14-10-2008, 05:33 PM
On the other hand, if you erase from your mind the words "fake", ignore the anti-semitic overtones and read the document as the long term goal of a secret society, it takes on an altogether different aspect.
When I read the Protocols all those years ago, the anti-semitic aspect was (I may be misremembering here - it was almost 20 years ago) really very limited and I remember being surprised by this because I had assumed it would be far heavier, in view of what I had read about the Protocols as opposed to reading the Protocols themselves (and forgive me if I do have this wrong but that's what my memory is telling me).
If Guy Patton is right, that it was the machinations of a Catholic occult secret society this might explain why the word "gentile" was used so frequently (again I am relying on distant memory). Gentile does mean one who is not o the Jewish faith. But it also means one who is a pagan or heathen which dovetail with the Catholic occult possibility beautifully (gentile also means a non-Mormon too - its use is fairly widespread in fact).
I also remember the use of a "33rd degree" at the end of the document. This very clearly connects to either Freemasonry and/or Martinism and other occult lodges. In fact, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin from whom the name "Martinism" is derived was trained in Freemasonic studies by Martinez De Pasqually of the “Ordre des Chevelier Maçons Élus Cohen de L’Univers” - Freemasonic Lodge ( http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:N5mXO...cd=1&gl=uk ). It is therefore perfectly reasonable to see the term "33rd degree" in a Martinist document and, arguably, in the Protocols too...
![[Image: 180px-Martinist_Pentacle.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Martinist_Pentacle.jpg/180px-Martinist_Pentacle.jpg)
The above image is the same as the intertwined six-pointed star of Judaism, but in this case is the Martinist Hexagram. It is this that Patton believes caused Sergei Nilus to confuse it with the Star of David which in turn led him to conclude the document was anti-semitic. Whatever one may think of this suggestion, it is logical and makes perfect sense.
Therefore, despite numerous understandable doubts there are, in fact, some internal proofs within the Protocols that point to the possibility of a Martinist origin and which cast doubt on the anti-semitism it projects.
Of course, over the decades untold numbers of nazis, fascists and racists have grabbed hold of the Protocols as a vehicle for projecting their hate. No on can seriously doubt that this is the case.
But the argument I am advancing is that Protocols may have been contaminated later in their life and that this contamination arguably created a perfect mechanism for disinformation aimed at causing widespread suspicions that resulted in wholesale disregard of the chilling guile of the guiding mind that wrote them.
In my view Guy Patton should be congratulated for having the courage to take a second look at the Protocols. Few people have the courage to do this and, as history regularly shows, misinterpretation and deceit are a large part of daily life.
When I read the Protocols all those years ago, the anti-semitic aspect was (I may be misremembering here - it was almost 20 years ago) really very limited and I remember being surprised by this because I had assumed it would be far heavier, in view of what I had read about the Protocols as opposed to reading the Protocols themselves (and forgive me if I do have this wrong but that's what my memory is telling me).
If Guy Patton is right, that it was the machinations of a Catholic occult secret society this might explain why the word "gentile" was used so frequently (again I am relying on distant memory). Gentile does mean one who is not o the Jewish faith. But it also means one who is a pagan or heathen which dovetail with the Catholic occult possibility beautifully (gentile also means a non-Mormon too - its use is fairly widespread in fact).
I also remember the use of a "33rd degree" at the end of the document. This very clearly connects to either Freemasonry and/or Martinism and other occult lodges. In fact, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin from whom the name "Martinism" is derived was trained in Freemasonic studies by Martinez De Pasqually of the “Ordre des Chevelier Maçons Élus Cohen de L’Univers” - Freemasonic Lodge ( http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:N5mXO...cd=1&gl=uk ). It is therefore perfectly reasonable to see the term "33rd degree" in a Martinist document and, arguably, in the Protocols too...
The above image is the same as the intertwined six-pointed star of Judaism, but in this case is the Martinist Hexagram. It is this that Patton believes caused Sergei Nilus to confuse it with the Star of David which in turn led him to conclude the document was anti-semitic. Whatever one may think of this suggestion, it is logical and makes perfect sense.
Therefore, despite numerous understandable doubts there are, in fact, some internal proofs within the Protocols that point to the possibility of a Martinist origin and which cast doubt on the anti-semitism it projects.
Of course, over the decades untold numbers of nazis, fascists and racists have grabbed hold of the Protocols as a vehicle for projecting their hate. No on can seriously doubt that this is the case.
But the argument I am advancing is that Protocols may have been contaminated later in their life and that this contamination arguably created a perfect mechanism for disinformation aimed at causing widespread suspicions that resulted in wholesale disregard of the chilling guile of the guiding mind that wrote them.
In my view Guy Patton should be congratulated for having the courage to take a second look at the Protocols. Few people have the courage to do this and, as history regularly shows, misinterpretation and deceit are a large part of daily life.
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