I heard this said at least 10 years ago, so it is not a recent Weinstein-reflex.
“The greatest threat to mankind are women without men and men without balls.”
Twice now, in a quarter century, feminists have attempted to parlay their own political hypocrisy into attempting to force men into a kind of psychological subjugation, complete with dog collars.
Guilty by Reputation, Guilty at Law
Harvey Weinstein fills an important niche in this history of political hypocrisy. Yes, hypocrisy, not sexual predation, where he is actually rather ordinary.
Sexual predation has been with us since New York became a metropolis…And from the beginning there was the “predator by reputation” and the “predator at law.” As a former criminal defense lawyer I’m absolutely religious about keeping the two concepts separate, since guilt-by-reputation is almost impossible to defend against if one is innocent…and that is precisely the power the Feminists have been driving toward attaining for many years.
We’ve seen this in politics in recent history, and even in the dim past of Hollywood, (see below) but it was practiced on smaller scales in colleges of the 60s, as when 4 or 5 Tri Delts teamed up to tag a guy at Kappa Alpha (Dieu et les dames) as being a habitual masher because, after drunken behavior with a sister at a kegger, then throwing up on her best party dress, then, sin of all sins, he failed to offer to pay for its cleaning, or offer at least one of several courtesies of the day, a card, flowers or other gesture of repentance, all of which separated the Greek community from the average hoi polloi who still went out on blind dates. In those days, that the less-than-gallant KA also actually copped a feel wasn’t necessarily a part of the sisters’ indictment for the guy to earn a bad reputation. Still, within two weeks he couldn’t get a date anywhere in the Greek community. Forbidden fruit.
It was just as tough in small towns. A girl with a “reputation” was a girl to be avoided in every respectable home, one to be avoided at all costs. But woe betide the young man who spread untrue tales about a girl, especially if she had big brothers.
There were always rules, for both males and females could be mean and vicious, so all sorts of extra-legal methods of suppressing uncalled-for rumors evolved, from shunning (ostracism) to sending the aforementioned three big brothers over to teach that kid a lesson who said those ugly things about their sister.
This informal system evolved over perhaps a hundred year trial period, with regional variations around the country, but you can see how such a hit-and-miss system of sexual justice just cried out for more formal regulation. And over the last 30 years or so, schools especially, then the workplace, had come up with various cookie-cutter, one-size fits all solutions.
We all know how well those have worked, where in many companies, and several colleges a simple glare amounts to sexual harassment. And can be reported, and the culprit has to write an essay on “white privilege” or somesuch.
But this is not to confuse us with Harvey Weinstein or Hollywood. They are both the real deal. I’m sure unauthorized biographies are already in the works, and probably show that he was a masher at least from his years at the University of Buffalo in the 1970s. I’d bet that he wanted to work in Hollywood primarily because that was where the girls were. Better, the original sin city, den of iniquity, debauchery-town Hollywood was where men with talent could become rich and famous, and Harvey, along with brother Bob, proved they were of that caliber. Took about 15 years. Moreover, for Harvey, who looks the part of the guy who couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons, Hollywood’s “casting couch” reputation provided a source of power for un-handsome men, allowing them to avoid having to pay for hookers on South Figueroa.
Harvey did not reshape Hollywood one iota, He just fit in with it, at least one of its several cultural subsets, the executive casting couch. Unlike Flushing,Queens, it was a place where a “bad reputation” couldn’t hurt you if you had position and power. And connections.
Unlike Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein was not a prominent American. Only in his little corner of the world was he somebody. Until a few weeks ago no one had ever heard of him. But the same was true of a little-known governor from Arkansas in 1991. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton are the only two men I know who have transcended the difference between moral guilt and legal guilt. Both will likely never stand trial for any crime, still, we can deem them guilty by a rather lengthy record of known misconduct – in Harvey’s case, with evidence of out-of-court settlements, and Bill’s – with statements by his procurers, the state police.
So we are chasing two simultaneous threads here: 1) the awesome power of media-borne “reputation” to destroy innocent people without any true evidence beyond a simple allegation, which if uttered by a female, is automatically deemed to be true, and 2) the even more awesome power to use that “power of reputation” to be used politically, both as protector and snarling attack dog.
So with the recent break-up of the Harvey Weinstein Cider-House rules, we’re seeing the first glimmerings of a new rule-maker in Hollywood; political feminism.
With Harvey Weinstein’s expulsion from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences we are seeing Dr Frankenstein expelling the Frankenstein monster, but in favor of his bride, while putting his laboratory under new management.
Now that the Academy has adopted the modus operandi of political Feminism, no sin is a sin unless or until they say it’s a sin, leaving everyone as unsure of their futures as a Jew at Auschwitz. You never know when the postman will ring only once.
This was perfected by one of their Founding Sisters, which it seems, was actually good at something, namely keeping her bread-and-butter husband out of prison.
It’s a fait accompli. So, get ready for the deluge, and keep in mind the difference between moral guilt, which is not ours entirely to judge, and legal guilt, which is. You’re being played here, so just know who and what it is that is playing you. In the executive offices around America, particularly in the media, the Harvey Weinstein case is now holy ground, and will likely be used to steer us toward that greater prize, Donald Trump, as it appears Gloria Allred, who orchestrated the flood of women against Bill Cosby, and appears now to be in charge of the piling-on phase of this Weinstein case, while adding uncorroborated charges just to darken the portrait, is also behind the defamation and assault charges of former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos against President Trump with what appears to be a line-up of other hot babes from Miss World contests, all to swear Trump did salacious things to them as well…again without any evidence other than their word. Word has leaked out that Ms Allred has given them a lot of money for their statements (perhaps laundered through Soros, et al, since I’m told she never invests any of her own money…a pass-through only). If the Cosby case is an indicator, these hotties will never have to be sworn or cross-examined, or in any way corroborate anything they’ve alleged. Easy money.
Their sheer numbers alone are calculated to provide the necessary “reputation” of feminist-defined guilt-by-say-so- alone that will cause Congress to move to impeachment, or maybe Mike Pence toward a 25th Amendment intervention.
This is the legal ammunition feminists want to be able to use at will. Hillary has demanded it for years (without mentioning Bill’s rape charges) and key to their success is being able to hang a man on the unverified word a lot of women.
Public opinion will have to butt in eventually, or so the plot line goes. This is why the piling-on of Harvey will continue, telling the world just what the wages of Feminist-sin entails. This is how the legally innocent can be convicted in the public eye.
Take Bill Cosby. Not an “everybody knew” molester like Weinstein, but for reasons no one can explain, and Cosby won’t explain, he plied several Groupies. who had every intention of having sex with him anyway with a drug to get them to have sex with him anyway. No one knows why. (FYI: Groupies were cults of women in the 60s-80s who chased after celebrities, especial rock stars, with the specific purpose of sharing drugs with them, counting coup and adding their scalps to some souvenir cache. Most were affluent, and if they chased after the Grateful Dead, their souvenir case was the size of a treasure chest. Many took the oath of celibacy and became lesbians after Jerry Garcia died.)
Though never convicted, and none of the victims ever required to be sworn and testify about why they arranged their encounters in the first place, or why they waited 10-15-20 years to come forward (all Allred girls, by the way) Cosby is still assumed to be a “rapist” in public opinion which is much worse than mere lecher.
Plot: this came about because Bill Cosby split with orthodox leftism on the matter of educating black children in America. This case caused him to stop doing that. He is no longer relevant. A win for the Left.
Then consider Fatty Arbuckle, who was totally innocent, or so it seems, but was condemned simply because of his association with Hollywood, where he was a silent film star.
Can public opinion alone put someone in jail?
I’ve linked the Wikipedia account of Fatty’s three criminal trials for rape and murder, of which he was eventually acquitted, after two hung juries, and a letter from his third jury apologizing for the pain he’d been caused.
Fatty was convicted entirely by public opinion caused by the media, specifically the yellow journalism of the William Randolph Hearst newspapers, all based on the reputation of Hollywood itself as the original sin city. Being in Hollywood alone convicted him before trial. The public wanted to believe he was guilty.
And Fatty’s innocence brings us to Herman Cain, who was made the object of sex harassment charges in the 2012 presidential campaign, based entirely on verbal charges without any kind of proof whatsover. When Fatty Arbuckle was on trial his friend, Charlie Chaplin, came to his defense saying Arbuckle “wasn’t the type” – and that he was a gentle, quiet, even shy man. The same could have been said about Herman Cain. He wasn’t the type of “man who loved women” (I can cite several key critical factors having some knowledge of this type in my legal career) but the charges also suggested a racist stereotype of the big randy black man the Left had always insisted it was trying to destroy…unless that black man was a Republican or conservative. Herman caught on quickly and quit the race to save his family. (Donald Trump is his successor.) Clarence Thomas hung on and is a Supreme Court justice.
For the record “Men who love women” are never rapists or predators. Nor are they perpetually horney and attracted to high hair or given over to power madness. That’s a different disease altogether. Clinton and Weinstein are something else. Neither could control their appetites. In any other profession and political persuasion, without the protection of the Left, and of some purpose to the Left, they both would have been in prison years ago.
What has kept them both out of prison is that common thread that allows an invisible hand to destroy innocent men, from men like Herman Cain to Fatty Arbuckle, just to keep their political narrative alive.
Publications: Famous Common People I Have Known and Other Essays
(Both books in Kindle format only, Publishers and agents welcome, as both need to revised)
Support: Yes, I’ve never been a nickel to write.
Donations can be made to email@example.com via Paypal