Kriminalgeschichte, 58

Editors’ Note: Always keep in mind the fact
that Ambrose was non-white.

Saint Ambrose drives the annihilation of the Goths, 1

The Goths saw in their bishop Ulfilas, born about 311 of Gothic parents of Cappadocian descent, a ‘sacrosanct man’. He would write on his deathbed: ‘I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor’, an honorary title that is related to the persecution of the Christian Goths, probably in 348. However, like him, only in Arianism did he see the una sancta; in all others, Christians antichrists, in their churches he saw ‘synagogues of the devil’ and especially in Catholicism a ‘lost theory of evil spirits’. Bishop Ambrose, for his part, believed that the fact that they did not accept salvation by the cross but only in imitation of Christ, whatever they understood by it, constituted ‘The most outstanding characteristic of Gothic Arianism’ (Giesecke). [1]

Even when commenting on the Gospel, Ambrose could quote praisefully the words of Paul, an even greater abominator: ‘Love is patient, it is kind, it does not show zeal, it does not boast’. He could let the imagination run: ‘But would not it be wonderful to offer the other cheek to the one who hits you?’ However, in reality Ambrose did not offer one cheek or the other, as he incited with especially Christian (and Pauline) consideration: ‘Is it not achieved with patience to return the blows twice [!] to the one who hits, in the form of the pain of the repentance?’ [2]

About our saint it is significant that he often speaks of the love of his neighbour and that he even approaches the subject as a whole in his monograph, De officiis ministrorum, but apparently only alludes to the love of enemies. For him—the same for Augustine and the whole Church—it was not useful, but only a sign of the greater perfection of the New Testament against the Old. However, this does not imply any binding requirement for Ambrose. What he rather does is ‘curiously not to reject anywhere war, categorically, as illicit’ (K.P. Schneider). On the contrary! The idea of a ‘justified war’ is constantly and ‘indirectly’ sketched by him. [3]

And not only indirectly, because while in the East the philosopher and educator of Princes, Themistius, who stood by several emperors and never adhered to Christianity, tried to mediate between the ecclesiastical parties and also between pagans and Christians (and, at the same time, vigorously supported the policy of a peaceful compromise between the Goths and Valens), St. Ambrose did just the opposite. As soon as he could, he sent his 19-year-old protégé Gratian in the name of Jesus against the Goths, the pagans, the ‘heretics’, the ‘barbarians’. [4]

The bishop did not cease to show passion. ‘There is no certainty from where they will attack the faith’, he exclaimed, angered before the emperor.

Raise up, O Lord, and unfold your standard! This time it is not the military eagles that lead the army and it is not the flight of the birds that directs it; it is your name. Jesus is the one who is cheered and it is your cross that goes before them… You have always defended it against the barbarian enemy; now take revenge!

Although he should not take revenge precisely in the name of Jesus! However, Ambrose took as a reference—as the clergy have done in all wars to date—the Old Testament: where Abraham, with a few men, annihilated numerous enemies; where Joshua triumphed over Jericho.

The Goths are for the saint the Gog people (‘Gog iste Gothus est’), whose annihilation predicts the prophet, de quo promittitur nobis futura victoria: a people that Yahweh, in his lapidary style, wants to ‘give to devour’ to raptors and other animals, and also to their own: ‘And you must eat the fat until you are fed up and drink blood until you get drunk of the victim I sacrifice for you’. According to Ambrose, for whom ‘Germanic’ and ‘Arian’ (or ‘Roman’ and ‘Catholic’) were almost equivalent terms, to defeat the Goths one thing is needed: true faith! This, in spite of the fact that the emperor of the East, Valens, was Arian! But the bishop conveniently ignored these facts. Faith in God could not be separated from fidelity to the Empire. ‘Where fidelity to God is lost, the Roman State is also broken’. Where the ‘heretics’ appeared, they were followed by the ‘barbarians.’ [5]

Of course, the military aspect was accompanied by an aspect of ecclesiastical politics. However, in occupied Illyria, that is, near northern Italy and Milan, in addition to the war with the outside adversary, the internal enemy—the disputes with the Arians—also wreaked havoc. Secundianus resided in Singidunum as bishop, Palladio in Ratiaria, Julian Valens in Poetovium, Auxentius in Durostorum, but Ulfilas also lived there, who displayed his activity mainly in the eastern provinces of the Danube. Ambrose incited the emperor against these influential Christians, especially when the Illyrian Arians made propaganda also in Milan and other cities in northern Italy, and the entry of Goths gave new impulses to the ‘heresy’. Thus, this Catholic did not cease to invoke the religious situation and the performance of the Arians as a danger to the Empire and to military security, which would provide the ‘heretical’ subjects with a protection against the Goths, their fellow believers, much smaller than the Orthodox. [6]

Nevertheless, it is evident that the military aspect was now more important for Ambrose than the religious one that he highlights, insofar as his diocese was not far from the Goths and in Roman Christianity, according to an ancient tradition, the same distinction was done among Romans and ‘barbarians’ as between human beings and animals. The danger arose from the enemies of the country. Thus, the religious zeal of the bishop is now anticipated by the national zeal. Ambrose especially emphasised the propensity to a vice of the ‘barbarians’, their depravity ‘worse than death’.

For him, the unquestioning patriot, the enemy is also any ‘stranger’, an ‘alien’ almost equivalent to infidel. To the Goths and the like (Gothi et diversarum nationum viri) he calls ‘people who once dwelt in wagons’, beings more fearsome than the gentiles (gentes). Thus, he does not fight the infidel Romans; what he does rather is to place the army of the pagans on his side and incite it against the ‘barbarians’, and to win over the emperor with pretexts of religious motives, while seeking the predominance of ‘Roman culture’, which he himself provides protection and a very prestigious life. [7]

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Jord. of orig. act Get 25. Soz. e.h. 2.6. Philostorg. e.h. 2.5. Basil ep. 164.2. Lex dtv Antike, Religion 1176. Seeck, Untergang V 90. K.-D. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 216 f, 231 f, 236 f, 257 (here citation). Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 6 f, 16 f, 44, 69. Thompson, Christianity 69 f. K. K. Klein, Gotenprimas Wulfila 84 f, especially 98 f. Previté-orton, The shorter 56. Claude, Die Westgoten 11 f, 26 f. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 58. Klein, Constantius II, 253 f.

[2] Ambros. Lukaskommentar 5,73 f.

[3] Schneider, Liebesgebot 27 f, 56.

[4] Pauly V 677 f. Straub, Regeneratio 203 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 13.

[5] Ambr. of fide ad Grat. 2,16,130; 2.16, 139 f; 3,16,138 f. Ez. 38 f, especially 38.4; 39.4; 39.19. Ambr. ep. 10.9; 25 f. of off. 1.35175 f. from Tob. 15.51. On the concept of ‘barbarians’, cf. for example Wemer, Barbarus 401 f. Jüthner 103 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 37 f, 46 f. The same, Lateinische Kirchenväter 88 f. Beumann, Zur Entwickiung 219 f. Stratmann III 72. Christ, Römer 273 f. Homus 169. Pavan, Gothic Politics 70 f, especially 76 f. Schneider, Liebesgebot 49 f. Chadwick, Die Kirche 174. Haendier, Von Tertullian 102.

[6] Ambros. of fide 2.16, 139 f. Sulp. Sev. Vit. Mart. 6.4. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 9 f, 18 f, 37 f. Schneider, Liebesgebot 45 f. Gottiieb, Ambrosius 21 f, 83 f.

[7] Ambros. ep. 19.7 f; 20.12; 20.20. of off. 2,136; 3.84. de fide 2,16. Prudent. c. Symm. 2,816 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 48 f. Schneider, Liebesgebot 49 f. Straub, Regeneratio 251. Haendier, Von Tertullian 102.

Kriminalgeschichte, 57

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

The Goths—Gutans or Gut-þiuda in their language—were the main people of the East Germans. Coming from Sweden, Gotland, Östergötland or Västergötland, they settled on the lower Vistula in the ‘transition period’, about the year 150 on the Black Sea. In the middle of the 1st century they split into Eastern and Western Goths (Ostrogoths, of austro, ‘bright’, and Visigoths, from wisi, ‘Good’), although they continued to be considered as a single people and usually called themselves only Goths. The Ostrogoths settled between the Don and the Dnieper (in present-day Ukraine), and the Visigoths between it and the Danube, from where they spread to the Balkans and Asia Minor, historians citing here generally the year 264. Dacia and Moesia (approximately the current Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia) were constantly under their pressure. In the year 269 Emperor Claudius II defeated them, Constantine often fought against them, and in 375 both towns (except the Catholic Crimean Goths, who remained there until the sixteenth century) were expelled by the Huns, who were advancing towards West. This tribe of nomads from the interior of Asia, were defeated and expelled in turn by the Chinese and only lived on horseback—’animals of two legs’ as Ammianus wrote—, advancing irresistibly from the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, extending the Russian plain and conquering a gigantic empire. Around 360 they had crossed the Don and reached Hungary by 430. However, allied with the Visigoths, the imperial general Flavius Aetius—who had sought and found protection among the Huns in the past—, defeated them in 451 in Gaul, in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. A few years later their king died, and more quickly than they had arrived, they largely withdrew towards Asia, in the Pontic steppes, the North Caucasus and the Sea of Azov. They were disbanded into several tribes and were henceforth known under the new name of Bulgarians.[1]

The Goths of the Balkans, the Lower Danube and the shores of the Black Sea were soon ‘converted’, the first among the Germans. This began in the 3rd century through contacts with the Romans and with captives. In the 4th century there was a notable increase of Christians among the Visigoths. In the year 325 the bishopric of Gomia already exists, under the orthodox bishop Theophilus; one of the participants in the Council of Nicaea. In 348 there is a persecution of Christians and in 369 a second one, which lasts three years. However, soon after most of the Visigoths are Christians. The Ostrogoths, on the other hand, if we give credence to Augustine, when penetrating Italy in 405 under King Radagaisus were still pagans; while in 488, when they invaded Italy with Theodoric, they were already Christians.[2]

The persecution of 348, led by a ‘judge of the Goths, without religion and profaner of God’, that is, a pagan, led to the expulsion of Ulfilas, the author of the Gothic Bible, consecrated around 341 by Eusebius of Nicomedia as ‘bishop of Christians in the land of the Goths’. With him a group of his followers fled, to whom Emperor Constantius II settled south of the Danube, in the province of the Lower Moesia, where their descendants lived for two centuries.[3]

The second persecution against the Christians under the Visigoths (in 369-372) was led by the prince Athanaric. It is perfectly understandable that already the ancient authors were fascinated with a man who, for example, refused to address Emperor Valens with the treatment of Basileus, arguing that he preferred the title of judge, which embodies wisdom, while the king only the power. The second persecution was not solely due to questions of faith. It was mainly an anti-Roman reaction and was closely related to the war between Goths and Romans between 367 and 369, although evidently also with the struggle for power between the princes Athanaric and Fritigern, the latter representing a policy favourable to the Romans and the Christians.[4]

After a meticulous preparation, Valens crossed the Danube in the year 367 and resumed a fight against the Goths that Constantine had already initiated, ending it in 332 by means of a formal treaty of peace with the Visigoths. Valens, without the warrior carving of the ‘great emperor’, ravaged the country, went hunting the heads of an enemy in disarray, but failed to reach the bulk of their opponents, as Athanaric always managed with great skill to flee to the Carpathians. And although in 369 he stopped with a part of his people and was defeated, it was so undecided that Valens had to accept his refusal to step on the Roman ground and had to spend a whole September day negotiating in a boat anchored in the river. Finally, the Gothic prince had free hands to dominate the adversaries in his own town, which led to three years of persecution.[5]

The reign of Athanaric did not tremble until the Huns overwhelmed the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, at which time Athanaric and Fritigern, in spite of their enmity, fought side by side against the powerful invaders, and apparently the Ostrogothic king Ermanaric committed suicide in desperation. One part of his people were subjugated while the other crossed the Dnieper and fled towards the Visigoths. However, the defence sank before the hurricane of the Huns. With Athanaric they fled again to the impassable Carpathians. (In 1857 the workers who built a road there found, near a ruined fortress in Pietroasele, the Visigoth ‘treasure of the crown’. In a choker the following runic inscription appeared: utani othal ik im hailag: that is, a treasure of the Goths, I am invulnerable.) Defeated again, between forty and seventy thousand Visigoths fled to the south and asked in 376 Emperor Valens to admit them into the Roman Empire.[6]

While Athanaric left Gut-þiuda, the country of the Goths, and settled in the territories that would later be Transylvania, Valens authorised the immigration of the great mass of the Goths ruled by Fritigern as foederati; that is, colonists with the obligation to go to the army when they were needed: an ancient method of obtaining peasants, but above all soldiers. In the autumn of 376 they crossed the river, an event of great historical significance, probably by Durostorum (Silistra): a long row of chariots, often carrying the ancient pagan idols but also with some bishop among them, a Christian priest. And Fritigern, who with many of his own had become Arian in 369, promised Valens the ‘conversion’ of the part of his people that was still pagan, something that pleased the ears of the fanatical ‘heretic’, but that for the Goths was more a question of opportunism: misery and the Huns on the one hand and the attractive Roman Empire on the other. However, their exploiters and their officials, the monopolists of food and hunger caused that not a few Goths, even some bosses, sell as slaves their own wives and children, even in exchange for dog meat, a business quite common on the Danube. The thrust of the new ‘barbarians’, Visigoths, Taifals, Alans, and Huns on the open border pushed the newcomers, who occupied all of Thrace, to rebel and march on Constantinople, joining them bands of Huns, Alans and also slaves, peasants and workers of the mines of the country.[7]

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Plin. nat hist 37, 35; 4.28. Tac. Germ. c 44. Socr. 6.34. Ammian 31.2.1 f; 31.3 f. Philostorg. 9.17. Stein, Vom römischen 289 f. Hauptmann 115 f. Schmidt, Ostgermanen 195, 201, 243. K.-D. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 205 f, 215, 316 f. Capelle 185 f. Historically, Weibull (Die Auswanderung der Goten aus Schweden, 1958) is of special importance. Ferdinandy 186 f. Vemadsky 258 f. Dannenbauer, Entstehung 110 f, 193 f. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 77. Maier, Die Verwandiung 109 f, 130. A. v. Müller, Geschichte unter useren Füssen 114 f. Rice 149. Schwartz, Goten 13 f, 142 f. Bullough, Italien 167. Wagner, getica 214. Claude, Westgoten 7. Stockmeier, Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung 316 f.

[2] Mansi Collect. Consil. II 214. Schmidt, Die Niedergang Roms 427 f. Aland, Glaubenwechsel 58 f. Stockmeier, Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung 315 f. Apparently, the first missionary of the Visigoths was one Eutyches, ibid.

[3] Jord. Get 267 (MG Auct., Ant. V 1,127). Lex dtv Antike, Religion H 311 f. Thompson, The Visigoths 94 f. Fridh, 130 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien lis. Schäferdiek, Wulfila 107 f, especially 117.

[4] Ammian. 27.5.9. The sources in Jones, Prosography 120 f. Lex dtv Antike, Geschichte 1155. K. K. Klein Frithigem 34 f. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 59. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 2 f, 13. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte II / l, 235.

[5] Ammian. 31,4,13. K. K. Klein Frithigem 38 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 4.9 f.

[6] Ammian. 31.3,4. Socr. e.h. 4.33 f. Soz. 6.37. According to Dudden 1165 they were ‘nearly a million persons of both sexes’. Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 62 f. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 223 f. Capelle 185 f. Thompson, Attila 23. Ensslin, Einbruch 101. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 60. Altheim, Hunnen I 351. Dannenbauer, Entstehung I 195. A. v. Müller, Geschichte unter unseren Füssen 115. Maier, Verwandiung 110.

[7] Eunap. fr. 42 f; 55. Ammian. 26, 10, 3; 27.4; 31.3 f. Zos. 4.10 f. Socr. e.h. 4.33 f. Soz. 6.37 f. Orog 7.32 f. Seeck, Untergang V 93 f, 101 f. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius 370. Delbrück, Kriegskunst II 280. Stein, Vom römischen 286 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 37 f. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 242 f. The same, Die Ostgermanen 233. Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 69 f. Capelle 172 f. Baetke, Die Aumahme17. Komemann, Weltgeschichte II, 352. The same, Römische Geschichte II 418 f. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates 43. Ensslin, Einbruch 100 f. Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms 310 f, 428. Dannenbauer, Entstehung 1195. Maier, Verwandiung 110. Claude, Westgoten 14 f, 26 f. Nehisen 161. Aland, Glaubenswechsel, 59 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 10.

Kriminalgeschichte, 56

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

The Ambrosian policy: archetype for the Church to the present

The same as Athanasius, Ambrose (in his post of 374-397)—according to Augustine’s testimony, ‘the best and most renowned bishop of Milan’—was not so much a theologian as a politician of the Church: equally inflexible and intolerant, although not so direct; more versed and ductile and acquainted with power since birth. His methods, more than those of Athanasius, remain to date an example for ecclesiastical politics.[1]

The agents of the saint are among the highest officials of the Empire. He acts skilfully from the background and prefers to let be that the ‘community’ does things, which he fanaticised with so much virtuosity that even the military proclamations directed against it fail.

Son of the prefect of Gaul, Ambrose was born about 333 or 339 in Trier. Orphaned at an early age he grew up, with two brothers, under the tutelage of Roman aristocrats. Having studied rhetoric and law he was appointed, around 370, administrator (consularis Liguriae et Aemiliae) in Milan. On December 7, 374 he would be consecrated bishop, barely eight days after his baptism and without even having the Christian knowledge of an educated layman.

Milan (Mediolanum), founded by the Gauls and a remarkable knot of communications, especially with important roads that lead to the alpine passes, was in the 4th century the capital of Italy and increasingly the imperial residence. Valentinian II sought to stay there as long as possible; Gratian still more, and Theodosius I remained there from 388 to 391, and also after his victory over Eugene (394).

Roman columns in front of basilica di San Lorenzo
in what remains of Mediolanum, the ancient Milan.

Sometimes Bishop Ambrose saw the sovereigns daily. Since when Valentinian II was proclaimed Augustus (375) he was barely five years old, his tutor and half-brother Gratian had just turned sixteen and the Spanish Theodosius was at least a very determined Catholic, the illustrious disciple of Jesus could handle perfectly their majesties. Valentinian I died a few years after Ambrose’s inauguration. His son Gratian (375-383), of just sixteen years of age, succeeded him on the throne.

The emperor, blond, beautiful and athletic had no interest in politics. ‘I have never learned what it means to govern and be governed’ (Eunapius). He was a passionate runner, javelin thrower, fighter, rider, but what he liked most was killing animals. Neglecting the affairs of state, every day he killed countless of them, with an almost ‘supernatural’ ability, even lions, with a single arrow. In any case, he also prayed every day and was ‘pious and clean of hearing’, as Ambrose affirmed so that he would soon deliver biting hints: ‘His virtues would have been complete had he also learned the art of politics’ (Epit. de Caesaribus).[2]

However, this art was practiced by Ambrose for him. Not only did he personally guide the young sovereign, effectively since 378: he also influenced his government measures. At that time the sovereign had promulgated, by an edict, precisely tolerance towards all confessions, except a few extremist sects. However, Ambrose, who four years before was still unbaptized, hastened to write a statement, De fide ad Gratianum Augustum, which he quickly understood.

And as soon as Gratian himself arrived at the end of July 379 in Milan, neutral as he was from the point of view of religious policy, he annulled on August 3, after an interview with Ambrose, the edict of tolerance promulgated the year before. He decided then that only would be considered ‘Catholic’ what his father and he in numerous decrees had ordered eternal, but that ‘all heresies’ should ‘be muted for eternity’. He thus prohibited the religious services of the other confessions. Year after year, except for 380, he issued anti-heretic decrees, ordering the confiscation of meeting places, houses and churches; he dictated exiles and, as a fairly new means of religious oppression, repealed the right to make wills. He was also the first of the Christian emperors who got rid of the title of Pontifex Maximus (that the Roman monarchs used since Augustus), or rather, he refused to accept it, although the year is still the subject of discussions. The military under Sapor was ordered to ‘expel from religious facilities the Arian blasphemy as if they were wild animals and return them to the true shepherds and flocks of God’ (Theodoret). Tolerance towards paganism, which was common among his predecessors, also soon disappeared. In fact, his father still allowed the reparation of damaged temples, making the government pay the expenses. In 381, Gratian moved to northern Italy. In 382 he attacked the pagan cult of Rome, most probably advised by Ambrose; although sanitation of the State coffers may also have played an important role. He also persecuted the Marcionists and, like his father, the Manichaeans and the Donatists: whose communities in Rome had been dissolved without further ado, at the request of Pope Siricius (383-399), with state aid.[3]

Valentinian II (375-392), much younger still, had a remarkable influence on the saint. He habitually used him against the Senate of Rome, mostly pagan, and against the entire Council of the Crown. And the last Westerner on the throne of the East, the independent Theodosius (379-395), dictated in almost every year of his government laws against pagans or ‘heretics’. However, according to Father Stratmann, he was more tolerant than the bishop of the court, who encouraged him to take stricter measures on all sides against the pagans, the ‘heretics’, the Jews, and the extreme enemies of the Empire. The reason: ‘It is no longer our old life that we continue to live but the life of Christ, the life of maximum innocence, the life of divine simplicity, the life of all virtues’ (Ambrose).[4]

The way in which Ambrose lived the life of Christ, the life of maximum innocence, of divine simplicity and of all the virtues, manifests itself in multiple ways—for example, in his behaviour against the Goths. We will deal with them because the Goths played a very important role in the history of Europe, especially between the 5th and 6th centuries. The sources are better in this case than in the other tribes of eastern Germans, and richer is the historiography on them.[5]

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] August. conf. 5,13.

[2] Eunap. Excerpt. de Sent. 48. Auson. Grat. Act 64 f. Ammian. 27,6,15; 31,10,18 f. Soz. 7,25,11. Vict. Epit. de Caesaribus 47,5 f. Seeck, Untergang V 165. Dudden I 217 f.

[3] Ammian 30,9,5. Theodor. e.h. 4.24.2 f; 5.2; 5.21.3 f. Socr. 5.2; Cod. Theod. 13,1,11; 16.5.4 f. Cod. Just. 1,5,2. Soz. 7,1,3. Ambros. ep. 1 f; 7 f. Auson. Grat. Act. 14.63. Epistula Gratiani imperat. (CSEL 79.3 f). Zos. 4,36,5. Rauschen 47.49 f. RAC II 1228 f. Kraft, Kirchenväter Lexikon 27. Seeck, Regesten 252. The same, Untergang V 104 f, 137. Sesan 60 f. Stein, Vom römischen 304 f. Heering I 60 f. Dudden I 191 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 15, 36, 40 f. Alföldi, A Festival. According to this author, Gratian abandoned the title of Pontifex Maximus at the beginning of 379, p. 36. Kornemann, Römische Geschichte II 420. Ensslin, Die Religionspolitik 8 f. Lorenz 38. Diesner, Kirche und Staat 23. Maier, Verwandlung 53. Hornus 168 f. Widmann 59. Grasmück 131 f, 151 f. Lippold, Theodosius 16, 34 f. Kupisch I 91. Schneider, Liebesgebot 46. Aland, Von Jesus bis Justinian 224. Heinzberger 12, 227 Notes 37; here the corresponding bibliography. Thraede 95. Grant, Christen 177. – Chronology, as so often happens, is still subject to controversy. G. Gottlieb, who is not followed here, in his work of opposition to chair in Heidelberg fixed for the writing of the first part of ‘de fide’ not the 378 (or 379), that is, not as was done until the date immediately before (or shortly after) the battle of Adrianople, but a year later. Cf. G. Gottlieb, Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian, Zusammenfassung 83 f. G. discusses even any influence of Ambrose on Gratian’s legislation on matters of the Church and faith, 51 f, or at least explains that such influence ‘cannot be seen anywhere’ (87). Cf. in this regard also Gottlieb, Gratianus RAC VII 718 f, especially 723 f.

[4] Ambros. Über die Flucht vor der Welt 44. Heilmann, Texte II 396. Stein, Vom römischen 296 F. Stratmann III 76. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 166. Bloch 197. Aland, Von Jesus bis Justinian 225. Rubin I 27 speaks precisely of the ‘submission’ of Theodosius to Ambrose.

[5] Cf. recently Strzelczyck 1 f.

Kriminalgeschichte, 55

Editor’s note: Judging from how he treated the synagogues, we can infer that St. Ambrose was not ethnically Jewish. But he clearly was not white, as can be seen in this early mosaic.

Christianity arose in the lower strata, the mudbloods and sandniggers and in the Semitic regions of the Roman Empire. These were people who harboured a deep rancour towards the white Greco-Roman world.

In the chapter that Deschner dedicates to this very influential figure of the 4th century, we will see how this bishop committed all kinds of crimes: not only against classical culture but also the Aryan genotype itself (especially the Goths).


______ 卐 ______


Chapter 19: Ambrose, doctor of the Church
(toward 333 or 339 to 397)

‘An outstanding personality in which the virtue of the Roman with the spirit of Christ was united to give a complete unity: man, bishop and saint from the feet to the head; together with Theodosius the Great, the most important figure of his time, the counsellor of three emperors, the soul of their religious policy and the support of their thrones: a formidable champion of the Church’.

—Johannes Niederhuber, Catholic theologian [1]

‘Ambrose, the friend and counsellor of three emperors, was the first bishop to whom the princes came to support their tottering thrones… His extraordinary personality exuded an enormous influence, carried by the purest thought and a complete altruism… Together with Theodosius I, the most brilliant figure of his time’.

—Berthold Altaner, Catholic theologian [2]

‘Ambrose is a bishop who, in terms of the importance and scope of his activity, leaves in the shade all the others… not only surpasses the popes of the first period, but also all the other guides of the Western Church we know’.

—Kurt Aland, Protestant theologian [3]



Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Niederhuber LThK 1st ed. 350. Cf. also the “Allgemeine Einleitung” of Niederhuber in BKV 1914 IX f. Kraft also sees in Ambrose ‘Roman virtue completed and augmented with Christian virtue’. Kirchenväter Lexikon 23.

[2] Altaner 330 f.

[3] Aland, Von Jesus bin Justinian 230.

Kriminalgeschichte, 54

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.


Patriarch George, an Arian ‘wolf’, monopolist and martyr

George of Cappadocia, an ultra Arian, seized power in Alexandria. He was one of the followers of the sovereign who joined his ecclesiastical office with a surprising sense of finances.

Patriarch George raised a funerary monopoly, although apparently also acquired the one of the sodium carbonate and tried to buy the papyrus lagoons, along with the Egyptian salt mines. Among his favourite religious projects were the inheritances, a special field of the saviours of Christian souls throughout all the centuries. Bishop George not only tried to get the heirs to lose what their relatives had left them, but he even told the emperor that all the buildings of Alexandria were public property. In short, the Egyptian primate ‘took advantage of the ruin of many people’, so, as Ammianus writes, ‘everyone, without distinction, hated George’.[1]

Although he was ordained for Alexandria as early as 356, he did not start working until the end of February 357, with savage fury, ‘like a wolf or a bear or a panther’ (Theodoret). In front of a blazing bonfire, he caused Catholic widows and maidens to be beaten on the soles of their feet, apparently completely naked, with palm branches or to burn them on a low fire. He made ‘whipping in a totally new way’ (Athanasius) to forty men; many died. Athanasius reports of raids, assaults, the capture of bishops, who were chained; of imprisonments, the exile of more than thirty bishops ‘with such lack of consideration that some of them committed suicide on the road and others in exile’.

In the autumn of the year 348, Athanasius resorts to violence. Patriarch George is saved from an assassination attempt in the church and must flee. On November 26, 361 he returns, to his disgrace, without knowing the death of his protector Constantius. He is quickly locked up, on December 24, but Catholics and pagans take him out and, together with two very unpopular imperial officials, he is dragged through the streets and beaten until he dies.

However, shortly before Bishop George had called the strategist Artemius, military governor of Egypt, and with his help had also persecuted the pagans; destroyed the temple of Mithras, demolished statues and sacked the pagan shrines, of course for the benefit of the Christian churches that they wanted to build. (Julian had the temple destroyer Artemius decapitated in the year 362, for which he was venerated as an Arian martyr.)

Catholics and ‘idolaters’ walked the streets with Bishop George’s corpse on the back of a camel. For hours they raged with the dead man. Then they burned him and scattered his ashes, mixed with those of animals, by the sea.

And while the wild Arian wolf becomes a martyr, precisely at Christmas, Athanasius returned once more and, finally—after the pagan Julian again banished him in 362; the Catholic Jovian made him return in 363, and the Arian Valens will exile him for the last time in 365-366—, Athanasius slept in the Lord on May 2, 373, old and much appreciated.[2]


Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Epiphan. Haer 76,1,4 f. Ammian. 22,11,4 f. Grant, Christen 75 f.

[2] Ammian. 22,11,3 f. Theodor. 2,14; 3,4; 3,9. Socr. e.h. 3,2 f; 3,7; 4,1,14 f; 4,8,4; 4,13; 4,16. Soz. 4,9 f; 4,28,3 f; 5,7,3 f; 5.12; 5,15. Philostorg. 7,2. Athan. ad episc. Aeg. 7. Hist. Arian. ad mon. 48 f; 54 f; 59 f. Apol. de fuga sua 6 f; 24. syn. 37. Historia Acephala 5 f. Theodor. e.h. 2,14; 3,18,1. Rufin e.h. 10,34 f. Epiph. haer. 76,1. Greg. naz. or. 4,86; 21. Pallad, hist. Laus. c. 136. Chron. pasch. 546,4 f. Pauly I 626. RAC I 861. LThK 1st ed. I 706. Lecky II 159. Lippl XV f. Geffcken, Der Ausgang 119 f. Schuitze, Geschichte I 137 f. Bidez, Philostorgios III f. Stein, Vom römischen 236 f, 255 f, 270 f. Seel 175 f. V. Campenhausen, Griechische Kirchenväter 80 f. Dannenbauer, Entstehung I 76. Lacarrière 150 f. Jacob, Aufstände 152. Camelot, Athanasios 977. Poppe 50.

Kriminalgeschichte, 53

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.


The scene of the bishops Lucifer of Cagliari and Liberius of Rome

A tragicomic curiosity of sacred history was the bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, a fanatical anti-Arian of scarce formation who, for the dogma of Nicaea, suffered a long exile almost alone in Syria and Palestine. Since a clergyman should pay no homage to a ‘heretic’ emperor, he drafted a host of writings against him, in which, among numerous biblical quotations, he interposed all kinds of primitive expletives, calling him the antichrist in person and worthy of the fire of hell.

Nevertheless, Lucifer also antagonised Liberius of Rome and with Hilary of Poitiers he did not recognise the opportunistic measures of Athanasius in the ‘synod of peace’ (362). Rather he turned his back on the Catholics, frightened by their wealth, relaxation and accommodation, and from Sardinia he organised his own circle, which lasted until the 5th century: a small but very active council, branched from Trier to Africa, Egypt and Palestine. Lucifer had supporters even among the Roman clergy.

After his death (370- 371) the head of the Gregory movement, bishop of Elvira, was in his origins also a radical defender of orthodoxy. The Luciferians, ‘those who profess the true faith’, rejected the Catholics as schismatics, censured their belonging to the State and the avidity of their prelates for honours, wealth and power, the ‘luxurious basilicas’, the ‘overflowing basilicas of gold, covered with sumptuous and expensive marbles, with ostentatious columns’, ‘the extensive real estate of the rulers’. The strict Catholic Theodosius I recognised them as Orthodox. They even had a bishop in Rome, Ephesus, who tried in vain to deliver justice to Pope Damasus. The prefect of the city, Bassus, categorically refused ‘to persecute Catholic men of irreproachable character’.[1]

But the lords themselves handled the problem. In Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, Catholic priests smashed with axes the altar of the Luciferian bishop Heraclides. In Trier, the priest Bonosus was persecuted. In Rome, the police and the papal clerics mistreated the Luciferian Macarius in such a way that he died as a result of the wounds in Ostia, where he had been exiled. (However, the local bishop, Florentinus, did not want to have anything to do with the ‘Damasus crime’ and moved his mortal remains to a pantheon.)

In Spain, the Catholics forced the doors of the church of the presbyter Vicenç, dragged the altar to a temple under an idol, beat the acolytes of the ecclesiastic, tied him with chains and left him to die of hunger. Bishop Epictetus de Civitavecchia carried out a much shorter process. He tied the Luciferian Rufinus to his carriage and tormented him to death. However, Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari was venerated as a saint in Sardinia, which for the time being was closed to the central Church, and as such he was recognised in 1803 by Pope Pius VII.[2]

The fact that the history of the popes is not in short supply of curiosities is also demonstrated by Bishop Liberius.

In vain did the emissary of the emperor, the praepositus sacri cubiculi, Eusebius, a eunuch of ill repute who was executed under Julian, persuade Liberius to condemn Athanasius. Donations and threats were useless, so Constantius had the Roman kidnapped at night and brought him to Milan. There he explained the damage that Athanasius had done to everyone, but especially to him. ‘He has not been satisfied with the death of my elder brother and has not ceased to instigate the already deceased Constant to enmity against us’. The sovereign added that even his successes against the usurpers Magnentius and Silvanus did not mean so much to him ‘as the disappearance of this impious man from the ecclesiastical scene’. Apparently Constantius placed a high price on the capture of the fugitive Alexandrian and sought the help of the kings of Ethiopia.[3]

However, the Roman bishop wanted to oppose to the maximum the ‘heretic’ emperor, even ‘dying for God’. Therefore, Constantius interrupted the conversation: ‘What part of the inhabited earth are you, that you alone stand beside an ungodly man and disturb the peace of the whole world?’ ‘You are the one who, by yourself, cling to the friendship with that person without conscience’. Liberius received a period of three days to reflect, but remained unperturbed. ‘For me, the laws of the Church are above everything’, he said. Send me wherever you want. ‘And this despite the fact that, according to Ammianus, he was convinced of Athanasius’ guilt.

But after two years of exile in Veria, with the brainwashing applied to him by the local Bishop Demophilus and Fortunatus, bishop of Aquileia, Liberius capitulated. The Roman so admired in Milan, the ‘victorious fighter for the truth’ (Theodoret), had to expel from the Church, in a very special spectacle, the ‘father of orthodoxy’: the doctor of the church Athanasius, and signed a semi-Arian creed (the so-called third formula, according to which the ‘Son’ is only similar to the ‘Father’), bringing to light his free will. In reality, what Liberius did was buy his return. All he wanted was to get out of this deep affliction and return to Rome. Even the father of the Church Jerome explained in his time that Liberius, broken in exile, had given a ‘heretical’ signature.[4]

Constantius authorised in 358 the return of Liberius under the condition that he should administer the bishopric of Rome jointly with his successor Felix.

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Socr. 2,36 f. Soz. 4,9. Athan. hist. Arian. ad mon. 31 f. Lucif. Calar. Den non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus. Cf. De non conviendo cum haereticis.- De regibus apostaticis. – De San Athanasio. – Moriendum esse pro Dei filio. Cf. also to complete the history of cults written in 384 by clerics Faustinus and Marcellinus, the so-called Libelus precum in Collectio Avellana. Cf. esp. also Coll. Avell. ep. 2,85. Pierer X 567 f. LThK 1st ed. IV 673, VI 677 f. Bertholet 331. Altaner 320. Kraft, Kirchenväter Lexikon 354. Krüger, Lucifer 39 f. Rauschen 140. Stein, Vom römischen 234 f. Caspar, Papsttum I 201 f, 216 s. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 6. Lietzmann, Geschichte IV 40 f. Hemegger 403 f. Haendier, Von Tertullian 96 f. Klein, Constantius II 56 f, 121 s. Joannou 119, 139 f.

[2] Libellus precum 21; 23 f. Pierer X 567 f. Rauschen 199 f, Caspar, Papsttum I 202 f, 216. Hemegger 403 f.

[3] Soz. e. h. 4,11,3. Ammian. Rerum gestarum 15,7; 22,3. Athan. hist. Arian. 38 f. apol. ad Const. 29. Socr. e. h. 2,16. Theodor. e.h. 2,13; 2,16. Wojtowytsch 122 f. Klein, Constantius II 137 f.

[4] Theodor e. h. 2,16 f. Liberius, ep. 10 (Hilar. 4,168); ep. 12 (Hilar. 4,172); ep. 18 (Hilar. 4,155). Hilarii Coll. antiar. (frg. hist.) «Pro deifico», “Quia scio”, “Non doceo”. Soz. e. h. 4,15. Theodor. e. h. 2,16 f. Philostorg. 4,3. Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2,39. Hieron. de vir. ill. 97. Ammian. 15,7 f. Athan. hist. Arian. 38 f. LThK 1st ed. VI 549 f, IX 597 f. Altaner 307 f. Grisar, Geschichte Roms 281. Caspar, Papsttum 1171 f, 183 f. Hermann, Ein Streitgespräch 77 f. Wojtowytsch 121 f. Klein, Constantius II 86, 140 f. Aland, Von Jesus bis Justinian 181. Haendier, Von Tertullian 94 f. Jacob, Aufstände 152.

Kriminalgeschichte, 52

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

Shelter with a twenty-year-old beauty

After the worldly [events] of Trier and Rome[1], Athanasius now began something more intimate: the relationship with a maid of about twenty years and ‘of such extraordinary beauty’ —as all the clergy testified— ‘that for her and her beauty they avoided any meeting with her to prevent suspicions and reproaches’.[2]

The story comes not from a malicious pagan but from a monk and bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia, Palladius, also a good friend of St John Chrysostom. In his famous Lausiac History, an important source on ancient monasticism which as a whole ‘closely approximates the true story’ (Kraft), Bishop Palladius speaks of the girl who was shunned by all the clergy so as not to provoke gossiping.

St. Athanasius

But it was different with Athanasius. Suddenly approached by the minions in his palace, he took ‘dresses and mantle and fled in the middle of the night to this maid’. She welcomed him kindly, but also fearful ‘in view of the circumstances’. But the saint reassured her. He had fled only because of a ‘supposed crime’, so as not to be considered a fool ‘and not to sink those who want to condemn me to sin’.[3]

How considerate! And since the assault on his cathedral had cost wounded and dead, his new flight had been censored even by friends and ridiculed by his enemies. He defended himself with references to biblical celebrities inspired by God who, like him, had escaped: Jacob from Esau, Moses from Pharaoh, David from Saul, etc. ‘For it is the same to kill oneself as to give oneself to your enemies to be killed’.

Athanasius always managed to justify his actions. He knew that running away was the right thing to do at that moment, ‘to worry about the persecutors so that their fury does not claim blood and they become guilty’. This man did not think about his own life when he left his people abandoned to fate, as well as many brave generals in battle.[4] To censure him would be ingratitude to God, disobedience to his commandments. He could also take advantage of the flight to announce the Gospel while he flees. Even the Lord, writes Athanasius, ‘hid and fled’. ‘Who do we have to obey? To the words of the Lord or to gossip?’ [5]

Of course, not everyone who runs away finds shelter with a beautiful woman of twenty years. Athanasius had luck or grace:

God showed me tonight: ‘Only with her can you save yourself’. Full of joy she left all her scruples and gave herelf completely to the Lord.

Well said!

Apparently, she hid the holiest man for six years, while Constantius lived. She washed his feet, got rid of his waste, took care of everything he needed…

It is sticking to learn about Athanasius’ great sanctity at the same time as his long shelter with the young woman: a timeframe that is also confirmed by other sources. However, today it is assumed, in favour of the saint, that he stayed with that beauty ‘only transiently’ (Tetz), an elastic concept. The coexistence of a cleric with a maiden consecrated to God, a gyná syneísaktos or ‘spiritual wife’, was widespread in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and even included the closest community: that of the bed. However, naturally, Athanasius was above suspicion.

I took refuge in her [he defends himself] because she is very beautiful and young [!]. Thus I have won twice: her salvation because I have helped her, and my reputation.

Some men are always immaculate. In our century,[6] the man who would later be Pope Pius XII took, when he was 41-years-old, as a companion a nun of twenty-three until he died.[7]


Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Note of the Ed.: This refers to the previous page, about Athanasius’ return to his town in the year 346, that does not appear in this abridged translation.

[2] Pallad, hist. Laus. c. 63.

[3] Ibid. Kraft, Kirchenväter Lexikon 404 f. LThK 1st ed. VII 896 f. Altaner 188 f.

[4] Note of the Ed.: See note 1 above.

[5] Cf. Tetz 172 f.

[6] Note of the Ed.: Deschner published Vol. I in 1986.

[7] Pallad, hist. Laus. c. 63. Tetz 171. Vööbus, Entdeckung 36, esp. 40. Deschner, Das Kreuz 182 f. The same, Heilsgeschichte II 21 f.

Kriminalgeschichte, 51

Editor’s note:

As far as Aryan decline is concerned the claim that, compared to the Jewish problem, Christianity is like a megalodon next to a white shark, is a very serious accusation. So much so that, from this entry on the criminal history of Christianity, I will be adding the footnotes that appear in the book by Karlheinz Deschner.

Since I went nuclear on Xtianity, the donations to this site have been dramatically reduced. In case I receive more donations (which would ease the burden of having to go out to the street to find, through petty jobs, how to put some bread on my table) I will include, in the printed version, those footnotes that have been missing in this blog.

Take note that the footnotes that I’ll be adding still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgment of this first volume.

Below, Deschner’s text:

______ 卐 ______


Constantinople – like a civil war

In Constantinople, at the end of the year 338, the enraged follower of Nicaea, Archbishop Paul—the assassin of Arius according to the Arians—was sent back into exile, chained, to whom Constantine had already exiled in the Pontus. (Actually, the news about his life and his destiny are very contradictory.) His successor, Eusebius of Nicomedia, the prominent protector of Arius, died about three years later.

With imperial authorisation, Paul, who lives as an exile with the Bishop of Rome, returns in the year 341. The fanatical Asclepius of Gaza, also with the permission of Constantine, returns from his exile and prepares the entry of the patriarch, with a whole series of deaths, including inside the churches. It prevails a ‘situation analogous to that of a civil war’ (Von Haehling).

Hundreds of people are killed before Paul makes his triumphal entry into the capital and excites the spirits of the masses.

Macedonius, the semi-Arian who was his old enemy, is called anti-bishop. However, according to the sources, the main fault of the constantly increasing bloody disorders is Paul’s. The cavalry general Hermogenes, commissioned by the emperor in 342 to restore order—the first intervention of the army in an internal conflict of the Church—, is cornered by the followers of the Catholic bishop in the church of St. Irene, the church of peace, who, after setting fire to the temple, kill Hermogenes, and drag his corpse through the streets, bound by the feet.

Direct participants: two ascribed to the patriarch, the sub-deacon Martyrdom and the lector Martian, according to the Church historians, Socrates and Sozomen. The proconsul Alexander managed to flee. Nor in Constantinople do the revolts of religion cease; only in one of them 3,150 people lost their lives. However, Patriarch Paul, led away by the emperor himself, is taken from one place of exile to another until he dies in Armenia, allegedly strangled by Arians, and Macedonius remains for a long time as the only supreme pastor of the capital.[1]

After the triumph of Orthodoxy, in the year 381 Paul’s body was moved to Constantinople and it was buried in a church taken from the Macedonians. Since then, that church has his name.[2]

Note of the translator: As stated above, the footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgment of this first volume.

[1] Hilar, frg. hist. 3. Athan. de syn. 22 f. apol. 20; 29,3; 30,1; hist. Arian. 7. apol. c. Arian. 6,25. apol. de fuga sua 3,6. Socr. h.e. 2,6 f.; 2,12 f. Soz. 3,4 f; 3,7,5 f; 3,5. Liban, or. 1,44; 1,59; 59,94 f. Theodor. h.e. 2,2; 2,5. RAC 1860. LThK 1st ed. III 860 f, IV 760, VIII 47, IX 698. Kraft, Kirchenväter Lexikon 210. Altaner 203. Lecky II 159. Lippl. XI. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius (1904) 341; (1911) 479 f, 489 f, 511 f. Seeck, Untergang IV 52, 71 f. Stein, Vomrömischen 207 f, 233. Baur, Johannes 157. Caspar, Papsttum 1138 f. Ehrhard, Die griechische und die lateinische Kirche 41. Telfer, Paul of Constantinople 31 f. Tinnefeid 177 f. Klein, Constantius II 71 f. V. Haehling, Die Religionszugehörigkeit 244 f.

[2] Socr. 5,9. Soz. 7,10. Rauschen 116.

Kriminalgeschichte, 50

Note of the Editor:

The city Antioch, ‘the cradle of Christianity’ was a melting-pot town that played a central role in the emergence of both Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. Evropa Soberana mentions that Luke the Evangelist was from Antioch, and when writing about St. Ignatius of Antioch, a subversive ideologue thrown to the lions by the Romans, Soberana adds: ‘It is interesting to pay attention to the names of the preachers since they always come from the mongrelised areas: eastern and Judaised’.

Left, one of the maps that appear in Soberana’s PDF (Caption: ‘The extension of Christianity around the year 100. Note that the areas of Christian preaching coincide with the densest Jewish settlement areas’). Also remember that, right after Julian was assassinated, a Christian emperor ordered the burning of the Antioch library that had been founded by Julian: a library that presumably contained documents showing the true origins of Christianity.

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity):

______ 卐 ______


For a long time the divisions had split the great patriarchal seat of Antioch. The current Turkish Antakya (28,000 inhabitants, including 4,000 Christians) does not reveal what it once was: the capital of Syria, with perhaps 800,000 inhabitants, the third largest city in the Roman Empire—after Rome and Alexandria—, the ‘metropolis and eye’ of the Christian East.

Located not far from the mouth of the Orontes in the Mediterranean, built majestically by the ostentatious Syrian kings, famous for its luxurious temples, churches, arcaded streets, the imperial palace, theatres, baths and the stadium, an important centre of military power, Antioch played a great role in the history of the new religion from the beginning.

It was the city in which the Christians received their name from the pagans; the city in which Paul preached and already entered into conflict with Peter; where Ignatius stirred the spirits, and where the theological school founded by Lucian, the martyr, taught his teachings, representing the ‘left wing’ in the Christological conflict, and marked the history of the Church of that century, although most of the members of the school (even John Chrysostom) were accused of heresy throughout their life or part of it, especially Arius.

Antioch was a place of celebration of numerous synods, especially Arian synods, and more than thirty councils of the old Church. It was here where Julian was residing in the years 362-363 writing his Against the Galileans; where John Chrysostom ‘saw the light of the world’. Antioch became one of the main bastions of the expansion of Christianity, ‘the head of the Church of the East’ (Basil) and seat of a patriarch who in the 4th century ruled the political dioceses of the East: fifteen ecclesiastical provinces with more than two hundred bishoprics.

Antioch was full of intrigue and turmoil, especially since the Arians had deposed the patriarch Eustochius, one of the most passionate apostles of the Nicene doctrine, for ‘heresy’ because of his immorality and his rebellion against Emperor Constantine, who banished him until his death.

However, at the time of the Meletian schism, which lasted fifty-five years, from 360 to 415, there were three suitors who fought among themselves and who tore at their disputes both the Eastern and the Western Church: Paulinians (fundamentalists) followers of the doctrine of Nicaea, semi-Arians and Arians.

Kriminalgeschichte, 49

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a single online book that explains the importance of the subject of the destruction of the Greco-Roman world by Judeo-Christians, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethno-suicidal.

The ‘battlefield’ of Alexandria

The departure of Athanasius in June from Trier, the city of the West that had received him triumphantly and had treated him in an extraordinary way, was the first act of the government of Constantine II.

During the long trip back, the repatriated Athanasius took the opportunity to establish peace in his own way in Asia Minor and Syria, that is, helping Catholics to regain power. For that reason, after his campaign, ‘anti-bishops’, discord and new splits appeared everywhere. ‘Where there were anti-bishops there were regular riots and street fights, after which the pavement was covered with hundreds of corpses’ (Seeck).

When the remaining exiles returned to their homeland, orthodoxy flourished everywhere.

In the first place, the churches stained by the ‘heretics’ were thoroughly cleaned, although not always with sea water, as the Donatists did. These Catholic bishops practiced more drastic customs. In Gaza, the supreme pastor Asclepius had the ‘desecrated’ altar destroyed. In Akira, Bishop Marcellus tore from his adversaries their priestly garments, hung the ‘debased’ hosts around their necks and threw them out of the church. In Hadrianopolis, Bishop Lucius fed the dogs with the Eucharistic bread and, later, when they returned, he denied communion to the eastern participants of the Synod of Serdica, provoking even the population of the city against him.

The first official act, so to speak, of the repatriated Athanasius at the end of November of the year 337 was to interrupt the supply of grain (destined by the emperor to feed the poor, all the supporters of his opponent) to appease with the surplus the new members of his Praetorian guard.

In mid-March of 339 Athanasius fled to Rome with a criminal complaint on his back, addressed to the three emperors and accusing him of new ‘murders’. (However, now he could not use the imperial courier as he used to do in his exile and travels; he travelled by sea.) His people burned the church of Dionysus, the second ‘divine temple’ in terms of Alexandria’s size, so that he could escape at least from the profanation.

While with the help of the State, Bishop Gregory exercised a strict command, Athanasius, with other deposed Church princes, settled in Rome at the side of Bishop Julius I who, with almost the entire West, favoured the Nicene Council. For the first time in the history of the Church, prelates excommunicated by oriental synods obtain their rehabilitation in a Western episcopal tribunal. The only ones we know with certainty are Athanasius and Marcellus of Akira, the profaner of clerics and hosts mentioned above.

After demonstrating his ‘orthodoxy’ Julius I admitted them, along with the remaining fugitives, into the fellowship of his church. And it is here, in Rome and in the West, that Athanasius acquires a decisive importance for his politics of power; where he works towards ‘a schism of the two halves of the Empire’ (Gentz), which is embodied in the year 343 in the Synod of Serdica.

The Arians, furious at the intrusion of Rome, ‘surprised to a great degree’, as stated in the manifesto they presented in Serdica, excommunicate Bishop Julius I: ‘the author and ringleader of evil’. And while Athanasius incites the spirits and serves for his ’cause’ in one of the halves of the Empire against the other, so that the struggle for the power of this Alexandrian bishop becomes the struggle for power in Rome, religiosity reaches culminating peaks in the East.