The Jew and American Ideals | Page 7

Sukhotin also said that one copy of the manuscript was given by this
lady to Sipiagin, then Minister of the Interior, upon her return from
abroad, and that Sipiagin was subsequently killed. He said other things
of the same mysterious character. But when I first became acquainted

with the contents of the manuscript I was convinced that its terrible,
cruel, and straight-forward truth is witness of its true origin from the
"Zionist Men of Wisdom," and that no other evidence of its origin
would be needed.
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