a guy I’d say she suffered from erectile disfunction.

  29. Bill B. says:

    I have never read Mien Kampf (Robert Harris’s Selling Hitler did not suggest lip-smacking prose) but I can’t help feeling that Sarah Jeong’s drivel must be in the same ball park.

    • Replies: @Anon
  30. Ragno says:

    It’s easy to say “I believe Jackie.”

    Call us when she says, “I believe Juanita.”

    Sarah say “Nevah! Nevah evah I say that!!…….who is Juanita?” (You know she neither knows nor, once she’s told who that is, cares.)

    Between Sarah and the Guardian’s Julie Wong, we’re getting a pretty clear and informative picture of the Asian’s torturous climb to success in the White Man’s neon abattoir.

    Wong; “Being an outspoken woman of color is how I got my job. We all know how Twitter works: we love your tweets, wanna write for us?

    Sarah: “I’ve accepted monstrosity as the human condition…..Okay, I’m making shit up now.”

    Imagine if you had to work for a living, dum-dum! Now imagine working for one of your fellow Koreans; Lordy, imagine how “monstrous” the human condition would be then.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
  31. Escher says:

    The more I see these “inconsistencies” and “discrepancies” touted as evidence of falsehood, the more convinced I am that Jackie is not lying.

    Ah, the time honored tactic of using quotes to discredit facts that one doesn’t agree with.
    Officer, I didn’t know that I needed to “pay” for that before walking out of the store.

  32. Escher says:
    @SteveM

    This is the kind of “talent” (couldn’t resist the quotes) that enters Harvard despite the anti Asian admission quotas?

  33. Escher says:
    @John Pepple

    Have you seen the mug shots of the Rotherham perps? I can’t imagine Ms Jeong fantasizing about any of them.

  34. Anon[349] • Disclaimer says:

    Both Jackie and Sarah are batshit crazy, but … you left out an important part of the post: Her roommate’s statement that around the date of the claimed rape, not the date of the Rolling Stone article, Jackie underwent a sudden and extreme personality change.

    This testimony may be fake. The roommate may have the date wrong. The report may be real, but her breakdown may have any number of other causes. But it’s not completely fair to Sarah to chop this part off and make it sound that she believes something happened to Jackie because “uh, I dunno, I just think so!”

  35. Anonymous[230] • Disclaimer says:

    Does anyone here know of a single midwestern or Southern heterosexual man who had a positive experience in a top rated Northeast Law School or MBA program?

    My experience during and after my Stern New York University MBA program was the worst in my life – very nearly destroyed any chance for a successful career or marriage and family life ,

    Stern NYU MBA program was dominateted by bitter women looking to sabetouge any and all White guys like me.

    Imagine having to hang out with the likes of Elena Kagin and Ruth Bader Ginsberg !

    Plus 98% of Stern MBA program was worthless – does anyone ever use a Hewlett-Packard calculator for any real job in the real world?

    JR
    Left Behind in Chicago

  36. “I believe Jackie.”

    That’s impossible. Jeong never heard Jackie say anything. She believes Sabrina Rubin Eddely.

    It’s sad that she doesn’t understand the difference.

  37. Harvard law’s alumni database doesn’t list her as a graduate and Sarah jeong’s never said she graduated, merely attended. “Trained as a lawyer” is the most recent spin.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  38. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill B.

    I have never read Mien Kampf

    Neither have I (if you mean Mein Kampf), but Mr. Unz has made doing so quite easy.

    http://www.unz.com/book/adolf_hitler__mein-kampf/

    On reading passages at random it seems more interesting than I had thought but not so very interesting for all that. Here is a sample passage:

    After the turn of the century, Vienna was, socially speaking, one of the most backward cities in Europe.

    Dazzling riches and loathsome poverty alternated sharply. In the center and in the inner districts you could really feel the pulse of this realm of fifty-two millions, with all the dubious magic of the national melting pot. The Court with its dazzling glamour attracted wealth and intelligence from the rest of the country like a magnet. Added to this was the strong centralization of the Habsburg monarchy in itself.

    Here is a very interesting passage:

    There were few Jews in Linz. In the course of the centuries their outward appearance had become Europeanized and had taken on a human look; in fact, I even took them for Germans. The absurdity of this idea did not dawn on me because I saw no distinguishing feature but the strange religion. The fact that they had, as I believed, been persecuted on this account sometimes almost turned my distaste at unfavorable remarks about them into horror.

    Is there a relationship between fanatical antisemitism and fanatical philosemitism?

    For or[?] me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have ever had to go through.

    I had ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and become an anti-Semite.

    And in the next paragraphs downright weird.

    When over long periods of human history I scrutinized the activity of the Jewish people, suddenly there rose up in me the fearful question whether inscrutable Destiny, perhaps Or reasons unknown to us poor mortals, did not with eternal and immutable resolve, desire the final victory of this little nation.

    Was it possible that the earth had been promised as a reward to this people which lives only for this earth?

    Have we an objective right to struggle for our self-preservation, or is this justified only subjectively within ourselves?

    Jeong, aside from the racist blather, seems to have written mostly bland mainstream “tech” stuff. Here is her blog: https://sarahjeong.net/blog/

    Here is a sample of her prose:
    I

    nformation is lightning-quick. It crosses cities, states, and national borders in the twinkle of an eye. It passes through many kinds of devices, flowing from phone to phone, and computer to computer, rather than being sealed away in those silent marble temples we used to call banks. Information never jangles uncomfortably in your pocket.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Jewish-American anti-Zionist journalist
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored