The duplicity of grandstanding luvvies is explained in Weinstein’s Theory of Relativity. The central logic of this little-known theory is that politics and crime are two aspects of media spacetime. Spacetime is curved, and the gravity of a crime is a product of key variables, such as money, emotional currency and time.
This explains why an alleged sexist faces calls for impeachment but a more serious offender will get standing ovations at the Oscar nominations.
It also explains why a wrongfully convicted footballer is kept on a protected prison wing then prevented from working again. But a Hollywood big cheese gets his own parking space.

So why? Why would Meryl Streep lead the cheers for film director Roman Polanski? Why would Emma Thompson comply with a request to sign up her support for said director as she said she did? What was it about his power and influence that made these ladies overlook the fact that he had had ‘unlawful sexual conduct’ with a 13-year-old girl? Or didn’t they see it was wrong? Emma admitted she’d had to be put right by her student children’s friends.

And quite what made Matt Damon and Russell Crowe summon up the courage to condemn Donald Trump (which can’t have been easy in front of an Oscar night audience) and yet act like the school bully’s sidekicks towards vulnerable women?

There are examples at home. I won’t go into the sanctimonious radio phone-in host who makes great play of his feminist sensibilities one week, then does a reverse ferret the next.
But let’s leave aside the morality of a person who makes his income from exploiting tragedies on the pretence of ‘starting a debate’. What could have fashioned these dramatic reversals of logic? What variables were at play? Race? Religion? Politics? Surely not these, as that would make our Hollywood A-listers bigots.
Could the law of Weinstein’s Relativity explain all this? There’s another dimension to be considered here, you see – time, which is inversely proportional to fashion.

Emma and Meryl and Lindsay all loved Harvey to bits until very recently. But not now. As the style bibles will say in the Sunday supplements: Harvey Weinstein is so last week.


  1. I’ve seen it argued that Weinstein has become dogs’ meat because he has not had any big blockbuster successes lately. Thus his power has waned, and therefore as said in the article, is so yesterday.

    • He has the additional “virtue” of being just about as perfect a picture of the bad guy as its possible to look. A good old fashioned Beauty and the beast storyline with just the right pictures ready made.

  2. In 1978 John Lydon of the Sex Pistols raised Jimmy Savilles ‘seediness’ and the ‘rumours’ on a BBC Radio show. If he knew in 1978 then you can be sure that everyone knew.
    Yet the BBC sustained Saville for another 20 years.
    The entertainment industrious has very few morals, whether its in the USA or the UK.
    I would guess that everyone of any standing in Hollywood knew all about Weinstien. Watch this clip of Courtney Love from 2005.

    If anything good can come of all this then the sanctimonious preaching that pours out of the ‘stars’ will stop.

    • Very unlikely. Its media gold, everybody wins. The media gets an excuse to have pages of pictures of “starlets” in red carpet dresses or , even better, skimpy costumes in TV or Movies from their younger years. Acres and Acres of “beautiful people”. Even better that the “beast” in this version of the fairy tale is suitably fat and ugly. A shedload of “A listers” get to be “brave” about the casting couch (deftly sidestepping the questions about how they got their “break”) while forgotten or reduced to “soaps” stars get to be on the front pages, being “brave”, agents in tow. Male “A listers” can be suitably “appalled” and virtue signal for all they’re worth, getting plenty of useful publicity too. Even the police get to clamber out of the Wiltshire Constabularies’ hole by rushing to the aid of pretty damsels with at least a live beast this time. Perhaps not a “story old as time” but one pretty familiar to the Hollywood movie machine. Even mister Weinstein can slope off to “sex addiction” Hospital while the whole circus steams ahead. Probably he won’t get a cut of all the exra revenue and revived careers he’s generated.
      No sorry this one will run and run, expect an ocean of sanctimonious preaching. After all this is far more comfortable and familiar territory than “race”, or “guns” etc.

    • “Knowing” and “proving” are two quite separate things– recall the newspaperman “Cassandra” and Liberace. Cassie’s defence was that, in calling Liberace a “fruit,” he merely meant that Libby was effeminate (which Mr. L certainly WAS). Liberace took it as being called a “homosexual” (which again, Mr. L WAS) and dared Cassandra to prove it. Well, Cassandra couldn’t, of course. But in those days (the Fifties) calling a man a homosexual was tantamount to calling him a “criminal,” since the laws against it had not been repealed, and such was libel per se (with the added fillip of a possible “imputation of inchastity,” which was what falsely stating someone had a venereal disease was euphemistically called).

      Many KNEW Jimmy Savile was Jimmy So Vile, but PROVING it was quite another matter.

      • William Connor, who wrote under the Cassandra by-line, was no angel.
        In 1944 John Harman was awarded a posthumous VC for his bravery in the Battle of Khohima.
        In the edition covering the award Connor took delight in bringing up in his column that Harman’s father had lost a lot of money in the 1929 crash.

  3. It’s obvious that if he had directed hits recently no one would have spoken out. His behaviour is accepted or tolerated in certain circles. Notice that his accusers have now found their own fame decide to speak out, ignoring all their sisters before them.

  4. ‘ . . the sanctimonious radio phone-in host who makes great play of his feminist sensibilities one week, then does a reverse ferret the next.’
    Hmm, anyone able to point me in the direction of this individual, hints, nudges, programme appears in, nickname, whatever, or victims’ names?
    Could the first name be Jere*y?

Comments are closed.