How Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Doubled Down On The False Rape Culture Narrative

On April 24^th, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, interviewed at the Women In The World summit, sounded off again on the UVA débâcle. In WITW’s video of the interview, the relevant question begins at around three minutes and thirty-six seconds (3:36).

The UVA story, commencing with Rolling Stone‘s retracted “A Rape on Campus” (by disgraced Sabrina Ruben Erdely), still highlights a problem for Gillibrand—not hoaxes, but rapes that never happened. Back in March, she insisted that we not “blame the victim,” Jackie Coakley (technically liable to criminal charges under Virginia state law).

Now the Senator hopes that rape hoaxes will shine a spotlight on the problem of rape on campuses. The problem with ‘the problem’ is that it’s nothing more than statistical distortions, lies, and hoaxes exactly like the one debunked. However, feminists never let facts get in the way of a good story—and the Coakley-Erdely hoax is no exception.

Evidence grows daily to suggest that both accuser and journalist were not simply mistaken, but lying. In light of this, it’s becoming ever clearer that the campus witch-hunt (kicked into high gear by Erdely’s fairytale) was the paradigmatic case of how bad it gets when feminists go unchallenged.

Sen. Gillibrand’s opportunistic remarks only underscore the urgency of the problem. Witch-hunts and manufactured mass hysteria (e.g. “rape culture”) depend upon this ugly aspect of human hive-minds: reputations are besmirched by virtue of accusation itself, not necessarily by proof. Frankly, we wouldn’t have heard this shoddy attempt at journalism otherwise.

Hit-and-run Journalism

 

Erdely wasn’t the only “idiot” playing jump to conclusions. Feminists didn’t stop to verify the claims or even notice that Coakley’s remarks (even without Erdely’s embellishment) were too fishy and forced to be plausible.

Man-hating mujeres and their obedient eunuchs were clambering over one another just to be the first to shout “I told you so.” Anyone questioning the outrage, for any reason, was an “idiot,” according to Anna Merlan. Without the rush to please institutional feminsts, this travesty wouldn’t have happened.

Why must journalists or policymakers, who recognize only the unruly court of popular opinion and fashionable outrage, bother with such boring matters as the presumption of innocence or the due process of law? Leave such unfashionable matters to jurists! On the contrary, guilt is assumed by institutional feminists—not just any guilt, but guilt-by-association. A “fratboy” (real or invented) is accused of a crime, therefore he’s guilty. Therefore fraternities are dens of unprosecuted rapists. So goes femilogic.

One white knight commenting on Merlan’s half-assed apology is a textbook minimizer, dismissing her wrongdoing and insult-throwing thus: “everyone makes bad calls on the internet now and then.” He calls her apology “abject,” despite its reasoning being as follows: I was wrong about this, because I make these assumptions as a matter of course, but we need to continue making these assumptions which bring us to the wrong conclusions. It’s virtually the definition of deranged thinking, adapted to first-person pronouns.

This same doublethink is at work in the Senate chamber. Gillibrand’s argument is as bad as that of any witch-hunter throughout history. Seventeenth-century Salemites accepted the following: The first witch was acquitted? No matter, we’ll keep going until we find a scapegoat we can put to death!

More recently, a whole country bought this: …But if we keep looking, we’ll definitely find WMD! The former was enabled by Puritan fervor; the latter by the insane logic that no evidence of WMD means there’s even worse WMD and even more of them than we’d feared.

The Lie That Doesn’t Want to Die

Sen. Gillibrand’s attempt to keep the feminist momentum of the Rolling Stone story going is necromantic, seeking to revivify the undead outrage while sending the inconvenient facts of the case down the memory hole. She wants it to eat our brains, as it did to social media feminists the first time around.

Gillibrand’s proposal is beneath debate: it must be mercilessly mocked. Femilogic needs to be exposed to as much thorough ridicule as possible, on a continuous basis, to irreparably harm its credibility.

Luckily, in this case, the goons themselves are making it easier: Gillibrand in particular is a magnet for the absurd. She’s already jumped to the same conclusion in the Columbia rape stunt (“hoax” seems a little bit of an understatement for this scale of attention-whoring), announcing “I believe Emma” via her publicist, before the facts of the case came to light. She brought Sulkowicz—the mattress-carrying feminist (and probable sociopath) at Columbia, who likes it “in the butt”—as her plus-one to the State of the Union address.

Crucially, they’re both seeking—and getting—publicity. Gillibrand has used the metaphor of a “spotlight” on a number of occasions, which gives us an insight into her psychology. That’s the danger in bringing together fantasists like Erdely and Coakley; and spotlight-craving performers like Gillibrand and Sulkowicz. Both “victim” and advocate benefit from the exposure.

So long as Sen. Gillibrand can keep one or more of these plates of deceit spinning, then whatever else the spotlight might be on, it’s also on her. She wants these scandals to shine a spotlight on a problem which doesn’t exist, so she can pass a law as a “solution” to it, to placate her braindead constituents.

It goes without saying, though, these hoaxes shine a light on just how limited a problem campus rape is at present (statistically, for the record, there are proportionately less incidents of women raped on campus than off). Nowhere is the statistic 1 in 4, 1 in 5 or anything like it. When hoaxes are discovered, we have a chance to put problems in their proper perspective, instead of blowing something out of proportion as news outlets are wont to do.

Context And Consequences

How does “A Rape on Campus” fit into all of this?

It fits seamlessly into the establishment narrative. There might not be a perfect victim, as the fembots say, but there’s indubitably a perfect story—and Rolling Stone printed it. We don’t have a rape culture, but we have an accusation culture, an (attempted) egalitarian culture, a hotbed for feminist lunacy. Institutionally, feminism is supported in every imaginable way. Socially speaking, overt opposition to feminism is suicidal. Feminists aren’t oppressed, they’re not fighting the establishment. They are the establishment.

Otherwise, no story of this kind could go viral.

When a prestigious organization like RAINN (concerned with real, not fake, instances of rape) concludes that the ‘rape culture’ theory confuses the issue, it’s time to quit. You have lost the debate, feminists, and you won’t win again. (See: Jezebel‘s damage control.) Your only successes hereafter will come from Reichstag fires, because the facts aren’t on your side.

Then again, Roosh’s provocative thought-experiment showed that feminists don’t really care about anything but scoring points and harming men. The victim card is just another weapon against us.

Sen. Gillibrand can push the Enabling Act all she likes; men will push back. She’s not defending victims from backlash, but prompting an even bigger backlash. I’m not a fan of the casually litigious culture in America, but I support Paul Nungesser’s legal response to being defamed by Sulkowicz. In any case, this is just the beginning. Take heed, feminists: if you sow the wind, you and your daughters will reap the whirlwind.

Carry that weight.

Read More: Why Haven’t The People Who Pushed Rolling Stone’s UVA Rape Hoax Story Been Fired?