Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was essentially a creation of the Talmudic ideology, which got morphed into Portnoy’s Complaints, and which ended up corrupting an entire generation of readers.
The New York Times has implicitly declared that Harvey Weinstein couldn’t be serious about needing a walker. He needed one only when he was about to be tried. The NY Times stated:
“To the judge, jurors, lawyers, reporters and onlookers the walker conveys an image, accurate or not, of physical weakness and dependence — what I call the ‘the aesthetics of disability.’ These physical and behavioral markers of disability produce visceral responses in jurors and the public that can lead them to be more (or less) sympathetic when weighing a defendant’s liability, public responsibility and, in the end, punishment.”[1]
Harvey Weinstein has been spotted without a walker, so he obviously is lying. “It seems as if Harvey Weinstein might only use his walker when it could win him some valuable sympathy. A Page Six spy recently spotted the disgraced mogul in Manhattan with his attorneys, shuffling into a meeting with a potentially hostile group and using a walker for support. So the same source was surprised to spot Weinstein a few days later at a Target in Mount Kisco, NY, near Bedford, with his family — striding around without any support whatsoever.”
Weinstein again is faking it. But he is certainly not fooling Mark Oppenheimer of Tablet magazine. In an article called “The Specifically Jewy Perviness of Harvey Weinstein,” Oppenheimer declared way back in 2017 that Harvey Weinstein’s character is “straight out of Philip Roth, playing out his revenge fantasies on the Goyim.”[2]
If you have not read Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint, here is a brief summary. The book is essentially about a Jewish boy by the name of Alexander Portnoy who keeps fantasizing about “a mythical shiksa goddess whom he nicknamed Thereal McCoy.”[3]
The release of Portnoy’s Complaint in 1969 was hailed as a messianic event because the book intended to liberate the Khazarian Mafia from the moral law. As E. Michael Jones puts it, “The premise—that morality is a kind of fascism that is imposed by the strong on the weak to control them—is the only possible premise that makes Portnoy’s Complaint role as savior plausible.”[4]
What does Roth say in Portnoy’s Complaint? “Put the ID back in the Yid! Liberate this nice Jewish boy’s libido, will you please? Raise the prices if you have to! I’ll pay anything!”[5] This certainly represents the worldview that guides Harvey Weinstein’s life. Drawing similarities between Portnoy’s Complaint and Harvey Weinstein, Oppenheimer writes:
“Harvey is cut from the same cloth. Growing up in Queens, he fantasized of fame and fortune, and, once he got them, he struggled to maintain them by building himself into a larger-than-life figure. He yelled at employees like he was a studio boss from the 1920s—the only thing missing was a riding crop. He ran Oscars campaigns like they used to in Old Hollywood. And he harassed women not necessarily to use them as instruments of his pleasure, but to use them as instruments of his power.
“It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women—Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc.—was a Gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy of having risen above his outer-borough, bridge-and-tunnel Semitic origins.”[6]
In short, Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was essentially a creation of the Talmudic ideology,[7] which got morphed into Portnoy’s Complaints, and which ended up corrupting an entire generation of readers.