Featured Articles

Will Post-Modernity Be Post-Darwinian? A Review of “The Post-Darwinian Zoo”The Post-Darwinian ZooThe Post-Darwinian Zoo

The Post-Darwinian Zoo
Tibur Zorodin
Createspace, December, 2023

Perhaps all of Western socio-political history can divided into three eras: Pre-Darwinian, Darwinian, and post-Darwinian. The first period consisted of the millennia before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origins of Species (1859) when men intuitively understood the importance of blood and breed, monarchy and aristocracy being the dominant ideologies. Then in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Darwinian evolution, combined with Mendelian genetics, began to inform public policy. President Theodore Roosevelt’s espousal of eugenics was uncontroversial, in fact eugenics was once supported across the political spectrum. Since the end of World War II public debate on, much less implementation of, “social Darwinist policies” is prohibited. The irony is that we now understand far more about human evolution and genetics than during the Progressive Era. The author is concerned that Red China might be the state where such findings find application.

We know little about the author. Tibur Zorodin is presumably a nom de plume. He is described online as a sociobiologist who “has been writing chiefly on political matters for more than a decade.”  In its broad scope and literary style The Post-Darwinian Zoo might remind the reader of The Dispossessed Majority,[1] though DM is a more tightly structured work. Zorodin’s over 900 footnotes make reference to academic journals, mainstream media, and popular culture from North America, Europe, and Australasia.

The book begins by describing how current demographic trends have become dysgenic and why it matters. Intelligence, criminality, conscientiousness, and other traits are highly heritable. The system is still able to function because “[t]he West’s upper cognitive echelon of entrepreneurs and scientists remain in place for now,” even as social pathology increases. The remedy for dysgenics is eugenics. Eugenics is not pseudoscience but applied science widely practiced in breeding plants and animals. The author makes a distinction between social Darwinism that “is more concerned with group advancement, identity, and distinctiveness,” and eugenics that “tends toward universalism and IQ absolutism.”

Eugenics need not be coercive or mandatory to be effective if a society has healthy values. Pre-natal screenings can detect congenital defects, yet in some US states it is illegal to abort a Down syndrome pregnancy. Zorodin makes the obvious point that choosing to abort a healthy pregnancy is far different than terminating an abnormal one. Furthermore, there are over 50,000 rape pregnancies annually in the US. Only half of these pregnancies are aborted. “Evolutionarily rewarding the act of rape is damaging for society both in the short term and the long term.” Yet there are states where abortion in the case of rape is not allowed. The dissident Right is, in large measure, defined by its opposition to conventional conservatism. Eugenic abortion is one of the wedge issues that divides the conservative and dissident Right. Zorodin will have some more choice words for conservatives later in the book.

The author next turns his attention to the issue of miscegenation. He provides some disturbing statistics: “92% of biracial children with a Black father are born out of wedlock and 82% end up on government assistance.” In addition, it has been reported that mixed-race children are more likely to experience anxiety and depression, abuse drugs and be truant compared to monoracial children. The “instability in biracial households and conflict in identity formation” might explain these outcomes.

Zorodin then moves from traditional eugenic measures to genetic engineering, and at times the discussion takes on a sci-fi feeling. Yet there is logic to it. Setting aside the cautionary tale of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, the author makes the case that we can produce a freer, healthier more egalitarian society. One of the more interesting topics in this section are the five or so pages devoted to human beauty. This segment runs parallel to the “Esthetic Prop” theory in the aforementioned Dispossessed Majority. The author believes there is “an innate preference” for light coloration, height, and symmetry. Despite claims by Left activists that short, dark, and dumpy is just as attractive as tall, fair, and svelte “[t]he notion of esthetic egalitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with human psychology.”

The advantages of ethnic homogeneity, such as those expressed by John Jay in Federalist Papers 2, have been known for centuries. Zorodin reports on some lesser-known benefits of such societies. For example, “a multiracial society could be responsible for increasing the rate of gender dysphoria and sexual divergence.” Also, military personnel who served in homogeneous units are “more functional and cohesive,” and these veterans are less likely to suffer PTSD than those from heterogeneous units.

Decades ago, the famous research psychologist Raymond Cattell proposed a social experiment where small nations—mini ethno-states—would compete socially and economically by nonviolent means.[2]  Zorodin suggests something similar: “Various statelets and autonomous regions around the world harbor the potential for eugenic-minded communities to be formalized and legitimized; [thereby] offering . . .  life under a system of consensual social Darwinism.”

The author’s criticism of the contemporary Right extends to economics. He takes exception to the produce-and-consume economic model that features  ”gross expansion” over improved productivity via efficiency. The West’s “growth fetishism has discarded all caution of long-term cultural compatibility in pursuit of short-term economic stimulus” brought about through immigrant labor and consumption. The GDP will increase as the quality of life decreases.

Colorblind—perhaps completely blind—conservatives come under more criticism “King’s Manifesto from 1963 [‘I Have a Dream’] would in contemporary politics equate to a platform in the Republican Party.” Establishment conservatives’ maxim: “If you can’t beat them, join them in their tradition of chasing second place on the right side of history.”

Zorodin’s literary style makes the book both a pleasure and a challenge to read. Regarding Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s border to mass migration: “It is hardly a top-down revolution, since the supporting convoy of Zeitgeist peers has no shortage of ethnomasochistic gluttons breaking the backs of their high-horses.” Find out which two countries are most “oikophobic.”

In fact, Zorodin devotes a section to language. He defends, as I do, the use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ because it is “consistent with the radical pedigree and an analogous group-conflict theoretical model” of orthodox Marxism. “The plasticity of language in the information age has never before been so amenable to socially-engineered neologisms with political agendas.” So illegal aliens become undocumented migrants, and the sexually confused are gender nonconforming. In addition, these “euphemisms appear to have an expiry date.” There is a “euphemism treadmill,” so the feeble-minded become the mentally retarded become the developmentally impaired.

The author uses the example of the near-seamless large-scale assimilation of Germans into American society to segue to the Jewish Question. That question is: What has been and should be the role of Jews in Western civilization? The last 35 pages or so of the book is a survey course on Jews. First, in contrast to German-Americans, Jewish-Americans have not, by in large, identified with traditional American culture. Their wealth and organizational acumen have led to an “undue influence on the institutions of public life, at the expense of heritage America.” The well-known Jewish financial crimes, the kosher certification racket, and the Sackler family pill mill Purdue Pharma are covered. All this is mediated by the “guilt prescription” of the Holocaust. The book has a quote from former Israeli foreign minister Abba Ebon: “There’s no business like Shoah business.”

Probably the most interesting aspect of this topic is Judeo-Christian Zionism. Zorodin has hammered the establishment Right for its social and economic policies, now it is time to consider its perverse foreign policy. Possibly the most perverted feature of cuckservativism is its slavish devotion to Israel. The author describes it as “surrogate nationalism.” In a warped way it serves as a “politically correct outlet” for the ethnonationalism establishment conservatives deny their own people. Border security for the US is a good political talking point, but border security for Israel is a cause for urgent action. Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson intones: “It’s a Biblical admonition to stand with Israel.” Whether the current conflict in the Levant will change present political calculations remains to be seen.

The book ends rather abruptly. There is no summary or concluding chapter to bring together all the many issues and ideas presented. The reader does not get to see what compound the combined elements might produce. So here is my takeaway from the Post Darwinian Zoo:

The title implies we are now living in zoo world—society as a menagerie—filled with strange and diverse creatures. It is widely believed that the modern era is coming to an end. The question becomes: Is the present cultural disintegration a beginning or the end? Is what we see today just a foretaste of a chaotic post-modern age?  Or, will post-modernity usher in a Western instauration, a new renaissance? At one point, Zorodin appears pessimistic. For we are “in the twilight of late modernity and at the terminal stage of human cultural evolution.” But he holds out hope if we are able to think outside the box. Conservatism is safe and respectable, but it is an ineffective and at times counterproductive strategy for opposing the forces that seek to destroy Western culture and peoples.

The book deals with many interesting topics not mentioned in this short review. There is some high protein food for thought here, and even the best informed and knowledgeable reader should find some new insights on human biology, culture, and the social sciences. I give this book a very solid recommendation. That said, a stronger thematic organization would make the information more assimilable.


[1] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (1972).

[2] Raymond Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (1973); Raymond Cattell Beyondism: A Religion from Science (1987).

Soros’s Top Money-Man Stood With Antifa at Charlottesville; Blocked Access to Lee Park

In 2017, Jewish lesbian lawyer Roberta Kaplan launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the leading participants and organizations of Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. She thought she would find something big. But after 4 years of lawyering and thousands and thousands of pages of discovery, she found nothing. Because there was nothing.

She wanted a smoking gun. Instead, all she got were stacks of spergy route-plans and a recording of Richard Spencer randomly screaming.

She must have been mad.

UTR was something that the Jews could never pull off: an organic mass-demonstration of people willing to risk their lives and reputations. Its organization was grass-roots. It did not require $100Ks of Manhattan cash to pull it off. It took a few dozen guys with pick-up trucks and some barely functional walkie-talkies.

If Kaplan wanted to find a conspiracy, she should have looked at Antifa, the University of Virginia Law School and the prosecutor’s office.

For that link, we have abundant evidence.

The key person is former congressman Tom Perriello. Perriello has had a long and varied career serving the Jewish system. He has been the soulless State-Department mouthpiece calling for more wars in Africa and the Middle East. He has been the corporate goon shoveling cash-stacks into your local prosecutor’s race.

And he has been the Antifa street-fighter standing in a mob blocking people from entering a permitted, court-sanctioned rally in a public park.

He’s a war-mongerer, a Soros money-man and an Antifa thug all in one.

Some background: after a career at State and a stint in congress, he ran for Governor of Virginia in 2017.

While campaigning, Perriello latched onto the Charlottesville issue. The city had been debating removing the statues of Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson. When the Alt-Right held a demonstration to defend the statues in May of that year, he saw an opening. He lashed out on Twitter with laughably irrelevant slogans like “Get your white supremacist hate out of my town” and “You lost, in 1865.”

The May Alt-Right demonstration was a surprise. It was supposed to be. The planners did not want to be attacked by Antifa.

In the meantime, Perriello had lost the primary and was looking for new political opportunities. It would not be enough to pick cat-fights with Nazis on Twitter. If he wanted to salvage his political career, he would need to go all-in. “Unite the Right” was his chance.

On the morning of the demonstration, Perriello was in the street with Antifa groups like “Standing Up for Racial Justice” and “Congregate Cville.” They took up positions at the entrance to Lee Park. Their plan was to block their political enemies from conducting their long-announced political meeting on public property, for which they had a permit backed up by a federal injunction.

When that plan failed and the demonstrators got into the park anyway, Perriello and his fellow Antifa conspirators launched their campaign of illegal doxing and manipulation of the courts.

These are typical Antifa tactics. Find out where someone you don’t like is going to meet and talk. Block their routes. Attack them on site. Play the victim if they fight back. Or sue. Or whine to your prosecutor for criminal charges. Or all of the above.

Perriello has also served as a high-level apparatchik in the American oligarchy’s NGO-word-salad complex. Before Charlottesville, he was CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a $40-million-a-year paper-generating money-sucking scheme charity founded by John Podesta and chaired by Tom Daschle.

This, along with his new Antifa street-cred, made him the perfect pick to run George Soros’ Open Society Foundation as Executive Director of American Programs. In this role, Perriello did the day-to-day work of deciding how Soros’ money got spent.

Now here’s where things get interesting.

In the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally, the wannabe feds and faux-intellectuals of the University of Virginia were feeling angry and humiliated. The Alt-Right tiki-torch vigil on their sacred “Grounds” had violated their serene self-assurance and their metaphysical certainties that truth and history were on their side. For the first time in their lives, they were confronted with a clear proof of the common People’s thoroughly justified frustrations.

UVA was ass-mad.

So UVA Law launched a years-long conspiracy to stack the prosecutor’s office with their agents in order to bring fake criminal charges against anyone who carried a tiki-torch on “Grounds”. The lynchpin of the whole scheme was electing soulless Jew-puppet good-ol’-bwoi Jim Hingeley to the office of Commonwealth’s attorney (Virginia’s annoying technical term for “prosecutor”).

Hingeley’s 2019 campaign received $8,000 from Justice and Public Safety PAC, which is controlled by George Soros. Given that Perriello was Soros’ slush-fund manager, it’s safe to say he had a role in picking Hingeley for “Commonwealth’s Attorney”.

Perriello has two other interesting connections.

1) His brother “Bo” and sister-in-law Maureen were attending the Antifa-planning session (disguised as a religious service) at St. Paul’s Memorial Church across the street from the Jefferson statue where the alt-right tiki-procession was planned to end. “Bo” and Maureen later said that that experience convinced them to join the Antifa attempt to thwart the alt-right rally the next day.

2) Perriello is friends with Charlottesville’s billionaire power-couple Sonjia Smith and Michael Bills. Their son even interned for Perriello.

Smith and Bills are the main funders of prosecutor Hingeley, having provided $114,000 to his 2019 campaign.

Moreover, Bills’ and Smith’s daughter, Kendall Bills, is an Antifa militant. She was arrested on July 8, 2017 for trying to block the entrance to another Charlottesville public park. Charges were of course dropped.

She also attended the August 12, 2017 blocking-action-cum-riot, where Antifa threw bottles of urine and potentially blinding bleach-bombs at the rally-goers.

So … would it be a stretch to hypothesize that Smith and Bills funded Hingeley’s campaign for the express purpose of getting revenge, and that Tom Perriello was their point-man?

Remember this fact when the media accuses us of being the “privileged” side. We had no billionaires in our ranks.

The masked goon threatening you in the street and the suited douche-bag throwing you in prison on fake charges are the same person. Antifa and systemic Jewish power are the same thing.

When you’re in charge, you bear the responsibility.

James Edwards Interviews Anke Van dermeersch

What follows is a Q and A conducted by James Edwards with Anke Van dermeersch, a former Miss Belgium, Miss Universe finalist, and current Senator of Belgium.
James Edwards: You first made a name for yourself as a model who was crowned Miss Belgium and who went on to become a top finalist in the Miss Universe pageant. What do you remember about those days?

Anke Van dermeersch: It was fantastic to be Miss Belgium as an 18-year-old girl and to travel around the world to the various international Miss competitions. I enjoyed it immensely and learned a lot. The university of life is incredibly interesting. You learn a lot that you don’t get told at the real universities.

I would participate in the Miss Belgium pageant again, but would never become Miss Belgium again. Because to become Miss Belgium nowadays you have to bring a politically correct opinion, have a color, or be transgender. Everything else doesn’t matter anymore.

I sometimes say: if a Miss Belgium becomes a Flemish nationalist, then there must be something seriously wrong with Belgium!

Edwards: Not many people make the career transition from modeling to politics, but you were able to do both on the very biggest of stages. How did that happen?

Van dermeersch: After my career as a Miss, I graduated as a lawyer. I wanted to become a lawyer to help people and did so for 10 years, but soon felt that I didn’t get any satisfaction from it. That’s why I became a member of the Vlaams Blok and later the Vlaams Belang. Through politics, I can help many more people at the same time by making adjustments to the legislation in our country. In the first few years, I was mainly militant in Antwerp, where I was born and raised. As a former Miss Belgium, I was the first well-known Fleming and lawyer to go against the cordon mediatique and sanitaire around the Vlaams Blok. In 2003 I took part in the elections for the Belgian Senate for the first time and I immediately received a huge number of preferential votes. A Miss Belgium in politics, that was unprecedented! I have also been re-elected ever since.

Edwards: What issues did you run on when you were first elected as a Senator of Belgium?

Van dermeersch: Among other things, I am ‘the mother’ of the European burqa ban. I wrote the first legislation for a burqa ban in 2003 and it has ever since been the basis of burqa bans throughout Europe.

As a citizen of Antwerp, I also closely follow all dossiers that concern the province of Antwerp and its city in terms of mobility, public works, education, housing, work and the economy.

As a senator since 2003, I have taken many initiatives to bring about the orderly division of the Belgian Union and to put Flanders on the road to independence. I know better than anyone the specific powers of the Senate, which are mainly focused on the Constitution and legislation on the organization and functioning of the federal state.

As a former tax lawyer, and lawyer-tax specialist, I naturally feel like a fish in water when it comes to financial and tax laws/policies. That is why I am also an elected member of the Flemish Parliament, putting the Flemish government to the test with regard to the Flemish public finances.

Edwards: You have held high office in your country since 2003. How do you continue to make your message attractive to voters?

Van dermeersch: As a former Miss, I have a lot of credit with the Belgian public. When I proclaim hard positions, they come across as less harsh and people start to think about my points of view instead of immediately classifying it as extreme. After all, our positions are not extreme, but radical. This is based on the Latin word ‘radix’, which means root. We want to get to the root of the problems.

Of course, my way of speaking is not what the media wants. They want to portray my party as dangerous and extreme, but a look at me and people realize that I am not the image that fits. That’s why I’m almost not allowed to be featured in the traditional media, because that’s not the image they want.

I want people to think for themselves and not let opinions be imposed on them by the mainstream media. That works out pretty well because I have been a Senator, Flemish Member of Parliament, and Antwerp City Councilmember for more than 20 consecutive years now. I defend my constituents at all political levels wholeheartedly.

Edwards: Your colleague in the Belgian Parliament, Dries Van Langenhove, was recently sentenced to prison in one of the most contemptible and unjust court decisions I have ever seen. What was your reaction to this?

Van dermeersch: Dries Van Langenhove received the heaviest possible punishment. He was convicted by the court of, among other things, racism and negationism. For this, he received an effective prison sentence of 1 year and a fine of 16,000 euros. He was also stripped of his civil rights for 10 years, preventing him from exercising political office.

In a healthy democracy, ideas are fought with ideas. The writing is therefore on the wall that the public prosecutor’s office took legal action and severely punished an opinion offense. For a democratic state governed by the rule of law, punishing those who mobilize politically around political ideas is a death blow.

Moreover, it was also about estimating memes as an opinion rather than humor. Inevitably, persecution of humor turns into a process of intention. This is a shame, because as the saying goes, “What can no longer be said with laughter is not the truth.”

Edwards: It seems almost paradoxical that such a verdict would be rendered in Belgium, where your party, Vlaams Belang, one of the most powerful nationalist parties in the world, has become the country’s most popular. How do you reconcile this?

Van dermeersch: The elite wants to fight the Vlaams Belang by all means and it is not the first time that they have done this through the courts. In 2004, the Vlaams Blok, the party before the current Vlaams Belang, was condemned for racism, but a few months later the voters responded to the elite with a maximum of votes.

Because of the conviction, we were pushed even more into the role of victim and the ideas of the people and the plans of our party remained what they were. Also, this time, the day after the upcoming elections on Sunday, June 9, 2024, the other parties will wake up with a hangover like in 2004. History repeats itself and the Vlaams Belang is getting stronger and stronger.

There is no way out for the elite, the people will take back power, and the people are us.

Edwards: Thankfully, there has been a very vocal outcry to what has happened. Elon Musk recently raised awareness about Van Langenhove’s situation on X and has personally engaged with him. Has such solidarity been encouraging for you to see?

Van dermeersch: I’m not a big fan of Elon Musk.

He has indeed raised awareness about Van Langenhove’s situation and I think that’s a good thing, of course, but also on X there is no free speech possible to this day.

For example, I have been shadow-banned for years now. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter and its transformation to X didn’t help that either.

Not everything Elon Musk does should be accepted and followed, especially when it comes to new technologies and AI in particular.

Edwards: Speaking of Vlaams Belang, how has it been able to enjoy such sustained success while many other nationalist parties in Europe burn quickly and fizzle out?

Van dermeersch: The Vlaams Belang is a party with a very long history dating back to the First World War.

The Vlaams Belang was founded in 2004 as the successor to the Vlaams Blok, which first emerged in elections in 1978, but the undercurrent of Flemish nationalism on which the parties are built arose during the First World War, when Flemish soldiers received orders in French while they only understood Dutch. The contempt of the French-speaking elite towards the Flemish population is the basis of the struggle for change that we are waging to this day.

There have also been other parties that have emerged on this basis, such as the Volksunie and the current N-VA, but in the end they have always put themselves at the service of the elite out of opportunism. We don’t!

Edwards: The Islamization of Europe is something that you have been very outspoken about. Do you believe that the Great Replacement can be reversed?

Van dermeersch: The vast majority of the European population is in favor of restricting and even completely stopping any form of non-European immigration to Europe.

The assumption that we need migrant workers to keep our economy afloat; the idea that we need young foreigners to sustain our population and combat the ageing of the population, and the idea that we have to solve crisis after crisis – anywhere in the world – by bringing in a new wave of economic and war refugees is as destructive as it is dangerous.

The population is already aware of this. So yes, with the support of the people, it is possible to turn the tide.

Edwards: Do you believe that an independent Flemish Republic could ever be established?

Van dermeersch: Yes, there is a tendency to create a Europe of peoples to replace the current undemocratic EU in Europe. The Vlaams Belang is a Flemish nationalist party and we are therefore striving to split up Belgium and establish a Flemish (and Walloon) state.

For an independent Flanders, the Vlaams Belang sees a special relationship with the Netherlands. This is based on a Dutch cultural community in Europe.

For our party, Flemish independence is the most important point on the program. For the Vlaams Belang it is a matter of principle, based on the right of self-determination of peoples. The most fundamental argument in favor of Flemish independence is the annual financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia and the disagreement between Flemish and Walloon politicians that make a coherent federal policy impossible. An independent Flemish state would be able to use the tax money of the Flemish people to pursue a much more efficient policy to solve the problems of the population in terms of healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.

Edwards: What other issues and projects are you currently working on?

Van dermeersch: At the moment I’m in campaign mode, because there are national and local elections this year. On both, 9 June and 13 October, I will be re-elected to all my mandates. After that, I will help to put together a new government to meet all the needs of our constituents in the best possible way. That’s a huge amount of work and many grueling working days, but I do it with love and passion.

This article was originally published by American Free Press.

The Rule of Lawyers: The Labour Party is Eager to Resume Its War on the White Working-Class

“A lawyer is the larval stage of a politician.” It’s a good line, but whose is it? I’ve seen it attributed to Ambrose Bierce, but I can’t confirm that. Whoever came up with it, he wouldn’t have won the approval of the late, great Jewish writer Larry Auster. We shouldn’t liken human beings to animals and other lower life-forms. That’s what Auster thought.

Charles Dickens foretells Joe Biden

I can see his point, but do lawyers and politicians count as human beings? Well, yes, of course they do. But they don’t count as normal human beings. Psychopathy and narcissism are more common among lawyers, for example. This is what that acute and astute observer Charles Dickens says of the lawyer Mr Kenge in his novel Bleak House (1853): “He appeared to enjoy beyond everything the sound of his own voice.” What Dickens observed in the nineteenth century is still true well over a hundred years later. Here’s an anecdote by the Jewish journalist John Podhoretz about the lawyer-politician Joe Biden, currently the senile pseudo-president of the United States:

A quarter-century ago [i.e., circa 1985], Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, then in his third term, came in for a lunch with a few editors and reporters at the newspaper where I worked. Its editor welcomed Biden and asked him a question about whatever story was at the top of the news agenda that day.

Biden started talking. And talking. And talking. He spoke and he gesticulated. He wandered off into secondary subjects, and secondary subjects of the secondary subjects. He conjured up a memory of his childhood, and then told a tale from his first campaign.

After 20 minutes without so much as a breath, it was clear to me and others around the table that there was something wrong — that our guest simply did not know how to conclude his peroration.

We shifted in our chairs. Someone coughed. Someone else sighed. The door loomed behind us, tormenting us with the blessings of an escape we simply could not make.

It was not until 45 minutes after he had begun that Joseph I. Biden simply ran out of gas. He came to no conclusion, no closing thought. He just stopped talking, looked down, and at last took a bite of food and drank some water.

I had never been through anything like it. Biden had displayed a literally clinical display of logorrhea, a term Google defines for me as “pathologically incoherent, repetitive speech.” (“The incredible lightness of Biden,” New York Post, 19th August 2012)

Like Dickens’ Mr Kenge, Biden “enjoys beyond everything the sound of his own voice.” Biden also follows Kenge in casting a blight over those he’s supposed to serve and protect. Bleak House is aptly named and Dickens rightly identifies lawyers as highly corruptible and hugely malignant.

As lawyers, so politicians: what allows someone to succeed in law translates perfectly to success in politics. Or in Western politics, at least. Ron Unz has contrasted the engineer-politicians of China with the lawyer-politicians of the West. The contrast is entirely in favor of China. Engineering and law inculcate quite different habits of mind in those who practise them. Engineers succeed or fail by manipulating matter; lawyers succeed or fail by manipulating words. Engineers rely on mathematics; lawyers rely on Machiavellianism. To see the contrast at its starkest, just compare the highly intelligent and capable Chinese engineer-president Xi Jinping (born 1953) with the devious and disaster-sowing Western lawyer-politicians Barack Obama and Tony Blair.

Gentile law-pol Tony Blair performs the goy-grovel overseen by Jewish law-pol Greville Janner, an alleged child-rapist (image © PA Wire/Press Association Images)

But there’s another factor at work. Chinese politicians aren’t selected for their hostility to the native Chinese majority and to Chinese civilization. That’s because Chinese politics isn’t funded and controlled by an alien group of inveterate Sinophobes. That is, there is no equivalent of the Jews in China and no equivalent of AIPAC or Conservative Friends of Israel working behind the scenes. In the corrupt Western sense, China isn’t a democracy; in another sense, it is much more of a democracy than any of its critics in the West. That’s because the leaders of China are drawn from the demos of China, the native Han Chinese, and work in the best interests of the Han Chinese. They’re not only engineers: they’re autoethnophiles. They love their own people and would never open the borders of China to mass migration by non-Chinese.

Labour hates White workers

The West is entirely different. Jewish money and Jewish priorities control politics everywhere from Britain and France to America and Australia. The lawyer-politicians of the West are selected for their hostility to the rapidly dwindling White majority and to Christian civilization. And despite all their high-flown lawyers’ rhetoric about “democracy” and the “will of the people,” those law-pols refuse to allow the people any say whatsoever about mass migration. The great White engineer and manufacturer Henry Ford joked that his cars could be of “Any color the customer wants, as long as it’s black.” Western politicians think that White voters can have any kind of immigration policy they like, so long as it involves open borders for the corrupt, criminally inclined and exotic-disease-bearing tax-eaters of the Third World.

Traitorous Labour lawyer-politician Sir Keir Starmer and his Jewish wife (image from The Daily Telegraph)

That’s because Western politicians follow a Jewish agenda. And all of that — the evils of rule by lawyers and of Jewish control — brings me neatly to the man who seems highly likely to be Britain’s next prime minister. Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour party, is a slippery lawyer with a Jewish wife. As you can tell from its name, Labour was founded in the nineteenth century to champion the working-class. In those days, it went without saying that the working-class was White. But Labour long ago betrayed its founding principles and became the dedicated enemy of the White working-class. The traitorous Roy Hattersley, former deputy leader of the Labour party, has openly boasted of how he betrayed his White working-class constituents:

How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants? [His answer: “Not in a million years.”] (Politics should be guided by principles, not populism, The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (Ideology’s our life, Esther, The Guardian, 31st July 2013)

Like Keir Starmer, Hattersley has a Jewish wife, the literary agent Maggie Pearlstine. She is responsible for Hattersley’s great wealth just as other Jews are responsible for Hattersley’s anti-White, pro-migrant ideology. Keir Starmer will enjoy the same great wealth thanks to his embrace of the same ideology. After the abominable aberrations of Jeremy Corbyn, who wasn’t interested in money and refused to allow himself to be controlled by Jews, Starmer has returned Labour to the paths of righteousness. Jewish money once again dictates Labour’s policies and Labour’s priorities. Corbyn was no friend of the White working-class, of course, but he wasn’t a friend of Israel either. He would have opposed rather than supported the vicious Israeli war on Gaza. The so-called Labour leader Starmer supports that war as slavishly as the so-called Conservative leader Rishi Sunak does.

The Third-Worlding of Britain

The geeky Indian Sunak and his party look set to be heavily punished at the next election for their own betrayal of their founding principles. Just as Labour hate the White working-class, the Conservatives hate tradition and don’t conserve anything. Tory prime minister David Cameron, who is partly Jewish and was wholly controlled by Jews, has boasted that his one of his proudest achievement whilst in office was the introduction of “same-sex marriage.” Cameron wasn’t able to achieve something else, however. He promised to reduce migration and instead oversaw a massive increase. Each of his successors has done the same: promised to reduce immigration and instead overseen a massive increase. The Tories have betrayed White voters, so some of those voters will switch to Labour at the next election. It will be a very stupid thing to do, because Labour will perform the remarkable feat of being even more treacherous on migration than the Tories. Under Starmer, the Third-Worlding of Britain will accelerate even more.

Geeky trans-Western Rishi Sunak performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel

That won’t just apply to a further increase in the already disastrously high rates of immigration. Labour will pass more laws to privilege non-Whites and to punish any White resistance to the invasion of their homeland. In other words, Labour will resume the war on the White working-class that was interrupted when Gordon Brown, the last Labour prime minister, was defeated by the not-at-all Conservatives in 2010. Sir Keir Starmer, the slippery lawyer with a Jewish wife, will be a perfect figurehead for Labour’s continued and enthusiastic betrayal of its founding principles. Like Blair and Obama before him, Starmer embodies the evils of rule by lawyers and of Jewish control. And always remember that the rule of lawyers is not at all the same thing as the rule of law. In some ways it’s the complete opposite. In America, the legalized crucifixion of VDare and the legalized persecution of Donald Trump are proof of that. Proud Black female lawyers are wielding arbitrary and unaccountable legal power without any regard for genuine law. If a lawyer is the larval stage of a politician, then the rule of lawyers is plainly the prelude to leftist tyranny.

The Sentencia-Estatuto of 1449

The Sentencia-Estatuto of 1449: Translated from Spanish to English and with an Introduction by Wilhem Ivorsson

Translator’s Notes:

The reader should keep in mind that this text is 575 years old. Many of the political titles and legal concepts referenced do not have modern equivalents, and the document was written in period-specific legal language, style and custom. The text is not very accessible even for a modern Spanish-speaking audience let alone an English-speaking one. Such being the case, I took a few liberties to increase the readability. This involved slightly rewording certain conjunctive phrasings and adding periods to delineate some tracts that otherwise would not sensibly translate to English; adding qualifying particles between brackets; and periodically omitting a redundant word. I also maintained English grammar rules regarding cases; I always capitalize “Catholic” and “Lord King” whereas the original does not. Aside from these changes, I have strived to retain the original semantic value, tone and structure. For the source text, I primarily used the reproduced copy found in Eloy Benito Ruano’s Toledo En El Siglo XV published by the University of Madrid in 1961. I also consulted the reproduced copy in Antonio Martín Gamero’s Historia de la Ciudad de Toledo published in 1862. Below is a longform translation, but I have also provided a simplified translation that omits less important elements and takes more liberties to achieve greater accessibility. You can read it here. You can also view the original Spanish text here.

Preface 

The Sentencia-Estatuto has been highlighted as one of the foundational documents of Spain’s Limpieza de Sangre policies. It was written in June of 1449 during Toledo’s rebellion against the crown. In January the Castilian constable Alvaro de Luna demanded the city provide a loan of one million maravedis to Juan II’s court. The loan was advertised as a means to confront the kingdom’s mounting military threats from Aragon to the Northeast and the Moors to the South. To procure the money for the loan, the city treasurer, Alonso Cota, a converso of Jewish heritage,1 imposed a tax on the commoners at the rate of dos doblas. Many believed that Alvaro de Luna and Alonso Cota “had devised the loan for their own personal gain; Cota was to reap his profit as tax farmer, and Alvaro was to get his bribe from Cota.”2 When Alonso’s men forcefully took the dos doblas from a lowly leather worker,3 the city erupted in protest. Enraged citizens ransacked Alonso Cota’s multiple homes. Afterwards they attacked and pillaged the Magdalena quarter4 where all the wealthy conversos and Jews were known to reside.

A nobleman, Pedro Sarmiento, took charge of the agitated masses and assumed effective control over Toledo. A few conversos took up arms against the rebels and were killed. Others were banished from the city and their homes and property confiscated. Over the next several months Juan II’s and De Luna’s forces undertook a siege campaign against the city. As the Sentencia-Estatuto stated, the royal court waged “a cruel war of blood and fire, of crop destruction and pillaging” against the citizens of Toledo. Periodically, Sarmiento engaged in negotiations with the king for the safe return of the city. One of the stipulations was that Alvaro de Luna be removed from Juan II’s court. As Spanish historian Eloy Benito Ruano explains, it was believed that De Luna had sold a number of public offices to the conversos and that he had “taken over the will of the King” and protected many “heretics and Judaizers.”5 Regarding converso overrepresentation in Juan II’s court, the late Jewish scholar Benzion Netanyahu (Benjamin Netanyahu’s father) said that:

…there can be no doubt that the influence of the conversos in the royal secretaryship was one of the factors determining the appointments of the cities’ chief authorities…the crowning achievement of the conversos in government was attained through their membership in Castile’s royal Council…Toward the end of [Juan II’s reign] they probably comprised no less than a third of its members, reaching at that time the zenith of their influence in determining the actions and policies of the state.6

The Sentencia-Estatuto explicitly stated, referring to the public notaries, that it was “well known to all, that the majority of said notary positions, said conversos tyrannically held and possessed, as much by the purchase with money as by favors and other clever and deceptive means.” The document emphasized that conversos should “especially” be barred from these offices and their “exemptions” which probably involved immunities from certain taxes and related financial obligations.

The Sentencia-Estatuto also rendered conversos ineligible to act as witnesses in court against old Christians. Many modern commentators view this as a historical novelty, but long before the Sentencia-Estatuto, Christians were not allowed to testify against Jews in Rabbinic courts,7 and Talmudic Mesirah laws often forbade Jews from denouncing fellow Jews to non-Jewish authorities. In addition, the Talmud sometimes forbids Jews from testifying against other Jews in secular courts.8 Even today, there is evidence that Jews still culturally adhere to these laws. For example in 2006, Israeli-American real estate investor Solomon Dwek was convicted of felony fraud after trying to steal $50 million from PNC Bank in a check-kiting scheme. Subsequently, he became an FBI informant and his father, Rabbi Dwek, famously denounced him from the pulpit at his synagogue, citing the Talmudic law of moser.9 His father even reportedly said that he would be sitting shiva, a week-long morning ritual, because he considered his son dead.10

While the Sentencia-Estatuto is not explicit on the matter, its statements easily lend themselves to a supposition that conversos would testify in secular courts against old Christians on behalf of fellow conversos in an ethnocentric fashion. With this in mind, the Sentencia-Estatuto outright accused the conversos of systematically taking over Toledo’s government, running it into the ground, and purposefully dispossessing many old Christian nobles:

…through cunning and deceit, [the conversos have] taken and carried off and stolen large and innumerable amounts of maravedis and silver from our king the lord and from his rents, rights, and taxes, and they have destroyed and ruined many noblewomen, knights and hidalgos. Consequently they have oppressed, destroyed, robbed and ravaged all the most ancient houses and estates of the old Christians of this city and its land and jurisdiction and all the realms of Castile, as is well known and as such we regard it. Furthermore, during the time that they have held public office in this city, and its management and administration, the greater part of said city’s centers have been depopulated and destroyed; said city’s own land and centers [have been] lost and alienated. Beyond all this, all the maravedis of said city’s income and property have been consumed in their own interests and properties, in such a manner that all of the country’s wealth and reputation have been consumed and destroyed.

All this said, the Sentencia-Estatuto is sometimes viewed as a post-hoc justification for the Toledans to rob and pillage the city’s wealthy conversos. Benzion Netanyahu claimed that Sarmiento lacked the support of the upper class nobles, and so he seized on the commoners’ animosity toward conversos in order to undermine Alvaro de Luna. He argues that Sarmiento was “a second-rate nobleman, with mediocre estates and moderate income”11 who felt entitled to greater monetary compensation for his past services to the king. In Netanyahu’s view, the rebellion was not an organic event, and Sarmiento premeditated and orchestrated the entire affair because of “hurt feelings” and a fear of “an impending disaster,”12 after he became convinced that De Luna had begun to see him as a political enemy.

I don’t think Netanyahu’s accounting of Sarmiento’s motives holds up under scrutiny. The converso overrepresentation in Juan II’s court and Alvaro de Luna’s support base by his own admission was a very real thing. The nobles were likely just as aware of it as the commoners, if not more so. In the years leading up to the rebellion, Alvaro de Luna and Juan II had been alienating their rivals, perceived or otherwise, by imprisoning them and seizing their assets. It was not the case that aside from Sarmiento and the commoners, all was well and good in Castile.13 It seems rather unlikely that Castilian nobility hadn’t begun to notice any patterns in terms of who was and wasn’t among De Luna’s and Juan II’s support base. Moreover, similar displays of ethnic strife between conversos and old Christians occurred in Ciudad Real a mere 15 days following the outbreak of the Toledan rebellion. “The [converso] tax collector Juan González (later burned by the Inquisition) and three hundred other men of said ancestry armed themselves and took to the streets, threatening to burn down the city before anyone decided to attack them.” This too was all apparently in a “dispute over the possession of the public notaries which it was said were bought by Judaizers and New Christians.”14 Even if Sarmiento orchestrated the rebellion in Toledo, as Netanyahu argues, he didn’t invent the larger ethnic conflict that was brewing in the region, nor did he invent converso overrepresentation in the notaries, which seems to have been ubiquitous throughout the region.

Many modern academics and commentators might argue here that such overrepresentation in the notaries could be attributed to an intelligence advantage rather than an ethnocentric in-group strategy. The evidence at hand, however, doesn’t support such a conclusion. Richard Lynn’s notable book, The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement, states that the bulk of Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 moved to the Balkans, (p. 335) where the Sephardic IQ is currently 98. (p.298) In Lynn’s The Intelligence of Nations, the Spanish national IQ was rated at roughly 94. (p. 145) While statistically significant, a four point difference isn’t very compelling to support the former hypothesis. Moreover, another paper by Lynn, North-South Differences in Spain in IQ,15 reports that the average IQ in Northern Spain is 101 while the average in the South is 96. The average IQ for Catalonia and Valencia in Lynn’s paper was 102.

There is another paper, Numeracy of Religious Minorities in Spain and Portugal in the Inquisition Era, (Juif et al 2019)16 that attempts to compare the numeracy rates of “Jewish-accused” conversos with those of the broader Catholic masses during the Inquisition. The goal was to find evidence of “Jew’s human capital relative to the non-Jewish majority’s.” The study never discusses IQ directly, but it seeks to correlate rates of numeracy with education level which in turn can be correlated with IQ. The study’s finding was that Jewish-accused individuals had higher numeracy rates compared to the broader population, but the study also states that “Catholic priests and other groups of the religious elite who were occasional targets of the Inquisition had a similarly high level of numeracy.” This would suggest that, regardless of ethnicity, there was a high rate of numeracy within the higher socioeconomic rungs of Spanish society. The Inquisition does not appear to have targeted individuals of lower socioeconomic status.

If we consider that, by virtually all accounts, the sephardic Jews were not peasants, but rather a monied class of relative high socio-economic status,17 it may well be that the average converso indeed had a higher IQ than the average old Christian peasant. Even so, there is no evidence that the conversos were significantly more intelligent than the old Christian nobility such that one would expect the conversos to dominate the notaries. People have produced various estimations for the population of each major ethnic bloc in medieval Spain. None of them are particularly convincing, but with that caveat in mind, the total population in 1492 is generally said to have been around three million. The Jews, it is said, were around 300,000. Supposedly, there were half a million Muslims. If those figures are accurate, it would be informative to ascertain how many of the 2.2 million old Christians were of the noble classes. It may be that the old Christian noble classes numerically comprised a similarly small figure relative to the larger population of commoners. In effect, there may have been two relatively small but high socioeconomic rungs of Spanish society roughly of equal intelligence and size in the ‘resource competition theory’ that Kevin MacDonald has forwarded in his book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone. In such a setting, the conversos would be at an advantage only if they had adopted a group strategy against the old Christian nobles who in contrast had remained relatively individualistic until the implementation of Limpieza de Sangre policies.

It also appears to be the case that in none of the contemporary documents that sought to condemn Sarmiento’s rebellion does anyone counter the basic idea that conversos were indeed overrepresented in the manner Sarmiento and others described. Critics simply accused the rebels of having acted without proper cause and justification.

As far as Sarmiento’s motives go, they appear to have gone well beyond personal interests and ambitions. It is far more likely that he was sincerely motivated by a moral and religious conviction—perhaps even an emergent ethnic awareness—to protect his fellow old Christians from what he saw as their abuse and exploitation on the part of a hostile outgroup. If Sarmiento was only interested in political expediency, it was not a wise move for him to take up a stance that burned all possible bridges with the converso power base in such an exceedingly dangerous setting. Once the Toledan rebellion began, Juan II officially revoked and seized Sarmiento’s titles and properties, and sought to bring him and all his supporters to justice. Even Pope Nicholas V condemned the rebellion. He excommunicated Sarmiento along with over 500 others for their actions, and declared the entire city in “entredicho” which essentially barred all its inhabitants from participating in various ecclesiastical affairs.18 He then published the document Humani generis inimicus, (Enemies of the human race) in which, as Benito-Ruano put it, “he affirmed the unity of the Christian flock, regardless of the ancestry of its members in the faith, as well as their equal rights to obtain ecclesiastical and civil jobs or benefices.”19

As remarkable as this opposition to anti-converso sentiments was, plenty of other local nobles supported Sarmiento and the rebels’ cause. Curiously, prince Enrique had not been on good terms with his father, and there is reason to think that he clandestinely supported the rebellion’s anti-converso aims. During the rebellion, the prince was welcomed into the city by the rebels, and he had agreed to all of their demands. None of the rebels would be tried for their crimes, none of the property stolen would be returned to the conversos, and none of the conversos banished from the city would be allowed to return. It does appear that after a series of political intrigues, Enrique may have had a falling out with Sarmiento, but the details that the Crónica de Juan II provides seem strange.

The chronicle tells us20 that in November of 1450, with the rebellion still ongoing, the prince learned and disapproved of certain excesses Sarmiento had been engaged in.21 He left his stronghold in Segovia and made his way to Toledo to remove Sarmiento, whom we are also told was plotting to hand over the city to the king.22 This doesn’t make much sense. The prince had been amenable to Sarmiento’s aims while the king had not. The chronicle also states that the prince didn’t take any action against Sarmiento when he first entered the city. In fact, it expressly states that the prince participated in a series of games for “eight to ten days” before finally getting around to summoning Sarmiento. He then asks Sarmiento to hand over his positions to Don Pedro Giron, the Maestre de Calatrava.23

Supposedly, a few days after this, the bishop of Cuenca spoke to Sarmiento on behalf of the prince. He told Sarmiento that the prince wanted him to leave the city.24 The bishop then gave a scathing critique and condemnation of Sarmiento’s behavior. The chronicle condemned Sarmiento for having rebelled against his king, but Enrique, the king’s own son, was no less guilty of this. The same chronicle discusses how the prince impeded several plots on the part of disillusioned rebels to hand the city back over to his father. Moreover, Enrique did not arrest Sarmiento. Instead he granted Sarmiento safe passage to his power center in Segovia. He even allowed Sarmiento to leave the city with all his possessions and wealth, including what the same chronicle accuses Sarmiento of having plundered from the conversos.

The chronicle has several characters pleading with the prince to stop Sarmiento from leaving Toledo with “mas de treinta cuentos.” This presumably means “more than 30 million maravedis.” While maravedis don’t indicate actual coins here, the amount of money here seems absurd and fantastical. Beyond it being 30 times the original loan that instigated the rebellion, the amount would likely have been so physically large and heavy that Sarmiento could not possibly have carried it out of the city. Even Benzion Netanyahu stated that “this does not seem possible.”25 Assuming Sarmiento had 15 million doblas weighing around four grams each, the treasure would probably have weighed over 130,000 lbs. Technically though, the chronicle tells us that Sarmiento left “without the gold and the silver he had stolen” and instead much of what he carried out of Toledo were tapestries, rugs, fancy underwear, bed spreads, silk fabrics, and fine gems. It doesn’t seem any more likely that Sarmiento carried off the equivalent value of 30 million maravedis in these items.

The text does assert that Sarmiento’s caravan had “close to two hundred” beasts of burden, but even if this is true, that wouldn’t have sufficed. Assuming that each animal weighed around 1000 lbs and could carry 20% of its own weight, the maximum carrying capacity of Sarmiento’s caravan would’ve been about 40,000 lbs. And there is still the consideration that once outside the city, such an amount of wealth would’ve required a small army to defend, which Sarmiento, a minor noble, clearly did not possess. Indeed, after Sarmiento’s caravan leaves Toledo, the chronicle has his servants steal his belongings and abandon him over the course of several days. He is robbed by bandits on the road and the very cities he approaches seeking refuge. Even the king at one point confiscates part of what Sarmiento supposedly stole, when the latter is forced to abandon it at a former residence, and yet curiously the king doesn’t give the property back to its rightful owners.26 The account appears purposefully tailored to vilify Sarmiento in a caricatured fashion. Benzion Netanyahu notes that the dialogue between Sarmiento and the bishop of Cuenca is not present in the Crónica del Halconero; it’s only found in the Crónica de Juan II. He calls the account in the latter chronicle, a “tendentious story, which might have been produced by some admirer of Barrientos (in all likelihood, a converso author)…”27

It’s entirely possible that Sarmiento had aggravated the prince by imprisoning certain noblemen whom the prince felt were honorable, but elements of the chronicle are clearly histrionic in nature. It seems more likely that the prince asked Sarmiento to leave the city after Pope Nicholas’s bull against the rebels had been locally issued. The prince may have been concerned with optics and felt that Sarmiento’s departure would ease tensions.28 Either way, the rebellion continued without Sarmiento’s direct participation for over another year, and when it was over, it had effectively accomplished all that he and his followers had set out to achieve.

On March 21st of 1451, Juan II saw fit to pardon all the Toledan rebels. No one was to be punished for their actions, and even more amazing, none of the property taken from the conversos was to be returned.29 It can be deduced from a letter dated to August 13th, 1451 that Juan II also upheld the rebellion’s measure to remove conversos from public office in Toledo.30 On November 20th of the same year at Juan II’s request, the Pope removed the excommunication status from the city.31 Even Sarmiento was eventually pardoned in 1452, and all his former titles and estates were restored. Although Juan II never allowed him to return to court, Sarmiento became a member of Enrique’s court once he succeeded his father to the throne. Sarmiento died naturally in 1463, probably due to parkinson’s disease, having successfully passed on his mayorazgo to his son.32 Alvaro de Luna on the other hand, following another set of attempts at power grabs, was arrested in 1453 by Enrique who had the former constable convicted for usurping royal functions and subsequently beheaded.33

By 1478 the Inquisition was established in Castille via a papal bull with the goal of combating the Judaizing practices of the conversos. By 1483, it was established in Aragon. The former reluctance on the part of the papacy to engage in prejudicial actions against persons of Jewish ancestry had evaporated. In 1492 at the culmination of the Reconquista, Spain enacted the Edict of Expulsion (Decreto de la Alhambra or Edicto de Granada) which expelled all practicing Jews who refused to convert to Catholicism. Those who rejected conversion were given six months to sell their assets, conclude their affairs, and move abroad.34 Although thousands of Jews left, it’s generally believed that the bulk of them opted to convert, and following the historical pattern since the times of the Visigoths, these conversions were in all likelihood mostly insincere. Many of the new converts continued to practice Judaism in secret and maintain old ethnic ties and allegiances and intermarry among themselves. It was in this setting that Limpieza de Sangre became official state policy in Spain.

Benzion Netanyahu asserted that the Spaniards had adopted “the principle of race to discriminate against all conversos” and asked why the Spaniards being so “constitutionally dedicated to the defense of Christian cult and doctrine [would] adopt a policy so alien…so opposed to its laws, teachings and traditions?”35 Perhaps we can find an ironic answer to this question in chapter four of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents:

The Inquisition was fundamentally a response to failed attempts to force genetic and group assimilation. The real crime in the eyes of the Iberians was that the Jews who had converted after 1391 were racialists in disguise, and this was the case even if they sincerely believed in Christianity while nevertheless continuing to marry endogamously and to engage in political and economic cooperation within the group. Those who had voluntarily assimilated prior to 1391 were not targets of the Inquisition, since such individuals were implicitly viewed as being free from the crime of racialism. It was not the extent of Jewish ancestry that was a crime, but the intentional involvement in a group evolutionary strategy. In this sense, the Inquisition was profoundly non-racist. Rather, it was concerned with punishing racialism.36

Some of MacDonald’s assertions may appear odd, since the Inquisition later developed an entire racial caste system in the Americas. But the historical evidence strongly indicates that the emergent Spanish attitudes toward conversos were formed in response to ethnocentric converso collectivism against old Christians. It should be considered here that the tendency of Christianity in Spain had been to dissolve older ethnic distinctions. The Visigoths had forbidden intermarriage between themselves and local Hispano Romans until the mid 7th century when Recceswinth dissolved the old law in order to promote cultural unity.37 To be clear, these observations are not intended to imply that the Jews of Spain bore responsibility for the Spaniards’ subsequent implementation of their racial caste system in the Americas. As MacDonald also states in his work, “evolutionary theory must also suppose that these tendencies are in no way exclusive to Judaism…”38 My intent here is to discourage academics and others from viewing the emergence of Limpieza de Sangre policies as the progenitor of modern racism.

Beginning of the Translated Text:

In the very noble and very loyal city of Toledo, five days into the month of June, in the year of the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ, one thousand four hundred and forty nine; on this day, standing present in the house and hall of said city of Toledo, the very honorable and noble gentleman Pedro Sarmiento, repostero mayor39 of our Lord the King and his council, and alcalde de las alzadas40 in said city of Toledo and its realm, boundary, and jurisdiction by way of said Lord King, and [standing present] the judges, sheriffs, knights and squires, commoners and people of said city of Toledo, assembled according to habit and custom, especially to hear, discuss, negotiate and provide in the administration and good governance of said city and in other things pertaining and convenient to the service of our Lord God, of said Lord the King and of the public welfare of said city and its residents and inhabitants, and in the presence of myself, Pasqual Gómez, public scribe in Toledo and scribe of the councils of said city, and [in the presence] of the witnesses listed below, Esteban García de Toledo personally appeared in said council in name, and as the representative that he is, of said judges, sheriffs, knights, squires, commoners and people of said city, whose power of attorney passed before me, the aforementioned scribe. [Esteban García de Toledo] spoke with the gentlemen named above, who well know how on many days and in different councils they had discussed and understood about the universal wellbeing of said city, and of the privileges, exemptions and freedoms given and granted to it by the kings of very glorious memory, progenitors of our Lord the King, and by their highness [said privileges, exemptions and freedoms were] confirmed and sworn.41 Among these [privileges, exemptions and freedoms, Esteban García de Toledo] says there was a privilege given and granted to said city by the Catholic of glorious memory, Don Alfonso, king of Castile and Leon, whereby, among other graces, freedoms, and immunities given and granted by him to said city, following the spirit and letter of the law and the holy decrees, [Don Alfonso] ordered and decreed that no converso with Jewish lineage could hold or keep any office or benefice in said city of Toledo, nor in its land, boundary and jurisdiction, for being suspect in the faith of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and for other causes and reasons contained within said privilege.

The aforementioned lords had deliberated a few times on the public notaries of said city, which were and are offices that consist in the service of said Lord King and a great part of the benefit of all public things of said city. They had seen and heard, and it was well known to all, that the majority of said notary positions, said conversos tyrannically held and possessed, as much by the purchase with money as by favors and other clever and deceptive means. This was done in contempt of the royal crown of our Lord the King, of said privileges, exonerations, freedoms and immunities of said city, and of the old Christians proper.42 About all this and other things pertaining to the service of God, of said Lord King, and of the public welfare of said city, [the aforementioned lords] had agreed to make a pronouncement and declaration beyond their mercy to date. Consequently, in name of said city, its commoners and people, and in the best manner [Esteban García de Toledo] was able, and was compelled by law to do so, he requested and did request, he demanded and did demand, that [the aforementioned lords] declare and pronounce on all that they understand to be in service of God our Lord and of said Lord King and of the common interest and advantage of said city.

And promptly the aforementioned Pedro Sarmiento and the aforementioned judges, sheriffs, knights and squires, commoners and people of said city, stated that they had already seen and deliberated about what the aforementioned Esteban García stated, and [that] they had ordered him to see his lawyers, intending to be compliant in the service of God, of said Lord King, and of the public welfare of said city. Consequently, above and beyond everything else declared and pronounced by them in the trial that said city brings against its enemy residents for the offenses and crimes committed and perpetrated by them against the service of God, and of said Lord King, and of the public good of said city, the aforementioned lords agreed to make a certain declaration, and they promptly gave another judgment, and they made me, the aforementioned scribe, read it, the tenor of which, with what happened later, is what follows:

«We, the aforementioned Pedro Sarmiento, repostero mayor of our Lord the King and of his council, and his asistente43 and alcalde mayor de las alzadas of the very noble and very loyal city of Toledo, and the judges, sheriffs, knights, squires, citizens and people of said city of Toledo, named above, pronounce and declare that, inasmuch as it is well known by law both canonical and civil, that conversos of Jewish lineage, for being suspect in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the faith which they frequently profane by judaizing, may not hold such offices or benefices public or private through which they might inflict shame, damages or abuses on old Christians proper, nor may they qualify as witnesses against them. For this reason, privilege was given to said city and its residents by Don Alfonso of glorious memory, that these conversos not hold nor be able to hold said offices or benefices under pain of severe and grave punishments, and because against a very large part of this city’s conversos, descendants from the lineage of its Jews, it is proven, and it seemed and evidently seems, that they are persons highly suspect in the holy Catholic faith, holding and believing profound errors against the articles of the holy Catholic faith, guarding the rites and rituals of the old law, and saying and affirming that our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ is a man belonging to their lineage whom the Christians adore as God. And furthermore, [because] they affirm and say that there is a God and a Goddess44 in heaven. And furthermore, [because] on Holy Thursday, while the holiest oil and chrism are consecrated in the Holy Church of Toledo, and the Body of our Redeemer is placed on the Altar, said conversos slaughter lambs and eat them and make other kinds of burnt offerings and sacrifices judaizing. [This is] according to what is contained at length in the inquiry conducted for this reason by the vicars of said Holy Church of Toledo. By virtue [of its findings], the royal justice, following the letter of the law, proceeded heartedly against some of them, and from there, as the holy decrees have deduced, it turns out that most of said conversos do not think well of the holy Catholic faith. Said inquiry we have included here and ordered it to be placed in the archives of Toledo. Additionally, because beyond what has been said above is well known in this city, and as such we have declared it as fact and well known that said conversos live and act without fear of God. And furthermore they have shown and show themselves to be enemies of said city and its old Christian residents, and that notoriously at their petition, insistence and solicitation, a royal tax was placed on said city by the constable Don Alvaro de Luna45 and his henchmen and allies, our enemies, waging a cruel war of blood and fire, of crop destruction and pillaging, as if we were Moors, enemies of the Christian faith.

Such damages, evils, and wars, the Jews, enemies of our holy Catholic faith, have always caused, manifested, and even implemented since the passion of our Savior Jesus Christ. Even the Jews who lived in this city long ago, according to our ancient chronicles, when it was surrounded by the Moors, our enemies, led by their captain Tariq, after the death of the king Don Rodrigo,46 made a deal and sold said city and its Christians and gave entrance to said Moors. In this deal and contract it was decided that three hundred and six old Christians of the city were to be beheaded, and more than one hundred and six were taken from the cathedral and from the church of Santa Leocadia and carried off as captives and prisoners among whom were men and women, children and adults. Consequently, they have, and they do so every day said conversos, descendants of the Jews, through cunning and deceit, taken and carried off and stolen large and innumerable amounts of maravedis47 and silver from our king the lord and from his rents, rights, and taxes, and they have destroyed and ruined many noblewomen, knights and hidalgos.48 Consequently they have oppressed, destroyed, robbed and ravaged all the most ancient houses and estates of the old Christians of this city and its land and jurisdiction and all the realms of Castile, as is well known and as such we regard it.

Furthermore, during the time that they have held public office in this city, and its management and administration, the greater part of said city’s centers49 have been depopulated and destroyed; said city’s own land and centers [have been] lost and alienated.50 Beyond all this, all the maravedis of said city’s income and property have been consumed in their own interests and properties, in such a manner that all of the country’s wealth and reputation have been consumed and destroyed. They are made lords to destroy the holy Catholic faith and the old Christians who believe in it. In confirmation of this, it is well known to this city and its residents that here a short time ago said conversos rose up, assembled, and armed themselves, and as is public knowledge and well known, they set out with the intention and purpose to destroy all the old Christians and myself, the aforementioned Pedro Sarmiento, first and foremost among them, and to throw us out of said city, and to take it over and deliver it to our enemies. What has been said [here] is public and well known, and as such we hold and regard it, and thereby, pronouncing on this as a notorious case and fact, we find:

«That we must declare and pronounce, establish and order, and we do declare, pronounce, establish and order, that all said conversos, descendants of the perverse lineage of the Jews, to any extent, as much by virtue of canon and civil law that rules against them on the things declared above, as by virtue of the aforementioned privilege given to this city by the aforementioned Lord King of very glorious memory, Don Alfonso of Castile and Leon, progenitor of the King our Lord, and by the other Lord Kings his progenitors, and by their highness, [the aforementioned privilege was] sworn and confirmed, [and] as much by reason of the heresies and other offenses, insults, seditions and crimes committed and perpetrated by them to date, that they are to be regarded, just the law regards them, unable and unworthy to hold any office or benefice, public or private, in said city of Toledo, and in its land, boundary and jurisdiction, with which they can hold lordship over old Christians of the holy Catholic faith of our Lord Jesus Christ or cause them damages and offenses. Additionally they are to be regarded as unable and unworthy to give testimony and faith as public scribes or as witnesses, especially in this city. By this judgment and declaration of ours, following the spirit and letter of the aforementioned privilege, liberties, and immunities of said city, we deprive them, and order them to be deprived, of any offices and benefices that they hold, and have held, in any manner in this city. And inasmuch as it is well known to us, and for such we pronounce it, those who follow are to be especially held and regarded as conversos of Jewish lineage:

López Fernández Cota.—Gonzalo Rodríguez de San Pedro, his nephew.—Juan Núñez, bachelor.—Pero Núñez y Diego Núñez, his brothers.—Juan Núñez, promoter.—Juan López del Arroyo.—Juan González de Illescas.—Pero Ortíz.—Diego Rodríguez el Albo.—Diego Martínez de Herrera.—Juan Fernández Cota.—Diego González Jarada, alcalde.—Pero González, his son, and every one of them.»

«Therefore we declare them to be removed from, and we remove them from, any notaries and other offices that they have and have held in this city and its boundary and jurisdiction, and we dictate to the aforementioned conversos, who live and dwell in it and its land, boundary and jurisdiction, that henceforth they may not testify in or benefit from said offices, especially the aforementioned public notaries and their exemptions, neither publicly nor secretly, neither directly nor indirectly, under pain of death and confiscation of all their goods by the walls of said city and its republic. Furthermore, we find that we must order, and we do order, the public scribes of the number51 of said city, Christians old and proper, to whom it belongs the election of said public notaries, that being vacant said notaries that the aforementioned conversos, descendants of Jewish lineage and breed,52 held and hold among themselves, to choose [new] public scribes of said number in accordance with the privilege and judgment granted to them by the Lord King Don Alfonso, named above, and by customary use, and guarding within said elections the form and the oath that must be made. We order that this judgment and its effect be publicly proclaimed in the usual public squares and markets of this city. And by this judgment and declaration, pronouncing and declaring as in well-known fact, we pronounce, declare, and order it in and by these writings.»

And thus given the aforementioned judgment, and read, in the manner that it is, by myself, the aforementioned scribe, Pasqual Gómez, and by the aforementioned Esteban García, attorney of said city, [who read it] in its name, and by Fernando López de Sahagún, public scribe of Toledo, [who read it] in name of himself and of the other public scribes of said city, [the aforementioned lords] stated: that they requested and did request that I, the aforementioned scribe, give it to them as public testimony as many times as they required for safeguard and conservation for the aforementioned parties and themselves. And I, the aforementioned scribe, by order of said gentlemen named above, gave to the aforementioned public scribes this public instrument, according to and in the manner that passed before me in said city of Toledo, on the day, month, year and place named above.

Furthermore, the aforementioned lords of Toledo stated that they wanted, and they ordered, that this judgment and lawsuit of theirs should have the force of a judgment or declaration, statute, or ordinance, or the best form that would be and is valid, and that it was to be, and that it is, issued in favor of the proper old Christians against the aforementioned conversos, and that it was to be understood, and is understood, that it was to be extended and is extended against the conversos past and present and future; but not in the proceedings and rulings,53 that to date they made into deeds or were presented by witnesses. Those should be valid as much as they legally will have to be and be able to be.

Witnesses who were present to this: Periáñez de Oseguera, knight commander of Toledo, of the Calatrava order, and Sancho de Fuelles, and Per Alvares de la Plata, and Fernán López de Sahagún, public scribes in said city. For this, they were especially summoned and requested.

And I, the aforementioned Pasqual Gómez, public scribe of Toledo, of the number and of the councils of said city, was present with the aforementioned witnesses to what has been declared. And by order of the aforementioned Pedro Sarmiento and said city, and by request and claim of the aforementioned Esteban García, the city’s attorney, I wrote this public instrument, and consequently I made here this seal of mine that is such in testimony of truth.—Pascual Gómez, public scribe.

End of the Translated Text


Endnotes

  1. Emilio Cotarelo y Mori. “Algunas noticias nuevas acerca de Rodrigo de Cota”. Boletín de la Real Academia Española, XIII. 1926.

 

  1. Benzion Netanyahu. The Origins of the Inquisition. Random House. 1995. (p.310) Netanyahu cites the Historia Eclesiástica de la Imperial Ciudad de Toledo y Su Tierra by Jerónimo Román de la Higuera, which I do not have access to. His citation on page 1225 says the following:

Higuera, op. cit., lib. 28, cap. y, f. 222v, says that the común suspected Cota to have been the originator of the idea of the loan and that he influenced Alvaro to accept it. See Crónica, año 1449, cap. 2, pp. 661b-662a; Halconero, cap. 372, pp. 511-512

I also do not currently have access to the Crónica del Halconero, but the Crónica del Señor Rey Don Juan II cited states the following:

é porque oviéron sospecha, que un mercader muy rico é honrado vecino de la cibdad de Toledo, que se llamaba Alonso Cota, habia seydo movedor deste enprestido…

  1. Crónica del Señor Rey Don Juan II. Año 43, Capítulo I.:

Y el primero movedor del escándalo fué un odrero vecino desta cibdad de Toledo , é á su voz é apellido se juntó todo el común : é hallóse escrito en una piedra en letras góticas de gran tiempo, que decia así : Soplara el odrero , y alborotarseha Toledo.

Juan de Mata Carriazo. Refundición del Halconero. Espara-Calpe, S.A. Madrid, 1946. (p.CXCII):

…e como abaxaron a coger dos doblas a gente comun, que no las podian dar, por esta causa se ovo de levantar el comun. E fué causa un odrero, que le pusieron dos doblas; por esto decian: sopló el odrero, e levantóse Toledo.

  1. Juan de Mariana. Obras del padre Juan de Mariana. M. Rivadeneyra. Madrid. 1854. (p.130):

Cargaron sobre las casas de Alonso Cota y pegáronles fuego, con que por pasar muy adelante se quemó el barrio de la Madalena , morada en gran parte de los mercaderes ricos de la ciudad.

  1. Eloy Benito Ruano. Toledo en el siglo XV. Madrid. 1961. (p. 42) Ruano cites La Crónica del Halconero pages 520-526.
  2. Benzion Netanyahu. (p.962)
  3. There are several instances of Jewish law where this is stipulated, but some examples are: Bava Kemma 3:1 and 15a; The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume Five, in the article EVIDENCE (p.277) states that “The witness must be an Israelite. The Talmud seems to take this for granted.”
  4. Bava Kamma 113b and 114a state that a single Jew may not testify against another Jew in a secular court, but that two or more Jews meet the requirements of Jewish law. There is debate within Jewish scholarship about the exact nature of this law, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that on more than one occasion, crypto Jews and conversos gave false testimony for the benefit of their coethnics.
  5. Kate Sheehy. “Stoolie is ‘Dead’ to His Daddy”. www.nypost.com. Published July 28, 2009, 6:59 a.m. ET
  6. Ami Eden. “Disowning Dwek?”. www.jta.org. Published July 28, 2009 7:10 PM. This Orthodox Jewish blog claimed that Rabbi Dwek never actually invoked the Talmudic laws of moser nor did he begin sitting shiva, however, the blog reported the following:

Rabbi Dweck delivered a very emotional sermon in which he strongly denounced the phenomenon of a Jew informing on other Jews, said that he is also a victim in this saga together with Klal Yisroel, and asked for prayers from the entire Jewish community for his terrible suffering.

  1. Benzion Netanyahu. (p.301)
  2. Ibid. He makes his case in Chapter III on pages 301-313. The quotes are on page 303.
  3. Eloy Benito Ruano gives a good outline in Chapter Two of his book.
  4. Ibid. (p.49-50)
  5. Richard Lynn. North-South Differences in Spain in IQ, Educational Attainment, per capita Income, Literacy, Life Expectancy and Employment. Mankind Quarterly, Vol 52, No. 3. March 2012. (p. 265-291)
  6. Juif et al. Numeracy of Religious Minorities in Spain and Portugal in the Inquisition Era. Revista de Historia Economica – Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History 38(1):1-38. November, 2019.
  7. Salo Baron. Ghetto and Emancipation; shall we revise the traditional view?. The Menorah Journal. New York. 1928. (p.1-4)
  8. Ibid. Ruano discusses this on page 70 and cites the declaration from the pope, a copy of which he has included on page 201. See “1449. Septiembre, 24. Fabriano”
  9. Ibid. (p.53)
  10. Crónica del Señor Rey Don Juan II. Año 44, Capítulo I.
  11. …por quanto era informado quel dicho Pero Sarmiento no contento de los males que había hecho, todavía perseveraba en hacer otros mayores…
  12. …é aun que trataba con el Rey para entregarle la cibdad…
  13. …é pasáron allí en Toledo en correr toros é jugar cañas ocho, ó diez dias, en fin de los quales el Príncipe enbió á decir á Pero Sarmiento, que le rogaba que le entregase el alcázar, y dexase el Alcaydía mayor de la cibdad…
  14. …é díxole como la voluntad del príncipe era que le desenbargase la cibdad de Toledo…
  15. Benzion Netanyahu. (p.1108)
  16. Crónica del Señor Rey Don Juan II. Año 44, Capítulo I. The original text reads:

E desque el Rey, que estaba en Valladolid, supo como aquella hacienda que Pero Sarmiento habia robado en Toledo estaba gran parte della en Gumiel de mercado, embió allá á un Escribano de Cámara que se llamaba Fernán Alonso de Toledo, para que todo lo tomase por ante Escribano, é lo truxese al Rey, lo qual así se hizo.

  1. Benzion Netanyahu. (p.1107-1108)
  2. Ibid.
  3. Eloy Benito Ruano. (p.216) “1451. Marzo, 21. Torrijos”
  4. Ibid. (p.76) See also “1451. Agosto, 13. Santo Domingo de la Calzada” on page 222.
  5. Ibid. (p.76) See also “1451, Noviembre, 20. Roma” on page 223.
  6. Laura Canabal Rodríguez. “Pero Sarmiento.” www.rae.es.
  7. Vicente Ángel Álvarez Palenzuela. “Álvaro de Luna”. www.rae.es.
  8. Andrés Bernáldez. Historia de los reyes católicos. (p. 332)
  1. Benzion Netanyahu. (p.xvi)
  2. Kevin MacDonald. Separation and Its Discontents. (p. 124-125)
  3. See Book III, Title I, Section II of the Visigothic Codex. The law negates the former Gothic forbiddance of exogamous marriages. Here is Samuel Parsons Scott’s translation:

It shall be as Lawful for a Roman Woman to Marry a Goth, as for a Gothic Woman to Marry a Roman. The zealous care of the prince is recognized, when, for the sake of future utility, the benefit of the people is provided for; and it should be a source of no little congratulation, if the ancient law, which sought improperly to prevent the marriage of persons equal in dignity and lineage, should be abrogated. For this reason, we hereby sanction a better law; and, declaring the ancient one to be void, we decree that if any Goth wishes to marry a Roman woman, or any Roman a Gothic woman, permission being first requested, they shall be permitted to marry. And any freeman shall have the right to marry any free woman; permission of the Council and of her family having been previously obtained.

  1. Kevin MacDonald. A People That Shall Dwell Alone. (p.16)
  2. The Diccionario del Castellano del Siglo XV (hereafter DCS XV) defines repostero as a “royal official tasked with the care of the palace’s domestic items.” Some have translated the word as “butler,” but Pedro Sarmiento was not Juan II’s “butler.” It may just be an honorific title of sorts.
  3. Today acalde usually translates as “mayor,” but the acalde mayor de las alzadas was more akin to a “chief judge of appeals.” Pedro Sarmiento was not the “mayor” of Toledo. The DCS XV states some of the following:

Tomado del árabe andalusí alqádi, ‘juez’, derivado del verbo qádà, ‘juzgar’. Nebrija (Lex1, 1492): Praetor primus. el alcalde dela alçada. Praetro. oris. por alcalde o corregidor. Propraetor. oris. alcalde extraordinario. Rudis rudis. por la vara del alcalde. Uindicta. ae. por la vara del alcalde.

  1. In case it is unclear, the text is stating that the “highness” of the old kings is what confirmed the “privileges, exemptions and freedoms.”
  2. The original phrasing here was “los christianos viejos lindos.” Today, the word lindo is usually translated as ‘beautiful’ but at the time, the word was more akin to its Latin root legitimum. From the DCS XV:

Del latín LEGITIMUM, ‘legítimo, conforme a la ley’, derivado de LEX, ‘ley’.

Nebrija (Lex1, 1492): *Legitimus .a .um. por cosa de lei.

Nebrija (Voc1, ca. 1495 y Voc2, 1513): Linda cosa. nitidus .a .um. elegans .tis.

  1. This literally translates as “assistant” but the exact nature of the position is unclear. The king had many asistentes, and Sarmiento was his asistente in Toledo.
  2. Kenneth Baxter claims in his partial translation (see his footnotes) that this is “a concept connected to the cabalist movement within medieval Iberian Judaism. The idea of a female counterpart to God—known as Shekhina—may have been influenced by Latin Christian devotion of Mary which intensified in the twelfth century.”
  3. This is a reference to the initial tax imposed on the city that led to the outbreak of the rebellion.
  4. 46. This is a reference to the Visigothic king Roderic who died in battle against the Moorish invaders led by Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711.
  5. Originally this was a type of physical coin, but by the 15th century a maravedis was an abstract counting unit. The DCS XV defines a maravedis as having a value of two blancas in Castile. Six of the latter would’ve been worth one silver real.
  6. This is another Spanish and Portuguese term for nobility. It is a condensed form of hijo de algo or ‘son of something’. Hijo derives from the Latin filium meaning ‘son’ and algo derives from the Arabic aliquod meaning ‘a part of something larger.’ The word essentially describes ‘landed gentry.’ The DCS XV defines hidalgo as a “person belonging to a privileged social class, who does not live from his work but rather from his properties over which he has limited power.”
  7. The original Spanish is “los lugares de la dicha cibdad.” Lugar is usually translated as ‘place’ but the DCS XV defines “lugar” as a “núcleo urbano, particularmente cuando no es de gran extensión.” Given the context, I think the author is discussing urban commercial centers and properties.
  8. The original Spanish word is “enajenados.” The concept conveyed is that the ownership of the properties had been transferred to others. The DCS XV defines the word as “pasar <una persona> la propiedad de [algo] o un derecho sobre ella a [alguien].”
  9. Even today in many Spanish-speaking countries, public notaries are numbered, but perhaps an explanation is warranted to avoid confusion. The Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Legal Spanish explains this as follows:

[A] council officer who could only exercise his office in the town or district to which he was assigned. They are called ‘of the number’ because generally in each locality or district there was a certain number of them, which could not be exceeded.

  1. The word used here was “ralea” which the DCS XV defines as “naturaleza o clase a que pertenece una persona o una cosa.”
  2. The phrase here was “las causas e cosas.” I think given the legal context, “cosa” is short for “cosa juzgada” which the DCS XV defines as “efecto de la sentencia firme que hace indiscutible la resolución judicial.”

 

The ADL continues to press for censorship of views critical of Israel or Jewish power.

As if there weren’t already enough censorship and deplatforming on Jewish issues, the ADL is using the opportunity presented by the Gaza war to ramp up even more. Prior to the war, in May, 2023 the Biden administration unveiled a plan, designed by the ADL, to undertake “over 100 bold and unprecedented actions” to, among other things, pressure social media companies to rein in free speech on their platforms.

This includes the following attempt to pressure social media companies to remove content they don’t like.

The Biden-Harris Administration calls on Congress to hold social media platforms accountable for spreading hate-fueled violence, including antisemitism, by requiring fundamental reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and by removing special immunity for online platforms; to impose much stronger transparency requirements on online platforms, including their algorithmic recommendation systems, content moderation decisions, and enforcement of community standards; and to pass legislation requiring platforms to enable timely and robust public interest research, including on the spread of antisemitism and other forms of hate, using platforms’ data and analyzing their algorithmic recommendation systems, while maintaining users’ privacy.’

Notice that the following would include “banning extremist websites,” presumably including TOO.

The Biden-Harris Administration encourages all online platforms to independently commit to actions such as ensuring that terms of service and community standards explicitly cover antisemitism; adopt zero-tolerance standards for hate speech, including antisemitism; permanently ban repeat offenders, both personal accounts and extremist websites; invest in the human and technical resources necessary to enable vigorous and timely enforcement of their terms of service and community standards; improve capabilities to stop recommending and de-rank antisemitic and other hateful content; and increase the transparency of their algorithmic recommendation systems and data.

The ADL then pushed for action in Congress:

This has morphed into the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” of 2024. As developed by the ADL, it contained a provision requiring “the National Coordinator to conduct an annual analysis of online antisemitic content, including Holocaust denial and distortion, and prepare recommendations for Congress on how to counter the spread of antisemitism online.”[1]—clearly an attempt to remove criticism of Jews from the internet. As passed by the House,[2] the bill provides that penalties would apply to “programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance” and  could thus include defunding universities that allow protests against Israel and its support by the Jewish community, since in recent years, criticism or opposition to Israel has been conflated with anti-Semitism.[3] This is far less than Jewish activists would like to see in their ideal world: stiff prison sentences for violators. One step at a time.

This version of the  bill includes a provision that the U.S. government define anti-Semitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association—a definition that the American Civil Liberties Union opposes because it would likely infringe on the First Amendment by precluding criticism of Israel.[4] For example, “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” would presumably make illegal any claim that, despite the existence of relatively powerless anti-Israel Jews, the Israel Lobby and its power in American politics is a project of the mainstream Jewish community with the support of all of the major American Jewish organizations. The Jewish community thus bears considerable responsibility for the actions of Israel given Jewish-influenced U.S. diplomatic and military support for Israel — and the power of the U.S. in international politics.

It would also make illegal “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”—when at least some such comparisons are eminently rational and evidence-based. Yair Golan, the deputy head of the Israeli military, stated in 2016: “If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance, it’s the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe – and particularly in Germany – 70, 80 and 90 years ago, and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016.”  Golan called for “national soul-searching”, adding: “There is nothing easier than hating the stranger, nothing easier than to stir fears and intimidate. There is nothing easier than to behave like an animal and to act sanctimoniously.” Of course, he was met with a deluge of criticism,  and he recanted almost immediately.

Moreover, Jewish influence in the media (or via the Israel Lobby) would presumably run afoul of “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” This website and some of my other work have often discussed the outsize role of Jewish influence in the media.

And it would appear to make any claim that no Jews could ever be reasonably charged with disloyalty: “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” This despite Jonathan Pollard and the well-known statements of Jews like Haim Saban, a major donor to the Democrat Party.

Saban’s commitment to Israel really knows no bounds. This is from an interview with Haaretz in 2006; Saban’s comments are in quotes.

You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?

“You can’t explain love.”

It’s really love?

“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion.”

Please explain.

“When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”

Is Israel also part of your everyday life here, in Los Angeles?

“At 9 A.M. I start with London and Kirschenbaum [Channel 10’s evening current events program]. After that, throughout the day, if I see something about Israel on one of the four channels that are always on in my office, on mute, I immediately turn on the sound. And I have Israeli music on my computer, classics and contemporary singers, too.

“Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I got some new albums and I put them on the computer. Suddenly ‘The Photos in the Album’ [sung by Haim Moshe] comes up. I’m standing there, shaving, listening to the lyrics. And the tears stream over the soap, without my even being able to explain why. Grandma, mom cooking, I promised you wouldn’t fight against anyone. A knife in the heart. That is the heart of the nation. And I love this nation. I love the Jewish people, even more the Israeli people. I feel a very deep bond which I can’t explain.”

Haim Saban is an American citizen, but can there really be any question where his loyalty lies? I suspect it’s the same with the neocons accused of spying, and with AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman (see previous link). A big part of my article on neocons was simply to document their intense commitment to Israel.

Finally, Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed it would infringe on some Christian beliefs, such as the view that Jews were responsible for killing Christ.

It’s pretty obvious that facts and truth are completely irrelevant, as one expects when dealing with ethnocentric activists. But that shouldn’t prevent internet-based criticism of Israel and Jewish influence to continue as long as possible. It’s just getting more and more unlikely that this will be allowed to continue. It’s quite possible that it won’t be long before criticism of Jews and Jewish power is confined to printed material mailed to subscribers in envelopes without return addresses, just like the 1980s. The First Amendment be damned.


1] Anti-defamation League, “Countering Anti-Semitism Act (April, 2024)

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2024-04/ADL_Countering_Antisemitism_Act_CAA_One_Pager.pdf

[2] https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090eh.pdf

[3] Clare Foran, Haley Talbot, & Kristin Wilson, “House Passes Antisemitism Bill as Johnson Highlights Campus Protests,” Newsweek (May 1, 2024).

[4] https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

 


How Can Leftists Be Mutants if They Are More Intelligent than Conservatives?

I’ve become quite well known for arguing that leftists are “mutants;” that they are higher in mutational load than conservatives. Leftists, in general though not always, are, in my view, the descendants of those who would have died under the harsh Darwinian conditions of high child mortality that were prevalent until around 1800. However, it is perfectly possible that I am wrong. Unlike the Woke ideologues who have taken over Western universities, I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong, because I am interested in the empirical truth. A recent article in Aporia Magazine has raised the possibility that my theory might be incorrect, but I don’t think it is. The nub of the issue is that intelligent people, in Western societies, tend to be left-wing and intelligence is associated with low mutational load.

Dr Noah Carl and Dr Bo Winegard, both “cancelled” academics, have highlighted a fundamental problem with the theory that I, and, more technically, a young scholar called Joseph Bronski, have espoused [Can mutation load explain the rise of leftism?, By Noah Carl and Bo Winegard, Aporia Magazine, April 26, 2024].

As I explain my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, my argument is that under harsh Darwinian conditions of 50% child mortality,  there was selection for physical health, mental health, conservatism, pro-sociality, and religiousness. We were selecting for that the latter two traits because they were under conditions of harsh group-selection – we were battling other groups – and the group which is high in positive and negative ethnocentrism tends to triumph according to computer models. Conservatism involves being fundamentally oriented toward group values, especially obedience to authority, ingroup loyalty and the sanctity of tradition and order. Religion promotes these as the will of God and also makes people more pro-social, as God is sitting on their shoulder, and reduces anxiety by giving people a sense of eternal meaning. Hence, all of these traits became bundled together – pleiotropically related – into a “fitness factor.” The genetic component of conservatism may be about 60%, demonstrating that it is an adaptation.

Every generation, high child mortality was purging mutant genes from the population, keeping it genetically fit. With the breakdown of harsh Darwinian selection, due to the Industrial Revolution and its advancements it medicine, we would expect a massive build-up of mutation and we would expect it to be associated with a deviation from the pre-industrial norm of conservatism and traditional religiosity involving the collective worship of a moral god.

Consistent with this, liberalism is associated with a number of markers of mutational load. Liberal males are less muscular and they are shorter while liberal males and females have less attractive and less symmetrical faces. These traits imply that, being genetically sick, they have fewer bio-energetic resources left over to accrue muscle, reach their phenotypic maximum height and maintain a symmetrical phenotype. Atheists are more likely to be left-handed, which implies, among other problems, a particularly asymmetrical brain. Leftists and atheists are higher in mental illness, atheists are less likely to recover from cancer, atheists and liberals are less fertile and they are lower in pro-social personality traits. Also, as Bronski has shown, liberals have older fathers. Paternal age is an accepted marker of mutational load. Older males are more likely to have de novo mutations on their sperm [Evidence for a Paternal Age Effect on Leftism, By Joseph Bronski, Open Psych, 2023]. 

My argument is that, across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there was, due to relaxed selection, a build-up of mutational load and, thus, a build-up favoring leftism. Eventually, a “tipping point” was reached—an experiment indicated that 20% of a group is enough for this to happen [Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention, By D. Centola et al., Science, 2018]. Western societies tipped over very quickly, focussing on the liberal values of equality and harm avoidance; individualistic values that, in essence, put the individual over the good of the group.

It is here that the point made by Carl and Winegard becomes germane. Intelligence is also a marker of low mutational load. We were selecting for intelligence up until the Industrial Revolution, as I observe in Breeding the Human Herd. Carl and Winegard observe that, even today, intelligence is genetically correlated with mental and physical health. Yet it is also genetically predicts leftism: carrying alleles that are associated with very high education levels—and thus with high intelligence—and it predicts being left-wing. Not only that but there is evidence that intelligent people have changed, within their own lifetimes, from being left-wing to right-wing: So, this being the case, how can the change to a leftist society be mainly or even partly genetic in origin?

A possible reason for the broader anomaly may be that intelligence is associated with social conformity; it is associated with norm-mapping and the effortful control necessary to force yourself to believe that which it is socially useful to believe. Once you have adopt socially useful values, you attain social status by competitively signalling your conformity to these social norms. In a conservative society, this may signal runaway purity-signalling, until eventually, illegitimacy is so unacceptable that illegitimate children are put up for adoption. In a liberal society, this runaway concern with equality and harm avoidance leads us to Wokeness. It is the more intelligent who tend to direct the culture, helping to explain why intelligence is so central to this process. Consistent with this, in right-wing societies, that have not yet tipped over, intelligence is associated with conservatism [Political orientations, intelligence and education, By H. Rindermann et al, Intelligence, 2012]. Intelligence, when combined with mental illness, which it sometimes will be, will weaponize mental illness and selfishness: such people will be restless Machiavellians, pushing things in an ever more left-wing direction.

But, of course, what this means is that intelligence has a paradoxical relationship with other markers of mutational load. When mutational load builds-up and makes the environment left-wing, intelligent people will become the vanguard of the new dispensation, despite, ironically, being relatively low in mutational load. The result – and my research has shown that this happening – is a selection event among the more intelligent. Among the more intelligent, the big predictor of fertility is religiousness and conservatism, as I have shown in my co-authored book The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution.

Intelligent people seem to be more environmentally sensitive, which makes sense because solving cognitive problems involves rising above your instincts, so you should be lower in “instinct.” This means that you are more reliant on being placed on an evolutionarily adaptive road map of life, where you are told to have children and behave in an adaptive way—and, in general, behave in a way that matches your evolved predispositions—the ecology which you are evolved to. If you are placed on a maladaptive road map – which Wokeness places you on – then your intelligence (your marker of low mutational load) will be your un-doing, unless it goes together with genetic conservatism, which makes you resistant to Wokeness.

In addition, the long documented weak negative relationship between religiousness and intelligence would be explicable by the fact that religiousness is an instinct (hence it increases at times of stress and mortality salience), intelligent people are lower in instinct and we are in an evolutionary mismatch of low mortality salience in which are instincts are less likely to be induced. Likewise, ethnocentrism increases at times of stress and mortality salience, implying that it is an instinct and that it is less likely to be induced, in easy conditions, in more intelligent people [Terror Management in a Multicultural Society: Effects of Mortality Salience on Attitudes to Multiculturalism Are Moderated by National Identification and Self-Esteem Among Native Dutch People, By M Sin & S. Koole, Frontiers in Psychology, 2018]. Intelligence, in summary, presents a paradox in terms of the mutational load model of our leftward shift, but it is a paradox that can be solved.