Plot Against the Church: Part 4 - Maurice Pinay

The Council of Meaux
Combats Open and Secret Jews

In the face of the deadly danger that threatened the Church and the new western Roman Empire, several archbishops and bishops assembled in the year 829 in Lyon. At this gathering they were concerned—as the Jewish historian Graetz reports—with "humbling the Jews and threatening their peaceful existence. They (the Bishops) also discussed how the Emperor could best be influenced, so that he made appropriate decisions. It was resolved at the assemblies to write a letter to the Emperor which would draw his attention to how godless and dangerous the favouring of the Jews was and to enumerate individually the privileges which should be taken from them (in the year 829).

The letter, in its still preserved form, is signed by three Bishops and has as its heading: 'Concerning the superstition of the Jews.' Agobard wrote the foreword and in it elaborated his position in the struggle. Accordingly he accuses not only the Jews, but also makes their friends responsible for the evil. The Jews, he says:

". . . have become bold through the support of the influential, who believed they were not really so bad and were valued by the Emperor." And he reports further: "From the standpoint of belief and of the Church Canons, the argument of Agobard and the other Bishops is irrefutable, and the Emperor Ludwig the Pious should, on the basis of such logic, have exterminated the Jews completely and utterly. But fortunately he felt himself not to be interested, perhaps because he knew the character of Agobard or because the letter with the complaint did not even come into his hands. The fear of Agobard that the letter could be intercepted by the friends of the Jews at court was certainly well founded."

It is thus certainly highly possible that the theft of this letter through the Jews was decisive in this struggle. Jews usually prevent complaints against them penetrating to the highest religious or civil authorities. If then the secret Jewish infiltration intercepts a complaint on the way or cripples its effect, it thus nevertheless at all events attains its aim in other ways.

One of the most important facts in the process of the Judaisation of the Holy Roman German Empire was the conversion of one of the Christian Semito-philic bishops to Judaism, who enjoyed a great confidence at the court of the Emperor and was one of his chief advisors. Concerning these prelates, the Jewish historian Graetz writes: "The Emperor had promoted him and, in order to always have him at his side, he made him into his confessor." The struggle became even more terrible, for under the intimate advisors of the Emperor, who promoted his absurd Semito-philic policy, were found bishops of Holy Church. Also in our days there are those who support the interests of the Jewish enemies of Christianity.

But the case of Bodo was gravest of all. Many clergy of that time served, although they apparently remained of the true faith, the interests of the Synagogue of Satan, as a result of which they without doubt caused greatest harm. They must certainly have held themselves to be very powerful, in order to allow themselves the luxury of introducing one of their most influential men, the confessor of the Emperor, who publicly boasted of denying Christianity, of confessing Judaism and proclaiming that this was the true religion.

Concerning the effect of this devastating blow at the Christian people, Graetz writes:

"The conversion (to Judaism) of Bishop Bodo, who up to then occupied a high position, then aroused great attention. In Chronicles it is reported of this event, as if it were an extraordinary phenomenon. The event had without doubt special accompanying circumstances and struck devout Christians a heavy blow."

We have not sufficient material at our disposal, in order to reveal whether it was a matter of a secret Jewish Bishop, who completed his theatrical conversion for propaganda purposes and wished to strike a blow which should hasten the decline of morals and the attempt at a Judaisation of the Empire, or whether it was really a Bishop who fell away through dangerous Semito-philism, became rebellious and admitted to Judaism. Whatever the truth may be then, it is nevertheless undeniable that, with the difficult situation of Holy Church in the Holy Roman Germanic Empire, the event must have been extremely harmful for Christianity.

If Charlemagne had risen again and could have seen the catastrophic consequences of the unchaining of the beast—which the Church Canons had placed in chains—but which he had freed out of pity for the oppressed Jews and from the wish to make their valuable services of use for the Empire, he would have been able to recognise that he had fallen victim to the skilled deceit of those who have proven themselves as the most skilled swindlers in the world.

All religious and political leaders should thus draw a lesson from this painfully rich tragedy; for if the Jews, with their skilled diplomacy, could deceive one of the greatest political geniuses, then it is not further remarkable that, with their traditional tactics of manipulating the desire of every virtuous man to show human pity, to protect the oppressed, or to defend the sublime demand for equality of peoples and races, they were able to deceive and outwit in the course of history the good faith of many popes, kings and political or religious leaders of mankind, and are still able to do this today. Only the absolute knowledge of Jewish wickedness and their traditional tactics of deceit can keep awake the good against the Jewish lies, of which Saint Paul warned us in his wisdom. Only thus can the danger be diminished that the good fall into the net of the masters of lies and distortion.

In the face of this catastrophic situation, the tireless courageous Archbishop Agobard took part in a conspiracy against the Empress Judith and supported Ludwig's sons from his first marriage in their struggle to dethrone the disastrous Emperor. Agobard was deposed as archbishop and the Empire fell into a succession of civil wars, in which now one, now the other side was victorious. The death of Ludwig, however, gave Jewry a decisive blow, but the heroic archbishop also died without having experienced the victory and the success of his struggle.

The new policy of Ludwig, who was falsely named the Pious, and who placed the Jews under the protection of the crown, had catastrophic consequences for mankind; for in the ensuing centuries it was imitated by many Christian kings, who gave the foe protection in the midst of his terrible conspiracies. They bore in mind thereby that the Jews are very useful as tax-collectors, in addition contribute in difficult times to balancing the budget through loans, that they are a decisive factor for the progress of trade and with their punctual payment of taxes effectively contribute to maintaining the state capacity.

Admittedly they instigate conspiracies, spread heresies and rebellions, but the mediaeval monarchy held itself to be strong enough to be able to overcome this danger. The monarchy and the nobility of the Middle Ages were also really so powerful that they were able to achieve this for a long time. However, the moment came when the descendants of those optimistic kings and aristocrats had to bitterly lament the faults of their forefathers and the whole of mankind still suffers under this today.

When Ludwig died, the Empire fell to pieces and was divided among his four sons. As was to be expected, the Jewish dominance existed only in the realm of Charles the Bald, Judith's son, who had inherited from her the sympathy for the Jews, even if he did not go too far in this respect. But different Jews had additional influence at the court, among others, Zede Kish, the physician of the king and particularly a favourite whom the monarch called "my faithful Judas" on account of his political services. The Jew Graetz makes a remarkable observation about South Europe at that time: "South Europe, which was disturbed by anarchy and ruled by a fanatical clergy, was not a suitable ground for the development of Jewry."

The dominance of Jewry in France was in addition in every respect such a serious danger for Christianity that Amolon, the new bishop of Lyon, took in hand the defence of the Church and the peoples and continued the struggle of his teacher and predecessor Agobard. Amolon could count thereby on the support of the greatest part of the bishops, including that of the rebellious Hincmar, the bishop of Rheims, who knew how to gain the full confidence of King Karl (Charles), and so partly counteracted the bad influence of the Jewish favourites.

The worthy archbishop Amolon was without doubt a tool of divine providence for the defence of Holy Church and France against the destructive activity of the Jews. He not only fought energetically against them, but also fought with the pen and wrote his famous tractate against the Jews, in which he openly pilloried their infamous crimes against Christianity and called upon the clergy and laymen to combat this principal foe.

Under the leadership of Amolon, the French bishops began an important struggle against the Jews at the Holy Council, which took place in the year 845 in Meaux, in the neighbourhood of Paris. This Synod approved a series of anti-Jewish measures, which were relayed to the King for carrying out. Among these fell Church Canons which had been valid since Constantine, the laws of Theodosius' II, who forbade the Jews to occupy public and honorary offices, the edict of the Merovingian king Childebert, who excluded the Jews from the positions of judge and tax-collector and commanded them to respect the clergy.

The problem of the secret Jewish Christians who originated from false converts, which became more and more grave in France, naturally attracted the special attention of the Holy Synod, which drew into the list Church Canons approved at Synods of other lands, the anti-Jewish Church Laws of the Councils of Toledo against the baptised who remained Jews in secret, and the Church Canons which ordered that their children be taken from them, in order to be brought up as Christians.

As we have already seen, these measures were to prevent secret Jewry from being passed on eternally in secret from one generation to the other. As one sees, this Holy Council of the Church wished to free France from the Jews—to fight great evil through great healing methods—and combated both open as well as secret Jewry to life and death.

Unfortunately Charles the Bald—doubtless still influenced by his mother's education—when he received knowledge of the resolutions of the Synod, in no way had a high opinion of the decisions, but had the Council dissolved by force, although his advisor and friend Hincmar had taken part in this Council. This proves that at that time the Jews still retained a decisive influence at the French court.

However, archbishop Amolon did not allow himself to be intimidated through this act of the king, and began again from anew. He sent the clergy a pastoral letter which, according to the report of Graetz,

". . . was poisonous and slandered the Jewish race.", and . . . "the poisonous letter was just as unsuccessful as that of Agobard and the Edict of the Council of Meaux. But gradually the poison spread from the clergy to the people and the princes."

The Jewish historian Josef Kastein writes about this event and asserts that the Church:

". . . with the battle cry that the Christian religion was threatened, set in operation the most dangerous weapon, namely the uneducated masses of the nation. To minds which easily allowed themselves to be impressed by every cause, they constantly presented the same argument, which they had sooner or later to take up. The consequence of this was that the masses, who lived together with the Jews, became their enemies. As a result the Church secured the great advantage of altering the conduct of the rabble in the desired manner. This occurred independently of political conditions at a given moment."

Kastein, as well as Graetz and the other important Jewish historians, regard the Church as the actual mother of mediaeval antisemitism, in which respect they are without doubt also right, for they regard every movement as antisemitic which defends Christianity against Jewish imperialism and its revolutionary activity.

On the other hand it is understandable that, with more or less semito-philic governments and such an influential Jewry as in France at that time, the most effective way and means to preserve Christianity from Jewish control consisted in convincing the people and revealing to it the extent of the Jewish danger and its threat to religion and the people itself. This conviction had success at that time, as the Jewish historians themselves confirm to us when they complain that it was successful for Holy Church to cause that semito-philic conduct of the people in the France of Ludwig the Pious and of Charles the Bald to change later into a hostile behaviour towards Jewry. This shows us also that this decisive battle, which the Jews nearly won, ended with the victory of Holy Church and the defeat of the Synagogue of Satan.

When the Jewish historians assert that the Church applied the most effective weapon, the uneducated rabble, then in this they are incredibly cynical, for this was particularly the weapon which the Jews have always used and still use even today.

This work of personal enlightenment, which the Church then undertook, opening the eyes of the people about the Jews and alluding to the danger, can alone today also save the world in its present situation. It is thus urgently necessary to imitate what the Church did in that difficult time, and short but clear pamphlets must be printed for the working masses and books for the educated classes, which must be distributed for the greater part gratis to individual households and to individual persons, so that all the world is enlightened about the danger of Jewish imperialism and its revolutionary activity.

This work of enlightenment must be directed especially at the leaders and officers of the army, navy and airforce, soldiers, rulers, teachers, political leaders, financiers, journalists, academicians, the personnel of radio and television, the working masses and the youth of all strata of society. And especially to the members of the clergy of the Catholic and the other Christian churches, which, unlike our clergy, usually, on grounds of a series of circumstances which we will investigate later, do not recognise the danger. The convincing and making known of the Jewish danger must proceed at the fringe of political activity, among the members of all political parties and of all religious confessions, so that from all these domains the natural defensive movements emanate, which must be coordinated.

If the majority of the peoples and the domains which have in their hand the vital forces of a nation as well as the means of propaganda, open their eyes and recognise the danger of enslavement threatening us all and the enormous wickedness of Jewish imperialism and its dark intentions, the way to freeing of this nation and of the whole world is prepared.

The method of writing books in order to sell them in bookshops, so that a few persons obtain knowledge from them, is insufficient, for this alarm cry should be accessible to all houses and all men. The pamphlets or books should be distributed in the houses and given into the hand or, if possible, sent through friends to the recipients.

The clergy, the rich and all others who have money, should lay aside their chronic, sinful greed and work at the financing of this work of enlightenment, for if they do not help, there awaits them—according to the doctrines of Marx, Engels and Lenin, which predict the destruction of the clergy and of the Bourgeoisie—execution or concentration camps, should the Socialists dictatorship of Communism triumph.