Delingpole: Weinstein Is a Model of Liberal Values

Of all the sordid details to emerge thus far from the burgeoning Harvey Weinstein scandal, there’s one that creeps me out above all else.

No, I don’t mean the potted plant jerk-off scene, or the shower jerk-off scenes or the scene where he sits jerking off to some rare nude footage of Meg Ryan…

I mean the one right near the beginning of the scandal, where he announced how he was going to make everything better:

“I am going to need a place to channel my anger so I’ve decided I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.”

Let us pause awhile to relish that moment, because I don’t think history will ever provide us with a better example of what’s wrong not just with Hollywood in particular, but with liberalism in general. Let us bathe in the truly Augean disgustingness, the moral bankruptcy of Wankstain’s message to a world which he has personally done so much to deprave, demean and debase.

What Weinstein is saying, basically is this:

“Never mind all those young actresses I deny having raped; never mind all the unwilling starlets between whose legs I thrust my fat stubbly face like a truffle hound on Viagra; never mind all the talents whose careers I casually killed or stifled because they wouldn’t play my ugly power game. You can now safely ignore all this stuff because – look! – here’s my Liberal Badge. And now I’ve flashed my Liberal Badge, you know I’m one of the good guys after all. Because Liberalism makes everything nice, makes the bad things all go away – just like that Harvey Keitel character, The Wolf, who cleans up the bodies in that movie I produced Pulp Fiction.”

No, actually, Harvey, it doesn’t. But you can see why he might have imagined otherwise. For decades, posturing liberal scumbags like Weinstein have been playing precisely this game. And for decades, they have been getting away with it because it works.

When you’re a liberal, you really can play your progressive politics like a “Get out of jail free” card.

Quick questions:

Why did Weinstein contribute generously to the endowment of a faculty chair at Rutgers University in the name of Gloria Steinem?

And why, earlier this year, did he attend the “Women’s March” – (though only in a gray beanie, not the full-on pink vagina hat) – at the Sundance Film Festival?

Was it

a) because Weinstein  is an arch feminist who has always cared passionately about women’s rights and believes that if only we educate the world with more gender studies classes and encourage more girls to fight the oppressive male hegemony by dying their hair blue and putting on weight then sexism will be abolished for ever?

b) because when you’re a wolf the sheep tend to panic less when you pick them off, one by one, if you’re wearing a nice, white woollen outfit and going “baaa baaa” really loudly?

But why single out Weinstein? They’re all at it. Ben AffleckRoy Price. Oliver Stone. Liberals all.

Even that nice, wholesome, Trump-hating liberal George Clooney, apparently. Clooney is currently denying allegations that he helped blacklist an actress after she complained of sexual and racial harassment on ER.

Well he would, wouldn’t he? Clooney’s entire brand is squeaky-clean, safe-in-taxis, save-the-world wholesomeness. He’s warm, he’s sincere, he’s palpably decent…

But not according to Vanessa Marquez – an actress you probably haven’t heard of because, hey, why would you, after she made the mistake of crossing Clooney and his pals by blowing the whistle on their unethical behavior?

“He’s not who he pretends [to be].”

Why am I so not surprised by this?

Well, partly because of what we’ve seen recently of the vast gulf between what this liberal practises and what he preaches – in this instance on the subject of refugees.

Publicly, like all liberals, Clooney is an open borders guy, through and through.

In February of last year, the actor met privately with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and praised the German leader’s acceptance of refugees from Syria and other countries. The same month, Clooney told Sky News in an interview that the United States is not doing “enough” to help Syrian refugees, and that 10,000 refugees per year was too low a figure to be admitting into the country.

That’s why he recently decided to move back from England to L.A with his wife Amal and children: because the cultural enrichment he’d been advocating was making Europe too hot to handle.

And partly because hypocrisy is the very essence, arguably even the defining characteristic, of liberalism.

“Do as I say, not do as I do,” has long been the watchword of the liberal elite – in Hollywood, in publishing, in the mainstream media, in academe, in politics, in the corporate world – that polices our culture.

Which is why we should relish every moment of what John Nolte is calling “biggest scandal by far in Tinseltown history” and “the Great Unraveling“. It’s the payback we on the right have been yearning for for years – not least because these liberals spend so much time telling us that we conservatives are the bad guys and insisting that the moral high ground is all theirs.

I wrote about this when I first publicly outed myself as a conservative with a 2007 book called How To Be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty-Liberals History.

Under the entry “Left Wing”, I wrote:

Left-wingers are: devil-may-care; good in bed; raffishly tousled; cool; sexy. They: sympathise with the underdog; hate injustice; respect the working class and people of all races and creeds, regardless of looks, physical ability or gender; nurture the environment ; have great taste in music; oppose violence; loathe inequality; are kind to children and small furry animals with lovely bright eyes and darling floppy ears and expressions on their sweet pink little mouths you could almost mistake for a smile.

All of which goes to prove how incredibly principled right-wing people are. If they wanted to they could chose the political affiliation which miraculously confers on them all these wondrous things. But they don’t because for right-wingers truth is more important than social convenience.

You could point out, correctly, that there are plenty of examples of prominent conservatives who have behaved badly too. But here’s the difference: conservatives are not in the business of trying to appease their consciences by creating a year zero and remaking the world according to a warped “progressive” philosophy which seeks to deny human nature.

Conservatives recognize that man has feet of clay and is prey to the sins of the flesh, which is why we have stuff like the Constitution, and property rights, and the rule of law, as well as more subtle social codes – created by quintessentially conservative organisations like the church, the military, the golf club, etc – in which our wilder instincts are modified by custom, tradition, stigma and the corresponding rewards for becoming a “pillar of society.” Our philosophy works with human nature, not against it.

Liberals, on the other hand, are on a mission to change not just the world but to improve the character of humanity itself. Or so they delude themselves.

This is the most truly disgusting thing about Weinstein and his liberal ilk. I’m not in any way wishing to play down the awfulness of the suffering experienced by those young women.

But what I am saying that their individual stories of hardship are a drop in the ocean when set against the damage that powerful figures like Weinstein and the “liberal” agenda they represent have done to our broader culture.

I’m thinking about the many thousands of young women who – courtesy of perhaps $300,000 provided by their hapless parents – will have their brains filled with feminist drivel on courses like that one at Rutgers: post-modernist, grievance-mongering tosh which will render them embittered, warped and almost entirely unfit to pursue a productive career or enjoy a happy family relationship.

I’m thinking of all the young men who, unlike Harvey Weinstein, aren’t powerful enough to get their sex by coercion but instead have to resort to more old fashioned methods like getting drunk and making a clumsy pass which, in the old days, might have got either a straightforward response or a rebuff, but which – thanks to Harvey’s liberal culture – now runs the risk of a UVA-style rape claim.

On race, on gender, on sexual politics, on the Constitution, on the environment, on welfare, on immigration, on the economy, there’s not a corner of human existence in the U.S and beyond that hasn’t been meddled with and changed for the worse by the liberal “values” so aggressively championed by people like Weinstein. And too often the way they’ve embedded this political correctness in our culture has been not through reasoned, evidence-based argument but rather through appeal to the heart with the suggestion that theirs is the kinder, more decent, caring way, and the implication that people on the left are morally superior to people on the right.

Again, I say, the very worst of all liberal vices – you see it in Weinstein, in the Clintons, in Clooney – is hypocrisy. And the reason that this hypocrisy is so reprehensible and so dangerous is that is a recipe for the very tyranny and injustice liberals spend their whole time pretending to oppose.

One of the most basic principles of a fair and just society is that everyone – and most especially those at the top of the food chain – has to be equal before the law. If they are not, then what constraint is there on the lawmakers? What is to stop politicians passing ever more iniquitous or damaging laws if they know that they won’t actually have to obey them themselves?

Liberals like Harvey Weinstein think it’s acceptable to create a world where they get to be allowed to behave as debauchedly as Goering at one of his country lodges, while the little people – that’s you and me – have to have every last detail of our lives overseen by the political correctness Gestapo.

They do the raping; you take the rap. That’s liberalism. I think it sucks. Don’t you?

 


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.