Atwill vs. Haemers: Who Created the National Socialist Party? - #4
Spontaneous Undeclared Written Debate
Mr. Joseph Atwill and I have engaged in an unplanned, informal written exchange by email on this complex topic. His thesis is found in his essay “The Freemason Invention of the Nazi Party.” My thesis and rebuttals are found in a 4-part series here in the Taboo Truth archive, all beginning with the title “Atwill vs. Haemers.”
Mr. Atwill and I attempted to discuss arranging a debate on an audio platform, but he proposed a written debate. We could not agree on terms and rules even for a written exchange, but one proceeded anyway. Here I offer the relevant material we discussed in that exchange in our best attempt at formal debate. We proceed point by point.
I have edited our email exchange for focus and clarity, not changing any wording but excluding extraneous material. Any text of mine in italics is new material not in our email exchange, but which I have added here.
Protocols Used by Theosophists to Put NSDAP Into Power?
Haemers: Please provide evidence or proof that Blavatsky ever knew or even met in person or had any correspondence with Justine Glinka. I see you state in your theses that they were close associates and worked together, and I believe I even heard you say in a P&P (Powers & Principalities) that Glinka was Blavatsky's "secretary" (your vocalization sounded muffled and I could not hear clearly).
Atwill:
See 14 c below
https://www.theosophical.org/component/content/article?id=1716:-sp-1191169163
Haemers:
I might be willing to concede that Glinka met Blavatsky. I am puzzled though why Glinka's name is in (parentheses) every time it is mentioned in that document (9 times). This does not prove that a Theosophist wrote the Protocols and/or gave it to the NSDAP to use to assist it coming to power. I showed that the NSDAP started publishing copies of the Protocols only after it attained power in 1933, and later Goebbels speculated that it could be good propaganda in France by 1943. The NSDAP used other platforms and messaging to win votes and gain Hitler the Chancellor appointment from von Hindenburg, and then win the vote on the Law of Plenary Powers 7 weeks later at 82%, not nearly all of their messaging counter-semitic.
My points here-- If Glinka met Blavatsky once, you still need to prove 2 other things: Glinka leaked the Protocols on behalf of Theosophists in such as way that they came by deliberate design to the NSDAP for their use in coming to power in Germany. And the NSDAP actually used the Protocols to come to power, and its use of the Protocols was significant enough to gain it power among all the other messaging and platforms the NSDAP used. This will be difficult to prove, since the Protocols came to Germany translated into German as late as 1919. Alfred Rosenberg states this in the first sentence of his Introduction to his 1924 book on the Protocols. He says: "When the Protocols appeared in the German language at the end of 1919, they immediately caused a tremendous sensation." I could not find a digital source for this. It is my print edition of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Definitive English Edition, Thomas Dalton ed., Clemens & Blair, 2023, p. 149.
Who translated the Protocols into German? It was not Glinka, she had them translated from French into Russian. The trail gets thin here. I suppose we could say the Protocols came into Germany by 1919, indirectly from Glinka as the original source, and began having an effect in Germany, which the nascent NSDAP picked up on to use as vote-getting messaging. But Goebbels says the NSDAP did not use the Protocols to any appreciable extent until it already had power in 1933. Maybe you mean not the actual political power of Hitler as Chancellor and the NSDAP as the sole party (after March 24 and the Law of Plenary Powers vote), but its further power from there as a counter-semitic Aryan nationalist party. It looks to me as if we have not near enough proof to say Glinka leaked the Protocols on behalf of Theosophists in an intentional strategy to assist the NSDAP to gain power--even if Glinka met Blavatsky once. As I showed, the NSDAP gained power in many other ways, most of them completely legal, political and valid, and many of those were not even counter-semitic.
Atwill:
First, your reading skills seem to have failed you, please note that the passage states Jilinka "knew" Blavatsky, not that she met her once.
Haemers:
Your spelling skills are failing you. Her name was Glinka.
I do now see this passage: “Hearing that I (Solovyoff) was going to Elberfeld to see Mme. Blavatsky, whom she knew and for whom she had much respect, she decided to come with me.” “She” here does refer to Glinka, but I must ask why her name is always in brackets? It appears to be as a place-holder or substitution. Other bracketed text in this chapter appears to be corrections or additions by the editor. As you know, we must be extraordinarily careful with names in secret society documents.
I draw our attention to the “reference” for 14c, which states: “Hastings, Beatrice. Solovyoff's Fraud. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Edmonton Lodge of the Theosophical Society in Canada, 1988. Selection 14c. (bold mine)
I researched Solovyoff’s Fraud, and found what appears to be the source document. It is “BEATRICE HASTINGS AND THE “DEFENCE OF MADAME BLAVATSKY” Pages 26-7 describes the exact same passage as you cite in 14c, except the woman is referred to as “Miss A.” I am at loss to explain this. Did the Theosophical Society editor replace “Miss A.” with “(de Glinka)”? Also of note, this document, which appears to be the source for your 14c passage, nowhere states that Miss A. “knew” Blavatsky. The phrase “whom she knew and for whom she had much respect” does not appear in the source document. While this is not Solovyoff’s Fraud, it may be the fraud of the Theosophical Society’s editor.
In looking through 14c and the rest of this chapter, I hope you will agree we see a great deal of preposterous pseudo-spiritual foolishness and magic on display. Or do you see it as valid?
I cannot agree that—if the person in brackets was indeed Justine Glinka and not Miss A.—she “knew” Blavatsky, since a more original document by the same author Solovyoff only recounts one visit between Miss A. or Glinka and Blavatsky.
Atwill:
Second, you do not understand my analysis and are attacking a straw man.
Haemers:
You state: "...the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power." Surely you mean prepared by the Theosophists, since that is your thesis. Can you acknowledge that in order to prove this point re. the Protocols, you must show that at least one Theosophist prepared the protocols? If you are claiming that Glinka was that Theosophist, can you agree that you must show that she was more of a Theosophist than one (perhaps) confirmed meeting with Blavatsky could confer on her?
You state: "The claim that a close friend of the individual who brought the ‘Aryan Race’ to Germans was also the person who discovered the Protocols..." For clarity here, you mean the "close friend" was Glinka, and the "individual" was Blavatsky. We still have not seen that Glinka was close friends with Blavatsky—if indeed Miss A. was Glinka.
Also, I would say that Glinka did not exactly "discover" the Protocols. Schorst the Jew Freemason (real name Schapiro) might have "discovered" them. If you mean "revealed" the Protocols, then yes, I agree, Glinka could be said to have revealed them. I don't see any evidence she was a Theosophist, however. Was Schorst? He was a member of the Memphis-Mizrain lodge in Paris--or did he betray his lodge by selling the Protocols to Glinka? He was murdered soon after, you know. That should suggest to us that he sold the Protocols to Glinka against the wishes of Memphis-Mizrain, and by association (perhaps in your view) the Theosophists. Schorst's death soon after selling the Protocols must figure into our analysis, since it cuts against the theory that "..the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power."
I reiterate that the Protocols are not so much a forgery as a plagiarism. Forgery means a fake document meant to mislead or manipulate, especially when the document is claimed to be written by someone other than the original author, or the original author claims it is written by someone else. The Protocols could be a genuine document, though containing plagiarisms. Many commentators on the Protocols have stated that plagiarized material does not necessarily equate to forgery.
Source Quality: Revisionist vs. Jewish Main-Stream
Your sources are almost all main-stream, Zio-media, Jewish owned and operated, and so highly likely to be ongoing anti-"Nazi" war propaganda and atrocity stories. Such as Wikipedia on the Protocols. So many of the sources you cite are involved in holocaust promotion, which we both agree is a hoax. Such sources are not entirely immediately discredited for that reason alone, but they are highly suspect. I haven't checked them all, but I suspect every. single. one. of your sources endorses the holocaust narrative, or at least does not discredit it. I seek and find Revisionist sources, which I find far more objective and accurate factually and historically. Jews lie, and they lie more about Hitler and the NSDAP than anything. We see an entire sub-genre of literature devoted to lying about the NSDAP’s relationship to occult and secret societies, in order to continue to almost literally demonize it in a propaganda campaign. So far as I have examined them, most of your sources come from this sub-genre. May I suggest counter-balancing your Jewish sources with Revisionist sources for comparison?
I am confident you will be impressed. I gave my sources on the Protocols in my substack essay rebutting that point of yours: two books by Marrs and Dalton respectively, and the Oliver essay. They offer necessary perspective.
Here is my extensive detailed review of Dalton's Protocols book. It provides a good summary. Some of the 256 comments are also quite helpful.
https://www.unz.com/article/urgent-mysteries/
Protocols Proofs
Atwill:
You assert that I need: "to prove 2 other things: Glinka leaked the Protocols on behalf of Theosophists in such as way that they came by deliberate design to the NSDAP for their use in coming to power in Germany."
Your narrow focus on the NSDAP makes it impossible for you to recognize the 100 year process that led to its creation.
Haemers:
The central thesis is yours: Freemasons "invented" the "Nazi" party. I choose to use the proper historical name, the NSDAP. That must be the focus, and the only focus of the debate. The 100 year history is admissible to that thesis.
Atwill:
The Protocols were not leaked to be "used" by the NSDAP but to foment anti-Semitism in general, which had been in decline. The Masons needed anti-Semitism to be at a high level to make Ludendroff's ludicrous post WW1 claim that "the Jews stabbed us in the back" accepted, thereby distracting the public from understanding that their country's Masonic leaders had worked with the Masonic leaders of France and England to genocide Europeans.
Haemers:
The Stab in the Back has been promoted by post-WWII Communist propagandists and Jews as "ludicrous," but people at the time, especially in Germany, and especially Adolf Hitler as a courier at the front lines, knew it was real. Jewish Communists led strikes at the munitions plants supplying the German troops at the front. When the front line soldiers learned that their own people were striking to cut their ammunition, it was deeply demoralizing. Hitler mentioned this in Mein Kampf and later in speeches. It was one reason he established the German Labor Front led by Robert Ley, The memory of the Stab in the Back led by Jewish Communist through their labor unions was too painful and alarming to allow it to happen again, and so labor unions were made obsolete by the mutually cooperative Labor Front structure. Problem solved.
Ludendorff was a strong enemy of Freemasonry, not one of them. I will show this presently.
Atwill: Your second assertion:
"And the NSDAP actually used the Protocols to come to power, and its use of the Protocols was significant enough to gain it power among all the other messaging and platforms the NSDAP used" is also incorrect.
I don't need to prove any such thing and the assertion is a straw man. It was not the Protocols the NSDAP used but the cultural effect they had helped bring about. Please note that the long term purpose for the 'anti-Semitism' Ludendorff and Hitler fed to the German people was also to make the 'Final Solution' seemingly coherent. Hitler would first emigrate and then evacuate the 'hated Jews' from Germany to camps where they would be relatively safe from the coming Allied fire-bombing of the cities and the rape and slaughter of the Asiatic hords Stalin unleased.
Haemers:
I understand this core statement from you and must return to it: ...the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power." I can understand how this does not necessarily mean the NSDAP had to use the Protocols to bring them to power, but the Theosophists had to in order to bring the NSDAP to power. You claim this was done to create a general atmosphere of anti-semitism that was lacking at the time. Yet we saw plenty of anti-semitism in the Weimer period. Remember, the Protocols did not make it into German translation until 1919. That began the Weimar period and antisemitism grew.
When you use the phrase "Final Solution", I know you must not mean the holocaust, because we both agree neither Hitler nor Ludendorff could have any involvement in making it coherent, since it never existed. Thus you must mean the expulsion plan. A great deal else made the expulsion plan coherent without the Protocols, as Hitler said many times in speeches, and Goebbels as well in speeches and writings, and Julius Streicher in Der Angriff, and much else in Germany at the time. Still, I agree the Protocols was one of many anti-semitic reasons given for expulsion.
You state: "The claim that a close friend of the individual who brought the ‘Aryan Race’ to Germans was also the person who discovered the Protocols..." If this indicates to me that you are saying Glinka was that close friend of Blavatsky who discovered the protocols, and you are saying my understanding of your point is wrong, then that is not a fault of my understanding, but of your explanation. Please say more if you are not referring to Glinka here. Because if you are, I maintain that you need to show she was sufficiently Theosophist to prove your thesis on this point.
Atwill:
Hitler would first emigrate and then evacuate the 'hated Jews' from Germany to camps where they would be relatively safe from the coming Allied fire-bombing of the cities and the rape and slaughter of the Asiatic hords (sic) Stalin unleased.(sic)
Haemers:
I heard you say this on P&P (Powers & Principalities). Can you provide any documentation, eye witness testimony or material evidence for this claim? Or is it speculation based upon appearances?
The Final Solution of Jewish emigration from Germany and then Europe was well underway before the war, as you know. The Transfer Agreement (Havara) was only one aspect of it. The NSDAP was expelling Jews East during the war through the transfer prisons (I do not use the term “camps” since these facilities were fully modern, indoor and outdoor prisons) of Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzek to try and complete their Final Solution, and in order to burden the Soviets. Before the war Poles were expelling Jews into Germany, but that was not to save them from the German invasion. Neither were the Germans expelling Jews to save them from firebombing. People all over Europe had been expelling Jews for centuries, for obvious reasons having nothing to do with saving them from the effects of war. Germany continued this policy during the war as they had before. If it saved Jews from allied firebombing, that was an unintended and unforseen consequence. If you claim it was a planned policy in which Hitler participated, I ask that you provide evidence.
I find the thinking here lacking in clear-mindedness. The ongoing bombing of Germany toward the end of the war so devastated the infrastructure that all of Germany, including the prisons, were devastated as well. As I suspect we agree, most of the deaths in the prisons, especially toward the end, were due to starvation and disease, not gassing and not even from cruel “antisemitism” by the guards. So any “relative safety” for Jews in prisons was basically safety from being burned or buried to death versus being starved and sickened to death. It was not more “relatively safe” for Anne Frank to die of typhus rather than a bombing raid.
Additionally, Jews in the German prisons chose to retreat with the Germans instead of being “liberated” by the “rape and slaughter of the Asiatic hordes Stalin unleashed.” It could not possibly have been Hitler’s plan or anyone else’s to “evacuate” Jews to the prisons, because that only exposed them equally to the dangers you claim Hitler was trying to protect them from. This is especially true of that holy shrine of the holocaust religion, Auschwitz.
Powerful Jews at the time said the Jewish people needed to bleed and die in the war in order to justify their demand for Israel after. They would not want the Jewish proles saved from firebombing, but exposed to it. How many Jews were in Dresden? A hundred and ninety-eight according to the New Yorker. Should we trust that? I have too much more to day about your theory that the NSDAP removed Jews from Europe in order to protect them from firebombing. Where did you learn that theory? It is refuted by more evidence than can be mentioned. Frederick Lindeman, Churchill's Jewish science advisor, devised and proposed the terror bombing strategy against Germany, and Churchill implemented it before many Jews were being expelled by the NSDAP.
Atwill:
In general, your response to the Glinka/Protocols connection shows me you don't understand my thesis.
Haemers:
Your thesis is that Theosophists, in particular Blavatsky, through Glinka released the Protocols into public knowledge in order to create a general climate of antisemitism in which the NSDAP as agents saboteurs on behalf of Freemasonry, could more easily come to power (without the NSDAP having to use the Protocols themselves for that purpose).
I understand your source shows that Glinka met Blavatsky once, while accompanying a delirious man who saw premonitions of unknown countryside and delusions of a man in a white robe speaking wisdom. This source is insufficient and questionable.
Atwill:
Allow me to explain: The notion that it was a coincidence that a confidant of Blavatsky helped bring the Protocols to the public is in and of itself far-fetched.
Haemers:
It is however credible that a person who was a Russian spy and daughter of a Russian general and diplomat brought the Protocols (indirectly) to Nilus, who brought it to the public. It is also telling that the chain of transfer to the Czar was broken by a man who "was in the pay of the Jews." Glinka had to get the Protocols to the "public" (eventually through Nilus) by giving them to a constable in the region where she was under house arrest. So Glinka released the Protocols against the wishes of the Jews, and maybe Schorst did too, since he was most likely killed for giving the Protocols to Glinka. Please, how do we explain that?
Atwill:
The notion that it was a coincidence that Allan Dulles helped debunk the Protocols is also far-fetched.
Haemers:
Dulles did not exactly debunk the Protocols. He shared information that revealed they were partly plagiarized. Thereafter Jews tried to conflate plagiarism with forgery and fraud, especially in a legal case, in order to discredit the Protocols. If Theosophists were using the Protocols to create an atmosphere of antisemitism in order to bring the NSDAP to power, they would not have approved Dulles exposing the protocols as a plagiarism. It took the power of the Protocols to provoke antisemitism away. Yet If I understand you right, you are saying Dulles may have been a Freemason himself and working with Theosophists to use the Protocols in their scheme to install the NSDAP. Dulles revealing the Protocols as a plagiarism was counter-productive to his and the Theosophist’s goal.
Atwill:
The notion that Raslovleff wanted to debunk the Protocols to deprive the Jews of a "weapon" is nonsensical.
Haemers:
Yes, but only from one interpretation. Many analysts, including some Jews themselves, have said that Jews need antisemitism to pursue their plans. Herzl said it in his diary. He wrote: “…only anti-Semitism had made Jews of us.” And: “…anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the divine Will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.” Many others.
The holocaust is used by Jews as an extreme form of antisemitism propaganda to frighten other Jews and control them. Some Protocol analysts have said they were written by Jews and exposed to the public in order to stimulate antisemitism, which the "hidden hand" Jews then use to their advantage. This is a well-known and credible analysis of the Protocols, though of course not the only one. It may have been what Raslovieff was thinking, and that makes his statement coherent.
Also, it is Your thesis that the Theosophists used the Protocols to generate ambient antisemitism, in order to assist the NSDAP into power. If Raslovieff wanted to "debunk" the Protocols in order to foil this strategy, removing the power of the Protocols to generate antisemitism and thereby impede the Theosophist plan to install the NSDAP, then he was thinking clearly. His strategy is indeed sensical, and it aligns with your thesis.
Atwill:
The notion that such a collection came about by coincidence is incoherent, thus the stronger explanation is that it was the result of the "hidden hand". You did not see this because you focused on a single element and not the collection wherein each event affects the likelihood of the others.
Haemers:
I have shown that we lack proof Glinka was a close associate of Blavatsky, that Schorst was killed after selling the Protocols to Glinka, that Dulles showed the Protocols were a plagiarism leading to the view that it was a forgery & that Jews tried to suppress exposure, and that Dulles' exposure worked against the objectives of the hidden hand Jews to create an atmosphere of antisemitism in which they could put the NSDAP into power.
Surely you understand? If Dulles was working with the Theosophists to create an atmosphere of antisemitism in order to help install the NSDAP, he would not have exposed the Protocols as a Plagiarism, and Jews would not have been allowed to use that to claim the Protocols were a forgery and fraud. Such views on the Protocols only diminish their power to provoke anti-semitism, something you indicate Dulles, the Jewish Freemasons and Theosophists wanted.
I have also shown a way in which Raslovieff's statement could be coherent. It all hinges on Jews deliberately creating and using antisemitism for their purposes. Razlovieff tried to take that weapon away, and so did Dulles, incoherently if he was working on the side of the Theosphists. IOW, Dulles and Raslovieff were trying for the same thing, to discredit the Protocols and remove their power to generate antisemitism, which you say the hidden hand Jews wanted to use for their purposes, in this case to create an atmosphere in which it was easier to install their NSDAP agents. But Dulles and Raslovieff should have been opposed to each other. This is an incoherent situation.
I can see how the “coincidences” each affect the likelihood of the others, so long as the “coincidences” had the meaning and occurred as you describe them. The "coincidences" you list are inaccurate however, because they are not as you describe them. I propose they should be seen as I describe them, in which case a “hidden hand” is less necessary to understand them.
Atwill:
I suspect that all of our exchanges will end with you defending coincidence while I will maintain the effect of the 'hidden hand'.
Haemers:
Our exchanges will begin and end with me presenting my facts on behalf of my thesis of Who Created the NSDAP, and rebutting yours, and I would appreciate if yours began and ended with the same for your thesis of Who "Invented" the "Nazi" Party and rebutting mine. That is debate.
Atwill:
I see this as a complete waste of time…
Haemers:
No, you've already acknowledged that my insight into the Eckart death bed quote was valuable to you (see below). We might have more. I also see this as valuable to any of my Taboo Truth folk who will read on my substack site, and anywhere else it may be posted. I encourage you to post it on your platforms as well. Debate, especially audio or video and especially on this topic, could be highly valuable for its popular reach and opportunity to educate.
Atwill:
…and would simply note Archduke Ferdinand's license plate. If you see its numbers as a coincidence then God bless you and please live in that world without me.
Haemers:
Your assumption that I am ignorant of world conspiracy is an especial insult to me, if you have ever read any of the million words I have written and the millions more I have read on the subject. I invite you to study my Meta-historical analysis in “World Plan: Surrender of Another Empire” and “Meta-Analysis of History: Thucydides Trap vs. Polarities Plan - Part 1 and Part 2. You will recognize the Mackinder map. I welcome your respectful and considerate yet honest critique. How would you articulate your meta-analysis of history and describe the hidden hand?
Nesta Webster is the author who first introduced the term "hidden hand" and I have studied all four of her books. I see Freemasonic signaling numbers in many places and in my book my chapter Covid Evil: Satanic References in the Coronavirus Scamdemic presents many of them in that context. You, Mr. Atwill, are the person from whom I first heard of the 33 A's at the end of the genome sequence, and I followed up that lead to discover and present the astonishing story of E C Holmes and the Royal Society.
Atwill:
If not, then you need to rearrange your thinking premises so you can see the obvious; that both sides needed to be involved to foresee the date of the Armistice…
Haemers:
Perhaps. The obvious can blind us to the hidden. One story claims the driver made a wrong turn, and Princip acted spontaneously and opportunistically. You and I are not likely to believe that, intent on conspiracies, and I think we are right. Also, the date for the Armistice could have been set after the assassination, to signal to the license plate. The Armistice date may not so much have been foreplanned as scheduled after.
Is Sky News trying to divert us? What appear to be the first three 1’s are in fact I’s, the word “Armistice” is only spelled with an A in English, not German or Serbian, and Austria-Hungary surrendered officially on the 4th, not the 11th as did Germany. Still, the likelihood of the plate to the date is remarkable.
I find it best to consider multiple possibilities with these mysteries of history, rather than decide on one. Still, a conceptual framework of prior certainties helps place such anomalies as the license plate in its place. What is your conceptual framework and who are the two sides cooperating here? The hidden brain is probably man-ipulating both hands.
Just as with the German/Polish war, the assassination was not the only thing to start the war, and it certainly was not enough to make it a World War.
Though flawed by belief in the holocaust, Tragedy and Hope offers 9 factors or "crises" causing WWI:
"The International Crisis, 1905 - 1914 - The decade from the Entente Cordiale to the outbreak of war witnessed a series of political crises which brought Europe periodically to the brink of war and hastened the growth of armaments, popular hysteria, nationalistic chauvinism, and solidity of alliances to a point where a relatively minor event in 1914 (Archduke assassination-KH) plunged the world into a war of unprecedented range and intensity. There were nine of these crises which must be mentioned here. In chronological order they are:
1905-1906 The First Moroccan Crisis and the Algeciras Conference
1908 The Bosnian Crisis
1911 Agadir and the Second Moroccan Crisis
1912 The First Balkan War
1913 The Second Balkan War
1913 The Albanian Crisis
1913 The Liman von Sanders Affairs
1914 Sarajevo (Archduke assassination - KH) (pp. 192-3)
I am not willing to say all this was engineered by war-mongering Freemasons. The assassination, possibly yes.
I am willing to consider that you place much significance on the number 11/11. Why, exactly? 9/11 too no doubt, and not just the 1973 attack on Allende in Chile. What do you make of the date 5/10? The Germans launched their pre-emptive strike in the West, Churchill began his term as PM, Hess landed in Scotland, Jews opened a library rescuing books from Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute for Sex Research (which went on to stock the Kinsey Institute)... I am not expert in Freemasonic signaling numerology, and gematria, but I am aware of it and recognize it when presented. Have you ever noticed the 666 in the WEF logo? And in the Chrome logo. Surely you have seen the Freemasonic apron in GMail. 33 was displayed throughout the 2012 movie Contagion. Revelation of the Method no doubt. You've read Hoffman?
Atwill:
…and within that analytic framework, Ludendorff's 'inexplicable' selection of Hitler was not a coincidence but the work of the 'hidden hand'.
Haemers:
This is one of your claims for which I would need to see your source evidence. Who called it ‘inexplicable?’
Ludendorff was an enemy of Freemasons, as was Hitler. They joined together in the 1923 Putsch attempt, and while Hitler went to prison, Ludendorff was acquitted. In that action, Hitler chose Ludendorff at that time. Their relationship was complex and shifting between alliance and competition. One time Ludendorff ran as a candidate with the NSDAP endorsement, another time as a competing candidate.The "note" that Ludendorff supposedly wrote to von Hindenburg cursing him for appointing Hitler as chancellor is most likely a forgery and fraud. It was von Hindenburg who chose Hitler, for Chancellor anyway.
I found this source from the Ludendorff wikipedia entry: "COMPASS, SQUARE AND SWASTIKA: FREEMASONRY IN THE THIRD REICH." It is a PhD dissertation at Texas A&M. It states:
"Though the Nazis destroyed Freemasonry as an institution, the success of former Freemasons in aligning with the party as individuals shows the ability of Germans, even those in targeted groups, to escape persecution and even benefit from the regime that had previously targeted them." (bold mine) This was in support of Ludendorff’s opposition to Freemasonry.
In Part 2 we will address the Eckart death bed quote and the NSDAP war on Freemasonry.
• Translated from the book:"The Enigma of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" by Oleg Platonov
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syfSRWBhenc&list=PLPPNay9z7eEricUGzlez1YjyQKXIa9e4R&index=1
[Ignore what he says in the introductory segment about Hitler and Freemasonry – he has just accepted some of the very brainwashing that he is exposing and which Atwill is pushing]
Running playlist - Part 16 is up today
• [Pt.16] The Time of the Appearance of the Protocols of Zion - Oleg Platonov - ИСХС-NIKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDA3lhxPNSw&list=PLPPNay9z7eEricUGzlez1YjyQKXIa9e4R&index=17
This was great Karl. Well done + thanks.