Harvey Weinstein, and why influential liberals more often are sexual predators

On 25 May, of this year, the New York Police Department charged former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein with rape and several counts of sexual abuse. These allegations were first made public this past October, and since then, dozens of other alleged sexual predators have been named.

Certainly, the presumption of innocence is still in force, and not all evil deeds are legally indictable. A wrong glance is not a rape, and allegations as such are only complaints. But let’s look at another aspect, and that is political affiliation. In the US in general, the right and the left (Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals) have broadly the same numbers. However Weinstein was one of the Democratic Party’s most prolific donors who had contributed to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Also, among other alleged sexual predators, liberals way outnumber conservatives. One who questions this can check lists compiled by liberal press members at e.g. Los Angeles Times (98 names) or The New York Times (71 names) to compare the number of liberals to conservatives found in this research. As this comparison clearly shows The New York Times list boasts liberals three or so times more than conservatives.

What gives and why is this so? Shouldn’t liberals only be a tiny minority of sexual predators knowing their strong support for women’s rights, feminism, and eradication of violence and abuse? No, there are at least two reasons.

First, is lust; Liberals are driven by lust and the unlimited pursuit of it. Classical liberals preach that one man’s liberty ends where another man’s begins. But contemporary liberals want no limits to their liberties, be it murdering innocent babies with abortions, living at the expense of others through taxing, or forcing Christian bakeries to bake cakes for homosexual “marriages”. Thus, liberals holding influential positions where they are unlikely to face prosecution will engage in lustful acts at the expense of other liberals and supposed championed groups — just as Weinstein and his kind have done.

Second, would be self-indulgence; That is, a feeling you are allowed to sin if you compensate for it by preaching the opposite and demanding the opposite from others. This applies not only to sexual relations, as an example, liberals loudly decry social inequality but have been proven to be very stingy with charitable donations. Another good example would be the leading warriors against global warming, who regularly travel to conferences in their own private jets and also live in extravagant mansions. Just recently, a study was published showing that believers in catastrophic man-made climate change behave less environmentally friendly than their skeptics. In regards to Weinstein & Co this indulgence means that sexual violence occurred not despite of but hand in hand with liberalism championing women’s rights, feminism, and eradication of violence and abuse.

Clearly, if I were a woman I’d think thrice whether or not to stay alone with any renowned self-declared male feminists.

Ritvars Eglājs

Ritvars Eglājs

Geographer, free marketer, Latvian nationalist

Leave a Reply