Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Jewing and Science

25 Comments

science_of_jews

Professional anti-“racist” Gavin Evans hates that science keeps bumping into the reality of race. Is Evans a jew? He certainly quacks like one. His latest article, The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’, begins with a recitation of the same old tired anti-“racist” shibboleths:

One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.

The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups. In particular, many of them argue that black people fare worse than white people because they tend to be less naturally intelligent.

Although race science has been repeatedly debunked by scholarly research, in recent years it has made a comeback. Many of the keenest promoters of race science today are stars of the “alt-right”, who like to use pseudoscience to lend intellectual justification to ethno-nationalist politics.

On its surface, the anti-“racist” argument is circular. Race is a mere label, manufactured by “racists”. Race science is a fraud, perpetrated by “racists”. “Racists” imagine they are superior, therefore they suck. Where does “racism” come from? From “racists”! Round and round it goes.

Beneath this dishonest veneer the argument has always and only ever been this: Whites can’t be White, because that’s bad for non-Whites, first and foremost the jews. Here’s Evans’ version:

jewing_of_science

The supposed science of race is at least as old as slavery and colonialism, and it was considered conventional wisdom in many western countries until 1945. Though it was rejected by a new generation of scholars and humanists after the Holocaust, it began to bubble up again in the 1970s, and has returned to mainstream discourse every so often since then.

The White race didn’t invent slavery or colonialism. But the White race did invent science.

The jews invented anti-“racism”, and for that cause jews invented prodigious amounts of fake science – Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, Frankfurt school cultural marxism, critical theory. The most recent catch-all is called Whiteness studies. They invented “hate speech” and “hate crimes”. They invented holidays to celebrate outwitting and outlasting other races. They invented the blame-shifting reality-inverting narrative pinning everything on Whites, but most emphatically the gassing of six million jews six million times over.

If you’re looking for a better example of one race using state-supported pseudoscience and propaganda to express their hostility toward another, there isn’t any. The jew war on Whites started long before 1933, and only grew more intense after 1945. That’s not Evans’ concern. He worries that the use of science to justify jewing poses an insidious threat…to the jews.

The recent revival of ideas about race and IQ began with a seemingly benign scientific observation. In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent – first in a lecture to a Jewish studies institute, then in a lengthy article in the liberal American magazine The New Republic the following year. This claim has long been the smiling face of race science; if it is true that Jews are naturally more intelligent, then it’s only logical to say that others are naturally less so.

The background to Pinker’s essay was a 2005 paper entitled “Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence”, written by a trio of anthropologists at the University of Utah. In their 2005 paper, the anthropologists argued that high IQ scores among Ashkenazi Jews indicated that they evolved to be smarter than anyone else (including other groups of Jews).

Evans is describing the latest intersectional jewing around race. By his own account the challenge to the anti-“racism” agenda is led by jews like Pinker, promoted by crypto-jewy institutions like The Jew Republic, to advance a biological theory justifying jewing. The point on which they all agree is that somebody else is to blame.

This evolutionary development supposedly took root between 800 and 1650 AD, when Ashkenazis, who primarily lived in Europe, were pushed by antisemitism into money-lending, which was stigmatised among Christians. This rapid evolution was possible, the paper argued, in part because the practice of not marrying outside the Jewish community meant a “very low inward gene flow”. This was also a factor behind the disproportionate prevalence in Ashkenazi Jews of genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher’s, which the researchers claimed were a byproduct of natural selection for higher intelligence; those carrying the gene variants, or alleles, for these diseases were said to be smarter than the rest.

Pinker followed this logic in his New Republic article, and elsewhere described the Ashkenazi paper as “thorough and well-argued”. He went on to castigate those who doubted the scientific value of talking about genetic differences between races, and claimed that “personality traits are measurable, heritable within a group and slightly different, on average, between groups”.

In subsequent years, Nicholas Wade, Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, the increasingly popular Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and others have all piled in on the Jewish intelligence thesis, using it as ballast for their views that different population groups inherit different mental capacities.

This is the usual jew-excusing narrative. The jews have no real agency, bear no responsibility for their actions. Racially predisposed to paranoia and neurosis, if not outright psychosis and sociopathy. Best known for their collective influence over politics, finance, media. For reading minds and policing thoughts. For monitoring or moderating all forms of discussion and information distribution. For giving each other awards. For demonizing and psychopathologizing racial enemies. Sometimes all at once. The problem, according to jews, is “racism”. Specifically opposition to jewing. Even mild criticism of jewing. The problem is not jewing. Cannot be jewing. Never jewing.

Population group is a clunky semitically correct replacement for race. Much like African-American is the new negro.

Racial traits are distinctive and heritable. This includes personality traits.

Evans implies there is something wrong with science or the theory of evolution, not the games with words and logic he and the Pinkers are playing. As if the indictment of Whites as a group, in distinction and deference to jews as a group, originates or even serves some purpose apart from jews jewing.

The jews know very well that “jew” is a hertiable genetic trait. They know jews are afflicted with specific DNA-rooted mental diseases. Though a limited amount of interbreeding with their host is essential to group survival, transracial fraud is much more common, and the core of jewry is remarkably insular and inbred. The genes most certainly flow outward rather than in. The more down-low and race-mixy jews direct resources in the opposite direction. You could call jewing predation. It is their stereotypical combination of furtiveness and screeching, like the cuckoo bird, which makes parasitism the more descriptive, more precise, more scientific term.

As the Boases and Fishbergs did a century ago, the Pinkers today promote a sciency view of race. Back then the goal was to deny jew racial distinctiveness. Now it is to assert racial distinctiveness as justification for special treatment which has grown too obvious to deny. This shift complicates the anti-“racist” surface game, but is perfectly in line with the anti-White jewing beneath. Indeed, Evans’ concern is not the jewing, but that non-jews have “piled in”, once again trying to exploit the eternal victims.

Evans concludes by reiterating to the most common anti-“racist” claims – that Whites being White is bad for blacks and jews, that race “has no grounding in scientific fact”.

The race “science” that has re-emerged into public discourse today – whether in the form of outright racism against black people, or supposedly friendlier claims of Ashkenazis’ superior intelligence – usually involves at least one of three claims, each of which has no grounding in scientific fact.

Evolution is the grounding for race in scientific fact. Evolution requires only two ingredients: heritable differences and selection among those differences. Speciation is one consequence, parasitism is another.

Jewing pursues the same ends by different means. Some jews attack “racism”. Others defend jewing. Most can effortlessly do both at the same time. The jews rightly view science as a tool, and more to the point, as a potential weapon. They disagree how to use the weapon while at the same time restricting such use by “racists”.

Blog

Nikolas Cruz

29 Comments

drudge_the_anti-white_jewsmedia_jew_confesses

School shooter, ambiguous race. Shootees, a racial soup, especially jewy. The ADL, jews organized to jew, knowing well the county and school is full of jews, but not knowing much about the shooter, immediately promotes the fake news that the shooter is WHITE WHITE WHITE and did what he did because he is WHITE WHITE WHITE. As usual, the jewsmedia readily amplifies this anti-White line.

The main takeaway, once again, is that the jewsmedia is anti-White. It is anti-White because it is the jewsmedia. The behavior of jews is no surprise once you understand that they see themselves at war with Whites, see Whites as their enemy. They know very well the policies they advocate create chaos and violence. They naturally jumped to the conclusion that the shooting was some form of White vengeance because they know.

Their own narrative and choice of language reveals that they have nothing but contempt for any Whites who are harmed by their agenda, much less for any who actively resist. When anyone opposes their anti-White agenda they cry “White supremacism”. When anyone notices any harm caused by jewing they cry “anti-semitism”. The plain fact is that without jews and the jewsmedia there wouldn’t be any of this screeching.

The jews mask the hostility of their agenda in part by openly celebrating it, advertising it as good and right, and in part by shifting blame for the more obviously negative consequences, like shootings, entirely to Whites. The jew-driven indoctrination that goes on in schools between shootings – the anti-“racism”, cultural marxism, critical theory, Whiteness studies – is deliberately calculated to demonize and demoralize Whites. The result is incalculable harm to Whites, never reported as such by the jewsmedia.

Blog

“Don’t Be Evil” is Code for “Be Anti-White”

73 Comments

based_caucasianJames Damore vs. Google: Class Action Lawsuit | Bias | Complaint

James Damore (“Damore”) and David Gudeman (“Gudeman” (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views … (ii) due to their male gender and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race

5. Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.

6. Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so.

8. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings.

27. Damore’s immediate supervisor was Cristian Tapus (“Tapus”). Tapus reports to Chuck Wu (“Wu”), Senior Director of Engineering for Google. Wu, in turn, reports to Ari Balogh (“Balogh”), Vice President of Engineering at Google. Balogh reports to Sridhar Ramaswamy (“Ramaswamy), the Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads. Ramaswamy, in turn, reports to Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google), who ultimately reports to Larry Page (CEO of Alphabet).

Google’s Diversity And Inclusion Summit

36. Google defined “diverse” individuals as women or individuals who were not Caucasian or Asian.

Specifically, Damore mentioned that it seemed like Google was elevating political correctness over merit.

There he asked questions about whether Google looked at viewpoint diversity with respect to hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. The answer he received was that Google only looked at demographic diversity (gender and/or race) when making hiring and promotion decisions—not at viewpoint diversity.

48. Damore ended his memo by addressing the problem in a constructive manner by advocating that Google should treat employees and potential hires as individuals, not members of tribes

60. At the in-person training, entitled “Bias Busting,” Google discussed how biases against women exist in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace. The training was run by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google, and there were approximately 20 Google employees present. Damore disagreed with this one-sided approach. When Damore verbalized his dissent and his concerns with the one-sided presentation, other employees, including managers, laughed at him derisively. They considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of disparagement.

66. After Damore’s memo went viral outside Google, Damore began receiving multiple threats and insults from his coworkers

67. On August 3, 2017 George Sadlier (“Sadlier”), a Director at Google, sent out a mass email condemning James’ essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an HR investigation into Damore. Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against Damore. Subsequently, On Friday, August 4, 2017, Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google in Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

72. Wu told Damore he was being terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

80. On or about August 20, 2015, Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), an L7 SWE Manager, drafted and published a document on a Google-employees only website, entitled, “Derailing.” This document discussed how individuals might attempt to silence someone’s opinions or distract from someone’s point of view. The document was aimed at Caucasian males, and conflated marginalization with white male privilege. The document essentially claimed through examples that any response but agreement to a statement about bias, prejudice, or privilege was a “derailment.” Reductio ad absurdum, the thesis of this document is that on this one particular set of topics, the left-wing political frame of systematic bias, must always dominate, and the receiver must accept that frame, and its associated worldview, in their response. 81.

Gudeman read this article, and disagreed with its premise, as did many other employees. Gudeman left a comment stating his belief that men “need to understand that [Caucasian males] are the victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.” 82.

Gudeman went on to state that “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.’”

85. Gudeman compared this document to that which “slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters,” in order to point out prejudices involved with the document

87. Ironically, other Google employees began to “derail” Gudeman’s point of view. Under the guise of advocating for an open dialogue, Burchett merely reported Googlers that disagreed with the thesis of her document, as Gudeman did, to Google management as being “un-Googley.” This further exemplifies the one-sided and flawed mindset of Google—that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong and hateful

93. On November 10, 2016, in response to many Google employee posting on different Google-wide forums regarding their fears about the new administration, Gudeman wrote that anyone “who believes President Trump will be out to get minorities, women or gays has absorbed a lot of serious lies from their echo chamber. And the echo chamber is entirely one sided. You can’t watch TV or go to movies without being constantly confronted with the leftist world view. Leftists can go their whole life never being exposed to the conservative world view except in shows written by people hostile to it.”

94. Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you truly think Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis [sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, then you are so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but are saying them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.”

101. Gudeman had another conversation with another Google employee on November 10, 2016, where he complained about being a conservative and a Trump supporter. Gudeman pointed out that “Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google. Googlers feel comfortable slandering them in a public forum and assume there will be no consequences.”

111. The Final Written Warning itself repudiated Google’s own policy: “We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups 2, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.” Ironically, the Google employee had provided ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted for severe written abuse and career sabotage.

156. Liz Fong-Jones (“Fong-Jones”), an L5 SRE Manager at Google, repeatedly discriminated against Caucasian males.

166. On November 15, 2015, a Google employee complained to Google HR regarding a highly offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated:

“If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!” (emphasis added.)

167. The Google employee stated that this statement was a violation of the Google Code of Conduct, and was creating a hostile workplace environment as it targeted Caucasians, males, and individuals over the age of 40.

168. Google HR responded: “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to [sic] violates our policies.”

169. Perplexed, the Google employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40-something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed to respond.

170. Google’s lack of response and engagement evidenced Google’s biases and its inability to even recognize them when someone pointed them out. As demonstrated above, Google allowed individuals to insult and discriminate against political conservatives, Caucasians, and males with impunity.

171. A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!” Further in the thread, Burchett highlights the divisiveness of her original post by noting that it was not fair even to talk about women when “POC” or “people of color” weren’t getting enough airtime in the discussion.

Here is a glimpse into the orwellian culture inside Google and similar tech corporations, which is in turn a reflection of the language and attitudes long incubated in academic weapons labs and dispensed by corporate media. The “diversity and inclusion” mask for the “anti-racist” agenda is slipping, exposing the anti-White racial animus which has always driven it. At it’s very root the “diversity” double-talk at Jewgle is anti-White, just as it is in most jewniversities and the jewsmedia. These institutions are so anti-White because they are thoroughly jewed.

Is there a single Google manager who explicitly identifies themselves positively as a White man? Has anyone ever counted the jews? Damore and Gudeman don’t claim to have done so. It is only for the purpose of this lawsuit that they now claim to be White, and what’s more, to speak for the interests of Whites as a legal class. Previously Damore minimized the importance of race. In his memo and in interviews immediately after his termination he made a point of disavowing “racism” and advocating individualism.

Damore’s memo was primarily concerned with opposing attitudes and policies he perceived as potentially punishing him for being a man. Beyond that he and his most vocal supporters have put special emphasis on ideology, complaining that they are “punished for their heterodox political views”. Their view on race is not heterodox, it’s passe. They prefer the older, less blatantly anti-White “anti-racism”. They won’t say it, but the problem is that version isn’t semitically correct enough any more. No doubt Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google, as Gudeman so knowingly puts it. What goes unsaid, even in this suit, is that the hatred is more racial than political, that it is so freely expressed because “Trump supporter” is understood to mean White.

The suit would have more value to Whites if Damore or Gudeman had been fired for saying something like “jews will not replace us” or “it’s okay to be White”. That would have made the who/whom nature of the hostility more plain. As it is Google’s lawyers can point at statements made by the plaintiffs themselves to make their case that race didn’t have anything to do with their terminations. And after all, they’ll argue, Google can’t possibly be anti-White because its management is stacked with (((fellow Whites)))!

Unfortunately, Damore, Gudeman, and their lawyers are not really trying to challenge semitical correctness. Like Weinstein at Evergreen or Bakke at UCal, they’re looking for some shekels for being mistaken for White.

Blog

How Jews Jewsplain Jewing

10 Comments

the_nose_knowsHow do you define anti-Semitism? It’s complicated.:

“[T]he JCC bomb threat hoax wasn’t just an isolated swastika daubing — it was an ongoing story affecting Jewish institutions in nearly every American Jewish community. It shaped a communal narrative that something ugly and insidious was happening out there. And it fueled a political crisis among most American Jewish organizations and the White House, with the former accusing the latter of taking too long to denounce anti-Semitism and to comfort Jews traumatized by the bomb threats and at least two major cemetery desecrations.”

Kadar, 18 at the time of his arrest in April, “deserves” the dubious distinction for another reason: He personifies a Jewish question, perhaps the Jewish question of 2017, which is, “How do you define anti-Semitism?” Kadar’s circumstances are of course peculiar to him, asking if a series of hoaxes that terrified Jewish institutions stop being anti-Semitism because the caller is Jewish. The question I am talking about is both semantic and political, pitting left against right on at least two battlegrounds.

“Anti-semitism” is defined by jews. In practice the term denotes anything one or more jews don’t like, as jews. They have difficultly acknowledging this, but it’s not because they can’t agree on what they don’t like. The difficultly arises from what they do agree on, which is that “anti-semitism” is entirely a goyim malfunction and has nothing whatsoever to do with jews jewing. This assertion of theirs is both essential to and contradicted by the way they acutally brandish the term, like a weapon, using their imagined victimhood to justify their aggression, to excuse whatever harm jewing causes non-jews.

Kadar is an excellent example. Jews screeched and jews profited, non-jews weren’t involved except as subordinates. The “anti-semitism” was nothing more than a supposed failure of the kikeservative-in-chief to service the jews when and how they expected. The only question jews ask is how far they can ride their loxism.

Left-leaning groups — on campus and on the outside — worry that labeling even hostile political rhetoric as hate speech puts Jews on the wrong side of the free speech debate. They say that a tool that has only recently been applied to anti-Semitic activity on campus — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — takes too broad a brush in defining anti-Semitism and ends up blaming legitimate critics of Israel of creating an “unsafe” environment for Jewish students.

Two of the most active groups in promoting the use of Title VI — the Zionist Organization of America and the Lawfare Project — are on the right.

The jews define “hate” too, primarily as a pretext to restrict what anyone else can say or do about what they don’t like. The cry-out-in-pain-as-you-strike nature of jew aggression becomes obvious whenever they try to formulate a precise meaning for “anti-semitism”, and especially when they read it into ostensibly secular liberal law.

The pantomime of left-jew versus right-jew serves as a thin disguise for the fact that Title VI is simultaneously promoted and exploited by jews. The upshot is that the supposed anti-discrimination law is interpreted to discriminate jews from Whites. Organized jewry wants Whites trying to be White criminalized as “hate”, while at the same time they demand their jewing be specifically privileged and protected. The courts, the schools, the corporations, all dance to jewry’s tune.

On the political front, the anti-Semitic debate broke in almost exactly the opposite way: The left was quick to label President Donald Trump as a fomenter of anti-Semitism and some of his aides and minions as anti-Semites outright. The failure of the White House to name Jews in its formal statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day — like Trump’s tepid condemnation of the racist and anti-Semitic marchers at Charlottesville — was not just an inadvertent mistake, many on the left reasoned, but a dog-whistle to the nationalist, and sometimes racist and anti-Semitic, right that supported Trump.

On the political front, the jews kick and the kikeservatives lick. White voters, deracinated and demoralized, too forgiving and forgetful, get only disingenuous dog-whistling. The jews, hyper-ethnocentric and ever-moralizing, never forgiving or forgeting, swiftly swarm to pillory any figurehead who steps over one of their many semitically correct lines.

Charlottesville demonstrated that Whites cannot freely assemble and speak, as Whites, in public. The swift and hysterical reaction from the local, state, and federal governments, officially condemning Whites because “anti-semitism”, demonstrated that Whites and jews are poltical opposites. Decades of phoney judicial dancing around race and privilege have suddenly been supplanted by explicit executive and legislative proclamations that the regime is officially anti-White out of deference to jews.

The ongoing chutzpathic attempt to invert this reality, to portray the kikeservative-in-chief as a tool of “anti-semites” rather than jews, merely reflects how thoroughly jewed the media and current political system are. Trump viciously counter-attacks anyone who attacks him. Everyone but the jews. When the jews kick, Trump licks.

Or maybe it’s not such a new phenomenon after all, because behind the debate are a familiar series of issues that have long divided the Jewish activist class: tikkun olam vs. “peoplehood”; universal justice vs. particularist priorities; a broad human rights agenda vs. a narrower focus on Israel. A polarized political climate only created the conditions for divides that were there all along.

Their toxic “communal narrative”, their hoax culture, their intersectional jewing, their left-vs-right dissembling, their constant screeching and gesticulating. No, none of this is new, only more blatant. To jewsplain their virulent collective behavior jews pretend it’s more complicated than it actually is, moaning about the divisiveness they themselves manufacture. Behind it all is the same old game – two jews, three opinions how to jew.

Blog

Weinstein Syndrome

41 Comments

weinstein_syndrome

Weinstein’s Complicity Machine:

‘One phone call and you’re done.’ ‘I’m Harvey Weinstein — you know what I can do.’ ‘I am a man who has great resources.’ ‘I have ears and eyes everywhere!’

The producer Harvey Weinstein relied on powerful relationships across industries to provide him with cover as accusations of sexual misconduct piled up for decades.

Harvey Weinstein built his complicity machine out of the witting, the unwitting and those in between. He commanded enablers, silencers and spies, warning others who discovered his secrets to say nothing. He courted those who could provide the money or prestige to enhance his reputation as well as his power to intimidate.

Mr. Weinstein’s final, failed round of manipulations shows how he operated for more than three decades: by trying to turn others into instruments or shields for his behavior

Many knew something or detected hints, though few understood the scale of his sexual misconduct. Almost everyone had incentives to look the other way or reasons to stay silent. Now, even as the tally of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged misdeeds is still emerging, so is a debate about collective failure and the apportioning of blame.

The studio chief once paid a gossip writer to collect juicy celebrity tidbits that Mr. Weinstein could use to barter if other reporters stumbled onto an affair he was trying to keep quiet. He was so close to David J. Pecker, the chief executive of American Media Inc., which owns The Enquirer, that he was known in the tabloid industry as an untouchable “F.O.P.,” or “friend of Pecker.” That status was shared by a chosen few, including President Trump.

Mr. Benza and Mr. Weinstein were exploiting a longstanding system of favor-trading between the press and the movie business. Gossip writers need a stream of insider scoops, industry beat reporters need exclusives on the next big deal and glossy magazines need celebrities who can drive newsstand sales. Mr. Weinstein, who wanted glowing coverage, could provide that and more.

The Weinstein brothers used “fear, intimidation, psychological and emotional abuse” on their executives, male and female, said Amy Israel, Miramax’s former co-head of acquisitions. “As a spectator to the abuse you were silenced by the fear that you would become the next target,” she said. “The only alternative seemingly was to quit — to throw away everything you had worked so hard for and walk out the door.”

Weinstein is a microcosm of Hollywood, and Hollywood a microcosm of jewing. Weinstein’s behavior is perfectly typical of jew moguls, just as the basic mechanics of Weinstein’s power and corruption, the networking, the alternation of reward and punishment, is used by jews as a group to co-opt and/or destroy anyone who might thwart them.

Weinstein was able to carry on for as long as he did exactly because he is a member of a larger criminal tribe, whose methods he shared, and whose mutual protection he still enjoys. Indeed, across time and space Weinstein’s tribe has operated Weinstein-wise, as an ethnic gang – a widely-dispersed, obsessively-organized, now skulking, now screeching, genetically-related mafia. But in comparison to any other form of ethnic gangsterism jewing is far more insidious, more virulent, more chronic. Unlike others, the jews have repeatedly infiltrated and manipulated hosts so completely that they’ve repeatedly managed to privilege themselves and legalize their gangsterism.

Controlling the narrative, the perceptions, the thinking, the morality of their host has been integral to jewing. Properly understood, jewing is part pretense, part practice; part denial, part celebration; part carrot, part stick; part hidden, part in-your-fucking-face-and-whattaya-gonna-do-about-it-goyim. Jewing is parasitism so “successful” that none dare call it parasitism.