Donald Trump fortalte, at han havde kendt Weinstein i lang tid og han var “not at all surprised”, til hvilket Jelani Cobb i The New Yorker “Game, as they says, recognizes game”. Det synes at være begrænsningen for venstrefløjen, at associere, hvad der ligner en sexforbryder ikke bare i egne rækker, men beskyttet igennem årtier af selvsamme rækker, med deres politiske modstandere.

Og beskyttet bliver det, helt instinktivt. “You’re damaging an entire industry!” afbrød mediepersonligheden Barbera Walters for et par år siden Corey Feldmans advarsel til børn og forældre, der havde stjernedrømme i Hollywood. Corey havde fortalt om pædofile netværk, “still working, they’re still out there, and that are some of the richest most powerful people in this business”. Så vi har et miljø i benægtelse.

Ethvert moralistisk foretagende korrumperes let, fordi moralisme er er aggressiv og tvinger kritik i defensiven på forhånd. Nogle moralistiske institutioner er lette at gennemskue fordi der med tiden er opbygget et sprog for kritik og fordi der er en historie af hykleri at pege på. Den Katolske Kirkes manglende handlekraft, når det kommer til pædaraster i præstekjoler (ironisk er der en del Hollywoodfilm om netop dette emne), der har udnyttet lokalsamfundets tillid. Eller tele-evangelister, der er usmageligt skinhellige helt ind i folks stuer, indtil de er i nyhederne for at have væltet sig i prostituerede ‘cross the state line‘.

Venstrefløjen har sine egne kirker og sin egen moralisme, der dyrker identitetspolitik og, hvad Dennis Prager kalder, “The American Libel“, at USA undertrykker alle sine metastaserende minoriteter. Så længe man genfortæller the american libel og lefler for identitetspolitik, så længe er man i salveten og hævet over kritik. Vis en antisemitisk film til FNs Generalforsamling og alle bærer over med rygterne om hans udskejelser en stund endnu. Og det gjorde Weinstein. “[T]he women whom he abused were collateral damage in a culture war” skriver Daniel Greenfield i Frontpage Magazine og Weinsteins magt udsprang af, at han var en vigtig ‘kulturel kriger’ for venstrefløjen

Harvey ran an assembly line on which movies about the left’s latest social agenda were rolled out. If you wanted campus rapes, police brutality, transgender, gay rights, anti-Israel or anything from the Left “R” Us emporium, he made it happen. And the price was ignoring the screams coming from his hotel rooms and the office storage rooms that he allegedly brought women to.

The left paid that price. It paid it, until Harvey wasn’t good for it anymore. And then it came to collect.

Harvey Weinstein didn’t assault women ‘despite’ his leftist politics as the media alleges in its fumbling efforts to connect him to toxic masculinity. He assaulted women because of his leftist politics. It was his politics that made him feel safe assaulting women. And it was his politics that made them feel unsafe about turning him in. How do you take on a man who has Planned Parenthood in his back pocket?

And it was his cultural transgressiveness that won him a pass. The cultural pioneers of the left who break all sorts of sexual boundaries are expected to occasionally transgress boundaries like consent. That’s true across the entertainment industry. And it was true across the counterculture in general.

How many rapes were there at Occupy Wall Street camps and how much sexual harassment was there in the Bernie Sanders campaign? That’s how leftist political and culture wars have always worked.

(…)

The women whom Harvey allegedly abused knew that the media’s rule is that there are no enemies to the left. And Harvey had worked hard to always stay to the left of everyone else. Including his victims.

Jelani Cobb og resten af venstrefløjen genkender ikke deres egne lus på gangen så Weinstein “got the same “rape pass” that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and other top lefties did”.

Drokles blogger på www.monokultur.dk