The Freemasonic-Jacobin revolution was successful in ruining the whole of Christianity, according to the same method that now triumphs in overwhelming form in the Jewish-Communist revolution: for the Holy Catholic Church and the whole of Christianity have only been able to fight against the arms of this octopus (the Communist party, revolutionary groups and in a few cases, as in Spain, Freemasonry), although its powerful head has remained untouched. For this reason the monster has been able to renew and restore the limbs which were occasionally cut off it, in order to use them anew and still more effectively, until gradually it has been successful in enslaving half the Christian world (Russia and the East-European states), and now has the plan of enslaving the rest of mankind.

The lasting victory of the Jewish-Freemasonic and Jewish-Communist revolutions since the end of the 18th century up to our days is also to be attributed to the fact that neither the Holy Catholic Church nor the separated Churches1 have fought effectively against the “Jewish Fifth Column”, which has smuggled itself into their bosom.

This “Fifth column” is formed by the descendants of the Jews, who in earlier centuries were converted to Christianity and seemingly held in enthusiastic manner to the religion of Christ, while in secret they preserved their Jewish belief and carried out clandestinely the Jewish rites and ceremonies. For this purpose they organised themselves into communities and secret synagogues, which were active centuries-long in secret. These apparent Christians, but secret Jews, began centuries ago to infiltrate into Christian society, in order to attempt to control it from within. For this reason they sowed false doctrines and differences of opinion and even attempted to gain control of the clergy in the different churches of Christ. With all this, they applied the cunning of introducing crypto-Jewish Christians into the seminaries of the priesthood, who could gain admission into the honorary offices in the Holy Catholic Church and then into the dissident churches, upon whose division these secret Jews had so much influence.

While the Church of Rome, their Holinesses the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils fought effectively through the thousand years of the Middle Ages against Jewry and above all against the “Fifth Column”, the revolutionary movements that were organised for the division and destruction of Christianity were completely conquered and destroyed. So it occurred from Constantine until the end of the fifteenth century. Unfortunately afterwards Holy Church, for reasons which we will study later, could no longer attack in an effective manner the “Fifth Column”, which was formed by secret Jews who had been smuggled in as believers, as priests and even as dignitaries. Then the power of the Jewish revolutionary movement became ever stronger, until, at the end of the eighteenth century, it took on the character of an irresistible avalanche.

In the 20th century, when Jewish cunning had reached its uttermost limits of causing Catholics to forget the gigantic struggle of several centuries, which had taken place between Catholicism and Jewry, the latter attained its greatest progress in its plans for the control of the world. For it has already been successful in enslaving a third of mankind under the Jewish-Communist dictatorship.

In the Middle Ages, the Popes and the Councils were successful in destroying the Jewish revolutionary movements which appeared within Christianity in the form of false teaching and which were introduced by those who were Christians in appearance but Jews in secret. The latter then recruited upright and good Christians for the arising heretical movement by persuading the latter in a crafty way.

The secret Jews organised and controlled in secret manner the movements, which were the creative and driving force of wicked false teachings, such as those of the Iconoclasts, the Cathars, the Patarines, the Albigensians, the Hussites, the Alumbrados and others.

The work of these Jews smuggled as a “Fifth Column” into the bosom of the Church of Christ was made easier through their hypocritical conversion to Christianity or that of their forefathers. In addition, they laid aside their Jewish surnames and took on very Christian names, which were embellished with the surnames of their godfathers. Thus they were successful in mixing with Christian society and taking possession of the names of the leading families of France, Italy, England, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Poland and the other lands of Christian Europe. With this system, they were successful in penetrating into the bosom of Christianity itself, in order to conquer it from within and to destroy the core of the religious, political and economic institutions.

The network of secret Jews existing in Mediaeval Europe passed on in secret manner the Jewish belief from fathers to children, even if all openly led a Christian life and filled their houses with crucifixes and images of Catholic saints. In general they observed Christianity in an ostentatious manner and appeared most devout, in order not to arouse any suspicion.

Naturally this Jewish system of converting themselves in hypocritical manner to Christianity, in order to take the Christian citadel and to make easier the loss of its unity, was finally discovered by Holy Church to the corresponding scandal and alarm of the Holy Fathers, the Ecumenical, the provincial councils and those clergy steadfast in their faith. However, what called forth most scandal was the fact that these secret Jews introduced their sons into the established clergy and monasteries, and in fact to such good effect that many of them attained the dignity of canon, bishop, archbishop and even cardinal.

The Ecumenical and provincial councils of the Middle Ages combated Jewry violently as well as the “Jewish Fifth Column” which had penetrated into the ranks of the Catholic clergy; there thus remains a copious set of canonical legislation, which was provided for the purpose of obviating the cunning of the enemy.

In order to combat not only the tentacles of the octopus, which the heretical revolutions in the Middle Ages represented, but the head itself, the Holy Catholic Church resorted to different methods, amongst which the Holy Office of the Inquisition, so slandered by Jewish propaganda, stands out on account of its importance,. This organisation was intended to eliminate the false doctrines and to give the death blow to the secret power of Jewry, which directed and stirred up the same. Thanks to the Inquisition, Holy Church was able to overthrow Jewry and for several centuries to hold up the catastrophe that now hovers threateningly over mankind; for several of the so-called false doctrines were already revolutionary movements of the same kind of scope and pretensions as those of recent times, and they not only fought to destroy the church of Rome, but also to destroy all princes and to destroy the existing social order in favour of Jewry, which was the concealed director of those earlier heretical movements and later of the Freemasonic-Jacobin and Jewish-Communist ones of the present time.

Those Catholic clergy who are horrified at mention of the word Inquisition because they are influenced by the age-old propaganda of International Jewry and above all by the “Jewish Fifth Column” introduced into their ranks, should understand that, if so many Popes and Councils, whether Ecumenical or provincial, defended for six hundred years first the Papal European Inquisition and later the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition, there must have been well-founded motives for this. Catholics, who are shocked and horrified when they hear talk of the Inquisition court, do not recognise the facts that have just been mentioned above and whose truthfulness will be proved in later chapters, with credible verification and indisputable sources.




In order to prove some of the facts that were mentioned in the preceding chapter, we fall back upon the evidence of that contemporary Jewish historian who is very authoritative in his material, the careful and painstakingly exact Cecil Roth. The latter is rightly recognised in Israelite circles as the most outstanding contemporary Jewish historical writer, above all on the subject of crypto-Jewry.

In his celebrated work “History of the Marranos”, Cecil Roth provides some very interesting details about how the Jews, thanks to their apparent but false conversions, entered Christianity and publicly acted as Christians, but all the while secretly held to their Jewish religion. He also shows us how this secret belief was passed on by parents to children, cloaked with the appearance of an outward Christian militancy.

In his “History of the Marranos”, published by Editorial Israel of Buenos Aires, 1946, Jewish Year 5706, he says:

“Introduction: The Early Life of Crypto-Jewry. Crypto-Jewry is in its various forms just as old as the Jews themselves. At the time of Greek rule in Palestine, those weak of character attempted to conceal their origin, in order to avoid arousing derision at athletic exercises. Likewise under Roman discipline the evasions increased so as to avoid payment of the special Jewish tax, the ‘Fiscus Judaicus’, which was introduced after the fall of Jerusalem. The historian Suetonius gives a lively report of the indignities that were exercised upon a ninety year old man to establish whether he was a Jew or not.

“Official Jewish conduct, as this finds expression in the judgments by the Rabbis, could not be clearer. A man can and should save his life, if it is in danger, by every means, excepting murder, incest and idolatry. This maxim came into use in those cases in which a public abandonment of faith was required. The simple secrecy of Jewry, on the other hand, was something very different. The strict doctrinaires demanded that the typical priestly garments should not be renounced, if these were imposed as a measure of religious suppression. Such a rigid fidelity to principles could not be demanded of all people. The traditional Jewish law makes exceptions for cases where, as a result of legal compulsion, it is impossible to keep the commandments (‘ones’) when the whole of Jewry is living through hard times (‘scheat-ha-schemad’). The problem became a reality at the close of the Talmudic period, in the 5th century, during the Zoroaster persecutions in Persia. However, it was solved more on grounds of an enforced neglect in the following of tradition than of a positive concordance with the ruling religion. Jewry became in a certain manner subterranean and only obtained years later its complete freedom.

“With the increase of Christian teachings, which were finally introduced in Europe in the fourth century, there began a very distinct phase of Jewish life. The new faith demanded for itself the exclusive possession of the truth and inevitably regarded proselytising as one of its greatest moral obligations. The Church admittedly disapproved of compulsory conversion. Baptisms, which were undertaken under such conditions, were regarded as invalid. Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) repeatedly condemned them, although he gladly received in a friendly and heartfelt way those who were attracted by other means. The majority of his successors followed his example. Nevertheless, heed was not always paid to the Papal ban. Naturally it was recognised that compulsory conversion was not canonic. In order to circumvent it, the Jews were threatened with expulsion or death, and they were given to understand that they would save themselves through baptism. At times it happened that the Jews submitted to a hard necessity. In such cases their acceptance of Christianity was regarded as spontaneous. In this manner a compulsory mass conversion took place in Mahon, Minorca (418) under the auspices of Bishop Severus. A similar episode took place in Clermont (Auvergne) on the morning of the day of the Ascension of Mary in the year 576; and, despite the disapproval of Gregory the Great, the example spread into different places in France. In the year 629, King Dagobert commanded all Jews of the land to accept baptism under threat of banishment. The measure was imitated a little later in Lombardy.

“Obviously, the conversions obtained by such measures could not be sincere. Insofar as it was possible, the victims continued to practise their Jewish beliefs in secret and used the first opportunity to return to the belief of their forefathers. One such notable case took place in Byzantium under Leo the Isaurian, in the year 723. The Church knew this and did what it could to prevent the Jews maintaining  relations with their rebellious brothers, irrespective of the methods by which conversion had been obtained. The Rabbis called these reluctant rebels ‘Anusim’ (compelled) and treated them very differently from those who abandoned their belief out of their own free will. One of the first manifestations of Rabbinical wisdom in Europe was represented by the book of Gerschom, of Mainz, ‘The Light of Exile’ (written round about the year 1000), which forbade harsh treatment of the ‘compelled’ who came back to Judaism. His own son had been a victim of the persecutions. Although he died as a Christian, Gerschom was in mourning, as though he had died in the faith. In the Synagogue service there exists a prayer that implores divine protection for the entire house of Israel and also for the ‘compelled’ who find themselves in danger, be it on land or on water, without making the least distinction between the two. When the martyrdom of medieval Jewry began with the massacres of the Rhine during the first crusade (1096), countless persons accepted baptism to save their lives. Later, encouraged and protected by Salomon ben Isaac of Troyes, the great French-Jewish scholar, many returned to the Mosaic faith, even if the ecclesiastical authorities regarded with a baleful eye the loss of those precious souls that had been gained by them for the Church.

“However, the phenomenon of Marranism went beyond forced conversion and the consequent practice of Judaism in secret. Its essential characteristic is that it was a clandestine faith passed down from father to son. One of the reasons put forward to justify the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 was that they seduced newly-made converts and made them return to the ‘vomit of Judaism’. Jewish chroniclers add that many children were seized and sent to the north of the land, where they continued for a long time to practise their former religion. It is owing to this fact, reports one of them, that the English accepted the Reformation so easily; it also explains their preference for Biblical names and certain dietetic peculiarities which are preserved in Scotland. This version is not so improbable as would seem at first sight, and constitutes an interesting example of how the phenomenon of crypto-Jewry can appear in places which seem obviously so little suited to it. In the same way, some malicious genealogists discovered that, after the Jews had been driven out of the south of France, some proud ancestral families, as a result of rumours, carried on Judaism in their homes as the remnant of the bloodline of those Jews who preferred to remain as public and confessing Catholics.

“There are similar examples from much earlier times. The most remarkable is that of the ‘neofiti’ (neophytes or new converts) of Apulia, recently brought to light after many centuries of oblivion. Towards the end of the 13th century, the Angevins, who ruled in Naples, induced a general conversion of Jews in their lands, located in the neighbourhood of the city of Trani. Under the name of ‘neofiti’, the proselytes continued to live for three centuries as crypto-Jews. Their secret loyalty to Judaism was one of the reasons why the Inquisition became active in Naples in the 16th century. Many of them met their death at the stake in Rome in February 1572; among others, Teofilo Panarelli, a scholar of reliable repute. Some were successful in escaping to the Balkans, where they joined the existing Jewish communities. Their descendants in south Italy still preserve some vague memories of Judaism up to the present day.

“This phenomenon in no way remained restricted to the Christian world. In various parts of the Mohammedan world, ancient communities of crypto-Jews are found. The ‘Daggatun’ of the Sahara continued to practise Jewish rules for a long time after their formal conversion to Islam, and their present sons have still not completely forgotten it. The ‘Donmeh’ of Salonica originate from the adherents of the pseudo-Messiah Sabbetai Zevi, whom they followed in his rebellion. Even if they were in public complete Moslems, they practised at home a messianic Judaism. Further to the east there are still other examples. The religious persecutions in Persia, which began in the 17th century, however, left countless families in the land, especially in Meshed, who in private observed Judaism with punctilious scrupulosity while outwardly they appeared devout disciples of the dominant belief system.

“But the classic land of crypto-Jewry is Spain. The tradition there has been so durable and universal that one can only suspect that a Marranian predisposition is present in the atmosphere of the land itself. Even at the time of the Romans the Jews were numerous and influential. Many of them asserted that they were descended from the aristocracy of Jerusalem, who had been deported by Titus or by earlier conquerors into banishment. In the 5th century, after the attacks of the barbarians, their situation improved very much: for the West Goths (Visigoths) had taken on the Arian form of Christianity and favoured the Jews, both because they believed in one God, as also because they represented an influential minority, to secure whose support was worth the effort. However, after they were converted to the Catholic faith, they began to reveal the traditional zeal of neophytes. The Jews immediately suffered the unpleasant consequences of such zeal. In the year 589, when Reccared came to the throne, the Church legislation was at once applied to them down to the smallest detail. His successors were not so strict; but when Sisebutus ascended the throne (612-620), a very stiff-necked fanaticism prevailed. Perhaps he was incited by the Byzantine emperor when in 616 he published an edict which ordered baptism for all Jews of his kingdom under threat of expulsion and of loss of their entire property. According to the Catholic chroniclers, ninety thousand accepted the Christian faith. This was the first of the great misfortunes that distinguished the history of the Jews in Spain.

“Until the time of the rule of Roderick, the ‘last of the Visigoths’, the tradition of persecution was faithfully continued apart from a few short interruptions. During a great part of this period the practice of Judaism was completely forbidden. However, as the watchfulness of the government relaxed, the newly-converted used the opportunity to return to their original belief. Successive Councils of Toledo, from the fourth to the eighteenth, devoted their powers to the discovery of new methods that would prevent a return to the synagogue. The children of suspects were removed from their parents and educated in an unspoilt Christian atmosphere. New-converts were compelled to sign a declaration, as a result of which they obligated themselves in the future to respect no Jewish rites with exception of the ban on eating of pork, for which they, so they said, felt a natural aversion. But, in spite of such measures, the notorious unfaithfulness of the newly converted and their descendants continued to be one of the great problems of Visigoth policy until the invasion of the Arabs in the year 711. The number of Jews who were discovered by the latter in the land proves the complete failure of the repeated attempts to convert them. The Marrano tradition had already begun on the peninsula.

“With the arrival of the Arabs, the golden era began for the Jews of Spain, at first in the Caliphate of Cordoba, and after its fall (1012) in the small kingdoms that arose on its ruins. Jewry became considerably stronger on the peninsula. Its communities exceeded in number, culture and wealth over those of Jews of the other lands of the West. However, the long tradition of tolerance was interrupted by the invasion of the Almoravids at the beginning of the 12th century. When the puritanical Almoravids, a North African sect, were summoned to the peninsula in the year 1148, in order to hold up the advance of the Christian armies, there arose a violent reaction. The new rulers introduced intolerance into Spain, which they had already shown in Africa. The practice of Judaism as well as of Christianity was forbidden in the provinces which continued to remain under Musulman rule. Upon this the greater part of the Jews fled into the Christian kingdoms of the North. In that time began the hegemony of the communities of Christian Spain. The minority, who could not flee and saved themselves from decapitation or sale as slaves, followed the example that their brothers in North Africa had given in earlier years, and took on the religion of Islam. In their deepest innermost heart they nevertheless remained always true to the belief of the ancients. In a new way one came to know on the peninsula the phenomenon of the dishonest proselytes who paid lip service to the ruling religion and within their houses kept to the Jewish traditions. Their unfaithfulness was evident.”2

So much for the complete text of the Jewish historian quoted, Cecil Roth, who proves:

1. That crypto-Judaism or concealed Judaism is in its different forms as old as the Jews themselves and that the Jews even in the times of pagan antiquity already used cunning to conceal their real nature as such, so as to appear as ordinary members of the (pagan) people in whose region they lived.

2. That in the 5th century of the Christian era, during the persecutions in Zoroastrian Persia, Jewry went to a certain extent underground.

3. That with the period of flowering of Christian teaching in the 4th century a new phase began in Jewish life, in that the latter claimed for itself the new faith and exclusive possession of the truth, inevitably regarding proselytism as one of its greatest moral obligations.

Although the Christian Church condemned the compulsory conversions or those attained with force and attempted to protect the Jews against these, it nevertheless accepted that they should be subjected to difficulties and pressure, so as to make them more inclined to conversion. In this case they were judged as acting from their own impulse. The author then cites conversions of this kind that were carried out on Minorca, in France and Italy in the 5th and 6th century of the Christian calendar, going on to conclude from this that such conversions of Jews to Christianity could not be sincere and that the new converts continued to practise their Judaism in secret.

He observes how in Byzantium something similar had already happened in the times of Leo the Isaurian, in the year 723, and proves that even in the eighth century of the Christian calendar, i.e. more than two hundred years earlier, the infiltration of the Jews into the bosom of the Church, by means of false conversions had become universal practice from France to Constantinople, from one end of Christian Europe to the other. In this manner there arose alongside Jewry, which openly practised its religion, a subterranean Judaism, whose members were only Christian in appearance.

4. That in Marranism, besides the hypocritical conversion and the practice of Judaism in secret there exists a deeply-rooted tradition, which obligates the Jews to transfer this inclination from parents to the children. The author cites the events in England and Scotland since 1290, where one of the reasons presented for the expulsion of the Jews was that they misled the newly converted to practise Judaism, and that many children were stolen by them and brought into the north of the land, where they continued to practise the old religion i.e. the Jewish. It must be pointed out that after 1290 the Jews were banished from England and no one could be domiciled in the land if he were not a Christian.

In this connection a very interesting reference is made by the renowned Hebrew historian to the assertion of a Jewish chronicler, viz. that to the presence of crypto-Judaism is to be attributed the fact the English so easily accepted the Reformation as well as their preference for Biblical names. It was thus a false conversion of the Jews to Christianity that allowed that “Fifth Column” to arise within the Church of England and made easier its severance from Rome.

It is also evident that these false conversions of Jews in England, far from obtaining for the Church the expected salvation of souls, brought it instead the loss of millions of souls, when the descendants of these false proselytes promoted the Anglican schism.

There are still other very outstanding cases of false conversions of Jews to Christianity, among them that of the “neofiti” in the south of Italy, as recorded by Cecil Roth, who were persecuted by the Inquisition and of whom many were burned at the stake in Rome.

It is important to mention the fact that the Inquisition which functioned in Rome was, of course, the Holy Papal Inquisition whose serviceable activity was successful in the Middle Ages in holding up the progress of the apocalyptic beast of the Antichrist for three hundred years.

5. That the phenomenon of Crypto-Judaism was not merely confined to the Christian world. One still finds in different parts of the Musulman world, communities of Crypto-Jews, as Cecil Roth observes, who records several examples of Jewish communities in which the Hebrews, who outwardly were Musulmen, are in secret still Jews. This means that the Jews have also introduced a “Fifth Column” into the bosom of the Islamic religion. This fact perhaps explains the many divisions and the uproar which has occurred in the world of Mohammed.




The renowned Jewish writer Cecil Roth explains, as we have already seen earlier, that Crypto-Judaism, i.e. the conduct of Hebrews who conceal their identity as such by covering themselves with the mask of other religions or nationalities, is as old as Judaism itself.

This infiltration of the Hebrews into the innermost heart of religions and nationalities, whilst still preserving their former religion and their organisations in secret, has really formed Israelite “Fifth Columns” in the bosom of the other peoples and the different religions; for if the Jew has gained entrance into the citadel of his enemies, he is active there, follows orders and carries on an activity which was planned in the Jewish secret organisations. This aims at controlling the people from within, whose conquest was resolved upon, as well as the control of its religious institutions, and to attempt to attain the decomposition of the same. It is evident that as soon as they have gained control of the power of a religious confession from within, that they have then always used the same to favour their plans of world domination. In so doing they above all use their religious influence to destroy the counter-defence of the threatened people or at least to weaken it. It is necessary that we mark well these three chief goals of the “Fifth Column”, since for two centuries they have represented their essential activity, whether they present themselves in the bosom of Holy Church or in the other Gentile religions. This explains how the work of crypto-Jews as members of the “Fifth Column” has been all the more effective, the greater the influence it acquired in the religion in which it concealed itself; therefore one of the most important activities of the crypto-Jews has been that of smuggling themselves into the ranks of the clergy itself, in order to ascend the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Christian Church or of a gentile religion which they control, reform or wish to destroy.

An activity of primary importance also consists for them in creating worldly saints, who in this realm can control the masses of the faithful with a definite political goal, which is useful for the “Synagogue of Satan”. In the plan of playing along with and of mutual aid with the religious personages who belong to the “Fifth Column” and who work for the same purpose, the religious leaders always receive a valuable and frequently decisive aid in the face of spiritual authority, with which it was successful for these religious, crypto-Jewish personages to first of all provide themselves.

In this manner the priests and church dignitaries, with aid of the political and religious leaders, can disintegrate the real defenders of religion and of the threatened peoples by their weakening or even destroying the defence of both, and promote the victory of Jewish Imperialism and its revolutionary undertaking.

It is important to indelibly imprint this truth, for in these few lines is summarised the secret of success of the Imperialist and revolutionary Hebrew policy for some centuries. The defenders of religion or of their threatened country must therefore bear in mind that the danger comes not only from the so-called Left or from revolutionary Jewish groups, but from the bosom of religion itself or from the circles directed to the Right, from Nationalists and Patriots, always according to how the case lies; for it is a thousand year old policy of the Jews, to infiltrate secretly into particularly these sectors and religious institutions, in order by means of slanderous intrigue, which is well organised, to eliminate the true defenders of the country und of religion, above all and particularly those who, because they know the Jewish danger, might have the possibility of saving the situation. With these methods they eliminate the latter and replace them with false apostles, who cause the failure of the defence of religion or of the country and make possible the triumph of the enemies of mankind, as Saint Paul so strikingly called the Jews. In all this the great secret of the Jewish triumphs, especially in the last five hundred years, has taken root.

It is necessary that all peoples and their religious institutions seize upon suitable defence measures against this internal enemy, whose driving force is formed by the “Jewish Fifth Column”, which has infiltrated into the Christian clergy and into the remaining Gentile religions.

If Cecil Roth, the Flavius Josephus of our days, assures us that almost the entirety of all conversions of Jews to Christianity were pretended, we can ask ourselves if it is possible to believe that the said Jesus Christ, our Lord, who attempted to convert them, could be deceived. The answer has to be negative; for no one can cheat God; in addition the facts prove, that Jesus placed a greater trust in the conversion of the Samaritans, of the Galileans and the remaining inhabitants of Palestine than in that of the Jews properly speaking, whom the others despised because they had a low opinion of them although they likewise observed the law of Moses.

In fact, Jesus did not trust in the honesty of Jewish conversions; for He knew them better than anyone else, as the following passage of the Gospel according to Saint John proves:

Chapter II. “23. Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles that He did. 24. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because He knew them all.”3

Jesus Himself despised the Jews, because He was a Galilean. Unfortunately, the Samaritans, Galileans and the other inhabitants of Palestine were ruined by assimilation into modern Jewry, with the exception of those who had already previously been converted to the faith of our Divine Redeemer.

This rule of distrusting the conversions of the Jews was also heeded by the Apostles; and later by the various hierarchies of the Catholic Church. If precautionary measures were not always enforced to clearly prove the honesty of the conversions, the results were disastrous for Christianity; for these conversions served only to increase the destructive crypto-Jewish “Fifth Column”, which had infiltrated into Christian society.

Another passage of the Gospel contained in Chapter VIII, Verses 31-59, shows us, how various Jews, who according to Verse 31, had believed in Jesus, afterwards attempted to contradict His sermons and even to kill Him, as Christ Himself confirms this in verses 37 and 40.4 The Lord has first to conduct with them a verbal dispute for the defence of His teaching and afterwards to conceal Himself, so that they did not stone Him; for His hour was not yet come. The Gospel of Saint John shows us here something further of the classical tactics of the Jews falsely converted to Christianity and their descendants: misrepresentation of belief in Christ, in order to afterwards attempt to destroy His church, exactly as they then attempted to kill Jesus Himself.

In the Apocalypse appears another very revealing passage in this connection:

Chapter II. “1. Unto the angel of the Church of Ephesus write… 2. I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.”5

This is a clear allusion to the necessity of examining the honesty of those who give themselves out to be apostles; for from these examinations results that many are false and lying. The Holy Scripture proves to us that Christ and His disciples not only knew the problem of false new converts and of fake apostles (the Bishops are regarded as successors of the Apostles), but that they expressly warned us to be cautious of them. If Christ, our Lord, and the Apostles had wished to avoid this topic out of fear of a scandal, as so many cowards now wish to do, they would not also have remarked the danger in such express form and would not have referred so clearly to such dreadful deeds as the betrayal of Christ through Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples.

Even more, if Christ had not held as advisable the public exposing of these false Apostles, who are so richly represented in the clergy of the twentieth century, it would have been possible for Him as God to avoid that the instigator of the greatest betrayal might be one of the twelve Apostles. If He did this and publicly exposed him, so that the greatest betrayal is remarked in the Gospels for the knowledge of all until the end of the world, then a quite special reason existed for this. This fact shows to us that Christ, our Lord, as well as the Apostles, regarded it as the lesser evil to unmask the traitors at the right time, in order to prevent them causing the Church further deadly harm, and that it is worse to cover them out of fear of a scandal by allowing them to continue to destroy the Church and to conquer the peoples who have placed their faith and their trust in this Church. This explains the reason why Holy Church, every time an heretical or estranged bishop or cardinal or a false pope appeared, regarded it as indispensable to unmask them publicly, in order to prevent them dragging the faithful further into misfortune.

A priest who makes easier the triumph of Communism in his country, with all its deadly danger for Holy Church and for the rest of the clergy, must immediately be accused before the Holy See, and in fact not only in one but in various ways in case one fails, so that with recognition of the danger, the means are removed from him of causing further harm. It is monstrous to have to think that the confidence placed by the nations in the clergy is utilised by Judases, in order to lead the said peoples into the abyss.

If this had been done in time, the catastrophe of Cuba would have been prevented, and the Church, the clergy and the Cuban people would not have fallen into the bottomless abyss in which they find themselves at present; for the destructive and traitorous work of many clergy in favour of Fidel Castro was the decisive factor for his victory. It influenced the majority of clergy, who were not conscious of deceit and who with good faith encouraged a people involuntarily to suicide, to favour Fidel Castro; a people who had particularly placed its faith in these spiritual shepherds.

We observe this circumstance with absolute clarity, so that all may realise the gravity of the problem, in view of the fact that clergy of the “Fifth Column” are attempting to drive more Catholic states, such as Spain, Portugal, Paraguay, Guatemala and various others towards Communism. They use as means the most subtle deceptions and even cloak their activity with equally sanctimonious false zeal, by pretending to defend religion itself, which they wish to destroy in its innermost heart. These traitors must be quickly discovered and charged in Rome, in order to nullify their activity and hence to prevent their destructive work which opens the doors to the Freemasonic or Communist victory. If those, who have the possibility of doing this, maintain silence out of cowardice or indifference, they are in a certain respect just as responsible for the catastrophe breaking out as the clergy of the “Fifth Column”.

Before Saint Paul upon one occasion travelled to Jerusalem, he called together in Ephesus the bishops and presbyters of the Church and spoke to them:

Chapter XX. “18. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, ‘Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons. 19. Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears and temptations which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews. 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with his own blood. 29. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.’”6

Saint Paul thus held it as imperative to open the eyes of the bishops and to warm them that raging wolves would come among the flock and would not spare them, as well as that even among the bishops men would appear, who spoke godless things, in order to bring the disciples onto their side. This prophecy of Saint Paul’s has fulfilled itself literally in the course of centuries, even up to our days, where it takes on a tragic actuality. And so must it come; for Saint Paul spoke with divine insight; and God cannot err, if He predicts future things. It is also interesting that this martyr and apostle of the Church, far from concealing the tragedy out of fear of scandal, wished to warn all of the same and recommended the bishops present to be constantly watchful and to bear it in mind; to fail to remember these things, as Christians often do, has largely made possible the victories of the “Synagogue of Satan” and its destructive Communist revolutions.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that, if the Apostles had held it to be unwise or dangerous to speak of the wolves and traitors who should appear even among the bishops, this frightening passage of the Bible in the Acts of the Apostles would have been left out; but, as it is remarked there, it shows that, far from regarding their knowledge as scandalous or unwise, they held it as indispensable to perpetuate it and to broadcast it to the end of time, so that Holy Church and Christians could be ever watchful against this inner danger, which in many cases is more destructive and deadly than those which the enemies from without represent.

As we will show in the course of this work with irrefutable proofs, the gravest dangers that have appeared against Christianity come from those wolves about whom the prophecy of Saint Paul speaks so clearly. The latter, in disgraceful alliance with Jewry and its false destructive doctrines and revolutions, made easier the victory of the Jewish cause. Always, when Holy Church set about at the right time to bind the hands of these wolves and to destroy them, it was able to triumph over the “Synagogue of Satan”, which on its side began from the 16th century onwards to carry off victories of ever greater importance, when in a large part of Europe the watching-over through the Papal Inquisition was suppressed. This was constantly expressed in the ranks of the clergy itself and among the bishops; in fact, the latter allowed themselves to be mercilessly crushed, when the wolf in sheep’s clothing appeared in their ranks.

Jewish activity also began to show decisive successes in the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, when, at the end of the 18th century, the hands of the State Inquisitions were bound in both Empires. Then the wolves in sheep’s clothing were able to make possible first the Jewish-Freemasonic triumphs and afterwards the Jewish-Communist ones, which fortunately were of limited extent. However, these become greater in number day by day if one allows these wolves who have penetrated into the high clergy to use the power of the Church in order to crush the true defenders of the same, the patriots who defend their peoples and those who fight against Communism, Freemasonry or Jewry.

Saint Paul mentions clearly and distinctly this work by members of the “Fifth Column,” when he says in Chapter II of the “Letter to the Galatians”: “1. Then, fourteen years later, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. 5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”7

A very evident allusion to the false brothers, i.e. the false Christians, who attempt to bind us in slavery and distort the true teaching of Christ and the Gospels. Neither Saint Paul nor his disciples ever allow themselves to be subjected to this slavery.

Saint Paul, the leader of the Church, alludes also in his letter to Titus to the vain gossips and liars, for the most part Jews, who cause so much misfortune and says in this connection:

Chapter I. “10. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision.”8

In the later centuries the facts have proved that from the false converts from Judaism and from their descendants have emanated the boldest talkers and flatterers or “vain talkers” as Saint Paul calls them. In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians he lets us clearly see the outward show, which the false Apostles would take on in the future. He says:

Chapter XI. “12. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”9

In this passage of the New Testament Saint Paul describes with prophetic words and with divine insight some of the fundamental characteristics of the clergy of the “Fifth Column” in the service of the “Synagogue of Satan”, the fake apostles of our days, for according to Holy Church the bishops are the successors of the apostles. These religious personages, who simultaneously stand in concealed but effective collusion with Communism, Freemasonry and Judaism, attempt like the Devil to disguise themselves as true angels of light and to take on the outward appearance of servants of justice. However, one must not judge them according to what they say, but according to their works and their real link with the enemy. The prophetic words of Saint Paul are also very worthy of being borne in mind, when he accuses them in the Verse 12 mentioned of glorifying themselves as standing like the true Apostles. It is curious that those who glorify themselves most of all for their investiture in the clergy, are particularly those who aid Communism, Freemasonry or Judaism; for it is necessary for them with their high churchly authority to crush those who defend their country or Holy Church against these sects. The latter they command in private, as prelates, to cease their much justified defence. They make use of their authority as bishops and use it to favour the victory of Communism and its dark forces, which direct and drive it on. But if in spite of such shameful misuse of their authority as bishops, the defenders of Catholicism and of their country fight on, they accuse them of being rebels against churchly authority, as rebels against the high personages and against the Church itself; they are even excommunicated in some cases, so that the faithful refuse them their aid and the defence fails, whereby they in great measure make use of that vain talk of which Saint Paul speaks, and which is so very harmful for our Holy Religion.

Finally, we also quote the Second Epistle of the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope of the Church, who says:

Chapter II: “1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves a swift destruction. 2. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”10

In the course of the following chapter we will see how this prophecy of the first deputy of Christ upon earth has been fulfilled; Peter reveals in another passage of the Epistle in question:

Chapter II. “21. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22. But it happened unto them according to the true proverb: The dog is turned to his own vomit again (Proverbs XXVI, 11) and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

We allude to this for many Hebrews have criticised the harsh expressions, which were used by various Councils of Holy Church against the Hebrews, who with the water of baptism were washed clean of sins and then returned to the vomit of Judaism. It is thus worthy of mention that the Holy Synods used only the words of Peter when they quoted the Bible verses in this connection.

With the passages of the New Testament mentioned one can thus confirm that both Christ the Lord as well as the Apostles distrusted the sincerity of the conversions of the Jews. Since they realised what the false new converts and the false Apostles would do, they warned the faithful against this deadly danger, so that they could defend themselves.




The first false teaching to bring the life of the nascent Church into danger was that of the Gnostics. The latter was formed not by one but by various secret societies, which began to carry out a really destructive work within Christianity. Many Gnostic sects pretended to give a further significance to Christianity because, as they revealed, they linked it with the oldest religious teachings. The idea was transferred from the Jewish “Cabbala” to Christianity that the Holy Scriptures had a double meaning, an exoteric one, i.e. outwardly and literally according to the text visible in the Holy Scripture; and an additional esoteric or concealed meaning, which is only accessible to the high initiates, the experts in the art of deciphering the secret meaning of the text of the Bible. As we have seen, many centuries before the appearance of the Cabbalistic works “Sepher-Yetzirah”, “Sepher-ha-Zohar” and others of lesser importance, the oral “Cabbala” was practised among the Hebrews, above all in the secret sects of the higher initiates, whose false interpretations of the Holy Scripture contributed very greatly to turning the Hebrew people away from the truth revealed by God.

Concerning the real origins of Gnosticism, the renowned historians John Yarker and J. Matter agree that Simon the Magician, a Jew converted to Christianity, was the true founder of Gnosticism. Apart from the fact, that he was a mystic cabbalist, he favoured magic and occultism. With a group of Jews he founded a priesthood of “Mysteries”, in which his own teacher Dositheus and his pupils Menandro and Cerinthus figure, who represented a section of his collaborators.11

Simon the Magician, founder of the false Gnostic doctrine – the first to disrupt early Christianity – was also one of the pioneers of the Jewish “Fifth Column” that penetrated into the bosom of Holy Church. The Holy Bible tells us in the Acts of the Apostles how this Jew obtained admittance to Christianity:

Chapter VIII. “9. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one. 12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women. 13. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14. Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16. (For as yet He was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money. 19. Saying, ‘Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.’ 20. But Peter said unto him, ‘Thy money perish with thee, because thou thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.’12

And after Peter had blamed Simon, the latter answered: “24. Then answered Simon, and said, ‘Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.’”13

This passage of the New Testament reports to us, how the “Fifth Column” of falsely converted Jews arose and what their mode of thought was. Simon the Magician is converted to Christianity and receives the water of baptism; but then, even in the bosom of the Church, he strives to destroy it and attempts nothing more or less than to buy the favour of the Holy Ghost. After the failure of this attempt in the face of the incorruptibility of the apostle Saint Peter, the supreme head of the Church, he pretends repentance in order afterwards to introduce the inner division of Christianity with the heretical schism of the Gnostics. Upon this as also on other occasions the Holy Bible raises its warning cry and shows us what would happen in the future, if the Jews belonging to the “Fifth Column” within the Church and the clergy followed the example of Simon the Magician, by being converted to Christianity in order to attempt to destroy it by means of Simony, to divide it through heretical teachings and then to strive to attain the highest honorary offices of the Church by the most diverse means, including that of buying the favour of the Holy Ghost.

As we will see later, the Councils of Holy Church occupied themselves with energetically suppressing the bishops who wished to buy a place by means of money; and the Holy Inquisition confirmed that the clergy of Jewish origin were the most principal spreaders of simony and of false doctrine. A further classical example is revealed to us by the Holy Evangelists; it is that of the first Christian personage of Jewish origin who betrayed Christ and sells him to the Hebrews for thirty pieces of silver. And the latter was even more than a bishop or a cardinal; for he was one of the twelve Apostles: Judas Iscariot, who had been chosen by Jesus himself to such high dignity. Why did our Divine Redeemer do such a thing? Did He err when He made the choice and Himself invested Judas with the highest dignity of the nascent Church after Jesus Christ Himself? It is clear that Christ, because He is God Himself, could never err. If He did such a thing, then it was only because it was convenient for Him to do it, in order to let His Holy Church clearly recognise whence the greatest danger would come for its existence; in other words, He wished to warn it of the enemies who would appear among its own ranks and especially in the highest hierarchies of the Church, because if a Judas arose amongst those chosen by Christ Himself, then it is obvious, with all the more reason, that they would appear amongst those appointed by Christ’s successors.

The faithful should therefore never vex themselves about this and still less lose their faith in the Church when they learn, through history, of those cardinals and bishops who were heretics and schismatics and brought the life of Holy Church in danger; even less so, when they realise that in the struggle of our days there are still cardinals and bishops who themselves help Freemasonry, Communism and Jewry itself in their work of destroying Christianity and enslaving all peoples on Earth.

If we come back to Gnosticism, which was originated by the newly converted Jew, Simon the Magician, it is necessary to establish that many years later Saint Irenaeus, described Valentinus, a Jew from Alexandria, as the leader of the Gnostics.14

J. Matter, the renowned historian of Gnosticism reports to us that the leading Jewish personages, the Alexandrian philosophers Philo and Aristobulus, who were completely and utterly true to the religion of their fathers, resolved to deck themselves out with the remains of other systems and make a way clear to Jewry for enormous conquests; both were also leaders of Gnosticism and Cabbalists. The said author explains: “That the Cabbala predates Gnosticism, is a viewpoint that Christian writers little understand, but which the scholars of Judaism profess with true certainty”; they also assert that Gnosticism was not exactly a falling away from Christianity but a combination of systems in which several Christian elements were taken up.15

After diligent study of the material, the learned English writer Nesta H. Webster comes to the conclusion that “the goal of Gnosticism was not to adapt the Cabbala to Christian practice, but to adapt Christianity to Cabbalist practices, by mixing its pure and simple teaching with theosophy and even with magic.”16

This attempt to adapt Christianity according to Cabbalist practices, the Jewish Cabbalists have repeated as often as they could. After the Gnostic failure, they introduced it into the Manichaean sects, then into the Albigensians, the Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, theosophical societies, spiritualists and other sects of different eras which are said to have practised Occultism, which is nothing other than the Hebrew Cabbala with all its derivations.

In his confirmation that Cabbalists founded Gnosticism, the famous historian of Freemasonry, Ragon, reports that: “The Cabbala is the key to the secret sciences. The Gnostics emanated from the Cabbalists”.17

The “Jewish Encyclopaedia” asserts that Gnosticism had a “Jewish character” before it was transformed into a Christian one.”18

An interesting coincidence is the fact that the principal centre of Gnosticism at the time of its apogee was Alexandria, which at that time was the most important centre of Jewry outside Palestine, until Saint Cyril, the bishop of said city – centuries later – gave this breeding ground of infection for Christianity a deadly blow by expelling the Jews from Alexandria. The evidence of the Church Fathers completes the total picture of proofs, which we have laid before the reader, in order to show that Gnosticism was the work of Jewry; for they name several of the leaders of the Gnostic schools as Jews.19 On the other hand the “Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia” indicates that: “The fact that the original Gnosticism, both the Christian as well as the Jewish, used Hebrew names in its system and that it even based its opposition upon Biblical ideas, points to its Jewish origin.”

It says in addition that it influenced the later development of the Cabbala.20

After it is proved that Gnosticism is of Hebrew origin and was directed by Israelites, of whom some had infiltrated into Christianity through baptism, we will see what its extent has been in the Christian world. The most dangerous thing about Gnosticism is its appearance as a science; for it is necessary to establish that the word “Gnosticism” means science, knowledge.

As one sees, the system of the Jew Karl Marx and other Israelites to attempt to dress its false and destructive teachings with a scientific exterior is not new, in order to set the unsuspecting in astonishment and to capture them; for almost two thousand years ago their predecessors, the Gnostics, did the same with very good results. One thus sees that also in this respect the Jewish tactics are always the same.

In addition they had no kind of scruples about introducing into Gnosticism ideas of Persian dualism; and above all of the Hellenistic culture, in which the Jews of Alexandria who have been the decisive factor in the spreading of Gnosticism, were educated. It is necessary to recall that also in this respect, the Jewish tactics have not altered, for they introduced into the teachings, customs and symbols of Freemasonry – as well as Cabbalist and Jewish elements – elements of Greco-Roman and Egyptian-Oriental origin, in order to deceive Christians concerning the real origin of the brotherhood.

On the other hand, it is evident that only the Jews already dispersed all over the world could work out so easily this highly-coloured mixture of Jewish, Christian, Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Egyptian, Persian and even Hindustani ideas, of which Gnosticism is composed, which, similarly to the Hebrew Cabbala, was founded as an esoteric teaching for chosen people and was spread in the form of secret societies according to Jewish style. These increased in number and deviated each time more among each other in their doctrines. The attempts made like those of the Cabbala to find a concealed meaning in the Holy Scriptures, were so made that each gave different interpretations of the Gospels, just as later happened with the free inquiry of Protestantism, which split it into an infinity of Churches, which were at times even rivals. The principle of the existence of concealed meanings, deviating from the literal text of the Bible, made it possible for the Gnostics to turn away completely from the real Christian doctrine. With their multiplicity of sects they represented a veritable cancer, which threatened to disintegrate the whole of Christianity in its innermost.

The Gnosis proceeded from the basis of the existence of a good God and of matter regarded as the origin of evil. This God, as Highest Being created through emanation of intermediary beings called aeons, who are connected with one another and who, united with the Highest Being, represented the kingdom of light. According to the degree, in which they removed themselves from God, they were less perfect, although even the lowest aeon possessed particles of the divinity and were therefore incapable of creating matter, bad by nature.

They explained the creation of the world through one of these aeons, whom they called Demiurge. The latter claimed to be like God and rose against him, for which reason he was cast out of the kingdom of light and thrown into the abyss. There he created our universe, gave form to material and created man, whose soul, as a particle of light, remained enchained in matter. Then God, in order to redeem the souls of the ruined world, sent another aeon, named Christ, upon earth, who was truly devoted to the Highest Being, and who never had a real body, for matter is intrinsically evil. The various Gnostic sects gave diverse interpretations to this complete mechanism, sometimes going so far as to identify Jehovah with the evil Demiurge. For some Jehovah was the Supreme Being and for others he was only an aeon faithful to the latter. Manichaean Dualism took over from Gnosticism the form of a struggle between the world of the spirit and that of matter.

The redemption of the souls incorporated in matter took place, according to this host of sects, through the Gnosis, i.e. the knowledge of the truth, without need of morality or good works. This had the disastrous consequence, in many sects, of calling forth the most repellent immorality and dissoluteness of morals and practices.

The most dangerous of all these secret sects for Christianity was directed by the crypto-Jew Valentinus, a classic “Fifth Columnist.” For he was outwardly active as a true Christian and sowed disintegration in Holy Church by extending his disastrous sect. At first he had the city of Alexandria as his principal bastion, but towards the middle of the second century he went to Rome with the intention of undermining Christianity in the capital of the Empire itself. The Valentinians seriously threatened to disintegrate Holy Church from within, which finally, in order to nullify the disastrous work of this false Christian, a true Jew of the “Fifth Column,” cast him out of its bosom.

Gnosticism spread doctrines, which are now fundamental in many subversive Jewish movements of modern times. For example, the sect of the Carpocratians attacked all then existing religions and only recognised the Gnosis – knowledge of which was provided by the great men of every nation, such as Plato, Pythagoras, Moses and Christ – which “frees one from all that the vulgar call religion” and “makes man equal to God.” Gnosticism in its purest forms strove to give Christianity the widest possible meaning by linking it with the oldest religious doctrines. The learned historical writer, Matter, assures us in connection with the Gnosis, that “the belief that the divinity has revealed itself in the religious institutions of all nations” leads to the idea of a kind of universal religion, which contains the elements of all.21 Many of these concepts we find at present in the secret doctrine of the Freemasons and the theosophical societies.

N. H. Webster in her diligent study of the material finds that the Gnostic sect of the Carpocratians of the second century “arrived at much the same conclusions as modern Communists with regard to the ideal social system. Thus Epiphanus held that, since Nature herself reveals the principle of the community and the unity of all things, human laws which are contrary to this law of Nature are so many culpable infractions of the legitimate order of things. Before these laws were imposed on humanity, everything was in common – lands, goods, and women. According to certain contemporaries, the Carpocratians returned to this primitive system by instituting the community of women and indulging in every kind of licence.”22

As one can see from this, the subversive movements of modern Jewry are to the greater part a repetition of the doctrines of the great Gnostic revolution, although they emanate from a contrary philosophic foundation. For modern Communism is materialistic, while the Gnosis itself regarded matter as bad and objectionable. However, the facts prove to us that the Jews have been very skilled in using the opposing philosophical system to attain similar political results.

The Gnostics possessed mysteries and initiations. “Tertullian, a Father of the Church, assures us that the sects of the Valentinians perverted the mysteries of Eleusis and made a ‘sanctuary of prostitution’ out of them.”23 And we must not forget, that Valentine – the false Christ and crypto-Jew from Alexandria – was revealed by Saint Irenaeus to be the leader of the Gnostics, whose sects, according to some, were directed by one and the same power. It is thus evident that the Hebrews are the same as eighteen hundred years ago and spread immorality and prostitution in Christian society in order to ruin it and to make easier its destruction.

Some Gnostic sects reached the highest degree of perversion in their doctrines. Thus Eliphas Levi assures us that certain Gnostics introduced into their rites the profanation of the Christian Mysteries, which were made to serve Black Magic,24 whose principal propagators have also been the Hebrews. Dean Milman says in his “History of the Jews” that the Ophites worshipped the serpent because the latter had rebelled against Jehovah, “to whom they referred using the Cabbalist expression of the Demiurge.”25

It is thus evident that this glorification of evil, which is so important to modern revolutionary movements secretly controlled by the Synagogue of Satan, is likewise nothing new. It was already unleashed as poison by the Gnostic Jews into the nascent Christian society of more than eighteen centuries ago.

E. de Faye in his work “Gnostics and Gnosticism,” as well as Matter in his already mentioned work “History of Gnosticism”, both assure us that another secret Gnostic sect, called Cainites on account of the cult in which they worshipped Cain, represented the latter, Dathan and Abiram, the homosexual inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and Judas Iscariot himself as noble victims of the Demiurge, i.e. of the malicious creator of our universe according to their perverse teachings.26

Apparently, these Gnostic sects were the forerunners of the Bogomils, of the Luciferians, of Black Magic and of certain small satanic masonic circles, which all, apart from rendering homage to Lucifer, regarded as good everything that Christianity holds to be evil and vice versa. Voltaire himself regards the Jews during the Middle Ages as the spreaders of Black Magic and satanism. The Marquis De Luchet reports in his famous work “Essai sur la Secte des Illuminés” that the Cainites, incited by their hatred towards all social and moral order, “called upon all men to destroy the work of God and to commit every kind of infamy.”27

The great leader, who appeared in the Church in order to combat Gnosticism and to triumph over it, was in fact Saint Irenaeus, who thoroughly studied its disastrous sects and their dark teachings and mercilessly fought them in word and deed. Simultaneously he attacked the Jews, whom he described as the leaders of this disintegrating subversive movement,28 whose strongest and most dangerous sect for Christianity was that of the Valentinians, which was led by Valentinus, behind whose false Christianity Saint Irenaeus discovered the Jewish identity.

Thanks to the virile and ceaseless labour of Saint Irenaeus, Holy Church was successful in triumphing over the Gnosis, which for nascent Christianity was a more threatening internal danger than the grave external snares then represented by the frontal attacks of the Synagogue and its intrigues, which managed, as we have already observed, to unleash the whole power of the Roman Empire and its terrible persecutions against the nascent Church, resulting in so many martyrs for Christianity. These facts prove that, from its first beginnings onwards, the activity of the Jewish “Fifth Column” which had penetrated into its interior, was far more dangerous for Holy Church than that of its external foes. Naturally, the existence of a devout and very combative clergy, to whom indulgence disguised with the cloak of peaceful coexistence, dialogue or diplomacy was unknown, had the effect that Holy Church emerged victorious from this terrible struggle, in which it completely overcame its foes: Jewry, Jewish Gnosticism and Roman paganism.

Never has the situation been so grave for the Church as in that time; for Christianity then was much weaker than in the present and the difference in strength between the Church and its enemies was immeasurably greater in favour of the adversary. If Holy Church was able then to triumph over its enemies who were relatively stronger than they are now, it should now be able to do so even more; always presupposing that it is successful in fighting and eliminating the destructive and perfidious activity of the crypto-Jewish “Fifth Column” which has infiltrated the clergy; and with the presupposition that within the religious hierarchies leaders appear who imitate Saint Irenaeus and sacrifice everything in order to defend the faith of Christ and the cause of mankind, which is threatened by a cruel servitude; leaders who are likewise able to overcome the resistance presented by cowards and conformists who, however sincere in their beliefs, think more about not compromising the ecclesiastical preferments they hanker after and of living a peaceful and financially safe life than in defending Holy Church and humanity in these times of mortal danger.

Finally, let us examine another of the teachings of the gnostic revolutionary movement. The Jews who sowed poison in Christian society were careful to ensure that said poison did not end up poisoning the poisoners themselves. The Synagogue had to face up to this grave danger for the first time. It is very difficult to disseminate poisonous ideas without running the risk of being infected by them. It is true that the Gnosis, which the Hebrews at first spread in the Synagogue, was in the main a collection of mystic interpretations of Holy Scripture, which stood in close connection with the Cabbala. But the accumulation of stupidities, contradictions and perverse actions which the Hebrews smuggled into the Christian Gnosis, formed a serious danger for the synagogue itself, but which the latter certainly guarded against by energetically combating every possibility of infection among the Jews.

Eighteen hundred years later the same phenomenon appears; the Hebrews as spreaders of atheism and of Communist materialism among the Christians, Mohammedans and the other Gentiles, take every kind of precautionary measure to prevent the materialistic cancer from infecting the Israelite communities, which they have been better able to achieve at present than in the times of Gnosticism; for the experience of eighteen centuries in this kind of service has made these destroyers into true masters in the art of handling poisons and of spreading them throughout the world without the poison infecting the Jews themselves. At all events even still in our days the Rabbis must be constantly on guard, in order to prevent materialism, with which they have immersed half the surrounding world, from causing damage in the Hebrew families. They constantly seize upon measures of different kind, in order to present this. The atheistic and materialistic poison is only destined for the Christians and Gentiles, in order to render their domination easier; for Jewry must preserve itself with its mystique purer than ever. They know that it is mysticism which makes men who fight for an ideal invincible. Just as the Hebrews had no scruples at other times when they spread teachings against Jehovah himself and advocated the cult of Satan, which is so common in Black Magic, so they now have no scruples in spreading the atheistic materialism of the Jew Marx, although the latter denies the existence of God of Israel himself. The end justifies the means. This maxim the Hebrews observe down to its most unbelievable consequences.

With the conversion of Constantine, the victory of Holy Church over Paganism, Gnosticism and Jewry was complete.

When once Holy Church was controller of the enormous power of the Roman Empire, the Jews lacked any possibility of persecuting it further and attacking it directly or inciting persecution through pagan emperors against Christianity, as they had done previously. However, the “Synagogue of Satan” did not give way before such a bleak picture. It clearly understood that, in order to destroy the Church, only one aid remained of the three which we have studied. It directed its special attention to its “Fifth Column” of false new converts who were smuggled into Christianity, in order through Church divisions and internal underground movements to be able to attain the desired goal, the destruction of the Church of Christ. The fact that in some points the Christian doctrine was not well defined made the task far easier for them.




Arianism, the great heresy, which split Christianity over three and a half centuries, was the work of a concealed Jew, who outwardly practised Christianity; a striking and infamous example of the descendants of Judas Iscariot, like all those priests who, as members of the “Jewish Fifth Column”, have infiltrated into the Catholic Church.

The well-known American writer, William Thomas Walsh, who is outstanding for his zealous Catholicism and has well documented works, says to us, referring to the mode of action of the Jews who infiltrated into Christianity, the following: “Arius, the Catholic Jew (Father of the heresy) treacherously attacked the divinity of Christ, and he was successful in dividing the Christian world for centuries.”29

From the trials by the Inquisition against the crypto-Jews, who were called the Judaising heretics, one can conclude that the Trinity is one of the Catholic dogmas which the Jews reject most violently; for what repels them most of all in their deadly hatred towards Christ, is the fact that Jesus Christ is regarded as the second person within the Holy Trinity; this means that God is One in essence and Three in person. It is therefore illuminating that the Jews, after they had infiltrated into the Church through their pretended conversion to Christianity, afterwards strove to alter the dogma of the Church in such a way as to regard God as one in person and hence to deny the divinity of Christ.

Arius was born in Libya, which at this time was under Roman rule. Already as a youth he joined himself to the schism of Melesius, who usurped the office of the Bishop of Alexandria; however, after the cause of Melesius had suffered severe setbacks, Arius was reconciled with the Church. It is well known how the Jews make use of such reconciliations with the Church, of which they say themselves that such were performed as true comedies, exactly as suits them.

The always universally kind Holy Church, which is fundamentally ready to pardon the repentant sinner, sanctioned the reconciliation with Arius, by taking him anew into its holy bosom, while this secret Jew merely made use of this kindness, like all who belong to his race, in order to later cause it inconceivable harm which could easily have caused such misfortune as that which threatens us today.

After Arius had consoled himself, he had himself consecrated as Catholic priest and presbyter of the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, by whom he was entrusted with the church of Baucalis. Various outstanding Church historians attribute to Arius an extraordinary and impressive asceticism as well as a remarkable mysticism; to which are added his great talents as a preacher and a convincing dialectic skill, which allowed him to convince the great mass of believers and even the hierarchies of Holy Church.

The basic principle of the Arian doctrine was the Jewish thesis of the absolute unity of God, denying the Trinity and representing Christ solely as the most exalted of all creatures, but in no way as possessing divine nature. This was one of the first serious attempts to provide Christianity with a Jewish stamp.

He neither attacked Christ nor criticised Him, as the professing Jews did; for then his mission would have failed, because no Christian would have supported him. In order to arouse no suspicion, he rather praised Jesus beyond all measure. So he gained the sympathy and interest of the faithful and then in the midst of all these speeches of praise he allowed his poison to seep in with the cunning denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, since it is the point which encounters the most stiff-necked rejection by the Jews.

It is curious that, fourteen hundred years later, the Jews strike the same note when they deny the divinity of Christ and simultaneously praise Him in their doctrines and instructions in order to provoke no strong reactions amongst Christians introduced into the sect.

A further innovation which the Arian heresy brought with it, was the attempt to alter the doctrine and policy of the Church in relation to the Jews. While Christ damned them and upon various occasions attacked them in the sharpest possible way, and the Apostles did the same, as did the Church in general in its beginnings, Arius and his heresy strove to effect a true reform in this respect, in that they carried out a pro-Jewish policy and strove for an accommodation to the “Synagogue of Satan.”

Like John Huss, Calvin, Karl Marx, and other Jewish revolutionary leaders, Arius was a man of strong dynamism, of extraordinary perseverance as well as an artist of words and with the pen, who wrote pamphlets and even books,30 in order to convince the Church hierarchies, the civil governors and other outstanding personalities within the Roman Empire. The first important assistance was given to him on the part of Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who on grounds of his great friendship with the Emperor possessed the boldness of wishing to win the latter for the Arian heresy. Even if he was not successful in this, he nevertheless succeeded unfortunately in leading Constantine astray, by making him believe that it was simply a question of discussions between different orthodox viewpoints. Under this assumption the Emperor sought in vain to introduce a settlement between Arius and the Bishop of Alexandria. He sent his advisor, Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova, so that the latter might bring about an understanding between the two parties. No result was attained. As if it had merely been a personal dispute between Bishop Alexander and Arius!

In the course of these negotiations Hosius and the Church reached the conviction that here it was not a simple dispute between different schools or persons, but rather a conflagration which threatened to scorch the whole of Christianity.

This is worthy of being remarked, since it is the classical technique with which the Jews begin a revolutionary movement. Upon many occasions they give themselves out to be harmless, good-willed, of small influence and without any kind of danger, so that the institutions threatened by the revolutionary germ do not allot to the latter its true importance and therefore look away from applying their whole force against it, which is imperative if it is to be rapidly and effectively destroyed.

Lulled through this outward conduct, the Christian or Gentile leading personages are accustomed to avoid such measures, by reacting in a modest way. This is utilised by Jewry, in order to treacherously kindle the conflagration, so that, when combative measures are finally resolved upon, it already possesses such an overwhelming force that it is impossible to halt it.

It is interesting to remark that, after Arius had finally been excommunicated by the Synod called in the year 321 by the Prelate of Alexandria and attended by over a hundred bishops, the heretic at first went to Palestine, in order to win disciples. And it is further worthy of note that the first Synod to support Arius by betraying Catholicism was precisely that of Palestine, as well as that of Nicomedia, where Eusebius, Arius’ right-hand man, was Bishop. It is illuminating that it was Palestine where, in spite of the repressive measures of Titus and Hadrian, the most compact Jewish population was found, and where the “Jewish Fifth Column”, which had infiltrated into the Church, was very powerful. It is therefore not strange that Arius, declared outlawed through excommunication and in a desperate position, sought his salvation in flight, in order to seek support with his brothers in Palestine. He was so successful in this intention that an entire Synod of Bishops and high-ranking clergy, as was the Synod of Palestine, decided upon support of him and gave new power and prestige to his cause, which, after its condemnation by the Synod of Alexandria, seemed condemned to failure.

In the same manner another Synod, which was assembled in Nicomedia, supported Arius and imparted to him, like that of Palestine, its approval to return to Egypt. In such a way did Arius and his fellow travellers set one Synod against the other and thus divide the episcopate of the Catholic world.

The study of this giant struggle which lasted for centuries, is extremely valuable, since it allows us to clearly recognise that the “Jewish Fifth Column” which has seeped into the clergy of Holy Church, was then already effective with the same methods as centuries later, when it was successful by means of a crypto-Jew, Cardinal Pierleoni, in usurping the dignity of Pope. These are likewise the same methods which, a thousand years later, were combated by the Holy Inquisition, and the same of which we are witnessing in our days.

Arius and the Arianist Bishops intrigued against the clergy who defended Holy Church. They persecuted and feuded against them and even attacked the venerable Bishops and all priests, without regard for their rank, who had appeared to the fore through their zeal in the defence of Catholicism. They persecuted and fought them by means of secret and poisonous intrigues and by means of false accusations, until they were rendered harmless or destroyed.

By means of a well-organised action the Arians on their side strove to bring under their control the Bishops’ offices when they fell vacant, and they were successful in occupying them with clergy of their own way of thinking and of preventing true Catholics from finding admittance to this office.

These infamous manoeuvres were set in motion above all after the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. At this council Arius and his heresy were condemned in spite of the opposition of a minority of heretical bishops, who participated with them in the Council and who vainly attempted to bring about the victory of their viewpoints which were just as novel and contrary to the traditional Catholic doctrine as those which some bishops wish to make prevail at the present Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.

In the campaign instigated by the heretical bishops against the Catholics, the uproar that they set in motion against Eustasius, the Bishop of Antioch, is particularly notable. The latter was accused by them of pretending to observe the agreement of the Council of Nicaea, but in reality sowing the Sabellian heresy and discord. With these and other accusations the traitorous clergy were so successful that he was deposed and an Arianist bishop named in his stead. In addition, they were successful in deceiving Constantine, who, in the belief that he was offering the Church a service, exiled the devout bishop of the land and allowed the hypocritical heretics to enjoy his support, since he regarded them as the true defenders of the Church. 31

But more important still is the conspiracy that they instigated in order to destroy Saint Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander, after the latter’s death, in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Already at the Council of Nicaea he had demonstrated that he was one of the bulwarks in the defence of Holy Church. This had cost him the hatred of the Arian clergy, who recognised the necessity of making him harmless. In order to gain the Emperor to their side, they accused Saint Athanasius of cultivating relations with certain rebels of the Empire. This is the classical manoeuvre of Jewry in all times; if it is wished to remove any kind of leading personage from the sphere of the head of State, then at the suitable moment a conspiracy is instigated, in order to make the latter believe that the former conspires against him and is secretly allied with his enemies. In this manner they succeed in getting the head of State to remove leading personage who hinders the Jewish plans. In such a manner they accused Saint Athanasius of having humiliated the clergy by laying upon them a linen tax, as well as sowing discord in the ranks of the Church.

This slander is also a classical method of the “Fifth Column,” which, when it is seen that a conspiracy is instigated against Holy Church and someone denounces it or rushes to the defence of the institution, sends its crypto-Jewish clergy into the field to accuse the defenders of the Church of undermining the unity of the Church and of sowing discord among Christianity. In reality it is they, the enemies of Christ who have infiltrated into the clergy, who with their conspiracies and dark machinations provoke those schisms and divisions, and not the true Christians upon whom lies the duty of defending Catholicism and preventing the former from winning ground.

So it occurred in the case of Saint Athanasius; the heretical clergy were in reality those, who through their mode of action conjured up the schism. But they possessed the insolence to accuse Saint Athanasius of sowing discord, because he attempted to defend Holy Church in the face of the machinations of heresy.

The blow was additionally directed higher up; for Arius and his followers knew very well that the unity of the Church lay before the eyes of Constantine as the highest goal, and thus they hoped to bring down Saint Athanasius with a typical accusation of provoking discord.

Later, the Melesian heretics, working together with the Arians, accused Saint Athanasius of having murdered one of the collaborators of their leader; however, Athanasius was successful in discovering the whereabouts of the man whom he was falsely alleged to have murdered, so that the slanders were exposed.

Since up to then all intrigues had failed, they now took refuge in one last manoeuvre. In Tyre they summoned a Synod of Bishops, at which they accused Saint Athanasius of having seduced a woman; however, he was also successful in refuting this slander.

However, the Arian Bishops were successful in bringing under their control the Synod of Tyre and resolved upon the deposition of Saint Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria. Concerning this, an inflammatory note was despatched to bishops all over the world, so that the latter should break off all relations with Saint Athanasius, who was accused of various crimes. Constantine, who highly respected the decisions of the Synods of Bishops, was highly impressed. This together with another skilfully launched slander campaign, which accused Saint Athanasius of selling grain to the Egyptians in order to prevent it reaching Constantinople and in this manner to create a food shortage in the capital of the Roman Empire, made the Emperor furious. He banished the unfortunate Saint, whom at this time he regarded as the most dangerous disturber of public order and the unity of Holy Church.

While the Arian bishops first gained the sister of the Emperor, Constance, who exercised a strong influence upon him, and other confidants, to their side, they continually gave the hypocritical appearance of watching with zeal over the unity of the Church and of the Empire, which was so strongly desired by Constantine, and they accused the Catholics of endangering this unity with their exaggerations and eccentricities. They thus attained that Constantine, who had supported orthodoxy at the Council of Nicaea, carried out a deviation towards Arians and approved the solemn reacceptance of the latter into the bosom of the Church. This would have been without doubt the apotheosis and the highest triumph of the Jew Arius, who already played with the idea of demanding the Papal dignity of the Holy Catholic Church, which, regarded by modest human understanding, did not seem impossible; for he could already count upon the friendly approval of the Emperor and on the support of a daily growing number of bishops within Christianity. However, in the face of the support which God allows his Holy Church to enjoy, all human calculations must fail. The Church, will certainly be persecuted, but never conquered; and Arius died on the threshold of his victory in such a mysteriously tragic manner, as Saint Athanasius himself has recorded for posterity. It is very interesting to quote what the “Castilian Jewish Encyclopedia”, an official Jewish document, asserts about this great Church Father and Saint, Athanasius:

“Athanasius (Saint), Church Father (293-373), Patriarch of Alexandria, resolute opponent of the Arian teachings which approach a pure Monotheism and hence the Jewish doctrines. Athanasius polemicised against the Jews from dogmatic grounds, but the situation of the Jews worsened everywhere so that the teachings of Athanasius triumphed over the Arian doctrines, as was the case with the Visigoths in Spain.”

Like other Church Fathers, Saint Athanasius fought bitterly not only against the Arians, but also against the Jews. As one sees, the latter attribute such an importance to his teachings that the Jewish Encyclopaedia categorically admits, that “the situation of the Jews worsened where the teachings of Saint Athanasius triumphed.” It is therefore understandable that the powers of evil unleashed a satanic hatred against the Patriarch of Alexandria.

If Saint Athanasius and other great Church Fathers had lived in our time, the “Jewish Fifth Column”, which has infiltrated into the clergy, would certainly have done all in its power so that the Church condemned them on account of Antisemitism.

As far as the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius, is concerned, he had been another Paladin of the Church in the struggle against Arianism and was the soul of the Council of Nicaea, and was an active fighter against Jewry. After he had distinguished himself at the Council of Elvira, which under the name Illiberian Council was held in the years 300 to 303, he exercised a decisive influence upon the approbation of canons tending to effect a separation between Christians and Jews, in order to counter the nefast influence of the latter over the former. Since at that time the harmful fraternising of the Catholic clergy with the Jews was the order of the day, the Illiberian Council accordingly strove to counter this evil state with drastic measures. In this respect the following rules are interesting:

Canon L (50). “Should a priest or one of the faithful sit at table with Jews, then for his amendment he shall be excluded from Communion.”

Canon XLIX (49). “It has been found good to thoroughly admonish teachers that they should not suffer their fruits received from God to be blessed by Jews, so that our distribution of blessings does not become weak or valueless. Should anyone be presumptuous enough to do this, after it has been forbidden, then he should be excluded from the Church.”

Canon XVI (16). “It is determined among other things that the Jews, and likewise heretics, must not be permitted Catholic wives. So that there may be no communion between the faithful and unfaithful.”

This last Canon is clear and sharp. Any communion between Christians and Jews is regarded as dangerous.

The Illiberian Council had a great importance, since its disciplinary measures were to a great part incorporated in the general legislation of the Church.

After Constantine’s death, his three sons took over the government of the Empire: Constantine II and Constans in the west, and Constantius in the East. The first two were passionate Catholics, while Constantius was admittedly a good Christian, but was very influenced through friendship with his father’s friend, the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of Constantine, however, both Constantius as well as his two brothers approved of the return of Saint Athanasius and other orthodox bishops from banishment, who had been expelled from the land through the intrigues of the Arians. In addition, after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the year 342, this bad influence upon Constantius vanished, who, under the influence of his brother Constans and of Pope Julius, finally supported Catholic orthodoxy.

Extremely alarmed over the progress of Jewry, Constantius applied against the latter the measures that the Jews call the first great persecution on the part of the Christians.

For the course of twelve years, up to the death of Constans and of Pope Julius, the Catholics were successful in almost overcoming Arianism. Under the imprint of the sermons and the great regard for Saint Athanasius as well as Bishop Hosius of Cordova, it seemed destined to perish. Constantius had a long and extremely heartfelt conversation with Saint Athanasius in Antioch, during which the Emperor of the Orient showed him the greatest deference. And finally the illustrious Father of the Church made his entrance into Alexandria in a kind of veritable apotheosis.

When Ursacius and Valente, the leaders of Arianism, recognised imminent defeat and were alarmed by the firm conduct of Constantius in favour of orthodoxy, they bowed to the situation and went so far as to beg from the Pope their reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

This was one further example of the classical tactics of the foe, which the Jew Stalin called “strategic withdrawal.” This consists in yielding in the moment of defeat, in abandoning the struggle outwardly, in order to avoid defeat, and in conspiring in the background until one is sufficiently strong to risk a new attack as soon as the possibility of triumph appears.

If things went badly with Arianism, then it was worse still for Jewry; for when Constantius had convinced himself of the danger that it represented for the Empire and Christianity, he began, as the great Jewish historian Graetz proves, to expel the Jewish doctors of laws from the land. In consequence of this decree, many of them had to emigrate to Babylonia. The persecutions worsened to such a degree that the leading Jews were threatened with death, which resulted in an even greater flow of emigration, particularly from Judaea. This development caused the decline of the Jewish Academy of Tiberiades. The very frequent marriages between Jews and Christians were punished by Constantius with death, whereby he went beyond what was laid down in this respect by Canon 16 of the Illiberian Council.

As shown by the Israelite Graetz, the Jews were called “the murderers of God” by Catholics in that time. In answer to this, the Jews instigated isolated rebellions against the Empire, which, however, were nipped in the bud.

But all these setbacks did not discourage me enemy, who lurked in the background and awaited the first favourable opportunity to assert themselves again. This favourable opportunity began to show itself when first Constans and then Pope Julius died, whose beneficial influence had caused Constantius to hold firm to Catholicism.

The Arian leaders Valente and Ursacius, who had hypocritically implored their reconciliation with orthodoxy, took up their intrigues anew, while they sought at all costs to estrange Constantius from orthodoxy. For this purpose they flattered his selfishness and made use of his utterly violent reactions towards everything which might lessen his authority or his prestige. In the background the Arians instigated a true conspiracy, in order to distance Constantius from Saint Athanasius and thus obtain his withdrawal with them from orthodoxy. Among other slanders they accused him of disseminating defamatory rumours against the Emperor, by which he was alleged to represent the Emperor as a heretic and as excommunicated. In this manner they attempted to cause the people to withdraw their support from Saint Athanasius and at the same time to lyingly present him as an enemy of the Emperor. The Arians represented themselves as his most loyal subjects.

These sinister machinations against Athanasius and the Catholics infuriated Constantius. More and more he inclined to the side of the Arians, until finally in common with them he attempted to persuade Liberius, the new Pope, to divest the illustrious Church Father of his dignity.

It is incredible, how Jewry frequently manages to transform its sworn opponents into unconscious allies, whereby, as in this case, it makes use of the most subtle means in order to attain its goal. In history there have been several examples like that of Constantius.

The Holy Father, pressed by the Emperor, pointed out the necessity of calling a new Council to attempt to put an end to this dispute. With the agreement of the Emperor the Council of Arles was called, which took place in the year 353 in the presence of two Papal Legates. Great were the expectancies which the good placed upon the Council for the obtaining of Christian unity; but the bishops, led by Valente and Ursacius in the service of the “Fifth Column”, were able to instigate such intrigues and such pressures that the Council finally yielded to the demands of the Arians, who were granted support through the implacable pressure of Imperial power. Even the two Papal Legates yielded and, as a disastrous consequence, the unjust condemnation of Saint Athanasius was resolved upon.

The sole Bishop, who voted against the resolution, was Paulinus of Trier, who for this reason was expelled from the land. But when Pope Liberius received the knowledge of its disastrous outcome, he raised objectives and proposed summoning another Synod, which was held in Milan in the year 355. But this Synod also was the target of countless conspiracies and exposed to the pressure of the heretical bishops who enjoyed the support of the Emperor. Finally they were successful. This new Synod composed of 300 Bishops condemned Saint Athanasius once again. Thus Arianism gained a complete triumph and was able to again ban the highly regarded Saint. Since the Pontifex Maximus refused to yield to the demands of the Arians and of Constantius, the Emperor banished the Pope as well, a banishment which lasted quite some time.

However, the efforts of Athanasius, that Saint and Father of the Church, that iron and dynamic man, who revealed so much courage and tenacity in the face of the enemy, finally bore fruit. After three centuries of struggle Holy Church finally triumphed over Jewry and its heresy. What the Church and men of today urgently need are men who possess the hardness, the courage and the energy of such as Saint Athanasius, to counter the Jewish-Communist threat, which, exactly as in the case of the Jewish-Arian heresy, has brought Catholicism to the edge of the abyss.

We are certain that in this situation, as also in similar situations, the Lord God shows us His mercy so that among the hierarchies of Holy Church new Athanasiuses will appear, which the Church needs for its salvation. This is the maxim of our time in which the modern instruments of Jewry within the Church, such as false apostles, play into the hands of Communism and the “Synagogue of Satan.” They cripple the defensive powers of the Church, in order to mislead the truly faithful and to make possible the triumph of the worldly foe, just as they intend to do at the present Ecumenical Council Vatican II, called by John XXIII.32

Finally we must point out that the inconstancy of Constantius is also revealed in his conduct towards Jewry. In contrast to his hostile policy, he decreed measures which favoured it; thus the law that equated the Jewish patriarchs and officials working in the service of the synagogue with the Christian clergy, exempted them from the severity of the law, as the Israelite historian Graetz himself reports to us.


What occurred to Saint Athanasius more than sixteen hundred years ago, occurs in the 20th century in greater or larger measure with many excellent defenders both of Holy Church as also of the Free World, be they clergy or laymen. Some cardinals and bishops who in a suspicious manner favour the principal enemies of Christ and his Church, namely the Jews, take them under their protection or favour the development and the triumph of the political or social movements controlled by Freemasonry and Communism, and, while they show the forces of Antichrist so much favour and support, are at the same time enraged concerning the cardinals, prelates or priests who fight with more resolution and efficacy against the beast. The activity of the “Fifth Column” of the descendants of Judas Iscariot has altered little since the time of Arius up to our days. If any Catholic regent or political leader fights so effectively against the forces of Jewry, Freemasonry or Communism that he defeats them, then these Prelates and even Cardinals appear upon the scene, in order once more to play into the hands of the hellish forces and make possible their victory which normally is beyond their reach. If the Jewish-Freemasonic or Jewish-Communist forces see themselves conquered in practice by direct action through the Catholic leaders or regents, then the “Fifth Column”, which has infiltrated into the highest honorary offices of Holy Church, hits upon the plan of unleashing a wild campaign of intrigues and Church censures, to set the entire clergy against those leaders or regents, who represent a serious hindrance for the Freemasonic or Communist triumph. And if this campaign of slander and defamation alone does not suffice to destroy the support of the said leaders or regents with the Catholic masses, then those false Apostles, of whom Saint Paul speaks, send forth a fulminant excommunication as their sharpest weapon. Thus, by undermining the prestige of such regents or leaders, they gain the support of the mass of the people in their favour to make possible as a result the triumph of Freemasonic or Communist forces. This is the secret of many victories of the forces of evil.




In the year 360, Julian, a cousin of Constantius, was proclaimed Roman Emperor by the army. Constantius, who had prepared for battle against him, died on the way; this made easier the final victory for Julian and his proclamation as Emperor of the Orient and Occident.

The policy of Julian had three principal aims: 1. To renew paganism and to again declare it a state religion of the Empire, so that Rome, which according to his view had declined through Christianity, might return to its old glory. 2. To destroy Christianity. 3. To concede to Jewry its old positions, from which it had been expelled by Constantine and his sons; even the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon was to be arranged.

From the beginning the Jews were his unconditional allies, which once again proves that, when it suits them, they are capable of fighting for paganism and the cult of idols, even indeed against monotheism, whenever this allows them to work for the destruction of the Church, even though they are inwardly monotheists and enemies of the cult of idolatry.

While the Jews allied themselves with Julian and allowed him to enjoy their help, they supported the restoration of idolatry, although they say that they are so greatly repelled by it. However, in order to obtain their goal, namely the destruction of Christianity, they prove that they are capable of everything, even of utilisation of the atheistic and materialistic teachings of modern Communism, although they remain deeply religious and spiritual.

The famous Jewish historian Graetz says of Julian:

“The Emperor Julian was one of those strong characters who imprint their names indelibly on the memory of men. Only his early death and the hatred of the ruling Church were responsible for his not being provided with the tide ‘Julian the Great’” He adds that Julian paid great admiration to the Jewish religion, and confirms that “the period of government by Julian, which lasted just two years (November 361 to June 363), was a time of extreme felicity for the Jews of the Roman Empire.”

Graetz likewise establishes that the leader of Jewry in the Empire, the Patriarch Hillel, was expressly called by Julian “his respected friend”, and that he promised him in an autographed letter to make an end of the misdeeds committed by the Christian Emperors against the Jews.

Further, Julian made all necessary preparations in order to begin the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem. He addressed a letter to all Jewish congregations of the Empire, in which he spoke in friendly way of the leader of Jewry in the Empire, the Patriarch Julos (Hillel), as his brother. He promised the abolition of the high taxes laid upon the Israelites by the Christians, guaranteed that in future none should accuse them of blasphemy, promised freedom and security, and promised to have Jerusalem rebuilt at his expense, as soon as he returned victorious from the Persian war.

For the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem Julian commissioned his best friend, Alypius of Antioch, to whom he gave instructions to spare no expense, and commanded the governors of Palestine and Syria to assist with everything necessary.

In his zeal to restore paganism, Julian also prepared all means for the reconstruction of the pagan temples. He reorganised the worship of idols and gave them a hierarchy similar to that of the Church. He renewed the pagan cult with great splendour and celebrated the pagan feasts in ancient pompous manner.

Labriolle and Koch provide us with information concerning the zeal of Julian to provide paganism with new strength by means of the creation of welfare institutions which were similar to the Christian ones. Hospitals, hostels for children and old men, charitable institutions and others of the like were erected; at the same time he made efforts to add to paganism a kind of religious order, which resembled that of the Christian monks.

It was not only a question of the re-establishment of the idolatrous cult, but of the creation of a reformed and strengthened paganism with methods copied from the Christians.

The threat, which drew over Holy Church, could thus scarcely be graver. The Emperor, paganism and Jewry joined themselves together closely, in order to face Christianity with a struggle for life or death.

Although in principle Julian gave the assurance of maintaining religious tolerance, since he recalled the bad results which the violent persecutions through the Roman Emperors had produced, he nevertheless applied all means in order to achieve the annihilation of Christianity. As Saint Gregory Nazianzen reports to us, who describes the period of Julian’s government “as the cruellest of all persecutions”, martyrdoms unleashed through the fury of the unbelievers were the order of the day.

Among the measures decreed by Julian against Catholicism, the following stand out: the renewed expulsion of Saint Athanasius, who was regarded as the bulwark of orthodoxy; the removal of all Christian symbols on coinage and the cancelling of rights accorded to the clergy through the Catholic Emperors; as well as the elimination of Christians from public offices, unless they recanted. And with all this it was pretended that these were measures necessary for the maintenance of religious freedom and of equality for believers of all confessions in the Roman State. His Jewish allies had thus in Julian a good master, just as in our own time they applied the same methods with identical hypocrisy in order to cause their Freemasonic Liberal revolutions to triumph, through which, under the pretence of introducing freedom of conscience, they robbed the Church of all her rights.

But the true intentions of the Emperor were revealed when he announced that the Galileans (disciples of Christ) must vanish, because they were enemies of Hellenism; the books he personally wrote to combat Christianity also prove what hatred the Emperor felt for the Church.

The fact that the rebuilding of the Jewish temple among other things failed as a result of mysterious flames shooting up out of the earth and burning those that worked there, has all the elements of a confirmed historical event; Christian historians also confirm the latter, and it is also accepted by such prestigious Hebrew historians as Graetz. Only that the latter, instead of attributing the occurrence to a miracle, as Catholics do, assumes a natural cause. According to his explanation, the cause was gases compressed in subterranean passages, to which an outlet was blocked, and which, becoming free and making contact with the air, unleashed those fires, which among other reasons caused Alypius to stop the works.

As the Catholic historians report in that time it was not only pagan hordes who martyred and slaughtered the Christians. The Jews, enjoying the protection and friendship of the Emperor, likewise attacked and began to destroy the churches in Judea and the neighbouring regions as well as to cause Christians every conceivable harm. The Jew Graetz naturally calls these versions malicious slanders.

For those who have experienced what deeds the Jews are capable of against Christianity if they are allowed a free hand, it cannot be remarkable that in the time of Julian they used all their power in order to destroy Catholic churches. They did this in the same manner in the Middle Ages, when they were supported by some heretical sects; and so have they acted in our days, in order to secure the triumph of their Freemasonic and Communist revolutions.

Much of that which they perform in the present is a repetition of what they learned in the times of Julian the Apostate, whose period of rule, if it had lasted longer, would have taken a catastrophic course for Christianity.

Fortunately, Julian died before he could cause Christianity greater harm, struck by a deadly arrow in a decisive battle against the Persians. It is said that, before he died, he addressed our Lord Jesus Christ, calling out: “Thou hast conquered, Galilean!”

Through the death of Julian the Apostate, Holy Church was spared from the threatening destruction which had faced it since the last pagan persecutions.

As far as the Israelites are concerned, then the following commentary of the Jewish historian Graetz, speaks for itself:

“The death of Julian close to the Tigris (June 363) robbed the Jews of their last ray of hope for a peaceful and untroubled life.”

And the Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia remarks under the word “Julian” the following:

“He particularly valued the Jews. He had extensive knowledge of the Jewish cause and refers in his writings to various religious institutions of the Jews. It appears that he wished to found among the Jews of Palestine a Patrician Order (called “Aristoi” in the Talmud), which was to exercise judicial functions. He attributed a higher value to Judaism than to Christianity, although he regarded it as inferior to the pagan philosophy. With his death, the short period of tolerance was at an end, which the Jewish community enjoyed between the setting-in of Christian persecutions.”33




The first dissensions to occur within Arianism were apparently produced by the increasingly moderate tendencies of the bishops, who though in error nevertheless acted in good faith; they therefore clashed with the extremists who were undoubtedly controlled by the “Fifth Column.”

This gradually weakened the heresy in the Roman Empire.

Upon the death of Julian the army proclaimed General Jovian as Emperor. The latter was a Catholic, so that orthodoxy almost controlled the situation.

The new Emperor summoned Saint Athanasius back out of banishment and appointed him his advisor. Unfortunately and unexpectedly, however, Jovian died the next year and Valentinian I was proclaimed as new Emperor. The latter appointed his brother Valens as Regent for the Eastern part of the Empire. Thus it came about that, while the former allowed religious freedom, Valens, who was a zealous Arian, made efforts to resurrect this heresy at least in the eastern part of the Empire. Meanwhile the heretics used the situation in order to exert influence on the Germanic tribes who threw themselves into the arms of Arianism and thus in the Jew-friendly direction.

Valens unleashed a new persecution of Catholics and once again banished the now aged Saint Athanasius. At the same time he began, as the Catholic historian Theodoretus reports, to grant the Jews and pagans all kinds of guarantees. Also he was not satisfied with persecuting the Christians, but included the moderate Arians, whom he, without wishing it, drove into the arms of Holy Church.

The Jewish historian Graetz agrees in this regard, when he alludes to the fact that Valens was “Arian and had had to suffer so much from the Catholic party that he now became intolerant towards the latter. He allowed the Jews to enjoy his protection and heaped honours and distinctions upon them.”

It is therefore evident that the resurgence of Arianism in the East coincided with the persecutions of Catholicism and with a preferential treatment of Jewry.

With Gratian set in years of deadly struggle between Pagans and Christians. The outcome remained changeable until the Spanish general Theodosius took over the Emperorship both in the east as well as the west.

Theodosius the Great dealt paganism as well as Arianism, which had risen to new life in the east under the protection of Valens, deadly blows and hence provided Catholicism in the Empire with the final victory. It was to be hoped that he would also combat Jewry, but the Hebrews knew how to gain his tolerance at the right hour, under which they wished to extend anew their influence in Roman society. This activity was so dangerous for Holy Church that both the Bishop of Milan, Saint Ambrose, as well as Chrysostom, another of the great Fathers of the Church, saw themselves necessitated to conduct an energetic struggle against the Jews as well as against those Christians who secretly furthered the protection of the Jewish cult. Concerning this struggle, the Israelite historian Graetz, to whom we will hand over at this point, reports:

“On Saturdays and the Jewish festivals, many Christians, especially of the female sex, both women of noble birth as well as those of lowly status, were regularly to be encountered in the synagogues. They listened devoutly to the trumpet call on the day of the Jewish New Year, were at the solemn cult of the Day of Atonement and took part in the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. The fact that they performed all this behind the back of the Christian clergy and therefore had to beg their neighbours not to betray them, made the matter still more attractive. Against this spontaneous honouring by Christians of Jewish institutions, Chrysostom directed his violent monkish sermons and used all kinds of harsh expressions against them, by his preaching that the synagogues were disgraceful exhibitions, dens of thieves and even worse.”34

This great Father of the Church undoubtedly expressed great truths; in fact if he had uttered them in our days, then he would have been condemned as an Antisemite by the Jews as well as by the Christian clergy who play into the latter’s hands.

On the other hand one sees from this how widespread even in Rome the core of Christians was who outwardly appeared Christian, but in secret practised the Jewish cult. The Jew Graetz describes to us how these kinds of Christians attended the synagogues behind the back of the Catholic clergy, and how they were concerned that their neighbours did not betray them, if they noticed this most suspicious activity. It is therefore natural that the great Father of the Church, Chrysostom, thundered against these false Christians; for Holy Church had still not created the institution for their combating and prosecution, namely the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, one of the great Saints and illustrious Church Fathers, who exercised such a decisive influence upon the Emperors Gratian and Theodosius I, and to whom belongs thanks for the final triumph of Holy Church in the Roman Empire, was at that time the most restless and most energetic fighter against the “Synagogue of Satan”. Upon different occasions he condemned the Jews and attempted to prevent them gaining control of the Roman Empire. It was also his heart’s wish to prevent them being successful in destroying Holy Church; above all when the usurper Maximus temporarily revealed himself to be lord of half the Empire. As Saint Ambrose himself provides evidence, Maximus was a Jew and had attained his crowning as Emperor of Rome by murdering the devout Catholic Gratian.

As was to be expected, Maximus supported anew the Jews and pagans who gathered around him. However, he was fortunately defeated by Theodosius in the year 378, as a result of which the hope of the Jews of this time gaining control of the Imperium of the Caesars vanished.

In order to form an idea of the anti-Jewish zeal and Catholic saintliness that formed the quintessence of Saint Ambrose, we will again allow Graetz, the official and classical historian of Jewry, who enjoys so much prestige and authority with the Hebrews, to speak. With dismay he confirms:

“Ambrose of Milan was a violent official, who had not the slightest inkling of theology. Particularly for this reason, because he was notorious within the Church as violent, he was elevated to the rank of Bishop… On a certain occasion, when the Christians of Rome had set on fire a synagogue and the usurper Maximus had ordered that the Senate should rebuild it at state expense, Ambrose called him a Jew. When the Bishop of Callinicus in North Mesopotamia had caused a synagogue there to be burned by monks, Theodosius commanded that it should be erected at his expense, and punished those who had participated in this deed (388). Ambrose broke out into a violent rage over this and, in the letter he sent to the Emperor upon the occasion, used the harshest and most provocative turns of phrase, so that the Monarch saw himself obliged to rescind the command. Ambrose accused the Jews of disregarding and deriding the Roman Laws. In connection with this he abused them by saying that they might not provide either Emperors or governors from their ranks; that they were refused admittance to the army or Senate and they did not even possess the right to sit at table with nobility. The Jews were thus only there to pay high taxes.”35

Apart from other extremely interesting things, the outstanding Israelite Graetz tells us something which awakens our main interest, namely that Saint Ambrose “on account of his reputation for being violent”, was elevated to the dignity of Bishop. Graetz himself confirms his violence with details which prove his energy in combating Jewry. As we will later expressly prove, the honorary offices of the Church during the times of the apogee of Holy Church, as with those in the times of Saint Ambrose, were entrusted to those who defended the Church most zealously and energetically, especially against its principal enemy, Jewry. This gives an exact explanation for the glorious period of Catholicism in such times. A combative hierarchy, which is conscious of the enemy on the other side, guarantees the possibilities of triumph, whilst a largely non-combative hierarchy, which does not recognise the true danger, coincides exactly with the epochs of weakness and decline of Holy Church. The epochs of Saint Athanasius and the Arianist triumphs coincide with the unmistakeable fact that the honorary Church offices were bought by indifferent representatives and even by members of the “Fifth Column”. The true defenders of the Church were at that time pressed to the wall, disregarded and even persecuted. So it occurred with Athanasius, the great Father of the Church, and with all the bishops and clergy who followed him.

The same occurs in many places in our time. A great number of clergy and religious dignitaries, who have stood out through their adherence to Christ and their energy in the defence of Holy Church, see themselves humiliated and even persecuted through other clerics who provide Communism and Freemasonry with every assistance. Those clergy, who serve the interests of Jewry, strive to purchase the offices of bishops and cardinals when these become vacant, in identical manner as their predecessors in the time of Arius.

This concealed manoeuvre has made possible the Freemasonic and Communist triumphs, so that it already seems as if no one can any longer stop them.

By means of these deceptive tactics, of slandering the good and pressing them to the wall, in order to purchase the honorary Church offices for the wicked, which fortunately has not been successful in many places, although in others far more so, the “Fifth Column” has been able to bring under its control in recent years many positions, which in fact form a minority within the clergy of Holy Church, but have a decisive influence. They form the principal cause why in some lands a more or less considerable part of the Catholic clergy has promoted the revolutionary Freemasonic or Communist movements. As a result the defence of Catholic governments has been completely crippled, or at least the good patriots frustrated, by being robbed of the support of great sectors of Catholicism and being unconsciously driven into the Freemasonic or Communist revolts.

The most recent case of Cuba, in America, speaks volumes in this respect and should be for all the occasion of a deep reaching study and investigation, since it represents a typical example. The Communist and persecutor of the Church, Fidel Castro, was, when he was about to suffer shipwreck, protected by Catholic bishops, and his revolutionary movement was supported by the clerics and bishops with an enthusiasm and zeal which would have been worthy of a better cause. It was this circumstance that in the first place motivated the deeply orthodox Cuban people to commit itself unreservedly to the cause of the Communist leader. Thus the latter carried off a triumph, whose desolating result we all know.

It is understandable that Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan and a great Church leader in his time, was dismayed that Theodosius allowed the Jews to overstep the laws of Rome, which blocked admission for them to the Senate as well as allowing them no admittance to the army and to government positions; for he was conscious of the great harm which they could cause Christianity and the Empire, if they gained control of the government. A further important fact must be mentioned. The Jews were the initiators and propagandists of the Arian heresy, to which sect many Germanic barbarians from the frontier regions also belonged, of whom the majority, which was an open secret, were inspired by the wish to attack and conquer the Roman Empire. If Saint John Chrysostom had lived in our times, then undoubtedly the Jews and their satellites within Christianity would have thrown against them the accusation of being Nazis and disciples of Hitler, just as they do the same with all zealous Catholics who at present wish to protect the Church from the Jewish threat. The Jew Graetz says, as we have already quoted elsewhere, in reference to the role which both played in that period of open struggle of Holy Church against the Jews:

“The chief fanatics against the Jews in that time were John Chrysostom of Antioch and Ambrose of Milan, who attacked the Jews with most extreme violence.”36

Naturally, before Holy Church was able to carry through its final triumph over the “Synagogue of Satan” and Arianism, it had to withstand such critical moments as in our days. We are given vivid details of this in the letter which was signed by thirty-three of the most well-known bishops. Among these are found the first president of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Saint Meletius of Antioch; the great Church Father Saint Gregory Nazianzen, who presided over the said Ecumenical Council after the death of Meletius; Saint Basil, likewise Father of the Church; and other outstanding personages through their reputation and their holiness. From this letter we quote word for word the following paragraphs:

“The dogmas of religion are distorted and the laws of the Church are turned upside down. The ambition of those who do not fear the Lord reaches out for the honorary offices of the Church, and the office of bishop is offered as prize for the most subtle infamy and in fact with such craft that he who utters the gravest blasphemies is held to be most capable of all for leading the people as bishop. The seriousness of the bishop’s office has been lost.

“There is a lack of shepherds, who conscientiously guard the flock of the Lord. The property of the poor is permanently used by the ambitious for their own advantage and used for gifts to aliens. The true following of the Canon has come into forgetfulness... concerning all this the unbelievers laugh, and those weak in faith hesitate; the faith itself has become doubted. Uncertainty has poured itself over souls; for those who mocked the word of God in their maliciousness, reflect the true state of affairs, and the voice of the devout is silent.”37

What finds expression by the aforementioned bishops in this memorable letter can in fact be applied to what occurs at present in some dioceses, even if fortunately not in all. However, there are dioceses, above all such in which the “Fifth Column” predominates, in which the Semitophilic Prelates are at work in perceptible alliance with Freemasonry and Communism to secure themselves in boldest manner the bishop’s office, exactly as the Saints quoted reveal. They interfere in the internal affairs of other dioceses, in which devout bishops officiate, and only await their death in order to stretch out their feelers in Rome. By means of deceptive manoeuvres and misrepresentations they strive to buy the successors of the vacant dioceses and in fact not only for the most capable, but for the accomplices of the “Fifth Column”. In such a way they trample upon the right of those, who on grounds of their virtue and services should occupy bishop’s chairs.

But in that epoch these Saints, who have now been canonised by the Church, managed to save the situation. If they also on their side revealed unnecessary caution and hesitancy, then they nevertheless resolutely opposed the powers of evil and unmasked them publicly. They also pilloried all evil conditions, as we clearly recognise by means of the letter quoted, because as these saintly Church Fathers say, the silence of the Good makes possible the victory of the Evil. As a result of such clear as well as energetic conduct, Holy Church was able to carry off the triumph over Jewry, paganism, Arianism and other heresies.

However, the Saints who saved Catholicism in such different times, had to pass along a painful path of suffering; and in fact not only from the side of Jewry, against which they fought with such resolution, but also from the side of those within the clergy, who consciously or unconsciously served the interests of the Jews. We have already seen that Saint Athanasius was persecuted by the bishops adhering to the heresy of the Jew Arius, as also by the Emperors standing under the heretical influence. Even two Church Councils did not call a halt to this, but these that had actually been summoned for the salvation of Catholicism, transformed themselves, once they were controlled by the Arians and turned against the Orthodoxy, into veritable heretical Councils.

And in order to complete the picture, which shows how those Saints had to suffer, who like Saint Chrysostom opposed Jewry and heresy with energy and resolution, we take over literally what the biographers of the Saints mentioned say. As sources we quote Chrysostom himself as well as the Catholic historians John Cassian, Martirius and others:

“What is most astonishing and incomprehensible for us, as for John Cassian and the obscure eulogist of the 7th century, Martirius, is, that he (Saint John Chrysostom) was not banished or finally condemned to death by a governor of Decius or Diocletian, but by a band of ambitious and ill-willed bishops…

“On the other side there were bishops who, while whispering to the weak Arcadius and the raving Eudoxia that John was guilty of insulting their majesty, which meant nothing less than demanding his head, protested that they could not intervene and that the Emperor would in fact know what was to be done in such a case, for which naturally no small punishment existed. And why should one not recall the terrible scenes at Caesarea in Cappadocia, when the Saint, coming from distant Cocusus, trod the soil there. Tired, exhausted and delirious, with high fever, he was almost tom to pieces by a horde, as he called them himself, of wild monks who were incited by the Bishop. And what was worse, they belonged to the protective troop, which should have accompanied the poor banished Saint. And while the people wept and as a result showed that it was better that its shepherds, the envy of the local Bishop mercilessly pursued the outlawed Saint into his refuge, where the magnanimous neighbourly love of a noble woman granted him a roof. And they compelled him to continue his march on a night without moonlight over treacherous mountain paths.”38

These were the men, who made Christianity great; who allowed Holy Church to triumph, and saved them from the cunning of their outer and inner foes. At present the same type of Catholics, clergy and laymen, are needed in order to save Christianity and the whole of mankind, who are threatened by Communism, Freemasonry and the Synagogue of Satan which has instigated the whole conspiracy.

The high dignitaries of the Church and the worldly political leaders, who fight for the salvation of Catholicism under such difficult conditions, must be prepared to suffer not only all kinds of attacks from the side of the revolutionary forces of Jewry, but also from the side of the descendants of Judas Iscariot. The latter play within the clergy in this or that form the cards of the forces of Satan; and it is they, who through their high and arrogantly usurped struggle within Holy Church can instigate the most violent, destructive and painful attacks against those who fight for the defence of a Catholicism and their gravely threatened nations. May the Lord God provide faith, resolution and strength to them who, in imitation of Christ, take up the cross in order to follow Him in this decisive hour for the fate of the world.




After the death of Theodosius I, his sons Honorius and Arcadius inherited the throne of the already divided Empire; the first in the West and the second in the East. Their policy towards the Jewish enemy was weak, since they completely disregarded the norms of an energetic struggle, such as had been preached by Saint John Chrysostom and by Saint Ambrose. In addition, Arcadius in the East surrounded himself with corrupt advisors, who sold their protection to the Jews Rufinus and Eutropius, who, according to Graetz, “showed the Jews most extreme favour”. Rufinus was avaricious, and the Jews had already discovered the magic power of gold in order to thaw out the most hardened hearts. As a result various laws favouring the Jews were announced. Among these laws is found that which had already been put in force again through Constantius and confirmed, concerning which Graetz asserts:

“The Patriarchs and likewise all Synagogue servants were placed equal to the Christian clergy, by their being freed from the heavy burden of the magistracy.”39

What the renowned Jewish historian stresses here, is in fact of the highest importance; for it shows that the Jews had already discovered the power of gold, in order to bribe the Christian and pagan leaders. In reality they had already found this out much earlier, as the example of the Jew Simon the Magician proves, who even wished to bribe Saint Peter; or that of the Jewish superintendents, who were successful in buying one of the Twelve Apostles, that he might betray Jesus. In the course of history the Jews have systematically used the power of gold in order to buy political and religious leaders and to maintain a policy favourable to Jewry. The successors of Judas Iscariot have caused the Church and mankind grave harm by means of this method, and they are to a great part guilty of the misfortune which stands before our door.

The protection in the East and tolerance in the West allowed the Jews to collect sufficient strength, which was extremely dangerous, if one takes into consideration that they were the sworn enemies of the Church and of the Empire. Even in our times Jewish evidence has been handed down to us, which provides us with information about the hatred that the Jews fostered against ancient Rome.

In the east of the Empire Theodosius II, the successor of Arcadius, was attentive to the danger at the correct time and seized upon a series of measures, in order to counteract them and to ward off the Jewish danger in a resolute manner. However, the Jewish historians always record these defensive measures of the Christian states as persecutions which were unleashed through the fanaticism and the anti-Jewish tendency of the Catholic clergy.

The Jew Graetz speaks about these events as follows:

“The Middle Ages began for Jewry with Theodosius II (408-450), a very talented Emperor, but guided by monks, and whose weakness granted freedom from punishment to the fanatical zeal of some bishops and fostered cruelty. Edicts of this Emperor forbade the Jews to build new synagogues, to celebrate on Thursdays the synagogue service communally for Jews and Christians, and to keep Christian slaves. In addition they contained some other bans of lesser importance. Under this Emperor the Patriarchy finally fell.”40

The Patriarchy was an institution which for a long time performed the representation of Jewry in the Roman Empire and in many other places; it had its seat in Jerusalem.

What Graetz does not mention is the reason the Catholic clergy had for reacting in such a violent manner against the Jews. As in all cases, so here also, the Jewish historians give information concerning the measures that Holy Church or the Catholic monarchs entered upon against them; however, they never mention the occasions the Jews gave to provoke these reactions.

In the struggle of the Church against Jewry of that time one must mention the decisive appearance of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. He was the leading spirit in the defence of Catholicism against a new heresy which was led by Nestor and which was on the point of dividing the Church in exactly the same way as the Arian heresy had done.

Saint Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, plays at these moments the same role against Nestorianism which previously the great Church Father, Athanasius, had taken up in the struggle against Arianism. Like the latter, Saint Cyril applied himself actively in the defence against Jewry, by his condemning the Jews upon different occasions and combating all their false machinations.

The heresy of Nestor divided the Episcopate, since various bishops made common cause with the heretical patriarchs. After along drawn-out struggle, however, Saint Cyril was successful in obtaining the condemnation of Nestor from his Holiness the Pope. At the Third Ecumenical Council which took place later at Ephesus, the heretical bishops were fully defeated and Catholicism triumphed. The spirit of the Council in question was naturally Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who had to fight further against the remnants of the heresy, until he could destroy them.

In order to obtain knowledge of the conduct of Saint Cyril towards the Jews, let us refer to the words of the Jewish historian Graetz, which repeat faithfully the feelings of Jews towards the Fathers and Saints of the Church:

“During the rulership of Theodosius in the East and Honorius in the West, the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, who was remarkable for his quarrelsomeness, his violence and his impetuosity, tolerated the bad treatment of the Jews and expelled them from the city. He aroused the Christian rabble and incited them against the Jews. His excessive fanaticism called his attention to the synagogues, of which he seized possession in the name of Christianity. He drove the Jewish inhabitants half-naked out of the city, which had previously served them as home. Without his being able to be hindered, Cyril gave their property free for plundering by the mob, as indeed the latter always thirsts for enrichment.’’41

In its turn, the “Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia” already quoted states under the word Cyril in this reference:

“Cyril (Saint) of Alexandria, Patriarch (376-444). Was practically the master of Alexandria, from whence he drove out the non-Christian populace. In the year 415 he commanded the expulsion of the Jews, in spite of the protests of the Imperial Prefect, Orestes.”42

All Church histories agree with one accord, that, although Saint Cyril had a fighting nature, he nevertheless possessed a moderate and conciliatory nature. He was, in the complete meaning of the word, an absolutely virtuous man and therefore deserved to be canonised.

What the Jewish historians who, like Graetz or the official encyclopaedists of Jewry, stand in such high regard with the Jews, say about all those who dare to fight against the destructive activity of the Israelites, provides an idea to what degree they degrade and pollute the memory even of the most magnificent Saints of the Church. That Saint Cyril drove the Jews half-naked out of Alexandria and is said to have left their goods to the mob for plundering, sounds improbable for all those who know the history of this Saint well. The fact was that Alexandria had long been transformed into the principal centre of the Jewish conspiracy against Holy Church and the Empire. This city was the principal centre of Jewish Gnosticism, and from there radiated every kind of subversive idea directed against the existing order. It cannot therefore be remarkable that Saint Cyril, who was conscious of the Jewish threat, resolved to extirpate this cancerous tumour. So he expelled the Jews from the city, just as after him in other lands excellent defenders of Christianity have had to do.

If one knows the events as well as the blameless leadership of the Saint, then it appears more credible that he made all necessary provisions that this expulsion should take place under humane conditions; and that he disapproved of every excess and abuse which was committed by the masses on grounds of Jewish perfidy.

The Jewish historian describes further the bloody episodes in the struggle conducted by Saint Cyril and the Christians against the Jews. Among other things Graetz asserts:

“The Prefect Orestes, who was very concerned at the barbaric treatment of the Jews, lacked the power to protect them. He merely pulled himself together to lay complaint against the Bishop. However, Cyril won the case before the court of Constantinople. What now occurred after the expulsion of the Jews in Alexandria, gives a proof of how great the fanaticism of this Bishop was. Not far from the city there was a mountain, which was called Mount Nitra, where lived an order of monks whose desire to acquire the crown of martyrdom had transformed them into a pack of wild beasts. Goaded by Cyril, these monks threw themselves upon Orestes and stoned him as punishment for his not having approved the expulsion of the Jews; only when they had half killed him did they leave off attacking him. The same fanatical band cut up into pieces the body of the celebrated philosopher Hypatia, who had astonished the world through his deep knowledge, his eloquence and his purity.”43

The Catholic clergy at this time, who certainly knew what importance the terrible Jewish problem had, and who possessed an exhaustive knowledge of the Jewish conspiracy against the Church and the Empire, threw themselves without hesitation into the fight in order, as good shepherds, to defend their sheep against the cunning of the wolf. But the Jews always exaggerate in their history books what had occurred by inserting hair-raising passages with the aim of discrediting Catholicism and the Saints defending the Church.

As we have seen in addition, all these stories described in exaggerated and striking terms, serve to educate the Jewish youth and to inoculate into them from birth onwards a satanic hatred towards the Church and its clergy. Thus they breed an unquenchable lust for revenge, which expresses itself at the first opportunity offered in the burning down of monasteries, destruction of Churches, cruel slaughtering of priests and all kinds of violence against the Christians.

It is beyond doubt that, if Cyril had lived in our time, then he would not only have been condemned on account of Antisemitism, but he would also have been abused of being a war criminal, Nazi and the like.

The Jews believe that they possess the right to agitate against the peoples, to cause them to bleed in civil wars and to commit every kind of crime and infamy, without receiving the deserved punishment for this. But if anyone restrains them with the energy of such as Saint Cyril and punishes their excesses in a just manner, then they heap imprecations on him and attempt to lower his respect before men. Not even after death do they pardon him, as the example of this excellent Saint of the Catholic Church teaches us.

It is interesting to read the description by Graetz of how the Israelites at that time celebrated the feast of Purim of Queen Esther:

“On this day the Jews were accustomed, in the midst of the joyous feast, to hang up on a stage the figure of Haman, their arch-enemy, and his gibbet, which, after their burning of him took on accidentally or intentionally the form of a cross. Naturally, the Christians complained that their religion was being profaned, and Emperor Theodosius II commanded the provincial governor to bring about a cessation of this activity. In spite of severe punishments threatened for this, it was nevertheless not successful in preventing such acts. Upon one occasion this carnival entertainment, as it is reported, had terrible consequences. The Jews of Inmestar, a small place in Syria, which is situated between Antioch and Chalcis, had erected one of these gallows for Haman. The Christians at once accused them of having hanged a Christian child, crucifying him on it and whipping him to death. The Emperor gave the command, in the year 415, to punish those responsible.”44

This, the highly renowned, authorised Israelite historian Graetz, standing in such high regard with the Jews, calls enjoyment and carnival entertainment!

One can easily imagine the alarm that was caused by such kind of Jewish conduct among the Christians. Just as at present in the Soviet Union and other Communist lands, the sacrifices, blasphemies and political assassinations committed by Communist Jews would provoke the Christians there, had they not been enslaved and made incapable of defending themselves.

In contrast to the temples of other religions, the synagogues do not restrict themselves to holding religious services; they are far more assembly places, in order to discuss and approve political decisions. They are the chief centres of the Jewish conspiracy, from whence every kind of measures take their outlet, which aim at the conquest of peoples which with goodwill grant them hospitality. In these measures the exerting of economic pressure is also planned, in order to rob the Christians and Gentiles of their wealth, which the Jews believe belongs to them by divine right. How right the great Church Father John Chrysostom was to call the synagogues “infamous exhibitions, thieves’ dens and even worse.” The aforementioned Israelite historian does not dare to mention this. It is therefore understandable that the Catholic clergy at that time, conscious of the danger that they represented for Christianity and the Empire, accordingly strove to close down those centres of conspiracy and infamy.

Besides the measures already referred to, which the clergy introduced for this purpose, it is worth mentioning what occurred on the island of Minorca, which at that time was a Roman possession, and of which Graetz says, that:

“Severus, the Bishop there, set on fire the synagogues on the island and drove the Jews through the streets with blows, as a result of which he was successful in leading many of them to Christianity.”45

This last mentioned measure was a grave error, since the conversions, as the renowned Israelite historian Cecil Roth elaborates, were pretended, and the Jews secretly adhered to their old religion. Thus the number of underground Jews was increased, who certainly practised the Christian religion outwardly, but in truth formed the Jewish “Fifth Column” in the bosom of Holy Church. It was the cause of most heresies, to which it provided aid and stimulation.

A further, very holy opponent of the Jews was at that time the famous ascetic and Saint Simon Estilita (Simon Stylites), wh0, 0n account of the rigorous penances he observed during all his life, was very well known. Hanging for several years on a pillar, he mortified himself and did penance out of love of God. His example and his preachings had the consequence that several nomad tribes originating from Arabia confessed to Christianity. On account of his saintliness he stood in high esteem with Emperor Theodosius II, with whom he always made intercession for all those persecuted. In the controversies between the Catholic Church and the heretics he made his influence felt in favour of orthodoxy.

How great must have been the malice of the Jews and the intrigues of their synagogues, if this man, who represented the incarnation of neighbourly love and was in the extreme a mediator and protector of the persecuted, who was canonised by the Church as a saint and was famed on account of his penances as well as representing a model for youth, made an exception in his peaceful life concerning Judaism and intervened energetically in the decisive struggle unleashed against the “Synagogue of Satan”!

In connection with this Saint, Graetz informs us that, when the Christians of Antioch took away their synagogues from the Jews, which occurred as requital on account of the Christian child killed by the Jews at Inmestar at the feast of Purim, the Prefect of Syria described to the Emperor this expropriation of the synagogues in such an impressive manner that he succeeded in getting Theodosius II, despite his “priestly fanaticism”, to order the inhabitants of Antioch to return the same, which greatly vexed Saint Simon Stylites.

On this matter the noted Jewish historian Graetz expresses himself as follows:

“This decision was, however, disputed by Simon Stylites, who led the life of a rigorous asceticism in a kind of stall not far from Antioch. From the top of his pillar he had rejected the world; however, his hatred of the Jews was sufficient to move him to interfere in earthly things. Scarcely had he received knowledge of the command of Theodosius relating to the return of the looted synagogues, than he immediately addressed an arrogant letter to the Emperor, in which he informed him that he recognised God alone, and no other, as Lord and Emperor, and begged him to lift the Edict. Theodosius could offer no resistance to such intimidation. In the year 423 he revoked his command and even displaced the Syrian Prefect, who had raised his voice in favour of the Jews.”46

What has been elaborated in the last chapters, gives us proof of the capability of the clergy and of the Saints of the Church, who made possible the triumph of Christianity in the face of the deadly enemies of the Church and mankind. The present Ecumenical Council of Vatican II will therefore offer a splendid opportunity for the success of the present clergy in moving at the same heights as those who in those times were capable of saving Holy Church in the midst of so many catastrophes, and who allowed it to triumph in the face of so many enemies. This is extremely urgent, since in fact the Communist danger, which threatens to drag everything with it, can only be banished if and when the clergy of Holy Church and the temporal leaders attain that moral fighting courage and that spirit of sacrifice which inspired the Catholic hierarchies during the first centuries of Christianity. If one does not react energetically in this sense, then it is completely possible that God may punish us with the worldwide triumph of Communism and the resultant catastrophe for Christianity.


Saint Jerome, the great Church Father, wished to study the Bible in its original sources and therefore undertook seriously to acquire a deep knowledge of the Hebrew language. So he came into contact with such outstanding Jews as Bar Canina; but in spite of the personal friendship that the Saint had with distinguished Hebrews, his conduct towards Jewry rested upon complete rejection.

One can say the same of the most illustrious Church Father and Bishop of Hippo, Saint Augustine.

Our information will be taken from the texts of Jewish authors of undisputed authority in Jewish circles, so that there is no risk of these sources being branded antisemitic. With reference to Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine, the Israelite historian Graetz expressly states the following (initially referring to Saint Jerome):

“After his enemies had accused him on grounds of his Judaic studies of being infected with heresy, Jerome proved to them his orthodoxy, by affirming his hatred for the Jews. ‘If I had to give expression to my contempt for individuals and the nation, I would detest the Jews with a hatred difficult to put into words.’ But Jerome was not the only one who thought thus. His views were shared by a younger contemporary, the Church Father Augustine. This confession of belief with regard to hatred towards the Jews was not the opinion of a definite author but an oracle for the whole of Christianity, which hastily accepted the writings of the Church Fathers, who were revered as Saints. In later times this mode of thought led to that practice by kings who invented instruments of torture for the Jews and erected the stake in order to burn them.”47

Here Graetz gives a resumé of the policy that was followed by Holy Church and Catholicism more than a thousand years ago. What he is naturally silent about is what the grounds were that compelled the Church, its more outstanding Saints, the Church Fathers, Popes and Councils, to take refuge in this kind of defence.

Whoever has experienced the slaughtering of Christians and the desecrations of the Church that have been carried out by pagans and heretics instigated by the Jews; whoever has been eyewitness of the crimes committed by the Jews themselves; and as we know of the crimes, which have been perpetrated by the Israelites in Soviet Russia and the Communist lands — it is not difficult for us to imagine, that in the face of such an extremely dangerous and criminal foe, against a foe who threatens humanity as well as religion, and both Holy Church as well as other civilised institutions, the right of self-defence exists, and that one seizes upon such extraordinary measures as the infamy of the enemy in fact demands.




The renowned Jewish historian Narcisse Leven in his work “Fifty Years of History: The Universal Jewish Alliance” – to which we will refer later in more depth – points out among other things that, when the Church triumphed in the Roman Empire and was transformed into the official religion, “it guided the forces of the Empire against the Jews”, and that it persecuted the Jews who openly confessed their religion as well as those who had passed over to Christianity through baptism. He says further:

“Honorary rights (jus honorum) were taken from them, and even the baptised were excluded from the higher offices and a military career. Upon pain of death they were forbidden to carry on trade with Christians and town slaves, even if the latter were pagans... Justinian went so far as not to recognise the evidence of Jews against Christians as proof in the courts of law.” In conclusion the Israelite historian says that these orders were summarised “in the Codices of Theodosius II and Justinian, but that they lost their power with the barbarian invasion. The East Empire preserved and renewed them... in the Western Empire the barbarian invasion halted the persecution.”48

The interesting part about the legislation enacted in Catholic Rome lies in the fact that the hierarchies of the Empire and of Holy Church were in harmony, to exclude not only the declared Jews, but also those baptised, from the higher offices and a military career. This reveals that the Jews and their descendants who had gone over to Christianity were excluded from leading positions of state and the army despite their baptism.

The grounds for such measures become evident, if one takes into consideration that other authorised Jewish historians like Graetz and Cecil Roth openly admit that the conversions of the Hebrews to Christianity were feigned. Although they confessed outwardly to the said religion, they were secretly just as much Jews as before; and among these false Christians the secret cult of Judaism was passed on by father to son, although the latter were baptised and outwardly lived like Christians.

On the basis of such facts it is understandable that the Imperial authorities, who certainly knew that the conversion of the Jews was in almost all cases only a farce and baptism the same, included in their measures the descendants of Jews, even if they had received water of baptism. These defensive measures without doubt formed a distant forerunner of the famous laws or statutes for ethnic purity, by means of which in some lands Catholics of Jewish origin were removed from the leading positions of the State and honorary offices of the Holy Catholic Church. These laws for ethnic purity were approved by Popes Paul III, Paul IV and others. These were approved as means of preventing the false Christians, who were secretly Jews, from infiltrating further into the clergy. This means that these false Christians were regarded as a Jewish “Fifth Column” introduced into the bosom of the Church, the principal cause of the triumph of heresy and subsequently of the Freemasonic and Communist revolutions, as we shall when the opportunity presents itself.

The position of the Jews on the eve of the decline of the Roman Western Empire is described to us by the Israelite Graetz as follows:

“The fanaticism of Theodosius II was also alive in the Emperor of the Western Empire, Honorius and his absurd laws. Both placed the Jews in that abnormal position in which the then developing, new Germanic states found them. It was already no longer permitted the Jews, as was previously the case, to occupy public offices or to obtain military ranks.”49

The historian and great friend of the Jews, José Amador de los Rios, says, in commenting upon the situation of the Jews in the Empire after the Illiberian Council:

“The situation that the Fathers of the Illiberian Council created by virtue of such legal ideas, could not be more awkward and distressing for the sons of Israel. Inspired without doubt by the same spirit that is reported to us at the end of that century, as the ‘Lyre of Prudence’ reveals, these Church Fathers gave a striking example of the regrettable animosity which that host of unfortunate Jewish believers all over the world encounters, upon whose shoulders rests the terrible accusation of deicide.”50

Such Jewish and Semitophilic historians lament the situation of the Jews in the last days of the Roman world. However, they are careful not to mention the true reasons which placed them in that situation. It is worthy of note that Catholicism attained its complete triumph in the Empire exactly at that time when the Jewish beast was enchained, a highly significant coincidence.

Therefore the invasion of the Teutonic Arians was for the Jews a great triumph, albeit it only a temporary one.

The Northern Teutonic tribes, standing under the influence of the Arian sects, in fact pursued a policy of friendship and alliance with the Israelites, which was opposed to that observed by the triumphant Catholics in the Roman Empire.

On the basis of this circumstance, the situation of the Jews and Catholics in the Western Empire altered with the invasion of the barbarians into the Western Empire. The former clambered once more upon the ladder of power and of influence, while the Catholics, especially in some districts, had to suffer the cruellest persecutions.

Some assure us that the Jews encouraged the Teutonic leaders, to fall upon the Empire, and that they were even helpful to them with the carrying out of the conquest. We have had no time to set up an exact investigation concerning this point, but in the “Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia” we find something very interesting. Under the reference word “Arianism”, which refers to the good treatment of the Jews on the part of the Arian intruders, the following is stated:

“As a consequence of the tolerant treatment shown them by the invaders, the Hebrews declared their solidarity with them (the Arians) in their wars against the Catholic monarchies. Thus they took an active part in the defence of Arles (508) against Clovis, the king of the Franks, and in that of Naples (537) against Justinian.”51

The Jewish historian, Graetz, remarks in addition that: “In Italy, since the time of the Republic, the existence is known of Jews, who enjoyed full political rights until these were taken away from them by the Christian Emperors. They (the Jews) probably viewed the fall of Rome with great satisfaction and were delighted when they saw that the city, which had guided the fates of the world, was transformed into the booty of the barbarians and subject to the derision of the whole world.”52

It is evident that the Jews are not willing to admit that they bear a great part of the guilt for the destruction of the Roman Empire and for the catastrophe that this signified for civilisation. But the pleasure they felt at the fall of Rome, and the general confirmation that they felt a solidarity with the Arian barbarians “in their wars against the Catholic monarchies”, reminds us that the principal Catholic monarchy against which the Teutonic disciples of Arius fought was in fact the Roman Empire of the West.

In order to illuminate the historical truth and define the responsibilities, one must strive to gain a profile of this and at the same time take into consideration that the destruction of the then prevailing order and its replacement by one that favoured them suited no one more than the Jews.

Almost all Teutonic tribes penetrating into the Empire were Arian. Among the few exceptions stand out the Franks, who embraced Christianity from the beginning.

Speaking of the political change that took place with the invasions of the barbarians, the Philosemite J. Amador de los Rios says the following in relation to the Iberian peninsula:

“It was in this way that, when Arian tolerance had made the way free to a hitherto unknown prosperity the Israelite community on Iberian soil became stronger during the first epochs of the Visigoth rule. Thanks to their intelligence and their wealth they attained no less favour and importance and came to enjoy the exercise of public offices, which provided Jewry with an usual regard within the Republic.”53

In his turn, the Jewish historian Cecil Roth refers to the fact, that the Arian Visigoths favoured the Jews, in contrast to the Catholics, whom they persecuted.54

The Jewish historian Graetz gives us an example which proves what good conditions the Jews enjoyed in the lands conquered by the Nordic Arians, in contrast to that under which they lived in the Catholic kingdoms. He relates to us at first that, in the then Catholic Byzantine Empire, one of the Emperors drove the Jews out of their synagogue and converted it into the Church of “The Mother of God”, and that in the midst of such persecutions the Jews had then to drag the sacred vessels of the Temple of Solomon from one place to another, until they were conveyed to Carthage, which was then under the rule of the Arian Vandals. Graetz then continues:

“They remained there almost a century, and it was with great sorrow that the Jews of the Byzantine capital witnessed their translation to Constantinople by the conqueror of the Vandal kingdom, Belisarius. With triumphant cries, the Jewish trophies were dragged away together with Gelimer, the Prince of the Vandals and grandson of Genseric, as well as the treasure of the unfortunate monarch.”55

During the disintegration of the Roman Western Empire by the Arian barbarians, the Jews devoted themselves in great style to the slave trade. In this respect the Jew Graetz affirms that:

“The repeated invasion of the barbaric tribes and the countless wars caused the number of prisoners to rise, and the Jews carried on a lively slave trade, although they were not the only ones to do so.”56

It is worth noting that the Jews played a main role in the slave trade in the course of history and that in the 17th and 18th centuries they were the principal traders in this disgraceful business. They seized the unfortunate negroes in Africa and mercilessly dragged them away from their homesteads, in order to sell them in various parts of the world, especially in America, as slaves.




The conquest by the East Roman Empire of great territories controlled by the Arian barbarians, as well as the conversion to Catholicism of all Teutonic princes who previously belonged to the sects of the Jew Arius, once again altered the situation in Europe. With the triumph gained by Catholicism over this heresy there naturally arose a new situation for the Jews, which brought with it the loss of their privileged position and prevented them from further harassing the Christians.

It must be remarked, that Arian control over the immigrant Teutonic tribes was weak, since it fundamentally depended upon the conversion and loyalty of their leaders to the heresy. When the latter were now gained for Catholicism through the restless evangelising labour of Holy Church, Arianism received its death blow. It is hardly surprising that, following all the abuses and excesses committed by the Jews while they were protected by the heresy, its collapse led to a truly anti-Jewish reaction in the lands newly conquered for the Church of Rome.

Even José Amador de los Rios, who was so favourable to the Jews – after mentioning the fact that the Jews in the Arian epoch scaled the government posts and were able to obtain an unusual influence allowing them, contrary to the decision of the Illiberian Council which had been made a dead letter by the Arians, to keep Christian slave girls and concubines – says the following:

“Such esteemed prerogatives, denied to the Spanish-Latin people by the Visigoths, in flat contradiction to the decisions of the Illiberian Council, may have flattered the pride of the descendants of Judah for a while, demonstrating their superiority, but they nevertheless gravely endangered their future when Catholic doctrine arose victorious over the errors of Arius.”57

On the other hand, the Jews attempted in every manner to prevent the triumph of the Catholic armies. Thus, in the case of the Ostrogoth Empire established in Italy, where the Jews had already begun to have conflicts with Theodoric, we see how, at the threat of an invasion by the Catholic Emperor Justinian, they resolutely stood by their Arian friend, King Theodatus, Theodoric’s successor, with tenacity and fanaticism. Later, when the armies of Justinian attacked Naples, the inhabitants of the city divided into two parties, of which one wished for capitulation and the other war. In this case the party resolved upon war was not willing to sacrifice itself for the Ostrogoths, who according to Graetz were hated throughout Italy. And on this point the Jewish historian stresses:

“Only the Jews and two legal scholars, Pastor and Asclepiodotus, who had risen high thanks to the influence of the Ostrogoth kings, opposed the surrender of the city to the Byzantine general. The Jews that were rich and patriotic, offered their lives and their property for the defence of the city. And to dispel any concern about the shortage of provisions, they promised to supply Naples during the siege with every necessity.”58

Given the extensive nature of this work, it is not possible for us to quote further examples of this kind; but there is no doubt that the Jews everywhere desperately attempted to prevent the triumph of Catholicism over Arianism.

In relation to what occurred after the decisive victory of Holy Church, events in the Visigoth kingdom speak for themselves. It had been the most mighty monarchy that the Arian barbarians had managed to found, it had been regarded as the principal bastion of Arianism, and it had been there, as we have seen, that the Hebrews had succeeded in rising to government posts and gaining such privileged influence.

The Jewish historian Cecil Roth notes that, after the Visigoths had gone over to Catholicism, “they began to show the traditional zeal of neophytes. The Jews immediately suffered the unpleasant consequences of such zeal. When, in the year 589, Reccared came to the throne, ecclesiastical legislation began to be applied to them down to the smallest details. His successors were not so strict, but when Sisebutus ascended the throne (612-620), a narrow-minded fanaticism predominated. Perhaps goaded by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, he passed an edict in the year 616, in which he commanded all Jews of the kingdom to take baptism under threat of banishment and the loss of all their goods. According to the Catholic chroniclers, ninety thousand embraced the Christian faith.”59

In the Byzantine Empire, measures were also approved which aimed at converting the Jews to Christianity. The “Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia” says that Justinian “… ordered the reading of the ‘Torah’ (Bible) in Greek, hoping for the conversion of the Jews by this method, and in 532 he declared null and void every testimony made by a Jew against a Christian. This measure was later raised to a law almost everywhere in Christendom, having as its logical foundation the fact that the Jews, feeling themselves justified in lying to Christians and Gentiles, provided such widespread false witness that it would have been puerile to give credit to them. For this reason, any testimony made by a Jew against a Christian was denied judicial validity, as it had been proved in the course of centuries that lies and deception are one of the Jews’ most utilized and effective weapons.

All these measures, which the Christian states introduced, in order to achieve the conversion of the Jews, ranging from peaceful persuasion to force, originated from the apostolic fervour of Holy Church, eager to guide unbelievers to the true religion. Simultaneously both Holy Church as well as the Catholic states recognised the vital necessity of putting an end to the “Synagogue of Satan”, which was in fact a group of foreigners infiltrated into the Christian states, ever conspiring against both Church and state; it was a permanent danger both for the stability of its institutions as also for the defence of those peoples against their external foes. And this especially as the Jews have always shown themselves quick to betray any country kind enough to offer them hospitality, providing support to foreign invaders and undermining the very heart of the unfortunate nation that offered them shelter, should it suit their selfish interests.

One way of solving such a tremendous problem seemed to be that of eliminating the unwholesome sect of Jewry by converting them to the Christian faith. As a result of their ceasing to be Jews and joining the people in whose lands they lived by incorporation into the Catholic religion, not only would that strange “Fifth Column” disappear, which represents a danger for every nation, but the salvation of their souls would also be attained by faith in our Divine Redeemer. These were the grounds that moved the very Catholic Visigoth king Sisebutus to order the Jews in his kingdom to receive baptism under pain of banishment and confiscation of their goods. These were the same motives that inspired the no less Christian Byzantine Emperor, Basil I, the Macedonian (867-885), when he compelled the Jews to accept the waters of baptism, offering those who agreed to this demand all kinds of honours and tax exemptions.60

Unfortunately all these measures failed, since the Jews, as the Israelite historian Cecil Roth assures us, only feigned the conversions, in order in secret to continue to adhere to the Jewish religion. Because of this, the contingent of the “Fifth Column” within the bosom of Holy Church was vastly augmented.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia says that with the conversion carried out in the times of the Emperor Basil:

“More than a thousand communities saw themselves compelled to accept baptism; however, after the death of the Emperor, they returned to their primitive religion.”61

The conversion of the Jews in the Visigoth kingdom, which was carried out at the time of Sisebutus to a massive extent, provided no better results. The Jew Cecil Roth says:

“The notorious infidelity of the newly converted as well as their descendants continued to form, up to the Arab attack in the year 711, one of the greatest problems of Visigoth policy.”62

All measures were also in vain, which were introduced against the unfaithfulness of those converted from Judaism and their descendants. Naturally, these false Christians were subjected to a strict attention on the part of the government offices, which, as the same Jewish historian assures us, went so far as “to separate those suspect from their sons, so as to bring the latter up in an unpoisoned Christian atmosphere. As soon as the watchfulness of the government was relaxed, the recently converted seized the opportunity to return to their original belief.”

Roth ends these observations by concluding that all these occurrences initiated the Marrano tradition on the Iberian peninsula, in other words, the tradition of clandestine Jewry in Christian dress.63

The Popes and many Christian kings were alarmed by these insincere converts who were on the point of overwhelming Holy Church, and therefore introduced various measures in order to prevent and prohibit Jews from being forcefully converted. Among others, we can quote those which the “Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia” refers to, which says the following in this connection:

“Leo VI the Philosopher (Byzantine Emperor), son of Basil, re-established religious freedom for the purpose of preventing the appearance of false Christians.”64

Pope Saint Gregory recognised this problem in all its magnitude as well as the extraordinary danger that false converts represented for Holy Church. He therefore passed a definite prohibition of the persecution of the Jews or of compelling them to become converted in any kind of form. The bishops followed these instructions and opposed everything that might signify a compulsory conversion of the Jews, albeit reducing the latter to powerlessness, so that they could not infiltrate and poison Christian society. The Jewish historian Graetz makes an interesting commentary in connection with these measures:

“But the tolerance even of the most liberal bishops had no great significance. They merely abstained from any proselytism that involved threats of banishment or death, because they were convinced that by these means the Church would be populated with false Christians who would curse it in their innermost heart. But they did not hesitate to chain and harass the Jews, nor to place them on the same level as slaves on the social ladder. This kind of behaviour appeared completely justified and pious to almost all representatives of Christianity during the centuries of barbarism.”65

Here the Jewish historian summarises one of the aspects of the new policy that several Popes of Holy Church were to pursue during the Middle Ages. Convinced of the fact that it was dangerous to compel the Jews to conversion by means of persecution or threats, they strove to prevent such enforced conversions. They even declared it as anti-canonical. At the same time they undertook energetic measures against the false converts and their descendants: the false judaizing Christians. Some Popes and kings permitted the Jews to practise their religion openly, treating them tolerantly and even granting them protection against unjust attacks; but this kind of new policy also failed against the malice and perfidy of Jewry, which, far from thanking the goodness of such Popes, did not hesitate to exploit this leniency, in order to plan and prepare every kind of conspiracy against the Church and the State. This stiff-neckedness soon forced the Popes to alter their policy and to try to prevent the unleashed Jewish beast from devastating everything. Thus they attempted to enchain the latter anew, so that the Jews could cause no further harm. This is the true explanation of that which might seem to be a contradictory policy with respect to the Jews, which the various Popes have carried out.

It is therefore understandable that, when it was revealed that the measures of tolerance towards the foe revealed catastrophic results, they recognised the urgent necessity of seizing upon energetic measures to save Christianity from the cunning of the “Synagogue of Satan.” Unfortunately, this fluctuation in the policy of the Christian hierarchies was in the long run harmful to Holy Church Christianity.

If they had followed without interruption the energetic action directed against Judaism by the Fathers of the Church as well as by many Popes and Councils, then perhaps in time the threat of Jewish imperialism, which at present threatens to overwhelm everything, would have been banished.




With the conversion of the Visigoth king Reccared from Arianism to Catholicism, the sect of the Jew Arius received a decisive blow, since, as already stated, the Visigoth empire was the bastion of the heresy.

At that time the tragic memories and wounds opened by the bloody persecution unleashed by the Arian Leovigild against the Catholics were still felt. In this persecution the Jews had participated in a cruel way, so that in Gothic Spain there was a widespread resentment of the Catholic people against the congregation of Israel. It is understandable therefore that, after the Visigoth princes had abjured the Arian heresy and adopted Catholicism, a series of corresponding measures were seized upon, in order to command a halt to the dominating expansion of Jewry. The judaeophile historian José Amador de los Rios recognises in this respect that:

“The doors to the public offices stood open to the Hebrews, the occupying of which they had to thank the Arian kings for. Through marriage they could infiltrate into the Christian family, which considerably improved their position and their wealth and in the future secured them no small influence within the state. Made dizzy by their prosperity and their power, they had perhaps taken some part in the last and most painful persecution carried out by the Arians against the Catholics during the reign of Leovigild. The fear of the Toledo Fathers, who knew of the importance of the Catholic triumph and the cause represented by them, was therefore no objectionable and childish suspicion. Inspired by the example of the Illiberian synod, they set themselves to bridle the Jews, reducing them to impotence against the Christians...”66

Among the canons passed by the Third Council of Toledo for this purpose, canon XIV stands out an account of its importance, which states the following concerning the Jews:

“No public offices shall be conferred on them by virtue of which they could impose penalties on Christians.”67

This statute of the Holy Catholic Church has its complete justification, since the Jews always misuse the government posts that they acquire within peoples who have offered them hospitality, in order to cause the Christians damage in this or that form. It is completely beyond doubt that, if the metropolitans and bishops of the said Toledo Council had lived in our days, they would have been accused of a cruel antisemitism by the “Jewish Fifth Column” which has crept into the Catholic clergy.

The Prelates of the Third Council of Toledo likewise ordained that “if Christians have become polluted with the Jewish rite or circumcision, the former should be reinstated without any kind of reprisal into a position of freedom and in the Christian religion.”

The aforementioned historian J. Amador de los Rios, commenting upon other anti-Jewish statutes of the Holy Council, says the following:

“In recommending these repressive measures to Reccared, as a principal point and one of major importance, the Council Fathers were seeking to follow the intentions of the Council of Elvira, denying the Hebrews any alliance and mixing with the Hispanic-Latin race, just as with the Visigothic people previously and for a long time afterwards mixing was not permitted to the peoples ruled by them.”68

Among the statutes passed by the said Toledo Council were found those that refused the Jews the right to buy Christian slaves. They agree perfectly with the statutes passed by his Holiness Pope Saint Gregory the Great. This Pope not only violently opposed the forcible conversions of Jews and any kind of oppression that could force them to convert as false Christians, but decisively forbade them to buy Christian slaves. He also energetically combated every manifestation of clandestine Judaism practised by those who passed themselves off in public as Christians. In this respect, the Jewish historian Graetz quotes a very interesting case; writing about Pope Saint Gregory, he says:

“Having learned that a certain Jew named Nasas had erected an altar in Elijah (probably a well-known synagogue under that name) on the island of Sicily, and that Christians met there to celebrate the divine services (Jewish), Gregory commanded the Prefect Libertinus to tear down the building and to impose corporal punishment on Nasas for this offence. Gregory ruthlessly persecuted the Jews who bought Christian slaves or possessed them. In the Empire of the Franks, where fanaticism had still not taken root, there was no ban forbidding the Jews to take part in the slave trade. Indignant at this, Gregory wrote to King Teodoric (Dietrich) of Burgundy, King Teodobert of Austrasia, and likewise to Queen Brunhilde, whereby he gave expression to his astonishment that they allowed the Jews the possession of Christian slaves. With great zeal he admonished them to alter this evil state and to liberate the true believers from the violence of their foes. The Visigoth King Reccared, who had subjected himself to the Holy See, was flattered by Gregory in such grand style that he promulgated an edict of intolerance.”69

One sees from this that the measures for restraining the Jews that were approved by the Visigoth Reccared were, according to the Jew Graetz, inspired by no less than Pope Saint Gregory the Great, who attempted for a time in vain to gain the Jews through kindness and tolerance. It is likewise interesting to note that Pope Saint Gregory the Great, whilst rejecting forced conversions, cherished the hope of evangelising the Hebrews by peaceful means. Although he knew that in general the conversions were feigned and insincere, he hoped at least that the children of the conversos might be sincerely rooted in Christianity. In this respect our Jewish historian clearly states concerning Saint Gregory:

“However, he was not deceived into thinking that converts obtained in this way were loyal Christians, but he reckoned upon their descendants. ‘If we do not gain them, then we will at least gain their sons’.”70

As our writer said, and it is highly worthy of note, even Pope Saint Gregory the Great – of such illustrious memory in the history of the Church – knew that the conversions of the Jews to Christianity were insincere, and what he aimed at with them was to win over their already Christian-educated sons.

Unfortunately, the malice and perfidy of Jewry always causes the most apparently logical calculations to fail. As we have already seen in Chapter II of Part Four, the Jewish historian Cecil Roth confirms that “Marranism” i.e. clandestine Judaism, is characterised by the transmission by parents to children of the secret Jewish religion, hidden under the appearances of a Christianity practised in public by the Marranos. For this reason, the calculations of all the hierarchies of the Church and of the Christian states – based on the idea that even if the conversions are pretended and false, one could nevertheless convert the descendants of the conversos into good Christians – have failed lamentably throughout the centuries, as we shall analyse further in good time.




One of the principal reasons for the slow but constant triumph of Jewish Imperialism in the last nineteen hundred years has been the short memory of Christians as well as pagans, who were always inclined to forget the past, and did not take into consideration that history is the instructor of life. The Jews were always able to gain control of the government offices and obtain great influence within Christian society, if they were successful by application of their indescribable skill in deceiving their neighbours, in attaining the confidence of Christian potentates, whether churchly or worldly.

This so greatly desired power was used by them in order to cause harm to those of generous heart, who had opened door and gates to them, since now they conspired with greater prospect of success against Holy Church or the Christian states. Thus we see that, once Reccared had died and the motives had been forgotten which justified the exclusion of Jews from public offices, the latter were again permitted to exercise these and they were permitted to fall back again into their wicked practices, which had brought about the just punitive measures of the Third Toledo Council.

In this manner they represented anew a grave problem in the Gothic kingdom. When therefore in the year 612 Sisebutus was elected through the votes of the Visigoth potentates and with approval of the Episcopate, he first attempted to call a halt to the abuses of the Jews by putting into effect the Canon of the 3rd Toledo Council, which, because of neglect or yielding by the previous government, was no longer practised, and by likewise most energetically refusing the Jews the right of being able to buy Christian slaves.

J. Amador de los Rios confirms as follows: “Sisebutus, firm in his efforts to separate the Jewish race from the Christian, by his removing every power of the former over the latter, commanded that the crown should permit the return of all incomes, gains or presents which they had accumulated through deceiving the Kings before him.”

The historian in question reveals that Sisebutus with his zeal to put into application the statutes of Reccared in their entire extent, “gained for himself the approval of the Episcopate and the applause of Catholics”71 and, conversely, the tenacious opposition of the Israelites, “who already showed the hard attributes of Jewish infamy.” Finally, Sisebutus resolved to grasp the evil by its roots, and to remove from the Imperium this community of disgraceful aliens, who left in peace neither the Visigoth nation nor the Hispanic-Latin believers and hence represented a lasting threat for church and state. He therefore announced a fulminant edict, which uttered the expulsion of all members of the Jewish race from the kingdom. However, he committed the cardinal blunder of excluding from this statute those who confessed to Catholicism, so that the majority preferred to remain and allow themselves to be baptised. As the Jewish historian Cecil Roth has reported, such conversions were pretended and consequently only served to replace Judaism practised in public as their religion by one cultivated in secret, as a result of which a strengthened “Fifth Column” grew up which represented a much more dangerous organisation than that of open Jewry.

The Jesuit historian Mariana says, when he speaks about this general conversion of Iberian Jews, that a great number of Jews had themselves baptised with proclamation of this decree, “of which some were conversions from conviction and the majority hypocritical.” Mariana further elaborates that the Jews who received water of baptism, in order to evade the edict of Sisebutus, “followed anew and with greater zeal the confession of belief of their elders” upon the latter’s death in the year 621.72

The faulty memory of Christian rulers, which has been so grave in its consequences and of such advantage for the Jews, brought with it the fact that the Christians and pagans in the course of history, forgot the lessons of the past and fell into the old faults of wishing to bring the terrible Jewish problem towards a solution through conversion. Thus they admittedly ordered the expulsion of the “Fifth Column”, but at the same time left the escape valve of conversion open, so that things were merely made worse. For the majority preferred to remain and to falsely convert themselves into good Christians, whereby a “Fifth Column” grew up, which refined itself more and more, took effect in secret and therefore became more dangerous.

The expulsion of all Jews from the Gothic kingdom would have signified a solution of the problem, if it had been carried out totally, and the possibilities had not been made clear for the Jews to retain a loophole through their apparent conversions.

The expulsion would have been justified on the other side; for the owners of a house have always the right to show a guest the door, who, far removed from giving thanks for the hospitality enjoyed, sets himself to rob his hosts of their property or to cause them difficulties.

The commentary which the Jew Graetz makes, referring to the expulsion edict of Sisebutus, is characteristic in this respect, when he says, that “Sisebutus, by means of this fanatical persecution, cleared the way for the dissolution of the Visigoth kingdom.”73 Undoubtedly he here refers to the fact that the complicity of the Jews favoured the triumph of the Mohammedan invaders. The fact is that the Jews had not ceased, since the conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism and their abjuration of Arianism, to conspire against the new position of things. If there existed a fault on the part of Sisebutus or his successors, then it was that of not expelling completely the conspiratorial aliens who had infiltrated into the land, which in fact favoured from within outwards the Arabic conquest. Without Jews on Gothic soil this service of espionage would not have been able to be performed and the handing over of fortified places as well as the desertion of troops in the army of Roderich would not have been able to be effected, as the Jews were successful in doing. It was the fault of the Goths that the possibility was left open to the “Jewish Fifth Column” by means of a pretence of a false conversion to remain further on their soil; for it is always dangerous to allow the activity of any kind of “Fifth Column”.

It is very important to establish that Sisebutus was certainly conscious of the lack of strength on the part of the Christians, of pursuing throughout history a firm policy towards their enemies, as well as the faulty memory of the peoples in relation to the lessons of the past. Therefore he did everything humanly possible to prevent his successors falling into the traps of the skilled deceptive manoeuvres on the part of cunning Jewish diplomacy and renouncing the laws which he had enacted for defence of the Church and of the State. The legislation created by him for this purpose, which was incorporated in the “Fuero Juzgo”, was impressed upon the hearts of his successors by Sisebutus himself, so that the latter applied all strictness in the following of the anti-Jewish laws; with the punishment of seeing themselves deprived of rights for lifetime, as well as with death, to be thrust out of the host of believers in Christ and cast among the Jews so that the raging flames of Hell licked them eternally.74

And Sisebutus, who well knew the chronic faults of the Christian dignitaries, did not err in this. Scarcely was he dead, than the new King Swintila soon fell a victim to the smooth diplomacy of the Jews, who have the special gift of injecting confidence in their future victims, by their lulling them through an extremely hearty treatment and hypocritically pretending to show a friendship and loyalty, which covers their black plans and allows them to appear as victims of the most disgraceful injustices.

With their classical methods of deception they were successful in winning Swintila for themselves, who disregarded the admonitions of Sisebutus to his successors not to alter the anti-Jewish laws for the defence of the kingdom, and who did not know how to cast his curse against those who disavowed the said laws. He lifted the entire anti-Jewish legislation and with it the edict of expulsion of the Jews, so that the untrue converts, if they wished, could again publicly practise their Jewish cult, as well as return to the land from which they had been driven out.

The Jew Graetz, who is better acquainted in the internal matters of Jewry than Father Mariana, says in this connection the following: “In spite of baptism the converted Jews had not given up their religion.” He thus does not make Mariana’s allusion, that, although the majority pretended conversion, there were nevertheless some who did it from inner conviction. On the other hand, Graetz further elaborates that in the epoch of the Semitophile Swintila “the act of baptism was regarded as sufficient, and none bothered to make enquiry as to whether the converts retained their old habits and practices. The noble King Swintila was naturally dethroned through a conspiracy of the nobility and clergy, who placed Sisenand in his place, who was a willing tool of theirs.”75 Here the Jew Graetz mentions a condition, which represents the ideal for the false converts from Jewry and which consists in that they already transformed themselves into true Christians through baptism, without anyone bothering to investigate whether the converts and their descendants still adhered in secret to the Jewish cult. This is exactly the situation today of the descendants of the false converts, who enjoy freedom of action as powerful “Fifth Column” within the Church and cause Christianity colossal harm, without anyone setting up a real investigation, in order to establish who practises Judaism in secret.

Conversely, at other epochs of the Visigoth monarchy, watch was kept with Argus eyes over the converts and their descendants, in order to discover who of them still carried on Judaism. It is natural that, under the protection and shield of Swintila, the Jews again accumulated great power within the kingdom and brought the Christian Church anew into danger. This explains and justifies the secret measures of the Catholic clergy, in order to overthrow the traitorous monarch, who, as is to be expected, is praised as good and liberal by the Jews.

Leader in this new struggle against the “Synagogue of Satan” was Saint Isidore of Seville, another of the most renowned Fathers of the Church, who, after the fall of the unfaithful Swintila and the crowning of Sisenand, organised and directed the Fourth Toledo Council, which was highly authorised in Church doctrine.

The greatest difficulty in this situation was that those who had gone over to Judaism, and their descendants, followed their old tradition and allowed their sons to enter into the Catholic priesthood, as a result of which they could even rise and occupy the bishops’ chairs, which thus served to provide the Jews with aid in their conspiracies against the Catholic faith. This is the typical case of activity of the “Jewish Fifth Column” which had infiltrated into the Church, whose destructive activity can be traced up to our days.

In other cases the Jews took refuge in that system which had commenced with their predecessor, the Jew Simon the Magician, by buying the favour of the clergy who, although they were not secret Jews, sold their support to the cause of the Devil; exactly as their forerunner Judas Iscariot had done as one of the chosen Twelve. The treachery which had made itself noticeable up into the highest offices of Holy Church, called forth the alarm of the Fourth Toledo Council and its leader, Saint Isidore of Seville. Upon the Metropolitans and Bishops assembled there fell the task of laying down in the Holy Canons a series of statutes which not only had the aim of countering the Jewish threat at this time, but also of banning and punishing the treachery in the high clergy, which was most dangerous of all for Holy Church and the Christian states.

Thus among the Canons passed for this purpose the following stand out: “Canon 58. Concerning those who show support and favour to the Jews against the faith of Christ. The avarice of some is so great that they therefore separate themselves from the faith, just as the Apostle expressed it; just as even many among the clergy and laity accept presents from the Jews and aid their perfidy, in that they allow them to enjoy their protection; to those, of whom one knows not without reasons, that they belong to the body of the Antichrist, since they work against Christ. Every bishop, priest or layman, who in the future grants support to them (the Jews) against the Christian faith, be it through briberies or favours, shall be regarded as profane and blaspheming God. He shall be excluded from the Communion of the Catholic Church and be regarded as not belonging to the kingdom of Cod; for it is no more than right that those who reveal themselves as protectors of the enemies of the Lord be separated from the body of Christ.”76

The threat which had arisen for the Church and Christian society, must have been very great on grounds of the complicity of the Bishops and Priests with the Jews, these eternal enemies of Christianity. This is the reason, why the wise Saint Isidore of Seville had to expose them before the Council which consisted of Metropolitans and Bishops, in this quoted Canon, and called those Bishops and Priests who supported the Jews profane and blasphemous, whereby they at the same time threatened them with the punishment of excommunication.

May this be borne in mind by all those clergy and highest dignitaries of the Church, who, instead of serving Holy Church, at present prefer to give free rein to the Jews, these principal enemies of Christ, or to Jewish enterprises like Freemasonry and Communism. And they should give account concerning the great responsibility, which weighs upon them, as well as the grave sins, which they commit as a result.

As is known, the Toledo Councils enjoyed great regard within the Holy Catholic Church, and their edicts even found entry into civil law. Thus the statutes and penalties of the aforementioned Canon were taken over in the “Fuero Juzgo”, which was proclaimed with approval of Holy Church. In article XV, Title II, Book XII of Law 15 it is stated:

“So that the cheating by the Jews does not have the power to broaden itself in any kind of form and to govern according to its choice; over which we have always to watch. Therefore we stipulate in this law that no man of any religion, or spiritual order, or any dignity, or of our Court, either great or small, nor any kind of people, nor any kind of line, neither princes nor potentates should strive accordingly, to protect the Jews, who will not allow themselves to be baptised, in order to hold firm to their beliefs and their customs. Nor those who have been baptised but return to their perfidy or their bad customs. None should risk to defend them in their malice with his strength in any kind of way. No one should attempt to help them, neither by means of arguments nor deeds, so that they may not be able to agitate against the holy belief of Christians. Neither shall anyone in secret or in public undertake anything against the faith. Should anyone accordingly risk this, whether he be bishop, priest, member of an order or lay brother, and if proof is shown against him, then he shall be separated from the community of Christians, excommunicated by the Church and a quarter of his property declared to be confiscated in favour of the King.”77

In this form in those critical times Holy Church as well as the Catholic State enacted sanctions and in fact the former with the approval of the first-named, against the accomplices of Jewry within the Church and the high dignitaries of the clergy itself.

In order to come back now to the Fourth Toledo Council, we now reproduce, what Canon 59 orders, which refers directly to the Jews, who after their going over to Christianity were revealed in their secret practices of Jewish belief. About this the Canon in question expressly states: “Many Jews took on the Christian faith for a certain time and now give themselves, by slandering Christ, not only up to the Jewish rites, but even go so far as to carry out the repellent act of circumcision. In reference to these Jews and upon proposal of the highly devout and highly religious Lord, our King Sisenand, this Holy Council decrees that the said converts, after they have been purified through the Papal authority, are again conducted into the care of the Christian dogma; but those, who do not better themselves from their own decision, should be restrained by clerical punishment. And relating to the circumcised, it is ordered that, if it is a matter of their own sons, then they shall be separated from their parents; but if it is a matter of slaves, then they shall be granted freedom on account of the injury done to their body.”78

Although both Cecil Roth as well as other Jewish authors assure us that the conversions were, according to their nature, pretended, and in this they agree with the Jesuit historian Mariana and with what is laid down in various mediaeval documents of undoubted proof, then the Church at least in the early periods held every converted Jew to be a serious Christian, as long as it was not proved that he practised Jewish rites in secret.

Later, all Israelites were under suspicion of crypto-Judaism who had gone over to Christianity as well as their descendants, since proof could be provided that with few exceptions all pretended their conversion and transferred their secret religion from father to son. It therefore in no way astonishes us that, in the aforementioned Canon 59, measures were seized upon, in order to prevent the crypto-Jews, i.e. the untrue converts, from transferring Hebrew rites to their sons, and the latter were separated from them for this purpose. For the same purpose the Council in question passed its 60th Canon, which according to its compiler, Tejada Ramiro, refers to the so-called backsliding Jews, i.e. to the Christians, who fell back into the crimes of secret practice of Jewish belief. The said Canon elaborates:

“It is ordered that the sons and daughters of Jews, so that in the future they may not fall into the error of their fathers, be separated from their parents and entrusted to a monastery or to Christian men and women, who fear God, so that in their education they learn the cult of the faith and, better instructed, make progress in customs and beliefs.”79

As one can recognise, these Canons were chiefly conceived in order to destroy the “Jewish Fifth Column” which had infiltrated into the Church, be it by means of punishments of the false crypto-Jewish Christians or through the attempt to prevent the latter handing on the secret rites to their sons. It was and remains highly dangerous for the Church to have in its ranks members of the Jewish sect who, disguised as good Catholics, make efforts to destroy Christianity. For this means to have the foe in their own ranks, and no one has called into question the right that every human society possesses to render harmless the espionage service of enemy powers or to get rid of saboteurs. The measures seized upon by Holy Church, in order to ward off Jewish infiltrations, which attempted to undermine it externally, were fully justified, even if they may also appear very strict; exactly the same as those, which every modern nation seizes upon, in order to eliminate espionage or sabotage of a hostile power.

History has proved, that even if open Jewry was expelled and despised in many nations, that crypto-Jewry nevertheless lived on under the mask of Christianity. It was always held to be logical, that the intercourse of converted Jews with those who practised their cult in public, was harmful, since the latter could influence the first-named to fall back into Judaism.

Canon 62 of the Holy Council mentioned deals with the banning of this danger: “Concerning the baptised Jews, who have dealings with the false believing Jews. If association with the bad often in fact destroys the good, with how much more probability will the former be destroyed by the latter, who incline to blasphemy. Therefore, from now on, the Jews converted to Christianity must carry on no association with those who still adhere to the old Rite, so that they do not become perverted by them. Whoever in consequence does not avoid this association, will be punished as follows: if he is a baptised Jew, he shall be handed over to the Christians, and if he is not baptised, he shall be publicly whipped.”80

Canon 64 rejects the capacity of giving witness and in fact here not by the open Jews, but by the crypto-Jewish Christians.

Up to then the Christian law had solely refused the open Jews the right of bearing witness against Christians, but Canon 64 forms an innovation, since it also denies to Christians still practising the Jewish cult in secret, the capacity of bearing witness: “Canon LXIV. Whoever has been untrue to God, cannot be faithful to men. Therefore the Jews, who became Christians and again fell away from the faith of Christ, shall not be permitted as witnesses; and not even then if they declare to be Christians. Just as one mistrusts them relating to the belief in Christ, so shall one suspect them else in earthly evidence...”81

More logical the proof given by the Council Fathers could not be; for it is logical that, if they lie in things of God, they likewise speak untruth in earthly things. On the other side, one sees clearly that both Saint Isidore of Seville as well as the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Council knew best of all the lasting distortions and falsities that had become second nature of the false crypto-Jewish Catholics. The same one can say of many today, who swear to be Catholics but act as Israelites.

In spite of this violent defensive struggle on the part of the Church and of the Christian state against the dangerous infiltration by the “Jewish Fifth Column”, the latter must have obtained further government offices. Particularly during the desolate period of government of the Semitophile Swintila this development attained such a dangerous degree that both the Catholic Monarch on the throne and also the Holy Toledo Council resolved to make an end of the situation. So in their Holy Canons they uttered the express ban, which refused the Jews the right to occupy public offices within Christian society.

Canon 65 says: “Upon command of our illustrious Lord and King Sisenand, this Holy Council lays down that the Jews, or those who are of their race, may occupy no public offices, because through this they would insult the Christians. Therefore the judges in the provinces in common with the priests should make an end to these cunning deceptions and forbid them to occupy public offices. But if, in spite of this, a judge grants his approval to anything of the like, then he shall be excommunicated as a blasphemer and be accused of ‘fraud’ and be publicly whipped.”82

Canon 66 expressly calls the Jews “Servants of the Antichrist”, just as another already quoted Canon said of the bishops and priests who helped the Jews that they formed part of the body of the Antichrist.

It is worthy of note that Canon 65 adds an innovation to the laws of the Catholic Church in that admittance is not only blocked to declared Jews to government offices, but to all those who belong to their race.

This must not be interpreted as racial discrimination; for Holy Church regards all men as equal before God, without discrimination of race. But since the conviction, repeatedly substantiated through facts, predominated that Christians of Jewish race with few exceptions secretly practised the Jewish cult, it was logical that one attempted to prevent the infiltration of crypto-Jews into the government offices. This was a vitally important defensive measure by the Christian state, since, if the latter had once been ruled by its deadly enemies, who are simultaneously the principal foes of Holy Church, both institutions would have come into gravest danger. To block the door to government of the state to aggressive or converted Jews, was not only prudent but indispensable to protect it from the powerful “Fifth Column” which at a given moment could cause its collapse. Thus it came about in catastrophic degree when a weak-minded leader of the state, who violated these Laws of the Church and those announced by his predecessors, cleared anew the possibility for the Israelites to gain control of the leading posts in the Gothic kingdom. This law of public security is without doubt the predecessor of further most energetic and far-reaching laws, which Holy Catholic Church passed many hundreds of centuries later.

It is interesting to establish that Saint Isidore of Seville in his struggle against Judaism wrote two books against the Hebrews, which, according to Graetz, were compiled “with that lack of taste and feeling that distinguished the Fathers of the Church from the beginning in their warring polemics against Jewry”.83 It is entirely natural that the anti-Jewish books of the Church Fathers do not please the Jews, but one must understand that the Israelites obscure the historical truth. Also they attempt to destroy the honour of all those who have fought against them, even if it is a question of such holy, learned and excellent men as the Church Fathers are.

It is completely beyond doubt that, if Saint Isidore of Seville as well as the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Fourth Toledo Council had lived in our days, they would immediately have been accused of antisemitism or criminal racism; and in fact not only by the Jews, but also by the clergy, who give themselves out as Christians, but in reality stand in the service of Jewry.


[1] Here we avoid using hard words against those churches, in order to support the wish of our Holy Father, John XXIII, of attaining a drawing closer together of the Christian Churches.
[2] Cecil Roth, History of the Marranos, Israel Publishers, Buenos Aires, 1946. 57506, pp. 11-18.
[3] Bible, Gospel of Saint John, Chapter II, Verses 23-24.
[4] Bible, Gospel of Saint John, Chapter VIII, Verses 31-59.
[5] Bible, Apocalypse, Chapter II, Verses 1-2.
[6] Bible, Acts of the Apostles, Chapter XX, Verses 18-19 and 28-31.
[7] Bible, Letter of Saint Paul to the Galatians, Chapter II, Verses 4-5.
[8] Bible, Letter of Saint Paul to Titus, Chapter I, Verse 10.
[9] Bible, Second Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter II, Verses 12-15.
[10] Bible, Second Epistle of Saint Peter, Chapter II.
[11] John Yarker, The Arcane Schools, pp. 167, 365.
[12] Bible, Acts of the Apostles, Chapter VIII, verses mentioned.
[13] Bible, Acts of the Apostles, Chapter VIII, Verse 24.
[14] William Thomas Walsh, Philip II. Espasa Calpe, p. 206.
[15] J. Matter, Histoire du Gnosticisme. Ed. 1844. Vol. I, pp. 12, 44.
[16] Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, pp. 27-29.
[17] Ragon, Maçonnerie Occulte, p. 78.
[18] “Was Jewish in character long before it became Christian.” Jewish Encyclopaedia, word “Cabbala”.
[19] Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia, edition quoted, Volume V. Word “Gnosticism”, p. 84, Collection 1.
[20] Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia, Work quoted.
[21] Matter, op. cit., Volume II, p. 188; Volume I, p. 44.
[22] Nesta H. Webster: Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, pp. 30-31.
[23] Matter, op. cit., p. 365.
[24] Eliphas Levy, History of Magic, p. 218.
[25] Dean Milman: History of the Jews, Everyman’s Library, Edition II, p. 491.
[26] E. de Faye: Gnostiques et Gnosticisme. Ed. 1913, p. 349, and Matter, ibid, Volume II, p. 171.
[27] De Luchet: Essai sur la Sectes des Illuminés, p. 6.
[28] His work Adversus Haereses is especially important.
[29] William Thomas Walsh: Philip II. Ed. Espasa Calpe, p. 266.
[30] His work Thalia was of great importance for the spreading of heresy.
[31] Cavallera: Le Schisme d’Antioche. Sellers. R.V. “Eustasius of Antioch and his place in the early doctrine of Christ.” Cambridge 1928.
[32] Books which have been referred to in this Chapter: Graetz, History of the Jews, Philadelphia 1956, Volume II, Chapters XXI and XXIII. Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales etc. Johannis Harduini, S.J., Paris, 1715, Volume I, p. 255. Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia. St. Athanasius: Historia Arianorum ad Monachos. Contra Arianos. Eusebius: Vita Constantini. Cevatkin: Studies of Arianism. Batiffol: Les sources de l’histoire du Concile de Nicée. Echoes d’or. 28th edition, 1925. Sokrates: Church history. St. Athanasius: Epistola de morte Arii. St. Hilary: History 2.20 Fragm. Ch. J. Hefele, Volume I. Sozomeno: Church History, Chapter I, St. Epiphanius Haeret. Waud: The Four Great Heresies, 1955.
[33] Books used in this chapter: Graetz: History of the Jews, Volume II, Chapter XXI, Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia. W. Koch: Comment l’empereur Juliana tacha de fonder une Eglise paienne. Articles in the Revue de Philosophie de l’Histoire, 6th Year 1927-1935 and 7th 1928-485. Labriolle: La réaction paienne. P’ 1934. St. Gregory Nazianzen: Oratio I en Julianum.
[34] Graetz, op. cit., Volume I, pp. 613-614.
[35] Graetz, op. cit., p. 614.
[36] Graetz, Ibid.
[37] St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen: Church Fathers, Letter published in works of John Chrysostom. Library of Christian authors. La Editorial Catolica. S.A. Introduction, p. 7.
[38] Sources Chrétiennes, Volume 13, p. 142 and FF, quoted as works of John Chrysostom, Library of Christian authors. Editorial Catolica. SA. Madrid, 1958.
[39] Graetz, op. cit. Vol. II, pp. 615-616.
[40] Graetz, Ibid.
[41] Graetz, Works, Volume II, pp. 618-619.
[42] Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia, Edition mentioned, Volume II, p. 30.
[43] Graetz, op. cit., Volume II, p. 619.
[44] Graetz, Ibid, Volume II, pp. 620-621.
[45] Graetz, Ibid.
[46] Graetz, Ibid, Volume II.
[47] Graetz, op. cit., Volume II, pp. 625-626.
[48] N. Leven, Cinquante ans D’Histoire Israelite Universelle. [1860-1910]. Paris 1911, Volume I, pp. 3-4.
[49] Graetz, Ibid, Vol. II, p. 622.
[50] José Amador de los Rios, History of the Jews in Spain and Portugal, Madrid, 1875, Vol. I, p. 75.
[51] Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia. Edit. mentioned. Vol. I, Word “Arianism”.
[52] Graetz, Ibid, Volume III, p. 27.
[53] J. Amador de los Rios, Ibid, Volume I, p. 79.
[54] Cecil Roth, History of the Marranos, pp 15-16.
[55] Graetz, Ibid, Volume III, p. 26.
[56] Graetz, Ibid, Volume II, pp. 28-29.
[57] J. Amador de los Rios, Ibid, Volume I, pp. 79-80.
[58] Graetz, Ibid.
[59] Cecil Roth, Ibid, p. 16.
[60] Concerning this compulsory conversion in the Byzantine Empire see: Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia, term “Bizantino Imperio”.
[61] Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia, Volume II, term “Bizantino Imperio”.
[62] Cecil Roth, Ibid, p. 16.
[63] Cecil Roth, Ibid, pp. 16-17.
[64] Jewish-Spanish Encyclopaedia. Volume II, term ‘Bizantino Imperio”.
[65] Graetz, Ibid, Volume III, pp. 25-26.
[66] J. Amador de los Rios, Ibid, Volume I, p. 82.
[67] Acts of the Third Council of Toledo. Canon XIV, compiled by Juan Tejada y Ramiro, Collection of laws of all Councils of the Church in Spain and South America, Madrid, 1859. Volume II.
[68] J. Amador de los Rios, Ibid., Volume I, p. 83.
[69] Pope St. Gregory the Great. Quoted by Graetz, Ibid, Volume III, pp. 33-34.
[70] Graetz, Ibid, Volume III, Page 33.
[71] J. Amador de los Rios, Ibid, Volume I, pp. 85-86.
[72] Mariana: General history of Spain. Book VI. Chapter II.
[73] Graetz, Ibid. Volume III. Page 49.
[74] Forum judicium, Book XII. Tit. II. Laws 14. Formula of cursing against those Kings who did not heed the anti-Jewish laws: [Sit in hoc saeculo ignominiosior cunctis hominibus... Futuri etiam examinis terribile quum patuerit tempus, et metuendus Domini adventus fuerit reservatus, discretus a Christi grege perspicuo, ad laevam cum hebraeis exuratur flammis atrocibus...” etc.]
[75] Graetz, Ibid. Volume III. Page 49.
[76] 4th Council of Toledo, Canon 58, compiled by Jaun Tejada y Ramiro. Page 305. Collection of Canons of all Church councils in Spain and South America, Volume II.
[77] Fuero Juzgo [Collection of Visigoth Laws in old Castilian tongue] in Latin and Castilian, provided by the Real Academia Espanola with the oldest most magnificent handwritings, Madrid, 1815.
[78] Fourth Council of Toledo, Canon 59. Compiled by Juan Tejada y Ramiro, same edition, Volume II, Page 103.
[79] Fourth Council of Toledo. Canon 60. Compiled by Juan Tejada y Ramiro, same edition, Volume II. Page 306.
[80] 4th Council of Toledo, Canon 62. Compiled by Juan Tejada y Ramiro, same edition, Volume II. Pages 306-307.
[81] 4th Council of Toledo. Canon 64. Compiled by Juan Tejada y Ramiro, same edition, Volume II. Page 307.
[82] 4th Council of Toledo. Canons 65 and 66. Compiled by Juan Tejado y Ramiro. Same edition. Volume II. Page 308.
[83] Graetz, same work, Volume III. Page 50.