What Weinstein means to Hollywood, Democrats and the Culture Wars

Readability

What Weinstein means to Hollywood, Democrats and the Culture Wars

Hollywood honors Hollywood while disgracing America

BTW, the ancient Greek word for actor is ὑποκριτής (hypokritēs).

Hogewash

I’ve been think­ing of the long terms results of the Har­vey Wein­stein sit­u­a­tion and the more I do so the more I con­clude that it demon­strates Andrew Breitbart’s argu­ment that pol­i­tics is down­stream from culture

The cul­ture of Hol­ly­wood, actors or as they were once called “play­ers” has his­tor­i­cally been a lib­er­tine one in con­trast to the pre­vail­ing judeo Chris­t­ian cul­ture. It existed in two extremes low brow enter­tain­ment for rowdy masses as por­trayed in this clip from the hilar­i­ous pic­ture the Great Race

or high brow enter­tain­ment for the elites as hilar­i­ously lam­pooned by the Marx Brothers.

Actors being a small clique were an insignif­i­cant influ­ence on said cul­ture and had lit­tle influ­ence to change it. How­ever in the 20th cen­tury with the advent of movies and enter­tain­ment both cheap enough to be afford­able to the masses and a dis­tri­b­u­tion method to reach mil­lions (film and radio) the­ater in gen­eral and Hol­ly­wood in par­tic­u­lar became not only A giant cash cow for those at the top but A huge source of employ­ment for masses of ordi­nary and tech­ni­cal peo­ple involved in the main­te­nance, oper­a­tion dis­tri­b­u­tion of same.

That was big but the most sig­nif­i­cant change was the fact that it sud­denly gave “play­ers” expo­sure, wealth social sta­tus and power far beyond their nor­mal util­ity, not only in terms of per­for­mance, but in terms of endorse­ments from com­pa­nies want­ing to use said celebrity to pro­mote their prod­ucts and causes.

There were times when this power was put to noble pur­poses by good people

How­ever said wealth and power didn’t change the nature of play­ers in gen­eral, it only empow­ered them beyond their actual util­ity to cul­ture, 3rd Rock from the sun Alum Joseph Gor­don Lev­ett summed it up per­fectly in this quote about Hol­ly­wood and actors fame being a bad thing for a cul­ture:

“Actors didn’t use to be celebri­ties. A hun­dred years ago, they put the the­aters next to the broth­els. Actors were poor. Celebri­ties used to be kings and queens. Then the United States abol­ished monar­chy, and now there’s this com­ing together of show busi­ness and celebrity. I don’t think it’s healthy. I don’t want to sound self-​important, but all these celebrity shows and mag­a­zines – it comes from us, from Hol­ly­wood, from our coun­try. We’re the ones cre­at­ing it. And I think it works in close step with a lot of other bad things that are hap­pen­ing in the world. It pro­motes greed, it pro­motes being self­ish and it pro­motes this lad­der, where you’re a bet­ter per­son if you have more money. It’s not at all about the work itself. Don’t get me wrong. I love movies. But this myth of celebrity has noth­ing to do with movies.”

Thus you have a group of peo­ple whose pri­mary abil­ity is make believe and whose moral com­pass were dia­met­ri­cally opposed to the pre­vail­ing judeo chris­t­ian moral­ity sud­denly call­ing the shots.

Now in the early days the stu­dio sys­tem cur­tailed this power in the sense that it hid the worst of these influ­ences from the pub­lic This allowed the lib­er­tine nature and deprav­i­ties of those who wanted to indulge them to only flour­ish in pri­vate with the occa­sional scan­dal (from Fatty Arbuckle to Errol Flynn) leak­ing out. But once that sys­tem broke down the cat was out of the bag and said folks were free to use their influ­ence to change the cul­ture to openly live and cel­e­brate what they did and to use film to advance the cul­ture that they wished to cel­e­brate and embrace:

Thus Hugh Hefner’s are cel­e­brated and the con­cepts of mar­riage, fam­ily and moral­ity were torn down and remade in the images of the “play­ers” cul­ture while the film becomes a weapon to be used against those who might push back to wit

Streep has since denounced Wein­stein and protested that she was shocked, shocked, to find out that there was gam­bling going on in Casablanca. Streep’s protest struck me as curi­ous in light of her lead role in the 2008 film Doubt, for which she earned an Oscar nom­i­na­tion. Streep’s char­ac­ter, a Catholic nun, is deter­mined to prove that the priest in her parish is molest­ing a young boy. She encoun­ters dis­ap­proval from the clergy, skep­ti­cism from her own fel­low sis­ters, and oppo­si­tion from the boy’s own mother. But she is inde­fati­ga­ble. It is per­haps the best film treat­ment of the com­plex­ity of sex­ual abuse. Some­how, after por­tray­ing day after day a char­ac­ter with a keen nose for impro­pri­ety on the set, Streep, like so many oth­ers, appar­ently could not detect the foul stench around Weinstein.

That’s from Fr. Ray­mond J De Sousa at the National Post not­ing the irony of Meryl Streep being one of many in Hol­ly­wood to use the Church’s Scan­dal to pum­mel it…

…all the while keep­ing their own mouths shut for the sake of their employment.

And it was not only the hol­ly­wood left that kept silence, jour­nal­ist and media who gained wealth and influ­ence by their asso­ci­a­tion with Hol­ly­wood power bro­kers and shared their polit­i­cal views dived right in:

Address­ing a con­tro­versy that has been per­co­lat­ing for the past sev­eral days in the media ecosys­tem since The New York Times pub­lished its own Wein­stein exposé—includ­ing ques­tions about whether NBC exec­u­tives caved to the well-​connected Wein­stein and his for­mi­da­ble lawyers, Charles Harder, Lisa Bloom, and David Boies — Mad­dow brought it to a boil­ing point by telling Far­row: “NBC says that the story wasn’t pub­lish­able, that it wasn’t ready to go at the time that you brought it to them.”

Far­row fired back: “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explo­sively reportable piece that should have been pub­lic ear­lier. And imme­di­ately, obvi­ously, The New Yorker rec­og­nized that. And it is not accu­rate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were mul­ti­ple deter­mi­na­tions that it was reportable at NBC.”

In fair­ness to NBC the New Yorker rec­og­nized that once the story was already out in the public

Given the con­flu­ence of money and celebrity it was nat­ural that Hol­ly­wood would become a polit­i­cal influ­ence and boy did it.

The New York Times ran its first exposé on the dis­graced Hol­ly­wood mogul at the end of a $2.2 mil­lion run of per­sonal and bun­dled polit­i­cal dona­tions, which made Wein­stein a very famil­iar and pop­u­lar fig­ure among Democ­rats. Wein­stein backed Democ­rats with sig­nif­i­cant national pro­files, who rushed to embrace his wealth and star power. He put his mark on the DNC with over $300,000 in dona­tions over a quarter-​century, hop­ing to shape the party’s lead­er­ship. Wein­stein put a spe­cial empha­sis on the Sen­ate, pro­vid­ing over $193,000 in funds to the Demo­c­ra­tic Sen­a­to­r­ial Cam­paign Com­mit­tee. For­mer Sen. Chris Dodd (D-​Conn.) ben­e­fited most, with over $36,000 in over­all dona­tions, but Wein­stein also gave more than $25,000 each to the two cur­rent sen­a­tors from New York: Democ­rats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Wein­stein paid even more spe­cial atten­tion to the very top. He donated to both Bill and Hillary Clin­ton repeat­edly dur­ing the Clin­ton pres­i­dency, help­ing to launch the first lady’s polit­i­cal career in her first run for office.

That’s old friend Ed Mor­ris­sey not­ing the money that has gone to Democ­rats from Wein­stein alone and more impor­tantly where it has gone”

These facts are inescapable. Wein­stein was a very real part of the polit­i­cal life of the two fam­i­lies most iden­ti­fied with Demo­c­ra­tic Party lead­er­ship. The Clin­tons held social events and fundrais­ers with the Hol­ly­wood exec­u­tive for years; one bash in June 2016 raised more than $1.8 mil­lion for her pres­i­den­tial run. The Oba­mas sent their daugh­ter Malia to intern for Weinstein’s com­pany last year.

Wein­stein had indis­putably ingra­ti­ated him­self into the high­est lev­els of Demo­c­ra­tic power.

Or in other words dur­ing the period when the Demo­c­rat Party embraced the rede­f­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage, gay cul­ture, trans­gen­derism, rad­i­cal fem­i­nism and extreme lib­er­tine cul­ture while reject­ing tra­di­tional cul­ture, God, the Church and tra­di­tional moral­ity, they were being financed heav­ily by an indus­try known for its lib­er­tine cul­ture in gen­eral and by an indi­vid­ual in par­tic­u­larly who used that polit­i­cal power and wealth to enable him to prey on the same women who they claimed to champion.

And the Jour­nal­ist who have invested com­pletely in said party are also feel­ing the heat

“Jour­nal­is­tic integrity is dead,” he declared. “There is no such thing any­more. So every­thing is about weaponiza­tion of infor­ma­tion.” Stand­ing behind a mahogany podium in a baggy dark suit, Boyle preached with the con­fi­dence of a true believer. In a stut­ter­ing stac­cato, he con­demned the nation’s pre­em­i­nent news out­lets as “cor­rupted insti­tu­tions,” “built on a lie,” and a crim­i­nal “syn­di­cate that needs to be dis­man­tled.” Boyle and his com­pa­tri­ots were labor­ing to usher in an immi­nent — and glo­ri­ous — jour­nal­is­tic apoc­a­lypse. “We envi­sion a day when CNN is no longer in busi­ness. We envi­sion a day when The New York Timescloses its doors. I think that day is possible.”

This is a defeat in the cul­ture wars for the left on the scale of a Mid­way or a Stal­in­grad and worst of all for the left in gen­eral and the Demo­c­rat /​MSM party in par­tic­u­lar the Wein­stein rev­e­la­tions are com­ing at the nadir of Demo­c­rat and media power and influ­ence and the rise of a pop­ulist Don­ald Trump who is inti­mately famil­iar with how the Hol­ly­wood, celebrity cul­ture works which is why at least some in the MSM see the com­ing apocalypse.

The only ques­tion left is this, will con­ser­v­a­tives be wise enough to “Keep up the Skeer” and pre­vent them from recovering

Update: Wein­stein isn’t going down with­out a fight and Allah­pun­dit wins the inter­net today with a line that is both funny and kinda sad at the same time.

The most darkly funny part of this is Wein­stein think­ing he still has a career to return to. The idea that Hol­ly­wood would wel­come back a man who’s been cred­i­bly accused of abject degen­er­acy seems … totally plau­si­ble, now that I think of it.

Boy do I miss the days of Jimmy Stewart

Update 2: Some­times I swear Don­ald Trump’s ene­mies are secretly work­ing for him

Porn King Larry Flynt and Hus­tler Mag­a­zine is offer­ing $10 mil­lion for infor­ma­tion lead­ing to the impeach­ment of Don­ald J. Trump as president.

Because if I was the Democrat/​Never Trump team try­ing to dis­tance myself from Hol­ly­wood and guys going after women in the post Wein­stein era is a porn king offer­ing mil­lions lead­ing the anti Trump charge is not the image I want out there.

Seri­ously you can’t make this stuff up.

Update 3: Fixed some gram­mar issues.

Hollywood honors Hollywood while disgracing America

BTW, the ancient Greek word for actor is ὑποκριτής (hypokritēs).

Hogewash

I’ve been thinking of the long terms results of the Harvey Weinstein situation and the more I do so the more I conclude that it demonstrates Andrew Breitbart’s argument that politics is downstream from culture

The culture of Hollywood, actors or as they were once called “players” has historically been a libertine one in contrast to the prevailing judeo Christian culture. It existed in two extremes low brow entertainment for rowdy masses as portrayed in this clip from the hilarious picture the Great Race

or high brow entertainment for the elites as hilariously lampooned by the Marx Brothers.

Actors being a small clique were an insignificant influence on said culture and had little influence to change it. However in the 20th century with the advent of movies and entertainment both cheap enough to be affordable to the masses and a distribution method to reach millions (film and radio) theater in general and Hollywood in particular became not only A giant cash cow for those at the top but A huge source of employment for masses of ordinary and technical people involved in the maintenance, operation distribution of same.

That was big but the most significant change was the fact that it suddenly gave “players” exposure, wealth social status and power far beyond their normal utility, not only in terms of performance, but in terms of endorsements from companies wanting to use said celebrity to promote their products and causes.

There were times when this power was put to noble purposes by good people

However said wealth and power didn’t change the nature of players in general, it only empowered them beyond their actual utility to culture, 3rd Rock from the sun Alum Joseph Gordon Levett summed it up perfectly in this quote about Hollywood and actors fame being a bad thing for a culture:

“Actors didn’t use to be celebrities. A hundred years ago, they put the theaters next to the brothels. Actors were poor. Celebrities used to be kings and queens. Then the United States abolished monarchy, and now there’s this coming together of show business and celebrity. I don’t think it’s healthy. I don’t want to sound self-important, but all these celebrity shows and magazines–it comes from us, from Hollywood, from our country. We’re the ones creating it. And I think it works in close step with a lot of other bad things that are happening in the world. It promotes greed, it promotes being selfish and it promotes this ladder, where you’re a better person if you have more money. It’s not at all about the work itself. Don’t get me wrong. I love movies. But this myth of celebrity has nothing to do with movies.”

Thus you have a group of people whose primary ability is make believe and whose moral compass were diametrically opposed to the prevailing judeo christian morality suddenly calling the shots.

Now in the early days the studio system curtailed this power in the sense that it hid the worst of these influences from the public  This allowed the libertine nature and depravities of those who wanted to indulge them to only flourish in private with the occasional scandal (from Fatty Arbuckle to Errol Flynn) leaking out.  But once that system broke down the cat was out of the bag and said folks were free to use their influence to change the culture to openly live and celebrate what they did and to use film to advance the culture that they wished to celebrate and embrace:

Thus Hugh Hefner’s are celebrated and the concepts of marriage, family and morality were torn down and remade in the images of the “players” culture while the film becomes a weapon to be used against those who might push back to wit

Streep has since denounced Weinstein and protested that she was shocked, shocked, to find out that there was gambling going on in Casablanca. Streep’s protest struck me as curious in light of her lead role in the 2008 film Doubt, for which she earned an Oscar nomination. Streep’s character, a Catholic nun, is determined to prove that the priest in her parish is molesting a young boy. She encounters disapproval from the clergy, skepticism from her own fellow sisters, and opposition from the boy’s own mother. But she is indefatigable. It is perhaps the best film treatment of the complexity of sexual abuse. Somehow, after portraying day after day a character with a keen nose for impropriety on the set, Streep, like so many others, apparently could not detect the foul stench around Weinstein.

That’s from Fr. Raymond J De Sousa at the National Post noting the irony of Meryl Streep being one of many in Hollywood to use the Church’s Scandal to pummel it…

…all the while keeping their own mouths shut for the sake of their employment.

And it was not only the hollywood left that kept silence, journalist and media who gained wealth and influence by their association with Hollywood power brokers and shared their political views dived right in:

Addressing a controversy that has been percolating for the past several days in the media ecosystem since The New York Times published its own Weinstein exposé—including questions about whether NBC executives caved to the well-connected Weinstein and his formidable lawyers, Charles Harder, Lisa Bloom, and David Boies—Maddow brought it to a boiling point by telling Farrow: “NBC says that the story wasn’t publishable, that it wasn’t ready to go at the time that you brought it to them.”

Farrow fired back: “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that. And it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”

In fairness to NBC the New Yorker recognized that once the story was already out in the public

Given the confluence of money and celebrity it was natural that Hollywood would become a political influence and boy did it.

The New York Times ran its first exposé on the disgraced Hollywood mogul at the end of a $2.2 million run of personal and bundled political donations, which made Weinstein a very familiar and popular figure among Democrats. Weinstein backed Democrats with significant national profiles, who rushed to embrace his wealth and star power. He put his mark on the DNC with over $300,000 in donations over a quarter-century, hoping to shape the party’s leadership. Weinstein put a special emphasis on the Senate, providing over $193,000 in funds to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) benefited most, with over $36,000 in overall donations, but Weinstein also gave more than $25,000 each to the two current senators from New York: Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Weinstein paid even more special attention to the very top. He donated to both Bill and Hillary Clinton repeatedly during the Clinton presidency, helping to launch the first lady’s political career in her first run for office. 

That’s old friend Ed Morrissey noting the money that has gone to Democrats from Weinstein alone and more importantly where it has gone”

These facts are inescapable. Weinstein was a very real part of the political life of the two families most identified with Democratic Party leadership. The Clintons held social events and fundraisers with the Hollywood executive for years; one bash in June 2016 raised more than $1.8 million for her presidential run. The Obamas sent their daughter Malia to intern for Weinstein’s company last year.

Weinstein had indisputably ingratiated himself into the highest levels of Democratic power.

Or in other words during the period when the Democrat Party embraced the redefinition of marriage, gay culture, transgenderism, radical feminism and extreme libertine culture while rejecting traditional culture, God, the Church and traditional morality, they were being financed heavily by an industry known for its libertine culture in general and by an individual in particularly who used that political power and wealth to enable him to prey on the same women who they claimed to champion.

And the Journalist who have invested completely in said party are also feeling the heat 

“Journalistic integrity is dead,” he declared. “There is no such thing anymore. So everything is about weaponization of information.” Standing behind a mahogany podium in a baggy dark suit, Boyle preached with the confidence of a true believer. In a stuttering staccato, he condemned the nation’s preeminent news outlets as “corrupted institutions,” “built on a lie,” and a criminal “syndicate that needs to be dismantled.” Boyle and his compatriots were laboring to usher in an imminent—and glorious—journalistic apocalypse. “We envision a day when CNN is no longer in business. We envision a day when The New York Timescloses its doors. I think that day is possible.”

This is a defeat in the culture wars for the left on the scale of a Midway or a Stalingrad and worst of all for the left in general and the Democrat / MSM party in particular the Weinstein revelations are coming at the nadir of Democrat and media power and influence and the rise of a populist Donald Trump who is intimately familiar with how the Hollywood, celebrity culture works which is why at least some in the MSM see the coming apocalypse.

The only question left is this, will conservatives be wise enough to “Keep up the Skeer” and prevent them from recovering

Update: Weinstein isn’t going down without a fight and Allahpundit wins the internet today with a line that is both funny and kinda sad at the same time.

The most darkly funny part of this is Weinstein thinking he still has a career to return to. The idea that Hollywood would welcome back a man who’s been credibly accused of abject degeneracy seems … totally plausible, now that I think of it.

Boy do I miss the days of Jimmy Stewart

Update 2:  Sometimes I swear Donald Trump’s enemies are secretly working for him

Porn King Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine is offering $10 million for information leading to the impeachment of Donald J. Trump as president.

Because if I was the Democrat/Never Trump team trying to distance myself from Hollywood and guys going after women in the post Weinstein era is a porn king offering millions leading the anti Trump charge is not the image I want out there.

Seriously you can’t make this stuff up.

Update 3:  Fixed some grammar issues.