The Jew and American Ideals | Page 5

died in 1910,
whereas the Nilus we are interested in was alive as late as 1917.
Greatly enlarged editions of his work, with new personal matter added,

appeared in 1911 and 1917. Obviously, therefore, the man who died in
1910 was not our author. The anonymous editor of an edition of the
protocols issued in New York toward the end of 1920 says that "a
returning traveler from Siberia in August, 1919, was positive that Nilus
was in Irkutsk in June of that year." No clew is given to the identity of
the editor who makes this statement. And here let me remark in passing
that it is a remarkable fact that all the editors of the numerous editions
of the protocols, both here and abroad, are very shy persons and hide
under the mask of anonymity. Nor is any clew given to the identity of
the traveler from Siberia. Another report, also by a traveler returned
from Siberia, who may possibly be the same person, makes it appear
that the Nilus who was at Irkutsk is the son of the man who died in
1910, and is himself too young to fit the autobiographical sketch of the
man born in 1862. I can only add to the foregoing, which represents all
that I have been able to find out about Nilus, that there was an edition
of the protocols published in Kishinev in 1906, the name of the author
of the book in which they appeared being given as Butmi de Katzman.
Now with respect to the protocols. No reference to these documents
appeared in the first edition of the book in 1903. If the reader will
kindly bear this fact in mind it will help to an understanding of what
follows. A second edition of the book, greatly enlarged, appeared at
Tsarskoye-Selo, near Moscow, in 1905, the added matter being given
the title, "Antichrist a Near Political Possibility." This additional matter
consisted of (1) an introduction written by Nilus himself, (2)
twenty-four documents purporting to be disconnected portions of the
report of a secret conclave of an organization of Jews called the Elders
of Zion, and (3) some commentaries thereon by Nilus. Now, it is very
significant that Nilus himself has given different accounts of the history
of these documents--accounts which differ so radically that they cannot
be reconciled.
Let us examine these various accounts very briefly. In the introduction
to the edition of 1905 Nilus tells us that in 1901 he came into
possession of the alleged protocols. He says that at the close of a series
of secret meetings of influential leaders of this conspiracy, held under
Masonic auspices, a woman stole from "one of the most influential and

most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry" certain documents which
turned out to be disconnected portions of the procès-verbaux of lectures
or reports made at the aforesaid meetings of the Elders of Zion. He says
that the protocols were "signed by representatives of Zion of the
Thirty-third Degree," but he does not give the names of such
signatories. This is of itself a suspicious circumstance, but a close
reading of the text reveals that it is only one of several equally
suspicious facts. Nilus does not claim to have seen the actual stolen
documents, the original protocols. On the contrary, he tells us that what
he received in 1901 was a document which he was assured was an
accurate translation of the stolen documents. His own words are: "This
document came into my possession some four years ago (1901) with
the positive assurance that it is a true copy in translation of original
documents stolen by a woman from one of the most influential and the
most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry." Nilus has not seen the
original manuscript, nor has any other known person. We have only the
word of Professor Nilus that somebody gave him assurance that certain
manuscripts were true and accurate translations of stolen documents of
great international importance. So far as Nilus himself knew, or cared,
apparently, the manuscript given, to him might well have been a
forgery.
We do not even know the date of the alleged secret meetings of the
Elders of Zion at which the lectures or reports, or whatever they were,
recorded in these protocols were made and, presumably, considered.
We do not know the name of the "most influential and most highly
initiated" leader of Freemasonry from whom the documents were said
to have been stolen. Neither do we know the name of the thief. We do
not know the name of the author of the alleged protocols, though
obviously it would make all the difference in the world whether these
are summaries of statements made by a responsible leader of the Jewish
people or the wild vaporings of such