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.

The Moral Case for Using the Word ‘Nigger’

/18 Comments/in , /by

2314 Words

Prior to the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska by a Black man on August 22nd, 2025, there was much talk about “black fatigue.” According to the Urban Dictionary, “black fatigue” refers to the “deep mental exhaustion from being forced to care about Black people and their actions 24/7”[1]—an understandable state of mind for Whites confronted by the appalling reality and universality of Black crime. Since Iryna’s murder however, that fatigue has turned to disgust and contempt. Given not only the atrocious murder itself, but also the anti-Whiteism of the killer who twice claimed he “got the white girl,” the indifference of the handful of Blacks who witnessed the crime on that Charlotte train (sort of like the Kitty Genovese story, but real), the brazen irresponsibility of the Black magistrate who released the killer back in January for a mere promise to meet his court date, and the sheer callousness of many American Blacks who reacted to the murder with little more than a shrug, how could it not?

According to National-Conservative, in 2023 and 2024 Blacks murdered 1,136 Whites in America, while Whites returned the favor only 200 times. Are Whites just not supposed to notice this?

The rampant criminality among Blacks is bad enough. What raises them to the level of an existential threat to the West  is how they coalesce into an identity group, which not only fiercely protects its interests but also seeks to strip power away from other groups (namely, Whites) that care to implement higher standards of law and order—standards which, let’s face it, a significant proportion of Blacks simply cannot abide. And 9 out of 10 non-criminal Blacks get sucked into this vortex. This is where the “slowly I began to hate them” moment begins. You may have a Black neighbor or colleague who’s perfectly nice, and they may even be honest enough to feel some Black fatigue themselves; but they stick with their identity group at the ballot box and they do precious little to police their own. Thus, they offer no real resistance to the forward march of Black power against Whites.

One way Blacks remain on the offensive in this power struggle is to establish uneven codes of speech. For instance, they can speak of a racial “us” and a racial “them,” while Whites cannot. They can use past injustices to justify present misbehavior, while Whites cannot. Also, they can use the word “nigger” and its variations, while Whites cannot.

This last stipulation crystalized for me a few months ago when I was seated at an outdoor table at an amusement park. Four or five young Blacks sat at the table adjacent, and very soon every other word out of their mouths was nigga this and nigga that. It was gratuitous and obnoxious. And because there were no other tables available, I had to listen to it, as did several other Whites seated nearby. It then occurred to me that these Black kids were being loud and proud with this supposedly hateful slur for no reason other than to flex their power. They wanted to rub our noses in the fact that they can say it and we could not. I believe it was the late great Z-Man who referred to this word as “the word of power,” and he was right.

So does this mean that Whites will begin to halt the odious political progress of Blacks when enough of them can utter this word with impunity? Perhaps. It’s gotten to the point in my personal life where I refuse to trust a White person unless he can either say the word “nigger” or tolerate someone who does. And that got me thinking—is there a moral argument for the appropriate use of the word “nigger?” This is, of course, assuming that there is no moral argument behind the indiscriminate use of a racial slur—except as a necessary evil. For example, calling half a million Indian H-1B workers “jeets” when a clear majority of them may well be honest, peaceful individuals is evil, but it’s a lesser evil than the H-1B Visa program itself which, through its use and abuse, is chipping away at the White majority and White political power in America. Thus the lesser evil is justified. The problem with this argument is that it can easily be adopted by anyone, including Blacks. Observe:

Sure, shanking random White girls in the neck on public transportation is evil, but it is the lesser evil to White supremacy, which oppresses Black people everywhere. So this Zarutska bitch is not worth crying over. And if you do cry over her, then you’re a White supremacist who wants to keep Blacks down and contribute to the greater evil.

This epitomizes how Blacks use the necessary evil argument to shrug their shoulders over poor Iryna Zarutska and the thousands upon thousands of other White victims of Black crime. So while I, as a White person, appreciate the necessary evil argument when it protects or advances my interests (which, as Ricardo Duchesne has shown, closely aligns with humanity’s), its inherent moral flexibility makes it difficult—although not impossible—to prove in a formal setting.

Instead of proving that indiscriminately using the word “nigger” is a necessary evil, I would rather attempt to prove that appropriately using the word is a positive good. In other words, it is immoral not to use or tolerate the word under appropriate circumstances. One could take the tack that using it in order to turn a double standard into a single standard is reason enough. So would using it to help diminish Black political power, which obviously has bad effects. Okay. But what about after this double standard or Black power has been crushed? Would saying “nigger” then no longer be a positive good? I am interested in whether saying “nigger” appropriately is always good, everywhere, regardless of double standards or power structures.

I believe it is.

Here are my axioms:

  1. Sub-Saharan Africans have a unique genetic makeup in that 2 to 19 percent of their DNA comes as a result of interbreeding with primitive archaic hominid species hundreds of thousands of years ago.
  2. The general lack of intelligence and impulse control among sub-Saharan Blacks springs from this interbreeding.
  3. On a population level, such genetic defects are impossible to overcome through education, law enforcement, self-discipline, religion, or social engineering.
  4. The word “nigger” is appropriately used only when describing particularly dangerous Blacks who lack enough intelligence and impulse control to become criminally violent.[2]
  5. Violent crime is inherently evil.

I conclude from these axioms that appropriately using the term “nigger” is moral because it is one way to not tolerate and potentially diminish the inherent evil of Black violent crime. If one disagrees with any of these axioms, then the moral imperative behind “nigger” fails, but if one does agree with them, then it must succeed.

Springing from this, my argument is simple: Whites appropriately using the word shames non-criminal Blacks into better controlling their criminal element when it comes to interracial violence. “Nigger” is a nasty word. It is also cruel. When used appropriately it is never good.[3] It is an especially potent epithet because it applies a broad brush to describe behavior that if performed by people of other races would require a finer brush. For example, in 2007 a Korean student shot up Virginia Tech University and murdered 32 people. Using broad-brush language to describe the killer (e.g., calling him a chink or a gook) would be inappropriate since East Asians rarely commit violent crime, let alone shoot up universities. More appropriate would be to label the killer (and only the killer) a deranged psychopath, which is indeed what he was.

On the other hand, using a broad brush to describe Iryna Zarutska’s killer (i.e., calling him a nigger) would be appropriate because the killer’s behavior is typical among Blacks due to their genetics—even though a majority of Blacks are neither criminal nor violent. Because the word itself denotes race, calling him a nigger is effectively calling all Blacks niggers, something that non-criminal Blacks are not going to appreciate. When this happens with enough frequency and nonchalance among Whites, non-criminal Blacks will give up trying to force Whites not to use the word and instead will try to force their own criminal subpopulation to commit fewer violent crimes, thus reducing the evil we established in the final axiom above. For example, if Teresa Stokes, the Black magistrate who set Iryna’s killer free, had any fear at all of a whole nation of Whites shaming her as a nigger, she would have played it safe and kept Iryna’s killer behind bars. But because she had no fear of such a broad-brush treatment (since Whites today lack the nerve to apply it), she let him go, thus perpetuating the evil of Black violent crime.

Another recent example is Raja Jackson, whose horrendous story fell from the news cycle after video of the Zarutska murder was released, and has remained sidelined thanks in no small part to the tragic Charlie Kirk assassination. Raja, the son of retired MMA fighter Quentin “Rampage” Jackson, was taking part in a scripted wrestling event in Los Angeles on August 23rd in which he body slammed wrestler Stuart Smith (AKA Syko Stu) into the canvas and then punched the unconscious Smith nearly twenty times in the head before having to be pried off of him by other wrestlers. Jackson is an MMA fighter like his father, and so knows how to attack a downed opponent with his fists. As a result, Smith was hospitalized for a concussion, a fractured maxilla bone, the loss of several teeth, and trauma to both jaws. The video is horrific. This was clearly attempted murder—all to avenge a perceived slight before the event in which Smith harmlessly smashed a beer can on Jackson’s head in an attempt to sell the show. (He later apologized to Jackson for it.) For some reason it took law enforcement in California nearly a month to arrest Jackson for felony assault.

White people calling Raja Jackson a nigger for his actions would be appropriate not because it would make Jackson less inherently violent (nothing can do that), but because it would make Jackson’s less-violent father less indulgent of his son’s violence. After the assault, Rampage Jackson predictably condemned Raja’s actions and offered prayers and platitudes for the victim. He also stated that his son should do “a little time” and then attend anger management therapy. But when asked about it directly, Rampage denied it was attempted murder. How did he know? Because Raja is his son, that’s how. Perhaps Rampage also wished to downplay his own possible culpability in the crime since he rage-baited his son moments before the attack.

I argue that millions of angry White people publicly calling Raja Jackson a nigger would effectively be calling his father and other Blacks niggers too. This would prompt them to use whatever influence they have to throw the book at Raja to avoid the opprobrium themselves. The result would be taking a violent thug off the streets for a long time and sparing future victims of violence. In other words, widespread appropriate use of the word “nigger” will force a fundamental attitude shift among at least some non-criminal Blacks towards the good. It will reduce the evil of Black-on-White violent crime, and is therefore moral.

Of course, this is not a perfect solution and won’t necessarily have a dramatic impact. There are better and more direct solutions to Black-on-White crime, such as police racial profiling, segregation, apartheid, or (most preferably) complete separation. But these solutions require greater effort and come at greater risk. Normalizing the word “nigger” among Whites requires less effort and entails less risk, so of course it will have less impact. But an impact it will still have, and likely will be the starting point for the more consequential solutions listed above. Most importantly, however, I am not arguing the efficacy of the appropriate use of the term “nigger” but rather its morality. Using it appropriately is moral. The small extent to which it will reduce the evil of Black-on-White crime makes it so.

*   *   *

[1] “Black fatigue” has a double meaning, and originally stems from the title of a 2020 book called Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit by Mary-Frances Winters. According to a separate entry at the Urban Dictionary, “Black fatigue” originally referred to how Blacks feel “the physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion, trauma, and consequences of systemic racism.” In this essay, of course, we focus on the second definition of this term, not the first.

[2] Arguments can be made for using the word “nigger” to describe Blacks who exemplify other negative stereotypes of their race, such as laziness, stupidity, and corruption. But these arguments are more difficult to prove and are thus excluded from this brief essay. With video evidence of Black violence being so pervasive today, keeping to the strict definition of appropriateness outlined above is sufficient to prove the moral necessity of using the word “nigger.”

[3] Yes, “nigga” and words like it can be used as terms of endearment, but not universally. Blacks who accept other Blacks using the word will balk when a White  (or non-Black) uses it in the exact same way—even if the endearment is sincere. A memorable scene from the 1998 Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker movie Rush Hour exemplifies this contradiction. Meanwhile, Whites may use the term among other Whites for the sake of humor or rebelliousness, but would never dare utter it publicly—as White country singer Morgan Wallen found out after being secretly recorded using the word in 2021. Thus, “nigga” as endearment is not a serious term  with only one strict definition; whereas the hard-R term “nigger” is.

The Untold Jewish Role in Venezuela’s Crisis

/10 Comments/in /by

The United States is edging toward an unprecedented military showdown with Venezuela. The crisis escalated earlier this month after a U.S. drone strike killed 11 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua — the first such strike in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama. This was followed by another strike on September 15, 2025, that killed three alleged drug traffickers.

Days later, Venezuelan F-16s flew over U.S. naval vessels, triggering Pentagon warnings and threats from President Donald Trump that approaching aircraft would be shot down. Washington has since deployed its largest Caribbean naval presence in decades, including 4,500 sailors and Marines, Tomahawk-equipped destroyers, submarines, an amphibious assault ship, and 10 F-35s stationed in Puerto Rico.

This confrontation follows Venezuela’s disputed July 2024 election, widely condemned as fraudulent, in which opposition candidate Edmundo González claimed victory, but the electoral council declared Nicolás Maduro the winner. Jewish political scientist Steven Levitsky described the official results as “one of the most egregious electoral frauds in modern Latin American history.” Protests left at least 22 dead and resulted in more than 2,000 arrests.

Once Donald Trump returned to office, his administration ramped up sanctions and terrorism designations, labeling Tren de Aragua and the Cartel de los Soles as narco-terrorist organizations and invoking the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan nationals connected to these groups.

The roots of hostility stretch back to Hugo Chávez’s rise in 1999, his survival of a U.S.-backed coup in 2002, and decades of mounting sanctions, indictments, and efforts at regime change. Analysts see Trump’s current escalation as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, Washington’s long-standing claim to hemispheric hegemony.

Yet what makes today’s crisis uniquely combustible is Venezuela’s deepening ties to Russia, which signed a sweeping 10-year strategic agreement with Maduro in May 2025, and to China, which openly opposed the U.S. naval buildup. Venezuela, sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves — 300 billion barrels, 17 percent of the global total — has become not only a prize of energy geopolitics but also a node in the emerging Moscow–Beijing–Caracas axis.

However, beneath the surface of this escalating military confrontation lies an overlooked dimension: the Jewish angle in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. Israel’s strategic concerns have played a significant role in shaping American policy toward Caracas. As Venezuela has emerged as the most consistently anti-Zionist country in South America, Jewish factions within the U.S. foreign policy establishment have increasingly viewed Caracas as a threat extending well beyond traditional hemispheric security concerns.

 

 

Venezuela’s Anti-Zionist Evolution Under Chávez

The deterioration of Venezuelan-Israeli relations accelerated during the Second Intifada, when Chávez’s government sponsored rallies supporting the Palestinian cause. The first direct targeting of Venezuela’s Jewish community occurred in May 2004 when the Sephardic Tiferet Israel Synagogue in Caracas was attacked following a government-backed pro-Palestinian rally.

The situation escalated dramatically during the 2006 Lebanon War, when Chávez accused Israel of carrying out a genocide. In August 2006, Venezuela recalled its ambassador from Israel and later declared: “Israel has gone mad. They are massacring children, and no one knows how many are buried.”

Venezuela’s complete break with Israel came on January 14, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Chávez described Israel’s military offensive as a “cruel persecution of the Palestinian people, directed by Israeli authorities.” The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry announced the severance of diplomatic ties, stating the move was made “given the inhumane persecution of the Palestinian people carried out by the authorities of Israel.”

Following this diplomatic break, Venezuela officially recognized Palestine on April 27, 2009, becoming the first country in the Americas to establish formal diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Likud in Caracas: The Israeli Hand Behind Venezuela’s Opposition

The Venezuelan opposition has taken a dramatically different approach to relations with Israel. This is epitomized by María Corina Machado, head of the liberal party Vente Venezuela, who in July 2020 signed a formal cooperation agreement with Israel’s ruling Likud Party.

The agreement pledged collaboration on “political, ideological, and social matters, as well as advancing cooperation on issues related to strategy, geopolitics and security.” It explicitly stated its goal to “bring the people of Israel closer to the people of Venezuela while advancing, together, the Western values of freedom, liberty, and market economy.”

Machado described this as sending “a clear message to Nicolás Maduro” and indicated that if she came to power, she would restore diplomatic relations with Israel.

Israel’s Recognition of Juan Guaidó

Israel was among the first countries to recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president during the 2019 presidential crisis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Israel’s recognition on January 27, 2019, stating that Israel “joins the United States today, as well as Canada, most South American countries and European nations.”

According to Axios, the Trump administration had specifically asked Israel to publicly support the regime change campaign against Maduro.

Guaidó thanked Netanyahu for the recognition with rhetoric explicitly linking Venezuela’s struggle to Holocaust liberation: “74 years ago, the Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated, and today, just as our country is also fighting for its freedom, we thank the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu for the recognition and the support.”

Venezuela’s Strategic Alliance with Iran

Venezuela has forged strong ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1999, creating what both countries describe as an “axis of unity” against U.S. imperialism. Chávez’s first visit to Iran in 2001 launched what would become a strategic partnership based on shared resistance to the Judeo-American imperium’s overreach in their respective spheres of influence.

The relationship deepened after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election as Iran’s president in 2005. Through multiple exchanges, Chávez and Ahmadinejad established hundreds of bilateral deals. Their alliance grew so close that in 2006 Chávez vowed to “stay by Iran at any time and under any condition.”

During an address at Tehran University in 2010, Chávez warned: “If the U.S. empire succeeds in consolidating its dominance, then humankind has no future. Therefore, we have to save humankind and put an end to the U.S. empire.”

Under Maduro, Venezuela-Iran relations have continued to consolidate, with Tehran providing gasoline shipments during fuel shortages, military cooperation including drone technology, sanctions evasion assistance, and a multi-billion-dollar trade and investment deal.

The Hezbollah Connection

The Iran-Venezuela partnership has extended to include Hezbollah, a long-time ally of Iran that has created security concerns for Empire Judaica. U.S. officials assert that Iran and Hezbollah maintain operational networks within Venezuela that facilitate narcotics trafficking and money laundering schemes. These networks reportedly work with Venezuelan military elites in the Cártel de los Soles to move cocaine, with Hezbollah allegedly serving as a “main finance and money launderer for narco-terrorism groups like Tren de Aragua.”

Security experts claim Hezbollah operates in Venezuela through clan-based structures embedded within the Maduro government’s illicit economy. The Venezuelan airline Conviasa conducts regular flights between Caracas, Damascus, and Tehran, which Hezbollah reportedly uses to ‘ferry operatives, recruits, and cargo in and out of the region.’

These allegations of Hezbollah infiltration further fueled Maduro’s framing of his domestic opposition as part of a larger Zionist conspiracy.

Maduro’s “International Zionism” Accusations

Following Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election, Maduro repeatedly blamed “international Zionism” for Venezuela’s internal problems. In August 2024, after widespread protests over alleged electoral fraud, Maduro claimed that his opposition was supported and bankrolled by international Zionist networks.

“All the communication power of Zionism, who controls all social networks, the satellites, and all the power behind this coup d’état,” Maduro declared in a televised speech. He also described Argentina’s president Javier Milei, who currently leads Latin America’s most philosemitic government, as a “Zionist” and “social sadist.”

Maduro’s remarks drew sharp criticism from Deborah Lipstadt, then U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, who accused him of reviving classic antisemitic tropes about Jews controlling global affairs.

“Maduro’s absurd claim that Jews are behind election protests in Venezuela is antisemitic and unacceptable,” Lipstadt tweeted. “The Venezuelan people have gone to the streets to peacefully call for their votes to be counted. We reject all forms of antisemitism, and the use of these types of age-old tropes fans the flames of Jew hatred in Latin America and throughout the world.” 

The Enduring Neoconservative Order

The American approach to Venezuela cannot be understood without recognizing the influence of neoconservative ideology on U.S. foreign policy over the last 30 years. Neoconservatism posits that the United States is an exceptional polity that must export its model of democracy far and wide. But this only scratches the surface. Its ultimate goal is to make the world safe for Zionist supremacy — an ideological current marked by significant Jewish overrepresentation.

Stephen McGlinchey, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of the West of England, observed: “the core postulate of the neoconservative Bush foreign policy package, revolutionary democratisation, is intricately tied to Israel’s security.” Under this Jewish supremacist framework, any country adopting a principled anti-Zionist stance is viewed as a threat to Judeo-American interests.

Like many Jewish movements, neoconservatism relies on servile gentiles to implement its agenda. Currently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime interventionist with an eye toward remaking Latin America in the United States’ dysfunctional image, is spearheading the campaign to topple the Maduro government. A regime change booster, Rubio has maintained close ties to Venezuelan opposition figures such as María Corina Machado, pushing for harsher sanctions and greater diplomatic isolation.

Venezuela’s affinity with Iran — the bête noire of world Jewry — further motivates Rubio and his Jewish patrons to pursue punitive measures against Caracas. Any country that deviates from this consensus becomes a fresh target for regime change. 

The breakdown in U.S.-Venezuela relations represents a complex intersection of hemispheric hegemony, energy geopolitics, and Jewish concerns. While oil reserves and great power competition provide the obvious explanations for American hostility, the Israeli factor adds a crucial dimension that has been consistently underestimated in policy analysis.

By emerging as South America’s most reliably anti-Zionist country, aligning with Iran, and tolerating Hezbollah’s presence, Venezuela has drawn the ire of Jewish policymakers in Washington who interpret challenges to Israel as pretexts for expanding U.S. power in defense of Zionist objectives.

Taken together, these dynamics reveal how Venezuela’s defiance is not viewed in Washington merely as a hemispheric issue, but as part of a larger ideological battle tied to Israel’s security and the global reach of Zionist influence. With Jewish interests shaping foreign policy at the highest levels, the pursuit of genuine U.S. interests becomes impossible.

 

The Billionaire Trump Supporters (Larry and David Ellison) Who Will Soon Own the News — and Important Social Media

/16 Comments/in , /by

I recently finished writing a summary of Jewish ownership of the media for the revised edition of The Culture of Critique, but it’s looking like it needs a major update already. Larry Ellison, the billionaire founder of Oracle whose net worth is north of $350 billion, and his son David are buying up media properties. They are Jewish and they are Trump supporters, so the mainsteam media (including CBS and CNN) would likely become more (neo)conservative. Notice that the names mentioned as having prominent roles are also Jewish—Bari Weiss, designated for a “senior position at CBS,” and Kenneth Weinstein of the Hudson Institute, the designated ombudsman.

Bari Weiss is a former New York Times columnist and a Jewish patriot. Here she discusses anti-Semitism:

Since then [the making of Jud Süss during World War II], the myth of the wily Jewish manipulator of those in power continues to persist in various forms. During the Iraq War, it became common to blame Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith — Bush administration figures who happened to be Jewish — for a military campaign that had been ordered by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump blamed “globalists” with names like Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros for America’s economic woes.

No mention of the close personal and family ties that Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith have to Israel or their involvement in promoting false intelligence accusing Iraq of having WMD in the lead-up to the Iraq war; or the close affinity of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had to Jewish interests throughout their careers—except Bush who was a babe in the woods on foreign policy; all of which can be perused here.

The following is from my review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons:

Heilbrunn also has some nice nuggets on George Bush’s naiveté in the area of foreign policy. The first time [Richard Perle] met Bush, he immediately sensed that he was different from his father. Two things were clear to Perle: one was that Bush didn’t know much about foreign policy and another was that he wasn’t too embarrassed to confess it. Like Wolfowitz, Perle admired Bush’s ability, as he saw it, to cut to the heart of the matter rather than become mesmerized by Washington policy talk. (p. 230) The fact that Bush was a babe in the woods on foreign policy was seen as a plus by the neocons. “In August 1999 an excited Wolfowitz told me over lunch . . . that Bush had the ability to penetrate the dense fog of foreign policy expertise to ask a simple question. ‘Tell me what I need to know? [sic]’ Bush, Wolfowitz said, was ‘another Scoop Jackson’” (p. 230)—a comment that certainly doesn’t reflect well on Jackson. Although Heilbrunn states that we can never know for certain what was going on in Bush’s brain in the days and months after 9/11, his comment that Bush “moved further and further into the web that the neoconservatives had woven around him” (p. 235) seems reasonable.

Bush was in way over his head and was a sitting duck for the neocons. And a big part of the web they wove consisted of falsified or cherry-picked intelligence reports engineered by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Abram Schulsky, and presided over by Paul Wolfowitz. As to the other “Christians” who actually made the decision to invade Iraq, Heilbrunn notes that “the movement’s non-Jewish members were largely bound to the group by a shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel” (p. 69). This may be correct in some cases (quite possibly Henry Jackson). But “it is often quite difficult to separate such sentiments from the personal and professional attractions of being involved in neoconservative networks.”

Weiss continues:

But the biggest “Jew” today in the demonology of modern anti-Semitism is the Jewish state, Israel. While there are perfectly legitimate criticisms that one can make of Israel or the actions of its government — and I have never been shy about making them [where she describes herself (and Bret Stephens) as “a Zionist fanatic of unhinged proportions”— those criticisms cross the line into anti-Semitism when they ascribe evil, almost supernatural powers to Israel in a manner that replicates classic anti-Semitic slanders.

Could Israel possibly be any more evil than what they are displaying in Gaza?

And Weiss displays the typical Jewish affinity for non-Whites who come to the West (not to Israel). Horus:

“The far right says we are the greatest trick the devil has ever played. We appear to be white people. We look like we’re in the majority, we’re incredibly successful, but in fact… we’re disloyal to real, pure, white America. And in fact, we’re loyal to Black people and brown people and Muslims and immigrants.” – Bari Weiss laying it out in 2023.

Horus continues:

From a conversation on “How to Fight Antisemitism in the Arab World.” – fdd.org/events/2022/01/…

Bari Weiss’ Free Press is the biggest thing on Substack, featured by Substack itself and suggested to readers in the Explore section.

[Darryl] Cooper blasted a hole in their walls and they fired back with frowns and weary sighing. Being termed the ‘barbarian right’ by a twerp like Sohrab Amari just doesn’t matter. Being likened to a Nazi by Niall Ferguson is more funny than frightening. Cooper laughed at them and pressed on, becoming more radical and incisive in the months since. His enemies were organised by the grand dame of the most boring section of Substack, Bari Weiss, who deemed the articles by Andrew Roberts and Victor Davis Hanson so vital to the cause of anti-fascism that she paywalled them. Baron Roberts likes to boast about how much wonga he makes as an unctuary to the saviour, but we can assume that all the audiences he’s ever had amount to a lot less than Cooper’s on that one day.

But one could argue, as I have, that none of this matters because the legacy media is dying anyway. It really doesn’t matter if CBS and CNN become neocon outlets. The other, perhaps larger problem is that they are also a major part of the consortium that is in the process of buying TikTok which has a pervasive presence among young people. So the Ellisons intend to expand their reach well beyond the legacy media. As Mr. Cohan notes in the following article, Ellison is about “to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen.”

The Billionaire Trump Supporter Who Will Soon Own the News

Listen to this article · 5:19 min Learn more

Larry Ellison is already a major stakeholder in CBS and Paramount. Now CNN, HBO and a major share of TikTok are in his sights. If all goes as anticipated, this tech billionaire, already one of the richest men in the world and a founder of Oracle, is poised, at 81, to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen.

For the rest of us, the effect of Mr. Ellison’s gambit could be every bit as consequential, if not more so, than what happened a generation ago when Rupert Murdoch brought his brand of Down Under snark and cynicism to create what has become Fox News, intensifying our political polarization.

Mr. Ellison’s expected incursion into Hollywood and Big Media, if successful, could also go well beyond what other tech moguls like Jeff Bezos and Marc Benioff have attempted through their acquisitions of The Washington Post and Time magazine, respectively. For those men, the acquisitions were more like expensive hobbies.

Mr. Ellison is up to something very different: transforming himself into a media magnate. Along with his son, David, he could soon end up controlling a powerful social media platform, an iconic Hollywood movie studio and one of the largest content streaming services, as well as two of the country’s largest news organizations. Given Mr. Ellison’s friendship with, and affinity for, Donald Trump, an increasingly emboldened president could be getting an extraordinarily powerful media ally — in other words, the very last thing our country needs right now.

It all begins for Mr. Ellison with David’s recent acquisition of what is now known as Paramount Skydance, bought with a small part of Larry’s more than $350 billion fortune. That deal, which included an investment from the private equity firm RedBird Capital Partners, combined the old Paramount Global with Skydance Media, the film production and entertainment company David founded in 2010.

Within weeks of the August closing of the deal, it was clear that the Ellisons were serious about making Paramount Skydance a major new media force. They signed a seven-year, $7.7 billion deal for CBS and Paramount to broadcast and to stream the Ultimate Fighting Championship, whose chief executive spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention and is a longtime Trump supporter.

The Ellisons have also made no secret of their intention to move CBS News to the right. They are negotiating to acquire The Free Press, a heterodox publication co-founded by Bari Weiss that prioritizes criticism of “woke” culture, and put Ms. Weiss in a senior position at CBS News. The Ellisons also hired as the CBS ombudsman Kenneth Weinstein, the former chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute. See where this is going, and fast?

Then, if all goes according to plan, Mr. Trump could soon hand an 80 percent stake in TikTok, the powerful social media platform, to the existing shareholders, among them KKR and General Atlantic, plus a new consortium that includes Mr. Ellison’s Oracle and a16z, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm whose co-founder Marc Andreessen is close with the administration.

There’s more: The Ellisons are also, reportedly, preparing a bid — of perhaps $80 billion, according to some estimates — for Warner Bros. Discovery, the media conglomerate that controls such jewels as HBO Max, the Warner Bros. movie studio and CNN.

If Paramount Skydance follows through with an all-cash bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, it is likely to win the prize. Few other companies out there want all of Warner Bros. Discovery and few of those would be able to compete with the Ellisons’ cash. Regulators under a different presidential administration might have objected to the deal because of the concentration of Hollywood studios and the combination of CBS and CNN, but few expect the Ellisons to run into similar trouble. In the end, Warner Bros. Discovery may have little choice but to take Larry’s money and run.

There will be plenty of jobs lost as a result of the “synergies” that the Ellisons will promise investors they will find. That will be painful. But of even greater consequence from the combination of these assets under the control of Larry Ellison will be the expectation — and probably the reality — that these important media outlets will, like Fox News, march toward a more Trump-friendly worldview.

Who knows why the Ellisons seem to be moving in this direction. Is it good for business? Is it just easier to bend the knee to Mr. Trump? Do they really believe in the Trump agenda and all his meshugas?

No matter their motives, two independent journalistic voices, CBS News and CNN, could soon be combined into something potentially almost unrecognizable, something way too close to what is served up on a daily basis by the Murdochs. And that will put yet another chink in the fragile armor that is America’s democracy.

Peter’s Pedophile Pal: The Coprocentric Key to Comprehending Israel, Jews and Jewish History

/6 Comments/in /by

Do you want to understand Israel and Israeli behavior? Then there are two routes you can take, a fast one and a slow one. Taking the slow route, you spend years reading lots of books, learning Hebrew, reading lots more books. Taking the fast route, you just spend a few minutes reading a short article at Neokrat. The article gets Jim Goad badly wrong and Jewish nationhood bullseye right as it explores a fascinating question: “Is Israel Just A Shit-Magnet?” Here’s an extract:

Jim Goad, no friend of this site […], has, from all his tedious writings, gifted the World with the term “shit magnet” for [people who endlessly attract trouble], no doubt with reference to himself. In truth, it is a great concept, because it skips the tedious detail and cuts to the main point — certain people do seem to attract a lot of shit, and usually that tells us more about them than anything else.

Now, with “Israeli problems” once again taking up vital bandwidth — and at a time of real crisis (Ukraine, the threat to Taiwan, the hollowing out of American democracy by moronic populist forces, etc.) — it seems appropriate to apply the term “shit magnet” to the state of Israel.

Of course, Israel is a relatively new state and all new states should be allowed a little leeway to make mistakes and learn from them, but when I compare Israel’s track record with other states of a similar vintage, there can be no doubt about it, Israel is definitely the king of the shit magnets, getting involved in one stupid fracas after another.

Since its foundation in 1948, it has either been involved in stupid wars, pointless occupations, constant infringements of international law, and the constant rubbing up of its neighbours (and occasional friends) the wrong way. […] I am just noticing the general pattern: Israel is just not a “get along” kind of country. It seems to be devoid of a sense of “good form,” constantly “oversteps the mark” (those invisible guide rails of harmonious behaviour), and, maybe even without meaning to do so, rubs up its friends and neighbours entirely the wrong way.

One or two border wars since 1948 and even a temporary occupation or two would have been forgivable, but 18 wars, the occupation of foreign territory for decades, and countless instances of ignoring international law within the last 75 years make it look like it isn’t even trying.

Really, once this framing is accepted, it is impossible to argue that Israel isn’t a total shit magnet. (“Is Israel Just A Shit-Magnet?,” Neokrat, 16th October, 2023)

The article is completely wrong about Jim Goad and completely right about Israel. Nothing Goad writes is “tedious.” But yes, Israel is indeed a total shit-magnet, endlessly involved in trouble, tragedy and trauma. The article is right to say that Israel “rubs up its friends and neighbours entirely the wrong way,” but wrong to add “maybe even without meaning to do so.” Of course Israel means to do so: it behaves badly because it’s arrogant, amoral and completely unconcerned about anyone’s interests but its own.

Hebrew Dindus

Israel is, in short, a collective expression of age-old Jewish psychology. That article at Neokrat doesn’t point out that the term “shit-magnet” also applies perfectly both to individual Jews like the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, endlessly involved in scandals about corruption, and to Jewish history as a whole. The Hebrew Bible could easily be re-titled “Confessions of a Shit-Magnet.” From slavery in Egypt to slavery in Babylon, from Job’s boils to Samson’s blinding, it’s a story of endless trouble for both individual Jews and the Jewish race. Outside the Bible there’s lots more trouble and tragedy: the Jews are persecuted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Romans, persecuted by the Christians and the Muslims; they’re expelled and massacred and finally suffer the ultimate horrors of the Holocaust. And through all that extra-Biblical trouble, they insist that they dindu nuffin’! According to Jews, it’s not bad behavior by Jews that explains why Jews attract so much trouble, it’s the irrational hate and malice of the goyim.

 

Bathrobe Bum-Boy: Peter Mandelson with his pedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein (photo from The Guardian)

A persecuted pedo: the Jewish cyber-spook Tom Alexandrovich flees to Israel

Jews are wrong to auto-exculpate, of course. Their own bad behavior does indeed explain the endless trouble attracted by Jews. Like Israel as a nation, Benjamin Netanyahu is a shit-magnet because he’s crooked, corrupt and completely selfish. Peter Mandelson is a shit-magnet for the same reason. Mandelson is the homosexual half-Jewish politician who’s just lost yet another big job thanks to yet another of the big scandals that have dogged his career. As the Guardian puts it: he “has an extraordinary talent for securing jobs at the top of the government, but an even more extraordinary one for leaving them in a blaze of controversy.” The staunch Friend of Israel Keir Starmer had appointed Mandelson as British ambassador to Washington “despite warnings,” as the Guardian again put it, “over his links with” the late pedophile predator Jeffrey Epstein, who was yet another Jewish shit-magnet. Starmer then had to dismiss Mandelson as ambassador when the links proved even more extensive and enduring than Mandy had admitted. Mandelson called Epstein “my best pal” in a birthday-letter and commiserated with his pedophile pal in an email when the pedo was slapped on the wrist by American justice in 2008: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened. I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

An Israeli super-hero

Like Israel bombing America’s ally Qatar, Mandelson showed complete disregard for morality and gentile interests. He cared only about the Jewish predator Epstein, not the under-aged White girls who had been preyed on by Epstein. The two men had been brought together by Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the Jewish shit-magnet Robert Maxwell, né Binyamin Hoch. Like Mandelson and Netanyahu, Maxwell suffered scandal after scandal during his career. When he was accurately condemned as a crook, he responded by smearing his critics as “anti-Semites” and successfully suing them. Then he fell off his super-yacht and was buried on Israel’s most sacred ground with the highest honors. But he was an even bigger shit-magnet in death than in life. It soon emerged that he had been preying on his own companies and looting the pension funds of his own employees. Did Mossad, Israel’s fearsomely efficient intelligence agency, not know that Maxwell-Hoch had been stealing huge sums from the goyim? Of course it knew. But Israel didn’t care: the mega-fraudster Maxwell was working for Israel, so to Israelis he was a super-hero, not a super-villain.

Here Lies Binyamin Hoch: Mega-fraudster Maxwell is buried on Israel’s most sacred ground (image on Private Eye #781)

Indeed, the mega-fraudster Maxwell was very probably a Mossad agent. So were Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And if Peter Mandelson isn’t a Mossad agent, he’s certainly worked for Israeli and Jewish interests throughout his own scandal-dogged career. But none of that has been discussed in the mainstream media during the latest shit-storm to erupt around Mandelson. In particular, the mainstream has ignored the glaringly obvious Jewish angle. When Mandelson was involved in a previous scandal about his links with billionaires like Mikhail Fridman and Oleg Deripaska, the mainstream called them “Russian oligarchs.” In fact, they are Jewish oligarchs. And crooks. But I repeat myself. The mainstream got it wrong again when it said Mandelson was appointed ambassador to Washington “despite” his already known links to Epstein. In fact, he was appointed ambassador because of those links, not despite them. Just like the Jew Melinda Simmons, the “British” ambassador to Ukraine appointed by staunch Friend of Israel Teresa May in 2019, Mandelson became an ambassador to serve Jewish and Israeli interests, not British ones.

Mandelson as microcosm

And now that scandal has struck Mandelson yet again, it’s revealed Mandy as microcosm yet again. Mandelson is a shit-magnet as a Jewish individual just as Jews are a shit-magnet as a race and Israel is a shit-magnet as a nation. But Mandelson is more than that. Like Richard Perle in America, he was given the nickname of “Prince of Darkness” by gentiles. Two other prominent Jewish politicians in Britain have received similar nicknames: Michael Howard (né Hect) is “Dracula” and the late Gerald Kaufman, a homosexual like Mandelson, was “Hannibal Lecter.” Whether they know it or not, gentiles are responding to the alien and predatory psychology they sense in Jews.

Parallel punims: the anti-White Jewish journalist Emily Maitlis shares a joke with pedo-pal Peter Mandelson (Twitter)

And what about Israel? Like Netanyahu and Mandelson, Israel is more than just a shit-magnet. I’d call it a vampire among nations. So who’s going to drive a stake through its twisted heart? Well, maybe Israel will self-stake and destroy itself. As E. Michael Jones has repeatedly pointed out: no Jewish kingdom has lasted more than eighty years and the clock is now ticking louder and louder on Israel. It has been “rubbing up its friends and neighbours entirely the wrong way” since 1948, so its eighty years are nearly up. One thing is certain: the copromagnetism will continue. Jews like Peter Mandelson and his pedo-pal Jeffrey Epstein will continue to attract shit wherever they go. And in the end, yes, we goyim are to blame. If any gentile nation allows Jews to have power and influence, shit will ensue. From the rape-gangs of Rotherham to future wars across the West, it can all be traced back to not saying “No!” to Jews.