12-10-2008, 09:07 PM
Yes Jan, I figured you'd see it straight off. And a few others will too.
I posted a modern summary of an older document (coz I'm lazy! --- and I wanted to camouflage it a little bit too), hence the modern language use.
What we have on the one hand is allegedly an occult (Martinist) document that was written, it is argued, by the French magus Papus, that came to the surface in Russia.
On the other hand it is argued that it is a document derived from the forbidden Ordo Illuminati Bavarensis that was/is equally occult. The Yale Order of the Skull and Bones derives from he Bavarian Illuminati by all accounts, including one I trust - that of the sorely missed Prof. Antony Sutton.
Then there is the popular view that it is a fraud, a simple fake inspired by anti-semitism.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn disagrees with the fraud argument:
Quote
The Protocols show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight.
Unquote
I think we must take Solzhenitsyn seriously. Especially the argument that it's anti-semitic style is intentionally designed to obscure "the great strength of thought and insight". I am extremely far from being a Solzhenitsyn, but when I first read the Protocols almost 20 years ago it seemed obvious to me that the overt anti-semitic style was a blind. I was also struck by its occult character too.
So welcome to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...
Quite chilling predictions eh.
I posted a modern summary of an older document (coz I'm lazy! --- and I wanted to camouflage it a little bit too), hence the modern language use.
What we have on the one hand is allegedly an occult (Martinist) document that was written, it is argued, by the French magus Papus, that came to the surface in Russia.
On the other hand it is argued that it is a document derived from the forbidden Ordo Illuminati Bavarensis that was/is equally occult. The Yale Order of the Skull and Bones derives from he Bavarian Illuminati by all accounts, including one I trust - that of the sorely missed Prof. Antony Sutton.
Then there is the popular view that it is a fraud, a simple fake inspired by anti-semitism.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn disagrees with the fraud argument:
Quote
The Protocols show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight.
Unquote
I think we must take Solzhenitsyn seriously. Especially the argument that it's anti-semitic style is intentionally designed to obscure "the great strength of thought and insight". I am extremely far from being a Solzhenitsyn, but when I first read the Protocols almost 20 years ago it seemed obvious to me that the overt anti-semitic style was a blind. I was also struck by its occult character too.
So welcome to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...
Quite chilling predictions eh.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14