Category: Politics

Read More
Stylized photos of "race scientist" Nathan Cofnas, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the late Cambridge professor Jason Arday, with the text "Anatomy of a Murder," as part of the first published study of Cofnas's racial theories in relation to the suicide of Jason Arday. It was written by the artist, critic, and filmmaker Alex Sheremet for the automachination literary magazine.

Why Did Nathan Cofnas Kill Jason Arday?

I, like everyone reading this report, had never heard of late Cambridge professor Jason Arday until the British press had turned him into a story. On some level, it is a strange story because it is so generic. The wife of billionaire Bill Ackman, Neri Oxman, is said to have plagiarized her dissertation, yet remains a sought-after designer and consultant. The VroniPlag Wiki documents hundreds of cases of plagiarism in Germany, most of them unknown, save for a politician who lost his doctorate then went into business. Joan Peters, a widely-debunked hoaxer, saw multiple reprints of her forgery, “From Time Immemorial,” long after she’d been exposed. Similarly, Jason Arday was hired under unusual circumstances then accused of plagiarism and fabulism. Nathan Cofnas, the racial hygienist who first reported on Arday (and who is himself the subject of an academic fraud investigation) thought Arday’s personal story—‘the autistic, high-achieving son of African migrants’—would bring Cofnas media attention. At present, Cofnas has no academic position. He lost a wrongful termination suit against Cambridge, and, most recently, some temp work at Ghent. By contrast, Jason Arday enjoyed substantially more academic citations while teaching full-time. However, once Cofnas’s story had spread, British media hounded Jason Arday until he resigned. A few weeks before Arday’s suicide, Cofnas threatened on TV: “The lesson is this what’s [sic] happened [sic] if you don’t give Cofnas a job!” […]

Read More
The thumbnail for Alex Sheremet's video essay on Liberian and Palestinian history, featuring photos of Hitler, a young Netanyahu, and Liberian president Charles D.B. King. The text over it reads: "Victims Become Oppressors".

Before Palestine, There Was Liberia (Hidden History)

The forced expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from their land has many parallels in history. Native Americans greeted, then fought, then terrorized European colonists when their own ethnic cleansing had begun. The Neo-Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel, annexed its territory, and deported its Jews—[actions which would repeat with the Romans, Babylonians, and others.] In 1995, the Srebrenica massacre was one of the final acts of a long military campaign to remove non-Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina. But while these examples are useful for understanding the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is modern-day Liberia which offers some overlooked lessons and universals. Just as Israel was founded on the memory of the Holocaust, Liberia was settled by free American blacks—many with roots in slavery. Both claimed, in official pronouncements, an ancestral connection to the land they now wished to ‘civilize’. Both were victims, at some point, of serious crimes, which came to define much of their art, culture, and worship. Both couched the foundation of their state in the language of international law, as well as biblical justice. Their self-definition was righteousness and the wisdom one accumulates with a long period of exile. It was as if the Israelis and Americos had absorbed history—and were now happy to repeat it. Before Palestine, there was Liberia, and before Liberia, there was a forgotten curse: No people shall learn from their forefathers, as each generation must watch through ignorant eyes. […]

Read More
The text "Dying For A Dream" with four figures and colors of the Russian flag. From left to right: Vladimir Putin in the 1990s, Donald Trump in 2025, murdered Russian-American journalist Paul Klebnikov in 2004, and Chechen mob boss Khoz-Ahmet Noukhayev (Khoza).

The Murder and Resurrection of Paul Klebnikov

“God did not create all men equal. What is inside them is not equal.” – Khoza Noukhayev

Twenty years have passed since the killing of Paul Klebnikov (Павел Юрьевич Хлебников) on a Moscow street. Although he was an American citizen, born in America to American-born parents, his unsolved murder is better known in Russia than in the United States. A business journalist for Forbes Magazine, Paul Klebnikov’s seminal book, Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia, must be read in softcover. The hardback is long out of print and there are no electronic versions available. Paul is known as Pavel in Russia—another man, almost, for his death had even deeper implications abroad. Today, Klebnikov would be 61 years old. He is, like the Russians looking back, grounded in time, as the country they leave behind grows older, stranger, with a future not their own. Yet Klebnikov flowed in the opposite direction, towards Russia, as America itself grew less and less recognizable. After all, if one points to the dangers of journalism in Russia, Russia can point to America’s increasing tolerance for the murder of their own journalists on foreign soil. In the minds of oligarchs and warlords—the world Paul Klebnikov got to know—all things are enumerated. A book, no matter how worthwhile, is published only if there is money to be made. Politics grow whimsical in service of a trend. Berezovsky, Klebnikov’s chief antagonist, is long dead, possibly due to suicide, after losing a power struggle with Vladimir Putin and exhausting his wealth. Yet Klebnikov’s own death can’t easily be linked to Putin, and so he remains between memory and restoration: too captive to let go, yet too impractical to dwell upon—with his lessons perpendicular to the lessons being sought. […]

Read More
A stylized photo of the author, Alex Sheremet, with a crystal ball, as pencil-drawings of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris look on.

Why I Expected Donald Trump To Win In 2024

Greetings—this is Alex Sheremet, coming to you from the future, where nothing makes sense, and everything remains undecided. You are now where I was twelve months ago, grappling with the prospect of yet another Trump term as the world casually spins out of control. After Kamala Harris entered the race, I said her campaign was at the mercy of timing, with a list of events likely to be in Trump’s favor by Election Day. These included a mixed-up economy, two failed wars, and the Party’s erosion with its base. I argued Democrats lacked the tools to deal with national crises, and, after failing to restrain Israel, that Benjamin Netanyahu would throw the election to Donald Trump. This was before Trump lost the debate to Kamala Harris—before Israel expanded its war into Lebanon—before a late spending blitz solidified Trump in the swing states. These are important events, in any election, but equally important was Harris herself, who talks and behaves in ways that winning Democrats do not. She evaded the media for weeks, then proved unable to answer direct questions. Kamala’s first interview was strictly edited and featured Tim Walz as chaperone. Her gaffes would make it into comedy routines by increasingly hostile liberals. Trump defined Kamala because Kamala failed to define herself, even as she spent millions on her image and likeness. Meanwhile, Trump and JD Vance were everywhere, earning more media than paying for it.

Put another way, the trajectory had already been set. Kamala Harris took too long to distance herself from Joe Biden and refused to make concessions to her base. She had no explanation for her shifting positions and often took no position at all. By contrast, Donald Trump’s vision was obvious. It is true some were unhappy with the first Trump term, yet many more remembered a time of low inflation and relative peace. Abortion rights energized Democrats, but not enough to reverse Trump gains. More pressing was the economy and illegal immigration, and while the latter first peaked right before COVID, it was COVID which allowed Trump and Biden to impose harsh border controls. Once these rules expired, Joe Biden was blamed for a border crisis invisible to most blue-state voters—until, of course, red states began to bus migrants into blue cities, thus ‘radicalizing’ them. As a result, Trump increased his vote share with almost every demographic. Indeed, the Democratic Party had now become so toxic that even Muslim voters looked past Trump’s Muslim ban. And what did they see as they looked past? Probably nothing—which is a still more rational choice than voting for the headlines and the images to which they’d been subjected. […]

Read More
Stylized photos of Kamala Harris with the text "Breaking Brat" to commemorate the end of Brat Summer.

The Limits of Joy: How Kamala Harris Can Lose In 2024

Though the outcome of America’s upcoming election is a foregone conclusion, not all is lost. Either Trump or Kamala will inherit an economic slowdown, a voting population at turns radicalized and ambivalent, and a degraded country stuck in frozen conflict—with only some of it abroad. Neither Trump nor Kamala have the tools to deal with insoluble problems, while the freakish nature of this cycle’s independent candidates suggests how little can be produced through the miasma. And yet, the Democratic Party’s latest crisis provides a rare glimpse into political power, down to the brazen discussion of how Joe Biden was forced to give up his re-election campaign. Insiders are accused of plotting a ‘coup’, but this word suggests something out of the ordinary. In reality, both parties are financed by corporate bribes and beholden to special interests. If funding dries up, the campaign is over—a fact that, to quote Nancy Pelosi, can be impressed upon the candidate “the easy way, or the hard way”. At the time, I suggested the Party lean into its undemocratic principles, such as calling for a fake primary (if there should be a primary at all) ending with Kamala Harris’s anointment. Now that this has transpired, it is instructive to reflect on why. For, despite Kamala’s decision to run on “joy”, there is no real happiness here—just levity. It is the lightness of fantasy and of impermanence. It is the lightness of the airhead and the superficiality of skin, which is as much a snipe against Kamala as it is a comment on the ugliest (and the fattest and most profligate) presidential ticket in American history. After all, Trump managed to turn his own assassination attempt into just another headline, suggesting some radical incompetence in American politics. This is, in the end, the lightness of predestination—of accepting that which has become intractable. […]

Read More
Photos of Maxim D. Shrayer (Максим Д. Шраер), one with "dunce" written on his forehead, one with a Soviet hammer and sickle across his face, and another with the flag of the Khmer Rouge blocking out his ill-shaped head.

Maxim D. Shrayer Is A Post-Soviet Fraud & Murder-Apologist

It’s been years since I’ve written a takedown of a poseur or freak, largely because they are such time-sinks, yet offer so little themselves. They seek unearned attention, and, if attention is given, seek to take one away from deeper aims. To wit: Ben Shapiro (does it not damage my essay that I expect you to know who this was?) might ultimately get exhumed by trivia hunters, but this would only be slightly better than Shapiro’s own goings to and fro on the earth. Coleman Hughes certainly represents a ‘type’, but hasn’t this type been discussed to the point of acquiring its own slur? Such cons are obvious, yet the Russian émigré poet Maxim D. Shrayer lords over a grift many won’t pick up on, not only due to their ignorance of immigrant politics, but also the ease with which nonimmigrants get brow-beaten by American liberals. Shrayer’s recent essay on murdered Palestinian academic Refaat Alareer has exposed this grift, though it requires another ex-Soviet to identify its parts. And so, as I enter a more mindful middle age, I can only justify writing of losers if I also expound upon their fiefdoms—particularly if these are lesser-known fiefdoms with poorly understood dynamics.

Maxim Shrayer, a professor at Boston College, was born in 1967, in Moscow, at the start of the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. This conflict entailed geopolitical re-alignment as the Soviets backed Egypt, America backed Israel, and Russia began to suspect its own Jewish citizens as insufficiently loyal. His father, David Shrayer-Petrov, was (is) a writer, war veteran, and medical researcher stripped of his title upon application for an exit visa in 1978. This was a typical outcome for (upper class) refuseniks, whose contributions to the Soviet Union were deemed too important remit. After years of harassment, Shrayer’s family was allowed to leave for America in 1987, sparing them not only the final years of empire, but the violence and destitution which soon befell Russia. By most metrics, then, Maxim Shrayer is one of the truly fortunate. Moving from the Pale of Settlement, to postwar Leningrad, to Moscow—Russia’s wealthiest city—his family, unlike most Soviet Jews, even had the foresight to skip Israel in favor of joining the academic elite of Rhode Island, where they were quickly accepted. This is unlike the treatment most refugees get, since they are not educated, not (passing) white, and not easily used to score political points. One of his first bits of self-description (‘refusenik’) recycles his father’s identity, while his flaunting of an Israeli flag must be especially galling to an ethnostate which has ‘lost’ Shrayer to America. His career focuses on the Jewish experience, Russian translation, the writing of (bad) poetry, a devotion to the overrated Vladimir Nabokov, and, most recently, the justification of Israeli war crimes. Indeed: take away the accidents of birth and Shrayer could have been quite comfortable as a Soviet functionary. He has no personal center, no obvious gifts, and would already be forgotten if it weren’t for his willingness to patsy for a dying regime. As an apparatchik, however, Maxim D. Shrayer hasn’t quite learned that merely separating oneself from the hoi polloi is not really individualism, but an absurd mix of might-makes-right, on the one hand, and Nietzschean slave-morality on the other. Put another way, he is encouraged to speak as a victim, then leverages real-world assets to punch down. […]

Read More
A stylized portrait of Elon Musk, tinted purple, against an orange backdrop, with the text "Elon Musk & Asbestos Capitalism", after the John Lee Hancock film.

Asbestos Capitalism: “The Founder” and the Future

Poor Elon Musk. However you might opt to label him – from freedom-defending visionary to steadily-radicalizing clown – he is, in the end, one of us. His upbringing was vastly more privileged than most, but in the final reckoning, he’s just another modern human, milked dry of dopamine by cathecting onto the chaotic, ever-escalating hum of a mass media that broadcasts far beyond (and far short of) any individual horizon. He can whinge about unfair coverage, grumble about a Colbert or a Kimmel taking a cheap shot. But there is no reason to take to the stage with Dave Chappelle at your moment of greatest ignominy if you aren’t seeking validation in the broader media ecosystem, aren’t seeking inclusion in the constellation of cultural referents they are tasked with curating.

Just a few measly centuries ago, artists and entertainers were almost wholly reliant on the patronage networks of the wealthy and the powerful. They come to you, cater to your tastes, model for the masses the staggering depth and breadth of your subjectivity. Now, gallingly for such a one as Mr. Musk, Western media industries have risen to the status of equity partners in the power structure, secured a durable fragment of influence over How Things Are To BeTM. And because their most visible public manifestation consists of beautiful humans being cool in public, they have much more influence on the aesthetics of our emerging dystopia than Elon and his hasty-first-draft approach to designing the future. He cannot torture or exile a one of them, but they can absolutely contribute to dictating what it would be cool for him to wear, or who will have the cultural cache he so badly wants to leech off of. Moreover, they can forbid these things to him, mock him, deny him a sniff of even the evaporating spume of the glitz and glamor they’ve monopolized. His Saturday Night Live episode becomes a 12:30 that never was, yet never stops. […]

Read More
A stylized photo of the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza, with English and Arabic text on its arch, before the explosion.

Why Israel Hinges Its Identity on the Gaza Hospital Attack

Yesterday, the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza was hit by an IDF airstrike or a “failed rocket” launched by Palestinian militants. In some ways, this felt like an existential moment for Israel—much more so than even the Hamas massacres on Israeli territory two weeks prior. That’s because despite America’s claims of an “existential threat” from terrorism in 2001, or Israel’s perceived security needs in keeping a stateless population at bay, terrorism rarely poses serious (i.e., existential) danger to nations, and most terror campaigns fail. Of course, there are exceptions. Jewish terrorism in Mandatory Palestine forced Britain to disengage in the midst of hotel bombings, political assassinations, and kidnappings, for which Israel was awarded the legal right to statehood. Palestinians soon adopted these tactics, yet lacked the strength, and, until recently, sufficient public opinion to achieve their aims. In the meantime, Israel has become a nuclear-tipped hegemon with an identity crisis. Many young Jews want nothing to do with what the UN and human rights groups call an apartheid state, while Israel itself has become increasingly corrupt, right-wing, and religious. So when news broke of (yet another) potential war crime in Gaza, Israel needed to respond—and quickly. […]