Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham liberalism: Feelings are truth until enough shame changes my mind

Lena Dunham APIt’s no secret that individuals who identify as liberals tend to put quite a bit of stock in feelings and emotions. A liberal’s stated intentions have a higher value than the consequences of the policies he supports. However, recent revelations surrounding Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story, Lena Dunham’s rape allegations, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protesters indicate that modern liberals have elevated their feelings to a whole new level: truth” is whatever it is a liberal man or woman is feeling at any specific moment. If it feels true, then it must be true — at least until the shouts of enough people blow the delusional fog of self-righteousness from their eyes and they are forced to acknowledge the lies.

First up we have Rolling Stone’s ‘A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,’ which turned the lives upside down for an entire campus, a slew of innocent men, and their families. “Rape culture” feels so true that it must be true — so why bother interviewing men accused of gang-rape, right Rolling Stone?

Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote “Jackie’s” story Nov. 19:

“Shut up,” she heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to the party.

“Grab its motherfucking leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.

She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement.

What a horrible experience. Unfortunately, the story is bogus. The reason Rolling Stone didn’t know earlier: feelings.

Rolling Stone’s Will Dana wrote in his “Ooops, did I do that?” apology:

“Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

As The Washington Post pointed out, there wasn’t even an event at the fraternity on the night “Jackie” told Rolling Stone she was gang-raped. But hey, the “larger truth” of “rape culture” needs to be addressed. What’s the big deal? That, of course, brings us to Lena Dunham.

Ms. Dunham wrote in her memoir, “Not That Kind of Girl,” that she was raped by a college Republican named “Barry” when she attended Oberlin College. Breitbart News actually went to the campus to investigate, and found out that her description of the campus “remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify.” When Ms. Dunham’s story started to fall apart, Oberlin’s radio station historian suddenly began to sound like she would fit right in with the editors at Rolling Stone.

Sophie Hess: “People here are less interested in justice for this kind of crime and more interested in helping the victim. I’m not psyched to help you do this.”

John Nolte: “You can look at everything I’ve thus far written about this. We just want to know the truth.”

Sophie Hess: “Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant,” Ms. Hess proclaimed. “It’s just not important if they are telling the truth. If this person had wanted criminal justice they would have pursued it.”

John Nolte: “I’m not just talking about criminal justice,” I responded. “The details in the book point to a specific individual.”

Sophie Hess: “Who graduated years ago.”

John Nolte: “This man is easily found using Google and says he’s innocent. Right now everyone is looking at him and he’s just twisting out there.”

Sophie Hess: “Our archives are private. We have no obligation to share them with anyone. I don’t want our organization to be a part of this. I’m the general manager and the answer is no.”

Again: the truth is “just not that important” if someone feels like a victim. In Ms. Dunham’s book, she says she took alcohol and drugs on the night she was allegedly raped. What is more likely, given Breitbart’s investigation — that Ms. Dunham was raped, or that she’s found a way to turn a drug-fueled experience she regrets into a public service announcement on “rape culture”?

I may feel really gross and dirty for what I did while high on cocaine with some random guy, but at least now I can turn it into a positive experience while damaging Republicans (score!) and dealing a blow to rape culture.

The same mentality also applies to those who feel like racism can only be defeated with lies.

Consider The Associated Press’ coverage on the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protests that are based on a lie (debunked by forensic evidence and multiple [black] eye-witnesses):

To some, it doesn’t matter whether Brown’s hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.

“He wasn’t shot because of the placement of his hands; he was shot because he was a big, black, scary man,” said James Cox, 28, a food server who protested this week in Oakland, California.

The truth “doesn’t matter” because a lie that can sway public opinion in support of a “bigger movement” is — in the minds of many modern liberals — better than a reality that doesn’t move large masses into action for a progressive cause. Sad.

When an ideology becomes so warped that the lies become the truth, that is how you get a.) men like Jonathan Gruber wielding enormous influence in the nation’s capitol, and b.) elected officials like Nancy Pelosi saying she doesn’t know who he is — despite video evidence to the contrary.

We live in interesting times: the truth seems treasonous, the biggest liars are given the bully pulpit, and hard-working Americans are told to sit silently while they’re blamed for the bad behavior of total strangers.

As I’ve said before: It’s been fun, Western Civilization! It’s a shame it had to end this way, but it was grand while it lasted.

Ferguson grand jury details emerge, egg piles up on the faces of its critics

Darren Wilson ABC InterviewIn the moments after the Ferguson grand jury decision, social media sites exploded with “disgusted” critics — even though they were not privy to the information seen inside the courtroom. As details emerge, those critics increasingly have egg all over their faces.

After exposing Michael Brown’s friend Dorian Johnson as a liar — forensic evidence refuted his claim that Mr. Brown was shot in the back — The Associated Press reported Wednesday:

One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson’s vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, “middle age or young” and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then “stood over him and finished him off.” But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was “based on me being where I’m from, and that can be the only assumption that I have.” …

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown’s, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown “on his knees with his hands in the air.” He added: “I seen him shoot him in the head.”

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

“What you are saying you saw isn’t forensically possible based on the evidence,” the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

“I ain’t feeling comfortable,” he said.

Imagine you’re on a grand jury, and you’re presented with “witnesses” who saw phantom cops in the passenger seat of Darren Wilson’s squad car and men who say they “ain’t feeling comfortable” when their tales of execution-style murder are destroyed by forensic evidence. During this time you’re also presented with a small group of witnesses who confirm the officer’s account of what happened. They do not see ghost cops and their stories stand up to scrutiny.

Now imagine that you see and hear Darren Wilson professionally speak in his own defense for four hours — when he doesn’t need to do so and the choice could seal his doom — and everything he says is backed by the forensic evidence, including analysis provided by an independent expert hired by Michael Brown’s family.

What would you do? If you were a member of the grand jury acting in a professional manner, then there’s a good chance you would not indict the officer. That is not a “disgusting” decision; it is, in fact, perfectly reasonable.

The behavior of online mobs ruled solely by emotion would be laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that an entire community has been ripped and burned, in part, by the ramifications of their rhetoric. Lives have been irreparably harmed by individuals seeking to politically and monetarily exploit others along racial lines, and those who are blinded by ideology can’t see how they are aiding and abetting Machiavellian mouthpieces across the nation.

The good thing about the grand jury’s decision is that it gave officer Wilson a chance to finally tell his side of the story to the public. If you haven’t had a chance to watch his 45-minute interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, then you should do so. The policeman handled himself very well.

Here is an excerpt of the kind of questions he had to put up with:

Stephanopoulos: And in your training there was no option in those moments when you were faced with Michael Brown but to shoot?

Darren Wilson: Correct.

Stephanopoulos: What about, and I don’t know enough about the training, what about when he’s coming towards you? Why not run behind the car?

Darren Wilson: Run away? How do you run…

Stephanopoulos: You just don’t do that.

Darren Wilson: You can’t run away. That’s not what we’re there for. If we ran away every time something scared us, every time we heard a noise in the night, we wouldn’t be very good at our job. We’re taught and trained to deal with the threat at hand, and that’s what I did.

In the mind of George Stephanopoulos, cops should run away and hide behind their squad cars when a 6’4″, 292-pound robbery suspect charges them.

George Stephanopoulos Darren Wilson
“What about when he’s coming towards you? Why not run behind the car?” Imagine a world where cops are trained by George Stephanopoulos. Would you feel safe?

The story of Michael Brown is a sad one, but it most certainly does not involve a cop with racial animus towards black teenagers. To suggest that Darren Wilson was looking for an excuse to use his gun — the one he had never fired until that day — on a black teenager is preposterous. Likewise, the implication that the Ferguson grand jury did not take their job seriously and come to the conclusion they did based on hard evidence is ridiculous.

Related: Text of Darren Wilson’s testimony before the Ferguson grand jury

Ferguson looters break glass, burn their own community down; Bastiat laughs from the grave

Ferguson FireIt’s probably a safe bet to say that the Ferguson, Mo. residents who looted liquor stores and McDonalds restaurants while essentially burning their own community to the ground late Monday, Nov. 24 have never read Frederic Bastiat. That’s a shame, because then they would know that while their actions may make glaziers happy in the short run, they have only done themselves long-term economic damage.

Ferguson McDonalds vandalismA grand jury decided Monday night that the evidence presented to them regarding the shooting death of Michael Brown did not warrant an indictment of police officer Darren Wilson. That evidence was combed through and analyzed by the federal government — The Department of Justice under Eric Holder’s leadership — as well as an independent forensics expert hired by the Brown family. Sworn statements by multiple eye witnesses backed what the forensic evidence was telling investigators — but that sort of thing doesn’t matter when you’re the kind of person who really, really wants an excuse to rob liquor stores.

Liquor Looter FergusonThere is something paradoxically sad, hilarious and frightening about watching men in “Scream” masks and black hoodies robbing liquor stores adorned with “Hands up, Don’t Shoot” posters.

Ferguson Scream MaskMany Ferguson looters erroneously believe that justice was not served by the grand jury’s decision. (Some know the truth but just want an excuse to steal.) However, they should be thankful that there are still enough members of their own community who are capable of letting evidence instead of emotion guide their thinking.

Ironically, the Ferguson, Mo. authorities will probably not be taken to task for turning a blind eye to the wanton destruction of their own community.

As Bastiat says in “The Law”:

“Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder,” — (Bastiat, The Law).

How many law-abiding business owners — who had absolutely nothing to do with Michael Brown’s death — will never recover from the destruction of personal property because of the misplaced notion that racial sensitivity trumps the law?

How many businesses — and the jobs that come with them — will now stay far, far away from Ferguson, Mo. because officials made the conscious decision to allow citizens to plunder from one another and raze portions of the city?

Enjoy your liquor, Ferguson looters. The rubble will still remain after your hangovers subside.

Russell Brand says he would never condemn cops — then calls them stupid tools of the ‘establishment’

Russell BrandSocial media is a double-edged sword. If an individual wants to quickly disseminate a message, it’s there. Unfortunately, social media doesn’t discriminate between the man of tact and temperance and the reckless individual who rides his emotions wherever they take him. Enter Russel Brand, the successful comedian who thinks that spewing a bunch of contradictory New Age gibberish automatically certifies his opinion as genius.

On the Ferguson shooting death of Michael Brown, Mediate called his twelve-minute rant against Fox News, Bill O’Reilly and anyone who disagrees with him a “searing take down.” (It was so “searing” that the writer couldn’t be bothered to transcribe any of it for his audience.)

Here is an excerpt:

Bill O’Reilly: “Do we weigh in as the boy’s father? And if it were my son I would have probably said the same thing. But he’s obviously talking through an emotional prism. His son is dead. He believes, probably — I know he believes — that it was an injustice. That it was done for nothing. A murder. And many, many African Americans believe that without knowing the facts.”

Russel Brand: What facts can emerge? There is no fact that can emerge that makes it all right that this kind of thing keeps happening. What is the motto of police? ‘Protect and serve.’ That relationship has completely broken down. I would never condemn police officers. I know the kind of background  that most police officers come from. They come from the communities that they work in, but the ideology they work for is an establishment ideology. They are not protecting and serving. The people that they are protecting and serving are not the people of the streets of Ferguson. They’re the people of Wall Street, and the city and the government.”

If an unarmed teenager, who stands over six-feet tall and weighs over 200 pounds, gets into a physical altercation with a cop and goes for the officer’s weapon, then it most-certainly is a “fact that can emerge” that could (and should) change the emotional calculus of neutral observers. If that cop, who is fighting for control of his weapon, knows that there is a second suspect who could join in the fight at any time, then it certainly is a “fact that can emerge” that could (and should) change how third-parties judge the situation. That is why investigations are necessary. That is why prudence is a virtue. That is why the millions of people who buy into Mr. Brand’s ramblings have no idea what they’re talking about.

Perhaps the most hilarious part of the Russel Brand “take down” is the moment where he says he would “never” condemn police officers — who grew up in the communities they protect — before doing precisely that. Brand would “never” condemn cops, but yet we’re supposed to believe they’re all a bunch of stupid tools who protect and serve “the establishment” (whatever “the establishment” means in the mind of Russell Brand).

In the end, even the comedian’s spiritual mish-mash of beliefs falls apart. If we are all essentially a part of the universal consciousness and “I am you and you are me, and Bill O’Reilly is Russell Brand and Russell Brand is Bill O’Reilly,” then why does it matter if Bill O’Reilly is “racist”? If we follow Russell Brand’s logic, and the two men are really one, then the reality is that Russell is the racist. We’re all racist…and none of it matters because the swirling spinning universal consciousness will be just fine in the end.

If you’re looking for insightful analysis on race relations in the United States, then you probably don’t want to turn to Russell Brand. If you want to see evidence that it really does matter what religion you choose, then watch his so-called “take down” in its entirety.