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.

Why Silence? Ask yourself this: What Secrets Does Harvey Weinstein Know?

There has been a lot written about the silence of various people on the Harvey Weinstein business but there is one point that nobody seems to be interested in making.

Harvey Weinstein was a powerful man, he was a connected man. He knew Hollywood actors, journalists and pols. He had decades of success in the industry and became a powerhouse within it.

As a producer it is very likely that he was aware of all kinds of issues concerning his films, concerning stars, concerning journalists that might have an impact on his bottom line. It’s also very likely that he not only had such info on journalists and pols but might have even enabled such people in activities that they might not want made public.

This is my opinion the reason for the current silence by some and the long history of silence by others

So let me end this short post with an obvious question:

At what point does it become more profitable to Weinstein to share this three decades of info with the public than to keep silent now that everyone his going after him?

It is the answer to that question that terrifies hollywood most of all.


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar.

Hey Outraged Leftists: How Many New Weinstein Victims Would You Have Paid for a Clinton Victory in 2016?

An interesting followup to yesterday’s post suggesting that if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 Harvey Weinstein would not today be exposed as the man he has been for years.

Two days ago just as I arrived for work Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi hit a two run homer off of Astro Ace Justin Verlander making his first relief appearance ever giving the Sox a 3-2 lead in the bottom of the fifth of game 4 of their series. I walked in smiling and when I told my lead the score, at he confidently predicted an Astro win so we bet a candy bar on the result.

Yesterday I was running late and found myself, thanks to Houston’s late comeback rushing into Shaw’s in Leominster to buy the bar to pay off that bet. I found myself stuck in a line behind a woman who was visiting her daughter who had just had her first child. The conversation in the line and with the cashier was Trump vs Mexico. At this point I interjected, “Well consider this, if Donald Trump isn’t elected there is no way that Harvey Weinstein is exposed by the NYT as he was a vital ally and fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.” The cashier agreed that this was true but the woman ahead of me had a slightly different take, while she agreed with my premise she stated quite emphatically: “Still isn’t worth it.”

Given that Mr. Weinstein preyed on woman (which she was) I found that opinion interesting and as I was leaving it hit me that not only would her daughter be of the age that Weinstein would go after but there is no reason to believe that if that new grandchild of hers wanted a career in movies a Harvey Weinstein or someone like him, would in 15-18 years be making the same demands on her if she wanted to get ahead in the business.

This is how crazy the left has become, a liberal women so dislikes Trump that she would have been willing to not only let Weinstein’s crime be unexposed and unpunished but would have been OK with him being allowed to obtain new victims for the sake of keeping him Trump of the White House.

So for those who you Hate Trump but are outraged over Weinstein I have two questions for you:

Would the price of Weinstein never being exposed have been worth it to you if it meant Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in 2016?

If the answer to the first question is yes: At what number of new women victimized by Mr. Weinstein would that price become too high?

I think these two question really give this story the perspective it deserves don’t you and I’d love to see a roving reporter asking these question to a bunch of women’s studies majors at liberal universities across the nation wouldn’t you?

I’ll give the last word to Thomas Wictor

(39) Electoral extermination is the only thing that these people will understand.

In 2018 and 2020, remember the pig-men.

— Thomas Wictor (@ThomasWictor) October 10, 2017


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar.

Harvey Weinstein Not Exposed in 2017 if Hillary Elected in 2016

Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia

An important point needs to be made concerning the continuing exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual crimes and the finger pointing of leftists over the wall of silence.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected none of this would have come out.

Do you think for one moment that the NYT which had killed the Weinstein story once already would have dared to move forward knowing that a friend an ally of Mr. Weinstein was in the White House, running the justice department etc etc etc. Would they have dared to expose a story that would have crippled a Hillary Presidency?

I think not.

Every single woman who now has the courage to come forward about Weinstein owes Donald Trump the man they hate, the man they demonized, the man they did all they could to defeat, a huge thank you because without his election there is no Times story and they do not have the ability to openly say the truth about Weinstein.

And I submit and suggest that every one of us in the new media on the right should remind them of this fact every single day.

Update: 
A question for the Hollywood left and feminists: Even if it meant that Harvey Weinstein was not exposed and would still preying on women do you still wish Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 instead of Trump and why?

Weinstein/Murphy Forgiving the Sin & Enforcing the Rules aren’t mutually Exclusive

That’s what we all do when we sin in any way. We go to confession with a firm purpose of amendment and start over with God’s help.

Fr. Z

An important point to make concerning Weinstein / Murphy et/al

Harvey Weinstein and his enablers who knew what was going on have at the very least been a cads and at worst has violated the law.  Furthermore his very pubic backing actions as a champion of liberal women’s causes ring hollow given his actions.  The various fallouts from these actions, financial, legal and social that will him and those who enabled him all are on them and are not unjust.

Congressman Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania finds himself in a similar situation in terms of reputation.  One the one hand portraying himself and running as a champion of the pro life cause while pushing abortion on his mistress when she turned up pregnant.  Murphy is of course not facing any criminal jeopardy as these actions are not unlawful but he has been forced to resign as his voter base is rightly disgusted at this immoral behavior.

However that is only half of the equation.

In eternal terms Mr. Weinstein’s and his enablers sins and former Congressman Murphy’s are in the same boat.  They have sinned but Jesus Christ has paid the price for them said sins thus they are subject to the ,  same binding and loosing power of the Church that Christ granted his disciples.

If Mr. Weinstein and/or Congressman Murphy has actual constriction for their sins and possess a sincere purpose of amending their ways, they can repair the break between them and God and through the ministry of the church be absolved of those sins, meaning that while they might be subject to criminal, civil or social penalties here on earth the’d be on the right track eternally.

That’s the great thing about the church regardless of the nature of man, we can always get another chance, if we’re willing to ask.

The Weinstein Left Not Liberal Angels but Capitalists Buying Silence

Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia

At first glance it’s looks like the Harvey Weinstein story, from a journalistic standpoint  seems more and more like the John Edwards Story, where liberal journalists were uninterested in telling a story that might harm their allies

An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts.

Journalists saw no good in exposing the sordid acts of a former, senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate.

And while there is certainly a bit of that in the Weinstein story the more I think about it the more it seems that this was all about capitalism in the Tina Brown vein.

About five years ago I did a series of piece of Tina Brown at Newsweek and Salon and her ability to coax millions out of liberals for magazine empires that never seemed to make a buck:

Unless I’m missing something all that happened is an attractive blond managed to convince some man into spending a lot of money to stake her in a business, she used said business to enhance her reputation and when she proved unable to succeed in it dumped it on the first sucker willing to take it off her hands.

It looked a lot like liberal were willing to throw away money to advance liberalism 

Alas, there’s only one Tina and probably lots of would-be media moguls out there with millions of dollars to throw away on glitzy media operations. Send me an e-mail and we’ll do lunch.

But if you decide instead to hit Vegas and blow your millions on blackjack and hookers, I’ll understand.

A while back a few of us thought that if liberals were willing to play angels to advance liberalism conservatives should think about it too:

Jimmie has calculated — and I agree with his calculations — that you could run a pretty spiffy little conservative New Media operation for $500,000 a year if you knew what you were doing. But the problem is connecting (a) people with $500,000 to (b) people who know what they’re doing in terms of online news.

If you grant that Jimmie and I are correct about this estimate, do the math yourself: For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.

Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.

…figuring it would be a better investment than say 15-30 mil on  Luther Strange

But all the arguments that folks like us were a better investment than a Tina Brown presumed that the motive for such investments were to advance ideas rather than sheer capitalism.  For the establishment a guy like Strange was an investment in keeping the gravy train, a very capitalistic motive and as Stacy McCain noted yesterday the whole “liberal angel” thing with Weinstein seems to be all about capitalism too(emphasis mine)

Rebecca Traister of New York magazine recounts her own confrontation with Weinstein’s violent abusive behavior — her called her an epithet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behavior was never previously reported, including the fact that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Talk magazine, with Tina Brown as editor, was published 1999-2002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an interview with Hillary Clinton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an estimated $50 million. This was simply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was willing to throw away money on a slick magazine with a big-name editor in order to buy influence among journalists. And guess what? It worked. Contrary to their own smug opinions of themselves, the journalistic elite aren’t the most ethical people on the planet.

That fifty million makes a whole lot more sense now.  Apparently this wasn’t a question of spending money as a “liberal angel” helping the cause of women, gays  and the left, it was paying the price for being a “lecherous devil” buying off journalists who readily decided their silence  was worth it for the job, the office, the prestige, the access , the parties etc etc etc all the while telling themselves they were fighting to save the world from the evil conservatives who were trying to oppress women et/al.

This was sheer unadulterated Capitalism and apparently Mr. Weinstein got his money’s worth for decades.

Update: accidently put a gallery from a previous post at the bottom and fixed two sentences with redundant words.


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar