![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The are many variations on the transliteration and translation of Nilus's first name.
The appears to be a failure to distinguish the views of Nilus from those of the antisemites who subsequently, in 1920, and after, compiled, edited, and translated his version. Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, I wonder what you mean with the above. The=There? Are you suggesting that people should distinguish Nilus writing from the "Protocols", that is his writing have a different intent, than the protocols? I just read the article by Hagemeister concerning the Russian context in Hagemeister, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Myth of a Jewish Conspiracy in Post-Soviet Russia.
Sergei Nilus is a national saint. His books with the Protocols as a XXII chapter are published in rather high editions (=100.000) in Post Soviet Russia, and frequently it seems. I have amended the title, since I think that it is very important, ever since I read about it the first time. What I have been wondering about immediately (maybe since I studied literature is, that it has not been more closely studied as fiction. The problem obviously was the bad style. But it seems this starts now. And in a German article by Hagemeister (c2001)he relates the Protocols to other Russian [Dystopia]s. Considering the really bad style, and that you have immediately the impression of "looking into a mirror". But to study the text immediately not only as a forgery but also in its parallels to fiction, would have helped a lot it feels. There is absolutely no doubt that Nilus did something not so desirable by fitting the protocols into his larger mystical apocalyptic context. Ever since I learned about the Protocols (ironically, one has to say, since I am a Kraut, post 911 in US cia-conspiracy-political-research circles, I have the impression the forgery draws much of its power partly by the close parallels to fiction. I put a not proofread part on another Hagemeister (I can't deny, I am a fan of him, ever since I discovered an older text on this topic on the net) While translating an article by him for a US friends, I found one of the Russian writers he mentions and put part of the translation - not proofread yet - there: [1]
The US Yale Prof (emeritus) in German literature, Jeffrey L. Sammons, has published an edition of the Protocols with annotations in German. I haven't found an English edition yet, and missed to call back the publisher to find out, if is a special German edition, or if it is translated. I can't find an English version on the library net, but I wanted to make sure. And I haven't got a copy yet myself. Never made it to read it for the reasons, Hagemeister states above. Mirror - bad style. LeaNder 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessary to analyze this (above) text - instead reference should be made to the above "main" article. -- Ludvikus 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This was an inappropriate external link toan unscholarly site [2]. -- 151.202.101.75 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above scholar is the world's foremost authority on Nilus. 151.202.101.75 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"An Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism?" With all due respect, I strenuously beg to differ. I was formerly an Orthodox Christian (attended ROCOR, Serbian, Antiochian and OCAchurches) for twelve years, ten of which were spent as a tonsured Reader. While I agree that antisemitism is not the official doctrine of any of these (or other Orthodox) bodies, I have met and known several Orthodox Christians who were not simply anti-Zionists, but full-blown antisemites. One Serbian I knew told me once that while he despised Adolf Hitler for his invasion of his country in World War II, he wished the Allies had let him live long enough to gas all the Jews in Europe, so that (in his vile and sick opinion, at least) the world would have been a better place. I have known others who still referred to Jews as "Christ-killers," without making any distinction between Zionists and other Jews (forgetting that Jesus forgave all those who killed Him on the Cross). These are all people I knew personally, not folks I read about in books or other similar sources. All of this requires me to strenuously protest the statement that "an Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism." History (and personal experience, on my part) definitely says otherwise.
Of course, there are other Orthodox who have opposed Antisemitism; I think of the late Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, who later became first head of the ROCOR, who singlehandedly stopped a mob bent on a pogrom against the Jews in Kiev around the turn of the 20th Century (sorry; don't remember the exact year). Standing before this mob, Anthony denounced not merely pogroms or other violence against Jews, but the very concept of antisemitism itself--thereby proving that antisemitism is not an intrinsicly Orthodox teaching, as some have erroneously stated. However, the statement that "an Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism" is incorrect, as several saints ( John Chrysostom, for instance) as well as ordinary members have spoken against the Jews as a people, as well as against their religion. This does not mean that anyone who does not believe Judaism is a true or correct religion is antisemetic; as a Lutheran Christian, I do not believe Judaism to be the true religion, but I have nothing against Jews or the full right they have to practice their faith in peace. They are still the "chosen people" of the Old Testament (as Met. Anthony pointed out), and whether a person agrees with their faith or not, they deserve complete respect as fellow human beings, not to have lies told about them as was done in the "Protocols."
I sincerely believe that you never intended to demean Jews or Judaism in your statement, and were in fact insisting that any true Orthodox Christian should not and could never be involved in such activities or mindsets; but it seems clear to me that Nilus, who was so deeply involved in publishing and distributing the "Protocols" in Russia, was attacking Jews in general by publishing and dissiminating this work, and not simply Zionists. His ultimate fate is left to God, but as I said before, to say that "an Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism" flies in the face of known facts to the contrary--and to attempt to absolve Nilus based on his alleged piety (which may have been real; I am not saying it wasn't) in other areas of his life also flies in the face of the clear facts in his case and simple common sense. I hope nothing I have written here has offended you, as offense was the very last thing I intended by saying it. Cheers! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I have misunderstood some of what you said, just as perhaps you have misunderstood some of what I have said. I think it best to let this particular conversation end at this point, with apologies on my end for any misunderstandings. If you felt I was accusing you of being a Nazi, or sympathizing with them, that was absolutely not my intention; I thought I had made this clear, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. For that, I am sorry. But I do think it is best to let this conversation go at this point, as I doubt either of us will convince the other of anything. I still think as highly of you as I ever did, and wish you only the best. Cheers! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The are many variations on the transliteration and translation of Nilus's first name.
The appears to be a failure to distinguish the views of Nilus from those of the antisemites who subsequently, in 1920, and after, compiled, edited, and translated his version. Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, I wonder what you mean with the above. The=There? Are you suggesting that people should distinguish Nilus writing from the "Protocols", that is his writing have a different intent, than the protocols? I just read the article by Hagemeister concerning the Russian context in Hagemeister, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Myth of a Jewish Conspiracy in Post-Soviet Russia.
Sergei Nilus is a national saint. His books with the Protocols as a XXII chapter are published in rather high editions (=100.000) in Post Soviet Russia, and frequently it seems. I have amended the title, since I think that it is very important, ever since I read about it the first time. What I have been wondering about immediately (maybe since I studied literature is, that it has not been more closely studied as fiction. The problem obviously was the bad style. But it seems this starts now. And in a German article by Hagemeister (c2001)he relates the Protocols to other Russian [Dystopia]s. Considering the really bad style, and that you have immediately the impression of "looking into a mirror". But to study the text immediately not only as a forgery but also in its parallels to fiction, would have helped a lot it feels. There is absolutely no doubt that Nilus did something not so desirable by fitting the protocols into his larger mystical apocalyptic context. Ever since I learned about the Protocols (ironically, one has to say, since I am a Kraut, post 911 in US cia-conspiracy-political-research circles, I have the impression the forgery draws much of its power partly by the close parallels to fiction. I put a not proofread part on another Hagemeister (I can't deny, I am a fan of him, ever since I discovered an older text on this topic on the net) While translating an article by him for a US friends, I found one of the Russian writers he mentions and put part of the translation - not proofread yet - there: [1]
The US Yale Prof (emeritus) in German literature, Jeffrey L. Sammons, has published an edition of the Protocols with annotations in German. I haven't found an English edition yet, and missed to call back the publisher to find out, if is a special German edition, or if it is translated. I can't find an English version on the library net, but I wanted to make sure. And I haven't got a copy yet myself. Never made it to read it for the reasons, Hagemeister states above. Mirror - bad style. LeaNder 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessary to analyze this (above) text - instead reference should be made to the above "main" article. -- Ludvikus 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This was an inappropriate external link toan unscholarly site [2]. -- 151.202.101.75 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above scholar is the world's foremost authority on Nilus. 151.202.101.75 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"An Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism?" With all due respect, I strenuously beg to differ. I was formerly an Orthodox Christian (attended ROCOR, Serbian, Antiochian and OCAchurches) for twelve years, ten of which were spent as a tonsured Reader. While I agree that antisemitism is not the official doctrine of any of these (or other Orthodox) bodies, I have met and known several Orthodox Christians who were not simply anti-Zionists, but full-blown antisemites. One Serbian I knew told me once that while he despised Adolf Hitler for his invasion of his country in World War II, he wished the Allies had let him live long enough to gas all the Jews in Europe, so that (in his vile and sick opinion, at least) the world would have been a better place. I have known others who still referred to Jews as "Christ-killers," without making any distinction between Zionists and other Jews (forgetting that Jesus forgave all those who killed Him on the Cross). These are all people I knew personally, not folks I read about in books or other similar sources. All of this requires me to strenuously protest the statement that "an Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism." History (and personal experience, on my part) definitely says otherwise.
Of course, there are other Orthodox who have opposed Antisemitism; I think of the late Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, who later became first head of the ROCOR, who singlehandedly stopped a mob bent on a pogrom against the Jews in Kiev around the turn of the 20th Century (sorry; don't remember the exact year). Standing before this mob, Anthony denounced not merely pogroms or other violence against Jews, but the very concept of antisemitism itself--thereby proving that antisemitism is not an intrinsicly Orthodox teaching, as some have erroneously stated. However, the statement that "an Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism" is incorrect, as several saints ( John Chrysostom, for instance) as well as ordinary members have spoken against the Jews as a people, as well as against their religion. This does not mean that anyone who does not believe Judaism is a true or correct religion is antisemetic; as a Lutheran Christian, I do not believe Judaism to be the true religion, but I have nothing against Jews or the full right they have to practice their faith in peace. They are still the "chosen people" of the Old Testament (as Met. Anthony pointed out), and whether a person agrees with their faith or not, they deserve complete respect as fellow human beings, not to have lies told about them as was done in the "Protocols."
I sincerely believe that you never intended to demean Jews or Judaism in your statement, and were in fact insisting that any true Orthodox Christian should not and could never be involved in such activities or mindsets; but it seems clear to me that Nilus, who was so deeply involved in publishing and distributing the "Protocols" in Russia, was attacking Jews in general by publishing and dissiminating this work, and not simply Zionists. His ultimate fate is left to God, but as I said before, to say that "an Orthodox Christian could not be involved in antisemitism" flies in the face of known facts to the contrary--and to attempt to absolve Nilus based on his alleged piety (which may have been real; I am not saying it wasn't) in other areas of his life also flies in the face of the clear facts in his case and simple common sense. I hope nothing I have written here has offended you, as offense was the very last thing I intended by saying it. Cheers! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I have misunderstood some of what you said, just as perhaps you have misunderstood some of what I have said. I think it best to let this particular conversation end at this point, with apologies on my end for any misunderstandings. If you felt I was accusing you of being a Nazi, or sympathizing with them, that was absolutely not my intention; I thought I had made this clear, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. For that, I am sorry. But I do think it is best to let this conversation go at this point, as I doubt either of us will convince the other of anything. I still think as highly of you as I ever did, and wish you only the best. Cheers! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)