Featured Articles

The Israel Lobby Wants Thomas Massie Gone. Will Voters Obey?

/25 Comments/in , /by

The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and his political survival could prove whether Congress still answers to American voters or to a foreign lobby with limitless cash.

Pro-Israel Republican megadonors recently set up the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust Massie. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000. The Republican Jewish Coalition has promised “unlimited” campaign spending if Massie runs for Senate, with CEO Matt Brooks declaring that “if Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.”

President Donald Trump has also jumped into the fray, branding Massie a “pathetic loser” who should be dropped “like the plague.” Overall, a constellation of pro-Zionist forces is mobilizing at full force to unseat Congress’s most principled non-interventionist politician since Ron Paul retired in 2013. In many respects, Massie has taken up Paul’s mantle of foreign policy restraint — a political agenda that has never sat well with organized Jewry. Massie’s legislative track record on foreign policy speaks for itself.

Massie’s Long Track Record of Voting Against Foreign Policy Interventionism

Throughout his congressional career, Massie has established himself as Congress’s most consistent opponent of the neoconservative/neoliberal foreign policy consensus. His principled opposition to endless wars and foreign entanglements has earned him the nickname “Mr. No” — similar to his predecessor Ron Paul — for frequently casting lone dissenting votes against military interventions.

In 2013, Massie introduced the War Powers Protection Act to “block unauthorized U.S. military aid to Syrian rebels.” He argued that “since our national security interests in Syria are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies.” When Obama sought to arm Syrian rebels in 2014, Massie voted against the plan, declaring it “immoral to use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe.”

Massie consistently opposed U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war, co-sponsoring multiple bipartisan resolutions to invoke the War Powers Resolution and “remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.” He stated that “Congress never authorized military action in Yemen as our Constitution requires, yet we continue to fund and assist Saudi Arabia in this tragic conflict.”

His opposition to NATO expansion proved equally consistent. In 2017, Massie was one of only four House members to vote against a pro-NATO resolution, explaining that “the move to expand NATO in Eastern Europe is unwise and unaffordable,” and such expansion contradicted Trump’s campaign assertion that “NATO is obsolete.”

Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war, Massie maintained his non-interventionist stance, receiving an “F” grade from Republicans for Ukraine. He opposed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, multiple aid packages, and efforts to strip Ukraine funding. Massie argued that supporting Ukraine aid was “economically illiterate and morally deficient,” declaring that “the American taxpayers have been conscripted into making welfare payments to this foreign government.”

Most recently, in June 2025, Massie introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna to “prohibit United States Armed Forces from unauthorized involvement” in the Israel-Iran conflict. After Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie criticized the action as “not Constitutional,” remaining the only Republican co-sponsor of the war powers resolution.

Massie’s Anti-Zionist Streak

Massie’s most politically dangerous positions involve his consistent opposition to pro-Israel legislation, earning him the distinction of being the lone Republican opposing numerous Israel-related measures.

In July 2019, Massie cast the sole Republican vote against a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The resolution passed 398-17, but Massie defended his position by stating he does not support “federal efforts to condemn any type of private boycott, regardless of whether or not a boycott is based upon bad motives” and that “these are matters that Congress should properly leave to the States and to the people to decide.”

In September 2021, Massie was the only Republican to vote against $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. He explained that “my position of ‘no foreign aid’ might sound extreme to some, but I think it’s extreme to bankrupt our country and put future generations of Americans in hock to our debtors.” This vote prompted AIPAC to run Facebook ads stating “When Israel faced rocket attacks, Thomas Massie voted against Iron Dome.”

Perhaps most controversially, on May 18, 2022, Massie cast the lone vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism, which passed 420-1. The American Jewish Committee criticized him, stating that “while Democrats and Republicans united, Rep. Massie, who has also opposed bills on Holocaust education and Iron Dome funding, decided that combating rising hatred is not important.” Massie defended his vote by tweeting that “legitimate government exists, in part, to punish those who commit unprovoked violence against others, but government can’t legislate thought.”

In October 2023, Massie opposed a $14 billion aid package for Israel, proclaiming that “if Congress sends $14.5 billion to Israel, on average we’ll be taking about $100 from every working person in the United States. This will be extracted through inflation and taxes. I’m against it.” When AIPAC criticized him, Massie responded that “AIPAC always gets mad when I put America first. I won’t be voting for their $14+ billion shakedown of American taxpayers either.”

On October 25, 2023, Massie was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution affirming Israel’s right to defend itself following the October 7 Hamas attacks. A month later, on November 28, 2023, he became the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which passed 412-1.

The most explosive moment came in December 2023 when Massie posted a meme of the rapper Drake contrasting “American patriotism” with “Zionism,” implying Congress prioritized the latter. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the post “antisemitic, disgusting, dangerous” and demanded he remove it. The White House labeled it “virulent antisemitism.” Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks condemned it, stating “Shame on you @RepThomasMassie. You’re a disgrace to the US Congress and to the Republican Party.”

Massie vs. Trump

Trump’s escalating attacks on Massie reveal the extent to which the sitting president serves pro-Israel interests rather than pursuing genuine ideological differences. The timing and intensity of Trump’s criticism align suspiciously with Massie’s most vocal challenges to Israeli influence in Congress.

In June 2025, after Massie criticized Trump’s Iran strikes as “not Constitutional,” Trump unleashed a scathing Truth Social response calling Massie “not MAGA” and declaring that “MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him.” Trump branded Massie a “simple-minded ‘grandstander’ who thinks it’s good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon” and concluded that “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!”

This vitriol represents a dramatic shift from Trump’s 2022 endorsement, when he called Massie a “Conservative Warrior” and “first-rate Defender of the Constitution.” The transformation occurred precisely as Massie intensified his criticism of Israeli influence and foreign aid. Trump’s attacks escalated further after Massie’s explosive June 2024 Tucker Carlson interview where he revealed that “everybody but me has an AIPAC person. … It’s like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC.”

Massie elaborated that “I have Republicans who come to me and say that’s wrong what AIPAC is doing to you, let me talk to my AIPAC person… I’ve had four members of Congress say I’ll talk to my AIPAC person and like it’s casually what we call them my AIPAC guy.” This revelation exposed the systematic nature of Israeli influence over Congress, prompting immediate backlash from pro-Israel organizations and likely contributing to increased donor funding against his re-election campaign.

The pattern makes clear that Trump’s hostility toward Massie stems less from policy disagreements than from his deference to powerful Jewish donors. Although he often claims to oppose “endless wars,” Trump’s attacks on Massie — the most consistent non-interventionist in Congress — expose where his true loyalties lie in advancing the agenda of Jewish supremacist interests rather than pursuing an independent foreign policy. House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled that GOP leadership will abandon Massie, stating that “he is actively working against his team almost daily now and seems to enjoy that role. So he is, you know, deciding his own fate.”

AIPAC is on the Hunt

AIPAC’s 2024 electoral victories demonstrate the lobby’s willingness to spend unprecedented sums to eliminate critics of Israeli policy. The organization’s success in defeating progressive Democrats and protecting establishment Republicans reveals a coordinated strategy to purge Congress of independent voices. AIPAC will look to replicate its successes against the likes of Israel critics such as Massie.

Against Rep. Jamaal Bowman in New York’s 16th District, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project (UDP) spent $14.5 million opposing Bowman while also propping up challenger George Latimer. Independent media outlet Sludge reported that “the $14.5 million AIPAC’s super PAC has spent in the NY-16 Democratic primary is more than any outside group has ever spent on a single House of Representatives election race.”

The spending was fueled by Republican megadonors channeled through AIPAC, with WhatsApp founder Jan Koum donating $5 million to UDP. Responsible Statecraft noted that “AIPAC effectively acted to launder campaign funds for Republican megadonors into the Democratic primary, where the spending was generally identified in media as ‘pro-Israel,’ not ‘Republican.'” By election day, Latimer-aligned groups had outspent Bowman’s backers by over seven-to-one.

Against Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st District, UDP spent over $8.5 million to attack her record on Israel and support her pro-Zionist  challenger Wesley Bell. The Bush-Bell primary became one of the most expensive House primaries ever with over $18 million in total ad spending. Bush called it “the second most expensive congressional race in our nation’s history, $19 million and counting” funded by “mostly far-right-funded super PACs, against the interests of the people of St. Louis.”

Even in Republican primaries, AIPAC intervened to protect establishment allies. To defend moderate Rep. Tony Gonzales against challenger Brandon Herrera in Texas’s 23rd District, UDP spent $1 million opposing Herrera in a “two-week ad buy.” The Republican Jewish Coalition added $400,000 in attack ads against Herrera. Combined AIPAC and RJC spending totaled approximately $1.4-1.5 million, helping Gonzales narrowly defeat Herrera by just 354 votes with 50.6% to 49.4%.

These victories came as part of AIPAC’s broader $100+ million spending cycle, with Common Dreams noting that “AIPAC money has already made a significant impact, helping a pair of pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—two of Congress’ most vocal critics of Israel’s assault on Gaza—in recent primary contests.”

How Massie’s Race Could Determine the Israel Lobby’s Actual Power

Massie’s 2026 primary represents the ultimate test of whether any politician can survive the full force of pro-Israel opposition. The Kentucky race will determine if AIPAC’s previous victories represent sustainable power or pyrrhic victories that expose the lobby’s long-term vulnerabilities.

Massie’s unique position may prove more defensible than Bowman’s or Bush’s urban districts. His rural Kentucky constituency shows less susceptibility to urban media campaigns and maintains stronger skepticism of foreign entanglements. Moreover, his local roots provide credibility that transcends typical political attacks. The Kentucky representative’s ability to frame opposition as foreign interference rather than domestic policy disagreements could resonate with voters increasingly suspicious of the pro-Israel establishment that dominates Washington’s political scene.

The financial strain of AIPAC’s previous victories may also constrain future spending. The organization’s $100+ million commitment across multiple races represents an unsustainable pace that could face donor fatigue. Each expensive victory exposes the lobby’s methods to greater scrutiny and potential backlash. Progressive groups increasingly highlight AIPAC’s role in primary defeats, potentially mobilizing opposition that limits future effectiveness.

Massie’s survival would demonstrate that principled politicians can withstand pro-Israel pressure through constituent loyalty and grassroots support. His defeat would confirm that no elected official can challenge Israeli interests regardless of their domestic support. The Kentucky race thus represents a pivotal moment in determining whether American foreign policy serves American interests or remains subordinate to foreign influence.

If Massie withstands the assault, it will mark the first crack in the façade of Zionist invulnerability; if he falls, it will prove that American politicians can be bought and buried by World Jewry’s limitless stockpiles of cash.

An Abomination of Immigrants: How Dissent Is Demonized as “Divisive” by the Lying Left

/9 Comments/in /by

Leftists love lying. That’s one of the great political truths of our time. Ironically enough, it means you can often and easily extract the truth from leftist statements. Simply invert them. What leftists call “bad” must be good. What leftists call “false” must be true. And vice versa. But sometimes you have to be subtler than that. For example, leftists are very fond of calling their opponents “divisive.” But what do they really mean by it? They mean dissenting. If you disagree with leftism, you’re being divisive and should just shut up.

The silence of the shepherds

That’s why we’ve just seen “Divisive!” chanted in chorus by the left in response to a very successful “far-right” march in London. The march was organized by the Zionist shill Tommy “Rubinstein” Robinson, who appears to be running a crypto-currency scam on his deluded supporters. But the march was still a cheering sight for genuine White nationalists. As Nick Griffin has pointed out: “it’s time to go fishing” — there are great opportunities in “the explosive growth of populist protest.” Naturally enough, the Church of England has responded to the march just as their Faith commands. And what is their Faith? It’s not Godliness, but Guardianism. Lying leftism is the unshakeable faith of all senior Anglicans, from archbishops like the Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible to monarchs like Elizabeth the Evil and Chuck the Cuck, the traitorous secular heads of the Church. Decade after decade, senior Anglicans have remained resolutely silent as White girls have been raped, tortured and murdered by non-White Muslims in towns and cities all over England, from Oxford and Bristol in the south to Rotherham and Carlisle in the north. Anglicans have also remained silent about abominations like these:

∙ The abduction, rape, torture and murder of the White schoolgirl Mary-Ann Leneghan by a Black gang

∙ The abduction, torture and incineration of the White schoolboy Kriss Donald by a Pakistani gang

∙ The rape, murder and dismemberment of the White schoolgirl Charles Downes, whose non-White killers have never been brought to justice

∙ The abduction and incineration of the White mother Tracey Mertens by two Blacks who again have never been brought to justice

∙ The scores or even hundreds of life-shortening rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Black “Windrush Warrior” Delroy Easton Grant against elderly White women (and some men) in London

∙ The murder and rape committed by the Black Windrush Warrior Ryland Headley against elderly White women

∙ The horrible genetic diseases caused in British cities like Bradford by the depraved and disgusting Muslim “custom” of marrying close relatives

Jesus said: “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Senior Anglicans say: “Suffering children? That’s fine by me!” Jesus also said: “Feed my sheep.” Senior Anglicans say: “Feed God’s sheep to wolves.” That’s why the Church of England has thundered against the march in London. Rape-gangs in Rotherham? Not a problem. Crosses being carried in London? Big problem.

A Battling Bishop

But let’s be fair to the C of E. It put forward a perfect  spokesman to condemn the march: the battling Bishop of Kirkstall in Yorkshire. He’s called Arun Arora, he’s non-White, and he bears a striking example of what I like to call pedo-punim. That’s my Yiddish translation of the more familiar pedo-face, which is the face of someone who looks like a pedophile.[i] Have a look at Bishop Arora and decide for yourself:

The pedo-punim of Arun Arora, the fat, greasy non-White Bishop of Kirkstall (image from The Guardian)

Is that a pedo-punim or what? Yes, it’s definitely a pedo-punim. And here’s how pedo-punim’d Arun Arora harped on the theme of “division” in response to the “racist” march in London:

Bishop calls on Christians to reclaim England flag from ‘toxic tide of racism’

A Church of England bishop has called on Christians to reclaim the flag and their faith from rightwing activists, saying both were being desecrated by people seeking to divide the nation.

The Right Rev Arun Arora, the bishop of Kirkstall and the C of E’s co-lead on racial justice, made his comments in a sermon days after more than 110,000 people marched through London in a rightwing protest, many carrying crosses.

Some held banners and placards displaying verses from the Bible. Protesters chanted “Christ is King”, recited the Lord’s Prayer and were urged to defend “God, faith, family, homeland”.

Speaking at St James church in Manston, Leeds, Arora said Christians should not be “neutral in the face of violence and injustice. As followers of Christ, our duty is clear. To challenge those whose lips drip with vituperation and hate, to refute division and to restore dignity in building the common good”.

Rightwing activists have increasingly invoked “Christian values” and the need to defend a “Judeo-Christian culture” against an Islamic threat. Tommy Robinson, who led last Saturday’s march, reportedly was “led to Christ” while in prison earlier this year.

Before the march, the Right Rev Anderson Jeremiah, the [Indian] bishop of Edmonton, issued a statement saying the march was “inextricably linked to voices and movements that have previously contributed to division and racial intolerance. This is at odds with everything we, and millions of Londoners, stand for”.

Bishops in the diocese of Southwark also issued a statement raising concerns that the march would “cause fear among minority groups. We wish to reject intolerance and we stand in solidarity with [those] celebrating the rich diversity of our communities”.

The Right Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the [Black] bishop of Dover, said: “While we must continue to champion the right to peaceful protest, I also want to affirm our responsibility to ensure that such expressions do not become platforms for intolerance or aggression.”

The language used by Arora in his sermon on Wednesday was significantly stronger than his colleagues’ earlier statements. He said the “rising toxic tide of racism” was being felt all over the country. “Our overriding duty as the church … requires us to stand firm in a faith rooted in the common good.”

Protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers and flag-flying across the country had “barely concealed racist overtones”, he added. “Sentiments that even five years ago would have been considered shameful are now being broadcast at public gatherings, accompanied by cheers and applause. Such sentiments have been accompanied by reckless voices of hate seeking to camouflage themselves in the language of patriotism and faith all the while debasing both.” […] Arora and the Right Rev Rosemarie Mallett, the [Black] bishop of Croydon, were appointed to jointly lead the C of E’s work on racial justice earlier this year. (“Bishop calls on Christians to reclaim England flag from ‘toxic tide of racism’,” The Guardian, 18th September 2025)

Rosemarie Mallett, an anti-White Black Pseudo-Bishop in the Christ-denying Church of England (image from Keep the Faith)

Surprise, surprise! Arun Arora and all the other non-White clerics mentioned in that article are using lying leftist rhetoric — “rich diversity” and so on — to defend the interests of non-Whites like themselves. But they certainly aren’t defending Christianity or the indigenous Whites of Britain. Let’s repeat Arun Arora’s own words: “As followers of Christ, our duty is clear.” He’s right: their duty is clear — crystal clear. But no senior Anglicans currently perform that duty. Instead, they do the complete opposite of their duty. Bishops don’t defend Christ but deny Christ. At the same time, they defend Islam, celebrate Muslim immigration and ignore the abominations created by it. Why have the Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible and the Battling Bishop of Kirkstall never spoken out against Muslim rape-gangs? Because that would mean criticizing non-Whites and admitting that non-White immigration is bad for Britain. Rather than admit the toxic truth, they prefer to peddle leftist lies.

Pedo-punims on parade: a few of the Muslim child-rapists defended by Arun Arora and other followers of Anti-Christ

In short, they’re followers of anti-Christ, not followers of Christ. Leftism is their true faith, not Christianity. They should ponder these words of the Prophet Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” What Isaiah decried is exactly what leftists like Arora do. That’s why Arora accuses the right of promoting “division.” He is inverting the truth: it’s the pro-migrant left that promotes division, not the anti-migrant right. Is it cohesive to import non-Whites who don’t speak English and don’t practise Christianity, who cut the clitorises off their daughters and consume far more in taxes than they ever contribute? Of course not — it’s divisive. What could be more divisive than flooding a technologically advanced White Christian nation with low-IQ non-White Muslims from lands of savagery like Somalia and Pakistan?

Ilhan Omar, a Somali leftist who uses Jewish lies to attack White America (image from Wikipedia)

Immigration by Somalis and Pakistanis is genuinely divisive. And damaging. And dangerous. Obviously, then, leftists celebrate it and call all objections to it “divisive.”  And leftists in America have given a Somali woman called Ilhan Omar a leading role in their war on Whitey. To be fair again, Omar is far from being a typical Somali. How could she be a typical Somali when she has an IQ in triple figures? But she’s very typical of Somalis in the hate she bears for White America and for the White men who created America. In August 2024 she fiercely condemned the future vice-president, J.D. Vance, for speaking the truth about both her in particular and Somalis in general. For example, Vance accurately said that Omar herself was ungrateful to America and that Somalis have re-created violent, crime-ridden Mogadishu in formerly peaceful, law-abiding Minneapolis. Omar didn’t dispute the truth of what Vance said. She’s a leftist and truth doesn’t interest her. Instead, she fired off leftist rhetoric, including favorite terms like “spew,” “hateful” and (of course) “divisive”:

“The ignorant and xenophobic rhetoric spewed by Mr Vance is not just troubling — it’s dangerous and un-American. I love America fiercely, that’s why I’ve dedicated my life to public service,” she wrote. Omar added: “America deserves better than Vance’s hateful, divisive politics. We are a nation of immigrants, and we will continue to welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free — no matter how much it terrifies small-minded men like JD Vance.” (“‘Dangerous and un-American’: new recording of JD Vance’s dark vision of women and immigration,” The Guardian, 31st August 2024)

There was inversion in what Omar wrote. There was also irony. If a leftist calls something “un-American,” it is of course the opposite: entirely and authentically American. What is in fact “un-American” was Omar’s own rhetoric about America being “a nation of immigrants” and a haven for “the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” She wasn’t quoting the Declaration of Independence or any fundamental text of true American history. No, she was quoting Jewish propaganda. The “huddled masses” are celebrated in a poem by the ethnocentric Jew Emma Lazarus that leftists have attached to the Statue of Liberty. Yes, in White America Jews urge goyim to welcome “huddled masses” of non-White outsiders. But in Jewish Israel, Jews rain high explosive on “huddled masses” of non-White Palestinians.

Expel invaders, execute traitors

As for “nation of immigrants” — well, that lie about America has been plugged by Jews since the 1950s. As I’ve pointed out before, it has all the coherence and honesty of “rope of sand” or “chariot of soup.” The accurate and honest term would be “an abomination of immigrants.” A true nation is a bond of blood, of shared history, language, religion and culture. Immigration always weakens nations. At worst, it destroys them. And the immigration favored by leftists is, of course, the worst kind of all. Leftists open the borders most eagerly to those who are most distant in race, religion and culture from White Westerners.

“I’m so glad you’re safe here” — traitorous Chuck the Cuck schmoozes Sudanese Blacks on Holocaust Memorial Day (image from HMD Memorial Trust)

In other words, they flood the First World with the Third World. And Third-World people inevitably carry Third-World pathologies. The lying leftist term for America is “nation of immigrants.” The accurate and honest term would be “abomination of immigrants.” The same goes for Britain and every other enriched Western nation. We are not blessed by Blacks and other non-Whites. No, we are cursed by them. But the curse will be lifted. Non-Whites like Arun Arora and Ilhan Omar will return where they belong. After that, we can deal with traitors like Boris Johnson and Chuck the Cuck, the so-called king who heads the so-called Church of England.

[i]  I prefer pedo-punim to pedo-face because the Yiddish word punim, meaning “face,” is ugly and alliterative, on the one hand, and accurately implies that pedophilia is characteristically Jewish, on the other. And you don’t have to take my word on the Jewishness of pedophilia. No, take the word of a Jewish professor writing in The Jewish Chronicle: “It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film. The story’s theme of an outsider battling against the social order is — despite the troubling subject matter — typically Jewish.”

Homo Sovieticus Lives On

/9 Comments/in , /by

First published in July 1995 in Chronicles, but still relevant today,

To the old popular proverb, “The only good communist is a dead communist,” we should perhaps now add: “Once a communist, forever a communist.” Although as a muscled ideology communism is dead, as a way of life it is still very much alive. Similar to any other past and present mass belief or theology, communism in Eastern Europe and Russia also managed to create distinct social species whose behavior radically differs from liberal species in the West. History may tell us soon whether homo sovieticus has been a more durable species than his mollified Western counterpart, known as homo economicus.

Although the communist monolith has been replaced in Eastern Europe and Russia by democratic legal structures, and despite incessant anticommunist rhetoric from the new political elites, communist culture continues to hold a firm grip over a large number of officials and ordinary people. Sure, the old communist iconography, such as the hammer and sickle, accompanied by the ever-present red star, have been replaced by new nationalist symbols, but the substance of the old communist culture in day-to-day life remains shockingly the same.

What strikes a Western visitor during his sojourn in Eastern Europe is that citizens continue to behave and respond to the new noncommunist social environment in the same old “communistic” way. Words like “democracy,” “tolerance,” “pluralism,” “parliamentarianism” are endlessly regurgitated on all wavelengths, but in most eases these words amount to empty rhetoric which in no way reflects substantive change in popular and political behavior. A good observer quickly notices that citizens in postcommunist Dresden, Zagreb, Bucharest, Prague, or Moscow display the same old behavioral traits that they inherited from their respective communist systems. In short, despite the political collapse of communism, citizens in postcommunist Eastern Europe and Russia cling to old defensive mechanisms that now prevent them from coping with the challenge of democracy.

It cannot be denied that mass terror, which not long ago took its tremendous toll in communist states, led to the destruction of individuals who would now be indispensable for leadership and the upholding of new noncommunist social and ethical values. The decades-long terror, accompanied by the social and cultural leveling of the masses, resulted in the physical removal of a number of gifted individuals, and in the subsequent imposition of the culture of mendacity and social mediocrity. Alexander Zinoviev, a respected Russian author who still lives in German exile, accurately predicted that communism, as a system of perfect democratic pathology, will live on, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and company notwithstanding.

Western observers committed a grave mistake by attributing communist terror only to a small bunch of apparatchiks, who entered Western textbooks by the name of “red nomenklatura.” In reality, however, mass terror was a way of life which enlisted broad popular support and in which almost every citizen living in a communist country indulged—of course, within his sphere of social influence and his position in the social hierarchy. Thus, absenteeism and shoddy work was considered morally acceptable by simple factory workers, and embezzlement on a large scale was viewed as perfectly legal by high-ranking communist hacks. Paradoxically, the communist elites had to allow noncommunist employees and workers to pilfer in order to legitimize their own grand-scale theft. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” wrote Karl Marx. Contrary to some assumptions, communism in Eastern Europe and Russia was not an illicit departure from the Marxist credo, but its full implementation.

As communist systems consolidated during the Cold War, the masses in Eastern Europe and Russia learned little by little how to cultivate their lowest instincts of survivability. “Nobody can pay me as little as little I can work” became the unwritten slogan of millions of ordinary citizens from the Baltics to the Balkans, leading, predictably, 50 years later, to the political entropy of the system and its subsequent legal demise. Yet this slogan and its biological carrier homo sovieticus still live on with surprising tenacity.

Undoubtedly, despite demonstrable economic and political inefficiency and daily drudgery, former communist countries, unlike the unpredictable market-oriented West, offered psychological security and economic predictability to their citizens—albeit security and predictability of a very Spartan and frugal kind. But who cares about the philosophical meaning of liberty, as long as social survivability can be guaranteed in a mass society of scarce means? It must, therefore, not come as a surprise that citizens in today’s postcommunist Eastern Europe and Russia find it difficult to cope with the Western capitalist ethos of responsibility, commitment, and cutthroat work. There is a widespread belief among many Eastern Europeans today that democracy means only lots of leisure, lots of money, and little work.

Many foreign observers who visit Eastern Europe complain about the impossibility of communicating with local citizens. This communication breakdown is primarily due to the fact that Eastern Europeans assign different meanings to social concepts. Undoubtedly, millions of them are well aware of the Gulag legacy and the mandatory “wooden language” that they were forced to use. Yet, it must not be forgotten that masses in Eastern Europe today are oblivious to this legacy, preferring instead to think about the rise of their living standard, which is, alas, nowhere in sight. Hence this unusual nostalgia about the recent communist past, which recently manifested itself in the recent political success of neocommunists in Lithuania, Poland, and Hungary.

As a perfect form of totalitarian democracy, communist terror essentially operated according to the unwritten laws of dispersed egalitarian guilt in which all citizens actively participated. Thus it is impossible today to try former communist bosses without also bringing to trial their hidden helpers. As Mikhail Heller and Robert Conquest noted, communist terror essentially borrowed from the little tyrant who lies in every human being, thereby setting one person against the other, creating a quasi state of nature, in which low-key total war of all against all constantly and brutally raged. Under communism the majority oppressed the minority, and not the other way around; everybody tried to outfox and outsmart everybody else, or prove that he can better pilfer or cut corners than his comrade coworker in arms. Clearly, Stalin, Tito, Ceausescu, Kadar, and other communist tyrants would never have been able to carry out large-scale massacres and decades-long repression without the hidden help of millions of unknown little “Stalins.” Was this not the perfect outcome of democracy, brought to its egalitarian pinnacle?

Absolute servility toward communist superiors was another unwritten rule for everybody, so that everyone, according to his hierarchical spot, could exercise his own “bossism” toward his inferiors. Every citizen, within his sphere of life and social influence, played a little Jekyll and Hyde; everybody spied on each other; everybody played a game of make-believe; and everybody took advantage of each other’s personal weaknesses. Upon joining a “workers’ collective,” each person became a transparent being, with no privacy, and was closely scrutinized by his coworkers, yet at the same time he enjoyed total communal protection in case of professional mistakes, absenteeism, or shoddy work. This is something unimaginable in the capitalist West.

The tragic side of postcommunist Eastern Europe is that many of its citizens are unable to shed the inherited communist culture, despite the fact that many of them identify themselves as ardent anticommunists. Life in the new noncommunist Eastern Europe, which requires risk and imposes competition, is hard for many natives to swallow. Wide segments of the population continue to display the same old servility toward their democratically elected or chosen superiors. The old communist practice of double deals and paranoid fear that everybody is plotting against everybody, and that one may become the target of the government’s wrath, is widespread. Conspiracy theories abound; there are unofficial rumors about dark and hidden forces—perhaps involving some inexplicable foreign fifth column or a proverbial “Jew”—which are responsible for the economic hardships. It should not come as a surprise that such a conspiracy-prone environment is suitable for obscure Western organizations, such as the Schiller Institute or the Unification Church, which seem to be quite active in this part of the disabused and disenchanted Europe.

The lack of self-confidence and initiative seem to be another aspect of the Eastern European drama. In new institutions and political life similar to the old communist ones, everything must be approved by superiors, every minor detail needs to have a stamp by a high government official. Also, the newly established party pluralism frequently borders on the grotesque, because the multitude of newly emerged political parties, in their passionate drive to imitate the West, often strive to prove that they know more about democracy and free markets than Westerners themselves.

Growing economic hardship, coupled with the uncertain geopolitical situation which is being rocked by ethnic turmoil, actually provides many Eastern Europeans with an excuse for their own incompetence and psychological paralysis. Undoubtedly, citizens in Eastern Europe enjoy today a great deal of media freedom, probably more so than the “politically correct” and self-censored liberal West, but their mindset and patterns of communication remain the same as under communism. Small wonder that the loss of security and economic predictability that accompanied the demise of communism and the rise of privatization and the free market is creating a dangerous psychological void, which will most likely, in the very near future, result in yet another totalitarian temptation.

Metaphorically speaking, citizens in Eastern Europe wish to retain the inherited communist laziness and graft onto it the liberal glitter of the Western shopping malls. The communist spirit, as a perfect incarnation of democratic totalitarianism, has not lost much of its psychological attractiveness. homo sovieticus clearly lives on.

Rejecting Forgiveness: Denouncing The Christian Rhetoric of Erika Kirk and Others

/14 Comments/in , /by

A Story of White Privilege: Coming of Age in Washington Heights

/15 Comments/in , /by

I grew up in Washington Heights, just north of Harlem, in New York City. When I was in my first year of parochial school, 1958, most of my classmates in my class picture were White. By the time I’d completed my eighth year of parochial school, most of my classmates in the class picture were Hispanic: Cubans and Puerto Ricans. One was Black. There were very few Dominicans in the neighborhood at that time. The few Dominicans in the neighborhood were clustered on 172nd Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Audubon Avenue, and in a row of wood cottages on 182nd Street and Audubon Avenue. Dominicans, poor, aggressive and undereducated when they arrived, would later make Washington Heights, what had been an idyllic neighborhood surrounded by forests and rivers, the crack capitol of the world which was easy enough as I-95 a major artery on the East coast, ran from New Jersey over the George Washington Bridge, right through the Heights and then through the Bronx, on its way to New England. By the late ‘60s, early ‘70s, a great proportion of the White families like mine had already moved to the suburbs. I thought the people who left wanted their own houses and front lawns and back yards, but school integration had begun, and Blacks were being bussed to the public schools in Washington Heights from Harlem. I would learn later that White people were running away. In my eighth year of parochial school, 1965, I applied for and was admitted to the high schools of my choice. Unfortunately, the era of rock and roll had begun. After graduation, I attended my last year of parochial school’s summer day camp. I was asked to sing ‘Hang on Sloopy’ over a big Shure microphone to an auditorium full of young boys and girls accompanied by a drummer and a guitarist.

I was making a big mistake. When the song was over, the girls began screaming and my teenage hormones went wild. I begged for a guitar and eventually got one and spent the summer learning to play the guitar while neglecting my Latin declensions. I was expelled from the prep school after my freshman year and my school changed from an exclusive day prep school my father had spent good money to send me to, to New York City’s public George Washington High School, with the dubious distinction of being the first public high school in the city where a student was murdered. It was not long before I was beaten. I had failed to move out of the way of a Black boy a head a half taller than I was. I was almost knocked unconscious but managed to get up. The Black boy towered over me and I screamed at him, but I did not fight back. He was just too big, and I was still unsteady on my feet. After I was punched, all the teachers closed and locked the doors of their classrooms. I will never forget two Greek boys helping me to the bathroom where I cleaned out my nose and washed my face. My nose was badly broken. I was called to the dean’s office. The dean was a Goldberg (or Goldstein, or a close variant) who told me that if I insisted on a written complaint it would have to go on my record. He said I had a “chip on my shoulder” because I didn’t get out of the Black boy’s way fast enough. There was a White cop in the room. He was there to protect the students. He said nothing. There was no mention of my broken nose. There was no indication from the dean or the cop that the Black boy would be disciplined or even inconvenienced.

Before I continue: I recently discovered that a nephew of mine, victim of his parents’ bitter divorce, was beginning to have behavioral problems at a public school in mid-Manhattan. He was acting like a Black kid and had begun to wear a hood over his face. He had been disciplined for punching another kid in the face, but the other kid had first ripped my nephew’s glasses off his face and crushed them under his sneakers. My nephew said something I latched onto right away. He said: “I got a ‘4.2’ for punching the kid who broke my glasses, but a Black kid only got a ‘2’ for pissing in a urinal in the bathroom and pulling a kid over to the urinal and holding his face down in the piss. Was that fair?” he asked. “No,” I told him, but I thought it was very calculating on the part of the disciplinarian and I thought back to my experience at GW, where Black on White violence was legitimized and ignored by the dean and the cop who was there to prevent it.

Now, to return to my story. I went to my next class and a group of Black boys saw my nose and said, “You the guy?” Then they sat on the top of their desks and started laughing and giving one another high fives. The teacher said nothing. No one in the class moved except the Black boys. The teacher waited for them to quiet down before continuing the class. When I got home, I had hardly sat down when there was a knock on the door. It was a police detective dressed in plain clothes. He wanted to talk to me at the 34th precinct. I must have been a strange sight standing there with a bloody handkerchief over my nose and two darkening eye sockets. I remember thinking — this cop thinks he’s just hit the jackpot —  and I was taken to the precinct in the back of his car.

When we got there, I was put in a cage across from the detective’s desk. After shuffling some papers, he got up and showed me a Scouting magazine in a clear plastic bag. The magazine had an address label with my name and address on it. He told me that a detective had been critically wounded by a Black man in a basement on 176th Street and Audubon Avenue. After shooting the detective, the Black man had jumped through a basement window to escape. During the investigation, this detective found my magazine in the alley under the broken window. They also had the son of the building’s superintendent John D. in a cage in the other room. The detective told us that he wanted to know if we had anything to do with the Black man, if we knew who he was. He was willing to overlook anything wrong we had done but he wanted the information on the Black man. I had no idea what the detective was talking about, but I did know that I had given a stack of Scouting magazines to my younger brother who still went to the parochial school on 175th Street. Later it was discovered that my brother had distributed the magazines to boys at school. One of the kids lived on the 5th floor of John Ds building above that broken window and had thrown the magazine out of his window and into the alley where the detective found it. My father showed up and after a conversation with the detectives I couldn’t hear, he took me and John D. home. My father seemed to know all the officers. He’d lived in the neighborhood all his life. He grew up at 530 West 166th Street around the corner from the Audubon Ballroom where the Black revolutionary leader Malcom X was shot and killed in 1965. When we got home from the police station, he looked at my swollen nose and Black eyes, put his hand on my shoulder and said: “Now you’re learning.”

One afternoon, my family was gathered at my uncle Neil’s house on 176th Street between Wadsworth Avenue and St. Nick, two blocks west of John Ds house where the cop had been shot in the basement. I walked into the kitchen where the men were sitting. My uncle Chubby (Milton Schneider) was there, and my uncle Neil (Logan) was there, and my father “Dickie” was there. I walked in whistling the tune “Mr. Bo Jango” which was big on the charts at the time. The men looked at me and began to laugh. My father said, “Don’t you have anything else to whistle?” Then uncle Chubby who had driven a bus on the M5 route which traversed the east side from Washington Heights to lower Manhattan and went through Harlem, said to me, “Mr. Bo Jangles got on my bus and wouldn’t pay the nickel fare. When I reminded him to pay the fare, the sonofabitch tried to slit my throat” and they just looked at me. My jaw dropped; my whistling was over.

Later, a few of the women and young girls came in from the living room and clustered around  my father to hear him sing. He had been in the Marble Collegiate choir as a boy and sweetly sang Ave Maria for them.

The following year, my uncle Chubby whose throat Bo Jangles had tried to slit, was in the hospital with his third heart attack. During the night he pulled all the tubes out of his tired body and died.

Not long after that, my uncle Neil who lived those two blocks west of John Ds on 176th Street was attacked in the vestibule of his building, steps from his front door. A Black man stabbed him 16 or 17 times, then robbed him, and left him for dead, but he survived. He walked with a cane after that. When I was 20, my father had to expel a trio of underage Black teenagers from the bar on the northeast corner of 180th Street and Audubon Avenue where he bartended on weekends. They said they would be back. He stayed in the bar all night long with “Twig” the owner, a middle-aged man who walked with a limp. My father was 42 years old. He was protecting the bar and his friend Twig, waiting to see if  the Black teenagers returned. I was in a tent near a hiking trail in the woods of Harriman State Park 60 miles north of the city. When the Black boys came back Saturday morning with a pistol, my father went outside to greet them, and they told him to get on his knees. He told them: “You wanna’ shoot, shoot.” So, they shot him, and he turned and walked back into the bar and collapsed on the pool table. It took him 3 days to die. I’ve since heard that Nicky Barnes, a notorious Harlem drug dealer had been giving guns to underage Black boys because when they murdered someone they were tried as juveniles, saving their older brothers many years of jail time.

My brother and sister and I used to get a birthday telegram every year when we were kids. It was from a Black man, a homosexual my father knew who had moved to California. The Black man would return to New York on business occasionally and call my father. They would drink together. He even took my father to 181st Street and bought him clothes once. I never met him, but I know my father, who rarely talked about himself, probably saved his life.

I remember my father in Mennona’s Tavern on 170th street and Amsterdam Avenue talking to an elderly Black woman in a navy dress, White hat, White gloves, and a string of pearls around her neck on a Sunday afternoon. They were engaged in lively conversation laughing and sipping from beer glasses.

I remember “Figgy” Figueroa, a big Cuban Black man who always wore a traditional Cuban shirt. He had a gold tooth. He was a pharmacist, owner of Bavero’s Pharmacy on St. Nicholas Avenue and 177th Street. He sponsored the Tu Sabes, a baseball team in the Puerto Rican American Baseball League. My father was their star pitcher. Figgy would massage his arm before and after their games with liniment because my father pitched his heart out, every game. My uncle Eddie Pyke, who lived on Dyckman Street in Inwood, was their right fielder.  He would routinely catch high fly balls holding his glove behind his back. Larry Lavin of 175th Street, was their gifted shortstop; three White men, with the palest most beautiful blue eyes, like the sky, who were happy to play serious baseball with their Puerto Rican and Cuban friends. Three or four Puerto Rican women would always be standing with their fingers through the links of the chain link fence between home plate and first base jumping up and down screaming, “Deeckie, Deeckie, Deeckie!” every time my father pitched the ball.

I remember passing the Audubon Bar where my father was shot years later and finding him in the midst of a crowd of New Jersey kids, who would drive over the George Washington Bridge to drink because the minimum age in New Jersey was 21 and the minimum age in New York was 18. He was firmly holding a brawny teenager, a “jock” in a high school football jacket, against a car. Other boys stood around them. My father and the jock were red-faced and sweaty, and my father’s face was bleeding. My father was holding tight to the Jersey kid who struggled to get free to hit him, but my father was talking to him as gently as he sang Ave Maria in my aunt Virginia’s kitchen. He kept repeating, “You can’t beat up your sister. She’s your sister. You can’t. You can’t.” The jock’s sister stood off to the side, in a knot of her girlfriends. The Jersey kid’s sister had run away from home to live a lesbian lifestyle which was not accepted at the time, but my father thought it was more unacceptable for her brother to lay a hand on her, and he pressed the angry boy until he was subdued, and they went back into the bar to talk.

When I went to visit my father at Jewish Memorial Hospital, which was a third-rate hospital off Broadway, at the bottom of its long descent into Inwood, I asked him, “Where were the cops, dad?” He weakly whispered, “The cops are paid not to come.” I’ll never, ever forget the last thing he said to me. He said, “Nice guys finish last.” It didn’t occur to me until years later, why the cops might have taken my father to the old Jewish Memorial Hospital (eventually closed) instead of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, where they normally took their own and where Malcolm X was taken when he was shot. They might have been afraid my father would rat on them because of the money they took from Twig, and they wanted him to die, but I’ll never know. I only know my father would never rat.

After my father’s death in Jewish Memorial Hospital and bearing the burden of his disappointment with me for being expelled from prep school, I needed redemption. He had always said, I would be a writer. I set out to do my father’s will. I wrote every chance I got. I wrote a journal. I wrote letters for people. I wrote copy for the local church, and press releases for a local community group, and finally, after many years of writing at every opportunity, I got a break from Samuel T. Francis in 2003. Sam Francis was possibly the greatest political scientist in the United States at the time. He had advised Pat Buchanan, who was running for president in 1996, that he should champion the immigration issue. Pat Buchanan didn’t listen to him and lost in the primaries. Donald J. Trump championed the immigration issue in 2016 and won the presidential election, and the Marxists have stepped up their revolutionary timetable because President Trump has threatened to make America great again and America’s greatness is not in their plans. Sam Francis solicited my literary defense of Christianity for the last book he edited, Race and the American Prospect. He died suddenly in 2005, a year before the book was released. He was kind to me, and a great editor.  I am privileged to have met him and worked with him.

With their control of the public-school system and their indoctrination of our children, denizens of the Left are, by design, drafting poorly educated, poorly disciplined feral Blacks to serve as cadres in their Marxist insurrection. The propaganda from Hollywood, academia, the press, and the courts portrays White Americans as racists while steadfastly refusing to report the extent of Black on White crime. It is only with the ubiquitous cell phone that we now get a glimpse of the extent of the violence perpetrated by Black people on one another and on White people, but increasingly, mesmerized by the Marxist propaganda cabled to the TVs in their living rooms, rising Black anger is settling on White people. While Black on White violence is deliberately under reported by the media, White on Black violence is magnified a thousand times.

Until we realize that the media lies and propaganda do not constitute free speech and act on our realization, until we hold the media responsible for driving the Marxist revolution, until we wrest Hollywood, the public school system, the Ivy League universities, and the courts from their grasp, the Left will continue to educate the masses to hate us. That hate is driving their revolution.

The Occidental Quarterly published my essay ‘Niche Theory, Population Transfer and the Origin of the anti-Semitic Cycle’ in 2007. In that essay, I predicted the riots.

Consider for a moment the campaign of demonization of the European American Christian majority and its culture that we see in the media, academia, and legislated from the bench. What if this campaign mirroring the public vilification employed by ardent and merciless communist regimes is completely successful here in North America, not now perhaps, but in a generation or two, something for our grandchildren to inherit? Imagine an economic downturn of Blackouts, food shortages, and riots in which all law enforcement niches are filled by media-molded unassimilated immigrants and indigenous psychologically prepared minorities: law enforcement personnel conditioned to believe that the people they’re sworn to protect are noxious bigots who deserve the violence they suffer.

I was wrong. It didn’t take a generation or two. It’s happening now, in front of our eyes, on the TV we watch in the comfort of our living rooms, sheltered in place from a pandemic. Clueless White and Black people are finally marching together, but they are marching with Marxist anarchists, who ply their murderous trade anonymously among the ranks of the peaceful demonstrators. Valiant policemen are shot in the head because the provocateurs know they wear bulletproof vests; our own ignorant masses, stimulated by the Left, seem to be bent on the destruction of the greatest country in the free world. I watch as White people and Black people, useful innocents once perhaps, but useful idiots now, participate in the destruction of the only real utopia the world may ever know, oblivious of their march toward the gulags and the mass exterminations of the Marxist nightmare that claimed a hundred million lives in the 20th century because evidence of the scourge has been erased from the school curriculums.

Feel free to distribute my recollections to your family and friends so they know what White privilege looks like and will recognize it when they see it.

Richard Faussette copyright © All rights Reserved June 15, 2020 Updated 3/25/22, 4/11/22

Word count 3,279

Karen, Head Girl and Scottish First Minister: A Review of “Frankly” by Nicola Sturgeon

/8 Comments/in /by

Since May 1999, Scotland has had a devolved parliament and, since 2007, the country of 5 million has been governed by the Scottish National Party. This overtly Woke party seeks Scottish independence from the UK. In 2014, they were granted a referendum on this, which they lost. Their charismatic leader, Alex Salmond, resigned as “First Minister” due to this humiliating defeat, in which 55% voted against independence. He was replaced by a very different person, his deputy; a childless and not very attractive 44-year-old woman called Nicola Sturgeon. The following year, due to the anomalies of First Past the Post, the SNP won almost all Scottish seats at Westminster. Sturgeon was forced out in 2023, with it clear that she could not secure a second referendum, and was then investigated by the police for embezzlement, of which she, but not her (now-ex) husband, was exonerated.

“Why is Sturgeon of interest to people outside of Scotland, let alone outside of Britain?” you might ask. The answer is that she typifies, in so many ways, a particular social type that has become increasingly prominent in political life over the past twenty years or so.

She is what my colleague Bruce Charlton termed, in our book The Genius Famine, the head girl, except that she is even more fascinating because there are respects in which she deviates from this. The head girl is high in a suite of traits that make her socially effective: she is Agreeable, Conscientious, and reasonably mentally stable, though possibly slightly anxious as this motivates diligence. She is also highly ambitious, at least towards socially approved goals. Though persuasive, she is very different from the “charismatic” — like the heavy-drinking, gambling, risk-taking Alex Salmond — who has the ability to make a cold world seem warm again.

Sturgeon is also a kind of national personality bell curve “representative outlier;” an extreme that reflects the different average of the group to which she belongs. If you’ve ever lived in Scotland (I was a postgraduate at Aberdeen University) then you know her type — the ultimate “Karen” — and you know that you don’t meet quite so many of them in England: the humourless, uptight, dower, morally judgemental and simply rather boring woman who sucks all the joy out of the room. I once worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland and I had a (Scottish) section boss who was just like this. Everybody in our section felt so happy and relaxed when this woman took her two week summer holiday. It was fun working there because Dawn was not there.

Sturgeon is also a Scottish representative outlier because you get pockets of extreme poverty and poor health in Scotland and that, to my surprise, is her background. Her mother was 17 when she was born, there is a long history of serious mental illness in her family, her grandfather was so unhealthy that he died aged 56, the family lived in council housing (“projects” in the US), and Sturgeon was the first person in her family to attend university.

Even before she attended, she got involved with the SNP and, naturally, the autobiography sets out this political career. However, it should be stressed that there is abundant personal comment on the personalities and behaviour of prominent figures along the way — such as Theresa May or Boris Johnson — which is often cutting, always insightful and very much worth reading.

Of May, we learn: “I might have found it easier to find common ground with May on politics, if we had managed to establish better personal chemistry. But it was impossible to build any genuine rapport with her, and I really did try. . . . As we sat down, I made a point of admiring the very stylish shoes she was wearing. Instead of the few moments of ice-breaking chat about shoes I had hoped for, a look of horror crossed her face. For what seemed like an eternity, she said absolutely nothing, staring down at the briefing folder on her lap as if looking for the appropriate ‘line to take’.” As for Boris Johnson, “He appeared much less interested in the substance of what we were discussing than he was in making clever wisecracks and winning debating points. It was dispiriting, but also, at a certain level, fascinating.”

Sturgeon also makes intelligent points about the nature of the Scots. For example, she observes: “It is internalized. It flows from, and in turn feeds, a chronic lack of national confidence.” However, her attitude to nationalism is contradictory. On the one hand she says that anyone living in Scotland is Scottish, but, on the other, she is motivated by a hatred of the great betrayal of 1707, which surely implies that the Scots are a “people.” “Scotland’s independence was forfeited against the will of the people. That gave rise to a deep sense of injustice that has been passed from one generation to the next alongside an abiding conviction that Scotland is a nation in our own right.” The SNP, until Alex Salmond took over, was actually fairly right wing, with its MPs voting, in 1980, to keep homosexual activity illegal in Scotland. I confess I wasn’t aware of this, though I knew they’d been Nazi sympathisers in World War II.

More pertinent, from my perspective, are the insights into Sturgeon’s nature. From the very beginning, it is clear that Sturgeon has what is known as Imposter Syndrome, unless she is being faux-humble in order to manipulate. She claims to be “painfully shy, an introvert, someone who has always struggled to believe in herself” and makes similar statements throughout the book.

I think this is genuine introspection because it is paralleled by the need to very clearly “show off;” to reassure herself of her importance by asserting her accomplishments. “In 2015, the party I led redrew the political map of Scotland. I won all eight of the elections I contested as SNP leader.”

In fact, she’s still boasting about things she did at school: “‘Presented to Nicola Sturgeon — 1st in Modern Studies, 1st in Latin, 1st in English’. Being handed a Nobel Prize wouldn’t have made me any happier.” A more secure person would, to put it in literary terms, “show not tell” their achievements. You see this insecurity with women quite often. In my experience, it is almost always women on Twitter that will put “Dr” or “Prof” as part of their Twitter name and will boast in their “Twitter Bio” about which prestigious university they’ve been to and for which famous magazines they’ve written. Secure people do not bother; but women are high in social anxiety and other Neurotic traits.

The biography also makes clear that Sturgeon, effectively, became First Minister by accident. It happened because she was Alex Salmond’s deputy, so she was already in place during a political crisis. Sanna Marin became Finland’s 34-year-old Prime Minister in similar circumstances. So we can see where the Imposter Syndrome comes from or which factors it might be worsened.

From my perspective, I wanted an insight into the “head girl” and I got it. There is so much to absorb about her as well, she is strangely honest: she admits to drinking too much, to not infrequently drinking alone, and to the poignancy of a miscarriage which was her one chance to have a child; she describes them flushing it down the loo and imagining it might be a girl. She admits to having a mental breakdown, which rather deviates from the Head Girl archetype, though she would be, I suppose, more Neurotic than a high-status male.

From the poor and clichéd style (“cats and dogs galore,” “Dunure was truly magical”), it’s also fairly clear that Sturgeon wrote the first few chapters herself and did so quite a while ago. She notes “David was twenty-nine years my senior but, in 1992, still only fifty-one, younger than I am now.” Sturgeon was born in 1970 and she dates her Preface April 2025. So, it’s obvious what’s happened. Soon, the ghost writer hits in, however, and the book transforms into an exciting read. Sturgeon may well disagree with me on almost everything, but this book was very much worth my time.

Meet Sigal Chattah, the Israeli-Born Prosecutor Shielding an Israeli Child Predator

/6 Comments/in /by

Las Vegas is a city of spectacle, but nothing prepared locals for the drama that erupted in August after Israeli cybersecurity official Tom Artiom Alexandrovich was arrested for trying to solicit sex from what he thought was a 15-year-old girl.

Alexandrovich, the Executive Director for Defense at Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, fell straight into a Nevada police sting, with explicit chats documented and a condom in hand. Yet, in a display of privilege and protection that would make even Vegas’ most brazen hustlers blush, Alexandrovich posted bail and promptly vanished overseas. Instead of a swift reckoning, the public was treated to a bitter blame game between Clark County DA Steve Wolfson and Nevada’s acting U.S. Attorney, Sigal Chattah.

As Chattah lobbed social media attacks to shield her image and deflect outrage, Wolfson called her “often confused and often irresponsible,” openly questioning her fitness for office. But this was more than a bureaucratic spat. The Alexandrovich debacle pulled back the curtain on how, when Jewish interests are threatened, power brokers like Chattah leap to shield their own—turning even a child sex sting into a showcase for ethnic solidarity and Jewish impunity.

And in Nevada, nobody embodies this dynamic more than Sigal Chattah.

Born on April 24, 1975, in Israel, Chattah emigrated to the United States as a teenager when she was 14 years old. She graduated from Valley High School in Las Vegas and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science from the University of Nevada–Las Vegas (UNLV), focusing on international politics with an emphasis on Middle Eastern studies. She later attended Widener University School of Law in Pennsylvania and studied human rights and international law at Webster University in Geneva, Switzerland.

In 2002, Chattah opened her own law firm, Chattah Law Group, in Las Vegas, specializing in domestic and international law. From 2005 to 2009, she taught political science at UNLV while maintaining her private practice. She has served on the Las Vegas Planning Commission representing Ward 2 and was a member of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of Nevada. Despite her professional background, Chattah has become one of the most controversial figures in Nevada politics due to a series of racially charged public statements that have drawn widespread condemnation.

The most notorious incident occurred during her 2022 campaign for Nevada Attorney General (i.e., before the Israel-Gaza war) when a private text message was revealed in which she said that Aaron Ford, Nevada’s Black Attorney General, “should be hanging from a fucking crane.” She compared Ford to “the leader of Hamas — making tons of money while the People in Gaza are starving.” When confronted about this comment, Chattah defended it as not being racist, claiming it was a Middle Eastern expression from her Israeli background comparing Ford to Hamas leadership. One can only imagine the fallout if a White elected official had made those same remarks.

Beyond the Ford incident, Chattah has made other provocative statements about non-White politicians. She referred to former New York Representative Jamaal Bowman as an “antisemitic ghetto rat” and later called him a “hood rat,” suggesting there was “no Section 8 housing in the House of Representatives.” She also described Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis as “so ghetto” and questioned “Why do we have lawyers like this who litigate in Ebonics?” These remarks would have ended the careers of most public figures, yet Chattah continues undeterred. One of the clearest markers of Jewish privilege is immunity from public backlash and cancel culture.

In 2022, Chattah won the Republican primary for Nevada Attorney General, defeating Tisha Black with 51% of the vote. However, she lost the general election to incumbent Democrat Aaron Ford by a significant margin, receiving 44.4% of the vote compared to Ford’s 52.3%.

Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks against Israel were a revelatory moment for international Jewry. Jews worldwide began to manifest their most bloodthirsty political fantasies. Chattah, whose record of explosive remarks is well documented, eagerly joined the clamorous calls from Zionist Jews for the annihilation of Gaza. Earlier this year, Chattah urged Israel to “wipe Gaza off the map” and has called everyone living there “terrorists” and “animals.”

Ghoulish remarks notwithstanding, Chattah was able to receive a prestigious position in the second term of the Trump administration. Trump initially appointed Chattah as interim U.S. Attorney for Nevada in March 2025. When her 120-day interim term was set to expire in July 2025, the Trump administration maneuvered to extend her tenure by redesignating her as “acting” U.S. Attorney under the Vacancies Reform Act, allowing her to serve for an additional 210 days. This legal maneuvering has drawn criticism as an attempt to circumvent normal confirmation processes and keep Trump loyalists in key prosecutorial positions.

Chattah’s appointment has faced unprecedented opposition from multiple quarters. More than 100 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing her appointment, stating that “Chattah’s history of racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” makes her unfit for the position. The letter argued that her appointment would endanger Nevadans and the rule of law. Both of Nevada’s Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen (who has a Jewish father), have vehemently opposed her appointment. They have pledged to block any permanent nomination and have refused to return “blue slips” for her confirmation. Nevertheless, these challenges did not prevent her from taking office, where she continues to serve in defiance of her critics.

Ultimately, Chattah’s performance as a U.S. attorney, not her fiery rhetoric, is what should have people concerned. In the Alexandrovich case, the senior Israeli cybersecurity official was arrested on August 6, 2025, in a Las Vegas child sex sting and charged with soliciting a minor using electronic devices. He posted standard bail of $10,000 without appearing before a judge, then fled immediately to Israel. Despite the sting involving both the FBI and Homeland Security, Chattah’s office declined to pursue federal charges, which would have carried a mandatory ten-year minimum under Section 2422(b) of Title 18, and instead left the matter to local Clark County prosecutors. Critics argue this decision virtually guaranteed Alexandrovich’s escape.

When the Israeli official fled, Chattah took to X on August 19 to deflect responsibility, posting: “A liberal district attorney and state court judge in Nevada FAILED TO REQUIRE AN ALLEGED CHILD MOLESTER TO SURRENDER HIS PASSPORT, which allowed him to flee our country.” She further claimed that Attorney General Pam Bondi “just called me outraged” and that she had also contacted FBI Director Kash Patel.

However, Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson pushed back sharply, calling Chattah’s post “a rant with false claims” and stressing that she was “often confused and often irresponsible in her assertions.” Wolfson added that Chattah had initially told him she was “very pleased” his office was handling the case, before changing her tune publicly. He went further, declaring: “This behavior by our U.S. attorney is further evidence of her unfitness to serve. I deal with facts, not political garbage.”

As of September 2025, Chattah continues to serve as acting U.S. Attorney for Nevada despite ongoing legal challenges to her appointment. The Trump administration has not yet formally nominated her for permanent confirmation by the Senate, likely due to the predictable opposition she will face from Nevada’s senators.

This case is not simply a matter of local misjudgment. The Alexandrovich scandal exposes how the imperatives of Jewish solidarity consistently outweigh the demands of justice. Chattah’s decision not to prosecute a foreign official for crimes that would have condemned any ordinary person underscores the double standard: Jews with political backing are allowed to flee both responsibility and punishment, while gentiles are left to face harsh and unforgiving legal consequences.

Even amid sharp condemnation from establishment liberals, Chattah’s continued survival demonstrates the limits of so-called “cancel culture” when Jewish interests are at stake. The cover granted for Alexandrovich’s flight, and the refusal to hold Chattah to account, reveal how Jewish privilege operates as an enduring safeguard against professional disgrace or legal jeopardy.

Unless the public demands accountability, Jewish privilege will remain an impenetrable armor against disgrace or consequence.