The Protocols don't interest me much. If they did, I would have participated more in the thread dedicated to them as a subject. As I see it, with them, and speaking only of their category not their political designs, one is in the presence of a channeled document, much like those "Aiwass" sent Aleister Crowley and the "Ascended Masters" gave Blavatsky. This makes them more, far more, than mere fiction, or even the standard "notorious forgery," though they may be forged in part as well, because they have a sort of numinous, seemingly "prophetic," and I think highly deceptive quality about them. Thus in sum I say read the Protocols at your own risk, but do read them if you want.
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the post means. I
created the Protocols thread and I
been read the Protocols.
And frankly I have no idea what your post means. I have no idea what the Protocols has to do with Madame Blavatsky or Crowley.
I frankly believe you when you say the Protocols don't interest you. I think it might be the case that you've never actually studied the Protocols- or that you haven't been thorough. I speak as someone who has studied them and has been studying them for a while.
If you haven't studied the Protocols, your opinion on them carries no weight.
And one of the things about much of the anti-Protocols crowd is they want to appear as knowledgeable about the Protocols but they want to shut down any open discussion about them. They are afraid of open discussion. Their position is extremely weak and thus they are horrified of open discussion, as their position cannot withstand the test of an open and objective investigation.
Now as far as the Protocols and Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley... I have no idea what those have to do with each other.
I have read some Madame Blavatsky. I also have a book by Alice Bailey, her student. I don't think I've really read anything by Aleister Crowley.
However, the Protocols (were they to be carried in a bookstore) and those books belong in completely different sections of the bookstore.
Madame Blavatsky's books and Crowley's belong with the occult books. The Protocols has nothing to do with occultism. There is no basis for saying it is "channeled"- there is no evidence for this. Its contents have nothing to do with occultism.
Does 1984 belong with Blavatsky and Crowley? Does Brave New World?
There's nothing mystical or occult about the Protocols. The anti-Protocols crowd will support anything that promotes their predetermined conclusion. They care about their agenda, they don't care about the facts. I honestly don't really have much of an agenda- I basically just want to help preserve the facts.
The Protocols is not a book of mysticism or occultism.
The Protocols is like 1984 or Brave New World. The Protocols is no more a book of mysticism or occultism than 1984 or Brave New World are books of mysticism or occultism.