Attempt to Bring Holy Roman Empire
Under Jewish Rule

The following facts are of great importance for the religious and political leaders of all times, for Jewry, especially its clandestine form, represents a concealed power, whose danger under certain circumstances is not discernible even for the most talented leaders in its whole extent. Thus the skilled diplomacy of the synagogue can occasion them to commit faults which could have catastrophic consequences for their nation and often for the entire world.

What happened to one of the greatest political geniuses of the Christian era should draw the attention of all those leaders or personages who, underestimating the wickedness and danger of the Jews and attracted by the monetary advantages so alluringly offered to their collaborators, start playing with fire and believe they will not get themselves burned. In this they are perhaps influenced by that natural tendency to regard themselves as all-powerful, a trait so often found—and often with good reason—among the great men of mankind.

Charlemagne, who built up again the western Roman Empire and protected Holy Church, who gave an impetus to science, the arts and trade, and was one of the most important political geniuses of all times had, however, one weakness: He was subjected to the skilled deceit and diplomacy of Jewry, which utilised in its favour the characteristic wish of the grandson of Charles Martel for unity of the peoples and races, his inborn sympathy with the oppressed and persecuted and the correct desire on the other side of the monarch, to enlarge and strengthen his kingdom through the extension of trade. Thus he released the beast which the Merovingians, with good reason and insight, had laid in chains, and gave back to it freedom of movement, without taking into regard that as a result he violated the canons of Holy Church, to whom on the other side he conceded all possible advantages.

With their skill tested in the course of centuries the Jews understood how to arouse the inborn sympathy of the Emperor for the oppressed, and attained that he allowed them all possible freedoms. As usual they were able to transform this pity into sympathy and to convince him that the greatness of the kingdom could only be secured with their economic power, and that again could be achieved with the development of a flourishing trade. Since the Jews had then almost a monopoly, they convinced the Emperor of the utility of using them to extend the trade of the Holy Empire to the whole world. One can easily imagine how attractive such a prospect was at a time when the nobility devoted itself exclusively to the art of war, the slaves cultivated the land, and the Jews or secret Jewish Christians were almost the sole ones who carried on trading activity.

Concerning the new policy of Charles the Great in the face of the Jews, the Jewish historian Graetz confirms:

"Although Charlemagne was a protector of the church and helped to establish the supremacy of the Papacy, and Pope Hadrian, a contemporary of the Emperor, was absolutely no friend of the Jews and had repeatedly summoned the Spanish bishops to ensure that the Christians did not have relations with the Jews and pagans, Charlemagne in no way shared the prejudices of the clergy towards the Jews. Against all statutes of the Church and the resolutions of the Councils the first Frank Emperor favoured the Jews in his kingdom. . . The Jews were in that time the principal representatives of world trade. While the nobles turned to war affairs, the plebs to crafts, and the farmers and slaves turned to agriculture, the Jews were not allowed to perform military service and possessed no hired land, but directed their attention to the import and export of goods and slaves, so that the favour of Charlemagne was in certain respect a privilege for the trading folk."

The Jewish historian Josef Kastein writes about Charlemagne:

"He knew exactly how to evaluate the Jews as a principal support of international trade. Their connections stretched from France as far as India and China. Their communities in the whole world functioned as agencies. They knew many languages in an admirable way and were astonishingly well suited as linking-parts between East and West."

If the Jewish historians elaborate their possibilities so emphatically to us today, then one can easily imagine how they introduced their plans to Charlemagne in order to gain his support.

But they not only attained this support in trade, but also applied their traditional tactics and attempted, when they had once attained this position, to conquer a further one, afterwards the next, later another, etc. The Jew Sedechias became confiding doctor of the Emperor, as a result of which the Jews gained admittance to the court, and one soon sees them there in important posts of the diplomatic service of Charlemagne. The latter sent Isaak the Jew as ambassador to the court of Harun al Raschids, under whose government the Caliphate of Baghdad reached its highest point. On the other side the Caliph was justly alarmed at the increasing power of Jewry in the Islamic lands and undertook defensive measures against this. Among other things he compelled the Jews to wear a sign which distinguished them from the Musulmans. These measures stood in unmistakeable contradiction to the protection which the Christian Emperor granted them.

The Jew Graetz asserts that the protection of Charlemagne made easier the appearance of the Jews in North Germany and their penetration into the Slavic lands.

The activity of the Jews at the time of Charlemagne shows us how the Jews applied new tactics, which consisted in conducting themselves well and serving the Christian monarch loyally, so that the latter removed the chains which hampered them in their freedom of movement and then gradually gained high positions in the Christian state. At that time they withheld themselves from all revolutionary activity, as long as the genial powerful monarch lived, who would doubtless have overthrown them at the first false step, enjoyed in the meantime the Imperial protection, and gained more and more in power, in order at the suitable moment to carry out the treacherous blow. This occurred after the death of the Emperor, when a mediocre, weak-willed, irresolute and easily influenced man followed him on the throne.

When Charlemagne died, his son Ludwig (Louis) succeeded him, who, on account of his extreme piety during his first years of rule, received the surname of the Pious. Unfortunately, he was an untalented, weak-willed man, who easily fell into the hands of flatterers and those who knew how to handle him.

When he ascended the throne, he began to expel his half-brothers and later the ministers of his father from the land. He had the eyes cut out of Bernhard, the king of Italy, who had risen against him. All these facts show that the so-called piety of the monarch did not extend as far as it appeared.

When his first wife died, he married Judith, who appeared at the court with a retinue of Jews and, as the new Empress, exerted, together with the royal chancellor (treasurer) Bernhard, a decisive influence upon the monarch. The latter allowed declared Jews and Christians of Jewish origin at the court, which is not further to be wondered at, if one reflects that he had seen from youth onwards how his father protected the Jews and entrusted high offices to them.

If now Christian, anti-Jewish leaders with insuperable energy had not fought against the Jewish beast, the Holy Roman German Empire would perhaps have been subjected eleven centuries ago to Jewish Imperialism. If this kingdom had fallen, which was the mightiest of the then world, Jewry would perhaps have been successful in conquering the whole earth in a short time.

The Rabbi Jakob S. Raisin writes about Ludwig the Pious:

"Ludwig the Pious (814-40) went still further than his father. He informed the bishops, abbots, counts, prefects, governors and others, that the Jews stood under the protection of the Emperor and might be disturbed neither in the practising of their religion nor in their business trade." He then enumerates further privileges, which Ludwig allowed the Jews, and it is further stated: "And since the Jews made no business on the Sabbath, the market day was transferred to Sunday. Ludwig also appointed a special judge for the defence of the Jews against the intolerance of the clergy."

And concerning the struggle of Agobard, the archbishop of Lyon, and St. Bernhard, the archbishop of Vienna, against the Jews, the zealous Rabbi says:

"The reaction of the Church to the measures of Ludwig to lift certain legal restrictions laid on the Jews, found expression through Agobard, the archbishop of Lyons (779-840), who, together with St. Bernhard, the archbishop of Vienna, deposed the Emperor, who on his side deposed them. In four letters to the king they complained about these people (the Jews), 'who invested themselves with the Curse as with a dress', and boasted of being highly valued by the king and by the nobility, so that on the other side the women observed the Sabbath with the Jews, worked on Sunday, shared their fast foods, and that the Jews not only concerted the pagan slaves, but in their capacity as tax-collectors bribed the fanners and seduced them to confess to Judaism, by their lessening these taxes or excusing them therefrom."

As one sees, the Jews utilised to a great extent the protection of the Emperor and of the nobility and even their position as tax collectors, in order to press the Christian peoples to confess to Judaism and to give up their own belief. Then without doubt the Synagogue wished to rule the peoples through conversion at the gate. The methods have been different at different times and in the individual lands, but the purpose was always the same, i.e. the conquest and ruling of the peoples who naively tolerated the Jews in their realm.

St. Bernhard, the archbishop of Vienna, and Agobard, the archbishop of Lyon, fought in common this struggle for life and death. For those who wish to investigate the Jewish problem, Agobard's book against the Jews makes interesting reading, and was written with the valuable cooperation of St. Bernhard of Vienna.

The Jewish historian Josef Kastein writes, that Ludwig the Pious

". . . took not only individual Jews but entire communities under his personal protection and allowed them rights and a Magister Judaeorum, who was to ensure that these rights were respected."

In order to provide ourselves with a better idea of the serious position of Christianity under this disastrous government, we once again allow the highly-regarded Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz to speak. He writes concerning the conduct of the Emperor towards the Jews:

"He took them under his special protection and defended them against the injustices of the barons and of the clergy. They had the right of dwelling everywhere in the kingdom. In spite of countless laws that forbade this, they could not only employ Christian workers but also import slaves. The clergy were forbidden to baptise the slaves of the Jews and to give them the possibility of regaining their freedom. On their account the market was changed from Saturday to Sunday. . . In addition they were freed from the severe fire and water tests. They were also tax collectors and had through this privilege a great power over the Christians, even if this was also contrary to the Church Canons."

These facts reveal to us in what measure the Jews had dominance in the Holy Roman Empire. For on the one side the Christians were subjected to the then customary fire and water tests, while the Jews had the special privilege of being freed therefrom. Since the Christians at that time celebrated Sunday very strictly, the market was held on Saturday, and it was unheard of that things then went so far to grant the Jews the pleasure of changing market day from Saturday to Sunday, so that they and not the Christians could celebrate their festival. Not once in the world of today, so favourably inclined to Jewry, have things come to this.

This proves who the real rulers at the Court of Ludwig and Judith were, where the worst of all the Jews were also even tax-collectors and utilised this valuable position, in order to economically oppress the farmers and to occasion them to deny Christianity and to take on Judaism, by their either putting into effect or lessening the oppressive tax burdens. Now it was the Jews who attempted to compel the true Christians in a Christian monarchy to give up their belief. The roles had been changed in a couple of years of philo-semitic policy.

This regrettable situation was already prepared at the time of Charlemagne himself through the contact and living-together of Jews and Christians. This is revealed to us by the lamentations of Pope Stephen III, whom the learned Jewish historian Josef Kastein quotes literally:

"Pope Stephen III had made a complaint to the bishop of Narbonne in south France: 'with great sorrow and deadly anxiety we have heard that the Jews. . . have in a Christian land the same rights as the Christians and possess Allodial goods in the city and suburbs, which they describe as their city. Christian men and women live under the same roof with these traitors and defile their soul day and night through blasphemies.'"

Pope Stephen III described the Jews as traitors and with this hit a sore place. In our days he would have been destined, if he still lived, to be condemned on account of race hatred and antisemitism. On the other hand, we must, in order to understand another motive for the lament of the Pope, explain that then interest on loans had to be paid for family goods, with exception of the Allodial goods, which were a real privilege of some nobles, but which the Jews possessed in Narbonne, while the Christian people did not have such privileges.

Graetz reveals that the chief reason for the protection which the Jews enjoyed, was that:

". . . the Empress Judith, the second wife of Ludwig, was very favourable to the Jews. The beautiful clever woman, whom her friends admired, just as her enemies hated her, had a great respect for the ancient Jewish heroes. When the learned Abbot of Fulda, Rhabanus Maurus, wished to win her favour, he could find no more effective means than to dedicate to her his works on the biblical books of Esther and Judith and to compare her with these two Jewish heroines. The Empress and her friends and probably also the state treasurer Bernhard, who in reality ruled the kingdom, became protectors of the Jews, since the latter were descended from the patriarchs and prophets. They must be honoured for this reason', she said to her friends at the court, and her opinion was supported by the Emperor."

But as usual the protection of the Jews and Semitophilism turns into the domination of the Jews over the Christians and to anti-Christian activity. The additional report by Graetz is very illuminating in this respect:

"Learned Christians delighted in the writings of the Jewish historian Joseph and of the Jewish philosopher Philo and preferred their works to those of the Apostles. Well-educated court ladies openly confessed that they valued higher the founder of the Jewish Law than of the Christian Law (i.e. Moses higher than Christ). They went so far as to beg a blessing from the Jews. The Jews had free access to the court and direct contact with the Emperor and his confidants. The relatives of the Emperor gave the Jews valuable presents, in order to show them their favour and respect. And since such distinctions were granted them in the highest circles, it was only natural that towards Jews of the Frankish kingdom, which also comprised Germany and Italy, far-reaching tolerance was practised, as perhaps in no other time in their history. The hated church laws were quietly annulled.

"The Jews were allowed to build synagogues, to openly speak to Christians about Judaism, and even to assert that 'they were descendants of the patriarchs', 'the race of the righteous' (i.e. Christ) and 'the sons of the Prophets'. Without fear they could give expression to their opinions concerning Christianity, the miracles of the Saints, the relics and the cult of the holy images. The Christians attended the Synagogues and were attracted by the method of how the Jews practised worship of God and they took in even more the tectures of the Jewish preachers (Darshanim) than the sermons of the clergy, even if the Darshanim were hardly in the position to reveal the deep content of Judaism."

"The clergy were then not ashamed to take over their explanations of the Holy Scriptures from the Jews. The Abbot Rhabanus Maurus of Fulda admitted that he had learned much from the Jews, which he used in his commentary on the Bible dedicated to Ludwig the German—who afterwards became Emperor. As a consequence of these marks of favour towards the Jews at the Court, many Christians felt themselves drawn to Judaism and regarded it as the true religion. "

This description by the highly regarded Jewish historian Graetz makes clear to us that the present day arguments—that, for example, the Jews are untouchable, because they are descended from the Patriarchs and more of the like—with which they attempt to deceive the Christians and wish to prevent them defending themselves against the Satanic Imperialism of the Synagogue, are the same which the Jews used centuries ago for similar purposes, who then infamously fought to destroy Christianity and to bring the Holy Roman German Empire under Jewish rule. The tricks, subtle deceptions or Jewish fairy tales, as Saint Paul would say, are still always the same after eleven centuries.

But our Lord Jesus saved Holy Church once again from the Jewish falsehood and such desolation. This time it was the Paladine Abogard, the archbishop of Lyons and later his pupil and imitator in the episcopal see, Amolon. They fought for the salvation of the Church from Jewry.

In a recently published official work of the Jewish-Argentinian society, Agobard and Amolon, the two archbishops of Lyons, are described as fathers of Antisemitism in the Middle Ages. This accusation seems terrible, since the Jews attribute to Mediaeval antisemitism the greatest harm to Jewry which a Christian mind can imagine.

This welcome reaction is commented upon by the classical Jewish historian Graetz, as follows:

"Those who held firmly to the discipline of the Church, saw in the violation of the Church laws, in the favour shown to the Jews and in the freedoms allowed to them, the downfall of Christianity. Envy and hatred were at the back of this righteousness. The protectors of the Jews at the court with the Empress at their head were hated by the Church party. . . The advocate of Church righteousness and of hatred for the Jews of the then time was the restless enthusiastic Archbishop of Lyon, Agobard, whom the Church has canonised. He slandered the Empress Judith, rebelled against the Emperor and drove the princes to rebellion. . . The bishop wished to restrict the freedom of the Jews and to bring them back to the low position which they occupied under the Merovingians."

Graetz further writes, that the struggle of the Archbishop Agobard against the Jews lasted many years and as its basis:

". . . had the maintenance and defence of the Church Laws against the Jews, so that he directed his attention to the representatives of the Church party at the court, of whom he knew that they were enemies of the Empress and of her Jewish favourites. He urged them to influence the Emperor, so that he would restrict the freedom of the Jews. Apparently they also proposed something similar to the Emperor. But simultaneously the friends of the Jews at the Court sought for new ways and means, in order to spoil the plans of the clergy."

And Graetz continues:

"Agobard gave anti-Jewish sermons and ordered his flock to break off every connection with the Jews, to carry on no business with them and not to enter into their service. Fortunately the protectors at the court supported the Jews actively and condemned the intentions of the fanatical clergy to failure. As soon as they learned of his activity, they had themselves protective letters (indiculi) written by the Emperor and sent them, provided with his seal, to the Bishop in which he was ordered, upon threat of severe penalties, to cease his anti-Jewish sermons. In the year 828 a second letter went to the governor of the district of Lyon, which requested him to allow the Jews to enjoy every possible support. Agobard did not heed these letters and added contemptuously that the Imperial edict was certainly forged and could not be true."

The worthy archbishop Agobard fought ceaselessly. He directed letters to all inhabitants of the Bishopric and requested them to participate actively in the struggle against the Jews. He aided the rebellion against the Emperor and Judith and, with the support of the sons of Ludwig from the first marriage, he fought bitterly to save the Holy Empire and Christianity from the ruin threatening them.

The authorised historian Graetz comments on the conduct of Agobard as follows:

"Although the deep hatred of Agobard for the Jews must be regarded as having sprung principally from his own feelings, one cannot deny that he acted completely in accord with the Church doctrines. He referred himself simply to the assertions of the Apostles and the Church Laws. The inviolable decrees of the Councils were also on his side. Agobard was in his dark hatred strictly orthodox, while the Emperor Ludwig with his tolerance tended to heresy. Agobard, however, did not risk openly asserting this. He rather more hinted at that he found it difficult to believe that the Emperor would betray the Church in favour of the Jews. His complaints found an echo in the hearts of the Church princes."

This commentary of Graetz's concerning the true teaching of the Church existing over many centuries in relation to the Jews, could not be more balanced and more realistic, even if these lines were written by the renowned historian in the previous century, when the Synagogue of Satan was still not in the position, as today, to attempt the complete falsification of the true Catholic teaching with regard to the Jews. But one sees clearly that Graetz had already essentially grasped the problem. He was one of the most important men of Jewry of his time. His historic works, especially the works which we quote, had an enormous influence upon the Jewish organisations and their leaders.

In addition it was universally evident that the Church laws and anti-Jewish resolutions of the Holy Ecumenical and provincial councils were the chief hindrance for the traitors in the Church itself, which her principal enemies, the Jews, furthered. For whoever made such attempts, had to reckon upon being deposed, with excommunication and the other penalties laid down in the Holy Church Canons. Hence it was the chief concern of the new traitors to remove this troublesome hindrance. But how was it possible to abolish with one blow the thousand-year-old Church Laws, the Papal Bulls and the teachings of the Church Fathers? How were these to be abolished so that the secret Jewish clergy could serve their Jewish masters without fear of being deposed and excommunicated and even attempt to falsify the doctrine of the Church in relation to the Jews, and as a result to promote its final defeat and the victory of its century old foe?

In the course of centuries the Jews and their Fifth Column in the clergy have repeatedly made the attempt to abolish the anti-Jewish Laws and to achieve that the Papal Bulls and the anti-Jewish theses of the Church Fathers should not fall under these laws. They have for this purpose, always according to the given possibilities, taken the most diverse paths.

At the beginning of this century they have utilised the praiseworthy wish of Pope Pius X to summarise the most important Church Law determinations in one Codex; for in the turbulent time of the first world war of 1914-18 all attention was directed to the apocalyptic struggle and so they attained that from the Church legal Codex the voluminous collection of Laws was excluded which represented the most effective defence of Holy Church against the secret Jewish infiltration and its destructive activity in the bosom of this institution. It is noteworthy that this occurred a few years after the Jewish historian Graetz,—the oracle of the then Jewish leaders—wrote the previously quoted lines. As a result it becomes evident that the anti-Jewish Church Legislation was the chief hindrance for attempts to bring Catholicism as well as the Holy Empire under Jewish rule.

On the other hand it is clearly revealed in the Church Law Codex mentioned, that fundamentally the old Church legislation has not been altered. But in actual praxis the anti-Jewish and anti-heretical Laws were carefully left out, which represented the best defence of the Church against the centuries-old enemy. This differentiating, painfully exact omission, must certainly have been undertaken by a person very interested in the matter, who without doubt stood in the service of the organisation which from this veritable purging of anti-Jewish and anti-heretical laws, which took away from Holy Church a defence which it had built up in hundreds of years of experience, drew such great advantages.

It is generally known that Pope Pius X did not work out the Codex himself, but left its editing to committees, whose presidency was conducted by Cardinal Gasparri and to whom without doubt those joined themselves, who undertook so carefully the suspicious editing of the Laws. If, as a result, the anti-Jewish Church Laws of the Holy Councils still remained in force (for the old Synods' legislation was still valid despite the omissions of the Codex), the omission of the Holy Church Laws which ordered severe punishments and deposing for clergy and Church dignitaries, nevertheless made it possible at the time of Pius XI for that Jew-friendly association of clergy and laymen to be founded, whose heretical theses were only the prelude for those of present-day priests and church dignitaries in the service of the Synagogue of Satan.

Another method which Jewry and its Fifth Column have always used again in the course of centuries, in order to cause the vanishing of Bulls and anti-Jewish theses of the Church Fathers, was the organisation of heretical movements, which did not recognise the doctrine of Holy Church and asserted that the Holy Bible is the sole source of revelation. Put briefly, these heretics make the assurance—as we will investigate later—that not tradition but only the Holy Scriptures are the source of revelation.

These kinds of heretical movements, which—as we shall still see—were led by Jewry, began in the 11th century and were repeatedly combated by the orthodoxy, until in the 16th century Protestantism conducted these theses to success, abolished tradition as doctrine and source of revelation and recognised only the Holy Bible as such. The Jews, who in most cases directed and influenced these movements, were in reality concerned with eliminating the Holy Church Laws of the Ecumenical Councils, the Papal Bulls and the doctrine of the Church Fathers, who condemn Jewry and its accomplices in the clergy, as doctrine of the Church and source of the truth revealed by God. For if this defence were destroyed, the Jews in the higher clergy could carry out unpunished their treacherous disintegrating activity.

But today they are exposed to the danger on grounds of these Church traditions, which they wish to abolish at every price as source of divine revelation, of being discovered and condemned. As one sees, the struggle of the clergy in service of Jewry which has lasted nine centuries has very deep roots and should solve for them the problem of destroying the Church unpunished or being able to cause it in priestly garb the greatest injuries and to favour Jewry and its revolutionary movements, without needing to fear the judgments or threat of deposition laid down in the Church Laws, Bulls and the doctrine of the Fathers. Naturally they cloak their offence against tradition in flattering, seemingly righteous arguments, which do not allow the poison of these manoeuvres to be discerned. Among other things, they say that the Church must adapt itself to the new times and fight with progress for Christian unity. These are great truths with which we are all perfectly in agreement. But we cannot accept what is being attempted under this pretence, viz. the destruction of the best defence of Holy Church, which could preserve it through centuries from the cunning of its most infamous and stiff-necked foes.