Overlooked No More: Inclusive Bullies!

/1 Comment/in /by

Man Bites Dog: NYT’s Rules for Covering Crime

The New York Times must have thought it had died and gone to heaven when it discovered a group of violent high school bullies — and they weren’t all black! Members of Arizona’s “Gilbert’s Goons” were not only multiracial — white, Hispanic and black — but they victimized one student who appears to be half-black. The featured victim, Tristan, who was regularly wailed on by the Goons, is at least a “person of color,” judging by the multiple photos of him that ran with the article.

Meanwhile, white kids at majority black high schools are subjected to daily beat-downs; internet videos regularly show black teenagers sadistically torturing their white classmates — never the other way around; and “the community” responds by saying the white victims had it coming.

The Department of Justice’s aggregate statistics are troubling but indisputable. From 2008 to 2021, per capita data show that blacks commit violence against whites 25 to 30 times more often than the reverse. In raw numbers, blacks assault whites 6.4 times more often than whites commit violence against blacks.

Thus, for example:

— Just last week at North Atlanta High School, a black student attacked a white special needs kid with scissors, repeatedly stabbing him in the eye. As he walked away, the assailant hissed, “white bitch.” This suggests, at least to me, a racial dimension to the attack. The special needs kid never even fought back.

— In June, a black girl at a Cape Cod high school slapped around a 15-year-old white girl, dragged her by the hair and forced her to lick the bathroom floor. An accomplice filmed the whole thing and posted it on Snapchat, naturally.

— In April, a white student, Austin Metcalf, was stabbed to death by Karmelo Anthony, a black competitor at a track meet in Frisco, Texas. The assailant’s family raised half a million dollars on GiveSendGo — for “legal expenses.” The victim’s family raised half that sum — for funeral expenses.

But the Times didn’t mention any of these attacks.

So you can imagine my surprise when that same paper gave a whole magazine cover story — 6,400 words! — to some school toughs in Arizona. These used to be called “man bites dog” stories. Now we call them “white kid bullies black kid” stories.

Reporter: I have a story about high school bullies who killed a kid.

New York Times: Ho-hum.

Reporter: The perps aren’t black.

New York Times: I’m listening.

Reporter: One of their victims is dusky.

New York Times: DROP EVERYTHING! KILL WHATEVER YOU PLANNED FOR THE SUNDAY MAGAZINE AND SPLASH THIS STORY ACROSS THE COVER.

It’s not obvious why the Arizona story was more Times-worthy than the one about the student athlete fatally stabbed in Texas, or the disabled kid whose eye was gouged out last week.

Nor is it apparent why the featured victim in the Times story was a person of color. The same gang killed another kid. But he was white.

Doesn’t it ever get tiring being so predictable, New York Times?

What is the point of enforcing a total embargo on stories about the epidemic of black-on-white violence — as is evident in the crime statistics — while billboarding a one-off story about a multiracial gang that beats up multiracial victims?

To fool their readers? But what if they ever accidentally encounter the real world?

I couldn’t help wondering a couple weeks ago if an elderly Queens couple, Frank and Maureen Olton, were Times readers. Perplexingly, they admitted a complete stranger, a 42-year-old black man, Jamel McGriff, to their home, allegedly to borrow their phone charger. He proceeded to tie up the couple, torture them for five hours, then murder them and set their house on fire.

McGriff had tried the phone charger ploy on others, but no one else fell for it. (The neighbors were probably Daily Mail readers.)

Or maybe the Times is simply determined to keep fanning the flames of black resentment. The paper’s lusty promotion of BLM fantasies in 2020, liberating black criminals from having to listen to the police, got thousands additional blacks killed — more excess deaths than any other ethnic group.

The Times has been a real friend to black people, except for everything the paper has ever said or done.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

The Evidence is Clear: Poverty Does Not Cause Criminality

/3 Comments/in , /by

We all know why certain areas have high crime rates, right? It’s because the people who live there are poor and they’re either forced to commit crime to make ends mean or their poverty makes them so unhappy that they start taking drugs and this induces them to commit crime. Alternatively, being poor causes a kind of psychological strain which makes such people angry and resentful and, hence, more likely to be criminals. If you ask, “What has made them impoverished in the first place?” then the answer is that “It’s bad luck.”

Even though twin studies have shown that the genetic component for criminality is about 50%, the key personality traits that predict criminality – low impulse control, low empathy and altruism, high mental instability – are around 50% genetic, and even though the other key predictor, low intelligence, is around 80% genetic, falling into criminality is, essentially, a matter of bad luck. Even though some people, raised in the same environment as a criminal is raised do not fall into criminality, it’s just bad luck, okay? All you have to do to get rid of criminality is to get rid of poverty . . . so runs the leftist argument. Well, there’s great news for all of us. A study in Sweden has finally put this argument to the test.

The study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, is entitled “Does Wealth Inhibit Criminal Behavior? Evidence from Swedish Lottery Winners and Their Children.” The players used information on the winners of four Swedish national lotteries and matched them to data on criminal convictions and child delinquency among the offspring of lottery winners in order to discern what effect, if any, an increase in wealth had. This is a particularly useful sample because poorer people are more likely to gamble via mechanisms such as the National Lottery.

You say, “That’s because they have nothing to lose” (they can lose their stake) or “That’s because they’re desperate.” However, according to the study “The relationship of pathological gambling to criminality behavior in a sample of Polish male offenders,” gambling is associated with psychopathy – poor impulse control, the need for immediate thrills – which is, in turn, associated with poverty. Further, the study “Estimated verbal IQ and the odds of problem gambling,” finds that gambling is associated with low intelligence, which also predicts poverty. Low IQ people cannot comprehend how unlikely it is that they will ever win. They also tend to “live in the now;” enjoying the thrill in the moment.

The authors had access to a national database which included all criminal convictions on those aged 15 or over between years 1975 and 2017. Each Swede has a unique identity number and this could be matched to the identity number that appeared in the lottery data. The result is a large and highly representative national sample. Their definition of juvenile delinquency was whether a child accrued a criminal conviction within 10 years of the lottery event or within 10 years of turning 15. For adults, they focused on whether there was a criminal conviction up to 7 years after the lottery event.

All this being so, what do they find? Fascinatingly, they find that winning the lottery actually very slightly increases the likelihood that a person will obtain a criminal conviction, although this misses statistical significance. They certainly did not find that winning the lottery reduces the likelihood that you will receive a criminal conviction. Put simply, if you give someone money, it will have no impact whatsoever on whether they will commit a crime. Similarly, parental wealth, obtained via a lottery win, has zero impact on delinquency among their children.

This finding, interestingly, is consistent with evidence presented in Gregory Clark’s book A Farewell to Alms, that sudden increases in wealth in a family, such as winning the lottery, wash out within a few generations. He observes that across many generations the heritability of socioeconomic status (SES) is about 0.75 if not higher. The reason is that SES is predicted by personality and intelligence, these traits are strongly genetic, people marry assortatively for these highly genetic traits in order to maximise the extent to which their genes are passed on and, so, social classes are, to some extent, genetic castes. If a low-IQ person wins the lottery, he is likely to make very poor decisions with that money, as are children, meaning that his family will return to their original status within a few generations.

The Swedish study completely refutes the idea that poverty causes crime. If you give people a large amount of money it has absolutely zero impact on whether or not they will receive a criminal conviction. The obvious explanation is that such a big part of criminal behaviour is genetic. A lottery win may possibly make a person less likely to steal or embezzle, though even that is open to question, but will make them no less criminal in any other respect. Moreover, there are very poor people who do not steal or embezzle, which raises the question of why some very poor people do.

Thanks to this study, we can now put to bed the idea that poverty causes crime. It does not. There are certain strongly genetic psychological traits which cause, independently, both criminality and poverty.

Europa alterizada: hotéis de luxo para os invasores

/in /by

James Orr é professor associado de Filosofia da Religião na Universidade de Cambridge. Ele preside a Fundação Edmund Burke da Inglaterra, entidade de defesa dos princípios do nacional-conservadorismo nos países ocidentais eou democráticos.

Ele foi nomeado, recentemente, presidente da comissão consultiva de um novo grupo de reflexão em pró do reformismo britânico, o Centre for a Better Britain. Ele avalia que o Reform UK seja a única força política britânica com chance real de sucesso que “ainda acredita na nação”. Nosso companho Zoltán Kottász encontrou-se com James Orr na cidade húngara de Esztergom, durante a MCC Feszt de 2025.

 

Numa recente entrevista dada à BBC, Vossia declarou que o Centre for a Better Britain movia-se “pelo impulso da ambiência do pós-Brexit, favorável à nação, à soberania, à Inglaterra“. Isso significa que os recentes governos britânicos não se moviam pelo impulso dessas mesmas causas?

Prof. James Orr: há no seio do Partido Conservador grupo que adora posar como os “One Nation Tories“ (conservadores de uma só nação), uma evocação de Disraeli e seu Sybil. Mas eles não são conservadores de uma só nação; são, isto sim, conservadores sem nenhuma nação (e noção). Esse grupo não acredita mais na nação; eles acreditam nas estruturas supranacionais às quais querem subordinar nossa soberania.

O Partido Trabalhista, uma das lâminas da tesoura que arruinou a Inglaterra durante 25 anos, consta de uma clientela repartida em três classes: a classe formada pelo setor público, fiel ao erário; a classe do assim chamado “rainbow people”, ou seja, os hiperliberais progressistas da libido, que preconizam a política identitária das minorias; e há a classe do “Crescente”, o islamismo político, sempre mais ousado, que rejeita totalmente a soberania do Estado-nação. Nenhuma dessas classes é fiel à Inglaterra enquanto nação.

A razão de não ser possível salvar a Inglaterra sob o poder desse duopólio é que eles não reconhecem a Inglaterra, eles não amam a Inglaterra, eles renegam a Inglaterra, renegam a herança inglesa, a história inglesa, o povo inglês. O Reform UK, em contrapartida, resta como a única força política com chance de sucesso que ainda acredita na nação.

 

O que foi que aconteceu com os partidos conservadores tradicionais como os tories na Inglaterra e o CDU na Alemanha?

Prof. James Orr: a mim me parece que os partidos conservadores não sejam sempre capazes de mudar radicalmente sua visão e sua política, quando a realidade muda. No entanto, ao longo dos últimos 25 anos, deparamos desafios sem precedentes: o suicídio do saldo líquido zero de emissões, a loucura das políticas de energia, a imigração massiva fora de controle, a desintegração social e cultural. Os tories tentam recuperar sua credibilidade ante suas próprias elites. Eles se preocupam mais com sua boa recepção num elegante jantar de liberais no norte de Londres do que com serem aclamados num botequim em Wolverhampton.

Por isso é que alguém como Nigel Farage goza de tão boa reputação pública. Ele fica à vontade entre as pessoas comuns. Faz um ano, vivi momento maravilhoso numa importante partida de futebol disputada pela seleção inglesa. Keir Starmer não queria ser visto torcendo pela Inglaterra. Achava que isso não seria comportamento adequado para um primeiro-ministro britânico. Então, alguém da comitiva lhe disse para “pelo menos vestir camisa branca”. O conselho foi acatado ― a contragosto.

Essa imagem de homem “que não é gente nossa” importa muito na visão dos eleitores. Não se trata apenas de questão de imagem publicitária. Quando Nigel Farage veste a camisa da Inglaterra num botequim, em meio a dezenas de torcedores, todos sorrindo de orelha a orelha, isso faz ver que ele está em seu lugar.

Atualmente, há muita vitalidade intelectual à direita. Do lado esquerdo, porém, não há nenhuma energia intelectual. Desesperada, a esquerda lança mão dos recursos de que ainda dispõe em termos de influência, de poder estatal e midiático, tentando sustentar projeto fadado ao fracasso, que já afunda. Isso lembra a União Soviética dos anos oitentas, quando a troika tinha perdido contato com a realidade.

 

Outro incidente envolvendo Keir Starmer ocorreu quando ele retirou a papoula, símbolo da rendição alemã na I Guerra, do seu paletó, antes de discursar sobre o mês de conscientização da islamofobia. Na ocasião, por sua vez, os dirigentes alemães declararam que o islã era parte da Alemanha. Que mensagem tudo isso passa?

Prof. James Orr: os dirigentes alemães só podem pensar o islã como constitutivo da Alemanha, porque já não têm a mínima noção do que seja a identidade nacional alemã. Evidentemente, a rápida islamização da Alemanha está correta em termos de descrição demográfica. De fato, a Alemanha está em via de se tornar, em razão dessa islamização, um dos países mais antissemitas do mundo e certamente o mais antissemita da Europa. Uma ideologia fundada no projeto de apagar e inverter tudo o que foi a Alemanha nos anos trintas resultou exatamente nessa transformação.

Como pensa que seria um governo dirigido por Nigel Farage?

Prof. James Orr: primeiramente, ele acabaria com a catástrofe econômica do saldo líquido zero. Só isso já elevaria enormemente a produtividade do país.

Depois, ele atacaria o problema da imigração: sairia do Tribunal Europeu do Direitos Humanos, deixaria Strasbourg, escapando à jurisdição de tribunal estrangeiro. O Brexit tinha por objetivo resgatar nossa soberania, particularmente sobre nossas fronteiras.

No entanto, continuamos sob a jurisdição de um tribunal forâneo, que determina quem podemos ou não podemos acolher em nosso país, quem podemos ou não podemos expulsar, e por que razão. Um absurdo! Nós firmamos numerosos tratados que agora devemos denunciar. Nós devemos restaurar a soberania parlamentar: o Parlamento deve retomar o controle, e a Corte suprema deve ser dissolvida.

Em matéria de tributação e empresarismo, a Inglaterra é um dos países mais pesadamente tributados do mundo desenvolvido. Criar uma empresa custa caro e envolve muita complicação. O partido Reform UK deve, portanto, revisar profundamente a estrutura fiscal e a situação dos incentivos fiscais.

O governo atual não faz outra coisa senão deteriorar a condição do país. Isso reforçará o apoio ao Reform UK. E sempre que os tories se insinuarem novamente, todo o mundo vai se lembrar dos catorze anos do seu governo desastroso, o que também fortalecerá o Reform UK. Eu tenho certeza que, daqui até 2029, o Reform UK estará em condições de conseguir uma maioria eleitoral esmagadora.

 

O Reform UK não é o único partido nacional-conservador em plena ascensão na Europa: há o Rassemblement National, de Marine Le Pen, na França, como também, por exemplo, o Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) na Alemanha. Essas forças políticas estão na iminência de se tornarem dominantes?

Prof. James Orr: desde as ondas migratórias de 2013 a 2015, o empoderecimento dos partidos soberanistas e nacionalistas tem sido extraordinário. A única resistência que deparam é a do aparelho do Estado, da guerra jurídica, da espionagem, da demonização midiática. Apesar disso tudo, tem havido sucessos eleitorais incríveis, estando os eleitores cada vez mais frustrados com a quase nula influência de seu voto, que não tem correspondido à nenhuma responsabilidade democrática.

Ainda assim ou por isso mesmo, partidos como o Vox na Espanha, o Chega em Portugal, a Liga e o Irmãos da Itália, o AfD, o Rassemblement National, o Vlaams Belang [Interesse Flamengo] na Bélgica, Geert Wilders na Holanda, o Fidesz na Hungria ― todos estão ganhando terreno. O Reform UK representa essa mesma tendência. Eu penso que o futuro pertence à direita em toda a Europa. O caminho, porém, será doloroso. Haverá casos chocantes de tentativas de exclusão de políticos populares. Haverá declarações de inconstitucionalidade contra partidos ― como já sofre o AfD. Haverá ativismo judiciário ― como já sofre [a primeira-ministra italiana], [Giorgia] Meloni, desde que tentou mudar a política migratória, conforme prometera aos eleitores que, por isso mesmo, a elegeriam. Acredito que a direita acabará por se impor, que veremos uma virada radical para a direita nos próximos cinco ou dez anos.

 

A migração é um dos principais temas abordados pelo Reform. O que os eleitores pensam dessa questão?

Prof. James Orr: a migração é hoje, e de longe, a questão mais importante para os eleitores britânicos. E se considerarmos as outras questões relacionadas a ela, veremos que todas são agravadas pela imigração massiva. É o caso, por exemplo, da saúde, da educação, da habitação. Nós importamos milhões de pessoas, mas poucas passam a trabalhar no sistema público de saúde, ao contrário do que sempre alegam os liberais para “justificar” a imigração massiva e descontrolada. Por outro lado, ― que “surpresa”! ― os migrantes também ficam doentes. Na verdade, os seus problemas de saúde costumam ser mais complexos que os dos etnobritânicos.

Quanto à educação, há vastas áreas em Londres onde as crianças nativas não podem estudar, porque lá, simplesmente, o inglês não é mais falado. Nesses lugares, em havendo crianças etnobritânicas, elas aprendem a detestar o seu país, a odiar sua herança cultural e a ter vergonha de tudo quanto os seus pais admiravam no passado.

Todo o país fica angustiado com a imigração. O Times começou a publicar os números desproporcionais sobre as agressões sexuais cometidas por estrangeiros, por migrantes. As estatísticas são, absolutamente, assombrosas. E, depois, há as gangues de proxenetas, há os estupros coletivos de meninas inglesas por violadores estrangeiros vindos de culturas moralmente atrasadas. Durante décadas, recebemos e hospedamos esses agressores e bandidos.

Os ingleses estão furiosos. A raiva nessa situação não vem da direita ou da esquerda. Vem de uma reação humana. O partido da reforma é a única força política que já se mostrou disposto a agir seriamente contra tudo isso.

 

A longo prazo, qual é o efeito da imigração na sociedade?

Prof. James Orr: a imigração nos impede de utilizar o pronome da primeira pessoa do plural. Fica impossível dizer “Nós, o povo”. Eu não tenho nada em comum com os violadores de Oxford, de Totherham, de Telford. Eu não quero nada com eles. Eu quero que eles sumam deste país o mais rápido possível. Eles não são ingleses, eles não são britânicos, eles não têm nenhum direito de pertencer à nossa família nacional. E, no entanto, os liberais me obrigam a fingir que eles sejam tão britânicos quanto eu. Não, quando pronuncio a palavra “Nós”, eu não penso nesse tipo de gente. Tampouco penso nas centenas de migrantes que todo dia desembarcam nas praias de Dôver e que, como por magia, conseguem passaporte daí a cinco ou dez anos. Esse tipo de empatia que nos forçam a sentir por todos os povos, exceto o nosso próprio povo, é tóxico, é antinatural. Eis aí um modo de pensar totalmente estranho para nós. Nenhuma civilização jamais convidou invasores, nunca os hospedou em hotéis de luxo e lhes deu todo o dinheiro que poderiam desejar.

 

E qual efeito terá a outra crise ― a guerra, na Europa?

Prof. James Orr: Vossoria se refere ao conflito eslávico entre a Rússia e a Ucrânia?

 

Vossia não pensa que se trate de uma guerra?

Prof. James Orr: eu não chamaria aquilo de “a” guerra. Antes se trata de um conflito que se desenvolve no mundo e que não me interessa muito.

 

Não obstante, aquele é conflito que se desenvolve bem perto de nossas fronteiras. Não passamos por nada disso desde a Iugoslávia dos anos noventas. Isso leva as nações da Europa à corrida das armas.

Prof. James Orr: se a Inglaterra estivesse em melhor situação, talvez os políticos pudessem se preocupar mais com Kieve do que com Kent. Por enquanto, eu me preocupo com Kent. Nós não somos nem capazes de proteger Kent contra os invasores ilegais ― por que, então, deveríamos nos preocupar com Kieve? Vamos primeiro resolver os problemas de Kent e, depois, poderíamos tratar de Kieve.

Ninguém duvida que [o presidente russo] Putin seja perigoso, malevolente, mas ele não é louco. Putin não é irracional. Nós achamos que ele seja Hitler, que a Ucrânia seja a Polônia e Kieve seja Varsóvia e nós aderimos, então, à teoria do dominó. Esta teoria reza que, depois de tomar a Ucrânia, ele atacará os países bálticos e, a seguir, atacará a Polônia. Essas premissas levam à conclusão de que deveríamos partir para o rearmamento. A meu ver, tudo isso é, simplesmente, uma loucura. Putin não cometeria a insanidade de ignorar o artigo 5.o e partir para a guerra contra a Otan.

Há toda sorte de razões pelas quais a Rússia tem os olhos postos sobre a Ucrânia. A expansão contínua da Otan desde 1991 foi provocação. A Otan é aliança militar que só passou a existir por uma razão: defender a Europa ocidental contra o Pacto de Varsóvia. O Pacto de Varsóvia se dissolveu, mas não a Otan. E quando a Rússia deu lembrança disso ao Ocidente, James Baker respondeu, em 1991, que a Otan não se deslocaria “nem um dedo” para leste. Apesar da bonita promessa, sabemos que os anos noventas testemunharam avanço da Otan na direção oriental de bem mais do que “um dedo”. E a expansão otaniana continua.

Isso não justifica as ações de Putin. Por outro lado, está ficando claro não ser verossímil que a invasão da Ucrânia prenuncie a invasão do restante da Europa. Não por essa bobagem, pois, deveríamos todos nos unir para a “guerra“.

Considero como dever mais fundamental de qualquer país o ser capaz de autodefesa. Não importa se liberal, marxista ou de extrema direita, o contrato social tem na segurança o seu elemento primacial. Ocorre, porém, que nós investimos muito pouco em defesa. Agora, depois de oitenta anos, os Estados Unidos fazem bem ao advertirem a Europa de que deve crescer e voar pelas próprias asas. Já é hora de começar a ganhar algum dinheiro e conquistar certa independência. O conflito entre a Rússia e a Ucrânia teve o efeito positivo de fazer ver à Europa que não pode mais seguir contando sempre com o tio Sam.

_______________________

Fonte: Breizh-info | Autoria: James Orr | Título original: Professeur James Orr: “Aucune civilisation n’a jamais invité des envahisseurs et les a logés dans des hôtels quatre étoiles”. | Data de publicação: 17 de agosto de 2025 | Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

 

Villains of Judea: Ronald Lauder and his War on American Dissent

/7 Comments/in /by

Villains of Judea: Ronald Lauder and his War on American Dissent

For Lauder, Israel always comes first.

World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder likes to present himself as a civic minded elder statesman, a sober billionaire warning America about a rising tide of antisemitism.

At the Israel Hayom Summit on December 2, 2025, he framed the moment as a crisis of the West itself, calling it “a full-scale assault on truth, on democracy, and on the safety of Jewish people everywhere,” and insisting, “This is not normal. And it is not ‘just criticism of Israel.’ It is the world’s oldest hatred, once again wearing political clothing.”

Lauder was referring to the rise of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment worldwide in the wake of Israel’s 2-year bombing campaign in Gaza.

Then he sharpened the spear and aimed it at domestic enemies like Tucker Carlson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of Israel in the post-October 7 reality we live in. He told the audience, “Tucker Carlson is the Father Coughlin of our generation.” In the same speech he warned that complacency is over, because “antisemitism is rampant throughout our culture,” and he demanded a political and institutional counteroffensive.

That is the Lauder formula in its purest form. He wraps a totalizing political program in the language of safety and moral emergency, then treats America’s public life as territory to be reorganized around his crusade. The target is never merely hatred. The target is dissent, drift, and disobedience from the priorities he has chosen, priorities that consistently put Israel first.

Lauder did not arrive at this posture late in life. He was born into power in New York City in 1944, the heir to the Estée Lauder fortune, raised in elite institutions, and trained for international influence through business and foreign policy study. He entered the family company early, then moved into government in the Reagan era, where he served at the Pentagon as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy.

Ronald Reagan then tapped him as U.S. ambassador to Austria in 1986. In Vienna, he did not behave like a neutral American emissary. He turned his diplomatic post into a stage for historical confrontation and political signaling. Lauder refused to attend the inauguration of Austria’s president Kurt Waldheim amid allegations of him being involved in or being aware of National Socialist atrocities in the Balkans during his service as a German army lieutenant in World War II. He also fired U.S. diplomat Felix Bloch for engaging in suspected espionage activities.

After government service, Lauder tried to convert his vast wealth into formal power at home. In 1989, he ran for mayor of New York City as a Republican, where he spent big bucks to get his name out and campaign to the right of Rudy Giuliani, only to lose the primary. Even in defeat, the pattern held. He treated politics as an arena where money does all the talking, and he kept looking for levers that could bend public life to his will.

He found one in term limits. During the 1990s he poured resources into imposing term limits on New York City officials, selling it as a democratic reform and a check on machine party politics. Yet in 2008, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted a third term, Lauder reversed course and supported extending those limits, a turn that mainstream critics interpreted as a billionaire bargain dressed up as civic necessity. However, from the perspective of long-time observers of Jewish behavior, Lauder’s support for Bloomberg reflects a pattern of co-ethnic solidarity among Jewish power brokers.

While Lauder played these games in New York, his real career was consolidating leadership in the organized Jewish political world. Notably, Lauder was a member of the Mega Group—a mysterious network of Jewish oligarchs that worked behind the scenes to advance Jewish interests and strengthen pro-Israel bonds among Jews in America. Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret, and the late Jewish sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein were among the most prominent members of this Jewish consortium. By 2007, Lauder had become president of the World Jewish Congress, a position that turned him into a roaming power broker who meets heads of state and treats international politics as a permanent lobbying campaign.

From that perch, he repeatedly framed Western security architecture as a vehicle for Israeli priorities. In 2011, he publicly argued that Israel should be admitted into NATO, insisting, “Israel needs real guarantees for its security,” and pressing NATO states to bring Israel into the alliance.

In 2012, he attacked European pressure campaigns on Israel with maximalist rhetoric. When Irish officials floated an EU ban on goods from Israeli communities in the West Bank, Lauder called boycott talk “cynical and hypocritical,” and declared, “Minister Gilmore is taking aim at the only liberal democracy in the Middle East while keeping quiet about those who really wreak havoc in the region: the Assads, Ahmadinejads and their allies Hezbollah and Hamas.” He added that the West Bank was “legally disputed and not illegally occupied.”

He carried the same posture with respect to Iran — enemy #1 for world Jewry at the moment. In 2013, as Western diplomats negotiated with Tehran, he mocked their perceived softness and conjured Munich analogies, warning, “Just as the West gave up Czechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich in 1938, we see what is happening again and the world is silent,” and boasting, “Frankly, only France stands between us and a nuclear Iran.” In 2015, he escalated again, attacking the nuclear deal with a moral curse, saying, “The road to hell is often paved with good intentions,” and arguing that the agreement could revive Iran economically without stopping long term nuclear ambitions.

The story kept darkening as his proximity to Israeli power deepened. In 2016, Israeli police questioned Lauder in connection with “Case 1000,” the Netanyahu gifts affair. Reports said investigators sought his testimony because of his closeness to Netanyahu and the broader allegations involving luxury gifts and favors. Lauder was not charged, but the episode revealed how near he operated to Israel’s governing circle, not as an outside friend, but as part of the broader, transnational Jewish network.

By 2023, he openly wielded donor money as a disciplinary weapon in American institutions. After the October 7 attacks and campus controversies, he warned the University of Pennsylvania that, “You are forcing me to reexamine my financial support absent satisfactory measures to address antisemitism.” The message was simple. If a prestigious American university fails to police speech and activism the way he demands, he will squeeze it financially until it complies.

In 2025, Lauder continued supporting Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza. He categorically rejected the idea that Israel bears any responsibility for ending the conflict, insisting, “The truth is simple: the war could end tomorrow if Hamas were to release the remaining hostages and disarm.” On education and propaganda, he stopped pretending the solution is persuasion alone. At the World Jewish Congress gala in November 2025, he argued that the education pipeline must be rebuilt from the ground up, declaring, “The entire education system — K-12 to college — must be retaught,” and adding, “It’s time we fight back with stronger PR to tell the truth.”

He also made the threat explicit. In a widely shared clip, he vowed, “Any candidate running for a seat… whose platform includes antisemitism, we will target them as they target us.”

Like most of the Israel First set, Lauder was ecstatic about the toppling of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria in late 2024. In September 2025, he met former al-Qaeda terrorist-turned Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly and afterward said, “We had a very positive discussion about normalization between Israel and Syria.” Lauder seems to think he has political power in Israel.

Seen in order, the picture is not complicated. Lauder builds influence through money, embeds himself in elite institutions, and uses both to steer policy and culture toward a relentless Zionist agenda. He does not talk like a man defending American sovereignty. He talks like an agent of world Jewry who expects America’s parties, schools, media, and alliances to function as enforcement arms for a foreign cause.

That is why his December 2025 sermon about antisemitism matters. It is not only a warning. It is a blueprint. When Lauder says “If we don’t tell our own story, others will rewrite it,” he is not describing a cultural debate. He is declaring ownership over the narrative, and claiming the right to punish anyone in American life who refuses to repeat it.

In the end, Ronald Lauder emerges not as a guardian of American civic life but as a disciplined enforcer of a foreign political creed, using wealth, intimidation, and moral blackmail to bend institutions to his will. What he calls a fight against hatred looks increasingly like a campaign to subordinate American sovereignty, speech, and policy to the imperatives of Israel and the transnational Jewish clique that sustains it.

Bondi Beach Bloodbath: How Jews Are Exploiting What Their Own Activism Created

/11 Comments/in , /by

Australia and Britain are on opposite sides of the globe. But mind annihilates distance and the mind of a leading Irish ethicist has recently pondered events in these two widely separated countries. Yes, the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill has raised two very interesting questions about two pairs of energetic Muslims, one pair in Australia, the other in Britain. Alas, I can’t say Brendan has supplied good answers, so I’ll try to do so for him. Anyway, let’s review his questions. After a pair of Muslims slaughtered Jews on Bondi Beach,[1] Brendan asked: “Is nowhere safe from the pox of Jew hate?” And after another pair of Muslims raped a White girl in Leamington Spa, Brendan asked: “Why were these Afghan rapists even in Britain?”

The Jewish recipe for societal bliss

The questions are very easy to answer, but Brendan declined do so. Here’s the answer to the first: Yes, there are many places safe from the pox of Jew hate. There’s Hungary, for example. That’s the birthplace of Brendan’s guru, the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. Jews don’t get massacred there for a very simple reason. It’s because Hungary has never followed the Jewish recipe for societal bliss. Jews don’t like living as an obvious minority in homogeneous White nations, because they fear that Whites will turn on them for absolutely no reason, as Whites have so often in the past. Accordingly, Jews throughout the West have worked hard for non-White immigration, especially by Muslims. Jews have long seen Muslim immigration as “Good for Jews.” And what other consideration matters? In Britain, the Jew Dr Richard Stone has said “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” In Holland, the Jew Arnon Grunberg has said “Joden en moslims […] zijn natuurlijke bondgenoten,” which means the same. In Australia, Jews led the campaign to dismantle the “White Australia” policy that prevented immigration by Muslims and other non-Whites (see also Brenton Sanderson’s 5-part series on the Jewish campaign to end the White Australia policy) . In America, Jews like Emmanuel Celler exploited the ethnic resentments of the Irish Catholic Teddy Kennedy, who fronted the campaign to open America’s borders to Third-World enrichment.

Some of the Jews who worked to end the White Australia policy

In Britain, Irish Catholics like Brendan O’Neill have been exploited by the Jew Frank Furedi in the same way. When they operated as the Revolutionary Communist Party, Frank and his resentment-filled, revenge-hungry disciples demanded “an end to all controls on immigration.” In 2015, under the no-nonsense title of “Let Them In,” Brendan issued a moving plea on behalf of energetic Muslims aspiring to enter Europe:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. […] We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (“Let Them In,” Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

That was ten years ago. In 2025 Brendan has seen — but not admitted — the error of his ways. Where once he waxed lyrical in support of open borders for sluggish Europe, he now lists that very support among the three worst examples of the “cranky shite” urged upon sane folk by the woke left: “transwomen are women, open the borders, Israel is bad.” You see, Brendan has belatedly realized that some unsluggish and guileful migrants have “aspirations” to be “fascist filth.” That, at least, is how Brendan described Sajid and Naveed Akram, the Muslim father and son who massacred Jews at Bondi Beach. I think that his description is both ideologically inaccurate and ethically inane. Calling one’s ideological opponents “filth” might be fun for the woke left and other self-righteous adolescents, but it’s not a label I expect to see used by ethically serious adults. A label like that justifies stripping people of their rights and torturing or murdering them (à la Frank and Brendan’s hero Leon Trotsky, in fact). Perhaps Brendan should have a word with himself, because he piped a very different tune in another of his articles:

One Afghan human being is worth more than a million Afghan dogs

There have been many disturbing things about the manner in which American and NATO forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan. It has been chaotic and bloody. The US has left a vast cache of weapons and humvees and helicopters for the Taliban to claim. But for me, one of the most disturbing things has been the British media elite’s warped focus on Afghan pets, on getting animals out of Afghanistan. I have always felt a little perplexed by British people’s soppy relationship with beasts; nothing reminds me of my foreignness more than seeing full-grown British adults cooing over their cats or snogging their dogs. And yet even I have been shocked by the undue emphasis — scrap that: the immoral emphasis — that the British media have given to Afghanistan’s four-legged creatures. It is a disgraceful failure of humanity to fret about animals when so many human beings are in mortal danger. […]

To my mind, every human life is almost immeasurably valuable, for the sentience and consciousness and promise that it embodies. One human life is worth a million animal lives. If saving just one Afghan person’s life might somehow have entailed condemning every dog in that country to destitution or death, I would not hesitate to do it. Until we rediscover what is different and important about humanity, we will be forced to inhabit the cesspit of moral relativism in which 150 cats and dogs tug at our heartstrings more than the cries of our desperate and scared human allies. (“One Afghan human being is worth more than a million Afghan dogs,” Spiked Online, 31st August 2021)

It’s interesting that Brendan regards himself as “foreign” to Britain but still feels entitled to lecture the British on how to conduct their affairs. As folksy Brendan himself might comment: Arrogant, much? It’s also interesting that Brendan thinks that “every human life is almost immeasurably valuable.” But what about the lives of “fascist filth,” Brendan? Did you ever stop to consider whether those “scared and desperate” Afghans might hold “fascist” views on Jews, women and homosexuals? Apparently not.

The “fascist filth” and Afghan rapists whose lives are “almost immeasurably valuable” to the mind of Brendan O’Neill

Anyway, Brendan’s article waxing lyrical in support of Afghans supplies the simple answer to his second question: “Why were these Afghan rapists even in Britain?” It’s because of leftists like Brendan O’Neill, who regard Afghans not as autonomous human beings with their own agency but as faceless, fungible tokens in a narcissistic game of moralistic posturing. As for me: I would have welcomed Afghan dogs into Britain and refused entry to Afghan humans. This is because, unlike Brendan O’Neill, I take humans seriously and properly understand their “promise” and “potential.” You see, I’ve noticed that dogs from Afghanistan don’t commit rape or throw flesh-eating chemicals into women’s faces or stab women to death and lick the bloody knife afterwards. Dogs from Afghanistan enrich the lives of British Whites. Humans from Afghanistan blight the lives of British Whites. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to animals and humans from other vibrant Third-World countries. That’s why I say “Yes, by all means” to the dogs or cats, and “No, absolutely not” to the humans.

Hamas-hating fascist Itamar Ben-Gvir at a Jewish Power rally

Does my preference for Third-World animals over Third-World humans make me “fascist filth”? If it does, then the same label must apply to Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister who has kept Hungary free of the “pox of Jew hate” by declining to “Let Them In” when Hungarian leftists and libertarians have called for Third-World enrichment. And if Brendan is so concerned about “fascist filth,” perhaps he should investigate some of the ministers in the Hamas-smiting Israeli government he has just spent two years loudly supporting. There’s Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example. He’s the current Israeli Minister for National Security and heads a party called Otzma Yehudit, which means “Jewish Power.” Does that name sound a trifle fascist to you, Brendan? It should, because Otzma Yehudit is the direct “ideological descendant” of a now banned party called Kach (“Thus”), which was headed by a notorious Jewish fascist called Rabbi Meir Kahane. Before Ben-Gvir entered politics and had to clean up his image, he proudly displayed a portrait of someone called Baruch Goldstein in his living room. As I described in “Fingernails and Fascism,” Goldstein was a martyr with a machine-gun. He entered a mosque on Purim Day in 1994, murdered dozens of innocent Arab Muslims, and was beaten to death by the survivors.

That obviously racist massacre surely makes Goldstein and his admirers “fascist filth” to Brendan O’Neill. If it does (and how can it not?), then Brendan should note that Goldstein has a lot of admirers in Israel. The Jerusalem Post has reported that “10% of Israeli Jews think terrorist Baruch Goldstein is a “national hero’.” By Brendan’s logic, there must be huge amounts of “fascist filth” in Israel, including powerful government ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir. And yet Brendan is a firm supporter of Israel and only ever applies the label “fascist” to Hamas. Inconsistent, much? As for me: I’m happy to call Ben-Gvir “fascist,” because that’s what he is.[2] But I would never describe him as “fascist filth.” I’m not a self-righteous adolescent or a member of the woke left, you see, and I don’t want to think or act as though I am. You should try it, Brendan. It’s much easier than it might look. It might also help you understand how Jews and their “natural allies” are very bad for something you claim to hold very dear. Jewish activism created the Bondi Beach Bloodbath and Jewish activists are now exploiting the bloodbath to further restrict free speech. Otzma Yehudit!

[1]  The Jews on Bondi Beach were “celebrating” Hanukkah, the minor Jewish festival that Jewish ethnonarcissists have used to compete with and dilute the significance of Christmas.

[2]  I don’t think Hamas and other Islamists are fascist, however. Fascism is racially exclusive and supremacist in a way that Islamism isn’t. For example, Itamar Ben-Gvir and other fans of Baruch Goldstein follow venerable Jewish tradition in regarding Blacks as halfway between humans and monkeys (see the teaching of the great Jewish scholar Maimonides). In complete contrast, Islamism regards Blacks as fully human and welcomes them as recruits and fighters.

More Signs That America’s Youth Are Breaking with Israel

/10 Comments/in , /by

For decades, support for Israel functioned as one of Washington’s few unchallenged orthodoxies. That consensus is now cracking, and the fracture line runs straight through the American youth electorate. The latest findings from the Yale Youth Poll confirm that a generational realignment is well underway, one that cuts across party lines and increasingly places Israel at odds with America’s youth.

Conducted by an undergraduate-led research team at Yale University, the poll surveyed registered voters ages 18 to 34 alongside the broader electorate. Its Fall 2025 results show younger Americans abandoning the reflexive pro-Israel posture that once defined U.S.  politics. What replaces it is not a single ideology but a growing skepticism toward Israel’s actions in Gaza, American military aid to Israel, and the political networks that enforce silence on the issue.

The numbers are stark. Younger voters are far more likely than older Americans to hold negative views of Israel and to endorse statements critical of Israel and broader Jewry. Among voters ages 18 to 22, 30 percent agreed that Jews in the United States are more loyal to Israel than to America. 21 percent said it is appropriate to boycott Jewish-American owned businesses to protest the Gaza war. 27 percent agreed that Jews in the United States have too much power. Each figure exceeds the national average by a wide margin.

The poll also exposes widespread uncertainty around elite language policing. Among voters overall, 56 percent said they were not sure whether the phrase “globalize the intifada” is antisemitic. A plurality of 47 percent said calling the situation in Gaza a genocide is not antisemitic.

That credibility gap appears again in how younger voters understand Zionism. While the electorate as a whole most often defined Zionism as Jewish self-determination or the continued existence of Israel, voters ages 18–22 gravitated toward sharply negative definitions. Many described Zionism as maintaining a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine by displacing native Palestinians, creating a state where Jews receive more rights than others, or functioning as a form of racism and apartheid. Roughly one-third of all respondents said they were unfamiliar with the term entirely, underscoring how little resonance elite slogans now carry.

Nowhere is the generational divide clearer than on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. While 46 percent of voters overall supported that position, fewer than 30 percent of voters under 30 agreed. 15 percent of that cohort said Israel should not exist at all. By contrast, 64 percent of respondents aged 65 and older supported Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

Policy preferences follow perception. Nearly two-thirds of voters under 30 favor reducing or ending American military aid to Israel, with 46 percent supporting a total cutoff. The broader electorate remains split, but the direction of change is unmistakable. Younger Americans no longer treat Israel as an untouchable ally.

The Yale findings do not stand alone. They align closely with a growing body of polling that documents the same generational revolt. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll found that while 52 percent of Republicans aged 35 and older sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of Republicans ages 18 to 34 do. With respect to the Gaza conflict, 52 percent of older Republicans say Israeli actions are justified, compared to just 22 percent of younger Republicans. As Shibley Telhami told Responsible Statecraft, “The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking.”

Data summarized by RealClearPolling reinforces the pattern. Among Republicans under 50, unfavorable views of Israel jumped from 35 percent in 2022 to 50 percent in 2025. Older Republicans shifted only marginally. The same University of Maryland data shows that 41 percent of Americans believe Israeli military actions in Gaza constitute genocide or are akin to genocide, including 14 percent of Republicans. 21 percent say the Trump administration’s Israel Palestine policy was too pro-Israel, while 57 percent believe U.S. support has enabled Israeli war crimes.

Even evangelical Republicans are no longer immune. While 69 percent of older evangelicals sympathize more with Israel, that figure drops to 32 percent among younger evangelicals, and only 36 percent believe Israeli actions in Gaza are justified. A September 2025 AtlasIntel poll found that just 30 percent of Americans support financial assistance to Israel, a dramatic departure from Washington’s bipartisan habits.

Media consumption helps explain the shift. Younger Republicans rely far less on Fox News and far more on online platforms where Palestinian perspectives circulate freely. Seventy two percent of Republicans who rely on Fox News support Israel. Among those who get their news primarily from social media, support drops to 35 percent.

This grassroots revolt has begun to surface inside Congress, though only at the margins. Two Republicans stand out. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s shift has been abrupt and public. In November 2023 she defended her voting record funding Israel’s Iron Dome. By July 2025 she described Israel’s Gaza campaign as genocide. Writing on X, she stated, “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.” Days later, in remarks reported by Anadolu Agency, she asked, “Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?” Her later resignation from Congress does not erase the significance of her break.

Rep. Thomas Massie represents a steadier challenge. The Kentucky libertarian has long opposed Israeli wars and U.S. military aid. In testimony covered by Arab American News, he said, “I don’t want to condone what Israel’s doing. I don’t want to condone the way Netanyahu is waging the campaign against Hamas because I think there are too many civilian casualties.” On X he later wrote, “Nothing can justify the number of casualties inflicted by Israel in Gaza. We should end all US military aid to Israel immediately.”

Since October 7, Massie has not shied away from taking shots at the Israel lobby. He has described how every Republican member of Congress has an “AIPAC babysitter.” As a response to Massie’s strident critics of Jewish influence on American foreign policy, pro-Israel donors have mobilized millions against him, as this author has previously documented. The Republican Jewish Coalition has pledged unlimited spending, according to Jewish Insider.

Taken together, the Yale Youth Poll and its companion surveys point to a transpartisan realignment that Washington can no longer ignore. Young liberals, independents, and conservatives increasingly converge on the same conclusion that Israel’s Gaza campaign and its privileged position in U.S. politics demand scrutiny. This skepticism draws on an older American anti-war tradition, from Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the Gulf War to Ron Paul’s non-interventionism, but it now resonates with a generation that has grown hostile toward Zionism and organized Jewry’s vice grip on American foreign policy decision-making.

What was once an elite taboo has become a mass attitude. Israeli influence on U.S. politics no longer hides in plain sight. The numbers suggest that Israel’s greatest strategic loss may not be on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of the next generation of American voters.

 

July 14, 1555 – Creation of the Rome Ghetto by PAUL IV, Bull Cum nimis absurdum (Since it is absurd)

/7 Comments/in , /by

This is not a creation of Hitler or Goebbels, let alone Mussolini, who was not an anti-Semite and whose first mistress, Margherita Sarfatti, was Jewish. It is a bull published by Pope Paul IV on July 14, 1555, i.e., in the middle of the Renaissance and not in the darkness of the Middle Ages.

This bull does not come out of the blue. There were at least 24 anti-Semitic papal bulls before that of Paul IV and 38 after! To these bulls, it would be appropriate to add the statements of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.

The general position of the Church in the past seems to have been that it was necessary to discriminate against the Jews, to regulate their behavior vis-á-vis Christians, to designate them for opprobrium, but not to physically attack them: this is the doctrine of the “witness people” of Saint Augustine; the Jews must subsist so that everyone can see what happens to a people who do not recognize Christ. The declarations are clearly defensive in nature, aimed at protecting Christians against Jewish behavior.

The object of the bull revolves pretty much around the same discriminatory measures, one could say, of apartheid: wearing special clothes, expulsion or confinement in special quarters, prohibition to exercise certain public functions, prohibition of mixed marriages, encouraging forced conversions and special taxes to fund these conversions, prohibition of the Talmud and Autodafe, cancellation of Christian debts towards Jews, prohibition on Jews from having Christian servants or nannies etc.

The official justification is always the same, the Jewish people are cursed by God since they do not recognize their Son and are condemned to dispersion and wandering. Unofficially, however, a purely racial justification cannot be ruled out, as Pope Gregory I (540 – 604) put forward the doctrine of the Jews as a carnal people, in constrast to the Christian people, who are spiritual; this theme of the ‘carnal people’ could easily lead to the people of the ‘beast’, of the ‘antichrist’ and of ‘the Devil’.

In the Middle Ages, when popes received tribute from delegates of the Jewish-Roman community on the day of their coronation, they traditionally replied: “Legum Probo, sed improbo gentium” (“I approve of the law, but I disapprove of race”). We should also recall the existence in Spain, from 1449 onwards, of certificates of racial purity, in Spanish ‘estatuto de limpieza de sangre’ – ratified by PAUL III. Among the Jesuits, the requirement for this certificate, which had been instituted in 1593, was not lifted until 1946…

Returnig to the bull of Paul IV himself, in addition to confining the Jews in a district of Rome (now a very touristy area!), it imposed the wearing of a yellow pointed hat on men and a yellow headscarf on women. Jews were prohibited from owning real estate or practicing medicine with Christians (as a precaution!). 

  • Lungotevere de’ Cenci (along the Tiber River)

  • Via del Portico d’Ottavia (its lively central street)

  • Teatro Marcello and the nearby Capitol Hill

The neighborhood itself was surrounded by walls, with three doors locked at night. Only one synagogue per city was allowed. The successor of Paul IV, Pius IV extended the system of ghettos to other Italian cities, and the successor of the latter, Pius V, forbade the presence of Jews in his domains outside Rome and Ancona. Pius V is considered the most anti-Semitic Pope. He is canonized and his canonization has not been abrogated…

Here is the translation of Paul IV’s bull establishing the Roman ghetto, Cum nimis absurdum (Because it is so absurd)

Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum

Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See decreed by the Bishop Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.

As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who newly learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded our City Rome and a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, their impudence increased so much that they dare not only to live amongst the Christian people, but also in the vicinity of the churches without any difference of dressing, and even that they rent houses in the main streets and squares, buy and hold immovable property, engage maids, nurses and other Christian servants, and commit other and numerous misdeeds with shame and contempt of the Christian name. Considering that the Church of Rome tolerates these very Jews evidence of the true Christian faith and to this end [we declare]: that they, won over by the piety and kindness of the See, should at long last recognize their erroneous ways, and should lose no time in seeing the true light of the Catholic faith, and thus to agree that while they persist in their errors, realizing that they are slaves because of their deeds, whereas Christians have been freed through our Lord God Jesus Christ, and that it is iniquitous for it to appear that the sons of free women serve the sons of maids.

§ 1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with God, to beneficially provide, by this. that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in one and if there is not that capacity in two or three or however many quarters may be enough; they should reside entirely side by side in designated streets and be thoroughly separate from the residences of Christians, by our authority in the City and by that of our representatives in other states, lands and domains noted above, and that there must be only one entrance and exit from this quarter.

§ 2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves.

§ 3. Moreover, so that Jews should be distinguishable everywhere: men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed; and furthermore, they cannot be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate this adversity, either by a chamberlain of the Church, clerics of an Apostolic court, or their superiors, or by legates of the Holy See or their immediate subordinates.

§ 4. Also, they may not have nurses or maids or any other Christian domestic or service by Christian women in wet-nursing or feeding their children.

§ 5. They may not work or have work done on Sundays or on other public feast days declared by the Church.

§ 6. Nor may they incriminate Christians in any way or promulgate false or forged agreements.

§ 7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians.

§ 8. And they cannot use other than Latin or Italian words in short-term account books that they hold with Christians, and, if they should use them, such records would not be binding on Christians.

§ 9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or “cencinariae” (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

§ 10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

§ 11. And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians.

§ 12. And they are to close their [loan] accounts entirely every thirty days; should fewer than thirty days elapse, they shall not be counted as an entire month, but only as the actual number of days, and furthermore, they will terminate the reckoning as of this number of days and not for the term of an entire month. In addition, they are prohibited from selling [goods put up as] collateral, put up as temporary security for their money, unless [such goods were] put up a full eighteen months prior to the day on which such [collateral] would be forfeit; at the expiration of the aforementioned number of months, if Jews have sold a security deposit of this sort, they must sign over all money in excess of the principal of the loan to the owner of the collateral.

§ 13. And the statutes of states, territories and domains wherever they presently live, concerning primacy of Christians, are to be adhered to and followed without exception.

§ 14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime: in Rome, by us or by our clergy, or by others authorized by us, and in the aforementioned states, territories and domains by their respective magistrates, just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place, they would be accused by all Christian people, by us and by our clergy, and could be punished at the discretion of the proper authorities and judges.

§ 15.Not to be confuted by conflicting decrees and apostolic rules, and regardless of any tolerance whatever or special rights and dispensation for these Jews of any Roman Pontiff prior to us and of the aforementioned See or of their legates, or by the courts of the Church of Rome and the clergy of the Apostolic courts, or by other of their officials, no matter their import and form, and with whatever, even with repeated derogations, and with other legally valid sub-clauses, and erasures and other decrees, even those that are “motu proprio” and from “certain knowledge” and have been repeatedly approved and renewed. By this document, even if, instead of their sufficient derogation, concerning them and their entire import, special, specific, expressed and individual, even word for word, moreover, not by means of general, even important passages, mention, or whatever other expression was favored, or whatever exquisite form had to be retained, matters of such import, and, if word for word, with nothing deleted, would be inserted into them in original form in the present document holding that rather than being sufficiently expressed, those things that would stay in effect in full force by this change alone, we specially and expressly derogate, as well as any others contrary to them.

 

Declared at St. Mark’s, Rome, in the one thousand five hundred fifty fifth year of the incarnation of our Lord, one day before the ides of July, in the first year of our Papacy.