The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Rolling Stone's Jann Wenner vs. Haven Monahan
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the new book by Joe Hagan, Sticky Fingers, the biography of Jann Wenner, founder of Rolling Stone magazine, on the Sabrina Rubin Erdely / Haven Monahan UVA Night of Broken Glass libel:

In the scramble to publish, Will Dana said he operated under the assumption that Rosen had reviewed the manuscript for libel. She hadn’t, and Dana barely knew the new lawyer, Natalie Krodel. Meanwhile, Dana was evidently unaware of Erdely’s decision to steer clear of the men “Jackie” implicated in a rape, and he never inquired about it. Consequently, Rolling Stone would simply publish her account without contacting them. The practice of shielding a rape victim from undue trauma by her attackers was not unheard of, but Rolling Stone was convinced to forgo due diligence and had no way of knowing if the story was true, other than Jackie’s own words and the advocacy of the reporter. Rolling Stone’s fact-checking department was still a largely female institution as well, which may have further blunted the skepticism of male editors reluctant to cast doubt on a female rape victim.

Okay …

This continues the media party line that the problem with “A Rape on Campus” was not that it was a farrago of fantasy and hate from the get-go, but that there was negligence regarding a technical but subtly important aspect of proper journalistic methodology. Rolling Stone did everything right except they forgot one item on the checklist of proper procedure.

In reality, “A Rape on Campus” was self-evidently absurd with its seven fraternity boys risking very personal parts of themselves to gang rape a coed in the dark for three hours on top of a smashed glass coffee table.

Atop this rickety foundation, Rolling Stone rested a weighty narrative, publishing the name of the fraternity and painting an associate dean of the University of Virginia, Nicole Eramo, as insensitive to rape victims (and, indeed, a federal report later said she had, in certain cases, violated Title IX, the law requiring public institutions to respond to sexual assault claims). Wenner Media’s associate lawyer was convinced the source was credible. Jann Wenner read the story and thought it was great. Indeed, he was so pleased he ordered a follow-up story on the bad reputation of the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. …

All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.

But the story was obviously absurd, so extreme malice toward the victims of the libel (fraternity boys, Southerners, blond gentile students, staffers of Jefferson’s Nazi-like university, etc.) is the only explanation for the extreme negligence of assuming that real world people behave like that.

And it would take dozens of newspaper reports and a police investigation before Wenner finally admitted defeat. When the Columbia report was finished in the spring of 2015, Wenner read it and evinced surprise, as if he had no idea how bad it really was. He had just returned from Sun Valley. “How could you not confront the f—ing guy you’re accusing?” Wenner asked, incredulous. The report painted a grim portrait of baffling negligence. Wenner was ridiculed for continuing to blame “Jackie” rather than his own editorial system.

Jackie Coakley is a sociopathic liar. On the other hand, she’s childish and not terribly bright. In a recorded conversation of the two, Coakley is the dominant personality, glibly telling Erdely whatever she wants to hear. But what Erdely (and, apparently, the entire staff at Rolling Stone, and a large fraction of the admiring press corps that celebrated Erdely’s article for a couple of weeks) wants to hear is driven by hate, and that’s the key to this piece of history.

He was blasted on Twitter and called out by Jon Stewart (cover of Rolling Stone, October 2004 and September 2011) for failing to fire everybody involved. “That kind of hit me in the gut,” said Wenner.

Will Dana had offered to quit, but Wenner wouldn’t hear of it. He was loyal to his staff, but he was also legally prudent. The next month, the former university dean filed a $7.5 million libel lawsuit against Rolling Stone, Wenner Media, and Sabrina Erdely, which was followed by a defamation suit from three Phi Kappa Psi members and later by a lawsuit for $25 million from the fraternity itself. Everything was actionable, and they had to stick together. …

In the spring of 2016, Wenner gave a videotaped testimony in Manhattan for the Nicole Eramo trial. With his shirt rakishly open, he propped his feet on the table and declared that, excepting the botched rape anecdote, he stood by the article “personally, professionally, and on behalf of the magazine.” Wenner seemed determined to isolate Rolling Stone’s bad reporting from the accurate parts of the story that maligned Eramo. Will Dana, he insisted, had overstepped his boundaries in fully retracting the story after the Columbia report (a claim that was untrue according to everybody involved). At one point, Wenner looked directly at the woman who was suing him and said, “I’m very, very sorry. Believe me, I’ve suffered as much as you have.”

It turned out to be a costly line.

The jury awarded UVA staffer Nicole Eramo about $3 million, despite the judge imposing a difficult burden on the plaintiff.

Why did Rolling Stone libel Eramo, the lady in charge of listening to coeds’ complaints of sexual assault? Because that was the only way to make sense out of Coakley’s jumble of lies.

Erdely decided that Eramo had to be a sonderkommando on the side of the White Male Republican Patriarchy to try to make sense out of Jackie Coakley’s nonsensical stories.

In reality, Eramo knew Coakley too well. Eramo repeatedly told her she could talk to the police if she wanted to, but Coakley had enough animal cunning to know that was a bad idea. So she just would hang out in Eramo’s office and tell her lies, like that a fraternity boy had thrown glass beer bottle and hit her in the face on the busiest corner in Charlottesville’s nightlife district.

Erdely totally fell for this additional absurdity, so to make sense out of Eramo’s ho-hum reaction to this Second Night of Broken Glass for her article, she had to make Eramo into this sinister agent of the Anti-Woman Republican Power Structure.

But Jackie thought Dean Eramo was super neat! So a couple of days after Erdely’s article came out, Jackie signed a public letter about how swell Dean Eramo was.

Amusingly, this didn’t induce doubts in the many journalists who were praising Erdely’s story at the time.

Of course, Occam’s Razor would suggest the truth: that Coakley just made up all the Night of Broken Glass incidents and really amped them up when she ran into Erdely, who ate up and tried to rationalize whatever Jackie’s tiny brain ginned up to please Erdely’s prejudices.

We need a term like Cultural Conspiracy Theorizing for the kind of mainstream conventional wisdom displayed by Erdely in libeling Eramo. It’s not necessarily an all-out conspiracy with plotters meeting in parking garages at midnight, but it’s a cultural conspiracy where bureaucrats like Eramo know the White Male Power Structure wants them to silence truthtellers like Jackie.

 
Hide 130 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.

    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    This is what is known as a “counterfactual”. Or as the old Yiddish saying goes, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a trolley car. There’s just one niggling little detail (the truth) standing between you and nobility. But if you just put that aside, it’s noble.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jack D

    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    You know, there was a lady drowning in a lake in middle of winter and I jumped in to save her, and then I saw an orphanage on fire and kids were screaming and I ran into the inferno and saved every kid(and the dog too). And then, a bus collided with a truck and people were trapped inside panic-stricken but I got there and saved everyone of them.

    Okay, it didn't happen, but I would have been eminently heroic if it did.

    , @silviosilver
    @Jack D


    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.
     
    Well said.

    That gives me the excuse to tell an off-topic Jewish joke I recently heard.

    A secular businessman is driving around Tel Aviv looking for a park. He's got an important business deal to finalize, which if he does, he's set for life, so he doesn't want to make a bad impression by walking in late. But all the parking spots are taken. Finally, in a fit of desperation, he prays to God.

    "God, I know I haven't been the best Jew. I know I've never observed kashrut or kept the sabbath holy. But if you just let me find a park before my meeting begins, I promise I'll become devoutly religious!"

    Just as he finishes his prayer, a car miraculously pulls out of a spot not far in front of him. The businessman looks heavenwards and says, "Never mind, I found one."
    , @Logan
    @Jack D

    I'm probably going to walk into a buzzsaw on this one.

    But.

    The infamous "blood libel" story rests on the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about whether any such thing ever occurred.

    So I ask the simple question: Is it utterly beyond the realm of possibility that just once in all those centuries an evil or insane Jewish man or group of men murdered a Christian child in a black magic rite?

    We know from history that children were sacrificed in Black Masses by "Christians." Why is it beyond even the realm of possibility that some Jews did the same? We also know that various types of magic were popular in Jewish communities in medieval and modern times.

    I guest I'm obliged to note that I reject the notion that "Jews" need Christian blood to make Passover matzoh. I'm asking whether it's just possible one or more of the blood libel accusations might have, in essence, been true. God knows Jews as a group were given, over the centuries, plenty of reason to want to revenge themselves on Gentiles.

    Replies: @Logan, @guest, @Jack D

  2. “It turned out to be a costly line.”

    POETIC JUSTICE!

  3. In the spring of 2016, Wenner gave a videotaped testimony in Manhattan for the Nicole Eramo trial. With his shirt rakishly open, he propped his feet on the table

    I wonder how much that body language alone cost him?

    • Replies: @2Mintzin1
    @Cagey Beast

    Correct...the wrong visual for the lines.

    Bet his lawyers cringed when he did that.
    You can't be cock of the walk and a humble, suffering man at the same time.

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Cagey Beast

    Yet another example of the efficacy of Power Posing™ failing to replicate.

  4. Steve, you should review the new Clooney movie based on an old Coen brothers script.

    It is comical, absurd PEAK anti-gentilism. It is proof of the necessity of the word.

  5. At one point, Wenner looked directly at the woman who was suing him and said, “I’m very, very sorry. Believe me, I’ve suffered as much as you have.”

    This is literally the mark of the sociopath.

    • Agree: keuril, syonredux
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    @Jack D

    I once saw a news report on a vicious serial rapist in California who had been a model prisoner, had apparently responded well to psychotherapy, and was attracting a lot of support in his appeal to get parole. He very carefully crafted his narrative to create an impression of remorse and rehabilitation, then at the end of his testimony to the parole board, slipped up blew it when he told the board that he would never do anything like those things again because, "it was the worst thing that ever happened to me".

    , @kihowi
    @Jack D

    Wouldn't it be awful if the world's sociopaths banded together in some sort of a tribe, formed a values system in which shameless lying was the highest virtue and shielded each other from the consequences of their behavior?

    Replies: @guest, @guest

  6. painting an associate dean of the University of Virginia, Nicole Eramo, as insensitive to rape victims (and, indeed, a federal report later said she had, in certain cases, violated Title IX, the law requiring public institutions to respond to sexual assault claims).

    Did she really violate Title IX or did she violate the advice letter that has no force of law? I would assume if she had violated the law the Feds would have dropped on her like a ton of bricks.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @CAL2

    Erdely decided that Eramo had to be a sonderkommando on the side of the White Male Republican Patriarchy to try to make sense out of Jackie Coakley's nonsensical stories. In reality, Eramo knew Coakley too well. Eramo repeatedly told her she could talk to the police if she wanted to, but Coakley had enough animal cunning to know that was a bad idea. So she just would hang out in Eramo's office and tell her lies, like that a fraternity boy had thrown glass beer bottle and hit her in the face on the busiest corner in Charlottesville's nightlife district.

    Erdely totally fell for this additional absurdity, so to make sense out of Eramo's ho-hum reaction to this Second Night of Broken Glass for her article, she had to make Eramo into this sinister agent of the Anti-Woman Republican Power Structure.

    But Jackie thought Dean Eramo was super neat! So a couple of days after Erdely's article came out, Jackie signed a public letter about how swell Dean Eramo was.

    , @Jack D
    @CAL2

    This is just desperate clinging to straws after the ship has already sunk. It reminds me of the Dan Rather / Mary Mapes thing where they seized on the fact that there was in fact 1 typewriter in the '60s that had a superscripted th key, putting aside that the whole forged document was clearly typed in Microsoft Word. Everything - the font, the spacing, the line breaks, was exactly the same as if you had typed it in Word using the default settings.

    Replies: @guest, @EH

  7. @CAL2

    painting an associate dean of the University of Virginia, Nicole Eramo, as insensitive to rape victims (and, indeed, a federal report later said she had, in certain cases, violated Title IX, the law requiring public institutions to respond to sexual assault claims).
     
    Did she really violate Title IX or did she violate the advice letter that has no force of law? I would assume if she had violated the law the Feds would have dropped on her like a ton of bricks.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jack D

    Erdely decided that Eramo had to be a sonderkommando on the side of the White Male Republican Patriarchy to try to make sense out of Jackie Coakley’s nonsensical stories. In reality, Eramo knew Coakley too well. Eramo repeatedly told her she could talk to the police if she wanted to, but Coakley had enough animal cunning to know that was a bad idea. So she just would hang out in Eramo’s office and tell her lies, like that a fraternity boy had thrown glass beer bottle and hit her in the face on the busiest corner in Charlottesville’s nightlife district.

    Erdely totally fell for this additional absurdity, so to make sense out of Eramo’s ho-hum reaction to this Second Night of Broken Glass for her article, she had to make Eramo into this sinister agent of the Anti-Woman Republican Power Structure.

    But Jackie thought Dean Eramo was super neat! So a couple of days after Erdely’s article came out, Jackie signed a public letter about how swell Dean Eramo was.

  8. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.

    Eminently Noble? Not just eminent and not just noble but eminently noble?

    Now, it’s always a good thing to smoke out and expose sexual abuses, but how is it noble? It’s just the right thing to do. Cops go after robbers and rapists everyday, but I don’t recall anyone saying their job is ’eminently noble’.

    Or, if someone busted a gang of black rapists, I highly doubt if anyone would call it ’eminently noble’.

    What the writer really means is that PC rightly sees Straight White Males as ‘white supremacist misogynists’, and therefore, it is NOBLE to hunt them down. It’s Simon Wiesenthal Nazi-Hunting mentality. So, this wasn’t just a criminal issue. It was about bagging the Evil White Male.

    But what the whole fiasco really exposed is the rottenness of Jewish Liberal Ideology that now views White Males the way Jews were scapegoated by Nazis. And same thing happened at Charlottesville. Notwithstanding the fact that UNITE THE RIGHT did attract some unsavory and creepy creatures, the trouble and violence happened because the city subverted the event by denying freedom of speech and by forcing a fight between the rally attenders and antifa thugs.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    @Anon

    “The narrative was properly about race, sex and class.... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place.... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” -Evan Thomas, Newsweek

    Duke made Trump. Stephen Miller was at Duke during the lacrosse rape hoax... that was the first chink in the Narrative armor when internet sleuths undid the narrative: the Durham in Wonderland blog for example

    But white guys all were making mental notes, realizing the Narrative.

    A female feminist friend (super high powered now) who covered Duke Lax as a reporter, when the UVA case was busted, posted about her feelings about it all and how “though again the facts don’t bear out, the reality is...” WTF!!!
    Then when Trump won she posted, “we must subscribe to NYT, the Atlantic, etc. to ensure truth and facts...”
    How can you have a rational discussion with these people? Three huge Narrative collapses and every time a double-down!

    Replies: @gcochran, @jack ryan

    , @ThreeCranes
    @Anon

    "What the writer really means is that PC rightly sees Straight White Males as ‘white supremacist misogynists’, and therefore, it is NOBLE to hunt them down. It’s Simon Wiesenthal Nazi-Hunting mentality. So, this wasn’t just a criminal issue. It was about bagging the Evil White Male."

    This rings so true. Thanks, I've learned something today.

  9. In a recorded conversation of the two, Coakley is the dominant personality, glibly telling Erdely whatever she wants to hear.

    More like dumminant.

    It’s like a master with a dog. Dog runs around and barks but is handled by the master.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Anon

    I'bve heard the recorded conversation between Erdely and Coakley - it's not dominance, what you hear on Erdely's side, and it's not submission on Coakley's side.
    See - Coakley tries to get famous with the help of Erdely. And Coakley appears, as if she could creep into fame - it's all very soft and consensical.

    I think, what the listeners of the recording witness is the wrong use of the therapeutic dicourse. Erdely and Coakley were both on the wrong track for this reason.
    (And I don't think, this is a minor thing - it's a big fault to replace factual investigation (that's what Erdely should have done, as a journalist) with empathy (that's what replaced factual investigation and in the end made the facts less important than the (quite emotional!) experience, which Erdely and Coakley did indeed share). -
    ((It's the same thing that happens, when you allow public discourse among grown ups to be predominantly about the emotions it causes - cf. the trigger warning stuff, the insistenzy, with which the "are you black, do you know how it feels to be black?" question is allowed to erect taboos about factual arguments etc.

    Replies: @Jack D

  10. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.
     
    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    This is what is known as a "counterfactual". Or as the old Yiddish saying goes, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a trolley car. There's just one niggling little detail (the truth) standing between you and nobility. But if you just put that aside, it's noble.

    Replies: @Anon, @silviosilver, @Logan

    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    You know, there was a lady drowning in a lake in middle of winter and I jumped in to save her, and then I saw an orphanage on fire and kids were screaming and I ran into the inferno and saved every kid(and the dog too). And then, a bus collided with a truck and people were trapped inside panic-stricken but I got there and saved everyone of them.

    Okay, it didn’t happen, but I would have been eminently heroic if it did.

  11. Well, well, Andrew is another one of those folks who deserve the MacArthur genius prize. And of course gold medal in rape.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    I got the author of the "Sticky Fingers" Wenner biography wrong. It's Joe Hagan.

    Andrew Campbell is somebody else who wrote a different book with the same name.

    I've corrected this in my post now.

    Replies: @Anon

  12. Hunt for Big Foot was more fun.

  13. @CAL2

    painting an associate dean of the University of Virginia, Nicole Eramo, as insensitive to rape victims (and, indeed, a federal report later said she had, in certain cases, violated Title IX, the law requiring public institutions to respond to sexual assault claims).
     
    Did she really violate Title IX or did she violate the advice letter that has no force of law? I would assume if she had violated the law the Feds would have dropped on her like a ton of bricks.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jack D

    This is just desperate clinging to straws after the ship has already sunk. It reminds me of the Dan Rather / Mary Mapes thing where they seized on the fact that there was in fact 1 typewriter in the ’60s that had a superscripted th key, putting aside that the whole forged document was clearly typed in Microsoft Word. Everything – the font, the spacing, the line breaks, was exactly the same as if you had typed it in Word using the default settings.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Jack D

    That was the pretext for coining the excellent phrase "fake but accurate," isn't it? At least it wasn't a total loss.

    They had the audacity to call the movie based on Mapes' memoir (or whatever) "Truth."

    , @EH
    @Jack D

    I've got a copy of the Magna Carta typed in Word, so obviously the whole story of King John and the barons is fake news.

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story and none that discredited it. I suspect the original was retyped in Word then leaked by Karl Rove to discredit the evidence he knew would come come out. Keep that trick in mind if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Art Deco, @Jack D

  14. @Anon
    https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Campbell/e/B073YR42RK/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

    Well, well, Andrew is another one of those folks who deserve the MacArthur genius prize. And of course gold medal in rape.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I got the author of the “Sticky Fingers” Wenner biography wrong. It’s Joe Hagan.

    Andrew Campbell is somebody else who wrote a different book with the same name.

    I’ve corrected this in my post now.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    I got the author of the “Sticky Fingers” Wenner biography wrong. It’s Joe Hagan.

    No no, that goes against the spirit of this subject. We must INSIST that Andrew Campbell done it. He wrote the book sitting on broken glass with the mafia holding a gun at his head.

    Don't backtrack now. He done it, at least in part, because the rest was ghost-written by Haven.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

  15. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I wonder how this story would have ended up if not for the internet.

    But then, prior to the internet, was journalism so irresponsible?

    Well, I guess, judging by Yellow Press, HIS GIRL FRIDAY, and MEET JOHN DOE.

    But I don’t recall a reputable magazine publishing something THAT outlandish since the 70s… but maybe I’m wrong.

    There was the Pulitzer prize that went to some black lady who wrote about some kid on drugs, but that sounded somewhat plausible.

    But the UVA story is just too far out.

    Maybe the internet both made and unmade the UVA nuttery. Because of the internet and the pressure felt by old media, the latter felt the urgent need to come up with more gripping or flashy stories and be relevant in the limelight of the zeitgeist. Prior to the internet, magazines like Rolling Stone could take their place for granted. With the explosion of so many Buzzfeed-like zines on the net, Rolling Stone is irrelevant. So, it may have felt the pressure to publish something BIG, and it worked like magic, with RS being showered with accolades from all over.
    But then, it was the internet that first planted the seeds of doubt by ferreting out all the discrepancies in the story.

    But this mindset is alive and well. As nutty as the UVA story, the Russia Hacking nuttery has exposed the entire media as a cesspool of bias, lies, and ethno-monopoly paranoia.

  16. Why wasn’t Jon Stewart driven by hate?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Dave Pinsen

    Why wasn’t Jon Stewart driven by hate?

    He was. I'm sure he welcomed the story at first and was high-fiving everyone.

    But when he learned that RS made a fool of him and his ilk, he got pissed.

    Stewart surely would have loved it if the story had been eminently nobly true.

    This 'eminently noble' deserves to be PC meme.

    , @guest
    @Dave Pinsen

    Stewart has both ethnic and comedic immunity.

    I find it funny, the way the excerpt phrases that paragraph. As if Stewart coming after him was what brought it all home. Though I suspect his quote in context was about the backlash as a whole.

    Imagine your magazine has embarrassed itself on a national scale, and what really gets to you is, I don't know, Soupy Sales comes out against you. Ow, my gut.

  17. What a great movie this true story would make. But who’s gonna’ make that movie?

    Vox Day is right about this, if nothing else: the dissident right must build its own platforms.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Vinteuil

    Vox Day is right about this, if nothing else: the dissident right must build its own platforms.


    Eminently Noble If True. ENIT.

    That just kills me.

    , @Anonymous
    @Vinteuil

    Even if, by some miracle, the MSM decided to dramatize a story of a false rape accusation, they'd make sure the falsely-accused was a POC and the accuser was a battered woman put up to it by her neo-nazi boyfriend. Actually, they've almost done this already, by changing facts as necessary.

  18. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    I got the author of the "Sticky Fingers" Wenner biography wrong. It's Joe Hagan.

    Andrew Campbell is somebody else who wrote a different book with the same name.

    I've corrected this in my post now.

    Replies: @Anon

    I got the author of the “Sticky Fingers” Wenner biography wrong. It’s Joe Hagan.

    No no, that goes against the spirit of this subject. We must INSIST that Andrew Campbell done it. He wrote the book sitting on broken glass with the mafia holding a gun at his head.

    Don’t backtrack now. He done it, at least in part, because the rest was ghost-written by Haven.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Anon

    Haven was dropped by UVA. Couldn't run a 4.4 40, couldn't make weight for safety. Twin 700s on the SAT are nice, but not enough. Maybe you should look at Wyoming.

  19. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Why wasn't Jon Stewart driven by hate?

    Replies: @Anon, @guest

    Why wasn’t Jon Stewart driven by hate?

    He was. I’m sure he welcomed the story at first and was high-fiving everyone.

    But when he learned that RS made a fool of him and his ilk, he got pissed.

    Stewart surely would have loved it if the story had been eminently nobly true.

    This ’eminently noble’ deserves to be PC meme.

  20. Now I’m not saying that the concept of “rape” as taught by the tv is fictional (good heavens no), but if out of principle you disbelieve every rape story you hear, you’ll end up surprised a lot less than everybody else.

    The thing is, if an experience is really as traumatizing and humiliating as that, you won’t want to talk about. That’s why no ex jailbirds were ever raped. This is as fundamentally human as it gets. Any story that you tell to anybody who wants to listen is an experience you’re very comfortable with.

  21. @Jack D

    At one point, Wenner looked directly at the woman who was suing him and said, “I’m very, very sorry. Believe me, I’ve suffered as much as you have.”
     
    This is literally the mark of the sociopath.

    Replies: @Alfa158, @kihowi

    I once saw a news report on a vicious serial rapist in California who had been a model prisoner, had apparently responded well to psychotherapy, and was attracting a lot of support in his appeal to get parole. He very carefully crafted his narrative to create an impression of remorse and rehabilitation, then at the end of his testimony to the parole board, slipped up blew it when he told the board that he would never do anything like those things again because, “it was the worst thing that ever happened to me”.

  22. @Vinteuil
    What a great movie this true story would make. But who's gonna' make that movie?

    Vox Day is right about this, if nothing else: the dissident right must build its own platforms.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    Vox Day is right about this, if nothing else: the dissident right must build its own platforms.

    Eminently Noble If True. ENIT.

    That just kills me.

  23. Erdely not only failed to question the alleged rapist she also failed to interview any of Jackie’s friends who supposedly advised her against going to the police or reporting the sexual assault…Erdely and Jackie portrayed the friends as callous , caring more about their social life than Jackie. Why didn’t the friends sue Rolling Stone ? The Friends of supposed UVA rape victim were smeared by discredited story. None of them was ever contacted by Erdley to confirm the story Jackie told.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Travis


    "Why didn’t the friends sue Rolling Stone? The Friends of supposed UVA rape victim were smeared by [the] discredited story."
     
    That's true, but to succeed at a defamation suit, you have to prove harm. How do Jackie's friends prove harm? Unreturned dinner invitations? Unfriended on Facebook? Even if you have these things, and you're not embarrassed to make a public complaint about them, you have to ask for a value. What is the value? Less than the cost of a lawsuit.
  24. Most likely the people at Rolling Stone thought the broken glass table thing was an exaggeration, but that it was true that she had been raped.

    The problem was that there were way too many people involved who had limited knowledge of real life sex crime and women with personality disorders. The fact that the ‘victim’ was an undergraduate at a high-level university and that her particular case had been referenced in congressional hearings probably further lowered normal credibility firewalls.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Romans used to say "false in one thing, false in everything". If you are willing to lie about such a major detail, where is the firewall that keeps you from telling more lies, indeed inventing the whole story? If I told you that I had just witnessed a bank robbery and afterwards the robbers escaped on a flying carpet, would you believe the bank robbery part of my story?

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @Polynikes
    @Jonathan Mason

    I think you give the people at RS too much credit. If they thought such a major detail was wrong they never should've green light the article.

    , @Barnard
    @Jonathan Mason

    There is no indication Erdely questioned any of Jackie Coakley's story. If I remember correctly, her description of the party and how she was lead upstairs was impossible simply based on the floorplan of the frat house, but she didn't even bother to verify that.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  25. Question about the World Series: does it rain much this time of year? I thought the monsoon was in February.
    Or is it a Ocean thing, like the Marine layer?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Hodag

    It rained a little this morning the San Fernando Valley. It's cloudy, dampish (76% humidity), 64 F, with 15% chance of rain. A Game 7 would see similar conditions. Much cooler and moister than Games 1 and 2, although that hasn't stopped George Springer from hitting another homer tonight.

    Generally, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher's park in part due to marine layer moisture during night games. It's 15 miles from the ocean, but a sunny day causes air near the ground to get heated up and rise, which pulls in cooler moist air off the ocean. (That's why June is so cloudy in L.A.)

    Replies: @Neoconned

  26. @Jack D

    At one point, Wenner looked directly at the woman who was suing him and said, “I’m very, very sorry. Believe me, I’ve suffered as much as you have.”
     
    This is literally the mark of the sociopath.

    Replies: @Alfa158, @kihowi

    Wouldn’t it be awful if the world’s sociopaths banded together in some sort of a tribe, formed a values system in which shameless lying was the highest virtue and shielded each other from the consequences of their behavior?

    • Replies: @guest
    @kihowi

    Not really, because they'd be crap at cooperation and therefore weak.

    , @guest
    @kihowi

    Not really, because they'd be crap at cooperation and therefore weak.

  27. The Piltdown Man was a piece of eminently noble archeology.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @kihowi

    Very good.

  28. Sonderkommando“…nouns in the German are always capitalized. I’m surprised Erdely didn’t refer to UVA fraternities as Einsatzgruppen right from the get-go, she wasn’t coy about NS associations when she described the blonde men who bestrode campus.

    • Replies: @Wally
    @HunInTheSun

    said:
    " “Sonderkommando“…nouns in the German are always capitalized. I’m surprised Erdely didn’t refer to UVA fraternities as Einsatzgruppen right from the get-go, she wasn’t coy about NS associations when she described the blonde men who bestrode campus."

    I made a completely on topic reply to this post about the use of those words, but Sailor censored it.

    I guess he doesn't want thoughts which upset his received worldview.

    Staggering hypocrisy, we can have only so much free speech.

    Or was it 'the server'.

  29. @Hodag
    Question about the World Series: does it rain much this time of year? I thought the monsoon was in February.
    Or is it a Ocean thing, like the Marine layer?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    It rained a little this morning the San Fernando Valley. It’s cloudy, dampish (76% humidity), 64 F, with 15% chance of rain. A Game 7 would see similar conditions. Much cooler and moister than Games 1 and 2, although that hasn’t stopped George Springer from hitting another homer tonight.

    Generally, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher’s park in part due to marine layer moisture during night games. It’s 15 miles from the ocean, but a sunny day causes air near the ground to get heated up and rise, which pulls in cooler moist air off the ocean. (That’s why June is so cloudy in L.A.)

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    @Steve Sailer

    I'm always in LA in June and July.

    I never understood that in downtown near LA Live there's clouds but like this haze. Then it's there ALL MORNING but clears out by noonish.

    Then it's clear as a bell all day and clear at night....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  30. @Jonathan Mason
    Most likely the people at Rolling Stone thought the broken glass table thing was an exaggeration, but that it was true that she had been raped.

    The problem was that there were way too many people involved who had limited knowledge of real life sex crime and women with personality disorders. The fact that the 'victim' was an undergraduate at a high-level university and that her particular case had been referenced in congressional hearings probably further lowered normal credibility firewalls.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Polynikes, @Barnard

    The Romans used to say “false in one thing, false in everything”. If you are willing to lie about such a major detail, where is the firewall that keeps you from telling more lies, indeed inventing the whole story? If I told you that I had just witnessed a bank robbery and afterwards the robbers escaped on a flying carpet, would you believe the bank robbery part of my story?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Jack D


    If you are willing to lie about such a major detail, where is the firewall that keeps you from telling more lies, indeed inventing the whole story?
     
    The whole key to a believable lie is that most of the story is true. Isn't that the way most people usually lie, making little embellishment here and there, rather than concocting wholesale fictions from start to finish? The latter happen, but the former are more common.
  31. Was reading headlines of 2 South Dakota football players charged with rape, thinking maybe the perps were white, being that it was SD, but wasn’t surprised to find out otherwise. http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2017/10/30/two-university-south-dakota-football-players-arrested-rape-charges/816004001/

    A 3rd player was having sex with the girl and the two accused reentered the room later to participate. The 3rd player seemed fine with this. Who does that? These guys are animals.

    • Replies: @carol
    @Ron Mexico

    I think jon Krakauer chose Missoula for his rape book because the perps were safely white. Though we have our share of third rate thugs on the UM team.

  32. @Cagey Beast
    In the spring of 2016, Wenner gave a videotaped testimony in Manhattan for the Nicole Eramo trial. With his shirt rakishly open, he propped his feet on the table ...

    I wonder how much that body language alone cost him?

    Replies: @2Mintzin1, @Buzz Mohawk

    Correct…the wrong visual for the lines.

    Bet his lawyers cringed when he did that.
    You can’t be cock of the walk and a humble, suffering man at the same time.

  33. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    then at the end of his testimony to the parole board, slipped up blew it when he told the board that he would never do anything like those things again because, “it was the worst thing that ever happened to me”.

    Yep, sociopaths. I hear that journalism attracts sociopaths. They don’t murder people. They just want to murder reputations. Now, that isn’t a bad thing because politicians, celebrities, and powerful people need to be pressured now and then. Also, most people have no voice, and so, journalists can make them heard. Though sociopathic journalists are driven by the need to stalk and hunt and carry home trophies, they can do society some good. (The problem is the media sometimes confuse powerful individuals with the notion of powerful people. If ‘white people’ are deemed powerful, then even the powerless among white people become targets of journalism. After all, if an entire population is designated as ‘powerful and privileged’, then even ordinary college frat boys, who got no power, are seen as the Nazis. This is all the more perverse because truly powerful whites shore up their own ‘progressive’ credentials by going after powerless whites, like college fraternity or white working class. If all whites are deemed ‘powerful’, then even catching small fish can seem like big fish… while the real big fish, like Jann Wenner, flatter themselves that they minnows that they bagged are the Great White Shark.)

    But, if some journalists wanna bring down or ‘murder’ powerful people, some just wanna murder the truth. They see it as some kind of con-game. I think Erdely got her high not only by defaming fantasy nazi-frats at UVA but by fooling everyone at RS. So, while there is clearly the ethnic angle, there is also the personal angle.
    It’s like Stephen Glass at The New Republic got off on spinning lies and fooling the very people who trusted and admired him. It was like a drug to him. It was like being a hustler. It’s like Johnny Boy in MEAN STREETS just loves fooling and ripping off everyone, like he’s above the law. And a kind of personal nihilism animated Erderly. In this end, tribalism was secondary to her egotism. I mean, if she wanted a story about bad white guys, it wouldn’t have been difficult. After all, every college has some bad white guys who do terrible things. She could have a made an issue out of one of those. The usual drunken white fratboy story. But she had to go for something spectacular. Something so crazy that it must be true. So crazy that no one would dare make it up. That was the ‘genius’ of her story. It was so outlandish that Wenner and others thought, ‘no one would dare make up something this outrageous’. She fooled them all.

    SHATTERED GLASS should be required viewing for anyone in our age of so many fake news, from both establishment and alternative media.
    As good as SHATTERED GLASS, it’s a straightforward and rather obvious telling of who Glass was and why he ended up the way he did. It doesn’t really get under his skin though. We mostly see the externals.

    A far trickier and suggestive movie about a sociopath is THE INFORMANT that worms and weasels into our brains until the ‘hero’ and we are on the same wavelength. Even as we begin to notice his nuttery, his voice is inside our heads, constantly whispering and murmuring about angles, implications, and possibilities. There’s a lot of trivia but some fit right into newly invented tales.
    As good as MICHAEL CLAYTON, the narrative is pretty obvious. It’s about the hunt for the big whale. Corporate Evil. At the end, we know Clayton bagged a lion.
    In contrast, THE INFORMANT is like catching a mouse, and it shows how close tragedy and comedy and normality and insanity can be. All the more ironic since it was based on work by Kurt Eichenwald, a nutter himself who made it to elite positions in journalism.
    The odd thing about the Damon character is now both spontaneous and predictable his mind is. It’s ingenious in coming up with new complications and implications, but once you become accustomed to his way of thinking — as the FBI guys eventually come around to doing –, a certain pattern emerges like in a chess game.

    Maybe THE INFORMANT offers a clue as to why people like these think and act they way they do. They have multi-level modes of thinking. Matt Damon character is never thinking of one thing at once. He’s always thinking of things related to that thing and then things related to those things. And some of these references are factual, some of them are fantasy, like referencing Tom Cruise movies, esp THE FIRM. It’s like he’s trying not only to outsmart others but to outsmart himself.

    His mind is scrabble-like. He’s always looking for new narratives to add to the existing narrative and then forming another narrative on the new narrative and etc. And it’s like he can’t help himself. It’s just part of his nature. He finally confesses at the end because he is a cornered mouse and can’t weasel out of these lies anymore.

    But then, even in jail, his mindset remains intact, and he’s really a sick person.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @Anon

    Your comment,

    "Though sociopathic journalists are driven by the need to stalk and hunt and carry home trophies, they can do society some good. (The problem is the media sometimes confuse powerful individuals with the notion of powerful people. If ‘white people’ are deemed powerful, then even the powerless among white people become targets of journalism." etc etc

    like anon's above comparing what's going on to hunting trophies is, I believe, right on target. And again I'll say (with Steve's forbearance) Thanks, I've learned a new way of looking at things from reading this today.

    Thorstein Veblen spoke about coup counting and taking trophies as important markers or indicators of wealth and power in capitalist economies. It would seem that while for an engineer, building a machine or bridge counts as a trophy; for a journalist, some poor b*stard's scalp.

    Replies: @Logan

    , @Antlitz Grollheim
    @Anon

    I've had several opportunities to witness journalists in action, and you are dead on. The way they insinuate friendly interest in order to manipulate and destroy their targets is a sick spectacle.

    Great movie recommendations too, thanks.

  34. Somebody should make a “Liars and Truthtellers” problem about Rolling Stone’s Night of Broken Glass.

  35. @Jonathan Mason
    Most likely the people at Rolling Stone thought the broken glass table thing was an exaggeration, but that it was true that she had been raped.

    The problem was that there were way too many people involved who had limited knowledge of real life sex crime and women with personality disorders. The fact that the 'victim' was an undergraduate at a high-level university and that her particular case had been referenced in congressional hearings probably further lowered normal credibility firewalls.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Polynikes, @Barnard

    I think you give the people at RS too much credit. If they thought such a major detail was wrong they never should’ve green light the article.

  36. If I remember correctly, Jenn Wenner was one of the guys Obama hosted in the White House to discuss how to fight “fake news.” It kinda makes you wonder whether or not “fake news” really means “stuff that makes Hillary and the Democrats look bad.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @JohnnyD

    Right, Obama had Wenner into the Oval Office for a valedictory interview the day after the 2016 election, a week or two after Wenner had lost Eramo's libel case by being a jerk in his taped deposition.

    Replies: @anon

  37. If I told you that I had just witnessed a bank robbery and afterwards the robbers escaped on a flying carpet, would you believe the bank robbery part of my story?

    If the money was missing, I would believe in the robbery, but I would suspect you of complicity or insanity.

    But the point I was making is that people just don’t know what to believe when they are operating outside their area of personal knowledge or experience.

    Personally, as someone who has in the past worked with both convicted sex offenders and young women with personality disorders, plus having a natural tendency to question the veracity of anything I read, I was not buying it, but then these people were just trying to sell a magazine by writing stories of interest to the general public, not publishing peer group reviewed studies on sex offending or preparing forensic evidence to put before a trial jury.

    Fake news based on one unreliable witness, and they were soon found out, whereas the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction crew got their equally unbelievable story believed by the whole of Capitol Hill.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Jonathan Mason


    But the point I was making is that people just don’t know what to believe when they are operating outside their area of personal knowledge or experience.
     
    In other words, when they're talking about those inscrutable goyim they have heard about but never met.
  38. BTW, I looked in the book to see if there was more on the U Va incident than what Steve had quoted and there isn’t, so if you want to learn more about that story don’t bother buying the book. Soon after the Eramo story, the book shifts to talking about Wenner divorcing his wife of 40 years and marrying a man and Eramo is never mentioned again.

  39. @Jonathan Mason
    Most likely the people at Rolling Stone thought the broken glass table thing was an exaggeration, but that it was true that she had been raped.

    The problem was that there were way too many people involved who had limited knowledge of real life sex crime and women with personality disorders. The fact that the 'victim' was an undergraduate at a high-level university and that her particular case had been referenced in congressional hearings probably further lowered normal credibility firewalls.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Polynikes, @Barnard

    There is no indication Erdely questioned any of Jackie Coakley’s story. If I remember correctly, her description of the party and how she was lead upstairs was impossible simply based on the floorplan of the frat house, but she didn’t even bother to verify that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Barnard

    You are correct: among other things, the house didn't even have the 'second stairway' by which Jackie claims to have escaped. One detail among many, of course.

    RS editors knew what they were doing. Even after the story was unravelling, they were adamant: Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone piece, told the Washington Post, "We did not talk to them. We could not reach them." However, he says they "verified their existence" by talking to Jackie's friends. "I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

    One Thing Leads to Another Dept:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nprs-top-editor-accused-of-sexual-harassment-by-two-women/2017/10/31/a2078bea-bdf7-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html

    Yet another serial sexual harasser from the MSM 'mold'...

  40. On a related note, the climate site Watt’s Up With That has published an interesting analysis (LINK) of another pernicious lefty/MSM media tactic that WUWT’s writer labels a ‘Flooding Fake’:

    This is what it looks like:

    1. An important figure or organization on the Left is caught doing something wrong, saying something outrageous, or blatantly lying.

    2. The Left injects into public discourse an absolutely fake, but believable, account of this action and immediately “debunks” this account.

    3. The fake narrative is accepted by the public as truth because the public knows that something similar has happened. The immediate debunking is rejected as a cover-up attempt.

    4. Later, when people accuse the original wrongdoer they use elements of the fake narrative. This is when “fact checkers” jump on them. Fake news networks accuse honest statesmen and commentators of spreading fake news. The liberals’ conviction that the conservatives are stupid and uninformed gets deeper. Google buries honest pieces far from public sight. Facebook tries to prevent their sharing. Leftist politicians cry that they lost elections because of fake news.

    The article then goes on to demonstrate how this tactic was used to ‘debunk’ the incontrovertible fact that the MSM in the mid-1970s was publishing lots of articles on global cooling. Time magazine floated a ‘fake’ of one their own covers from the 70s, then enlisted Snopes to ‘debunk’ it, and now Google picks this up and features it as one of the top hits people searching for media coverage of climate in the 1970s will see.

    It will be interesting to see if just this sort of retro-fitted narrative of the UVA incident ’emerges’.

    • Replies: @whoever
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    this tactic was used to ‘debunk’ the incontrovertible fact that the MSM in the mid-1970s was publishing lots of articles on global cooling.
     
    Here's a list of global cooling articles from the 1970s. Some of the links are dead now, unfortunately.

    Incidentally, the Time cover article featured in the above link is about that year's hard winter:

    "From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down the Eastern seaboard to shivering Florida, the winter of 1976-77 is already one of the coldest since the U.S. began keeping weather statistics—and the worst may be yet to come. If February roars like January, this winter could be the coldest ever recorded for much of the U.S.—the great winter that millions of Americans will be telling their grandchildren about decades from now."

    Replies: @whoever

    , @guest
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Making up myths/rumors/whatever so you can debunk them--which can be called Strawman Debunking--goes far beyond politics. It's a basic tool of the journalistic trade.

    Variations on "10 Lies So-and-So Is Telling You," "What You Didn't Know About [blank]," "The Hidden History of [blank]," etc. attract eyes. It's easier to just make up the things people think they know.

  41. The University of Missouri kids story (“rednecks followed me around one of the busiest parts of campus on a Friday night before game day calling me n-word”) is also ridiculous, but’s it’s basically destroyed the university.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Paul Rise

    The lunatic left power structure in Columbia was working hard to make the campus a no-go zone several years earlier. They charged a kid with a hate crime on the implied theory that the State of Missouri was a black person. Yes, the crime the prosecution charged required the prosecution to prove that the State of Missouri is a black person.

  42. One of the most delicious aspects of Harveywood and its sister scandals in the press, academia, politics and business is how the chickens have come home to roost for the people who drove the fantasy about a culture of rape. Not only is their hypocrisy and corruption being exposed, but they will also get to suffer from the concepts of immediately believing the victim and the necessity of crushing the perp without benefit of trial. Rarely do our betters ever have to suffer the consequences of their agenda along with the plebs.

    • Replies: @anon
    @TheBoom

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn't happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    2. I understand why everyone was anxious to publicly condemn rape. Why not? Even the UVA fraternities were condemning it. Too bad they didn't organize a Haven Monahan lynch mob. But the easy virtue signaling of condemning rape is a reflex while the thankless reminder of avoiding a rush to judgment.

    3. I have to wonder if there isn't a little more skepticism these days. There were maybe 50 readers of secondary reports (for every reader of the original) of the article by reputable publications followed by the reaction on campus -- which was a universal, blanket condemnation of rape. On campus, this was an opportunity to push various agendas regarding frats, drinking, etc. The credibility of the initial story was enhanced by the story of how the rape is causing people to raise questions on campus, to the extent that it became disruptive. The New York Times can't directly print unsupported salacious gossip, but can and does immediately report that 'Publication X reported xxxxx'.

    4. And within hours if not the week, groups on campus were tripping over themselves to take some action ... any action .... that could be considered anti-rape. At this point, those people could claim that even if it didn't happen, it "could" have happened and therefore these rules/programs and 'The Discussion" are good, independently of the specifics. Which are simply details.

    5. T Rees Shapiro from the Washington Post was on it after the story started leaking oil. A little late, but once they smelled blood in the water, they did a thorough job. It's only down the road and Shapiro brought along a few Junior writers or interns and loved every minute of exposing a competitor, Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone flanked the Post and establishment media from the left on the 2008 Financial Crisis -- and had a rather easy time of it given the laxity of RS's journalistic standards.

    The core of it was that it was that there was virtually no pushback on it from UVa. No one looks good here except:

    From Wikipedia


    Questions emerge[edit]
    Richard Bradley, editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, was the first mainstream journalist[17] to question the Rolling Stone article, in a blog entry written on November 24, 2014.[18] The entry began drawing national media attention in the days after paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer made an entry on his own blog at the Unz Review on November 29 in which he discussed and linked to Bradley's piece.[19]
     
    Story, Nov 19
    Bradley, Blog Nov 24
    Sailor, Unz Nov 29
    T Rees Shapiro, Washington Post Dec 5

    U Va had already put the wheels in motion and didn't catch up to the hoax angle for quite a while.

    Steve/Unz have a pretty large readership. Bradley? Not so much, but he did take immediate flack from Jezebel, giving his blog post much more exposure.

    The Washington Post published their usual, "me too, against rape" columns prior to taking their rightful place as the biggest paper close by to run down details. So, they weren't breaking a story so much as running down details.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Anon

    , @Anon
    @TheBoom

    All these people are proggy and hate the Alt Right, but it's as if they've caught the spirit or the bug of the Alt Right in finally stepping forth to challenge the Power.

    , @Forbes
    @TheBoom


    the chickens have come home to roost for the people who drove the fantasy about a culture of rape. ... but they will also get to suffer from the concepts of immediately believing the victim and the necessity of crushing the perp without benefit of trial.
     
    Isn't this "To Kill a Mockingbird" coming full circle where a female alleged victim fabricated a story about being raped by an innocent (black) boy? In an attempt to tell a story exposing racial intolerance, we learn that women fabricate stories of rape.
  43. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @TheBoom
    One of the most delicious aspects of Harveywood and its sister scandals in the press, academia, politics and business is how the chickens have come home to roost for the people who drove the fantasy about a culture of rape. Not only is their hypocrisy and corruption being exposed, but they will also get to suffer from the concepts of immediately believing the victim and the necessity of crushing the perp without benefit of trial. Rarely do our betters ever have to suffer the consequences of their agenda along with the plebs.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon, @Forbes

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn’t happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    2. I understand why everyone was anxious to publicly condemn rape. Why not? Even the UVA fraternities were condemning it. Too bad they didn’t organize a Haven Monahan lynch mob. But the easy virtue signaling of condemning rape is a reflex while the thankless reminder of avoiding a rush to judgment.

    3. I have to wonder if there isn’t a little more skepticism these days. There were maybe 50 readers of secondary reports (for every reader of the original) of the article by reputable publications followed by the reaction on campus — which was a universal, blanket condemnation of rape. On campus, this was an opportunity to push various agendas regarding frats, drinking, etc. The credibility of the initial story was enhanced by the story of how the rape is causing people to raise questions on campus, to the extent that it became disruptive. The New York Times can’t directly print unsupported salacious gossip, but can and does immediately report that ‘Publication X reported xxxxx’.

    4. And within hours if not the week, groups on campus were tripping over themselves to take some action … any action …. that could be considered anti-rape. At this point, those people could claim that even if it didn’t happen, it “could” have happened and therefore these rules/programs and ‘The Discussion” are good, independently of the specifics. Which are simply details.

    5. T Rees Shapiro from the Washington Post was on it after the story started leaking oil. A little late, but once they smelled blood in the water, they did a thorough job. It’s only down the road and Shapiro brought along a few Junior writers or interns and loved every minute of exposing a competitor, Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone flanked the Post and establishment media from the left on the 2008 Financial Crisis — and had a rather easy time of it given the laxity of RS’s journalistic standards.

    The core of it was that it was that there was virtually no pushback on it from UVa. No one looks good here except:

    From Wikipedia

    Questions emerge[edit]
    Richard Bradley, editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, was the first mainstream journalist[17] to question the Rolling Stone article, in a blog entry written on November 24, 2014.[18] The entry began drawing national media attention in the days after paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer made an entry on his own blog at the Unz Review on November 29 in which he discussed and linked to Bradley’s piece.[19]

    Story, Nov 19
    Bradley, Blog Nov 24
    Sailor, Unz Nov 29
    T Rees Shapiro, Washington Post Dec 5

    U Va had already put the wheels in motion and didn’t catch up to the hoax angle for quite a while.

    Steve/Unz have a pretty large readership. Bradley? Not so much, but he did take immediate flack from Jezebel, giving his blog post much more exposure.

    The Washington Post published their usual, “me too, against rape” columns prior to taking their rightful place as the biggest paper close by to run down details. So, they weren’t breaking a story so much as running down details.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @anon

    UVA is very well thought of in the DC area, even by the progs; they all want their kids to go there. WaPo would not have wasted a thimble full of (digital) ink had the story been at Virginia Tech.

    , @Anon
    @anon

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn’t happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    Other thing. RS is a magazine that promotes little else but degeneracy, Rap thuggery, and whore culture.

    It's sickening how these peddlers of chaos and madness feign concern for poor victims of boorish behavior.

    Replies: @Forbes

  44. OT:
    Yet another prominent Jewish gentleman is being punished simply for exploring his sexuality. Are straight Jewish men the new Jews?

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/31/npr-chief-editor-suspended-over-harassment-allegations/

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Cagey Beast


    after being accused of forcibly kissing two women in the 1990s
     
    That's literally unnatural! Does anyone still do such things?

    Replies: @Forbes

  45. @JohnnyD
    If I remember correctly, Jenn Wenner was one of the guys Obama hosted in the White House to discuss how to fight "fake news." It kinda makes you wonder whether or not "fake news" really means "stuff that makes Hillary and the Democrats look bad."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Right, Obama had Wenner into the Oval Office for a valedictory interview the day after the 2016 election, a week or two after Wenner had lost Eramo’s libel case by being a jerk in his taped deposition.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Steve Sailer

    Video clips of Wenner deposition

    Hagan, imo, takes quite of few poetic-license liberties in his characterization of that deposition. Seemed pretty pedestrian--the apology itself is at the 5:30 mark. Whatever Jann Wenner's political leanings, he doesn't come across wholly unlikable to me in these snippets. Where exactly is the cocksure arrogance?

    Ironically, Hagan is essentially practicing a softer form of the embellishment/caricature-creation that Sabrina Rubin Erdely did. Maybe that's just part of the gig. I could see Michael Lewis doing the same. Gotta make your stuff interesting, I guess.

  46. Erdely totally fell for this additional absurdity, so to make sense out of Eramo’s ho-hum reaction to this Second Night of Broken Glass for her article, she had to make Eramo into this sinister agent of the Anti-Woman Republican Power Structure.

    Who knows whether she fell for it or not? That isn’t the point of these charades. Coakley’s BS story represented an opportunity to smack down some white boys. Eramo passed it up, which is her real sin. Sabrina Rubin Erdely would have made some white boys pay, truth be damned.

    It’s very Stalinist. If you were in the Cheka in the 1930s and you had some juicy accusation fall into your lap, you’d use it. If you didn’t, you’d be the next one headed to the gulag.

    The entire reason for this stuff is to wreck your enemies’ lives. It’s hard for most Americans to wrap their heads around it, but that’s the game, and in certain sectors it’s already been normalized.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Bill P

    Rahm Emanuel said "never let a crisis go to waste". The Weinstein scandal is now being used as a pretext to purge as many white men as possible from all institutions. Anyone who ever looked down a secretary's blouse can now be purged as a "wrecker".

    Replies: @Logan

  47. @TheBoom
    One of the most delicious aspects of Harveywood and its sister scandals in the press, academia, politics and business is how the chickens have come home to roost for the people who drove the fantasy about a culture of rape. Not only is their hypocrisy and corruption being exposed, but they will also get to suffer from the concepts of immediately believing the victim and the necessity of crushing the perp without benefit of trial. Rarely do our betters ever have to suffer the consequences of their agenda along with the plebs.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon, @Forbes

    All these people are proggy and hate the Alt Right, but it’s as if they’ve caught the spirit or the bug of the Alt Right in finally stepping forth to challenge the Power.

  48. @Cagey Beast
    In the spring of 2016, Wenner gave a videotaped testimony in Manhattan for the Nicole Eramo trial. With his shirt rakishly open, he propped his feet on the table ...

    I wonder how much that body language alone cost him?

    Replies: @2Mintzin1, @Buzz Mohawk

    Yet another example of the efficacy of Power Posing™ failing to replicate.

    • LOL: Clyde, Kylie
  49. Steve, when Gentiles do it to Jews, it’s The Dreyfuss Affair – one for the history books. When Jews do it to Gentiles, it’s just a clerical error, and any desire to put it into the history books is antisemitism.

    P.S., for the gallery: do we blame the Dreyfuss Affair on the field of journalism? Law? Strictly the participants involved? Or do we blame the Dreyfuss Affair on antisemitism?

    • Replies: @Jake
    @Svigor

    We should blame the Dreyfuss Affair on 2 parts of French society and politics: the anti-Clerical (meaning anti-Catholic) Left and the pro-British Center. Each of those was always thrilled to 'discover' anti-Semitism, for that justified its positions.

  50. @Anon
    All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.

    Eminently Noble? Not just eminent and not just noble but eminently noble?

    Now, it's always a good thing to smoke out and expose sexual abuses, but how is it noble? It's just the right thing to do. Cops go after robbers and rapists everyday, but I don't recall anyone saying their job is 'eminently noble'.

    Or, if someone busted a gang of black rapists, I highly doubt if anyone would call it 'eminently noble'.

    What the writer really means is that PC rightly sees Straight White Males as 'white supremacist misogynists', and therefore, it is NOBLE to hunt them down. It's Simon Wiesenthal Nazi-Hunting mentality. So, this wasn't just a criminal issue. It was about bagging the Evil White Male.

    But what the whole fiasco really exposed is the rottenness of Jewish Liberal Ideology that now views White Males the way Jews were scapegoated by Nazis. And same thing happened at Charlottesville. Notwithstanding the fact that UNITE THE RIGHT did attract some unsavory and creepy creatures, the trouble and violence happened because the city subverted the event by denying freedom of speech and by forcing a fight between the rally attenders and antifa thugs.

    Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel, @ThreeCranes

    “The narrative was properly about race, sex and class…. We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place…. We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” -Evan Thomas, Newsweek

    Duke made Trump. Stephen Miller was at Duke during the lacrosse rape hoax… that was the first chink in the Narrative armor when internet sleuths undid the narrative: the Durham in Wonderland blog for example

    But white guys all were making mental notes, realizing the Narrative.

    A female feminist friend (super high powered now) who covered Duke Lax as a reporter, when the UVA case was busted, posted about her feelings about it all and how “though again the facts don’t bear out, the reality is…” WTF!!!
    Then when Trump won she posted, “we must subscribe to NYT, the Atlantic, etc. to ensure truth and facts…”
    How can you have a rational discussion with these people? Three huge Narrative collapses and every time a double-down!

    • Replies: @gcochran
    @Je Suis Charlie Martel

    First you have to get their attention.

    , @jack ryan
    @Je Suis Charlie Martel

    You need to dox this woman.

    Get a photo (negative) put huge letters of:

    "Liar"

    Circulate to her neighborhood, her social circle.

    Do what the Left does to decent people who gave $ to the traditional marriage initiative in California.

  51. @Jonathan Mason

    If I told you that I had just witnessed a bank robbery and afterwards the robbers escaped on a flying carpet, would you believe the bank robbery part of my story?
     
    If the money was missing, I would believe in the robbery, but I would suspect you of complicity or insanity.

    But the point I was making is that people just don't know what to believe when they are operating outside their area of personal knowledge or experience.

    Personally, as someone who has in the past worked with both convicted sex offenders and young women with personality disorders, plus having a natural tendency to question the veracity of anything I read, I was not buying it, but then these people were just trying to sell a magazine by writing stories of interest to the general public, not publishing peer group reviewed studies on sex offending or preparing forensic evidence to put before a trial jury.

    Fake news based on one unreliable witness, and they were soon found out, whereas the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction crew got their equally unbelievable story believed by the whole of Capitol Hill.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    But the point I was making is that people just don’t know what to believe when they are operating outside their area of personal knowledge or experience.

    In other words, when they’re talking about those inscrutable goyim they have heard about but never met.

  52. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    I got the author of the “Sticky Fingers” Wenner biography wrong. It’s Joe Hagan.

    No no, that goes against the spirit of this subject. We must INSIST that Andrew Campbell done it. He wrote the book sitting on broken glass with the mafia holding a gun at his head.

    Don't backtrack now. He done it, at least in part, because the rest was ghost-written by Haven.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    Haven was dropped by UVA. Couldn’t run a 4.4 40, couldn’t make weight for safety. Twin 700s on the SAT are nice, but not enough. Maybe you should look at Wyoming.

  53. @Paul Rise
    The University of Missouri kids story (“rednecks followed me around one of the busiest parts of campus on a Friday night before game day calling me n-word”) is also ridiculous, but’s it’s basically destroyed the university.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    The lunatic left power structure in Columbia was working hard to make the campus a no-go zone several years earlier. They charged a kid with a hate crime on the implied theory that the State of Missouri was a black person. Yes, the crime the prosecution charged required the prosecution to prove that the State of Missouri is a black person.

  54. @The Last Real Calvinist
    On a related note, the climate site Watt's Up With That has published an interesting analysis (LINK) of another pernicious lefty/MSM media tactic that WUWT's writer labels a 'Flooding Fake':

    This is what it looks like:

    1. An important figure or organization on the Left is caught doing something wrong, saying something outrageous, or blatantly lying.

    2. The Left injects into public discourse an absolutely fake, but believable, account of this action and immediately “debunks” this account.

    3. The fake narrative is accepted by the public as truth because the public knows that something similar has happened. The immediate debunking is rejected as a cover-up attempt.

    4. Later, when people accuse the original wrongdoer they use elements of the fake narrative. This is when “fact checkers” jump on them. Fake news networks accuse honest statesmen and commentators of spreading fake news. The liberals’ conviction that the conservatives are stupid and uninformed gets deeper. Google buries honest pieces far from public sight. Facebook tries to prevent their sharing. Leftist politicians cry that they lost elections because of fake news.
     

    The article then goes on to demonstrate how this tactic was used to 'debunk' the incontrovertible fact that the MSM in the mid-1970s was publishing lots of articles on global cooling. Time magazine floated a 'fake' of one their own covers from the 70s, then enlisted Snopes to 'debunk' it, and now Google picks this up and features it as one of the top hits people searching for media coverage of climate in the 1970s will see.

    It will be interesting to see if just this sort of retro-fitted narrative of the UVA incident 'emerges'.

    Replies: @whoever, @guest

    this tactic was used to ‘debunk’ the incontrovertible fact that the MSM in the mid-1970s was publishing lots of articles on global cooling.

    Here’s a list of global cooling articles from the 1970s. Some of the links are dead now, unfortunately.

    Incidentally, the Time cover article featured in the above link is about that year’s hard winter:

    “From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down the Eastern seaboard to shivering Florida, the winter of 1976-77 is already one of the coldest since the U.S. began keeping weather statistics—and the worst may be yet to come. If February roars like January, this winter could be the coldest ever recorded for much of the U.S.—the great winter that millions of Americans will be telling their grandchildren about decades from now.”

    • Replies: @whoever
    @whoever

    The editing window closed before I could add this clip from the BBC2's The Weather Machine from Nov. 20, 1974:
    "The machine that makes the world's weather is changing gear - and the shift is downward, against mankind. The smallest change means loss of life in flood or drought, and the wholesale destruction of crops. For us, the price of food goes up; for millions more, it brings hunger or starvation. In the background looms the threat of ice, and the obliteration of northern lands - including Britain. The next ice-age is already overdue."
    https://youtu.be/ZtyM9mPbMUo

    Replies: @Lurker

  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    We need a term like Cultural Conspiracy Theorizing for the kind of mainstream conventional wisdom displayed by Erdely in libeling Eramo. It’s not necessarily an all-out conspiracy with plotters meeting in parking garages at midnight, but it’s a cultural conspiracy where bureaucrats like Eramo know the White Male Power Structure wants them to silence truthtellers like Jackie.

    So just what they call “white privilege”, sometimes “white supremacy”, often “institutional racism/sexism”?

    “Institutional racism” is broad enough to fold nearly everything white people do into an emergent force pushing down on black bodies.

    But there is absolutely no space to posit a similar mechanism for Erderly’s finagling. It has to go in the dirty little corner for conspiracy theorizing. Who you should believe? Me, or these lunatics that say we meet at temple every week to conspire against the goyim? I laugh!

  56. @Jack D
    @CAL2

    This is just desperate clinging to straws after the ship has already sunk. It reminds me of the Dan Rather / Mary Mapes thing where they seized on the fact that there was in fact 1 typewriter in the '60s that had a superscripted th key, putting aside that the whole forged document was clearly typed in Microsoft Word. Everything - the font, the spacing, the line breaks, was exactly the same as if you had typed it in Word using the default settings.

    Replies: @guest, @EH

    That was the pretext for coining the excellent phrase “fake but accurate,” isn’t it? At least it wasn’t a total loss.

    They had the audacity to call the movie based on Mapes’ memoir (or whatever) “Truth.”

  57. @whoever
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    this tactic was used to ‘debunk’ the incontrovertible fact that the MSM in the mid-1970s was publishing lots of articles on global cooling.
     
    Here's a list of global cooling articles from the 1970s. Some of the links are dead now, unfortunately.

    Incidentally, the Time cover article featured in the above link is about that year's hard winter:

    "From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down the Eastern seaboard to shivering Florida, the winter of 1976-77 is already one of the coldest since the U.S. began keeping weather statistics—and the worst may be yet to come. If February roars like January, this winter could be the coldest ever recorded for much of the U.S.—the great winter that millions of Americans will be telling their grandchildren about decades from now."

    Replies: @whoever

    The editing window closed before I could add this clip from the BBC2’s The Weather Machine from Nov. 20, 1974:
    “The machine that makes the world’s weather is changing gear – and the shift is downward, against mankind. The smallest change means loss of life in flood or drought, and the wholesale destruction of crops. For us, the price of food goes up; for millions more, it brings hunger or starvation. In the background looms the threat of ice, and the obliteration of northern lands – including Britain. The next ice-age is already overdue.”

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @whoever

    Looks like Gerbil Worming arrived just in time to save us all!

  58. @Dave Pinsen
    Why wasn't Jon Stewart driven by hate?

    Replies: @Anon, @guest

    Stewart has both ethnic and comedic immunity.

    I find it funny, the way the excerpt phrases that paragraph. As if Stewart coming after him was what brought it all home. Though I suspect his quote in context was about the backlash as a whole.

    Imagine your magazine has embarrassed itself on a national scale, and what really gets to you is, I don’t know, Soupy Sales comes out against you. Ow, my gut.

  59. @Steve Sailer
    @Hodag

    It rained a little this morning the San Fernando Valley. It's cloudy, dampish (76% humidity), 64 F, with 15% chance of rain. A Game 7 would see similar conditions. Much cooler and moister than Games 1 and 2, although that hasn't stopped George Springer from hitting another homer tonight.

    Generally, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher's park in part due to marine layer moisture during night games. It's 15 miles from the ocean, but a sunny day causes air near the ground to get heated up and rise, which pulls in cooler moist air off the ocean. (That's why June is so cloudy in L.A.)

    Replies: @Neoconned

    I’m always in LA in June and July.

    I never understood that in downtown near LA Live there’s clouds but like this haze. Then it’s there ALL MORNING but clears out by noonish.

    Then it’s clear as a bell all day and clear at night….

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Neoconned

    It's because in June the sun beats straight down on the ground inland, so the ground heats up, which heats up the air near the ground, so the hot air rises. Nature abhors a vacuum, so this pulls in cool, wet air from off the ocean. So it's cloudy most mornings in Southern California from about May 15 to late June: May Gray and June Gloom. In July and August, in contrast, it's sunny almost every day from dawn to dusk.

    If you are considering a vacation in SoCal, the June Gloom makes for less attractive days than other times of the year for things like trips to the beach or the pool. On the other hand, it keeps the temperature quite mild until maybe 3 in the afternoon and the middling humidity is nicer than super dry days later in the year. So it's a nice time of the year for things like a 12 hour day at Disneyland.

    Replies: @Seth Largo

  60. @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    @Anon

    “The narrative was properly about race, sex and class.... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place.... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” -Evan Thomas, Newsweek

    Duke made Trump. Stephen Miller was at Duke during the lacrosse rape hoax... that was the first chink in the Narrative armor when internet sleuths undid the narrative: the Durham in Wonderland blog for example

    But white guys all were making mental notes, realizing the Narrative.

    A female feminist friend (super high powered now) who covered Duke Lax as a reporter, when the UVA case was busted, posted about her feelings about it all and how “though again the facts don’t bear out, the reality is...” WTF!!!
    Then when Trump won she posted, “we must subscribe to NYT, the Atlantic, etc. to ensure truth and facts...”
    How can you have a rational discussion with these people? Three huge Narrative collapses and every time a double-down!

    Replies: @gcochran, @jack ryan

    First you have to get their attention.

  61. @Neoconned
    @Steve Sailer

    I'm always in LA in June and July.

    I never understood that in downtown near LA Live there's clouds but like this haze. Then it's there ALL MORNING but clears out by noonish.

    Then it's clear as a bell all day and clear at night....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    It’s because in June the sun beats straight down on the ground inland, so the ground heats up, which heats up the air near the ground, so the hot air rises. Nature abhors a vacuum, so this pulls in cool, wet air from off the ocean. So it’s cloudy most mornings in Southern California from about May 15 to late June: May Gray and June Gloom. In July and August, in contrast, it’s sunny almost every day from dawn to dusk.

    If you are considering a vacation in SoCal, the June Gloom makes for less attractive days than other times of the year for things like trips to the beach or the pool. On the other hand, it keeps the temperature quite mild until maybe 3 in the afternoon and the middling humidity is nicer than super dry days later in the year. So it’s a nice time of the year for things like a 12 hour day at Disneyland.

    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    @Steve Sailer

    June is also nice for hiking the San Gabriels' summits. You can't see the Channel Islands or Catalina, but it's nice to experience the blue-sky-above, dense-clouds-below effect without any alpine effort.

  62. @The Last Real Calvinist
    On a related note, the climate site Watt's Up With That has published an interesting analysis (LINK) of another pernicious lefty/MSM media tactic that WUWT's writer labels a 'Flooding Fake':

    This is what it looks like:

    1. An important figure or organization on the Left is caught doing something wrong, saying something outrageous, or blatantly lying.

    2. The Left injects into public discourse an absolutely fake, but believable, account of this action and immediately “debunks” this account.

    3. The fake narrative is accepted by the public as truth because the public knows that something similar has happened. The immediate debunking is rejected as a cover-up attempt.

    4. Later, when people accuse the original wrongdoer they use elements of the fake narrative. This is when “fact checkers” jump on them. Fake news networks accuse honest statesmen and commentators of spreading fake news. The liberals’ conviction that the conservatives are stupid and uninformed gets deeper. Google buries honest pieces far from public sight. Facebook tries to prevent their sharing. Leftist politicians cry that they lost elections because of fake news.
     

    The article then goes on to demonstrate how this tactic was used to 'debunk' the incontrovertible fact that the MSM in the mid-1970s was publishing lots of articles on global cooling. Time magazine floated a 'fake' of one their own covers from the 70s, then enlisted Snopes to 'debunk' it, and now Google picks this up and features it as one of the top hits people searching for media coverage of climate in the 1970s will see.

    It will be interesting to see if just this sort of retro-fitted narrative of the UVA incident 'emerges'.

    Replies: @whoever, @guest

    Making up myths/rumors/whatever so you can debunk them–which can be called Strawman Debunking–goes far beyond politics. It’s a basic tool of the journalistic trade.

    Variations on “10 Lies So-and-So Is Telling You,” “What You Didn’t Know About [blank],” “The Hidden History of [blank],” etc. attract eyes. It’s easier to just make up the things people think they know.

  63. There was this poster on Fox Mulder’s wall: “I want to believe”.

    It had a floating flying saucer on it instead of a flying white defendant, but that’s the idea.

    Sometimes books come out about has the government has white defendants hidden away in freezers in underground bases, impeccably dressed men in white are menacingly talking to people who have seen something and said something, or how whitians are performing animal mutilations on cows in the middle of the night. Then during trials, it is found that parts of the timeline are missing as if time itself had been manipulated…

  64. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinteuil
    What a great movie this true story would make. But who's gonna' make that movie?

    Vox Day is right about this, if nothing else: the dissident right must build its own platforms.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    Even if, by some miracle, the MSM decided to dramatize a story of a false rape accusation, they’d make sure the falsely-accused was a POC and the accuser was a battered woman put up to it by her neo-nazi boyfriend. Actually, they’ve almost done this already, by changing facts as necessary.

  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Barnard
    @Jonathan Mason

    There is no indication Erdely questioned any of Jackie Coakley's story. If I remember correctly, her description of the party and how she was lead upstairs was impossible simply based on the floorplan of the frat house, but she didn't even bother to verify that.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    You are correct: among other things, the house didn’t even have the ‘second stairway’ by which Jackie claims to have escaped. One detail among many, of course.

    RS editors knew what they were doing. Even after the story was unravelling, they were adamant: Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone piece, told the Washington Post, “We did not talk to them. We could not reach them.” However, he says they “verified their existence” by talking to Jackie’s friends. “I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

    One Thing Leads to Another Dept:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nprs-top-editor-accused-of-sexual-harassment-by-two-women/2017/10/31/a2078bea-bdf7-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html

    Yet another serial sexual harasser from the MSM ‘mold’…

  66. “Rolling Stone would simply publish her account without contacting them [the alleged attackers]. The practice of shielding a rape victim from undue trauma by her attackers was not unheard of…”

    I don’t understand this idea of supposed trauma “by” her attackers. I realize people use prepositions loosely these days, but how would her rapers, if they were rapers, traumatize “Jackie” directly? It’s not like she had to be in the room when Erdely interviewed them. Rolling Stone wouldn’t be under any obligation to print everything they said verbatim, or anything they said for that matter, leaving “Jackie” vulnerable to trauma upon reading it. She could remain ignorant of the whole process.

    Rolling Stone wouldn’t even have to print anything they learned from contacting them. Unless what they learned contradicted parts of the story with which they wanted to run. As it turns out digging just a little bit would have.

    But say Erdely was interested in not learning anything too much, so as not to lose her perfect Great White Defendant story. She wouldn’t have to dig too deep. At least find out if these men actually exist, and whether it was physically possible for them to do what “Jackie” alleged.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @guest

    The whole article is full of false equivocations like that.


    "In the scramble to publish,..."
     
    What scramble? Even if the story were true, it would have been cold. There was no deadline and no competition. So the "scramble" is a fake retconned justification.

    "...Will Dana said he operated under the assumption that Rosen had reviewed the manuscript for libel. ..."
     
    Irrelevant, even if it were true. The issue was not that the article was libelous (though it was). The issue was that the article was completely false. "Libel" is a diversion.

    "... She hadn’t, and Dana barely knew the new lawyer, Natalie Krodel. ..."
     
    Whether or not he knew the lawyer is as irrelevant as whether a lawyer was involved at all. This wasn't a matter of parsing obscure publishing statutes; it was a matter of the story being completely fabricated. Lawyers look at the law. Journalists and editors (are supposed to) look at accuracy. This wasn't a lawyer problem, though it became one. I suspect they got to know their lawyers pretty well in the end, though. Lol.

    "... Dana was evidently unaware of Erdely’s decision to steer clear of the men “Jackie” implicated in a rape, and he never inquired about it."
     
    Again, irrelevant diversion. Erdely didn't decide to "steer clear". The men, circumstances and events simply didn't exist. There was nothing to steer clear of. Erdely wasn't making arguable journalistic judgments. Erdely was a co-liar, co-conspirator in crime.

    Etc.

    Pretty much every sentence is an attempt to retcon, rationalize, misdirect, wave away, or conspire in covering up the crimes of the Rolling Stone staff. RS should tap this writer to help pay their judgement.

    Replies: @Forbes

  67. I notice that the Wikipedia article for A Rape on Campus still describes Our Host as “paleoconservative” instead of “insane, hard-right, multi-phobic, isolationist, alleged puppy-stomping neo-nazi.” That’s nice.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @guest

    What is the hierarchy of conservatives?

    There is right wing, extreme right wing, neo, and paleo that I know of, but I do not know which is the worst. Whatever it is, that's me.

    , @Forbes
    @guest

    Does Wikipedia make these fine-grained distinctions for folks on the liberal/left? Are there puppy-stomping neo-liberals and hard-left multicultural inclusionists?

  68. @Cagey Beast
    OT:
    Yet another prominent Jewish gentleman is being punished simply for exploring his sexuality. Are straight Jewish men the new Jews?

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/31/npr-chief-editor-suspended-over-harassment-allegations/

    Replies: @El Dato

    after being accused of forcibly kissing two women in the 1990s

    That’s literally unnatural! Does anyone still do such things?

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @El Dato

    I hear that kissing women was all the rage in the 1990s--Another victory for role model and hero Bill Clinton!

  69. @Anon
    In a recorded conversation of the two, Coakley is the dominant personality, glibly telling Erdely whatever she wants to hear.

    More like dumminant.

    It's like a master with a dog. Dog runs around and barks but is handled by the master.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I’bve heard the recorded conversation between Erdely and Coakley – it’s not dominance, what you hear on Erdely’s side, and it’s not submission on Coakley’s side.
    See – Coakley tries to get famous with the help of Erdely. And Coakley appears, as if she could creep into fame – it’s all very soft and consensical.

    I think, what the listeners of the recording witness is the wrong use of the therapeutic dicourse. Erdely and Coakley were both on the wrong track for this reason.
    (And I don’t think, this is a minor thing – it’s a big fault to replace factual investigation (that’s what Erdely should have done, as a journalist) with empathy (that’s what replaced factual investigation and in the end made the facts less important than the (quite emotional!) experience, which Erdely and Coakley did indeed share). –
    ((It’s the same thing that happens, when you allow public discourse among grown ups to be predominantly about the emotions it causes – cf. the trigger warning stuff, the insistenzy, with which the “are you black, do you know how it feels to be black?” question is allowed to erect taboos about factual arguments etc.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    This is why, in the past, women, despite the fact that their intelligence does not differ greatly from men (aside from the tails) were banned from performing tasks that involved impartial judgment and weighing of the facts - reporter, judge, juror, voter, etc. Female motherly instincts (AKA empathy) can easily outweigh the skepticism and rationality that these jobs require. I'm not sure that they were wrong to do so.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  70. Steve says, “Night of Broken Glass incidents and really amped them up when she ran into Erdely, who ate up and tried to rationalize whatever Jackie’s tiny brain ginned up to please Erdely’s prejudices.

    We need a term like Cultural Conspiracy Theorizing for the kind of mainstream conventional wisdom displayed by Erdely in libeling Eramo.”

    We have one. It’s called “positive feedback”.

    In spite of what feel-good, self-help, new-age, pop psychologists tell us, “positive feedback” is, as often as not, a negative thing. Adding a little extra push at just the right moment tends to make a system oscillate out of control. A governor is an ingenious devise that puts negative feedback back into the system, preventing these runaway situations. Then, negative feedback is a positive thing.

    But words like constraint, governor or negative feedback are ice water down the back to left-wing persons who are enamored with their stream-of-consciousness lifestyle and Art.

  71. @kihowi
    The Piltdown Man was a piece of eminently noble archeology.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

    Very good.

  72. @Jack D
    @CAL2

    This is just desperate clinging to straws after the ship has already sunk. It reminds me of the Dan Rather / Mary Mapes thing where they seized on the fact that there was in fact 1 typewriter in the '60s that had a superscripted th key, putting aside that the whole forged document was clearly typed in Microsoft Word. Everything - the font, the spacing, the line breaks, was exactly the same as if you had typed it in Word using the default settings.

    Replies: @guest, @EH

    I’ve got a copy of the Magna Carta typed in Word, so obviously the whole story of King John and the barons is fake news.

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story and none that discredited it. I suspect the original was retyped in Word then leaked by Karl Rove to discredit the evidence he knew would come come out. Keep that trick in mind if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @EH

    It’s still strange how the original was supposed to have been burned. How convenient for Karl Rove. But if it would’ve been burned anyway, would it not have been easier to just burn the original and not leak anything?

    , @Art Deco
    @EH

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story a

    In your imagination only.

    , @Jack D
    @EH

    It was not presented as a retyped copy - it was presented as being a photocopy of the original memo from the files. If you said you had an original Magna Carta and it was typed in Word, yes it would be fake.

    Blaming your own side's actions on a false flag attack is the oldest refuge of scoundrels. Too bad the facts don't back you up. The memos originated with Col. Burkett, a self-acknowledged anti-Bush zealot. Mapes arranged a meeting with the Gore campaign for Burkett in exchange for the memos, which was in itself highly unethical.

    Regardless of the accuracy of the story (and it wasn't, despite what you say), no one is entitled to invent fake evidence to support their "true" story and if you do so, you are going to discredit your side in the end when the fakery is revealed, as Mapes and Rather ultimately did. And that was the root of the problem - Mapes and Rather were not really reporters but leftist partisans who saw the Gore campaign as "their side" masquerading as unbiased reporters concerned only with the facts. Erdely had the same problem.

    Replies: @Jack D

  73. As for the glass table thing: it’s not so absurd. We’re not talking window glass here. Presumably, the glass in a glass table is of the kind that doesn’t shatter into very sharp pieces, and a rapist could simply whisk away the pieces of glass between the victim’s legs. The idea that someone crushed a bottle against her head without also crushing her head is more bizarre.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @TBA

    Not a bad point at all.
    If you're willing to participate in a gang rape....
    ... and I think that is the key issue.
    If you're willing to participate in a gang rape, then you are probably right then focused on the immediate thrill. That is a potential for evil that lurks in all of us, a point I think many leftists fail to grasp. Of course it is morally wrong. I don't ACTUALLY want to do that at ALL. But I recognize that I am not some special person incapable of dark evil. If I really, really thought I could get away with gang rape, I might be in a frame of mind where I was willing to risk physical damage to various parts of my body.
    Perhaps the better question is whether any blond boy admitted to UVA is willing risk his life (I mean his social future) for the short term thrill of a gang rape.

  74. @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Romans used to say "false in one thing, false in everything". If you are willing to lie about such a major detail, where is the firewall that keeps you from telling more lies, indeed inventing the whole story? If I told you that I had just witnessed a bank robbery and afterwards the robbers escaped on a flying carpet, would you believe the bank robbery part of my story?

    Replies: @silviosilver

    If you are willing to lie about such a major detail, where is the firewall that keeps you from telling more lies, indeed inventing the whole story?

    The whole key to a believable lie is that most of the story is true. Isn’t that the way most people usually lie, making little embellishment here and there, rather than concocting wholesale fictions from start to finish? The latter happen, but the former are more common.

  75. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @JohnnyD

    Right, Obama had Wenner into the Oval Office for a valedictory interview the day after the 2016 election, a week or two after Wenner had lost Eramo's libel case by being a jerk in his taped deposition.

    Replies: @anon

    Video clips of Wenner deposition

    Hagan, imo, takes quite of few poetic-license liberties in his characterization of that deposition. Seemed pretty pedestrian–the apology itself is at the 5:30 mark. Whatever Jann Wenner’s political leanings, he doesn’t come across wholly unlikable to me in these snippets. Where exactly is the cocksure arrogance?

    Ironically, Hagan is essentially practicing a softer form of the embellishment/caricature-creation that Sabrina Rubin Erdely did. Maybe that’s just part of the gig. I could see Michael Lewis doing the same. Gotta make your stuff interesting, I guess.

  76. @EH
    @Jack D

    I've got a copy of the Magna Carta typed in Word, so obviously the whole story of King John and the barons is fake news.

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story and none that discredited it. I suspect the original was retyped in Word then leaked by Karl Rove to discredit the evidence he knew would come come out. Keep that trick in mind if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Art Deco, @Jack D

    It’s still strange how the original was supposed to have been burned. How convenient for Karl Rove. But if it would’ve been burned anyway, would it not have been easier to just burn the original and not leak anything?

  77. @Jack D

    All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.
     
    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    This is what is known as a "counterfactual". Or as the old Yiddish saying goes, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a trolley car. There's just one niggling little detail (the truth) standing between you and nobility. But if you just put that aside, it's noble.

    Replies: @Anon, @silviosilver, @Logan

    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    Well said.

    That gives me the excuse to tell an off-topic Jewish joke I recently heard.

    A secular businessman is driving around Tel Aviv looking for a park. He’s got an important business deal to finalize, which if he does, he’s set for life, so he doesn’t want to make a bad impression by walking in late. But all the parking spots are taken. Finally, in a fit of desperation, he prays to God.

    “God, I know I haven’t been the best Jew. I know I’ve never observed kashrut or kept the sabbath holy. But if you just let me find a park before my meeting begins, I promise I’ll become devoutly religious!”

    Just as he finishes his prayer, a car miraculously pulls out of a spot not far in front of him. The businessman looks heavenwards and says, “Never mind, I found one.”

  78. The story was quite fantastic even by rape or hate hoax standards. Anyone who ever believed it after having read the story in full should have his voting rights rescinded for total lack of judgment.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    There are a lot of stories that seem ridiculous in retrospect but when you are swept up in a witch burning hysteria they seem credible at the time, at least to those who WANT to believe. See the nursery school abuse scandals, the Iraq WMD, the Salem witch trials, etc. See Russia and Trump and the Weinstein scandals right now.

    And then there are bitter clingers who will hang on even AFTER it's all revealed to be ridiculous. If you read about Wenner, it appears that he STILL believes Jackie. Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing - they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the "rape" that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it. Guess what - she deserves an Academy Award. Psychopaths can be VERY convincing liars.

    Same thing with the Bush memos - Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Forbes, @reiner Tor

  79. Perhaps Jackie had been emboldened by talk of the change in the standard of proof for sexual assault?

    The DOE sent around a letter in 2012 saying all institutions of higher learning, in order to be in compliance with title IX (and get the 20% of their total funding from the Feds) had to change their sexual assault standard.
    20% of their funding.

    It went from 75% certainty to 50.1 % certainty. From a ‘clear and convincing’ to a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It went from (I guess) a criminal standard of certainty to a civil standard of certainty. Good luck, guys.

    It seems the standard went from ‘he said, she said’ to SHE SAID.

    This was a top down move to placate the Dems’ female constituency. So not only is college attendance approaching 60% female, the guys have also had their bo**rs whittled back a few inches by regulatory action. Be careful out there guys, just keep repeating the phrase ‘preponderance of evidence.’

    The Wrong Standard

    November 6, 2014
    By Jake New

    Princeton University reached an agreement with the Department of Education Wednesday to end a civil rights investigation into how the university handles cases of sexual assault on campus. Princeton was found to be in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the department said, for “failing to promptly and equitably” respond to complaints of sexual violence and for using a higher standard of proof than what is permitted by the department.

    Princeton was the last Ivy League institution — and a rare prominent institution — to still use the “clear and convincing” standard instead of the “preponderance of evidence” standard in adjudicating sexual assault cases. Where the clear and convincing standard of proof requires a roughly 75 percent chance that the accused is responsible, preponderance of evidence, which is the standard used in civil cases, requires a 50.1 percent chance. In order to comply with Title IX, Princeton adopted the lower standard in September, appeasing the department’s Office for Civil Rights and helping to end the investigation.

    Here is an article on UVa and the change in standard of proof.

    http://www.c-ville.com/burden-of-proof-uvas-sexual-assault-policy-under-fire/#.Wfm7H4Zrwvo

  80. @Ron Mexico
    Was reading headlines of 2 South Dakota football players charged with rape, thinking maybe the perps were white, being that it was SD, but wasn't surprised to find out otherwise. http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2017/10/30/two-university-south-dakota-football-players-arrested-rape-charges/816004001/

    A 3rd player was having sex with the girl and the two accused reentered the room later to participate. The 3rd player seemed fine with this. Who does that? These guys are animals.

    Replies: @carol

    I think jon Krakauer chose Missoula for his rape book because the perps were safely white. Though we have our share of third rate thugs on the UM team.

  81. @EH
    @Jack D

    I've got a copy of the Magna Carta typed in Word, so obviously the whole story of King John and the barons is fake news.

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story and none that discredited it. I suspect the original was retyped in Word then leaked by Karl Rove to discredit the evidence he knew would come come out. Keep that trick in mind if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Art Deco, @Jack D

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story a

    In your imagination only.

  82. @Anon
    All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.

    Eminently Noble? Not just eminent and not just noble but eminently noble?

    Now, it's always a good thing to smoke out and expose sexual abuses, but how is it noble? It's just the right thing to do. Cops go after robbers and rapists everyday, but I don't recall anyone saying their job is 'eminently noble'.

    Or, if someone busted a gang of black rapists, I highly doubt if anyone would call it 'eminently noble'.

    What the writer really means is that PC rightly sees Straight White Males as 'white supremacist misogynists', and therefore, it is NOBLE to hunt them down. It's Simon Wiesenthal Nazi-Hunting mentality. So, this wasn't just a criminal issue. It was about bagging the Evil White Male.

    But what the whole fiasco really exposed is the rottenness of Jewish Liberal Ideology that now views White Males the way Jews were scapegoated by Nazis. And same thing happened at Charlottesville. Notwithstanding the fact that UNITE THE RIGHT did attract some unsavory and creepy creatures, the trouble and violence happened because the city subverted the event by denying freedom of speech and by forcing a fight between the rally attenders and antifa thugs.

    Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel, @ThreeCranes

    “What the writer really means is that PC rightly sees Straight White Males as ‘white supremacist misogynists’, and therefore, it is NOBLE to hunt them down. It’s Simon Wiesenthal Nazi-Hunting mentality. So, this wasn’t just a criminal issue. It was about bagging the Evil White Male.”

    This rings so true. Thanks, I’ve learned something today.

  83. @Svigor
    Steve, when Gentiles do it to Jews, it's The Dreyfuss Affair - one for the history books. When Jews do it to Gentiles, it's just a clerical error, and any desire to put it into the history books is antisemitism.

    P.S., for the gallery: do we blame the Dreyfuss Affair on the field of journalism? Law? Strictly the participants involved? Or do we blame the Dreyfuss Affair on antisemitism?

    Replies: @Jake

    We should blame the Dreyfuss Affair on 2 parts of French society and politics: the anti-Clerical (meaning anti-Catholic) Left and the pro-British Center. Each of those was always thrilled to ‘discover’ anti-Semitism, for that justified its positions.

  84. @EH
    @Jack D

    I've got a copy of the Magna Carta typed in Word, so obviously the whole story of King John and the barons is fake news.

    There was a lot of other evidence that supported the story and none that discredited it. I suspect the original was retyped in Word then leaked by Karl Rove to discredit the evidence he knew would come come out. Keep that trick in mind if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Art Deco, @Jack D

    It was not presented as a retyped copy – it was presented as being a photocopy of the original memo from the files. If you said you had an original Magna Carta and it was typed in Word, yes it would be fake.

    Blaming your own side’s actions on a false flag attack is the oldest refuge of scoundrels. Too bad the facts don’t back you up. The memos originated with Col. Burkett, a self-acknowledged anti-Bush zealot. Mapes arranged a meeting with the Gore campaign for Burkett in exchange for the memos, which was in itself highly unethical.

    Regardless of the accuracy of the story (and it wasn’t, despite what you say), no one is entitled to invent fake evidence to support their “true” story and if you do so, you are going to discredit your side in the end when the fakery is revealed, as Mapes and Rather ultimately did. And that was the root of the problem – Mapes and Rather were not really reporters but leftist partisans who saw the Gore campaign as “their side” masquerading as unbiased reporters concerned only with the facts. Erdely had the same problem.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jack D

    Sorry, Kerry, not Gore. I got my Democrat hacks mixed up.

  85. @Anon
    then at the end of his testimony to the parole board, slipped up blew it when he told the board that he would never do anything like those things again because, “it was the worst thing that ever happened to me”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_VVVTmiWFo

    Yep, sociopaths. I hear that journalism attracts sociopaths. They don't murder people. They just want to murder reputations. Now, that isn't a bad thing because politicians, celebrities, and powerful people need to be pressured now and then. Also, most people have no voice, and so, journalists can make them heard. Though sociopathic journalists are driven by the need to stalk and hunt and carry home trophies, they can do society some good. (The problem is the media sometimes confuse powerful individuals with the notion of powerful people. If 'white people' are deemed powerful, then even the powerless among white people become targets of journalism. After all, if an entire population is designated as 'powerful and privileged', then even ordinary college frat boys, who got no power, are seen as the Nazis. This is all the more perverse because truly powerful whites shore up their own 'progressive' credentials by going after powerless whites, like college fraternity or white working class. If all whites are deemed 'powerful', then even catching small fish can seem like big fish... while the real big fish, like Jann Wenner, flatter themselves that they minnows that they bagged are the Great White Shark.)

    But, if some journalists wanna bring down or 'murder' powerful people, some just wanna murder the truth. They see it as some kind of con-game. I think Erdely got her high not only by defaming fantasy nazi-frats at UVA but by fooling everyone at RS. So, while there is clearly the ethnic angle, there is also the personal angle.
    It's like Stephen Glass at The New Republic got off on spinning lies and fooling the very people who trusted and admired him. It was like a drug to him. It was like being a hustler. It's like Johnny Boy in MEAN STREETS just loves fooling and ripping off everyone, like he's above the law. And a kind of personal nihilism animated Erderly. In this end, tribalism was secondary to her egotism. I mean, if she wanted a story about bad white guys, it wouldn't have been difficult. After all, every college has some bad white guys who do terrible things. She could have a made an issue out of one of those. The usual drunken white fratboy story. But she had to go for something spectacular. Something so crazy that it must be true. So crazy that no one would dare make it up. That was the 'genius' of her story. It was so outlandish that Wenner and others thought, 'no one would dare make up something this outrageous'. She fooled them all.

    SHATTERED GLASS should be required viewing for anyone in our age of so many fake news, from both establishment and alternative media.
    As good as SHATTERED GLASS, it's a straightforward and rather obvious telling of who Glass was and why he ended up the way he did. It doesn't really get under his skin though. We mostly see the externals.

    A far trickier and suggestive movie about a sociopath is THE INFORMANT that worms and weasels into our brains until the 'hero' and we are on the same wavelength. Even as we begin to notice his nuttery, his voice is inside our heads, constantly whispering and murmuring about angles, implications, and possibilities. There's a lot of trivia but some fit right into newly invented tales.
    As good as MICHAEL CLAYTON, the narrative is pretty obvious. It's about the hunt for the big whale. Corporate Evil. At the end, we know Clayton bagged a lion.
    In contrast, THE INFORMANT is like catching a mouse, and it shows how close tragedy and comedy and normality and insanity can be. All the more ironic since it was based on work by Kurt Eichenwald, a nutter himself who made it to elite positions in journalism.
    The odd thing about the Damon character is now both spontaneous and predictable his mind is. It's ingenious in coming up with new complications and implications, but once you become accustomed to his way of thinking -- as the FBI guys eventually come around to doing --, a certain pattern emerges like in a chess game.

    Maybe THE INFORMANT offers a clue as to why people like these think and act they way they do. They have multi-level modes of thinking. Matt Damon character is never thinking of one thing at once. He's always thinking of things related to that thing and then things related to those things. And some of these references are factual, some of them are fantasy, like referencing Tom Cruise movies, esp THE FIRM. It's like he's trying not only to outsmart others but to outsmart himself.

    His mind is scrabble-like. He's always looking for new narratives to add to the existing narrative and then forming another narrative on the new narrative and etc. And it's like he can't help himself. It's just part of his nature. He finally confesses at the end because he is a cornered mouse and can't weasel out of these lies anymore.

    But then, even in jail, his mindset remains intact, and he's really a sick person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGx7iw6y86s

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Antlitz Grollheim

    Your comment,

    “Though sociopathic journalists are driven by the need to stalk and hunt and carry home trophies, they can do society some good. (The problem is the media sometimes confuse powerful individuals with the notion of powerful people. If ‘white people’ are deemed powerful, then even the powerless among white people become targets of journalism.” etc etc

    like anon’s above comparing what’s going on to hunting trophies is, I believe, right on target. And again I’ll say (with Steve’s forbearance) Thanks, I’ve learned a new way of looking at things from reading this today.

    Thorstein Veblen spoke about coup counting and taking trophies as important markers or indicators of wealth and power in capitalist economies. It would seem that while for an engineer, building a machine or bridge counts as a trophy; for a journalist, some poor b*stard’s scalp.

    • Replies: @Logan
    @ThreeCranes

    Or, in the words of the inimitable Tom Wolfe, the Great White Defendant.

    Replies: @James Kabala

  86. @Jack D
    @EH

    It was not presented as a retyped copy - it was presented as being a photocopy of the original memo from the files. If you said you had an original Magna Carta and it was typed in Word, yes it would be fake.

    Blaming your own side's actions on a false flag attack is the oldest refuge of scoundrels. Too bad the facts don't back you up. The memos originated with Col. Burkett, a self-acknowledged anti-Bush zealot. Mapes arranged a meeting with the Gore campaign for Burkett in exchange for the memos, which was in itself highly unethical.

    Regardless of the accuracy of the story (and it wasn't, despite what you say), no one is entitled to invent fake evidence to support their "true" story and if you do so, you are going to discredit your side in the end when the fakery is revealed, as Mapes and Rather ultimately did. And that was the root of the problem - Mapes and Rather were not really reporters but leftist partisans who saw the Gore campaign as "their side" masquerading as unbiased reporters concerned only with the facts. Erdely had the same problem.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Sorry, Kerry, not Gore. I got my Democrat hacks mixed up.

  87. @Bill P


    Erdely totally fell for this additional absurdity, so to make sense out of Eramo’s ho-hum reaction to this Second Night of Broken Glass for her article, she had to make Eramo into this sinister agent of the Anti-Woman Republican Power Structure.
     
    Who knows whether she fell for it or not? That isn't the point of these charades. Coakley's BS story represented an opportunity to smack down some white boys. Eramo passed it up, which is her real sin. Sabrina Rubin Erdely would have made some white boys pay, truth be damned.

    It's very Stalinist. If you were in the Cheka in the 1930s and you had some juicy accusation fall into your lap, you'd use it. If you didn't, you'd be the next one headed to the gulag.

    The entire reason for this stuff is to wreck your enemies' lives. It's hard for most Americans to wrap their heads around it, but that's the game, and in certain sectors it's already been normalized.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Rahm Emanuel said “never let a crisis go to waste”. The Weinstein scandal is now being used as a pretext to purge as many white men as possible from all institutions. Anyone who ever looked down a secretary’s blouse can now be purged as a “wrecker”.

    • Replies: @Logan
    @Jack D

    The amusing part of this is that white men are probably the least likely group of men to aggressively harass women sexually. Pretty much all the men of color are more likely to participate. Possibly excluding (East) Asians.

  88. @Travis
    Erdely not only failed to question the alleged rapist she also failed to interview any of Jackie's friends who supposedly advised her against going to the police or reporting the sexual assault...Erdely and Jackie portrayed the friends as callous , caring more about their social life than Jackie. Why didn't the friends sue Rolling Stone ? The Friends of supposed UVA rape victim were smeared by discredited story. None of them was ever contacted by Erdley to confirm the story Jackie told.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    “Why didn’t the friends sue Rolling Stone? The Friends of supposed UVA rape victim were smeared by [the] discredited story.”

    That’s true, but to succeed at a defamation suit, you have to prove harm. How do Jackie’s friends prove harm? Unreturned dinner invitations? Unfriended on Facebook? Even if you have these things, and you’re not embarrassed to make a public complaint about them, you have to ask for a value. What is the value? Less than the cost of a lawsuit.

  89. @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    @Anon

    “The narrative was properly about race, sex and class.... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place.... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” -Evan Thomas, Newsweek

    Duke made Trump. Stephen Miller was at Duke during the lacrosse rape hoax... that was the first chink in the Narrative armor when internet sleuths undid the narrative: the Durham in Wonderland blog for example

    But white guys all were making mental notes, realizing the Narrative.

    A female feminist friend (super high powered now) who covered Duke Lax as a reporter, when the UVA case was busted, posted about her feelings about it all and how “though again the facts don’t bear out, the reality is...” WTF!!!
    Then when Trump won she posted, “we must subscribe to NYT, the Atlantic, etc. to ensure truth and facts...”
    How can you have a rational discussion with these people? Three huge Narrative collapses and every time a double-down!

    Replies: @gcochran, @jack ryan

    You need to dox this woman.

    Get a photo (negative) put huge letters of:

    “Liar”

    Circulate to her neighborhood, her social circle.

    Do what the Left does to decent people who gave $ to the traditional marriage initiative in California.

  90. So… think of how much press this imaginary incident has gotten. Now think of how much press the real rapist and murderer in Charlottesville has gotten… close to zero. Jesse Matthew, unfortunately for the narrative, is not a white frat boy, but he sure loved to rape and murder white coeds. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/accused-uva-killer-jesse-matthew-pleads-guilty-two-murders-n530431

  91. @reiner Tor
    The story was quite fantastic even by rape or hate hoax standards. Anyone who ever believed it after having read the story in full should have his voting rights rescinded for total lack of judgment.

    Replies: @Jack D

    There are a lot of stories that seem ridiculous in retrospect but when you are swept up in a witch burning hysteria they seem credible at the time, at least to those who WANT to believe. See the nursery school abuse scandals, the Iraq WMD, the Salem witch trials, etc. See Russia and Trump and the Weinstein scandals right now.

    And then there are bitter clingers who will hang on even AFTER it’s all revealed to be ridiculous. If you read about Wenner, it appears that he STILL believes Jackie. Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing – they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the “rape” that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it. Guess what – she deserves an Academy Award. Psychopaths can be VERY convincing liars.

    Same thing with the Bush memos – Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Same thing with the Bush memos – Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.


    No, she doesn't. She's playing Alger Hiss.

    Mapes conduct at the time suggests she knew the documents she had couldn't pass a rigorous examination. She hired three examiners and a fourth fellow who authenticates signatures. The fourth fellow admitted his expertise does not extend to the evaluation of photocopies. She only has eight documents. She splits them into three piles and has each examiner look at two or three of them. None were inspected by all three examiners (IIRC, none were inspected by more than one examiner). The most charitable explanation is that she was in such a rush to publish something that she didn't allocate the time for each of the three to look at all eight documents. Due diligence, anyone?

    What she did, though, was just what you'd do if you were making an actuarial calculation about the chances the examiner would authenticate a document, and considered the authentication process a game. If you figure your chances with a given examiner and a given document are even, having a second examiner inspect it cuts your assessment of your chances to 25% and having a 3d examiner look at it cuts your chances to 12.5%. You've only got eight documents.

    Two of the three examiners remonstrated with her and she ignored them. Now ask yourself, how does a woman born in 1956 not know that a typescript produced in 1973 is not going to look like one produced in the default settings of Microsoft Word? Did she never use a typewriter when she was enrolled at the University of Washington?


    Now, what did she and Rather do when "Buckhead", Dr. Newcomer, Charles Johnson, and others showed what the problems were? They threw chaff in everyone's face, putting a signature examiner on the air who took up time but wound up admitting that his skill set did not extend to authenticating anything that had been photocopied. Then they put a quondam IBM repairman on the air to demonstrate how, with a contrived procedure, you could produce something similar to the Killian documents with an expensive and rare piece of equipment you might have found in a Manhattan publishing house. This was irrelevant to the critique of the documents offered.


    It's been in-for-a-dime-in-for-a-dollar ever since with this pair.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    , @Forbes
    @Jack D


    Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing – they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the “rape” that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it.
     
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has morphed into the 'right to not be disappointed' in life. The state of mental health on most college campuses is (apparently) dreadful, e.g. the need for safe spaces, micro-aggressions causing offense, outrage at contrary views and perspectives--and all the rest.

    And in the general populace, the belief that trade-offs lock-in all upsides and benefits, while entailing no costs, obligations, or adverse consequences is pretty legion. Women especially, but not uniquely, seem to fabricate stories about the life they lead based on their preferences--and should it not work out in that direction--are traumatized by the disappointment. Their unhappiness is someone's fault!

    Women can be VERY convincing liars. I've been acquainted with too many.
    , @reiner Tor
    @Jack D

    I have never fallen for the other things you mention, but regarding the Weinstein scandal I didn't think the accusations as such are really implausible - a rich and powerful guy in the movie industry using his money, fame, and power to get sex from actresses and other women in the entertainment industry, and being very blunt about it, like casually grabbing the tits of whoever came to his office. It's also not implausible that whenever things didn't turn out the way he hoped (when the women took a stand, like the Italian model), then he used his power and money and connections to protect himself. I don't know how true Ann Coulter's claims about the outright lying titles of the New York Post regarding the Italian woman, but it certainly is not something that is obviously untrue. I mean, I have seen outright lies and falsifications in the media several times, why should I automatically disbelieve a story because it contains allegations of such lies? And the police is certainly not above protecting certain powerful people. If the FBI could protect Hillary, then why would it be impossible to believe the same thing regarding the NYPD and Weinstein?

    I think what's missing from the accusations is the context - that Weinstein became used to it because the vast majority of those women let him do that. (I find it especially disgusting how his gold-digger wife dumped him - is she implying she didn't know who her husband was?) I'm sure that some women protested it immediately. I'm also not sure if Weinstein does have a legal right to just grab the tits of any woman entering his office. But I've seen pictures of several accusers or corroborators of the story (like Gwyneth Paltrow etc.) being totally chummy with Weinstein to believe that in their cases there was no crime - a lot of these women willingly offered themselves up for "harassment", and Weinstein did what each of them knew he would do.

    Replies: @Logan

  92. @Dieter Kief
    @Anon

    I'bve heard the recorded conversation between Erdely and Coakley - it's not dominance, what you hear on Erdely's side, and it's not submission on Coakley's side.
    See - Coakley tries to get famous with the help of Erdely. And Coakley appears, as if she could creep into fame - it's all very soft and consensical.

    I think, what the listeners of the recording witness is the wrong use of the therapeutic dicourse. Erdely and Coakley were both on the wrong track for this reason.
    (And I don't think, this is a minor thing - it's a big fault to replace factual investigation (that's what Erdely should have done, as a journalist) with empathy (that's what replaced factual investigation and in the end made the facts less important than the (quite emotional!) experience, which Erdely and Coakley did indeed share). -
    ((It's the same thing that happens, when you allow public discourse among grown ups to be predominantly about the emotions it causes - cf. the trigger warning stuff, the insistenzy, with which the "are you black, do you know how it feels to be black?" question is allowed to erect taboos about factual arguments etc.

    Replies: @Jack D

    This is why, in the past, women, despite the fact that their intelligence does not differ greatly from men (aside from the tails) were banned from performing tasks that involved impartial judgment and weighing of the facts – reporter, judge, juror, voter, etc. Female motherly instincts (AKA empathy) can easily outweigh the skepticism and rationality that these jobs require. I’m not sure that they were wrong to do so.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Jack D


    This is why, in the past, women (...) were banned from performing tasks that involved impartial judgment and weighing of the facts (...) I’m not sure that they were wrong to do so.

     

    It's definitely safe to say, that the all female (!) fact-checker team at Rolling Stone failed to do what they should have done: Check the facts.

    (And then - the abundance of cocaine at Rolling Stone - "truth powder" (Leon Wieseltier, hehe - I try to learn, whenever there's a chance to do so...) - well the powder sure makes you believe that what you (and your - ehe: "partners in crime" (HAHAHA!!) (Jagger/Richards)) - ah: The powder for sure strengthens the ties inside the team (=band?) - while at the same time, it weakens the weight of - - reality/ the whole bunch of all those oh so tiny, tiny little details out there - - : Myriads of them, brothers & sisters, makes no sense at all to have too close a look, really, we'd get lost in a second!....
  93. @HunInTheSun
    "Sonderkommando"...nouns in the German are always capitalized. I'm surprised Erdely didn't refer to UVA fraternities as Einsatzgruppen right from the get-go, she wasn't coy about NS associations when she described the blonde men who bestrode campus.

    Replies: @Wally

    said:
    ” “Sonderkommando“…nouns in the German are always capitalized. I’m surprised Erdely didn’t refer to UVA fraternities as Einsatzgruppen right from the get-go, she wasn’t coy about NS associations when she described the blonde men who bestrode campus.”

    I made a completely on topic reply to this post about the use of those words, but Sailor censored it.

    I guess he doesn’t want thoughts which upset his received worldview.

    Staggering hypocrisy, we can have only so much free speech.

    Or was it ‘the server’.

  94. Rolling Stone’s fact-checking department was still a largely female institution as well, which may have further blunted the skepticism of male editors reluctant to cast doubt on a female rape victim.

    I see. So in the mainstream media, the “fact-checking department” is actually the “narrative protection department.”

    I suppose it’s the same with Snopes and the various “fact-checking” web sites.

    “Overton Window maintenance department”
    “Who-Whom regulation department”

    Actually the opposite of fact checking.

    • Agree: Forbes
  95. @Steve Sailer
    @Neoconned

    It's because in June the sun beats straight down on the ground inland, so the ground heats up, which heats up the air near the ground, so the hot air rises. Nature abhors a vacuum, so this pulls in cool, wet air from off the ocean. So it's cloudy most mornings in Southern California from about May 15 to late June: May Gray and June Gloom. In July and August, in contrast, it's sunny almost every day from dawn to dusk.

    If you are considering a vacation in SoCal, the June Gloom makes for less attractive days than other times of the year for things like trips to the beach or the pool. On the other hand, it keeps the temperature quite mild until maybe 3 in the afternoon and the middling humidity is nicer than super dry days later in the year. So it's a nice time of the year for things like a 12 hour day at Disneyland.

    Replies: @Seth Largo

    June is also nice for hiking the San Gabriels’ summits. You can’t see the Channel Islands or Catalina, but it’s nice to experience the blue-sky-above, dense-clouds-below effect without any alpine effort.

  96. @anon
    @TheBoom

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn't happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    2. I understand why everyone was anxious to publicly condemn rape. Why not? Even the UVA fraternities were condemning it. Too bad they didn't organize a Haven Monahan lynch mob. But the easy virtue signaling of condemning rape is a reflex while the thankless reminder of avoiding a rush to judgment.

    3. I have to wonder if there isn't a little more skepticism these days. There were maybe 50 readers of secondary reports (for every reader of the original) of the article by reputable publications followed by the reaction on campus -- which was a universal, blanket condemnation of rape. On campus, this was an opportunity to push various agendas regarding frats, drinking, etc. The credibility of the initial story was enhanced by the story of how the rape is causing people to raise questions on campus, to the extent that it became disruptive. The New York Times can't directly print unsupported salacious gossip, but can and does immediately report that 'Publication X reported xxxxx'.

    4. And within hours if not the week, groups on campus were tripping over themselves to take some action ... any action .... that could be considered anti-rape. At this point, those people could claim that even if it didn't happen, it "could" have happened and therefore these rules/programs and 'The Discussion" are good, independently of the specifics. Which are simply details.

    5. T Rees Shapiro from the Washington Post was on it after the story started leaking oil. A little late, but once they smelled blood in the water, they did a thorough job. It's only down the road and Shapiro brought along a few Junior writers or interns and loved every minute of exposing a competitor, Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone flanked the Post and establishment media from the left on the 2008 Financial Crisis -- and had a rather easy time of it given the laxity of RS's journalistic standards.

    The core of it was that it was that there was virtually no pushback on it from UVa. No one looks good here except:

    From Wikipedia


    Questions emerge[edit]
    Richard Bradley, editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, was the first mainstream journalist[17] to question the Rolling Stone article, in a blog entry written on November 24, 2014.[18] The entry began drawing national media attention in the days after paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer made an entry on his own blog at the Unz Review on November 29 in which he discussed and linked to Bradley's piece.[19]
     
    Story, Nov 19
    Bradley, Blog Nov 24
    Sailor, Unz Nov 29
    T Rees Shapiro, Washington Post Dec 5

    U Va had already put the wheels in motion and didn't catch up to the hoax angle for quite a while.

    Steve/Unz have a pretty large readership. Bradley? Not so much, but he did take immediate flack from Jezebel, giving his blog post much more exposure.

    The Washington Post published their usual, "me too, against rape" columns prior to taking their rightful place as the biggest paper close by to run down details. So, they weren't breaking a story so much as running down details.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Anon

    UVA is very well thought of in the DC area, even by the progs; they all want their kids to go there. WaPo would not have wasted a thimble full of (digital) ink had the story been at Virginia Tech.

  97. @whoever
    @whoever

    The editing window closed before I could add this clip from the BBC2's The Weather Machine from Nov. 20, 1974:
    "The machine that makes the world's weather is changing gear - and the shift is downward, against mankind. The smallest change means loss of life in flood or drought, and the wholesale destruction of crops. For us, the price of food goes up; for millions more, it brings hunger or starvation. In the background looms the threat of ice, and the obliteration of northern lands - including Britain. The next ice-age is already overdue."
    https://youtu.be/ZtyM9mPbMUo

    Replies: @Lurker

    Looks like Gerbil Worming arrived just in time to save us all!

  98. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    This is why, in the past, women, despite the fact that their intelligence does not differ greatly from men (aside from the tails) were banned from performing tasks that involved impartial judgment and weighing of the facts - reporter, judge, juror, voter, etc. Female motherly instincts (AKA empathy) can easily outweigh the skepticism and rationality that these jobs require. I'm not sure that they were wrong to do so.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    This is why, in the past, women (…) were banned from performing tasks that involved impartial judgment and weighing of the facts (…) I’m not sure that they were wrong to do so.

    It’s definitely safe to say, that the all female (!) fact-checker team at Rolling Stone failed to do what they should have done: Check the facts.

    (And then – the abundance of cocaine at Rolling Stone – “truth powder” (Leon Wieseltier, hehe – I try to learn, whenever there’s a chance to do so…) – well the powder sure makes you believe that what you (and your – ehe: “partners in crime” (HAHAHA!!) (Jagger/Richards)) – ah: The powder for sure strengthens the ties inside the team (=band?) – while at the same time, it weakens the weight of – – reality/ the whole bunch of all those oh so tiny, tiny little details out there – – : Myriads of them, brothers & sisters, makes no sense at all to have too close a look, really, we’d get lost in a second!….

  99. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    There are a lot of stories that seem ridiculous in retrospect but when you are swept up in a witch burning hysteria they seem credible at the time, at least to those who WANT to believe. See the nursery school abuse scandals, the Iraq WMD, the Salem witch trials, etc. See Russia and Trump and the Weinstein scandals right now.

    And then there are bitter clingers who will hang on even AFTER it's all revealed to be ridiculous. If you read about Wenner, it appears that he STILL believes Jackie. Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing - they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the "rape" that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it. Guess what - she deserves an Academy Award. Psychopaths can be VERY convincing liars.

    Same thing with the Bush memos - Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Forbes, @reiner Tor

    Same thing with the Bush memos – Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.

    No, she doesn’t. She’s playing Alger Hiss.

    Mapes conduct at the time suggests she knew the documents she had couldn’t pass a rigorous examination. She hired three examiners and a fourth fellow who authenticates signatures. The fourth fellow admitted his expertise does not extend to the evaluation of photocopies. She only has eight documents. She splits them into three piles and has each examiner look at two or three of them. None were inspected by all three examiners (IIRC, none were inspected by more than one examiner). The most charitable explanation is that she was in such a rush to publish something that she didn’t allocate the time for each of the three to look at all eight documents. Due diligence, anyone?

    What she did, though, was just what you’d do if you were making an actuarial calculation about the chances the examiner would authenticate a document, and considered the authentication process a game. If you figure your chances with a given examiner and a given document are even, having a second examiner inspect it cuts your assessment of your chances to 25% and having a 3d examiner look at it cuts your chances to 12.5%. You’ve only got eight documents.

    Two of the three examiners remonstrated with her and she ignored them. Now ask yourself, how does a woman born in 1956 not know that a typescript produced in 1973 is not going to look like one produced in the default settings of Microsoft Word? Did she never use a typewriter when she was enrolled at the University of Washington?

    Now, what did she and Rather do when “Buckhead”, Dr. Newcomer, Charles Johnson, and others showed what the problems were? They threw chaff in everyone’s face, putting a signature examiner on the air who took up time but wound up admitting that his skill set did not extend to authenticating anything that had been photocopied. Then they put a quondam IBM repairman on the air to demonstrate how, with a contrived procedure, you could produce something similar to the Killian documents with an expensive and rare piece of equipment you might have found in a Manhattan publishing house. This was irrelevant to the critique of the documents offered.

    It’s been in-for-a-dime-in-for-a-dollar ever since with this pair.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Art Deco

    Every single thing I typed in the '70s and '80s was a wasteland of overtyped Tippex [Liquid Paper] (and red ballpoint!).
    Highly irregular not to see any, one almost expected it, from anyone except touch-typing secretaries, and old ladies who'd worked on Enigma and the like.
    If I wanted something typed properly, it was go and get hand-scribbled manuscript in the queue for the typing pool and wait three or four days. Then send it back for literals, due to illegible Victorian-style cursive handwriting, not neat printing over a ruler, like girls Roneostat original stencils were a total nightmare. Peck hesitantly, inspect character carefully, proceed warily to next key. Forever.
    O Lord (OK, Stale White Males, it's a fair cop) I forever thank thee, for the word-processor, the golfball typewriter, the electronic calculator (with a memory!), and the Xerox machine. A fancy Swedish calculating machine was out of the question for a pleb like me. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I was introduced to the automatically recalculating spreadsheet, with formulae. Such infinite power, to be wielded by mere mortal men!

    How anyone expected such a "perfect" forgery as the Mapes thing to be accepted is ... disappointing.

  100. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @TheBoom

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn't happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    2. I understand why everyone was anxious to publicly condemn rape. Why not? Even the UVA fraternities were condemning it. Too bad they didn't organize a Haven Monahan lynch mob. But the easy virtue signaling of condemning rape is a reflex while the thankless reminder of avoiding a rush to judgment.

    3. I have to wonder if there isn't a little more skepticism these days. There were maybe 50 readers of secondary reports (for every reader of the original) of the article by reputable publications followed by the reaction on campus -- which was a universal, blanket condemnation of rape. On campus, this was an opportunity to push various agendas regarding frats, drinking, etc. The credibility of the initial story was enhanced by the story of how the rape is causing people to raise questions on campus, to the extent that it became disruptive. The New York Times can't directly print unsupported salacious gossip, but can and does immediately report that 'Publication X reported xxxxx'.

    4. And within hours if not the week, groups on campus were tripping over themselves to take some action ... any action .... that could be considered anti-rape. At this point, those people could claim that even if it didn't happen, it "could" have happened and therefore these rules/programs and 'The Discussion" are good, independently of the specifics. Which are simply details.

    5. T Rees Shapiro from the Washington Post was on it after the story started leaking oil. A little late, but once they smelled blood in the water, they did a thorough job. It's only down the road and Shapiro brought along a few Junior writers or interns and loved every minute of exposing a competitor, Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone flanked the Post and establishment media from the left on the 2008 Financial Crisis -- and had a rather easy time of it given the laxity of RS's journalistic standards.

    The core of it was that it was that there was virtually no pushback on it from UVa. No one looks good here except:

    From Wikipedia


    Questions emerge[edit]
    Richard Bradley, editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, was the first mainstream journalist[17] to question the Rolling Stone article, in a blog entry written on November 24, 2014.[18] The entry began drawing national media attention in the days after paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer made an entry on his own blog at the Unz Review on November 29 in which he discussed and linked to Bradley's piece.[19]
     
    Story, Nov 19
    Bradley, Blog Nov 24
    Sailor, Unz Nov 29
    T Rees Shapiro, Washington Post Dec 5

    U Va had already put the wheels in motion and didn't catch up to the hoax angle for quite a while.

    Steve/Unz have a pretty large readership. Bradley? Not so much, but he did take immediate flack from Jezebel, giving his blog post much more exposure.

    The Washington Post published their usual, "me too, against rape" columns prior to taking their rightful place as the biggest paper close by to run down details. So, they weren't breaking a story so much as running down details.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Anon

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn’t happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    Other thing. RS is a magazine that promotes little else but degeneracy, Rap thuggery, and whore culture.

    It’s sickening how these peddlers of chaos and madness feign concern for poor victims of boorish behavior.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @Anon

    Erdeley had a contract, IIRC, to produce five stories for $700,000. She was lazy, had a track record of shoddy work, i.e. subject and conclusion decided in advance, just needed the correct target. She wanted to get paid--it's not as if she needed to put in the leg work.

  101. @Jack D

    All of this would have been eminently noble had it been correct.
     
    It would also be eminently noble to put Jews on trial for slaying Christian children in order to make matzoh HAD IT BEEN CORRECT.

    This is what is known as a "counterfactual". Or as the old Yiddish saying goes, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a trolley car. There's just one niggling little detail (the truth) standing between you and nobility. But if you just put that aside, it's noble.

    Replies: @Anon, @silviosilver, @Logan

    I’m probably going to walk into a buzzsaw on this one.

    But.

    The infamous “blood libel” story rests on the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about whether any such thing ever occurred.

    So I ask the simple question: Is it utterly beyond the realm of possibility that just once in all those centuries an evil or insane Jewish man or group of men murdered a Christian child in a black magic rite?

    We know from history that children were sacrificed in Black Masses by “Christians.” Why is it beyond even the realm of possibility that some Jews did the same? We also know that various types of magic were popular in Jewish communities in medieval and modern times.

    I guest I’m obliged to note that I reject the notion that “Jews” need Christian blood to make Passover matzoh. I’m asking whether it’s just possible one or more of the blood libel accusations might have, in essence, been true. God knows Jews as a group were given, over the centuries, plenty of reason to want to revenge themselves on Gentiles.

    • Replies: @Logan
    @Logan

    In reality, “A Rape on Campus” was self-evidently absurd with its seven fraternity boys risking very personal parts of themselves to gang rape a coed in the dark for three hours on top of a smashed glass coffee table.

    I've known some pretty hinky types, some of whom might not have been averse to a little gang rape.

    But I don't think I've ever known a guy who would risk his equipment like this, no matter how drunk he might be.

    , @guest
    @Logan

    I think you know the "blood libel" doesn't consist of one Jew at some point in history kidnapped and murdered one Christian child. It's that they regularly used the blood of Christian children in their rituals.

    You couldn't, for instance, convince someone who believed the Holocaust story to be a libel against the German people by telling him one Nazi killed one Jew for some reason during the war. The story is that 6 million were killed deliberately in order to wipe out Jewry.

    Likewise, if you tell a Jew one or even many Jews killed Christian children for their blood in the Bad Old Days, he could easily contend the medieval church was nevertheless libelous.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Jack D
    @Logan

    There is an ancient Jewish taboo against blood. Animals must be killed by slitting their throats and letting the blood drain out (it is not consumed- there is no such thing as a kosher blood sausage, black pudding, etc.). Meat must then be salted and soaked to further remove the blood from it before consumption. Menstruating women are considered unclean and must attend a ritual bath before resuming relations. Etc. So the idea that Jews would consume human blood just doesn't ring true for the culture - it would be like accusing black people of stealing math books so they could secretly study them. The blood libel was very specific - it didn't just involve accusations of murdering Christian children but consumption of their blood (thus the name) and so it must have been invented by someone totally unfamiliar with Jewish culture and law.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Logan

  102. @Logan
    @Jack D

    I'm probably going to walk into a buzzsaw on this one.

    But.

    The infamous "blood libel" story rests on the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about whether any such thing ever occurred.

    So I ask the simple question: Is it utterly beyond the realm of possibility that just once in all those centuries an evil or insane Jewish man or group of men murdered a Christian child in a black magic rite?

    We know from history that children were sacrificed in Black Masses by "Christians." Why is it beyond even the realm of possibility that some Jews did the same? We also know that various types of magic were popular in Jewish communities in medieval and modern times.

    I guest I'm obliged to note that I reject the notion that "Jews" need Christian blood to make Passover matzoh. I'm asking whether it's just possible one or more of the blood libel accusations might have, in essence, been true. God knows Jews as a group were given, over the centuries, plenty of reason to want to revenge themselves on Gentiles.

    Replies: @Logan, @guest, @Jack D

    In reality, “A Rape on Campus” was self-evidently absurd with its seven fraternity boys risking very personal parts of themselves to gang rape a coed in the dark for three hours on top of a smashed glass coffee table.

    I’ve known some pretty hinky types, some of whom might not have been averse to a little gang rape.

    But I don’t think I’ve ever known a guy who would risk his equipment like this, no matter how drunk he might be.

  103. @ThreeCranes
    @Anon

    Your comment,

    "Though sociopathic journalists are driven by the need to stalk and hunt and carry home trophies, they can do society some good. (The problem is the media sometimes confuse powerful individuals with the notion of powerful people. If ‘white people’ are deemed powerful, then even the powerless among white people become targets of journalism." etc etc

    like anon's above comparing what's going on to hunting trophies is, I believe, right on target. And again I'll say (with Steve's forbearance) Thanks, I've learned a new way of looking at things from reading this today.

    Thorstein Veblen spoke about coup counting and taking trophies as important markers or indicators of wealth and power in capitalist economies. It would seem that while for an engineer, building a machine or bridge counts as a trophy; for a journalist, some poor b*stard's scalp.

    Replies: @Logan

    Or, in the words of the inimitable Tom Wolfe, the Great White Defendant.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    @Logan

    Wolfe was a great friend of Wenner at one time. The original version of Bonfire of the Vanities was published in Rolling Stone. Apparently it was very different from the later version (Sherman was an author, which must have made the whole story completely different), but Wenner was profusely thanked in the acknowledgments of the book. Has Wolfe ever weighed in on the downfall of the magazine? I suspect he probably doesn't read blogs and might have been taken in by the watered-down official version described here.

  104. @Jack D
    @Bill P

    Rahm Emanuel said "never let a crisis go to waste". The Weinstein scandal is now being used as a pretext to purge as many white men as possible from all institutions. Anyone who ever looked down a secretary's blouse can now be purged as a "wrecker".

    Replies: @Logan

    The amusing part of this is that white men are probably the least likely group of men to aggressively harass women sexually. Pretty much all the men of color are more likely to participate. Possibly excluding (East) Asians.

  105. @kihowi
    @Jack D

    Wouldn't it be awful if the world's sociopaths banded together in some sort of a tribe, formed a values system in which shameless lying was the highest virtue and shielded each other from the consequences of their behavior?

    Replies: @guest, @guest

    Not really, because they’d be crap at cooperation and therefore weak.

  106. @guest
    I notice that the Wikipedia article for A Rape on Campus still describes Our Host as "paleoconservative" instead of "insane, hard-right, multi-phobic, isolationist, alleged puppy-stomping neo-nazi." That's nice.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Forbes

    What is the hierarchy of conservatives?

    There is right wing, extreme right wing, neo, and paleo that I know of, but I do not know which is the worst. Whatever it is, that’s me.

  107. @kihowi
    @Jack D

    Wouldn't it be awful if the world's sociopaths banded together in some sort of a tribe, formed a values system in which shameless lying was the highest virtue and shielded each other from the consequences of their behavior?

    Replies: @guest, @guest

    Not really, because they’d be crap at cooperation and therefore weak.

  108. @Logan
    @Jack D

    I'm probably going to walk into a buzzsaw on this one.

    But.

    The infamous "blood libel" story rests on the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about whether any such thing ever occurred.

    So I ask the simple question: Is it utterly beyond the realm of possibility that just once in all those centuries an evil or insane Jewish man or group of men murdered a Christian child in a black magic rite?

    We know from history that children were sacrificed in Black Masses by "Christians." Why is it beyond even the realm of possibility that some Jews did the same? We also know that various types of magic were popular in Jewish communities in medieval and modern times.

    I guest I'm obliged to note that I reject the notion that "Jews" need Christian blood to make Passover matzoh. I'm asking whether it's just possible one or more of the blood libel accusations might have, in essence, been true. God knows Jews as a group were given, over the centuries, plenty of reason to want to revenge themselves on Gentiles.

    Replies: @Logan, @guest, @Jack D

    I think you know the “blood libel” doesn’t consist of one Jew at some point in history kidnapped and murdered one Christian child. It’s that they regularly used the blood of Christian children in their rituals.

    You couldn’t, for instance, convince someone who believed the Holocaust story to be a libel against the German people by telling him one Nazi killed one Jew for some reason during the war. The story is that 6 million were killed deliberately in order to wipe out Jewry.

    Likewise, if you tell a Jew one or even many Jews killed Christian children for their blood in the Bad Old Days, he could easily contend the medieval church was nevertheless libelous.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @guest


    he could easily contend the medieval church was nevertheless libelous.
     
    On what evidence?

    Replies: @guest

  109. @TheBoom
    One of the most delicious aspects of Harveywood and its sister scandals in the press, academia, politics and business is how the chickens have come home to roost for the people who drove the fantasy about a culture of rape. Not only is their hypocrisy and corruption being exposed, but they will also get to suffer from the concepts of immediately believing the victim and the necessity of crushing the perp without benefit of trial. Rarely do our betters ever have to suffer the consequences of their agenda along with the plebs.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon, @Forbes

    the chickens have come home to roost for the people who drove the fantasy about a culture of rape. … but they will also get to suffer from the concepts of immediately believing the victim and the necessity of crushing the perp without benefit of trial.

    Isn’t this “To Kill a Mockingbird” coming full circle where a female alleged victim fabricated a story about being raped by an innocent (black) boy? In an attempt to tell a story exposing racial intolerance, we learn that women fabricate stories of rape.

  110. @El Dato
    @Cagey Beast


    after being accused of forcibly kissing two women in the 1990s
     
    That's literally unnatural! Does anyone still do such things?

    Replies: @Forbes

    I hear that kissing women was all the rage in the 1990s–Another victory for role model and hero Bill Clinton!

  111. @Logan
    @Jack D

    I'm probably going to walk into a buzzsaw on this one.

    But.

    The infamous "blood libel" story rests on the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about whether any such thing ever occurred.

    So I ask the simple question: Is it utterly beyond the realm of possibility that just once in all those centuries an evil or insane Jewish man or group of men murdered a Christian child in a black magic rite?

    We know from history that children were sacrificed in Black Masses by "Christians." Why is it beyond even the realm of possibility that some Jews did the same? We also know that various types of magic were popular in Jewish communities in medieval and modern times.

    I guest I'm obliged to note that I reject the notion that "Jews" need Christian blood to make Passover matzoh. I'm asking whether it's just possible one or more of the blood libel accusations might have, in essence, been true. God knows Jews as a group were given, over the centuries, plenty of reason to want to revenge themselves on Gentiles.

    Replies: @Logan, @guest, @Jack D

    There is an ancient Jewish taboo against blood. Animals must be killed by slitting their throats and letting the blood drain out (it is not consumed- there is no such thing as a kosher blood sausage, black pudding, etc.). Meat must then be salted and soaked to further remove the blood from it before consumption. Menstruating women are considered unclean and must attend a ritual bath before resuming relations. Etc. So the idea that Jews would consume human blood just doesn’t ring true for the culture – it would be like accusing black people of stealing math books so they could secretly study them. The blood libel was very specific – it didn’t just involve accusations of murdering Christian children but consumption of their blood (thus the name) and so it must have been invented by someone totally unfamiliar with Jewish culture and law.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jack D


    The blood libel was very specific – it didn’t just involve accusations of murdering Christian children but consumption of their blood (thus the name) and so it must have been invented by someone totally unfamiliar with Jewish culture and law.
     
    Jack D, it seems either I know more about Jews than you do (unlikely) or you are simply dishonest about matters of your Tribe (very likely).

    It’s certainly plausible that ancient and medieval Gentiles learned about Jewish ritual baby penis cutting and bloodsucking and it morphed into rumors that some spiteful Jews were ritually consuming Gentile child blood as well. Some of the old paintings (scroll down) depicting the alleged practice look like circumcision rituals gone homicidal.
    , @Logan
    @Jack D

    I agree that the blood libel as such is untrue.

    But the common claim is that each and every one of the many accusations was false. It is simply assumed. I'm asking why it's beyond the realm of possibility that one or more evil or insane Jews down the century actually did kill a Christian child for ritualistic reasons.

    Pretty clearly people who discovered the corpse of a child who appeared to have been tortured to death were not totally consumed with discovering whether blood from the child had been consumed.

    Replies: @guest

  112. @guest
    "Rolling Stone would simply publish her account without contacting them [the alleged attackers]. The practice of shielding a rape victim from undue trauma by her attackers was not unheard of..."

    I don't understand this idea of supposed trauma "by" her attackers. I realize people use prepositions loosely these days, but how would her rapers, if they were rapers, traumatize "Jackie" directly? It's not like she had to be in the room when Erdely interviewed them. Rolling Stone wouldn't be under any obligation to print everything they said verbatim, or anything they said for that matter, leaving "Jackie" vulnerable to trauma upon reading it. She could remain ignorant of the whole process.

    Rolling Stone wouldn't even have to print anything they learned from contacting them. Unless what they learned contradicted parts of the story with which they wanted to run. As it turns out digging just a little bit would have.

    But say Erdely was interested in not learning anything too much, so as not to lose her perfect Great White Defendant story. She wouldn't have to dig too deep. At least find out if these men actually exist, and whether it was physically possible for them to do what "Jackie" alleged.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    The whole article is full of false equivocations like that.

    “In the scramble to publish,…”

    What scramble? Even if the story were true, it would have been cold. There was no deadline and no competition. So the “scramble” is a fake retconned justification.

    “…Will Dana said he operated under the assumption that Rosen had reviewed the manuscript for libel. …”

    Irrelevant, even if it were true. The issue was not that the article was libelous (though it was). The issue was that the article was completely false. “Libel” is a diversion.

    “… She hadn’t, and Dana barely knew the new lawyer, Natalie Krodel. …”

    Whether or not he knew the lawyer is as irrelevant as whether a lawyer was involved at all. This wasn’t a matter of parsing obscure publishing statutes; it was a matter of the story being completely fabricated. Lawyers look at the law. Journalists and editors (are supposed to) look at accuracy. This wasn’t a lawyer problem, though it became one. I suspect they got to know their lawyers pretty well in the end, though. Lol.

    “… Dana was evidently unaware of Erdely’s decision to steer clear of the men “Jackie” implicated in a rape, and he never inquired about it.”

    Again, irrelevant diversion. Erdely didn’t decide to “steer clear”. The men, circumstances and events simply didn’t exist. There was nothing to steer clear of. Erdely wasn’t making arguable journalistic judgments. Erdely was a co-liar, co-conspirator in crime.

    Etc.

    Pretty much every sentence is an attempt to retcon, rationalize, misdirect, wave away, or conspire in covering up the crimes of the Rolling Stone staff. RS should tap this writer to help pay their judgement.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @Almost Missouri

    Absolutely. Distraction by misdirection appears to be the MO of the left.

  113. @Anon
    then at the end of his testimony to the parole board, slipped up blew it when he told the board that he would never do anything like those things again because, “it was the worst thing that ever happened to me”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_VVVTmiWFo

    Yep, sociopaths. I hear that journalism attracts sociopaths. They don't murder people. They just want to murder reputations. Now, that isn't a bad thing because politicians, celebrities, and powerful people need to be pressured now and then. Also, most people have no voice, and so, journalists can make them heard. Though sociopathic journalists are driven by the need to stalk and hunt and carry home trophies, they can do society some good. (The problem is the media sometimes confuse powerful individuals with the notion of powerful people. If 'white people' are deemed powerful, then even the powerless among white people become targets of journalism. After all, if an entire population is designated as 'powerful and privileged', then even ordinary college frat boys, who got no power, are seen as the Nazis. This is all the more perverse because truly powerful whites shore up their own 'progressive' credentials by going after powerless whites, like college fraternity or white working class. If all whites are deemed 'powerful', then even catching small fish can seem like big fish... while the real big fish, like Jann Wenner, flatter themselves that they minnows that they bagged are the Great White Shark.)

    But, if some journalists wanna bring down or 'murder' powerful people, some just wanna murder the truth. They see it as some kind of con-game. I think Erdely got her high not only by defaming fantasy nazi-frats at UVA but by fooling everyone at RS. So, while there is clearly the ethnic angle, there is also the personal angle.
    It's like Stephen Glass at The New Republic got off on spinning lies and fooling the very people who trusted and admired him. It was like a drug to him. It was like being a hustler. It's like Johnny Boy in MEAN STREETS just loves fooling and ripping off everyone, like he's above the law. And a kind of personal nihilism animated Erderly. In this end, tribalism was secondary to her egotism. I mean, if she wanted a story about bad white guys, it wouldn't have been difficult. After all, every college has some bad white guys who do terrible things. She could have a made an issue out of one of those. The usual drunken white fratboy story. But she had to go for something spectacular. Something so crazy that it must be true. So crazy that no one would dare make it up. That was the 'genius' of her story. It was so outlandish that Wenner and others thought, 'no one would dare make up something this outrageous'. She fooled them all.

    SHATTERED GLASS should be required viewing for anyone in our age of so many fake news, from both establishment and alternative media.
    As good as SHATTERED GLASS, it's a straightforward and rather obvious telling of who Glass was and why he ended up the way he did. It doesn't really get under his skin though. We mostly see the externals.

    A far trickier and suggestive movie about a sociopath is THE INFORMANT that worms and weasels into our brains until the 'hero' and we are on the same wavelength. Even as we begin to notice his nuttery, his voice is inside our heads, constantly whispering and murmuring about angles, implications, and possibilities. There's a lot of trivia but some fit right into newly invented tales.
    As good as MICHAEL CLAYTON, the narrative is pretty obvious. It's about the hunt for the big whale. Corporate Evil. At the end, we know Clayton bagged a lion.
    In contrast, THE INFORMANT is like catching a mouse, and it shows how close tragedy and comedy and normality and insanity can be. All the more ironic since it was based on work by Kurt Eichenwald, a nutter himself who made it to elite positions in journalism.
    The odd thing about the Damon character is now both spontaneous and predictable his mind is. It's ingenious in coming up with new complications and implications, but once you become accustomed to his way of thinking -- as the FBI guys eventually come around to doing --, a certain pattern emerges like in a chess game.

    Maybe THE INFORMANT offers a clue as to why people like these think and act they way they do. They have multi-level modes of thinking. Matt Damon character is never thinking of one thing at once. He's always thinking of things related to that thing and then things related to those things. And some of these references are factual, some of them are fantasy, like referencing Tom Cruise movies, esp THE FIRM. It's like he's trying not only to outsmart others but to outsmart himself.

    His mind is scrabble-like. He's always looking for new narratives to add to the existing narrative and then forming another narrative on the new narrative and etc. And it's like he can't help himself. It's just part of his nature. He finally confesses at the end because he is a cornered mouse and can't weasel out of these lies anymore.

    But then, even in jail, his mindset remains intact, and he's really a sick person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGx7iw6y86s

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Antlitz Grollheim

    I’ve had several opportunities to witness journalists in action, and you are dead on. The way they insinuate friendly interest in order to manipulate and destroy their targets is a sick spectacle.

    Great movie recommendations too, thanks.

  114. Anonymous [AKA "kind of uzbek"] says:

    with brett ratner now on the chopping bloc too for pawing olivia munn (while eating very non kosher food!) it seems to me we need a metric:

    ratio of jewish harassres to goy victims

    these gentlemen are not pawing good jewish girls, theyre pawing everything but

    in turn there seem to be fairly few goy harassers

    by analogy to the shocking ration of black-on-white vs white-on-black rape, i bet

    N(Hj|Vg) / N(Hg|Vj) >> 1

  115. @guest
    I notice that the Wikipedia article for A Rape on Campus still describes Our Host as "paleoconservative" instead of "insane, hard-right, multi-phobic, isolationist, alleged puppy-stomping neo-nazi." That's nice.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Forbes

    Does Wikipedia make these fine-grained distinctions for folks on the liberal/left? Are there puppy-stomping neo-liberals and hard-left multicultural inclusionists?

  116. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    There are a lot of stories that seem ridiculous in retrospect but when you are swept up in a witch burning hysteria they seem credible at the time, at least to those who WANT to believe. See the nursery school abuse scandals, the Iraq WMD, the Salem witch trials, etc. See Russia and Trump and the Weinstein scandals right now.

    And then there are bitter clingers who will hang on even AFTER it's all revealed to be ridiculous. If you read about Wenner, it appears that he STILL believes Jackie. Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing - they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the "rape" that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it. Guess what - she deserves an Academy Award. Psychopaths can be VERY convincing liars.

    Same thing with the Bush memos - Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Forbes, @reiner Tor

    Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing – they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the “rape” that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has morphed into the ‘right to not be disappointed’ in life. The state of mental health on most college campuses is (apparently) dreadful, e.g. the need for safe spaces, micro-aggressions causing offense, outrage at contrary views and perspectives–and all the rest.

    And in the general populace, the belief that trade-offs lock-in all upsides and benefits, while entailing no costs, obligations, or adverse consequences is pretty legion. Women especially, but not uniquely, seem to fabricate stories about the life they lead based on their preferences–and should it not work out in that direction–are traumatized by the disappointment. Their unhappiness is someone’s fault!

    Women can be VERY convincing liars. I’ve been acquainted with too many.

  117. @Anon
    @anon

    1. Why was the Bi-Weekly Rolling Stone so anxious to get this into print? The non rape didn’t happen a full year earlier. No one else was hot on the trail.

    Other thing. RS is a magazine that promotes little else but degeneracy, Rap thuggery, and whore culture.

    It's sickening how these peddlers of chaos and madness feign concern for poor victims of boorish behavior.

    Replies: @Forbes

    Erdeley had a contract, IIRC, to produce five stories for $700,000. She was lazy, had a track record of shoddy work, i.e. subject and conclusion decided in advance, just needed the correct target. She wanted to get paid–it’s not as if she needed to put in the leg work.

  118. @Almost Missouri
    @guest

    The whole article is full of false equivocations like that.


    "In the scramble to publish,..."
     
    What scramble? Even if the story were true, it would have been cold. There was no deadline and no competition. So the "scramble" is a fake retconned justification.

    "...Will Dana said he operated under the assumption that Rosen had reviewed the manuscript for libel. ..."
     
    Irrelevant, even if it were true. The issue was not that the article was libelous (though it was). The issue was that the article was completely false. "Libel" is a diversion.

    "... She hadn’t, and Dana barely knew the new lawyer, Natalie Krodel. ..."
     
    Whether or not he knew the lawyer is as irrelevant as whether a lawyer was involved at all. This wasn't a matter of parsing obscure publishing statutes; it was a matter of the story being completely fabricated. Lawyers look at the law. Journalists and editors (are supposed to) look at accuracy. This wasn't a lawyer problem, though it became one. I suspect they got to know their lawyers pretty well in the end, though. Lol.

    "... Dana was evidently unaware of Erdely’s decision to steer clear of the men “Jackie” implicated in a rape, and he never inquired about it."
     
    Again, irrelevant diversion. Erdely didn't decide to "steer clear". The men, circumstances and events simply didn't exist. There was nothing to steer clear of. Erdely wasn't making arguable journalistic judgments. Erdely was a co-liar, co-conspirator in crime.

    Etc.

    Pretty much every sentence is an attempt to retcon, rationalize, misdirect, wave away, or conspire in covering up the crimes of the Rolling Stone staff. RS should tap this writer to help pay their judgement.

    Replies: @Forbes

    Absolutely. Distraction by misdirection appears to be the MO of the left.

  119. @Logan
    @ThreeCranes

    Or, in the words of the inimitable Tom Wolfe, the Great White Defendant.

    Replies: @James Kabala

    Wolfe was a great friend of Wenner at one time. The original version of Bonfire of the Vanities was published in Rolling Stone. Apparently it was very different from the later version (Sherman was an author, which must have made the whole story completely different), but Wenner was profusely thanked in the acknowledgments of the book. Has Wolfe ever weighed in on the downfall of the magazine? I suspect he probably doesn’t read blogs and might have been taken in by the watered-down official version described here.

  120. @guest
    @Logan

    I think you know the "blood libel" doesn't consist of one Jew at some point in history kidnapped and murdered one Christian child. It's that they regularly used the blood of Christian children in their rituals.

    You couldn't, for instance, convince someone who believed the Holocaust story to be a libel against the German people by telling him one Nazi killed one Jew for some reason during the war. The story is that 6 million were killed deliberately in order to wipe out Jewry.

    Likewise, if you tell a Jew one or even many Jews killed Christian children for their blood in the Bad Old Days, he could easily contend the medieval church was nevertheless libelous.

    Replies: @Anon

    he could easily contend the medieval church was nevertheless libelous.

    On what evidence?

    • Replies: @guest
    @Anon

    I mean on the grounds described above, assuming Medieval Christians libeled Jews. I'm taking that for granted. Whether or not they actually did, and to what extent, is a separate matter.

    Replies: @Anon

  121. @Anon
    @guest


    he could easily contend the medieval church was nevertheless libelous.
     
    On what evidence?

    Replies: @guest

    I mean on the grounds described above, assuming Medieval Christians libeled Jews. I’m taking that for granted. Whether or not they actually did, and to what extent, is a separate matter.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @guest

    Fair enough.

  122. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @TBA
    As for the glass table thing: it's not so absurd. We're not talking window glass here. Presumably, the glass in a glass table is of the kind that doesn't shatter into very sharp pieces, and a rapist could simply whisk away the pieces of glass between the victim's legs. The idea that someone crushed a bottle against her head without also crushing her head is more bizarre.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Not a bad point at all.
    If you’re willing to participate in a gang rape….
    … and I think that is the key issue.
    If you’re willing to participate in a gang rape, then you are probably right then focused on the immediate thrill. That is a potential for evil that lurks in all of us, a point I think many leftists fail to grasp. Of course it is morally wrong. I don’t ACTUALLY want to do that at ALL. But I recognize that I am not some special person incapable of dark evil. If I really, really thought I could get away with gang rape, I might be in a frame of mind where I was willing to risk physical damage to various parts of my body.
    Perhaps the better question is whether any blond boy admitted to UVA is willing risk his life (I mean his social future) for the short term thrill of a gang rape.

  123. @Jack D
    @Logan

    There is an ancient Jewish taboo against blood. Animals must be killed by slitting their throats and letting the blood drain out (it is not consumed- there is no such thing as a kosher blood sausage, black pudding, etc.). Meat must then be salted and soaked to further remove the blood from it before consumption. Menstruating women are considered unclean and must attend a ritual bath before resuming relations. Etc. So the idea that Jews would consume human blood just doesn't ring true for the culture - it would be like accusing black people of stealing math books so they could secretly study them. The blood libel was very specific - it didn't just involve accusations of murdering Christian children but consumption of their blood (thus the name) and so it must have been invented by someone totally unfamiliar with Jewish culture and law.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Logan

    The blood libel was very specific – it didn’t just involve accusations of murdering Christian children but consumption of their blood (thus the name) and so it must have been invented by someone totally unfamiliar with Jewish culture and law.

    Jack D, it seems either I know more about Jews than you do (unlikely) or you are simply dishonest about matters of your Tribe (very likely).

    It’s certainly plausible that ancient and medieval Gentiles learned about Jewish ritual baby penis cutting and bloodsucking and it morphed into rumors that some spiteful Jews were ritually consuming Gentile child blood as well. Some of the old paintings (scroll down) depicting the alleged practice look like circumcision rituals gone homicidal.

  124. @guest
    @Anon

    I mean on the grounds described above, assuming Medieval Christians libeled Jews. I'm taking that for granted. Whether or not they actually did, and to what extent, is a separate matter.

    Replies: @Anon

    Fair enough.

  125. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    There are a lot of stories that seem ridiculous in retrospect but when you are swept up in a witch burning hysteria they seem credible at the time, at least to those who WANT to believe. See the nursery school abuse scandals, the Iraq WMD, the Salem witch trials, etc. See Russia and Trump and the Weinstein scandals right now.

    And then there are bitter clingers who will hang on even AFTER it's all revealed to be ridiculous. If you read about Wenner, it appears that he STILL believes Jackie. Maybe she invented some details but SOMETHING traumatic must have happened to her. In fact her friends said the same thing - they said that she appeared so traumatized on the night of the "rape" that she deserves an Academy Award if she was totally faking it. Guess what - she deserves an Academy Award. Psychopaths can be VERY convincing liars.

    Same thing with the Bush memos - Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Forbes, @reiner Tor

    I have never fallen for the other things you mention, but regarding the Weinstein scandal I didn’t think the accusations as such are really implausible – a rich and powerful guy in the movie industry using his money, fame, and power to get sex from actresses and other women in the entertainment industry, and being very blunt about it, like casually grabbing the tits of whoever came to his office. It’s also not implausible that whenever things didn’t turn out the way he hoped (when the women took a stand, like the Italian model), then he used his power and money and connections to protect himself. I don’t know how true Ann Coulter’s claims about the outright lying titles of the New York Post regarding the Italian woman, but it certainly is not something that is obviously untrue. I mean, I have seen outright lies and falsifications in the media several times, why should I automatically disbelieve a story because it contains allegations of such lies? And the police is certainly not above protecting certain powerful people. If the FBI could protect Hillary, then why would it be impossible to believe the same thing regarding the NYPD and Weinstein?

    I think what’s missing from the accusations is the context – that Weinstein became used to it because the vast majority of those women let him do that. (I find it especially disgusting how his gold-digger wife dumped him – is she implying she didn’t know who her husband was?) I’m sure that some women protested it immediately. I’m also not sure if Weinstein does have a legal right to just grab the tits of any woman entering his office. But I’ve seen pictures of several accusers or corroborators of the story (like Gwyneth Paltrow etc.) being totally chummy with Weinstein to believe that in their cases there was no crime – a lot of these women willingly offered themselves up for “harassment”, and Weinstein did what each of them knew he would do.

    • Replies: @Logan
    @reiner Tor

    Well, according to a good many feminists at the time of the B. Clinton investigations, any good liberal Democrat is entitled to one free grope, which makes sense on some level as, until the woman objects, how is the guy supposed to know she is unwilling?

  126. @Jack D
    @Logan

    There is an ancient Jewish taboo against blood. Animals must be killed by slitting their throats and letting the blood drain out (it is not consumed- there is no such thing as a kosher blood sausage, black pudding, etc.). Meat must then be salted and soaked to further remove the blood from it before consumption. Menstruating women are considered unclean and must attend a ritual bath before resuming relations. Etc. So the idea that Jews would consume human blood just doesn't ring true for the culture - it would be like accusing black people of stealing math books so they could secretly study them. The blood libel was very specific - it didn't just involve accusations of murdering Christian children but consumption of their blood (thus the name) and so it must have been invented by someone totally unfamiliar with Jewish culture and law.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Logan

    I agree that the blood libel as such is untrue.

    But the common claim is that each and every one of the many accusations was false. It is simply assumed. I’m asking why it’s beyond the realm of possibility that one or more evil or insane Jews down the century actually did kill a Christian child for ritualistic reasons.

    Pretty clearly people who discovered the corpse of a child who appeared to have been tortured to death were not totally consumed with discovering whether blood from the child had been consumed.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Logan

    "But the common claim is that each and every one of the many accusations was false"

    Is that common? Even if active opponents of the blood libel have never found an accusation they like, I imagine they're smart enough to adopt the line of argument beloved of Holocaust deniers; i.e., however many Jews were killed by Nazis, it wasn't part of some big conspiracy. (And some of them deserved it.)

    That way, if there are verifiable historical cases, their arguments don't fall apart. They go with the "isolated incident" argument.

    If what you're alleging actually is common, it's because they have the run of the field, with no one of significance bothering to contradict them.

    Replies: @Logan

  127. @Logan
    @Jack D

    I agree that the blood libel as such is untrue.

    But the common claim is that each and every one of the many accusations was false. It is simply assumed. I'm asking why it's beyond the realm of possibility that one or more evil or insane Jews down the century actually did kill a Christian child for ritualistic reasons.

    Pretty clearly people who discovered the corpse of a child who appeared to have been tortured to death were not totally consumed with discovering whether blood from the child had been consumed.

    Replies: @guest

    “But the common claim is that each and every one of the many accusations was false”

    Is that common? Even if active opponents of the blood libel have never found an accusation they like, I imagine they’re smart enough to adopt the line of argument beloved of Holocaust deniers; i.e., however many Jews were killed by Nazis, it wasn’t part of some big conspiracy. (And some of them deserved it.)

    That way, if there are verifiable historical cases, their arguments don’t fall apart. They go with the “isolated incident” argument.

    If what you’re alleging actually is common, it’s because they have the run of the field, with no one of significance bothering to contradict them.

    • Replies: @Logan
    @guest

    All good points.

    My original comment was simply that of the many accounts and discussions of this issue I've read, every single one simply assumed that none of the claims were true in essence, which I would define as a Jew or Jews killing children of other faiths for what they perceived to be ritualistic or magical reasons.

    So when I'm reading along and come to these multiple assumptions of fact, I tend to ask t he reasonable obvious question. Is what is assumed actually true?

    As stated, I do not believe for a moment that the Jews as a group or probably even any large section ever believed or did such things. But given the medieval preoccpation with magic, including black magic and necromancy, it seems to me it's at least plausible that one or more of the accusations was in essence accurate.

    Obtaining accurate evidence at this point is of course utterly impossible, so I guess it's all just speculation.

  128. @guest
    @Logan

    "But the common claim is that each and every one of the many accusations was false"

    Is that common? Even if active opponents of the blood libel have never found an accusation they like, I imagine they're smart enough to adopt the line of argument beloved of Holocaust deniers; i.e., however many Jews were killed by Nazis, it wasn't part of some big conspiracy. (And some of them deserved it.)

    That way, if there are verifiable historical cases, their arguments don't fall apart. They go with the "isolated incident" argument.

    If what you're alleging actually is common, it's because they have the run of the field, with no one of significance bothering to contradict them.

    Replies: @Logan

    All good points.

    My original comment was simply that of the many accounts and discussions of this issue I’ve read, every single one simply assumed that none of the claims were true in essence, which I would define as a Jew or Jews killing children of other faiths for what they perceived to be ritualistic or magical reasons.

    So when I’m reading along and come to these multiple assumptions of fact, I tend to ask t he reasonable obvious question. Is what is assumed actually true?

    As stated, I do not believe for a moment that the Jews as a group or probably even any large section ever believed or did such things. But given the medieval preoccpation with magic, including black magic and necromancy, it seems to me it’s at least plausible that one or more of the accusations was in essence accurate.

    Obtaining accurate evidence at this point is of course utterly impossible, so I guess it’s all just speculation.

  129. @reiner Tor
    @Jack D

    I have never fallen for the other things you mention, but regarding the Weinstein scandal I didn't think the accusations as such are really implausible - a rich and powerful guy in the movie industry using his money, fame, and power to get sex from actresses and other women in the entertainment industry, and being very blunt about it, like casually grabbing the tits of whoever came to his office. It's also not implausible that whenever things didn't turn out the way he hoped (when the women took a stand, like the Italian model), then he used his power and money and connections to protect himself. I don't know how true Ann Coulter's claims about the outright lying titles of the New York Post regarding the Italian woman, but it certainly is not something that is obviously untrue. I mean, I have seen outright lies and falsifications in the media several times, why should I automatically disbelieve a story because it contains allegations of such lies? And the police is certainly not above protecting certain powerful people. If the FBI could protect Hillary, then why would it be impossible to believe the same thing regarding the NYPD and Weinstein?

    I think what's missing from the accusations is the context - that Weinstein became used to it because the vast majority of those women let him do that. (I find it especially disgusting how his gold-digger wife dumped him - is she implying she didn't know who her husband was?) I'm sure that some women protested it immediately. I'm also not sure if Weinstein does have a legal right to just grab the tits of any woman entering his office. But I've seen pictures of several accusers or corroborators of the story (like Gwyneth Paltrow etc.) being totally chummy with Weinstein to believe that in their cases there was no crime - a lot of these women willingly offered themselves up for "harassment", and Weinstein did what each of them knew he would do.

    Replies: @Logan

    Well, according to a good many feminists at the time of the B. Clinton investigations, any good liberal Democrat is entitled to one free grope, which makes sense on some level as, until the woman objects, how is the guy supposed to know she is unwilling?

  130. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Same thing with the Bush memos – Mapes (and EH) STILL thinks they were real.


    No, she doesn't. She's playing Alger Hiss.

    Mapes conduct at the time suggests she knew the documents she had couldn't pass a rigorous examination. She hired three examiners and a fourth fellow who authenticates signatures. The fourth fellow admitted his expertise does not extend to the evaluation of photocopies. She only has eight documents. She splits them into three piles and has each examiner look at two or three of them. None were inspected by all three examiners (IIRC, none were inspected by more than one examiner). The most charitable explanation is that she was in such a rush to publish something that she didn't allocate the time for each of the three to look at all eight documents. Due diligence, anyone?

    What she did, though, was just what you'd do if you were making an actuarial calculation about the chances the examiner would authenticate a document, and considered the authentication process a game. If you figure your chances with a given examiner and a given document are even, having a second examiner inspect it cuts your assessment of your chances to 25% and having a 3d examiner look at it cuts your chances to 12.5%. You've only got eight documents.

    Two of the three examiners remonstrated with her and she ignored them. Now ask yourself, how does a woman born in 1956 not know that a typescript produced in 1973 is not going to look like one produced in the default settings of Microsoft Word? Did she never use a typewriter when she was enrolled at the University of Washington?


    Now, what did she and Rather do when "Buckhead", Dr. Newcomer, Charles Johnson, and others showed what the problems were? They threw chaff in everyone's face, putting a signature examiner on the air who took up time but wound up admitting that his skill set did not extend to authenticating anything that had been photocopied. Then they put a quondam IBM repairman on the air to demonstrate how, with a contrived procedure, you could produce something similar to the Killian documents with an expensive and rare piece of equipment you might have found in a Manhattan publishing house. This was irrelevant to the critique of the documents offered.


    It's been in-for-a-dime-in-for-a-dollar ever since with this pair.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    Every single thing I typed in the ’70s and ’80s was a wasteland of overtyped Tippex [Liquid Paper] (and red ballpoint!).
    Highly irregular not to see any, one almost expected it, from anyone except touch-typing secretaries, and old ladies who’d worked on Enigma and the like.
    If I wanted something typed properly, it was go and get hand-scribbled manuscript in the queue for the typing pool and wait three or four days. Then send it back for literals, due to illegible Victorian-style cursive handwriting, not neat printing over a ruler, like girls Roneostat original stencils were a total nightmare. Peck hesitantly, inspect character carefully, proceed warily to next key. Forever.
    O Lord (OK, Stale White Males, it’s a fair cop) I forever thank thee, for the word-processor, the golfball typewriter, the electronic calculator (with a memory!), and the Xerox machine. A fancy Swedish calculating machine was out of the question for a pleb like me. I thought I’d died and gone to heaven when I was introduced to the automatically recalculating spreadsheet, with formulae. Such infinite power, to be wielded by mere mortal men!

    How anyone expected such a “perfect” forgery as the Mapes thing to be accepted is … disappointing.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS