Talk:Sergei Nilus

Contents

Serge

The are many variations on the transliteration and translation of Nilus's first name.

Accordingly, I propose adopting the one that is most like English, and the briefest, namely Serge.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1920 editors/translators of Nilus

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)

---

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

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)

silverbearcafe.com

This was an inappropriate external link toan unscholarly site [2]. --151.202.101.75 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hagemeister

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"

"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)

With full regards, all the Orthodox sources tell us something different things. At first, I've read many John Chrysostom's passages on Jews. He (like any normal Orthodox faithful) told not against Jews (you must know he was a fervent St. Paul's admirer who was a Jew) but against nonbeliever Jews. You must know that the last earthly deed of the best Chrysostom's friend Saint Basil the Great _was the baptism of the Jew_. I'm ready to say much (really much with citations) on the subject if necessary. B7elijah (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Jewish sources, a person ceases to be a Jew if they adopt Christianity (or any other non-Jewish religion). Chrysostom certainly (and rightly) admired Paul the Apostle, but I doubt he'd have had the same admiration for Saul of Tarsus if he hadn't met Our Lord on the Damascus highway. St. Basil rejoiced in a Jew's baptism; would he have rejoiced or thought as highly of this person if they had rejected that baptism, or reniged on it later?? History shows a long, sad story of pogroms against Jews in Russia (and throughout Europe; Orthodox nations weren't by any means the only ones to have them), many (if not most) perpetrated by Orthodox Christians, often encouraged or even led by clergy. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

but I have nothing against Jews or the full right they have to practice their faith in peace.. You may be not aware of it, but Nilus didn't vote against their religious practice but against their destructive (though cryptic) deeds leading to the demolition of Russia (and the history offered the proof of his truth). B7elijah (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is "their" here? The Jews? Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that the Jews brought about the destruction of Tsarist Russia? I have certainly heard this asserted by Orthodox Christians, but is there any justice to this charge? Who are "the Jews" exactly? The entire Jewish people? Which Jews brought about Russia's destruction? If I remember right, Trotsky was of Jewish heritage, but Lenin, Stalin and Kerensky (the other principal players in the Russian Revolutions of 1917) were all Orthodox Christians (though excommunicate ones, to be sure--at least in Lenin and Stalin's cases). Does the fact that Trotsky was of Jewish heritage make all Jews somehow guilty or complacient in Russia's destruction? Is it right or fair to blame an entire people for the sins (real or imagined) of a few? Isn't this what Hitler did in Nazi Germany?

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, my friend; perhaps I didn't understand your meaning. I need to know what you meant by "their" here, and whether you are trying to say all Jews are guilty of this crime you allege, or just some Jews. And if "some," which ones? If I take this (flawed and indeed dangerous, considering where it led with Hitler) line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, I could just as readily blame Orthodox Christians for their "destructive (though cryptic) deeds leading to the demolition of Russia," since I would be willing to wager that just as the majority of the Revolution's leaders were Orthodox (at least in heritage, just as Trotsky was a Jew in name only, too), the majority of their followers were, too. But I would never say that it was Orthodoxy that destroyed Russia--it was policies pursued by the nations Tsarist leaders, from the Emperor on down, that caused that.

Should you still wish to insist that it was the Jews who caused Russia's downfall, then perhaps you'll show me and the rest of us precisely how this happend, that an entire people (as opposed to individual persons) brought this about. Failing this, I'd like you to explain how one can be justified in charging an entire group of people with the sins (real or imagined) of a few members of that group. Again, nothing personal here, but I've stood inside one of Hitler's gas chambers myself, and I know the sick line of reasoning (blaming an entire group of people for the sins--real or alleged--of a few) where all of that originated. Not saying you sympathize with Hitler or any of that at all, not at all. I'd just like you to consider where this line of thinking can lead, if you would. Again, nothing "personal" at all here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I treat all your writings with a highest regard, you know. But I see with a deep sorrow you are misled with _evident_ disinformation. "Trotsky as a Jew in name only"... I have nothing against his name but today, being obliged to answer (in the most good and correct sense), I've googled for that. The very first page I've opened was by Jewish author (though in Russian). In translation it reads "his father David.. 'was an illiterate but enterprising Jew'"(http://www.trotsky.ru/about_ld/tenenbaum_tribun.html). This is an official material from trotsky.ru! Though I don't have any special interest of this topic but I think to treat important facts thoughtlessly is a crime.

To insist that an entire group of people be blamed for the sins of one person (or however many persons) is a far, far greater crime, my friend. Much greater. Did Trotsky believe in God? Did Trotsky practice his Jewish religious heritage? Did he observe Passover, attend Synagogue or read the Torah? Did he sit Shiva for dead friends or relatives? Since the answers to these questions are clearly "no" (else he wouldn't have been allowed to be a leader of the Russian Communist Party, otherwise), I would say that the facts indicate that he was a Jew in name only. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about different things. A Jew and a Judaical believer are quite different concepts. I've never thought (and regarded it as inconceivable) there was even one Torah follower among revolutionary Jews. Atheism is much more popular religion among rebels of all kind. Beyond any moral judgement, just at the conceptual level, anti-zyonism cannot be considered as anti-judaism. B7elijah (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Trotsky was born exactly in the day of the Russian revolution - rather portentous coincidence. Well, it was Lenin and not Trotsky who was responsible for the revolution by the most part... But there is a plenty of openly accessible and publicly recognized materials revealing the Jewish roots of Lenin, please read wiki:Lenin to know about his maternal grandfather. It is also necessary to say aloud the Tsar's family was murdered by Jews whose names are known in exact; historians found some cryptic signs in the house were the crime had been committed, revealing it had been a ritual murder (from publicly available sources). Tsar Nicolas' murder was the decisive act of the Empire demolition, and it was incorrect to say that Russian laymen or clerics were responsible for that. Though the revolution is a big scale social event involving a great body of folks, you surely know there is always (at least in most cases and in Russian revolution in particular) a small group(s) that prepare it. This group is responsible for such a social disaster by the most part; mention must be made that for the aforementioned group it is not a disaster but rather a longed-for case to seize power. Kind regards, B7elijah (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Who cares when Trotsky was born? Unless you are superstitious, I can't see how that matters one bit. In terms of the religious identity of the murderers of the Tsar and his family: what if they were Jews? Does this make "the Jews" as a whole guilty of the Tsar's blood? Only if you want to think like a Nazi. This kind of thinking is exactly what got millions of Jews murdered during World War II; it is the same kind of thinking that has led to the deaths of Tutsis in Rwanda, Bosnians, Croatians and Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, and other victims of ethnic genocide throughout the world.

The Tsar's murder was not the "decisive act of the empire's demolition," as the empire had already ceased to exist with (a) the civil and military uprisings in Petrograd in March of 1917 (NS), the vast majority of the participants being not Jews, but Orthodox Russians; (b) the Tsar's own abdication on March 15, 1917 (NS), after his attempt to crush the uprising by military force failed; (c) the refusal of his intended successor, his brother Michael, to accept the crown the following day pending the decision of the (to-be-elected) constitutent assembly; (d) the emergence of the Petrograd Soviet as a counterweight to the Provisional Government (and its gradual ascent to dominance in the political arena); (d) the proclimation of a Republic by Kerensky; and (e) the ultimate takeover of the Provisional Government by the Bolsheviks. The murder was a tragic, sickening afterthought, an attempt by Lenin and his cronies to prevent the Whites from "having a live symbol to rally around," as Trotsky put it. The ironic thing is, that practically no one in the White movement in July of 1918 was speaking of restoring the Tsar; the vast majority were sick of his rule and wanted rather to restore the Constitutent Assembly, which had been intimidated by the Bolsheviks when it tried to meet, and prevented from conducting its business by them. The makeup of this Assembly was definitely not monarchistic; rather, it reflected a majority of socialist (though not Bolshevik) members. Hence, the murder of Nicholas and family was not some decisive moment in the Revolution, as the Revolution had already passed the Tsar by, politically-speaking.

In the end, none of this really matters; what matters is that "the Jews" as a people cannot legitimately be blamed, as you seem to be doing here (correct me, please, if I am wrong), for the actions of a few Jews (or however many Jews were associated with the Revolution). And by the way, that garbage about the "ritual murder" of the Tsar? Prove it. I've heard all that before, and it makes me want to vomit. But even if you managed to prove your point (and I by no means concede that to you, at all), this STILL does not make "the Jews" as a whole guilty of that act. Any attempt to say otherwise leads you straight back to Hitler, and I'm fairly certain you don't want to be in his company. Again, no offense intended towards you personally, but this needs to be said. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read almost every of the above arguments before - they dont' prove anything in the present case. By the way, to call the opponent a Nazi (or just to make a reference to) is an extremely efficient hook. World community has been already on your side, ready to blame the suspected one. But down to the real point of discussion - we are talking about Nilus, who had some information about Masonry and its' work for preparing the bloody revolution. Masonry is considered to be tightly associated with some cryptic Jewish forces, so Nilus was accused in antisemtism. I'm talking about it is a wrong conclusion. But now I've seen clearly how wrong are such accusations. It's not a surprise for me that he was accused in antisemitism for his book, since I myself was accused in Nazism for several paragraphs in those I was trying to explain that antisemitism is evel. LOL. With all best and kind regards. B7elijah (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a controversy not with the Orthodox Church teaching but with our vision of it got from some opinions of people we knew some time. B7elijah (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have met and known several Orthodox Christians who were not simply anti-Zionists, but full-blown antisemites. Just to clarify the situation. I hope I don't reveal smth. new for you if tell you there much more interesting categories of people among them who call themself orthodox. Except full-blown antisemites there are full-blown hypocrites and abysmally ignorant ones. We all are in the Sheep of the Church but it is not rightful to judge the Church teaching by our (maybe temporary) mistakes. I read Nilus works and found nothing antisemitic; all of such a kind was related to the russian cryptic revolutionary societies and forces. I hope you know there are a plenty of materials proofing Masonry/Zionists were highly involved in Russian revolution, don't you? B7elijah (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps you did not intend to say "the Jews" as a whole, above, but rather "Zionists" and/or "Masons?" Undoubtedly there were representatives of both in the revolutionary movement, but there were also many Orthodox Christians who had (and wanted) nothing to do with the aims or purposes of either group. I was active in ROCOR for some time, and I know the attempts some make there to paint all ORthodox Russians before 1917 as loyal, patriotic, loving subjects of the Tsar--but history shows us something far, far different, unless there were untold millions of Masons and Zionists in Russia in 1905 and 1917 masquerading as Orthodox Russians. Most of the revolutionaries and supporters of the revolution were Orthodox Christians, not Zionists or Masons. The last two groups were miniscule, and could never have succeeded without the support of much larger numbers of Russians--all or at least the vast majority of whom were nominally Orthodox. The Revolution was brought about, more than anything, by the inept rule of the last Tsar, Nicholas II. I have always admired him as a man, and especially for his family life and the courageous way he died, but he was an inept and incompetent ruler, and it was him--not Zionists or Masons--that history (rightly) ultimately blames for the events of 1917. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not looking for an answer, I just strive to explain my position. Please don't think I intend a discussion. Kind regards, Sir. B7elijah (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And I, as well. I always enjoy talking with you, and appreciate the way you and I can converse on subjects, even when we vehemently disagree with each other (as we usually do!), while still remaining gentlemen about it. I've met people on Wikipedia who were not that way, and whom I sadly got "out of control" with, and ended up saying things I later regretted. You and I have never had this happen, and I appreciate that and admire you for it. I have the highest regard for you as a person, and please let me reiterate that I in no way consider you a Nazi or anything like that, nor was it my intention to accuse you of sympathizing with them or their methods or ideas in any way. I wish you only the best regards, and like you, am simply striving to explain my position, as well. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As for a general question of Faith is concerned. You said you had been near the Altar for twelve years but no longer is. If you ever ate the flesh of the Son of Man and were in His Church you would not be satisfied by soy-based meat of human teachings, and we are sure you will return. Kind regards, B7elijah (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I do partake of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His precious blood, and have received Christ's salvation by grace through faith, and have shed "the soy-based meat of human teachings" you spoke of, by coming from the Orthodox to the Lutheran Church. But I accept and respect the idea that you (and millions of others) feel differently about this, so I'll just leave it at that. Your faith for you, and mine for me, and may God have mercy on us both! My kindest regards and personal respect to you, as well. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You must understand that Nilus was _one mind_ with Saint John of Kronstadt who blessed (it was documented is memoirs) his writing activities. Not all St. John's writings are available in English so you definitely couldn't read what he wrote on the subject. St. John wrote against a hostility to the Jews based on some peculiarities of face etc. Antisemitism like nationalism and any other manifestation of hatred has nothing in common with Orthodox Christianity. B7elijah (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

With that I will agree (your last sentence). It has nothing in common with the doctrine; it is the bad ideas and practices of some (though thankfully, not all) of its members (and as I said, this is true of Catholics, Lutherans and others, as well, sadly enough) that are evil. I have nothing against your church; I do not agree with some of its teachings, just as you don't agree with some of mine, but that's no reason for us not to be able to respect and be friendly with each other, as I feel we are trying to do here. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me to repeat my main thought that Antisemitism is diametrically opposed the Orthodoxy. I insist on that Russians are't (and were not) inclined to nationalism at all. 'Pogroms' scale was significantly exaggerated. But as for the Russian revolution is concerned, please google for Christopher Jon Bjerknes Schiff Russia, for example. Cheers! B7elijah (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I know a Serbian Orthodox priest in the city I live in here in America who would beg to differ. Some of his family were Russian Jews, who were driven from Russia during the Pogroms around 1905 or so. A lot of American Jews whose ancestors fled from Russia as a result of such actions would disagree--as would the vast majority of reputable historians, with both your statements about Russian nationalism and the scale of the pogroms. But each of us to our own opinion; I'm sure you folks over there have opinions of us Americans that we would disagree with, too, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a historian and unable to dispute on the subject from the historical point. So - excuse me for the dilettantish words about the pogroms in the past. But knowing contemporary Russian people I cannot imagine it was a reality. Anyway I just want to say while the neofascism threat is reported for the contemporary Europe for example, such a manifestations are quite non-typical for Russian mentality - exactly due to its Orthodox background. B7elijah (talk) 14:16, 25 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)

I'm very sorry for my misunderstanding you've mentioned above. To apologize myself let me say - I saw you highlighted it several times that you didn't consider my a Nazi. You were quite correct at that point as you always were, and I highly appreciated you kindness, really. But then you told about 'thinking like Nazi' to my end. This is what I was talking about. I dont' think like a Nazi in any way. I realize it is my guilt somewhat that I didn't manage to convince you in that but I humbly ask you not to consider my as a man thinking Like a Nazi. I'm not afraid of any public accusation for that. If Christ told us thinking like nazi, be sure I wouldn't hesitate to do it and to confess it publicly. But we are called to think like Christ (Philippians 2:5) and I strive to fulfill this as far as possible. Probably it was your misunderstanding of the current situation at that point, let me say I thought I'm free of such a severe guilt (thinking like a Nazi). But being very imperfect, I surely may insult you in something by my words, and I see with a sorrow I've done it. So I publicly ask you to excuse me if I offend you accidentally. B7elijah (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think it was a mutual misunderstanding, that's all. I think it's cleared up, now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)