Month: April 2022

Twitter

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 29, 2022
2 Comments on Twitter

On Ann Coulter’s account I just responded to the question by another woman, ‘What’s the Biggest Lie you were sold by society, previous generations, the media, or our leaders?’:

That the Nazis were the bad guys in the movie and the Allies the good guys. They hid from me the Holocaust that the Allies committed after 1945 (link).

Will free speech really come to Twitter?

Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Merovingian dynasty Monarchy Roman Catholic popes

Christianity’s Criminal History, 144

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 28, 2022
3 Comments on Christianity’s Criminal History, 144

The fall of Brunhilda and the first peak in the Christianisation of the idea of kingship

(Left, pen drawing from the earliest manuscript of the Chronicle of Fredegar which is believed to depict Eusebius and Jerome, 715 AD.) On the death of Childebert II, he was succeeded by his two sons: Theudebert II (595-612) in Austria, and Theuderic II (595-613) in Burgundy. Brunhilda was the first to rule in the name of her grandchildren, who were still minors, and who only gradually began to intervene in the struggles with the royal house of Neustria after they had reached majority.

In Burgundy, of which she soon became the true ruler, she continued the struggle against Chlothar and, to take revenge on her Austrian enemies, instigated Theuderic against his brother Theudebert of Austria, who, she kept repeating, was not the son of a king but of a market gardener. As late as 600, the two brothers had jointly inflicted a heavy defeat on Chlothar II, who was then only sixteen years old, and had sacked his kingdom, reducing it to a narrow coastal strip around Rouen, Beauvais and Amiens. And still in 602 they had jointly fought the Basques and ‘with God’s help’ had subjected them to tribute.

But afterwards they fought each other fiercely and bloodily. The Chronicle of Fredegar recounts that

never since time immemorial had the Franks or any other people fought so fiercely. Such was the deadliness between the two armies that, where both sides began the battle, the corpses of the dead had no place to lie, but the dead were so crowded together among the other bodies that they stood upright as if they were alive. But Theuderic, with the help of God, defeated Theudebert once more; and the vassals of Theudebert during their flight from Zülpich to Cologne were put to the sword, covering the ground in stretches. On the same day Theuderic came to Cologne and seized all the treasures of Theudebert.

In Cologne, where the Franco-Burgundians entered, Theuderic had his brother tonsured and then cut off his head and annihilated his entire family. ‘Even a very young son of his was grabbed by the foot by order of Theuderic and beaten against a rock, until his brains fell out of his head’, says the Chronicle of Fredegar.

It was the end of one of the innumerable purely Catholic fratricidal wars.

The victor then attempted to seize control of the whole of Gaul and immediately advanced on Neustria. But when he was at the height of his triumph he died unexpectedly, still in his youth, in the year 613. His sons were also killed by Chlothar II of Neustria. But not his godson Merovech, whom Chlothar imprisoned in a monastery, but ‘whom he continued to love with the same affection with which he had taken him from the sacred font of baptism’ (Chronicle of Fredegar).

On the death of Theuderic in Metz, Brunhilda immediately had his eldest son and great-grandson, Sigibert II, who was about ten years old, proclaimed king of Austrasia and Burgundy. But the Austrasian grandees betrayed her. Led by the glorious ancestors of the Carolingians, the two traitors, the steward Pepin of Landen and Arnulf—the future saint and bishop of Metz—, went over to the side of Chlothar II. And after the high treason of the Austrian aristocracy, the queen was also abandoned by the feudal lords of Burgundy under the steward Warnachar. They had decided it beforehand ‘and of course both the bishops and the rest of the great lay lords, according to the contemporary chronicler… resolved not to let a single son of Theuderic escape, but to kill them all and then annihilate Brunhilda and to promote the sovereignty of Chlothar’.

This sealed the queen’s ruin, the exclusion and even the elimination of the Austro-Burgundian branch of the Merovingian dynasty, as well as the triumph of the nobility over the crown.

Brunhilda’s army deserted without resistance. She fled to the Jura and tried to sneak into Burgundy, but at Orbe (in today French Switzerland), by Lake Neuchatel, she was taken prisoner by the Frankish steward and handed over to her nephew.

Chlothar, as God-fearing as he was cruel and thoroughly ecclesiastical-minded, and who as the first Frankish king compared to David, whose ‘piety’ the Chronicle of Fredegar exalts, was a ruler who granted the clergy new rights and abundant donations, guaranteed them freedom of episcopal elections, exempted them from all the burdens of ecclesiastical property, was ‘clement and full of kindness to all’. The queen consort of Chilperic I, Fredegund, subjected her to torture for three days in the year 613. (Note of the Ed.: queen Brunhilda of Austrasia was Fredegund’s sister-in-law.) This happened when Brunhilda was already almost septuagenarian; she then had the soldiers ride her on a camel, and finally tied by her hair, one arm and one foot ‘to the tail of the wildest steed’ and dragged her to death, until ‘her limbs were torn off one after the other’ (Chronicle of Fredegar). Her bones were burned. And her offspring were also eliminated up to her great-grandchildren, with the sole exception of Prince Merovech, Chlothar’s godson.

(Left, Brunhilde is dragged to her death.) But a modern researcher writes: ‘It was precisely under this ruler that, as can be clearly demonstrated, the Christianisation of the idea of the king reached its first peak’ (Anton).

Pope Gregory had miscalculated. It was neither Brunhilda nor the Austrian branch that emerged victorious from these massive atrocities: the victor was the Neustrian Chlothar II, to whom Gregory had sent only a single letter of his 854 letters that have been preserved. In 614 the king convened a national synod in Paris which marked the beginning of the national Frankish Church, independent of Rome for a century.

Tags Middle Ages

Conservatism Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (book) Feminism Liberalism Sponsor

On Agustín Laje

Here we can watch Nicolás Márquez and Agustín Laje in their video yesterday discussing Laje’s new book.

Agustín Laje Arrigoni (born in Córdoba in 1989) is an Argentine writer, political scientist and lecturer. He is co-author of El Libro Negro de la Nueva Izquierda (The Black Book of the New Left) and author of the recently published book La Batalla Cultural: Reflexiones críticas para una Nueva Derecha (The Cultural Battle: Critical Reflections for a New Right).

Laje is the founder and president of the Fundación Libre, a conservative think tank. In Latin America he has been labelled an ‘ultra-right-winger’ by various media. Remember that Latin America subscribes to the egalitarian madness of the West, but since miscegenation has already been consummated here, there is little talk of race, hence racial issues are not discussed by Laje. Although his remarks have been labelled homophobic by the Spanish-speaking MSM, Laje subscribes to the liberal paradigm of ‘let him live’ regarding lifestyles, and only rejects third-wave feminism, not the first two waves. Despite this, Laje calls himself a paleolibertarian, anti-feminist and opposes euthanasia, abortion and homo marriage.

Given that La Batalla Cultural has just been published by HarperCollins, it’s perhaps worth saying that Laje quotes a writer as his conclusion: “Todo lo bueno de la civilización occidental, desde la libertad individual hasta el arte se debe al cristianismo” (‘Everything good in Western civilisation, from individual freedom to art, is due to Christianity’). Obviously, like racialists north of the Rio Grande, Laje is ignorant of the history of Christianity even though Catherine Nixey’s book, which we have been quoting here, has been translated into Spanish.

I have already said a couple of things about Laje on this site, albeit casually (here and here). But I would like to say something else. In the last-linked post I said:

Compared to the neighbouring country to the north, I consider Latin America the continent of the blue pill. There is nothing in MSM that resembles, say, Tucker Carlson. One has to search social media to find the voice of an Argentine, Agustín Laje, and his YouTube channel: a kind of Latin American Tucker who in the Spanish-speaking MSM would be inconceivable.

I mention this only because the experiences I have had with racialists in the UK and US concerning Latin America have been surreal. When I spoke to Jez Turner in London, for example, he asked me if there were no nationalist movements in Latin America. His question left me cold, because any nationalism in this part of the continent is preached based on a consummated miscegenation—never based on Aryan preservation! Also, when I corresponded with Tom Goodrich, I noticed that he had an infinitely naïve view of Latin Americans. He told me that, unlike Americans, they would give me juicy donations here. The truth is that, in all the years I have received donations, I haven’t received a single cent from a Spanish speaker!

I’ve already written about these things in my review of David Duke’s trip to Mexico seven years ago. But I am still surprised that English speakers haven’t realised that there is no such thing as a red-pilled activist in this part of the continent. Not a single one. They all sleep in the matrix that controls us. Still, if I read Laje’s new book that is turning into a bestseller, I will be reviewing it in the Spanish section of this site (although it is the Catholic Laje who should read Nixey’s book).

William James

Deepest

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 26, 2022
2 Comments on Deepest

Editor’s Note: In 2018 I posted ‘William James’ principle’:

Behind the groupthink is the great finding of William James, ‘The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated’. It is this principle that moves whites to the phenomenon of virtue signalling: if I join the ethos of the masses, I will be appreciated, even if it is a suicidal ethos.

Counter-Currents’ recent article ‘Unlearn Your Views’ by Bill Pritchard reminded me what I said in 2018. Pritchard said:

______ 卐 ______

Leftists from conservative backgrounds insist that they changed their minds because they ‘thought for themselves’, and order all Right-wingers to do the same—or else.

The claim that they ‘thought for themselves’ is easily disproven. Truly thinking for oneself is difficult. Shedding old beliefs in the pursuit of truth is an arduous, even painful process, like summiting a mountain. Anyone who has embarked on this path would realize that beliefs cannot simply be discarded overnight…

In most cases, people who reject the value system instilled in them by their upbringing did not arrive at their views through reason. They were simply initiated into a peer group/subculture whose ideology they absorbed, or they consciously decided to rebel against their parents. Swapping one ideology for another via peer pressure or rebellion is relatively easy. It’s akin to memorizing a formula instead of actually deriving it oneself and understanding why it works. This explains why Leftists scoff at those who struggle to leave old beliefs behind and proclaim that ‘it’s not rocket science’…

if you really cared about timeless truths, you would be indifferent to social fads and would not invoke the Current Year as an argument. Many Leftists from conservative backgrounds are upwardly-mobile strivers afflicted with status anxiety who prize their social standing over truth…

The reason why formerly conservative Leftists strayed further from their upbringing than I and many other White Nationalists is not that they are smarter or more independently-minded, but that they were subjected to peer influences and social pressures to which we, being loners, were not…

If the vast majority of people will never be able to independently and organically experience a radical shift in their worldviews, then telling them to do so amounts to telling them to find a new peer group.

Henry Picker Martin Bormann Tischgespräche

The Führer’s monologues (v)

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 25, 2022

If this rather light-hearted handling of the texts—and the examples could be multiplied—already suggests restraint about Picker’s tradition, the critical reserve is reinforced by two marginal notes by Bormann. In Picker’s record of the conversation of 12 May 1942,[1] the head of the Party Chancellery complains: ‘This transcript is in many cases quite inaccurate, since Dr Picker, when he took notes during the very long conversation, did not add to them who held this or that view!’ Quite obviously, then, Picker does not seem to have been sufficiently successful in reliably distinguishing Hitler’s views from those of his dinner guests or of party leaders not present who were quoted during the conversation. Even if the validity of the statement can no longer be verified, it must in any case call for caution. There is no evidence in the available material for Picker’s assertion that Bormann ‘blatantly corrected’ his notes. The objections are measured rather than sharp and unobjective. For example, Bormann found the note of the conversation of 4 July 1942 ‘in many cases not quite accurate’, for in a conversation about the Concordat, Hitler had stated: ‘In the case of a Reich regulation, we would have to go by the area that was furthest behind ideologically, i.e. particularly favourable to the enemy’. Picker must have considered this correction by Bormann to be justified, because he included the sentence in his text in a slightly modified form—without, of course, marking it as an addition by another hand—which in no way made the passage in question more precise or unambiguous.[2] In other respects, too, Picker seems to have found notes dictated by Bormann worthy of attention, for he incorporated them very generously into his edition of the Tischgespräche and did not always mark them as someone else’s intellectual property.[3]

Since Picker considers his transcripts made for the NSDAP party chancellery to be private property, a historical-critical edition of all the records from the Führer’s headquarters, as Eberhard Jäckel and Martin Broszat have repeatedly called for, is not to be expected in the foreseeable future. Given the deficiencies of Picker’s records, such an edition would be urgently desirable in the interest of international research.

A discussion of the insightful value of the source must first start with the motives that determined Martin Bormann to have Hitler’s monologues recorded. When he took over as head of the party chancellery after Hess’s flight to England in May 1941, he was aware that the political influence of the NSDAP in the country had dwindled because it lacked ideological unity and a clear course. He wanted to remedy this. Since he knew the close ties between the National Socialist elite and Hitler and was well aware that even the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter had not developed an independent position, only the party leader himself came into question as an interpreter of the world view. Bormann hoped that by fixing Hitler’s statements he could create a kind of compendium for the intellectual-political orientation of the NSDAP. Based on the party leader’s comments on concrete events and his declarations of intent in connection with domestic and foreign policy decisions, he wanted to coordinate and activate party work. To secure for the NSDAP the role of the ‘will-bearer of the nation’, which was always aspired to but never achieved, Bormann tried to immediately translate Hitler’s thoughts and views into political practice and incorporate them into the decrees and directives of the Party Chancellery. In possession of clear directives, the political leaders in the country had to succeed, he hoped, in emphatically reasserting their claim to leadership vis-à-vis state authorities, offices of the Wehrmacht and influential business circles.

Martin Bormann, left.

In some cases, the head of the party chancellery passed on Hitler’s statements as directives. For example, Alfred Rosenberg, Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, received by letter on 23 July 1942 everything that Hitler had developed in conversation shortly beforehand in terms of views on Ostpolitik.[4] In another case, there is evidence that a note by Heim was made available to the responsible Reich Minister. Following the reception of the newly appointed Minister of Justice, Thierack, and his State Secretary at the Führer’s headquarters on 20 August 1942, Hitler abandoned the customary practice of not discussing at the table the matters under discussion. He criticised the administration of justice, which in his opinion was due to a lack of political insight, and then very firmly formulated his views and demands. Bormann gave the monologue transcript prepared by Heim to the minister so that he could familiarise himself in detail with his Führer’s thoughts and make them the guideline for his actions. This is what happened; in any case, Hitler’s formulations can be found in the speech that Thierack gave to the directors of the higher regional courts and the attorneys general on 29 September 1942.[5] What effect this speech had, whether it impressed or even influenced the judges, cannot be proven, however. Doubts are permitted here, because Hitler was repeatedly dissatisfied with the judiciary even later.

In general, the political effectiveness of the system should not be inferred from Bormann’s intentions and restless activity. The head of the party chancellery by no means immediately transformed every thought Hitler expressed into an order,[6] but kept precisely to the limits Hitler set for him. Thus, among other things, he was fundamentally forbidden to take a harder line against the churches, as he wished. The Reichsleiter also had no power of action in personnel policy. Hitler reserved the right to decide in all important cases. The Gauleiters of the NSDAP in particular, as well as the leaders of the branches and affiliated associations, knew this and therefore decided very high-handedly whether to heed or ignore Bormann’s directives. For example, the Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Hamburg, Karl Kaufmann, weakened Hitler’s criticism of the judiciary by explaining to the judges in his Higher Regional Court district that they had given no cause for complaint, that the criticism was primarily directed at the Ministry and not at the individual judge.[7] But precisely in this way he contradicted the opinion of the party leadership, without being reprimanded for it. He was not required to drop the considerations and steer a harder course.

Bormann’s intimate knowledge of Hitler’s views undoubtedly enabled him to reinforce the party’s influence in important decision-making processes at the highest level. However, he was not able to bring the party onto a unified and clear political course. The distance from the Führer’s headquarters to Berlin and the Gau capitals was too far for that, and the war in any case considerably narrowed the scope for action. Joseph Goebbels, the Gauleiter of Berlin, later gave vent to his growing annoyance in his diary: ‘Bormann has turned the party chancellery into a paper office. Every day he sends out a mountain of letters and files that the Gauleiter, who is now in the thick of the fight, can practically no longer even read through’.[8] Ultimately, precise knowledge of Hitler’s worldview was primarily to Bormann’s advantage in that he strengthened his reputation by expressing the same views. Despite his restless zeal and the comprehensive information he received, he remained Hitler’s first assistant until his death.

____________

[1] Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche, doc. 114, p. 283.

[2] Ibid., doc. 168, p. 414.

[3] Ibid., oc. 43 (24. 2. 1942), p. 135, clearly bears Bormann’s dictation mark.

[4] This was first pointed out by Alexander Dallin, Deutsche Herrschaft in Russland 1941-1945, Düsseldorf 1958, pp. 15 and 469/70. Letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, 23 July 1942, ND-NO 1878.

[5] Detailed references in Lothar Gruchmann, Hitler über die Justiz. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 12, 1964, p. 91.

[6] Jochen von Lang, Der Sekretär. Stuttgart 1977, p. 229.

[7] Werner Johe, Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz. Organisation des Rechtswesens und Politisierung der Rechtsprechung 1933-1945, dargestellt am Beispiel des Oberlandesgerichtsbezirks Hamburg. Frankfurt/Main 1962, p. 176.

[8] Joseph Goebbels, Tagebücher 1945. Die letzten Aufzeichnungen. Hamburg 1977, p. 514. Similar complaints from other Gauleiters are also available from earlier times.

Game of Thrones Hate

A cute postscript

I would like to add a postscript to Mauricio’s words in ‘Responding to Jamie’. There is a litmus test I have devised to see who has, or has not, transvalued his values.

Imagine a scenario analogous to The Turner Diaries where revolutionaries come to have control over nuclear missiles in a silo, and use them to create global chaos and, thus, eventually come to power. But before the thought experiment of this entry I would like to answer the question, Why is chaos necessary to come to power? As I want to be brief on this question, the best way to answer it is using the metaphor of a show very popular among normies.

As those of you who followed my Game of Thrones posts will recall, ‘The Climb’, the title of episode #26, is a metaphor for achieving power, and the ladder—chaos—is how Littlefinger climbs. When things are in disarray chaos allows him to manipulate powerful people so that he is ahead. Chaos means that, in extreme situations, the great medieval houses overlook his birth because they need him. Chaos means they are weakened so they are brought more to his level. Chaos provides opportunities for him to advance, because there are problems to be solved.

Having understood Littlefinger’s words, which you can watch on YouTube, we can talk about my cute postscript:

If in a moment of social chaos a submarine with nuclear weapons were to fall under our power, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to use all its missiles to nuke the capitals of the West and its major cities, starting with those of the United States and its lackey in the Middle East (naturally, Chinese cities and Mecca would be nuked too, lest Gooks and Muslims become emboldened and take advantage of the situation).

To show you the level of my morals—that is to say how the priest understands the four and fourteen words—, even if one of my brothers happened to be in one of those cities I wouldn’t hesitate in the slightest to push the buttons.

And this is my litmus test: Who among those commenting on racialist forums would do the same if a submarine with nukes fell under his power for a couple of days? I guess that none of them would. And if there is anyone who would, please tell me in the comments section, because this is a great Gedankenexperiment to find out who has left Christian morality behind.

Tags Transvaluation of all values

Conspiracy theories

The psychology

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 24, 2022

behind conspiracy theories

by Sam Francis

Whatever… conspiracy theories prove, their prevalence at certain periods of history invariably shows the impending collapse of public trust in the way things are, a readiness to ascribe to the occupants of a society’s most visible and respected positions of leadership the most villainous purposes and the most ruthless means of attaining them…

Once Middle Americans begin to grasp the truth that it is the power structure rather than a man, a woman, or a small gang of swindlers and sex fiends that lies behind the dispossession of their country and their cultural and economic destruction, then they will begin to understand that what really goes on behind the scenes.

___________

Read it all on American Renaissance (here).

Tags United States

Exterminationism Hate Mauricio (commenter)

Responding to Jamie

by Mauricio

You need to transvalue your views on Hate and War.

Hate is a source of pure, raw power. The best source of Power.

Aryans need to re-learn how to tap into that source and use it effectively to destroy their enemies completely, forever.

It should be obvious by now, that in order for Aryans to continue to exist, all other human races have to die.

Seven billion humans must be exterminated. There is no other way.

And to accomplish that enormous, herculean, multi-generational task, the Aryan Man must adhere to a religion of infinite Hatred.

The Aryan Man must become a remorseless, relentless, genocidal mass-murderer of non-Whites and White traitors, or he will cease to exist; or Beautiful Eyes will disappear forever.

Therefore he must wage War against Non-whites mercilessly.

War is Chaos, and Chaos is Nature’s way of determining who is Strongest.

Hatred is Strength, and Strength is Power.

To win the War, Aryans must religiously Hate their non-Aryan enemies enough to carry out a Hundred Year Race War of Extermination of 7 Billion. Infinite Hatred.

Kill all sub-humans until there is no more dark skin and dark eyes on this Earth.

I can’t explain it any simpler than this.

Blood Purity will bring the ‘End of Unnecessary Suffering’.

Anything else will inevitably lead to the extinction of White Beauty.

Anything else means Whites were not fit to exist.

Tags 4 words, Priesthood of the 14 words, Transvaluation of all values

Destruction of Germanic paganism Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Merovingian dynasty Roman Catholic popes

Christianity’s Criminal History, 143

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 22, 2022
1 Comment on Christianity’s Criminal History, 143

Brunhilda, Chlothar II and Dagobert I
or ‘the Christianisation of the idea of king’.

‘… a wild political animal’. —J. Richards referring to Brunhilda.

‘Precisely under this sovereign, as can be clearly demonstrated, the Christianisation of the idea of the king reached one of its first peaks’. —H.H. Anton, concerning Chlothar II.

‘… God gracious above all measure… he heard him above all in the advice of St. Arnulf, bishop of the city of Metz… He heard him also in the warnings of his steward Pipinus and Kunibert, bishop of Cologne’. —Fredegar, alluding to Dagobert I.

‘He filled with fear and terror all the kingdoms around him’. —Liber Historiae Francorum.

Pope Gregory I gallivanting with ‘a wild political animal’

In the year 592, the oldest of the Merovingian kings, Guntram, died in the Frankish kingdom after a series of threats and attacks, and he died without leaving any descendants. But after the death of his own sons he had adopted his eldest grandson, still a minor, Childebert II (575-596), leaving him part of his kingdom. He thus ruled two partial kingdoms: Austrasia and Burgundy. Childebert, who in the last period of his life subdued the rebellious Bretons in the west and a Thuringian people between the Saale and Elbe in the east, soon came under the full influence of his mother.

The powerful Brunhilda, the most prominent figure in the Frankish kingdom, had in 575 imposed her five-year-old son’s rule in Austrasia and settled the ensuing power struggle with the Austrian nobles of Guntram’s camp in her favour, and in favour of the kingship.

In his letters, the holy father completely ignores Brunhilda’s dreadful family discord. He sees her, her son, her kingdom and all the other kingdoms won for the right faith ‘as bright lamps shining and illuminating amidst the night darkness of unbelief’. He repeatedly thanks her for the support she has given to his English missionaries on their journey through the Frankish kingdom. He extols her ‘love for the prince of the apostles, Peter, to whom you are wholeheartedly devoted, as I know’. And he asks for her help, often in vain, against simony, schismatic groups and ‘pagan’ cults.

Gregory exhorts Brunhilda to forcibly prevent the worship of sacred trees and other idolatries and recommends the use of scourging, torture and imprisonment to obtain the conversion of rebellious ‘pagans’. And, of course, the pope also sent relics to the queen.

Gregory I wrote to the powerful queen, who supposedly ruled the Church, about a dozen letters, usually in a tone of syrupy flattery, which he also used with the imperial house, both with the (later) victim and the murderer. With some restraint he began the first papal epistle: ‘Your Excellency’s character, praiseworthy and pleasing to God, is to be seen both in your government and in the education of your son’, but it soon got louder. And while ‘Gregorian chant’ had nothing to do with Gregory, here he could sing in higher and higher tones:

How great are the gifts which God has bestowed on you, and with what clemency the grace of heaven swells your heart, not only do your many other merits attest, but they are especially recognised in the fact that you rule the coarse hearts of heathen peoples with the art of cautious prudence, what is still more meritorious, the regal power is accompanied by the adornment of wisdom.

Brunhilda was not only powerful but also useful to the Church. She made numerous donations and built abbeys, and the pope even asked for her support for the reform of the Frankish Church and the protection of ecclesiastical property.