December 6, 2019
Ronan Farrow recently published his book about the Harvey Weinstein scandal, Catch and Kill. Reading through it, I’m struck that almost everyone involved in this nefarious drama is a Jew, except, of course, the goyess victims of Weinstein’s depraved lusts. Weinstein is a Jew, the media execs he gets to help him suppress the various scandal-related stories are Jews; the lawyers are Jews; the black ops specialists he recruits to spy on his victims are Jews (from the Israeli firm Black Cube, staffed with ex-Mossad operatives); even the author Ronan Farrow is a Jew, son of Mia Farrow and the archetypal Jew himself, Woody Allen.
One interesting detail in the narrative is that Weinstein once spread rumors that the mathematician John Nash was an anti-Semite. This was because the biopic of Nash, A Beautiful Mind, was in the running for Oscars against Weinstein’s film In the Bedroom.
The day after the shoot with McGowan, we were at the offices of the Hollywood Reporter for an interview with their journalist on the awards beat, Scott Feinberg. Harvey Weinstein was inescapable in that conversation, too: he had essentially invented the modern Oscar campaign. Weinstein ran his campaigns like guerrilla wars. A Miramax publicist once ghostwrote an op-ed praising the company’s movie Gangs of New York and passed it off as the work of Robert Wise, the director of The Sound of Music, who was, at the time, eighty-eight. Weinstein orchestrated an elaborate smear campaign against rival film A Beautiful Mind, planting press items claiming the protagonist, mathematician John Nash, was gay (and, when that didn’t work, that he was anti-Semitic). When Pulp Fiction lost a Best Picture Oscar to Forrest Gump, he’d publicly threatened to arrive on director Robert Zemeckis’s lawn and “get medieval.”
Source: Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow
In fact, A Beautiful Mind won the Best Picture Oscar in 2002. Looking back through the archives, I see that the disinfo campaign against the film did attract some public notice at the time. Weinstein’s name came up, but he was not specifically singled out as the author of the plot.
Although Weinstein knew the anti-Semitism accusations were bogus because Nash had been in a delusional state, they did have a tenuous foundation in fact. Nash had indeed made pejorative remarks about Jews during one of his periodic bouts of “insanity,” as recounted in Sylvia Nasar’s book A Beautiful Mind, which formed the basis of the film.
At this point, the grandiose delusions in which Nash was a powerful figure, the Prince of Peace, the Left Foot of God, and the Emperor of Antarctica were no longer in evidence; instead, the theme became predominantly persecutory. He discerned that “the root of all evil, as far as my personal life is concerned (life history) are Jews, in particular Jack Bricker who is Hitler, a trinity of evil comprised of Mora, Iblis and Napoleon.” These were, he said, simply “Jack Bricker in relation to me.” At another point, he said, referring to Bricker, “Imagine if there would be a person who pats a guy on the back … with compliments and praises, while at the same time stabbing him in the abdomen with a deadly rabbit punch.” Seeing the picture so clearly, he concluded that he must petition the Jews and also mathematicians and Arabs “so that they have the opportunity for redress of wrongs,” which must, however, “not be too openly revealed.” He also had the idea that he must turn to churches, foreign governments, and civil-rights organizations for help.
In the story of Jacob and Esau, told in Genesis, Nash saw a parable full of meaning for his own life. Jacob and Esau are brothers, the sons of Isaac and Rebekah, who love each other. Esau is the elder, and his father, Isaac, loves him, but Rebekah, their mother, loves Jacob more. As the story unfolds, Esau is twice supplanted by Jacob. First, Jacob tricks Esau into making a bad bargain and selling his birthright. Then, Jacob steals the blessing of the now blind Isaac, who had intended it for Esau. He does so by impersonating his brother. When Esau discovers Jacob’s deception, Isaac rejects his claim: “See, away from the fatness of the earth shall your home be/and away from the dew of heaven on high./By your sword you shall live,/and you shall serve your brother;/but when you break loose,/you shall break his yoke from your neck.” Esau, full of hatred for his brother, tells himself, “The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob.” Nash believed that he had been cast out (“I’ve been in a situation of loss of favor”) and ostracized. He was constantly threatened with bankruptcy and expropriation: “If accounts are held for a trustee, in effect, who is as good as defunct, through lack of ’rational consistency.’ … It’s as if accounts are held for persons suffering in an Inferno. They can never benefit from them because it’s as if they were supposed to come from the Inferno — to the bank offices — and collect, but they need, as it were, a revolutionary ending of the Inferno before having any sort of possibility of benefiting from their accounts.”
It could, of course, be that his “insanity” freed Nash from the bounds of conventional thought and allowed him to achieve enhanced insight into certain things. Particularly striking is that Nash identified with the Esau figure in the Biblical narrative, who was cheated out of his rightful inheritance by his conniving brother Jacob. It’s very revealing about the nature of the Jews that they choose to identify with this deceiver Jacob and see his story as a parable of their own separation from the lowly goyim.