* Title * Author * Contents * Part One * Part Two * Part Three * Supplements *

PART TWO THE PROTOCOLS

I. HOW THE PROTOCOLS CAME TO RUSSIA

  The word " protocol "i was used to signify a fly-leaf pasted at the top of an official document, bearing either the opening formula or a summary of the contents for convenient reference. The original draft of a treaty was usually pasted on in this way, that the signatories might check the correctness of the engrossed copy before signing. The draft itself being based on the discussion at the conference, the word came to mean also the minutes of the proceedings.

  In this instance " the protocols " mean the " draft of the plan of action " of the Jewish leaders. There have been many such drafts at different periods in Jewish history since the dispersion, but few of them have come into general circulation. In all, the principles and morality are as old as the tribe. By way of illustration we give an instance which occurred in the fifteenth century.

  In 1492, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion.2 This was the reply:

  " Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.

  The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:

  1. As for what you say that the King of Spain 3 obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.

  2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.

  3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians' lives.

  4. As for what you say of their destroying your syna gogues:  make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

  5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.

  6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.

(Signed) PRINCE OF THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE."

  The protocols given to the world by Nilus are only the latest known edition of the Jewish leaders programme. The story of how the latter came into general circulation is an interesting one.

  In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mile. Justine Glinka, was endeavouring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii4 in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst,5 member of the Miz-raim 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 Mile. Glinka.6

  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 riling it in the archives.7

  Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life8 which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent,9 to Mile. Glinka, and on her return to Russia she was banished to her estate in Orel. To the marechal de noblesse of this district, Alexis Sukhotin, Mile. Glinka gave a copy of the Protocols. Sukhotin showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus; the former had it printed and circulated privately in 1897; the second, Professor Sergius A. Nilus, published it for the first time in Tsarskoe-Tselo (Russia) in 1901, in a book entitled The Great Within the Small. Then, about the same time, a friend of Nilus, G. Butmi, also brought it out and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on August 10, 1906.

  Meantime, through Jewish members10 of the Russian police, minutes of the proceedings of the Basle congress11 in 1897 had been obtained and these were found to correspond with the Protocols.12

  In January 1917, Nilus had prepared a second edition, revised and documented, for publication. But before it could be put on the market, the revolution of March 1917 had taken place, and Kerenskii, who had succeeded to power, ordered the whole edition of Nilus's book to be destroyed. In 1924, Prof. Nilus was arrested by the Cheka in Kiev, imprisoned, and tortured; he was told by the Jewish president of the court, that this treatment was meted out to him for " having done them incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols ". Released for a few months, he was again led before the G. P. U. (Cheka), this time in Moscow and confined. Set at liberty in February 1926, he died in exile in the district of Vladimir on January 13, 1929.

  A few copies of Nilus's second edition were saved and sent to other countries where they were published: in Germany, by Gottfreid zum Beek (1919); in England, by The Britons (1920); in France, by Mgr. Jouin in La Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes, and by Urbain Gohier in La Vieille France; in the United States, by Small, Maynard & Co. (Boston 1920), and by The Beckwith Co (New York 1921). Later, editions appeared in Italian, Russian, Arabic, and even in Japanese.

  Such is the simple story of how these Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation.

  Mr. Stepanov's deposition'3 relative to it is here given as corroboration.

  " In 1895, my neighbour in the district of Toula, Major (retired) Alexis Sukhotin, gave me a manuscript copy of the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. He told me that a lady of his acquaintance, whose name he did not mention, residing in Paris, had found it at the house of a friend, a Jew. Before leaving Paris, she had secretly translated it and had brought this one copy to Russia and given it to Sukhotin.

  "At first I mimeographed this translation, but finding it difficult to read, I resolved to have it printed, making no mention of the date, town, or printer's name. In this I was helped by Arcadii Ippolitovich Kelepovskii, who at that time was chief of the household of Grand Duke Sergius.

  He gave the document to be printed by the district printing press. This took place in 1897. Sergius Nilus inserted these Protocols in his work and added his own commentary. (Signed) PHILIP PETROVICH STEPANOV."

Formerly Procurator of the Synod of Moscow, Chamberlain, Privy Councillor, and (in 1897) Chief of the Moscow Kursk Railway in the town of Orel. April 17, 1927.

Witnessed by PRINCE DIMITRI GALITZIN. President of the Russian Colony of Emigrants at Stari Fontag.

1. From Greek, protos (first) + holla (glue).

2. The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: " This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here."—vide, photostat facing page 80.

3. Ferdinand.

4. At that time Secretary to the Minister of the Interior, General Cherevin.

5. Alias Schapiro, whose father had been sentenced in London, two years previous, to ten years penal servitude for counterfeiting.

6. Schorst fled to Egypt where, according to French police archives, he was murdered.

7. On his death in 1896, he willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II.

8. Published under the pseudonym " Count Vassilii", their real author was Mme. Juliette Adam, using material furnished by Princess Demidov-San Donate, Princess Radzivill, and other Russians.

9. Among the Jews in the Russian secret service in Paris was Maniulov,  whose odious character  is  drawn by  M.  Pateologue, Memoires.

10. Notably Eno Azev and Efrom.  The latter, formerly a rabbi, died in 1925 in a monastery in Serbia, where he had taken refuge; he used to tell the monks that the protocols were but a small part of Jewish plans for ruling the world and a feeble expression of their hatred of the gentiles.

11. Supra, Part I.

12. The Russian government had learned that at meetings of the B'nai Brith in New-York in 1893-94, Jacob Schiff (supra, 52, 53) had been named chairman of the committee on the revol utionary movement in Russia.

13. The translation is the author's; appended facing page 81. a photostat of the original is

II. HOW AN AMERICAN EDITION WAS SUPPRESSED

  There is a saying in several languages that only the truth hurts. Recognizing the fact beneath this expression, one is little surprised at the zeal with which certain parties seek to disprove documentary evidence. If the evidence were false, then it would be ignored by those concerned and pass quickly into the realm of forgotten things. But if the evidence is genuine and open to verification from many angles, then the truth will hurt, and thus not be ignored.

  If this reasoning is correct, the violent methods used by the Jews, particularly those affiliated with the Zionist movement, to discredit and suppress the document entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would alone constitute a proof of its authenticity.

  Nilus and Butmi had published the document without comment. Its success was therefore entirely due to:

  1. The self-evident character of the document.

  2. The logical reasoning expressed in clear, simple terms;

  3. The explanation it gives of international politics;

  4. The fact that the events predicted in it have actually occurred since.

  But if its publishers gave no guarantee of its genuineness, those who have attacked it have failed even more conspicuously to discredit and refute it. To quote Nesta Webster, in her World Revolution:1

  "The truth is, then, that the Protocols have never been refuted, and the futility of the so-called refutations published, as also the fact of their temporary suppression, have done more to convince the public of their authenticity than all the anti-Semite writings on the subject put together".

  There is plenty of indisputable, documentary evidence which explains the Jewish plan of action, without recourse to the Protocols. Their importance lies in the fact that, published at a definite date, they foretold historical events which have upset the world, that they explained these events by the principles set forth in the work itself: this fact makes it superfluous to enquire whether the author of the Protocols is the Zionist Congress in corpore, a member of the congress, or some Jewish (or even Christian) thinker. Their source is of small moment: the facts, the relation of cause and effect, are there; the existence of the work prior to the events foretold in it can never be brought into question, and that is enough.

  The first attempt at refutation appeared in 1920, entitled, The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, by a Jew, Lucien Wolf; it was followed by articles in the Metropolitan (New York) signed " William Hard ". The effect of these articles, contrary to the intention of their authors, was to draw wider public attention to the existence of the Protocols. At the same time in America the Jewish Anti-Defamation League2 filled the papers with denunciations of the libel from all parts of the country, thus proving how powerful is Jewish organization. One of its members was Louis Marshall, and, as an illustration of its activity, the story of the suppression of the edition of the Protocols which an American publishing house tried to bring out, is instructive. It shows not only the pressure the Jews can bring to bear on anyone who dares to lift his finger against them, but their own mental attitude of absolute intolerance towards others, while demanding of the world complete acquiescence in their schemes.

  George Haven Putnam, head of the firm Putnam & Son, New York, after his annual visit to London, brought out in 1920 an American edition of The Cause of World Unrest.3

About the same time, he decided to issue The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in book form. Advance notices were released and the book set up and ready to go on the stands about October 15. On the eve of its appearance, Putnam received the following letter from Louis Marshall.4

MY DEAR SIR:

  As one who believes in those qualities that constitute the true American spirit, I have been greatly disturbed by the accounts given by the newspapers of the outrage to which you were subjected at the meeting held at Erasmus High School in Brooklyn the other evening. Knowing your patriotism, I can only regard the alleged cause, namely, that you had condemned the Declaration of Independence and were of the opinion that we owed an apology to England for severing our relations with her, as a slander, born of prejudice and ignorance.

  I had scarcely finished reading this episode which had thus aroused my indignation, when I found upon my table a book, bearing the imprint of your firm, entitled The Cause of World Unrest, bound in a flaming red and purporting to be a republication of articles that have recently appeared in the London Morning Post with which I had become familiar. To say that I was shocked that your honoured name should be made the vehicle of disseminating among the American people these outpourings of malice, intolerance and hatred, this witches' broth of virulent poison, is merely to confess the poverty of my vocabulary. On opening the book I turned to the publishers' note, which was apologetic and disclaimed responsibility for the publication. It was followed by an introduction which made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the book was to charge the Jews with an age-long conspiracy to destroy civilization in order that they might absorb the wealth and power of the world. Thus proclaimed, at length came the stupid drivel intended to support this thesis and calculated to make the Jew repulsive in the eyes of his fellow-men and to exterminate him, not figuratively, but literally, appealing, as it does, to the lowest passions and proceeding upon the same processes that were employed in the Middle Ages for the same object. Then it was the blood accusation, the charge of poisoning wells, of spreading plagues and pestilence, of the desecration of the Host. Now it is pretended conspiracy to overturn the economic system of the world by inciting warfare and revolution.

		Pict 1.   LA SILVA CURIOSA: Photostat of the letter from the Grand S;iiihc<lrin>l Conslnntinople to the Chief Rabbi of Spain in 1492, ID be ('omul in UK- sixteenth century Spanish book by Julio-lniguez (I'niis. Orry, I608). Pict 2.   LA SILVA CURIOSA: continued.
		Pict 3.   MR. STEPANOVS DEPOSITION: the story of how the Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation. Pict 4.   MR. STEPANOV'S DEPOSITION: continued

  The slightest knowledge of history, the most elementary capacity for analysis, or even a minute inkling as to what the Jew is and has been, would suffice to stamp this book and the forged Protocols on which it is based, as the most stupendous libel in history. These writings are the work of a band of conspirators who are seeking to continue to make the Jew, as he has been in all the centuries, the scapegoat of autocracy. The Protocols bear the hall-mark of the secret agents of the dethroned Russian bureaucracy, and the book which you have published is a mere babbling reiteration of what the murderers of the Ukraine, of Poland, and of Hungary are urging as justification for the holocausts of the Jews in which they have been engaged. It has been intimated, and there is much to sustain the theory, that the real purpose of these publications in the United States and in England is to arouse sufficient hostility against the Jews to subject them to mob violence and thus to give justification to those who have incited pogroms in Eastern Europe.

  I have also observed that, upon the cover of the book to which I am now referring, you are advertising the publication of The Protocols, which I unhesitatingly denounce as on their face palpable forgeries. If you were called upon to circulate counterfeit money or forged bonds, you would shrink in horror at the suggestion. What you have done and what you propose to do is, however, in morals, incalculably worse. You are assisting in spreading falsehoods, in uttering libels, the effect of which will be felt for decades to come. You are giving them respectability, whilst the name of the author is shrouded in secrecy. Even Mr. Gwynne does not avow paternity for the book which he has heralded. Much as you may desire to shake off responsibility, therefore, the real responsibility for hurling this bomb, for such it is, prepared though it has been by others, rests upon you. Whoever may read this book and is of such a low type of intelligence as to be influenced by it, will not be apt to draw the fine ethical distinctions with which you are seeking to salve your conscience. As a patriotic American, do you believe that you are contributing to the creation of that spirit of justice and fair-play, of unity and harmony, which is the very foundation of that Americanism for which every good citizen has yearned, when you stimulate hatred and passion by the publication of these dreadful falsehoods? If there should occur in this country, in consequence of those publications and those of Henry Ford, what is earnestly desired by the anti-Semites with whom you have arrayed yourself, do you suppose that, when the Almighty calls you to a reckoning and asks you whether you have ever borne false witness against your neighbour, you will be guiltless in His eyes because of your publishers' note disavowing responsibility ?

  I know that you must have been pained, as I was when I read of the treatment to which you were subjected, because of lying accusations directed against you. Are you able to appreciate the pain, the grief, the agony, that you are causing three millions of your fellow-countrymen and to millions of men, women and children in other parts of the world by your participation in the disgraceful and inhuman persecution which is now being insidiously carried on by means of publications in the distribution of which you are now actively engaged ? I look upon this as a tragedy.

Louis MARSHALL.

  Major Putnam, still feeling and sincerely believing that he was an independent American, though not a very brave one, for throughout he uses the name of Mr. Gwynne as a screen, answered:

                  New York, October 15th, 1920. DEAR MR. MARSHALL:

  Your letter of the 13th inst., which has to do with the publication of the volume entitled World Unrest and the announcement of the companion volume The Protocols, has been read before the members of our publishing board and has received the respectful consideration to which any communication from a citizen of your standing and reputation is assuredly entitled. I am asked by my associates to make report as follows as to our own understanding of the matters in question:

  1. We are not prepared to accept your view of the responsibility that attaches to a publishing imprint, or to the association of such imprint with one volume or another. We believe that our own policy in this matter is in accord with that of the leading publishing houses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be impossible to carry on the business of publishing books of opinion, whether the opinions have to do with the issues of to-day or with matters of the past, if the publisher was assumed to be in accord with the con clusions arrived at by one author or another.   It is the intention to bring into print only such volumes as may present on such issues information that is understood to

make an addition to the knowledge of the subject, or con clusions which appear to be entitled to consideration, to analysis, or possibly to refutation.

  2. We have on our own catalogue, for instance, volumes expressing almost every phase of theological or religious belief.   The list includes some books accepted by the Christian Scientists as fairly representative of their doctrines. In publishing such books we have, of course, no intention of

announcing ourselves as upholding the theories of the Christian Scientists any more than in the publication of a volume by a Presbyterian divine we have expressed our acceptance of the Westminster catechism, or in printing a book by an Episcopal friend, we have been prepared to approve the reasonableness of the thirty-nine articles.

  3. The volume,  World Unrest, was, as you will have noted, brought into publication in London at the instance of Mr. Gwynne, the scholarly editor of the Morning Post. You doubtless have knowledge of the journals of England and will realize that the Post does not belong to the sensation-monger journals like Bottomley's John Bull or Hearst's American. It is a conservative paper which has the reputation of avoiding sensational material.

  Mr. Gwynne had convinced himself that the papers brought into print in the Post, and later published under his direction in book form, were deserving of consideration. As we have stated in the publisher's note, we are not prepared to express any opinion whatsoever in regard to the so-called information presented, or as to the weight of the conclusions arrived at by the writer and endorsed by Mr. Gwynne. The recommendation came to us that, as the Gwynne volume used as a large part of its text the document entitled The Protocols, the readers of World Unrest would be interested in having an opportunity of examining the full text of The Protocols. You have already knowledge of this curious document. It has, it seems, been in print since 1905, and possibly earlier. An edition was published some months back by Eyre & Spottiswoode, conservative law publishers of London. The text that was brought to us is a translation freshly made from the Russian and is accompanied by a record of what is known of the original document.5

  It is evident that the document has, as you point out, no voucher for authenticity and it is quite possible that it will be found to possess no historic importance. Attention has again been directed to it during the past year simply on the ground, according at least to the understanding of Mr. Gwynne's author and of himself, that certain of the instructions given and policies recommended in The Protocols appear to have been carried out by the bolshevik government in Russia. Certain suggestions in The Protocols have also been connected with the policies of the Zionists, policies which, according to Mr. Gwynne and some other writers, are causing serious unrest in Palestine, Syria and Arabia.

  In presenting The Protocols to American readers in a carefully printed edition, we have not the least intention of expressing the view that the documents are authentic, or that they will in the end be considered as possessing historic authority.

  Mr Gwynne takes the ground that neither World Unrest nor The Protocols -themselves present charges against the Jews as a whole. They emphasize certain things that have been done, or are alleged to have been done, by certain groups of Jews. It would be as fair to say that a record of lynching in Texas or Arkansas, or a record of the attempt of the Bryan group to secure the payment of debts fifty cents on the dollar, was to be considered as a charge against the whole American people.

   Mr. Gwynne's associates take the ground that the leading Jews on both sides of the Atlantic, men whose patriotism is unquestioned, ought not to put these documents to one side as of trifling importance. The time may very properly have come at which the charges made as said, only against certain groups of Jews should be analyzed by the Jews whose judgments would be accepted as authoritative by English and American readers. If the charge is unfounded that bolshevism as carried on in Russia has been conducted largely under Jewish direction, the statement ought to be refuted.

  I received only yesterday a copy of a monthly entitled The Brooklyn Anti-Bolshevist. The magazine undertakes to make " defense of American institutions against the Jewish bolshevist doctrines of Morris Hillquit and Leon Trotzki." It seems to me that American citizens of the Jewish race (and the group comprises some of the best citizens that we have) might properly interest themselves in making clear to the public that there is no foundation for any charge against the World Patriotism of the Jewish race.6

  I wish very much that you might yourself be interested in preparing a volume that should give consideration to the whole subject matter and particularly, of course, to these publications which have come into print as a result of the world's indignation against the Moscow government.

  G. P. Putnam's Sons would be well pleased to associate the imprint of their New York and London Houses with such a volume from the pen of a distinguished jurist like yourself.

  One further thought occurs to me: You and I are believers in freedom of speech. We recognize that in war times certain reservations are in order for the sake of the nation, but we hold that, with the necessary reservations as to the rights of an individual, or as to a possible libel upon an individual, it is in order, and, from the point of view of the community, wise, to allow full freedom for platform utterances. If, however, this be true for the spoken word it should logically be applicable also to the word, that comes into print.

  In case you may be interested in considering the suggestion of a monograph from your pen to be prepared by yourself, or by some competent authority whom you might be able to interest, I should be ready to keep an appointment for a personal word at such time and place as you might find convenient.

  Submitting the suggestion for your consideration, I am, with cordial regards,

  Yours faithfully, GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM.

  The suggestion of a ' monograph' from Louis Marshall's pen was somewhat ironical. There is no doubt that on October, 15, 1920, Major Putnam still felt himself an independent American.

And the binding of The Protocols went on as usual.

  But on October 29th came one more letter from the president of the American Jewish committee:

        New York City, October 29th, 1920. MY DEAR SIR:

  Absence from the city and professional engagements have prevented me from replying earlier to yours of the 15th inst., in which you define your policy regarding the publication of The Cause of the World Unrest and your announcement of your intended publication of The Protocols.

  I cannot accept the theories on which you seek to justify acts which, in all moderation, I sought to characterize in my letter of the 13th inst. You disregard entirely the proposition on which my criticism is based. Nobody can go farther than I do in upholding the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. - It has been my privilege to aid in the creation of important precedents in furtherance of these fundamentals of liberty. Libel and slander, however, have always been looked upon in American law as abuses of a free press and of free speech and as attacks upon the integrity of the constitutional guarantees that you invoke. Nor do I question the right of any publisher to issue " books of opinion " to whatever subject the opinions may relate.

They may be polemical or they may attack the soundness of scientific, political or theological theories or doctrines. No fair-minded man would for a moment venture to find fault because of strictures directed against his cherished doxy.

  The Protocols and The Cause of World Unrest are not, however, books of opinion. They assume to deal with facts. The Protocols purport to be the pronouncements of so-called " Wise Men of Zion". The Cause of World Unrest undertakes to charge that the Jews and the Freemasons are together engaged in a conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the arrogation by them of world domination. It is these alleged facts that I denounce as falsehoods and as libels criminal in intent and criminal in their operation. The Protocols, which are made the basis of the Cause of World Unrest and which you properly describe as companion volumes, are so intrinsically false that even Mr. Gwynne concedes that he himself has a serious doubt as to their genuineness. That The Protocols are a fabrication similar to those that have appeared in every period of history, appears from every line of that document. I am credibly informed that the manuscript was offered for publication to seven different publishing houses in this country, who refused to have their names connected with it, before Small, Maynard & Co, undertook to issue it to the American public. The author of the Cause of World Unrest hides behind anonymity. You yourself speak of the author as being " Mr. Gwynne's author." Apparently even you do not know the pedigree of this incendiary book. Yet you have, I repeat, given it your endorsement by publishing it, even though you disavow responsibility. Your position is that of one who endorses a note to give it currency and at the same time makes a mental reservation against meeting his obligation.

  No, Major Putnam, the principle which you seek to establish will not work. Whoever touches pitch is defiled. Whoever retails falsehoods and spreads them, whether it be orally or through the medium of the press, is responsible for those falsehoods. It will not do to say that you have many friends among the Jews whom you respect and that these books are not intended to reflect upon all Jews. The world is not so discriminating. People whose passions are aroused

do not differentiate. The forger of The Protocols and the mysterious author of The Cause of World Unrest make no distinctions. Neither did their prototypes of the middle ages, nor the black hundreds of modern Russia, indulge in such refinements. Troy and Tyre were alike to them.

   Do not for a moment misunderstand me. I contend that there are no Jews who are now engaged or who have ever been engaged in a conspiracy such as that charged by you as existing in these books which emerge smoking from your presses. The cry of Bolshevism will not suffice. Your reference to the Brooklyn Anti-Bolshevist shows what a sad pass you have reached. To shelter yourself behind the bulwarks of an infamous pasquinade of the guttersnipe variety and to insinuate that because that sheet pretends to defend American institutions " against the Jewish bolshevist doctrines of Morris Hillquit and Leon Trotzki " you may therefore descend to the same depths, is a revelation to me. I had not believed that any real, true American would thus lend himself to the creation of ill-will and malevolence. The fact that out of the mass of Russian Jews there is an infinitesimal percentage who are Bolshevists, affords no justification for laying the sins of Bolshevism at the door of the Jewish people. To say that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement is as ridiculous as to say that the Jews are responsible for capitalism, or because there are Jewish musicians, actors and poets, that music, the drama and poetry are Jewish movements.

  I am not a Zionist, and yet I regard the slurs that these books are attempting to make against Zionism to be unworthy. The very Zionists whom these books are attacking have been persecuted by the Bolsheviks and have been denounced as counter-revolutionists, just as the mass of the Jews of Russia have been pursued as members of the bourgeoisie. I am not a member of the Masonic or of any other secret order, but the attempt in these books to charge Freemasonry with participation in such a conspiracy as is proclaimed almost argues the existence of a pathological condition on the part of the author that betokens mental aberration. When one remembers that fifteen of the presidents of the United States, including George Washington, have been Freemasons, it is unnecessary to go further in condemnation of these volumes which you are pleased to denominate " books of opinion ".

  I had not believed that a Jew in this country would ever be called upon to occupy the humiliating position of defending his people against the charges such as those which are being spread broadcast through your agency. If ever the time comes when it shall be desirable to answer such books, I am quite sure that it will be unnecessary for me to avail myself of your invitation to make use of the services of your firms as publishers.

Very truly yours, Louis MARSHALL.

  Two days later, Putnam bowed before the will of Jewry in the following terms:

                        November 1st, 1920. DEAR MR MARSHALL:

  Mr Gwynne, at whose instance we brought into print the American edition of his volume on World Unrest, had taken the ground that the publication of the document known as The Protocols might throw light on the organization of the Bolshevists. Their operations have caused grave concern throughout the world and they are, therefore, a matter of legitimate public discussion.

  It was his opinion that if it had not been for the apprehension aroused by bolshevism, the document would probably have been permitted to rest in obscurity.

  An edition of The Protocols was, therefore, published in London by Eyre & Spottiswoode, law publishers of high standing.

  It had seemed to us that the readers of " The World Unrest " were entitled to have the opportunity of examining the complete document (to which frequent references are made in Mr Gwynne's volume) and we had, therefore, undertaken the publication of a carefully prepared translation by us, which is now nearly in readiness, and has involved a considerable outlay.

  We now find, however, that an edition printed in Boston is being distributed as a regular publication. There is no necessity for bringing into print another volume containing substantially the same material. We have decided, therefore, in deference to the objections raised by yourself, and by my valued friend, Oscar Strauss, not to proceed1 with the publication. I am, Yours very truly.

GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM.

What had taken place between October 29 and November 1 ? Putnam wrote to one of the parties interested that so much pressure was brought to bear on him that he had to give up publishing The Protocols, and would be obliged to withdraw unsold copies of World Unrest. It is safe to conclude that Putnam's firm was threatened with bankruptcy if it persisted. We understand that Small, Maynard & Co. of Boston and The Beckwith Co. of New York and in fact practically every firm which has published The Protocols had difficulties within a year or two. Of course it is said that that is purely accidental: but it was just such an " accident " that Putnam wished to avoid!

1. 1st edition, p. 305.

2. This League compelled the Beckwith Co, which subsequently published the Protocols after Putnam's withdrawal, to insert in every copy sold a copy of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League's refutation.

3. The reproduction in book form of a series of articles which had appeared in the Morning Post of London.

4. See ante, ch. V.

5. This edition prepared by G. H. Putnam was subsequently published by The Beckwith Company, 299 Madison Avenue, New York.

6. Our italics.

7. Our italics.

III.   MORE ATTEMPTS AT REFUTATION THE LONDON TIMES LENDS A HAND

While the Jews have succeeded in having the Protocols   suppressed,   entirely   in   Russia, Poland, Rumania, and other countries in Eastern Europe, and partially in England and America, they have failed in their many ingenious efforts to have them refuted by non-Jews.   Indeed the so-called refutations with which their henchmen flooded the press in 1920-21 reveal more of the real nature, workings, and associations of the Jews and their agents than they rebut the evidence of the Protocols.

  It is noteworthy that not one of these numerous and contradictory refutations bears an honest, non-Jewish signature. There is the article of the notorious Princess Radzivill1 published in the Jewish Tribune (New York) for March 11, 1921, and followed by a statement by her friend, Mrs. Hurlbut. The former2 makes no mention of Mile. Glinka and describes the forgery of the protocols by Golovinskii and a renegade Jew, Manassevich Manuilov, in Paris in 1904 ". Further on, oblivious of chronology, she states that General Cherevin willed her his memoirs, including the protocols, at the time of his death in 1896. Golovinskii and Manuilov might, it would seem, have saved themselves trouble by procuring a copy of the document, which, according to Mr. Stepanov's testimony,3 had been printed and privately circulated in 1897.

  Another person who wrote against the protocols, A. du Chayla, can hardly be taken more seriously. An article of his appeared on May 14, 1921, in the Tribune Juive of Paris; and later, another article on June 13 in the New York Call, a violent Communist sheet, besides articles in Soviet publications. Prof. Nilus mentions in one of his books4 meeting this Frenchman, who then paraded as a devotee of the Russian Orthodox Church. The character of this adventurer is well drawn in the reply his articles drew from a Russian lady, Madame Fermor, which is given in full.

  " Lately there appeared in the Russian paper Poslednii Novosti, Nos. 331-332 a series of articles by Count Alexander de Chayla, in which he casts doubt on the authenticity of a certain document (The Protocols of the Elders of Ziori), because obtained by a man who did not inspire confidence.

  "If the value of a document be based on the credit of the person by whom it is produced, one must also analyze the character of him who discredits it.

  "That is why I am prompted to narrate how I became acquainted with Count du Chayla.

  "I usually spent the summer on my estate in White Russia, in a village near Moguileff, where there is a famous convent. There, one day, about ten years ago, I was visited by the Superior, the Archimandrite Arsene, who introduced a young man, Count du Chayla. Du Chayla had been sent to the convent to study the Russian language and the Orthodox religion of which he pretended to be a devotee.

  "Mr. Sabler5 had invited him to come to Russia and sent him to the celebrated monastery of Optina Poustine, whence he was sent to our monastery to serve as an example of anti-Catholic propaganda.

  "It must be admitted that he lived up to his character and showed himself more of a Russian Orthodox than the Patriarch himself. Thanks to his zeal, beautifully sculptured angels in the Renaissance style were removed from the chapel of our monastery: du Chayla found them too Catholic. He told me the great joy he felt when he smashed these angels with a hammer. When I reproached him with an act of vandalism, his intolerance betrayed itself in the hatred which he then manifested against the Jews. Many a time I heard him say: " One must have a good pogrom in Russia." One can understand my astonishment when I read in his articles a false accusation of propaganda for pogroms against the White Army, which he now blames, he, who so loudly proclaimed that pogroms were a necessity! It is from him that I heard of the existence of Drumont's books, which he praised eloquently; he used to advise me to read them that I might understand to what extent the Jews had conquered France. He used to predict that the same fate would overtake Russia, if ever the Jews were granted full civil rights.

  "Great was my surprise when I read du Chayla's attack on Drumont, whose books he now calls lies. He, who had so much admired Drumont.

  "As I followed du Chayla's life in Russia, I was amazed to see the extraordinary rapidity of his political and ecclesiastical career. He became an intimate friend of the Bishops known for their Orthodoxy, and he preached the sacred and absolute power of the Russian Monarch and implacable hatred towards all foreigners. We saw du Chayla as an intimate friend of the Bishops Anthony of Volinia and Evlogii of Holm, frequent the famous salon of Countess Ignatieff. As he rose in Russian society, his activities shifted from the religious field: he took up politics, and, as a follower of Count Bobrinsky, leader of the Pan-Slavic Party, he was sent to Austria on a secret mission among the Galicians. He was subsequently arrested for espionage.

  "After his return to Russia, he directed a violent campaign against the smaller racial groups of the empire, especially against the Poles and Finns. As du Chayla was always in need of money, I recommended him to the president of the commission for the affairs of Finland, Mr. Korevo, who used him for anti-Finnish propaganda in the foreign press. At the time of the declaration of war, du Chayla was a student in the theological academy of Petrograd; he was appointed chief of a field hospital organized by Bishop Pitirim and provided with funds from Rasputin. Then I lost sight of him until after the revolution, when I heard of him as an agent provocateur, inciting the Cossacks against the White Army. In 1919 du Chayla was tried by court martial and convicted of seditious activities in the pay of the Soviets. The sentence was published in the newspapers of the Crimea.

"I was astonished to find his name appended to an article in a Russian newspaper notorious for its equivocal position concerning the reconstruction of Russia. (Signed) TATIANA FERMOR."

June 9th, 1921—Paris.

  Not satisfied—and rightly so—with these efforts to discredit the Protocols, and yet unable to attach the signature of a noted gentile writer to their denials, the Jews sought another expedient: the seal of approval of one of the best known newspapers would impress the general public. Heretofore the articles had borne the name of private persons: now an official exposure of the protocols was to be published over the signature of the " Correspondent of The London Times in Constantinople ". The identity of the " correspondent " was not revealed,^ although the most elementary sense of justice would insist on giving full credit to the gentleman who had made such a momentous discovery. Nor is there any evidence of his having been in Constantinople. Anyone who writes to the editor of a newspaper is a correspondent, and the number of lies which gain circulation in this fashion is notorious. The " sensational discovery " which. The Times1 thus gave to its readers was that the protocols were a " clumsy plagiarism " of a French book it called " The Dialogues of Geneva", published in Brussels in 1865.

The " correspondent" tells in a easy, off-hand manner and with perfect self-assurance, about meeting in Constantinople a Mr. W, who said: " Read this book through and you will find irrefutable proof that the Protocols of the Learned Elders ofZion is a plagiarism ".

  So it wasn't the correspondent who deserved the credit for the " sensational discovery " after all; but a " Mr. X, a Russian landowner with English connexions ". Again, it is a pity that the gentleman should not have given his name and received the large reward which would surely have been his, from those who have been so active in suppressing and refuting the Protocols.

  Then follows the story of Mr. X, with his views on religion, politics, secret societies, and the rest: this Mr. X is an old-fashioned gentleman and the reader is ready to believe every word, as reported by " our correspondent". Mr. X. explains how he obtained the copy of the Geneva Dialogues from an old Okhrana officer; this establishes the fact that the Russian police had made use of the book to forge the Protocols. In fact the " correspondent " goes on to identify this very copy of the Geneva Dialogues as belonging to A. Sukhotin—there is an " A. S. " scratched in the back which is conclusive—and from which the protocols were plagiarized and given to Nilus. Parallel passages from the Dialogues and the protocols are set opposite each other; and the English reader, never at home in Continental politics, is led into speculations on Napoleon Ill's relations with the Carbonari, his employment of Corsicans in the police, the employment of Corsicans by the Russian police, the knowledge Corsicans had of the existence of the Geneva Dialogues, Joly's purpose in writing them, the influence of Philippe, a Lyons mystic, on the Tsar, and so on, until the reader is completely overwhelmed. When he has reached this state, he is told: " At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend [of the Protocols] may be allowed to pass into oblivion."

  The publication of this news from Constantinople was hailed by all the Jews, whose instant enthusiasm is no less revealing than the following letter from a leading Zionist, which appeared in The Times on the same day as the "discovery".

  To the Editor—The Times,

"Sir,

  Your Constantinople correspondent, who has done a world service in tracking to their source the Protocols (for they have been carefully published throughout the world), says: "There is no evidence to show how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia." In your leading article, however, you suggest that the protocols were forged under the auspices of Rachkovskii, head of the Russian secret police in Paris. This appears to be the truth. M. A. du Chayla, a French student of theology at St. Petersburg in 1910, who was in 1918 on the staff of the army of the Cossacks of the Don, has testified through the Tribune Juive (Paris, May 14, 1921) that Nilus told him that the protocols were sent him from Paris by his friend, Mme. K—, who had received them from General Rachkovskii. M. du Chayla confirms a suggestion of yours, that the courier who brought the ms. from Paris was Alexander Sukhotin. He has seen this very ms., which, being in poor French and varying penmanship, suggests a complex authorship in the Russian police bureau. The fact that the Geneva Dialogues have now been bought from an exmember of it, completes the chain.

  That the object of the publication of 1905 was to drown the Russian revolution in Jewish blood, I, like you, have asserted. But it appears that there was a previous edition in 1902 in the shape of an appendix to a reprint of a pietistic work by Nilus, and the motive behind this earlier publication throws another curious sidelight upon the old Russian court. For that publication was apparently a move in the game to discredit in favour of Nilus a Lyons mystic. Philippe, of whose power over the Tsar the Grand Duchess Elizabeth disapproved. Knowing that Nilus was designed as Philippe's supplanter, Rachkovskii, it is thought, wished to secure his good graces by providing him with a valuable weapon against Russian liberalism.

  I am sorry that your correspondent should conclude with the suggestion that those parts of the protocols not in the Geneva Dialogues may possibly have been supplied by Jews who spied on their co-religionists; for this far-fetched hypothesis gives a gleam of hope to the considerable number of organs throughout Europe that live only in the Protocols. Now is your correspondent accurate in thinking that only moral harm has been done by this historic forgery? M. du Chayla offers evidence that it has helped to goad on those countless pogroms in the Ukraine, of whose horrors Western Europe is almost ignorant. As for Nilus, he appears to be a fanatical mystagogue, honest enough except for that theological twist which betrayed itself when, confronted by the suspicion that the Protocols were forged, he replied: " Even if they were, God who could speak through Balaam's ass, could also put the truth in a liar's mouth."

Yours gratefully,

                                 ISRAEL ZANGWILL ". Far End, East Preston, Sussex, August 18, 1921.

  Since then, to some extent, the Protocols have been forgotten. But, Audiatur et altera pars, in the words of Max Nordau.8 The Times " correspondent " would convince us that there are similar or identical passages to be found in the Protocols and in the Dialogues; and this we readily admit. We go farther: identical passages will be found in earlier Protocols9 which go back to the days before the dispersion.

  By way of illustration, let it be assumed that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Church were unknown to the Jews. Suppose, then, that a copy of it were secretly obtained by a certain Jew and published, and that the Jews were shocked by the Anglican doctrine of which they learned in this way for the first time. It would then be easy for another Jew to show that the Book of Common Prayer was a plagiarism: it contains passages copied, word for word, from the Gospels; the Psalms are a transcript from King James' Bible; and so on. And not only that, but there are many parallels to be found in the secular literature. " At any rate ", one can imagine the second Jew saying at the end, " the fact of plagiarism has been conclusively established, and we may therefore affirm that no such Book of Common Prayer is used in the worship of the Church of England."

  The second Jew would be right in pointing out the parallels in the earlier literature—though his conclusion would be ridiculous—for there is a very real connection: and so it is with the Protocols.

  One might have thought that The Times, in its desire to publish the truth about the Protocols, would at least have given the correct title of the Geneva Dialogues, it is, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. Moreover a minute's search in a library catalogue shows that another book, bearing a similar title, was published some years earlier: namely, Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey, published by Franz Dunnicker in Berlin in 1850. The Times, with its interest in plagiarisms, might have been tempted to glance at this latter volume as also at The Prince by Machiavelli and L'Esprit des Lois by Montesquieu. Had it done so, its curiosity would have been amply rewarded: passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarised from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several10 in Venedey's book of 1850, and both Jacob Venedey and Maurice Joly should be branded as plagiarists.

  But the resemblance between the Protocols and Venedey's book does not stop with a few parallel passages: the spirit of both is the same; it is revolutionary, whereas the Dialogues of 1865 are socialistic and polemical. The anonymous author merely borrowed certain descriptive passages in Venedey to give colour to his argument.11

  Now hadn't The Times better discover a copy of Venedey belonging to a former Okhrana officer, so as to explain how the Russian secret police were able to plagiarize the spirit, as well as a few platitudes and descriptive bits, when forging the Protocols ? Its correspondent in Peiping might make that discovery some day? No, the Peiping correspondent (or any other) will be-very careful not to make that discovery, for the simple reason that Venedey was a Jew, whereas

The Times' point is that the Jews had nothing to do with the drafting of the Protocols. Its argument is that the author of the Dialogues was a Corsican; that the Corsicans in the Paris Police preserved the Dialogues and gave a copy to the Corsican members of the Russian police, who used it to forge the Protocols: these insidious Corsicans!12 But what of Venedey ?

  Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris where, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Proscrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cr6mieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy, Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the years 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, " The Communist League of Workers " (later the " Societe internationale de la Democratic ").

  After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as a member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machia-yelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, stressing the views attributed to Machiavelli and Rousseau in favour of despotism and oppression.13

  When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Free Masons and affiliated with the Carbonari;14 he was also closely associated not only with the revolution  12. It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice ofprotest against the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicanswho are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews tionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Univer-selle.15 The latter included men of as different political parties as the reactionary-imperialist Fould, the liberal-conservative Disraeli, and the communist-revolutionary Marx, and whether living under an empire, a constitutional monarchy or a republic, all laboured towards a common aim, the establishment of an international Jewish world power.16 Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cr6mieux (1798-1880). A Nimes lawyer with an ardent admiration for Napoleon, he became legal adviser to the Bonaparte family and an intimate of Louis Napoleon with whom he joined in overthrowing the government of Louis Philippe in 1849. A member of the Mizraim Lodge, the Scottish Rite (of which he became Supreme Master on the death of Viennet), he was familiar with all new movements; and his influence enabled him to render at least one important service to Jewry by having the Jewish murderers of Father Thomas in Damascus (1841) set at liberty. One of the leaders in the revolution of February ] 848, he was appointed minister of justice under the provisional government, and used all his political influence in the election of Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the republic. Cremieux hoped in this way to be named Prime Minister and to control French policy for a period, as Disraeli did in England somewhat later. Like Disraeli, he had the financial support of the Rothschilds; but when the President chose for his banker another Jew, Fould, and named General Cavaignac premier, Cremieux saw he had lost. Bitterly disappointed, he became so hostile to his former friend that, at the time of the coup d'e"tat in 1851, he was imprisoned at Vincennes. On his release, he identified himself with the enemies of the emperor; these included the communist associates of Marx, Mazzini, Jacob Venedey (already mentioned), Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly.17

  Joly, some thirty years younger than Cr6mieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cr6mieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating it. And this chance came in 1864-1865, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Crdmieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In this work he tells us,18 " Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy ". It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: it was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expressions which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: " Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one's ends—in that at least, I am a Jacobin."19

The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinlydisguised satire: Joly was arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment (April, 1865). But the Dialogues had pleased Cremieux as much as they had displeased the emperor, and, when his term expired, his Jewish patron rallied to his support: Joly was able to found a legal review, Le Palais, with Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Arago, Berryer, and Adolphe Cremieux as its principal stockholders.

  With the fall of Napoleon III, Adolphe Cremieux once more took an open part in politics. Pushing to the front his former secretary, Gambetta, he directed through him the negotiations with Bismarck. Bismarck himself was guided by the Jew Bamberger (1832-1899), a former revolutionary of '48, but who had for years managed the Paris branch of the Jewish bank Bischofsheim & Gold-schmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the negotiations was the son of James Rothschild.20 In this way, care was taken that the treaty should be satisfactory, if not entirely to the signatories, yet at least so to the Alliance Israelite Universelle.

  From then (1871) until his death in 1880, as President of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and Supreme Master of the Scottish Rite, Cremieux was one of the promoters of the anti-clerical movement following the Franco-Prussian war. His favourite theme was that there should be one cult: speaking at a general assembly of the Alliance he said: " The Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavour boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of " Union and Progress ": such is the motto of humanity."21

  One cult, one flag. Are the Protocols of Nilus, or the words of Machiavelli in Joly's book or in Venedey's book, anything but an elaborate exposition of the ideas thus briefly expressed by Cremieux? His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism. Thus the principal attempt to discredit the Protocols leads directly into historical studies which substantiate and illustrate their doctrine in a remarkable and unexpected manner.

1. Princess Catherine Radzivill was convicted of forgery in London on April 30,1902, the amount involved being ?3,000, and was sentenced to two years in prison (London Times, April 16, 29, and May 1, 1902). On October 13, 1921, suit was filed against her by the Hotel Embassy, New York, for failure to pay her bill of $1,239, and on October 30 she

was arrested on the instance of the Hotel Shelbourne, New York, on a charge of defrauding the hotel of $352. (New York World, Oct. 14 and

31, 1921). Later she went to live with her friend Mrs. Hurlbut at 503 West 124th Street, New York.

2. She was one of the Russian Liberals in Paris in 1884 who furnished Mme. Juliette Adam with details of Russian court life. She has since claimed the authorship of the books by " Count Vassilii", really written by Mme. Adam.

3. Supra, p. 75.

4. Entitled On the Bank of the River of God.

5. Sabler was Procurator of the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg: he supported Rasputin and other pseudo-mystics and had a disastrous influence on the Russian Church. (Cf. Paleologue, Memoires, 1927).

6. Philip Graves.

7. August 16, 17, 18, 1921: the articles were reprinted in a booklet entitled, The Truth about The Protocols, 24 pages.

8. Supra, p. 41 (note 25).

9. Supra, pp. 71, 72.

10. For example, the passage referring to Vishnu is found in Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, in the Dialogues, and in Protocol

12, infra.

11. Space does not allow us here to trace the links between Jacob Venedey, the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Adolphe Cre'mieux, Maurice Joly, and Jules Janin.

13. Another case of plagiarism at work!

14. Cf. Die Bauhiitte, Feb. 1871, date of Venedey's death.

15. Supra, p. 30.

16. In his novel Coningsby (London, 1844), Disraeli draws a picture from life of the Jews ruling the world from behind thrones as graphic as anything in the Protocols of Nilus. (It is expected that The Times will shortly be in a position to establish conclusively that Coningsby is a plagiarism of a Byzantine novel of the XVIIth century). The passage in which Rothschild (Sidonid) describes this runs as follows:

  " If I followed my own impulse, I would remain here," said Sidonia. " Can anything be more absurd than that a nation should apply to an individual to maintain its credit, and with its credit, its existence as an empire and its comfort as a people; and that individual one to whom its laws deny the proudest rights of citizenship, the privilege of sitting in its senate and of holding land; for though I have been rash enough to buy several estates, my own opinion is that by the existing law of England, an Englishman of Hebrew faith cannot possess the soil."

" But surely it would be easy to repeal a law so illiberal." " Oh! as for illiberality, I have no objection to it if it be an element of power. Eschew political sentimentality. What I contend is that if you permit men to accumulate property, and they use that permission to a great extent, power is inseparable from that property, and it is in the last degree impolitic to make it in the interest of any powerful class to oppose the institutions under which they live. The Jews, for example, independent of the capital qualities for citizenship which they possess in their industry, temperance, and energy and vivacity of mind, are a race essentially monarchical, deeply religious, and shrinking themselves from converts as from a calamity, are ever anxious to see the religious systems of the countries in which they live, flourish; yet since your society has become agitated in England and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the once loyal Hebrew invariably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveller and the latitudinarian, and prepared to support rather than tamely continue under a system which seeks to degrade him. The Tories lose an important election at a critical moment; 'tis the Jews come forward to vote against them. The Church is alarmed at the scheme of a latitudinarian university, and learns with relief that funds are not forthcoming for its establishment; a Jew immediately advances and endows it. Yet the Jews, Coningsby, are essentially Tories. Toryism indeed is but copied from the mighty

prototype which has fashioned Europe. And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society which is hostile to them. Do you think that the quiet humdrum persecution of a decorous representative of an English university can crush those who have successively baffled the Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome, and the feudal ages? The fact is you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organisation. It is a physiological fact; a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, and Christian inquisitors. No penal laws, no physical tortures, can effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed by it. The mixed persecuting races disappear, the pure persecuted race remains. And at this moment, in spite of centuries, or tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect.

   " You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews: that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution (of 1848) which will be in fact a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. Neander, the founder of Spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew. Benary, equally famous, and in the same university, is a Jew. Wehl, the Arabic Professor of Heidelberg, is a Jew. Years ago, when I was in Palestine, I met a German student who was accumulating materials for the history of Christianity and studying the genius of the place; a modest and learned man. It was Wehl; then unknown, since become the first Arabic scholar of the day, and the author of the life of Mahomet. But for the German professors of this race, their name is legion. I think there are more than ten at Berlin alone.

  " I told you just now that I was going up to town to-morrow, because I always made it a rule to interpose when affairs of state were on the carpet. Otherwise, I never interfere. I hear of peace and war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the sovereigns want treasure; then I know that monarchs are serious.

  " A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the Court of St Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favour of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar. However circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias. I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew. The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I travelled without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon. In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal and very properly so, for who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts? "

" And is Soult a Hebrew? "

  " Yes, and others of the French marshals, and the most famous, Massena, for example; his real name was Mannaseh: but to my anecdote. The consequence of our consultations was that some northern power should be applied to in a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia, and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes (pp. 249-252).

17. His father was Philippe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Attorney- General of the Jura under Louis-Philippe for ten years. His mother, Florentine Corbara Courtois, was the daughter of Laurent Courtois, paymaster-general of Corsica, who had an inveterate hatred of Napo leon I. Maurice Joly was born in 1831 at Lons-le-Saulnier and educated

at Dijon: there he had begun his law studies, but left for Paris in 1849 to secure a post in the Ministry of the Interior under M. Chevreau and just before the coup d'etat. He did not finish his law studies till 1860. Committed suicide in 1878.

18. Maurice Joly:   son passe,  son programme  (autobiography), Paris, 1870.

19. Ibid.

20. Bismarck, who had met the latter's grandfather, knew that Rothschild's real name was Meyer, and regarded him as an " Israelitish citizen of Frankfurt", hence a German subject.  To make matters worse, the victor was obliged to discuss the terms of peace with this renegade subject in French, the language of the vanquished, because

Rothschild professed not to understand German.   Corti, House of Rothschild, vol. II.

21. Speech made on May 31, 1864;  " Union and Progress " was the name given to several revolutionary associations and Masonic lodges.  " One cult" is strongly reminiscent of Protocol XVI, infra. Cf. Cr6mieux, Paris, Capitate des Religions.

IV. TEXT AND COMMENTARY OF THE PROTOCOLS

  The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion may be briefly described as a blueprint for the domination of the world by a secret brotherhood. Whatever may be the truth about their authorship—and, as will be shown, this has been the subject of bitter dispute—there can be no doubt that the world society to which they look forward is nothing more or less than a world police state.

  The book in which the Protocols were first embodied was published by Professor Sergyei A. Nilus in Russia in 1905, a copy being received in the British Museum on August 10th, 1906. Professor Nilus's concern was to expose what he believed to be a ruthless, cold-blooded conspiracy for the destruction of Christian civilisation. Earlier, in August and September, 1903, the Russian newspaper Snamia had published the Protocols, and they are also believed to have been published in the winter of 1902/1903 in the newspaper Moskowskija Wiedomosti. They remained unknown outside Russia, however, until after the Bolshevik Revolution, when Russian emigrants brought Nilus's book to North America and Germany.

  The similarity between what was forecast in the Protocols and the fate which had befallen Russia under the Bolsheviks was so marked that, after these long years of neglect, they rapidly became one_of the most famous (or notorious) documents in the world.

  In Bolshevik Russia, the penalty for their mere possession was death. It remains so to this day, both in the Soviet Union and in the Satellite countries. Outside the Iron Curtain, in South Africa possession of the Protocols is also forbidden by law, although the penalty is less drastic.

As a result of their rapidly growing fame, numerous attempts were made to discredit the Protocols as a forgery. But it was not until 1933 that the Jews resorted to legal action. On 26th June, 1933, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Switzerland and the Berne Jewish Community brought an action against five members of the Swiss National Front, seeking a judgment that the Protocols were a forgery and a prohibition of their publication.1 The procedure of the Court was astounding, the provisions of the Swiss Civil Code being deliberately set aside. Sixteen witnesses called by the plaintiffs were heard, but only one of the forty witnesses called by the defendants was allowed a hearing. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to appoint two private stenographers to keep the register of proceedings during the hearing of their witnesses, instead of entrusting the task to a Court official.

  In view of these and similar irregularities, it was not surprising that, after the case had lasted just on two years, the Court pronounced the Protocols to be a forgery and demoralising literature. The decision was given on 14th May, 1935, but it was announced in the Jewish Press before it was delivered by the Court I

  On 1st November, 1937, the Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal quashed this judgment in its entirety. Jewish propagandists, however, still declare that the Protocols have been "proved" to be a forgery.

  It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focussing more public attention on other revealing utterances.

  In Disraeli's The Life of Lord George Bentinck, written in 1852, there occurs this quotation:—

  "The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments and men of Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure."

  Max Nordau, a Jew, speaking at the Zionist Congress at Basle in August 1903, made this astonishing "prophesy":—

  "Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference, where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created."

  Walter Rathenau, the Jewish banker behind the Kaiser, writing in the German Weiner Frei Presse, December 24th 1912, said:—

  "Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage."

  Confirmation of Rathenau's statement came twenty years later in 1931 when Jean Izoulet, a prominent member of the Jewish Alliance Israelite Universelle, wrote in his Paris la Capitale des Religions:—

  "The meaning of the history of the last century is that today 300 Jewish financiers, all Masters of Lodges, rule the world."

  The London Jewish Chronicle, on April 4th, 1919, declared :—

  "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." and on March 15th, 1923, the Jewish World asserted:—

"Fundamentally Judaism is Anti-Christian."

  These and many similar assertions from Jewish sources were damaging enough from the Jewish point of view. Taken in conjunction with the Protocols, with which more and more people were becoming familiar, they were damning.

  The attitude of many people whose concern over the growing attack on Christian civilisation was rapidly increasing was summed up by the late Henry Ford senior, the founder of the world-famous motor manufacturing company. In an interview published in the New York World on February 17th, 1921, Mr. Ford declared:

  "The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW."

  Those who, like Henry Ford, could see that "they fit it now" only sixteen years after Nilus's first publication of the Protocols, naturally tended to concentrate their attention on the relatively recent phenomenon of Bolshevism. Few of them then understood the equally dangerous, if more insidious, danger of internationalism.

  Now, however, more than half a century after Nilus's publication of the Protocols, the reality of that danger must be crystal clear to anybody who views the world situation objectively.

  The Protocols are full of references to a "super-Government". Protocol VI, for example, states:—

  "In every possible way we must develop the significance of our super-Government by representing it as the Protector and Benefactor of all those who voluntarily submit to us."

  That is exactly the way in which the United Nations organisation, set up at the end of the second World War, is represented to those who voluntarily submit to it.

  It is exactly the way the various United Nations special agencies—U.N.E.S.C.O. (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation); I.L.O. (International Labour Organisation); W.H.O. (World Health Organisation); F.A.O. (Food and Agriculture Organisation); Commission on Human Rights; Genocide Convention, etc.—are represented.

  For some years there has been in existence an international organisation calling itself the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government, which pursues the same objective as that of another long-established international organisation, Federal Union. This body does not disguise the fact that the United Nations, by means of a few relatively minor changes in its Charter, could be transformed virtually overnight into a World Government.

  There has long been agitation for the creation of a World Police Force. This would enable the United Nations super-Government to function as the master of an all-powerful World Police State, and the closing years of the 1950'.? have seen the agitators for a World Police Force come close to achieving their objective. The U.N. Emergency Force, established after the Suez crisis of 1956, has been openly regarded as a "pilot scheme".

  Should the few changes in the Charter necessary to transform the U.N. into a super-Government be made, it will have in the special agencies ready made Ministries of Education (or Propaganda), Labour, Health, Food and Agriculture, "Justice" etc.

  Can it be an accident that these things are so accurately fore-shadowed in the Protocols?

  The full-scale World super-Government is not the only, nor perhaps the most immediate, danger. It is obvious to everyone that the nations of the East are being herded into subjection under the dominance of the Soviet Union. But what of the nations of the West? Are they really the "free nations" which they are popularly supposed to be?

  Far from it! They are being herded into the same sort of pen as are the nations of the East under Communism—and often on the pretext that this is the only way in which they can save themselves from Communism. Late in 1957, the process had gone far enough to be given an official name. That name was the "policy of inter-dependence".

  The nations of the West are being brought under international control at political, military and economic levels. They are rapidly in process of becoming controlled also on the social level. All alike are being told that their only hope lies in the surrender of national sovereignty.

  National Parliaments must give way to such bodies as the Council of Europe or the Atlantic Council. National Forces must be submerged in such bodies as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (N.A.T.O.), the Baghdad Pact or the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (S.E.A.T.O.), so that no nation has control over its own means of defence. National economies must be submerged in such bodies as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.), the European Payments Union (E.P.U.) or the World Bank, so that no nation may control its own economic destiny.

  Even on the social level, individual national distinctions must disappear. For example, under the "Common Market" Treaty which unites six European nations on the economic plane, provision is made for the "equalisation of social policies". And strenuous efforts have been made to herd other European nations, Great Britain among them, into this same pen in the associated European Free Trade Area.

  In 1934, when the leader of the British Labour Party (Mr. Clement Attlee) told the party's annual conference:—

  "We are deliberately putting loyalty to a world order above loyalty to our own country", he was widely execrated.

  Twenty-three years of propaganda, however, leave their mark, and when, in 1957, a Conservative Prime Minister of Britain told the British people that they must surrender some of their national sovereignity to an unknown international cabal, scarcely a voice was raised in protest. At the close of 1957 there was an official declaration of the British Government's support for the plan which was foreshadowed in the Protocols over sixty years ago. The Earl of Gosford, Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in the House of Lords on 7th November, 1957:—

  "Her Majesty's Government are fully in agreement with World Government. We agree that this must be the goal, and that every step that is humanly possible must be taken to reach that goal."

  All over the world, "federation", "integration", "regionali-sation" and "inter-dependence" are the order of the day. All this is foreshadowed in the Protocols, published more than half-a-century ago by Sergyei Nilus, which, we are told, are a forgery.

  Can all this be coincidence? Could any forger be so prescient?

  Or are the Protocols what Nilus and many others believed them to be—the blueprint of a conspiracy to destroy Christian civilisation and place the whole world under the domination of a small, select cabal ?

NOTES

I — "AGENTUR" and "The Political"

  There are two words in this translation which are unusual, the words "Agentur" and "political" used as substantives. "Agentur" appears to be adopted from the original text and it means the whole body of agents and agencies directed by the Elders, whether members of the tribe or their Gentile tools.

  By "the Political" Mr. Marsden means, not exactly the "body politic" but the entire machinery of politics.

II—The Symbolic Snake of Judaism

  Protocol III opens with a reference to the Symbolic Snake of Judaism. In his Epilogue to the 1905 Edition of the Protocols Nilus gives the following interesting account of this symbol:—

  According to the records of secret Jewish Zionism, Solomon and other Jewish learned men had already, in 929 B.C., thought out a theoretical scheme for the peaceful conquest of the whole universe by Zion.

  As the course of history unfolded, this scheme was elaborated in detail and completed by later generations of men who had been initiated into their secrets. These learned men decided by peaceful means to conquer the world for Zion with the slyness of the Symbolic Snake, whose head was to represent those who have been initiated into the plans of the Jewish administration, and the body of the Snake to represent the Jewish people—the administration was always kept secret, even from the Jewish nation itself. As this Snake penetrated into the hearts of the nations which it encountered it undermined and devoured all the non-Jewish power of these States. It is foretold that the Snake has still to finish its work, strictly adhering to the designed plan, until the course which it has to run is closed by the return of its head to Zion and until, by this means, the Snake has completed its round of Europe and has encircled it—and until, by dint of enchaining Europe, it has encompassed the whole world. This it is to accomplish by using every endeavour to subdue the other countries by economic conquest.

  The return of the head of the snake to Zion can only be accomplished after the power of all the Sovereigns of Europe has been laid low, that is to say, when by means of economic crises and wholesale destruction effected everywhere, there shall have been brought about spiritual demoralisation and moral corruption, chiefly with the assistance of Jewish women masquerading as French, Italians, etc. Their example is the surest method of encouraging licentiousness among the leaders of the nations.

  A map of the course of the Symbolic Snake is shown as follows:—Its first stage in Europe was in 429 B.C. in Greece, where, about the time of Pericles, the Snake first started eating into the power of that country. The second stage was in Rome in the time of Augustus, about 69 B.C. The third in Madrid in the time of Charles V, in A.D. 1552. The fourth in Paris about 1790, in the time of Louis XVI. The fifth in London from 1841 onwards (after the downfall of Napoleon). The sixth in Berlin in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. The seventh in St. Petersburg, over which is drawn the head of the Snake under the date of 1881.

  All these states which the Snake traversed have had the foundations of their constitutions shaken, Germany, with its apparent power, forming no exception to the rule. In economic conditions England and Germany are spared, but only till the conquest of Russia is accomplished by the Snake, on which at present (i.e., 1905) all its efforts are concentrated. The further course of the Snake is not shown on this map, but arrows indicate its next movement towards Moscow, Kieff and Odessa.

  It is now well known to us to what extent the latter cities form the centres of the militant Jewish race. Constantinople is shown as the last stage of the Snake's course before it reaches Jerusalem. (This map was drawn years before the occurrence of the "Young Turk"—i.e., Jewish— Revolution in Turkey).

III—The term GOYIM

  The term "Goyim", meaning Gentiles or non-Jews, is used throughout the Protocols and is retained by Mr. Marsden.

PROTOCOL 1

THE BASIC DOCTRINE

  Right lies in Might—Politics versus Morals—The End justifies the Means —"Liberty,   Equality, Fraternity"—The New Aristocracy.

  Putting aside fine phrases we shall speak of the significance of each thought: by comparison and deduction we shall throw light upon surrounding facts.

  What I am about to set forth, then, is our system from the two points of view, that of ourselves and that of the goyim (i.e., non-Jews).

  It must be noted that men with bad instincts outnumber good men, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.

  What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?

  At the dawn of society they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards—to Law which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.

  Political freedom is an idea but not a fact, and one must know how to use it as a bait whenever it appears necessary to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.

  In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of Gold. Time was when Faith ruled. Freedom is an impossible ideal to achieve because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self-government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganised mob. Thereafter there arises internecine strife, which soon devolves into class warfare, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes.

  Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it under the power of external foes—in any case it can be accounted irretrievably lost: it is in our power. The despotism of Capital, which is entirely in our hands, reaches out to it a straw that the State, willy-nilly, must take hold of: if not—it goes to the bottom.

  Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral I would put the following questions :—If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance of plans of attack and defence, to attack him by night or in superior numbers, then in what way can the same means in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not permissible?

  Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made, and when such objection may find more favour with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, customs, traditions and sentimental theorism, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets,

puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy.

  The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim, but we must in no wise be guided by them.

  Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than:—Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have proof that I am stronger than you.

Where does right begin? Where does it end?

  In any State where central authority is weak, and where laws and rulers have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right—to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.

  Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.

  Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakeable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to nought by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.

  Before us is a strategic plan from which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labour of many centuries brought to naught.

  In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. It must be understood that the might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force, ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without bringing them into the abyss; consequently members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they may have a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the mob without bringing the whole nation to ruin.

  Only one trained from childhood for independent rule can understand the meaning of the words that can be constructed from the political alphabet.

  A people left to itself, that is, to upstarts from its midst, brings itself to ruin by party dissensions excited by the pursuit of power and honours and disorders arising therefrom. Is it possible for the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgements, to deal with the affairs of the country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interests? Can they defend themselves from an external foe? It is unthinkable, for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob loses all homogeneity, and thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible to execute.

  It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State: from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that is concentrated in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilisation which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is a savage and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.

  Behold the alcoholised animals, bemused with drink, which freedom permits them to consume to excess. It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the goyim are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid on classicism and from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents—by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the houses of the wealthy, by clerks and others, by our women in the places of dissipation frequented by the goyim. Among the latter I also include the so-called "society ladies," voluntary followers of the others in corruption and luxury.

  Our countersign is—Force and Make-believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power. This evil is the one and only means to attain the end, the good. Therefore we must not stop at bribery, deceit and treachery when they should serve towards the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty.

  Our State, marching along the path of peaceful conquest, has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory sentences of death, necessary to maintain the terror which tends to produce blind submission. Just but merciless severity is the greatest factor of strength in the State: not only for the sake of gain but also in the name of duty, for the sake of victory, we must keep to the programme of violence and make-believe. The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our super-government. It is enough for them to know that we are merciless for all disobedience to cease.

  Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," words many times repeated since those days by stupid poll-parrots who from all sides round flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well-being of the world, true freedom of the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob. The would-be wise men of the goyim, the intellectuals, could not fathom these abstract words; did not note the contradiction of their meaning and interrelation; did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be freedom: that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws: never stopped to think that the mob is a blind thing, that upstarts elected from among it to bear rule are, in regard to the political, the same blind men as the mob itself, that the adept, though he be a fool, can yet rule, whereas the non-adept, even if he were a genius, understands nothing in the political—to all these things the goyim paid no regard; yet all the time dynastic rule rested upon these tenets: for the father passed on to the son a knowledge of the course of political affairs in such wise that none should know it but members of the dynasty and none could betray it to the governed. As time went on the meaning of the dynastic transference of the true position of affairs in the political was lost, and this aided the success of our cause.

   In all corners of the earth the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it enabled us to grasp, among other things, the master card—the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the goyim we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force.

  Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we wanted we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man; and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyse initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.

  The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn-out glove.

  It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment.

PROTOCOL 2

ECONOMIC WARS

  Routine scientific  government—Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzcheism—Press-inculcated mentality.

  It is indispensable for our purposes that wars, as far as assible, should not result in territorial gains: war will urns be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our internati