On October 5, shortly after the New York Times published its eye-opening exposé detailing Harvey Weinstein’s depraved misadventures, the subject of said exposé sent the newspaper a “statement” which I suspect was penned without anticipation of the shitstorm that was about to be unleashed by writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. The statement was a rote brush-off knee-jerk apology soaked in crocodile tears and stinking of quasi-apologetic platitudes. If Weinstein had realized, before composing the letter, the vast network of shenanigans that would be revealed as a byproduct of his mainstream exposure, his apology would have worn quite a different tone.
As it was, his statement concluded with an egregious dose of aggressive virtue signaling that frankly appears to be an oblique SOS targeted at the powers that be which had assiduously enabled and cloaked his behaviors in the past. A past which is now dead and gone and Harvey is on his own.
Weinstein could not anticipate the unfolding narrative which would envelope him in a pall of sinister and repugnant moral darkness that would alienate all his longstanding “allies.” The “rescue flare” he embedded in his statement intended for his coastal Leftist enablers went unheeded. The shame of all matters Weinstein sent friends and political affiliates and business partners scurrying. Everyone sought to extricate themselves from Harvey Weinstein in any way possible. No one dared come to Harvey’s aid. It is doubtful he expected things to escalate as they did. Welcome to the new digital economy, Harvey. Thirty years ago the matter would have been batted about by the news networks and would have receded as surely as the network bosses needed to deposit their next paycheck. In 2017, the news torch is never simply snuffed out; it is passed from one social media hand to the next, and the matter becomes inflamed and the coil of public opinion and curiosity energizes it beyond any humanly means available to extinguish.
Instead, he issued a statement that was a naked, pitiful attempt at deferring to old modes of Weinsteinian escape that were simply no longer available.
His virtue signals were abandoned by everyone and thus laid bare for all to see.
Apparently leftists seek catharsis through the act of opposing conservatives rather than seeking to raise the principled interests of liberalism. Did a man in his position deserve to channel anger so much as he needed to channel a constructive escape plan? Anger? Is that how Harvey Weinstein reacted to the breaking story?
The Right should keep this in mind. The MSM and liberals will increasingly focus on Weinstein, The Monster, as a deflection. H. Weinstein is “insignificant” in that he is only the representation of a deep, malevolent self-perpetuating society that is affixed, parasitically, to the core of our culture. Weinstein is a symptom, not the phenomena; in the same way Father XXXXX was merely the symptom of a corrupt Catholic Church…not the distorted hierarchy itself.
Beware long journalistic treatises which focus on making the Weinstein narrative a distractive sideshow, when in fact we should pay attention to the beast, the cultural structure, which spawned and sustained him and the rest of his crooked ilk parading behind the guise of “liberalism.”