Atwill vs. Haemers: Who Created the National Socialist Party? - #3B

The Protocols

For reference, Joseph Atwill’s thesis “The Freemason Invention of the Nazi Party.”

Next we look at the section: “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Came From a Theosophist.”

Here we will assume most readers have a basic familiarity with the Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion, even though the experts cannot fully agree even on the full title, and the best experts admit that some aspects of the Protocols, including their origins, remain mysterious.

Justine Glinka (the Great) (I have applied the title facetiously and sarcastically.
I wanted to post a picture or painting of her, but none under full name Justinia Dmitrievna Glinka could be found.)

Atwill summarizes in one paragraph what has taken entire books to explain, referring to “received history”:
”According to the received history, Justine Glinka, a Russian Theosophist and, in fact a close friend and colleague of Blavatsky’s, was the person who brought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the public’s attention. She somehow obtained a copy of the Protocols that she claimed had been stolen from a Masonic Lodge in Paris. Glinka then purportedly gave the manuscript to her uncle, General P. V. Orzhevsky, who tried—and failed—to show it to Tsar Alexander III. Eventually, Glinka’s stolen manuscript made its way to Sergei Nilus who published it in his 1905 book.”

Atwill states here that Glinka was “in fact a close friend and colleague” of Blavatsky and uses the same phrase later on in this section. Atwill has not shown one fact nor evidence that Glinka was associated with Blavatsky nor that Glinka was a Theosophist. I checked 4 online sources including Wikipedia, State Militia Intelligence, Stormfront, and one other before considering that they all identified Glinka as some version of: “(1836–1916), the daughter of Russian diplomat Dmitry Glinka (1808–1883), was endeavoring (in the early to mid-1880s) to serve her country (Russia) by obtaining political information in Paris…” More commonly she is called “the daughter of a Russian general.” If we follow Justine’s father Dmitry’s entry, we see no mention or hint that he was involved in Theosophy or ever met Blavatsky, just like Justine.

Justine’s only contact with anyone even remotely associated with Freemasonry generally would be a “Jew, Joseph Schorst, member of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris.” Here is the full entry from State Militia Intelligence. This exact passage is also quoted in one of the two books I am referencing, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Foreword by Texe Marrs, Translated Victor Marsden 1934, commentary Henry Ford, reprinted Rivercrest Publishing, Austin TX, 2011, p.111.

Enter the Jewish Freemason
”In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mlle. Justine Glinka, was endeavoring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst, member of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris. One day Schorst offered to obtain for her a document of great importance to Russia, on payment of 2,500 francs. This sum being received from St. Petersburg was paid over and the document handed to Mlle. Glinka. She forwarded the French original, accompanied by a Russian translation, to Orgevskii, who in turn handed it to his chief, General Cherevin, for transmission to the Tsar. But Cherevin, under obligation to wealthy Jews, refused to transmit it, merely filing it in the archives.”

Here we see that the Jew Schorst, real name Schapiro, was a member of the Mizraim Freemasonic lodge. Atwill has already established that the Memphis-Mizraim Egyptian Rite lodge was founded by Italian Freemason Garibaldi whose philosophy influenced Blavatsky. However, the fact that Glinka employed Schorst and accepted his offer of a manuscript puts Glinka at least three stages removed from any contact with Blavatsky. Glinka - Schorst; Schorst - Garibaldi; Garibaldi - Blavatsky. Her contact with Blavatsky is at least 3 times removed, with at least one of those levels possibly completely severed (Schorst to Blavatsky) and the first one so brief and distant as to be no direct influence at all (Glinka to Schorst). The only link in this chain with any integrity is Garibaldi to Blavatsky, which of course is not remotely direct to Glinka.

So Glinka emerges as a spy working for the Czar through her father the Russian diplomat, not above using a Jewish Freemason to obtain important documents on behalf of mother Russia.

Not incidentally, both sources say Schorst escaped to Egypt, where he was subsequently murdered. Would a Jew provide such demonizing evidence to the Russians that would reverse all the gains Jews had made during that period in Europe, which Atwill rightly recounts in this section? Then again, it appears Jews with influence over Cherevin suppressed the transfer of the document to the Czar. Could this be the reason Schorst was murdered: because other Jews saw him as a traitor for selling the document to the Russians?

An almost exact scenario happened to the Jew Harold Rosenthal after he disclosed the great plans of Jews to subvert and destroy Christian civilization to Walter White in 1976. Rosenthal was an aid to Jewish Senator Jacob Javitz, and boasted to White in a prolonged interview of Jewish power and plans for world domination. White produced a booklet The Hidden Tyranny: The Issue That Dwarfs All Other Issues” aka “The Rosenthal Document.” Soon after the interview that same year, Rosenthal was killed in an apparent “sky jacking” incident, which White was convinced was a successful assassination attempt “by his (Rosenthal’s) own people.” So might the death of Schorst have been, for the exact same reason.

Atwill: “… the notion that her (Blavatsky’s) colleague (Glinka) would have been the individual who discovered it (sic. The Protocols) seems preposterous. A more logical explanation would be that the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power.”

In fact it was Schorst who “discovered” it, and it may be more preposterous that as a Jew he would betray his own people (admitting that we have seen Jewish antisemitism and infighting in history), no less in support of the greatest scourge of Jews in modern history, NS Germany (notwithstanding the holocaust as a hoax). Being Jewish, Schorst may have done it merely for the money. Even granting the possibility that Schorst was working for Freemasonic Jews to demonize Freemasonic Jews and generate more antisemitic fear and hatred, we can see no evidence that Glinka was as well. She was genuinely working to help Czarist Russia where her family had high standing, in my opinion.

If the Protocols are not exactly a forgery, but a genuine repurposed partial plagiarism of the 1864 Geneva Dialogues between the ghosts of Montesquieu and Machiavelli in the underworld, by the Jew Maurice Joly as most sources agree, then Glinka’s agenda as a supposed Theosophist agent is even more preposterous. It is most likely at the time that she thought the document was legitimate, and could serve the Czar to know about it. Else she would not have paid 2500 francs for it.

Dalton Presents
The other complete book on the Protocols I am referencing, brand new from Clemens & Blair, is Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Definitive English Edition edited and translated by Thomas Dalton PhD, 2023.

Atwill’s almost entire argument rests on the affiliation of Glinka with Blavatsky, but Dalton’s book provides little insight into Glinka. The only reference is oblique, by Dalton himself in the introduction, under section “Murky Origins”:

“Over the years, Nilus gave inconsistent accounts of how he came to acquire his version: allegedly they were stolen by a woman from the Jews, but later he stated that a ‘friend’ ‘found them in a vault’ at Zionist headquarters in Paris. Later still , Nilus claimed that they were written by prominent Zionist Theodor Herzl in 1897.”

We know that Nilus got a translated copy of the Protocols from Sukhotin who got them from Glinka after she was kept in house arrest on her estate in Russia. That is explained in the Texe Marrs book as well as more succinctly in the essay by former military intelligence officer during WWII and Professor Revilo P. Oliver titled “Those Awful Protocols“:

“A Russian translation of the French Protocols, presumably Mlle. Glinka’s, was given by her to a Russian nobleman, Sukhotin, in 1895 (note date) and privately published by one of his friends at Orel in 1897. No copy of this anonymous publication is known to exist, but the fact of publication was attested by the amateur publisher, who escaped from the Judaeo-Bolshevik seizure of Russia and executed an affidavit to that effect. This is the Russian version that Professor Sergius A. Nilus inserted in his book of Jewish influences, published in 1901. Professor Nilus again published this translation in 1905, and he or someone else sent a copy of this second edition to the British Museum, where it was received and catalogued in 1906.”

These are all the sources I have on Glinka, and none of them mention any affiliation or association with Blavatsky, Theosophy, or even Freemasonry generally, with the distant exception that the man she bought them from, the Jew Schorst (Schapiro), appeared to be a member of the Mizraim lodge in Paris. I hope we can all agree, including Mr. Atwill, that much more evidence than this is needed to prove Glinka had any deeper associations with not just Freemasonry, but Blavatsky and Theosophy specifically.

Protocols a Plan for NSDAP Power?
The only other claim Atwill makes for the Protocols being a weapon of the Theosophists is this statement: “A more logical explanation would be that the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power.” How could the Protocols have served to “bring” the “Nazis” (NSDAP) to power?

The Dalton book is exceptional for its inclusion of an entire section of 85 pages titled “National Socialist Commentaries.” It contains “Rosenberg on the Protocols (1923),” “Hitler and Goebbels on the Protocols,” “Introduction to the Protocols by the NSDAP (1938)” and “Introduction to the Protocols: Julius Evola.” We will reference these essays to rebut Atwill’s claim.

To start, those who had an overall plan to bring the NSDAP to power were—the leaders of the NSDAP. Almost everyone else within Germany and without were working to Prevent the NSDAP coming to power. This certainly included Freemasons, as I will show in a subsequent part of this debate. Also, the “forgery” was prepared long before the NSDAP itself emerged into existence in 1920, so could not have been prepared as part of a plan to promote a political party that did not yet exist. Would Atwill say the Protocols were created to also “invent” the NSDAP?

Moreso, the NSDAP featured some anti-semitic messaging in their campaigns to win votes, but the Protocols were not part of that messaging, and the NSDAP also featured other messages to win votes. Jews were not the only target of NSDAP campaign platforms, but also the “November Criminals,” former Kaiser Wilhelm, the Social Democrats Party, the Communist Party of German (KPD), “industrialists,” war profiteers, the parliamentary system generally, and many others. My point here is, the NSDAP legitimately used antisemitic platforms to win votes, but they used other platforms too, and none of them mentioned the Protocols until after the NSDAP had achieved power, as I will now show.

NSDAP Speaks
But let’s see what the NSDAP itself said about the Protocols. From the first essay by Rosenberg:

”… the thoughts and plans expressed in the Protocols are not unheard of in Jewish history, but rather, can be found in Jewish literature through all the centuries up to the present time.” (1924, Dalton p. 150)

Rosenberg goes on to cite many other Jewish sources of plans for world domination other than the Protocols, and leaves their authenticity or fraudulence open, as seems proper. Like many others, he ascribes authenticity to them due to the fact that the plan the Protocols expose had already been partially implemented, and trends indicated that the rest of the plan was underway. Far from abetting it, the NSDAP curtailed and interrupted that plan.

This is from the next chapter, “Hitler and Goebbels on the Protocols,” reproduced from Mein Kampf, Chapter 11, Section 4. Note that these are Hitler’s only comments on the Protocols in all his speeches and writings. If the Protocols were “prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power,” Hitler would have referred to them much more than once in Mein Kampf written in 1924 when the NSDAP was all but extinct and no hope of winning votes was active. And he would have featured them in the voting campaigns of 1928, 1930 and 1932. But he did not.

“It doesn’t matter from what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; the important thing is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the nature and activity of the Jewish people, exposing both their inner contexts and final aims.” (p. 177)

This is the most common commentary made upon the Protocols: whatever their origins, they are being implemented in the real world by Jews. That was utterly obvious to Adolf Hitler and much of the German people in 1924.

Goebbels wrote thousands of pages in a daily diary over 20 years’ time. Only 4 entries mention the Protocols. Two in 1924 state that Henry Ford wrote about them, and that while Goebbels thought they were a forgery, they were still legitimate for the same reason Hitler gave. The third mention came in 1939: “We are considering whether or not we should bring out the Zionist Protocols for our propaganda in France.” Finally, 1943: “I once again thoroughly studied the Zionist Protocols. Until now I had always been told that they were unsuitable for current propaganda. Reading them today, I find that we can use them very well.” (p. 178-9)

This reveals that Goebbels, as Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, never considered using the Protocols as propaganda until 1939, and that he “was told” (by Hitler?) that they were unsuitable for that purpose until 1943. This is many years after the NSDAP was conducting electoral campaigns in the late 1920 and early 30s. Remember, Atwill says “the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power.” 1939 was long (6 years) after the NSDAP achieved its power in Germany. Unless Mr. Atwill can show us otherwise, this means the NSDAP never used the Protocols in any of its campaign messaging or any other method for coming to power.

The rest of the NSDAP Introduction—translated from the 1938 edition—is essentially the same as Hitler, Goebbels and so many others: justification for the Protocols through an analysis of then current and past Jewish activities.

And Yet—! In the third chapter of this section, “NSDAP Introduction to Protocols of Elders of Zion,” Dalton states in the opening note: “Upon coming to power in 1933, the ‘Nazi’ party (NSDAP) began to produce popular editions of the Protocols…” (p. 181) This shows that the NSDAP had already brought themselves to power Before offering the Protocols to the German public. Thus they could not have been used by Theosophists to “bring the Nazis to power.”

Conclusion on “bring the Nazis to power”
Atwill’s point that the Theosophists, particularly Blavatsky, “prepared” the “forgery” “as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power” cannot be true, insofar as the NSDAP themselves did not use the Protocols in their electoral campaigns, but only after those campaigns had been successful and they had already brought themselves to power. Perhaps Mr. Atwill means the Protocols were used by Blavatsky to create an antisemitic climate within which the NSDAP could more easily be brought to power, but they were not translated into German until 1919. Oliver writes: “A copy of Nilus’s book also reached Germany and the text was translated into German by Gottfried zum Beek, if am correctly informed, and published under the title, Die Geheimnisse der Weisen von Zion, in 1919.” The translations began in French, then Russian, then English, years before any knowledge of the NSDAP could have been conceived. The emergence of the Protocols created a more antisemitic climate throughout Europe and even more widely such as in Japan, and by no means first in Germany. We cannot imagine such a strategy being applied by an otherwise intelligent Blavatsky, so far removed in time and with such non-specific, widespread effect beyond Germany.

Consider the Sources
As always, source validity, while a secondary consideration to content, is something we must consider in this debate. Atwill’s first source is “Nora Levin, The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933–1945.” This is the source for Atwill’s quote: “There they (Protocols) were used to explain all of the disasters that had befallen the country (Germany): the defeat in the war, the hunger, the destructive inflation.” Atwill gives no page number, but I found it on p. 19 in the Archive edition.

Atwill fails to note that Levin also says on that page: “…it (Protocols) became the very center of Nazi ideology. Hitler used the Protocols as a manual in his war to exterminate Jews.” Levin’s book is of course filled with as bad or worse exaggerations, hysterical kvetching, anti-German war propaganda and atrocity stories so typical of such works. And so typical of Jews, of whom Levi is of course one. If Atwill and the rest of us will only examine Levin’s chapter “The Final Solution” starting on page 290, for example, I am sure Mr. Atwill will agree this source is discredited as a promoter of the fraudulent hoax of the holocaust. Here it is discredited as a wild exaggeration of the role the Protocols played in NSDAP campaigning.

Atwill’s second source in this section is Wikipedia, sub-section “The Times exposes a forgery, 1921” (London Times not NYT):
https://archive.org/details/holocaustdestr00levi_0/page/290/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Protocols

This Wikipedia entry tells us that Peter Gross wrote that Allen Dulles, future CIA Director, found out from ‘the source’ Michael Raslovleff that the Protocols were not a forgery but a plagiarism. Somehow apparently Dulles informed London Times correspondent Philip Graves, and LT then provided funds for Raslovieff. Or rather, or perhaps also, Raslovieff provided the information that the Protocols were largely plagiarized from Jew Maurice Joly’s book of 1864 The Geneva Dialogues directly to Graves. Someone else, Colin Holmes, Sheffield University lecturer, was the one who identified Raslovieff, who had tried to remain anonymous. Raslovieff was labeled an “antisemite” and apparently his motivation in sharing the plagiarism knowledge was so as not to “give a weapon of any kind to the Jews, whose friend I have never been.”

This is so complex it is difficult to understand. First of all, how would identifying the Protocols as a plagiarism take a weapon away from the Jews, as appears to be Raslovieff’s motivation? The Jews only benefited from the Protocols being found out as a plagiarism, since they used it to conflate plagiarism with forgery, and discredit the Protocols as not genuine. Second, what role did Dulles really play in this development? The entry states: “Allen Dulles, the future CIA chief who was in Constantinople… discovered ‘the source’ of the documentation Graves ultimately provided to The Times.” So Dulles then referred ‘the source’ Raslovieff to Graves, and Graves got ‘the source’ some money from the Times? The Raslovieff quote source is from Encylopedia Judaica, which must not be trusted on such matters.

Atwill says “Raslovleff’s explanation is, of course, totally incoherent…” and I tend to agree, except we have not nearly enough information to even assess its coherence, and we don’t know what Atwill means by “explanation.” If he means Raslovieff’s explanation that the Protocols are largely plagiarized, then the explanation is coherent. If he means Raslovieff’s explanation that he disclosed the plagiarism so as “not to give a weapon… to the Jews,” then it appears incoherent—because accusations of plagiarism would be exactly what the Jews would want to help discredit the Protocols and continue to hide news of their plan for world domination.

So when Atwill says: “… the idea that a CIA chief was then the individual who discovered the (sic) they were a fraud” is “far fetched,” we don’t have enough clear information to even make the assessment. Dulles was not the CIA Director yet, he may not have “discovered” they were a “fraud” (plagiarism actually) because Raslovieff “discovered'“ that, and thereafter we see no knowledge Dulles had any further involvement with Graves and the Times.

Plagiarism is Not Forgery
The exposure of the Protocols as mostly plagiarized did not suffice to discredit them, as Julius Evola makes clear in his essay “Introduction to the Protocols: Julius Evola” in the Dalton book:

“…this ‘plagiarism’ is real, and not limited to the work of Joly, but applies to various other then-existent works. However, what does this tell us? In deciding whether or not the Protocols correspond to the program of world domination of an occult organization, it makes no difference whether the author has composed and written them from start to finish, or whether, in the course of his composition, he has also used ideas and elements from other works, thus creating, from the literary standpoint, a ‘plagiarism’.” (p. 212)

So attempts to discredit the Protocols through claims that it is a plagiarism do nothing to discredit them, according to the clear thinking of Evola. This makes the whole story involving Dulles, Raslovieff et al. pointless in the end. Though Jews may have used accusations of plagiarism in an attempt to discredit and dismiss the Protocols, it was a weak argument and many continued to consider them valid and relevant.

Dalton takes up the same point in the last essay in his book, “The Protocols in the 21st Century” by Thomas Dalton PhD:

“… The text of the Protocols borrows heavily from passages in Joly’s 1865 book, to the point of selective plagiarism. Several passages are nearly identical and several others are too similar to be coincidental. But… the question then is: what follows from this? And the answer is: nothing of significance. If indeed the document was of Jewish origins, it only means that the Jewish speaker, or Jewish transcriber, borrowed heavily from fellow-Jew Joly… The plan could be completely real and effective, and yet it would be utterly unrelated to any plagiarized passages… the Jewish plan could, in theory, be completely real and efficacious,while simultaneously being a plagiarism.” (p. 262-3)

Atwill’s third source is a copy of a letter Dulles as CIA Director sent to a White House assistant in 1957.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R004200150032-7.pdf

It says nothing relating to the topic of our debate, and I can only imagine Atwill included it to prove that Dulles went on become the CIA Director. That is not in dispute and I do not need to debate it. It does mention that Dulles accepted invitations to Bohemian Grove but never attended, and that he planned to contact a Dick Reuter on a (redacted) matter. I looked up Reuter and he has no relevance to the Protocols, Blavatsky, Theosophy, the NSDAP or any other aspect of our debate.

Conclusion
In our assessment here, neither do the Protocols have any relevance to a Theosophic influence on the NSDAP. Above all, Atwill has not shown that Glinka had any affiliation with Blavatsky or Theosophy, and I have shown her actual affiliations: her father the Russian diplomat, the Russian intelligence community generally, and a brief utilitarian encounter with a Jewish Freemason from whom she bought a document.

Finally, if the Protocols were used by Blavatsky to “bring the ‘Nazis’ to power,” they were used too late, after the NSDAP and Hitler had already attained power.

I rest my case until Mr. Atwill rebuts this rebuttal. After all this, I have still more to share on the Protocols if necessary. I trust it will not be necessary.

Next in Part 3C we will examine the contentious topic of NSDAP financing.

Share and spread the Taboo Truth.