ANN Coulter writes about Rolling Stone’s infamous false rape story:

The UVA fake rape is even worse than the Duke lacrosse team fake rape. The accused fraternity hadn’t even courted danger by hiring a stripper. They were going about their lives, minding their own business, when, out of the blue, Rolling Stone, the president of their university, and a fiendish coed decided to accuse them of a monstrous crime.

If UVA’s much vaunted “honor code” means anything, it ought to mean the permanent expulsion of a girl who was willing to ruin the lives of men she had never met by accusing them of gang-rape – just to get the attention of a guy she liked.

To the contrary, even after this unprovoked attack on blameless UVA students, the associate dean of students, Nicole Eramo, said that college rape accusations required “balancing respect for the wishes of survivors while also providing for the safety of our communities.”

Again, isn’t someone missing from all that delicate “balancing”?

Meanwhile, the University continues to act as if the charges were true. It has just come up with a new sexual assault policy, a response to pressure from the federal Office of Civil Rights, that classifies all physical contact as potential sexual assault. As Hans Bader writes, a hug is a potential rape. Here we have more jobs for the civil rights industry.

— Comments —

Bill R. writes:

Ann Coulter writes, “They were going about their lives, minding their own business, when, out of the blue, Rolling Stone, the president of their university, and a fiendish coed…” She might also have added, “and a Jewish reporter named Sabrina Rubin Erdely,” who seems to enjoy nothing so much as publishing bigoted and dishonest stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, and others on rape, bullied gays, transvestites, domestic abuse, and similar crimes the sole perpetrators of which, in Rubin Erdely’s universe, either are white gentile heterosexual males — or should be. We can be sure she has no love lost for those who, thanks to her efforts, are the only true victims in this case.

Mark Jaws writes:

Ah, I am glad that Bill R. brought up the fact about that Erdely is Jewish and may have an axe to grind against white Christians. Of course, when I saw the “Rubin” part of her name, I knew right away who she was and what her likely motive was. [Editor: We can’t know what her motives were other than what she has expressed in interviews.] But I get tired of often being the lone person who brings these things up. The Great Lawrence Auster criticized me for it in his emails to me.

I doubt very much that a single one of your Gentile readers has ever been in an all Jewish environment. I have. My mother kept a close gaggle of Jewish lady friends who would drop by and schmooze while discussing the politics of the day. My high school in New York, Stuyvesant High, was 80 percent Jewish. In fact, David Axelrod was my high school classmate. I attended Jewish summer camps for six years, four as a child and two as a young adult – one year with Howard Stern.

If there are folks among your readership who think that there is NOT a certain percentage of Jews who harbor hatred towards Gentiles for the ghetto walls, for the yellow stars, for the sacking of Jewish quarters throughout the centuries, for the Crusades, for the Pale of Settlement, and finally, for the Holocaust, then they are not living in Realville. There are some Jews who even think that there were fiendish anti-Semites in the American government who knew of the death camps, but intentionally prevented our bombers from destroying Eichmann’s trains on their way to Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Please ponder this. We all know of some Irish Americans who to this day express hatred for the British, and somehow we tell ourselves that such feelings are perfectly justifiable. [Editor: Do we?] My Irish son-in-law is one of those people. Even some of my fellow Army officers of Irish ancestry donated money to the IRA back in the 1990s. But when it comes to my tribe, you Gentiles simply cannot conceive of the notion that Jews could somehow hate you for all that has happened to them. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “If you kill us, do not we feel hatred and revenge?”

It should therefore come as no surprise if Jewish reporters and their media mogul overseers are affected by these feelings.

Laura writes:

Just to reiterate what I said in my parenthetical comment, we really don’t know if Erdely has any kind of animus toward Christian culture and while it is interesting to note her background and make observations of the Jewish culture that may have influenced her, we should refrain from specific conclusions about Erdely’s motives.

As far as any Jewish resentment because of the Nazi persecutions, it is not justifiable. National Socialism was anti-Christian to the core and didn’t even recognize that Jesus Christ was a Jew. That’s why thousands of priests died in the Nazi camps too.

Laura adds:

Let me clarify what I wrote about Jewish resentment. Obviously, Jews are justifiably resentful against those who promoted Nazism and hatred of all Jews. They are not justifiably resentful against Christian culture because of Nazism.

Bill R. writes:

Laura writes, “As far as any Jewish resentment because of the Nazi persecutions, it is not justifiable.” The problem with Jewish resentment because of Nazi persecutions is precisely because Jews do not regard them as Nazi persecutions at all but rather another in an endless series of persecutions by white gentiles. On the other hand, my resentment toward Jews is not because they may have legitimate grievances toward my race and my civilization, as Mr. Jaws’ laundry list of offenses suggest. And, no, it does not “come as a surprise” that “Jewish reporters and their media mogul overseers are affected by these feelings.” What I resent, and what should come as a surprise, is that they wish to stew in those resentments while continuing to live among my people instead of doing the honorable thing, given those resentments, and removing themselves from the people and culture they so justifiably (from their point of view) despise, and feel has been responsible for so much of their pain and suffering (while never giving any credit, by the way, to the fact that the same civilization they feel has been responsible for so much of their pain was also the same one that pulled their proverbial chestnuts out of the fire over and over again, including with the Nazis). Furthermore, they not only wish to continue to live among the people they regard as their principle tormenters throughout history (a strange desire in and of itself, to say the least) but to do so while relentlessly disparaging that same people, their heritage, and their civilization, and everything traditional and original about it (Sabrina Rubin Erdely being just another among countless examples of this “culture of critique”).

As for refraining from “specific conclusions about Erdely’s motives,” as Laura suggests, it’s a fair enough point as far as it goes. To be sure, I have no window into Rubin Erdely’s soul. But neither do I have any window into the soul of an individual Negro or Muslim, or anyone else, for that matter, and ultimately we owe each and everyone of them the same individual deference, when it’s a question of individual culpability. But individual culpability is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not a collective culpability exists. When Mohamed Atta flew that high-jacked passenger aircraft into the World Trade Center, that was, by itself alone, no general indictment of the Muslim attitude toward the West. Strictly speaking, it was simply the act of an individual. Where one builds the case for a general indictment is in demonstrating a consistent, if not overwhelming, pattern among members of one ethnic group toward the people and civilization of another ethnic group (their drastically different methods of attack notwithstanding). And in the case of Jews, I believe an overwhelming pattern of intellectual abuse is in evidence, and reasonable inferences (not certainties) about the motives of individual members of their race, when engaged in behavior that fits that pattern, can be made. Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s cultural critiques clearly fit that pattern. Is it possible that that is just a coincidence, that she is just another liberal who only incidentally happens to be a Jew? Yes, I suppose it’s possible. But, first of all, the argument for such a coincidence become less and less likely the more such “individual” examples pile up overwhelmingly on one side. And, secondly, the point, again, is not to indict Sabrina Rubin Erdely. The point is the indictment of the behavior or her race toward mine. And, on those terms, she becomes another (and, in fact, rather typical) example of that behavior.

Laura writes:

Still, it is very important to bear in mind that most Jews are not involved in this intellectual project and should not be the object of resentment or hostility.

Laura adds:

One other thing regarding Jewish intellectual opposition to social order, which we see today in, among other things, Jewish support for abortion, feminism, same-sex “marriage,” immigration anarchy, the economic extremes of laissez faire capitalism and socialism (with different factions in each camp), is that it is simplistic to think of it as a culture war against Christians. It is a culture war against Christianity and Jews themselves must be kept in line by the intellectual vanguard, which often does not even embrace the Jewish religion. Jews must be continually drawn away by other Jews from the enormously powerful message of the Jewish Messiah. Thus the almost ceaseless activity by an intellectual minority in revolutionary movements, including the Protestant “Reformation” and the Russian Revolution, for 2,000 years. Jews are at war with their own people. Racial pride keeps them from seeing what is right in front of them: their beckoning Redeemer with a tender love and solicitude for His own people. They are drawn, often on an unconscious level, to wherever the latest moral and intellectual threats to Christianity (and by “Christianity,” I mean the Catholic Church) may be. I recommend The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones on this subject. He provides many historical examples of this phenomenon.

Jones writes:

The Catholic response to the revolutionary Jewish rejection of the Logos came to be known as “Sicut Judaeis non…,” a doctrine codified by Pope Gregory the Great and reiterated by virtually every pope after him. According to “Sicut Judaeis non …,” no one has the right to harm Jews or disrupt their worship services, but the Jews have, likewise, no right to corrupt the faith or morals of Christians or subvert Christian societies. [p. 21]

 Mr. Jaws writes:

Earlier in this thread you reminded us “to bear in mind that most Jews are not involved in this intellectual project and should not be the object of resentment or hostility.”

While I would agree with that sentiment regarding the diminished level of actual Jewish involvement, I would have to state that most Jews are well aware of its existence and accept this double standard as the status quo, just as American southern whites, who themselves would never lynch a black or spit in his face, accepted Jim Crow prior to 1964, just because “that’s the way things were.” I will offer two examples.

First, the state of Israel. Most Gentiles have no clue that Jews cannot marry non-Jews in the Jewish state. I first heard of this while watching the movie Munich about ten years ago. I expressed my bewilderment over this policy to several Jewish colleagues at work, two of whom were Orthodox Jews. They were aware of this apartheid-like policy but they shrugged their shoulders and did not seem the slightest way upset. One said this is the price to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish state.

Second, is something more close and personal, and of a less speculative nature. In 1967, 1800 units of low income housing in my neighborhood were demolished and their mostly Puerto Rican residents sent packing, for the express purpose of keeping the surrounding area of my grandparents’ Jewish housing co-operative free of minorities. And for nearly 50 years nearly 20 acres of prime Manhattan real estate has been allowed to stay undeveloped so as to not further dilute the Jewish character of the lower East Side. Such is the extent of Jewish influence and power. Don’t believe me? Here is the article.

Everyone in my neighborhood was aware of this. My grandparents, my parents, my mother’s friends, everyone, and yet not a Jew raised his voice in opposition. They explained that to keep crime down, they had to keep low-income housing out. And they were right, of course. But, these same folks would go into Ashkenazi Apoplexy if Italians were to try to pull the same trick in Canarsie or Bay Ridge, and the New York Times would not wait 50 years to bring this ethnic cleansing to the public’s attention.

It is precisely because of shenanigans such as this that the Bill R.’s of this world, and millions of others like him, are ticked off at liberal Jews.

Please follow and like us: