here is the reason: The overthrow of tsarism occurred in March, 1917. Toward the end of 1916 the revolutionary ferment was already apparent. What else could be expected than that the provocative agents of the Tsar's Secret Police and the Black Hundreds should strive to divert the attention of the people to some other issue? And what more natural than that they should conclude that a widespread movement against the Jews, great pogroms over a wide area, would best suit their purpose? The first publication of the alleged protocols took place in 1905, also at the beginning of a popular revolution, and it did have the effect of creating a considerable anti-Jewish agitation which weakened the revolutionary movement. The trail of the Secret Police and the Black Hundreds is plain. And now for the new version of the history of the protocols. On page 96 of this new book, which is a violent diatribe against the Jews, Nilus says:

Is it necessary, I wonder, to waste words in exposing this pious fraud? His own statement comes pretty close to convicting him of being, as I have suggested above, a hireling of the Secret Police, an agent provocateur. Sukhotin, from whom he now claims to have received the manuscript, was a notorious anti-Semite and a despot of the worst type. Sipiagin, to whom, it is alleged, the manuscript had been previously given, was also a bitter anti-Semite and one of the most infamous of Russian bureaucrats. He was notoriously corrupt and unspeakably cruel while he was Minister of the Interior. He was assassinated by Stephen Balmashev, in March, 1902. Even if we credit this revised version of the way in which he came into possession of the manuscript, Nilus is closely identified with the secret agencies of the old regime. Let us take note, however, of other peculiarities of the canting hypocrite, Nilus. He names Sukhotin and Sipiagin only after they are dead and denial by them is impossible; he has "forgotten" the name of the "noblewoman from Tshernigov," the person alleged to have stolen the original documents; he suggests that the documents need no other evidence than their own contents. Truly, a very typical criminal is the mysterious, elusive, unknown "Prof. Sergei Nilus"!

Now let me call attention to two other very interesting facts in connection with this story of 1917. The first is that Nilus omits the very important statement made in the edition of 1905 that the alleged protocols were "signed by representatives of Zion of the Thirty-third Degree," without offering the slightest explanation of that most important omission. The second fact is even more conclusive as evidence of the man's absolute untrustworthiness. Having told us in the edition of 1905 that the friend who gave him the protocols assured him that they had been "stolen by a woman," and in 1917 that it was Nicholaievich Sukhotin from whom he received the documents, who not only told him that they had been stolen by a woman, but told him also the name of the thief (which he has forgotten, unfortunately), he proceeds, in the Epilogue of the 1917 edition, to tell a very different story. He says in this Epilogue that the protocols "were stealthily removed from a large book of notes on lectures. My friend found them in the safe of the headquarters offices of the Society of Zion, which is situated at present in Paris."

Was ever perjurer more confused? First we have an unknown woman stealing the documents from "one of the most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry"; next, we have a "noblewoman of Tshernigov" as the thief and Sukhotin as the intermediary through whose hands they reached his friend Nilus. Now, finally, Nilus says that his friend—i.e., Sukhotin—was the thief, and not a woman at all! Instead of being stolen from the person of "one of the most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry," they are "found" in a safe in Paris! The woman has disappeared; the highly initiated Freemason has disappeared. Now it is Sukhotin who is identified as the thief, and he is pointed out as having robbed a safe in Paris. So much for the perjury of Nilus. I may add that I am assured—though I cannot vouch for the statement—that Sukhotin was not outside of Russia between 1890 and 1905.

But it may be argued, as it has been argued in the Dearborn Independent following the suggestion of Nilus—that the authenticity of the protocols, and the reality and seriousness of the Jewish conspiracy, are sufficiently demonstrated by internal evidence. I confess that I do not find in the documents any reason for reaching such a conclusion, though I have studied them with all the patience and care I could command, and have read the principal arguments made in their defense. I find not a scrap of evidence to show that there exists, or ever has existed, such a body of men as "The Elders of Zion," or "The Men of Wisdom of Zion," or any similar secret body of Jews. That such a secret conspiratory body exists has been charged from time to time during more than a century, yet not a particle of evidence to sustain the charge has ever been produced. I am quite well aware of the capacity of the human mind to believe whatever accords with preconceived prejudices, suspicions, or impressions, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and, correspondingly, to reject the most conclusive evidence when it runs counter to such prejudices, suspicions, or impressions. Laying upon my own mind the warning implied by this knowledge, and guarding myself against the danger of rejecting, or ignoring, or undervaluing unpleasant and unwelcome facts, I am bound to say that those who find in these alleged protocols a sufficient basis for bringing the Jewish race under indictment seem to me to have brought preconceived suspicion and fear of the Jew to their study of the documents themselves. Personally, I can find nothing in them which suggests any highly organized intelligence, such as the leaders of the Jewish race represent and command in abundance; rather, they seem to me to clearly indicate the disordered mind and distorted vision of a very common type of monomaniac, the genus "crank."

I believe that historical