Produced by Jeannie Howse, Bryan Ness and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Print project.)
THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS
BOOKS BY
JOHN SPARGO
THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS
"THE GREATEST FAILURE IN ALL HISTORY"
RUSSIA AS AN AMERICAN PROBLEM
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BOLSHEVISM
BOLSHEVISM
AMERICANISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY EXPLAINED
HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK
[ESTABLISHED 1817]
THE JEW
AND
AMERICAN IDEALS
BY
JOHN SPARGO
_Author of_
"Bolshevism" "The Psychology of Bolshevism"
"Russia as an American Problem" "The
Greatest Failure in All History" "Social
Democracy Explained" Etc.
[Illustration]
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS
Copyright, 1921, by Harper & Brothers
Printed in the United States of America
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
FOREWORD vii
I. A PACIFIST TURNED ANTI-SEMITE 1
II. THE ALLEGED "GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY" 10
III. THE MYSTERY OF THE PROTOCOLS 18
IV. IS SOCIALISM A JEWISH CONSPIRACY? 47
V. THE JEWISH SOCIALISTS AND BOLSHEVISM 59
VI. BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS 83
VII. THE VICIOUS ROLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM 99
VIII. WHAT ANTI-SEMITISM IN AMERICA MEANS 110
IX. WE NEED THE CO-OPERATION OF CHRISTIAN AND JEW 121
X. A FINAL WORD 136
POSTSCRIPT 140
FOREWORD
This little book was written without the knowledge of any Jew. It is
not a defense of the Jew. It is not a pro-Jewish argument. It is a
defense of American ideals and institutions against anti-Semitism; a
plea for Christian civilization.
JOHN SPARGO.
"NESTLEDOWN,"
OLD BENNINGTON, VERMONT.
_January, 1921._
THE JEW AND AMERICAN IDEALS
I
A PACIFIST TURNED ANTI-SEMITE
About five years ago I was honored by an invitation to join with a
well-known American capitalist and certain other men and women in an
attempt to bring about the termination of the great World War. The
manufacturer in question believed that it was possible to "get the
boys out of the trenches by Christmas," and to that end organized an
expedition which is now remembered chiefly for the bellicosity and
belligerency of many of the "pacifists" who journeyed to Europe upon
the "Peace Ship."
In declining the invitation to associate myself with this expedition,
I felt that it was incumbent upon me to explain that, while I doubted
the wisdom of the undertaking and felt that it might do harm instead
of good, I honored the noble and unselfish motives by which Mr. Ford
was inspired. His hatred of war and blood-shed, and his desire to
promote peace and good will among all peoples and races, seemed to me
to be both profound and sincere and evoked my heartfelt admiration and
sympathy. The more I doubted his political judgment--believing that he
was being used as a dupe and tool in a very dangerous intrigue--the
more willing I was to acknowledge those qualities of mind and heart
which distinguished the famous manufacturer, and which the authors of
the intrigue sought to exploit and use for sinister ends. On many
occasions I have given public expression to my belief in Mr. Ford's
sincere and unselfish idealism.
If any justification is required for my now associating the name of
Henry Ford with a matter of grave international political importance,
I venture to suggest that it can be found in the pre-eminent position
which he occupies in one of the great branches of modern industry and
in the fact that as recently as two years ago he aspired to a seat in
the United States Senate, being nominated for that position by the
Democratic party in the great state of Michigan. Upon both counts
views expressed by Mr. Ford upon international questions which may
involve great and serious national or racial conflicts become the
subject of legitimate public interest, and when in furtherance of such
views he associates himself with an active policy which deals with one
of the most difficult and dangerous problems confronting civilized
mankind, his views and his acts assume public importance and invite
and compel attention and discussion. Therefore, believing as I do that
Mr. Ford is primarily responsible for a propaganda which is subversive
of the best traditions and institutions of this Republic, and which
has everywhere and at all times resulted in shameful crimes against
humanity, and in resistance to every progressive and humane movement,
I feel that it is my right and duty to utter my solemn remonstrance
and protest.
I have just returned from a tour through several of the European
countries most seriously involved in the late war. On the one hand, I
was deeply and gratefully impressed while in Europe with the manner in
which some of the intensest hatreds engendered by the war appear to be
dying out. On the other hand, I was deeply and painfully impressed by
the fact that, in country after country, racial hatreds older than any
nation in the world were being deliberately and systematically revived
and intensified, threatening brutal and ugly crimes against humanity
exceeding in horror the worst and most inhuman violence of the Great
War which so nearly achieved the ruin of civilization. In Germany, for
example, I found no hatred of America, notwithstanding the fact that
alone among the nations lately fighting against her we were still
technically at war with her. On the contrary, there was manifest an
almost universal desire for the restoration of friendship between the
two countries. In Belgium I saw hundreds of little German children
being fed by Belgian agencies, proving that hate was being dissolved
by compassion. Even in France the fierce hatred of Germany was
obviously dying.
So much for the bright side of the European situation as I saw it.
Unfortunately, to complete the picture, it is necessary to acknowledge
the numerous evidences of a widespread revival of one of the most
despicable, brutal, and dangerous forms of racial hatred and
antagonism known to mankind--anti-Semitism. Even in England, long
hitherto so free from Jew-baiting, the land in which the Jew Disraeli
became Prime Minister, I found an extensive, active, and skillfully
organized campaign directed against Jews, as Jews. It was and is a
campaign differing hardly at all from similar campaigns against the
Jews in Russia under tsarism, in Rumania, in Poland, and, to a less
extent, in Germany under the Hohenzollern. Unless this propaganda is
checked, unless the intelligence and the conscience of England can be
marshaled against it, England will take the place of the Russia of the
Romanovs as the land of pogroms, and infamies like the horrible
pogroms of Kishinev may occur in British cities.
I found in England great nation-wide organizations, obviously
financed, devoted to the sinister purpose of creating anti-Jewish
feeling and sentiment. I found special articles in influential
newspapers devoted to the same evil purpose. I found at least one
journal, obviously well financed again, exclusively devoted to the
fostering of suspicion, fear, and hatred against the Jew. Nothing that
the Black Hundreds of Russia under the tsars said of the Jews, in
order to inflame the ignorant masses and inspire them to savage
attacks upon the Jewish population, could have been worse than much of
this propaganda. It appealed to every passion, charged the Jews as a
race with every crime calculated to rouse the frenzied anger of the
non-Jewish population. And in the bookstores I discovered a whole
library of books devoted to the same end. One of the greatest living
statesmen of England, who is not a Jew, told me that in his judgment
this systematically propagated anti-Semitism is likely to bring
greater difficulty and shame to England than the Irish question, even.
And now, returning to the United States, I find America confronted by
the same peril and shame. Here, too, I find anti-Jewish meetings being
held. To my great astonishment and regret, I find that the personal
influence and the vast fortune of the erstwhile pacifist-philanthropist
are apparently enlisted in the same cruel and vicious propaganda. The
_Dearborn Independent_, which is the personal organ of Mr. Henry Ford,
maintained for the promulgation of his personal political and
sociological views, has been devoting a large amount of its space to
the creation of anti-Jewish feeling and sentiment. One of the first
pieces of accumulated mail to claim my attention on my return was a
pamphlet, sent to me by some unknown correspondent, obviously a Jew
hater in view of the coarse and brutal comments written upon the
margins. This pamphlet contains a reprint of nine articles which
originally appeared in the _Dearborn Independent._ It is, therefore,
apparently impossible for Mr. Ford to disclaim personal and direct
responsibility for the contents of the pamphlet. If I am wrong in any
of these particulars I shall be very glad to be corrected and to
apologize for the error. To find any American engaged in such a
propaganda seems to me such a pity and such an outrage against our
national ideals that I should welcome proof that my information and
inferences are all wrong and unfounded so far as Mr. Ford is
concerned.
In this discussion of the anti-Semitic propaganda, and of the share of
the _Dearborn Independent_ in that propaganda, I have not the
slightest intention of attacking Mr. Ford personally. While I find
myself deeply interested in the psychology of the transformation of an
extremely idealistic pacifist into an aggressive propagandist of race
hatred, with that I am not here and now concerned.
II
THE ALLEGED "GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY"
Just as in the case of the British anti-Semitic press, the Jew-baiting
campaign in the _Dearborn Independent_ and other newspapers makes much
of the so-called "protocols" of the Wise Men of Zion, first published
in Russia in 1905, but lately translated into English and published in
England and the United States. In a sense it is not my business to
expose the dubious origin and history of these documents. That is a
Jewish task, to which various Jewish scholars have devoted their
attention. In the London _Spectator_ Mr. Lucien Wolff has performed it
with distinction. I am not a Jew, racially or otherwise, and can lay
no claim to any special ability or knowledge which would impose such a
task upon me. There are, however, some things which must be said
concerning the above-mentioned protocols, things which do not require
specialized scholarship, and which even the non-Jew can say with
confidence.
These protocols are offered as evidence of the existence of a
world-wide conspiracy far more serious and extensive than anything
else of the kind recorded in history. By comparison, the greatest
conspiracy hitherto revealed seems like a kindergarten game. It is
charged, and these documents are submitted as evidence in support of
the charge, that there, exists, and has existed for centuries, a
Jewish imperialistic program; that Jews in all lands have been and are
united in a highly organized and subtly directed secret movement to
bring about the overthrow of all non-Jewish governments, to substitute
therefor a Jewish world government, to obliterate all national
boundaries, and to destroy all religions other than Judaism. This, it
is alleged, is the concrete form in which the Jews visualize their
destiny as the Chosen People. In order to attain this grandiose ideal,
every means to weaken the non-Jewish elements and institutions in
civilization is encouraged by the invisible Jewish government, the
leaders of this vast conspiracy.
If we are to place credence in these documents, the principal agency
through which the Jewish conspirators have worked is Freemasonry. The
Masonic orders throughout the world have been the blind dupes and
tools of this superimperialism of the Jews, if the statements made in
these protocols are true. Indeed, there can hardly be any question at
all that if the truth of these documents can be established, there is,
to say the least, quite as much reason for suppressing Masonic lodges,
and making them illegal, as there is for suppressing Bolshevist or
other conspiratory organizations. I should just as little expect to
find sympathy for Bolshevism in a Masonic lodge as in the College of
Cardinals, or in the Union League Club, let us say. When we enter into
the mysteries of this "Jewish conspiracy" we encounter many
surprises.
According to the statements made in these protocols, practically all
the revolutionary movements of modern times have been instigated and
directed by Jews. They have caused the assassination of rulers and
heads of states, so that behind the murderous fanaticism of
individuals there has generally been the cold calculation of the most
cunning and unscrupulous intellects of the human race. According to
the same evidence, the wars which have drenched the world with blood
and rent it with passion, including racial wars in Asia and Africa,
the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Russo-Japanese War, and the
recent World War, were all brought about deliberately by Jewish
cunning, for the purpose of weakening the fabric of non-Jewish states
and providing the Jews with new sources of strength and power to be
used to establish their universal dominion.
All this is terrible enough. But there is even worse to follow. We
must remember that these documents were first published in Russia in
1905, and they purport to be the _procès-verbaux_ of a conference held
eight or nine years prior to that time. It is rather startling,
therefore, to find outlined therein a program of revolutionary action,
to be initiated in Russia and developed throughout the civilized
world, remarkably like the Bolshevist program, not merely in the
precise measures contained in the program, but also, and especially,
in the general conception of policy underlying it. We find in this
alleged Jewish program the same negation of all the accepted
principles of law and honor and morality that the Bolshevist policy
has so conspicuously manifested. It is brazenly stated that bribery,
deceit, and treachery are to be used (Protocol I). A vast army of
spies and secret agents abundantly supplied with funds is to be relied
on to promote revolt and dissension in all the principal countries
(Protocol 2). "Ferments, discords, and hostility" are to be
deliberately created and fostered throughout Europe and, through the
international relations of the European countries, to the other
continents also (Protocol 7). Efforts are to be made to compromise the
honor and besmirch the reputations of the most influential statesmen
and to use blackmail in order to make these statesmen serve the
purposes of the conspirators (Protocol 10). Revolutionary movements,
anarchistic, communistic, and socialistic, are to be fostered for the
purpose of destroying non-Jewish civilization (Protocol 3). In the
event of unfavorable action by any power or group of powers, it is to
be met by resistance in the form of universal war (Protocol 7).
Disorganization of the economic life of the world through the
debasement and ruin of the credit and currency systems, of the
principal nations, and the creation of "a universal economic crisis"
are also to be used to the same end (Protocol 3).
I have briefly summarized only a few of the more important items in
this monstrous program. There is more of the same general type of
fiendishness. Concerning the character of the program itself, there
can be no difference of opinion between honest Americans. It is as
diabolical as it is fantastic. What importance we ought to attach to
it, however, must necessarily depend upon our judgment concerning its
origin. If these protocols, and the program contained in them, are to
be seriously accepted for what they pretend to be--namely, a
deliberate statement of the purposes and aims of the leaders of the
Jewish people throughout the world, with practically the entire Jewish
race behind them--then the matter assumes enormous importance. If, on
the other hand, there is no substantial evidence of this--and such
evidence as is available indicates that the protocols are the product
of a single diseased and depraved mind--the documents cease to possess
any great significance and the terrible injustice and frightfully
dangerous consequences of charging them against the Jewish people are
obvious. We must, therefore, pay critical attention to the origin of
the protocols and the circumstances surrounding their publication, as
well as to any internal evidences of their genuineness or otherwise.
III
THE MYSTERY OF THE PROTOCOLS
First of all, then, what do we actually know about the origin of these
protocols? In the year 1903 a book was published at Solotarevo in
Russia, entitled _The Great in Little_. The reputed author of the book
was one Prof. Sergei Nilus, concerning whom we have no absolutely
reliable information. Author of a book which has made an enormous
sensation in many lands and become the subject of furious controversy,
he is quite unknown. No responsible person in or out of Russia has
ever positively identified Nilus, so far as I have been able to
discover. From what he says of himself it is practically certain that
he was in the service of the infamous Secret Police Agency of the late
Tsar Nicholas II. For reasons which will presently appear, I am
disposed to believe that the very un-Russian name Nilus is really a
pseudonym.
In a second edition of his book, published in 1905, Nilus gives a
brief autobiographical account of himself. He says that he was born in
1862 of Russian parents who held liberal opinions, and that his family
was well known in Moscow, its members being educated people who were
firm in their allegiance to the Tsar and the Greek Church. This is
hardly what a Russian of the period would describe as holding "liberal
opinions," but let that pass. Nilus claims to have been graduated from
Moscow University and to have held a number of civil-service posts,
all of them, so far as his specifications go, connected with the
police and judicial systems. He went to the government of Orel, where
he became a landowner and a sort of petty noble. He entered the
Troitsky-Sergevsky Monastery, near Moscow, or so he says. Although
numerous efforts have been made in Russia to find this Sergei Nilus,
none has succeeded.
It is true that a number of persons have testified to the existence of
Sergei Nilus, but in each case a different person has been referred
to, though Nilus is not a Russian name or commonly found in Russia.
The present writer learned of two men, father and son, each bearing
this very unusual name. First information led to the belief that at
last the mysterious author had been discovered. The father was of
about the right age and was said to be a writer interested in
religious subjects. Further inquiry elicited the information that this
man had died in 1910, whereas the Nilus we are interested in was alive
as late as 1917. Greatly enlarged editions of his work, with new
personal matter added, appeared in 1911 and 1917. Obviously,
therefore, the man who died in 1910 was not our author. The anonymous
editor of an edition of the protocols issued in New York toward the
end of 1920 says that "a returning traveler from Siberia in August,
1919, was positive that Nilus was in Irkutsk in June of that year." No
clew is given to the identity of the editor who makes this statement.
And here let me remark in passing that it is a remarkable fact that
_all_ the editors of the numerous editions of the protocols, both here
and abroad, are very shy persons and hide under the mask of anonymity.
Nor is any clew given to the identity of the traveler from Siberia.
Another report, also by a traveler returned from Siberia, who may
possibly be the same person, makes it appear that the Nilus who was at
Irkutsk is the son of the man who died in 1910, and is himself too
young to fit the autobiographical sketch of the man born in 1862. I
can only add to the foregoing, which represents all that I have been
able to find out about Nilus, that there was an edition of the
protocols published in Kishinev in 1906, the name of the author of the
book in which they appeared being given as Butmi de Katzman.
Now with respect to the protocols. No reference to these documents
appeared in the first edition of the book in 1903. If the reader will
kindly bear this fact in mind it will help to an understanding of what
follows. A second edition of the book, greatly enlarged, appeared at
Tsarskoye-Selo, near Moscow, in 1905, the added matter being given the
title, "Antichrist a Near Political Possibility." This additional
matter consisted of (1) an introduction written by Nilus himself, (2)
twenty-four documents purporting to be disconnected portions of the
report of a secret conclave of an organization of Jews called the
Elders of Zion, and (3) some commentaries thereon by Nilus. Now, it is
very significant that Nilus himself has given different accounts of
the history of these documents--accounts which differ so radically
that they cannot be reconciled.
Let us examine these various accounts very briefly. In the
introduction to the edition of 1905 Nilus tells us that in 1901 he
came into possession of the alleged protocols. He says that at the
close of a series of secret meetings of influential leaders of this
conspiracy, held under Masonic auspices, a woman stole from "one of
the most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry"
certain documents which turned out to be disconnected portions of the
_procès-verbaux_ of lectures or reports made at the aforesaid meetings
of the Elders of Zion. He says that the protocols were "signed by
representatives of Zion of the Thirty-third Degree," but he does not
give the names of such signatories. This is of itself a suspicious
circumstance, but a close reading of the text reveals that it is only
one of several equally suspicious facts. Nilus does not claim to have
seen the actual stolen documents, the original protocols. On the
contrary, he tells us that what he received in 1901 was a document
which he was assured was an accurate translation of the stolen
documents. His own words are: "This document came into my possession
some four years ago (1901) with the positive assurance that it is a
true copy in translation of original documents stolen by a woman from
one of the most influential and the most highly initiated leaders of
Freemasonry." Nilus has not seen the original manuscript, nor has any
other known person. We have only the word of Professor Nilus that
somebody gave him assurance that certain manuscripts were true and
accurate translations of stolen documents of great international
importance. So far as Nilus himself knew, or cared, apparently, the
manuscript given, to him might well have been a forgery.
We do not even know the date of the alleged secret meetings of the
Elders of Zion at which the lectures or reports, or whatever they
were, recorded in these protocols were made and, presumably,
considered. We do not know the name of the "most influential and most
highly initiated" leader of Freemasonry from whom the documents were
said to have been stolen. Neither do we know the name of the thief.
We do not know the name of the author of the alleged protocols, though
obviously it would make all the difference in the world whether these
are summaries of statements made by a responsible leader of the Jewish
people or the wild vaporings of such a crank as infests practically
every conference and convention. We do not know who translated the
alleged protocols, nor in what language they were written. Moreover,
not one word of assurance does Professor Nilus give on his own account
that he knows any of these things. He does not appear to have made any
investigation of any kind. In view of the rest of his work we may be
quite sure that had he done so he would have told us. He does not even
tell us, in this edition of 1905, that the person from whom he
acquired the "translation" was known to him as a reliable and
trustworthy person. He does not profess to know anything more than I
have already quoted from him. No one knows Nilus himself. So much for
the explanation of 1905.
Before I pass on to consider a later and different explanation made by
the mysterious Nilus, a few brief observations upon the story now
before us may not be out of place, especially since the _Dearborn
Independent_ has accepted it and made it the basis of its propaganda.
How is it possible for any person possessing anything approaching a
trained mind, and especially for one accustomed to historical study,
to accept as authentic, and without adequate corroboration, documents
whose origin and history are so clouded with secrecy, mystery, and
ignorance? And how can men and women who are to all appearances
rational and high-minded bring themselves to indict and condemn a
whole race, invoking thereby the perils of world-wide racial conflict,
upon the basis of such flimsy, clouded, and tainted testimony? No
decent and self-respecting judge or jury anywhere in the United States
would, I dare believe, convict the humblest individual of even petty
crime upon the basis of such testimony. Serious charges made by a
complainant who does not appear in court and is not known to the
court, an alleged translation of an alleged original, not produced in
court, alleged to have been stolen by an anonymous thief not produced
in court, from an alleged conspirator not named nor produced in court,
and not a scintilla of corroborative evidence, direct or
circumstantial--was ever a chain of evidence so flimsy? By comparison,
the discovery of the _Book of Mormon_ is a well-attested event.
Now let us consider another very different story told by Nilus. In
January, 1917--the date is important--another edition of the book, so
greatly enlarged and rewritten as to be almost a new book, appeared in
Russia bearing the name of the mysterious and unknown Nilus. The title
of this book is _It Is Near, at the Door_. It was published at
Sergeiev, near Moscow, at the Monastery of Sergeiev. I have said that
the date of the appearance of this volume is important, and here is
the reason: The overthrow of tsarism occurred in March, 1917. Toward
the end of 1916 the revolutionary ferment was already apparent. What
else could be expected than that the provocative agents of the Tsar's
Secret Police and the Black Hundreds should strive to divert the
attention of the people to some other issue? And what more natural
than that they should conclude that a widespread movement against the
Jews, great pogroms over a wide area, would best suit their purpose?
The first publication of the alleged protocols took place in 1905,
also at the beginning of a popular revolution, and it did have the
effect of creating a considerable anti-Jewish agitation which weakened
the revolutionary movement. The trail of the Secret Police and the
Black Hundreds is plain. And now for the new version of the history of
the protocols. On page 96 of this new book, which is a violent
diatribe against the Jews, Nilus says:
In 1901 I came into possession of a manuscript, and this
comparatively small book was destined to cause such a deep
change in my entire viewpoint as can only be caused in the heart
of man by Divine Power. It was comparable with the miracle of
making the blind see. "May Divine acts show on him."
This manuscript was called, "The Protocols of the Zionist Men of
Wisdom," and it was given to me by the now deceased leader of
the Tshernigov nobility, who later became Vice-Governor of
Stavropol, Alexis Nicholaievich Sukhotin. I had already begun to
work with my pen for the glory of the Lord, and I was friendly
with Sukhotin because he was a man of my opinion--_i.e._,
extremely conservative, as they are now termed.
Sukhotin told me that he in turn had obtained the manuscript
from a lady who always lived abroad. This lady was a noblewoman
from Tshernigov. He mentioned her by name, but I have forgotten
it. He said that she obtained it in some mysterious way, by
theft, I believe. Sukhotin also said that one copy of the
manuscript was given by this lady to Sipiagin, then Minister of
the Interior, upon her return from abroad, and that Sipiagin was
subsequently killed. He said other things of the same mysterious
character. But when I first became acquainted with the contents
of the manuscript I was convinced that its terrible, cruel, and
straight-forward truth is witness of its true origin from the
"Zionist Men of Wisdom," and that _no other evidence of its
origin would be needed_.
Is it necessary, I wonder, to waste words in exposing this pious
fraud? His own statement comes pretty close to convicting him of
being, as I have suggested above, a hireling of the Secret Police, an
_agent provocateur_. Sukhotin, from whom he now claims to have
received the manuscript, was a notorious anti-Semite and a despot of
the worst type. Sipiagin, to whom, it is alleged, the manuscript had
been previously given, was also a bitter anti-Semite and one of the
most infamous of Russian bureaucrats. He was notoriously corrupt and
unspeakably cruel while he was Minister of the Interior. He was
assassinated by Stephen Balmashev, in March, 1902. Even if we credit
this revised version of the way in which he came into possession of
the manuscript, Nilus is closely identified with the secret agencies
of the old regime. Let us take note, however, of other peculiarities
of the canting hypocrite, Nilus. He names Sukhotin and Sipiagin only
after they are dead and denial by them is impossible; he has
"forgotten" the name of the "noblewoman from Tshernigov," the person
alleged to have stolen the original documents; he suggests that the
documents need no other evidence than their own contents. Truly, a
very typical criminal is the mysterious, elusive, unknown "Prof.
Sergei Nilus"!
Now let me call attention to two other very interesting facts in
connection with this story of 1917. The first is that Nilus omits the
very important statement made in the edition of 1905 that the alleged
protocols were "signed by representatives of Zion of the Thirty-third
Degree," without offering the slightest explanation of that most
important omission. The second fact is even more conclusive as
evidence of the man's absolute untrustworthiness. Having told us in
the edition of 1905 that the friend who gave him the protocols assured
him that they had been "stolen by a woman," and in 1917 that it was
Nicholaievich Sukhotin from whom he received the documents, who not
only told him that they had been stolen by a woman, but told him also
the name of the thief (which he has forgotten, unfortunately), he
proceeds, in the Epilogue of the 1917 edition, to tell a very
different story. He says in this Epilogue that the protocols "were
stealthily removed from a large book of notes on lectures. _My friend_
found them in the safe of the headquarters offices of the Society of
Zion, which is situated at present in Paris."
Was ever perjurer more confused? First we have an unknown woman
stealing the documents from "one of the most highly initiated leaders
of Freemasonry"; next, we have a "noblewoman of Tshernigov" as the
thief and Sukhotin as the intermediary through whose hands they
reached his friend Nilus. Now, finally, Nilus says that his
friend--_i.e._, _Sukhotin_--was the thief, and not a woman at all!
Instead of being stolen from the person of "one of the most highly
initiated leaders of Freemasonry," they are "found" in a safe in
Paris! The woman has disappeared; the highly initiated Freemason has
disappeared. Now it is Sukhotin who is identified as the thief, and he
is pointed out as having robbed a safe in Paris. So much for the
perjury of Nilus. I may add that I am assured--though I cannot vouch
for the statement--that Sukhotin was not outside of Russia between
1890 and 1905.
But it may be argued, as it has been argued in the _Dearborn
Independent_ following the suggestion of Nilus--that the authenticity
of the protocols, and the reality and seriousness of the Jewish
conspiracy, are sufficiently demonstrated by internal evidence. I
confess that I do not find in the documents any reason for reaching
such a conclusion, though I have studied them with all the patience
and care I could command, and have read the principal arguments made
in their defense. I find not a scrap of evidence to show that there
exists, or ever has existed, such a body of men as "The Elders of
Zion," or "The Men of Wisdom of Zion," or any similar secret body of
Jews. _That such a secret conspiratory body exists has been charged
from time to time during more than a century, yet not a particle of
evidence to sustain the charge has ever been produced._ I am quite
well aware of the capacity of the human mind to believe whatever
accords with preconceived prejudices, suspicions, or impressions, even
in the face of evidence to the contrary, and, correspondingly, to
reject the most conclusive evidence when it runs counter to such
prejudices, suspicions, or impressions. Laying upon my own mind the
warning implied by this knowledge, and guarding myself against the
danger of rejecting, or ignoring, or undervaluing unpleasant and
unwelcome facts, I am bound to say that those who find in these
alleged protocols a sufficient basis for bringing the Jewish race
under indictment seem to me to have brought preconceived suspicion and
fear of the Jew to their study of the documents themselves.
Personally, I can find nothing in them which suggests any highly
organized intelligence, such as the leaders of the Jewish race
represent and command in abundance; rather, they seem to me to clearly
indicate the disordered mind and distorted vision of a very common
type of monomaniac, the genus "crank."
I believe that historical study is not one of Mr. Ford's strong
points, but, even so, he must be aware of the fact that it is one of
the commonest things in history to encounter charges of conspiracy
directed against religious and political sects, supported by more or
less plausible arguments and believed by considerable numbers of
people. Were it necessary to my purpose, and did time permit, I could
quite easily fill a considerable volume with illustrations of this
fact. For example, there exists a great literature devoted to the
object of proving that the Vatican is the headquarters of such a
conspiracy to bring about or to attain world domination. Thousands of
books and pamphlets have been written to convict the Jesuits of such a
conspiracy, many of them far more convincing than these protocols.
Pamphlets aiming to convince the American people that the Knights of
Columbus is an organization aiming at the overthrow of the American
Republic and the establishment of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope
over the United States have been circulated by the million. It is a
matter of court record that this charge has been supported by the
publication of what purported to be exact copies of oaths pledging the
members of that organization to the end stated. Let me say at once
that I do not credit these sensational stories and charges. I have
confined myself to charges made against one of the two great sections
of Christianity for reasons which seem to me peculiarly cogent. The
charges made against the Jews have produced the most terrible results
in the countries where the Roman Catholic Church is strongest, and no
leader of the Christian religion has such strong reason for denouncing
such appeals to prejudice and hatred as the head of that Church.
Belief in widespread conspiracies directed against individuals or the
state is probably the commonest form assumed by the human mind when it
loses its balance and its sense of proportion. I venture to hazard the
opinion that of all the cranks who have pestered Mr. Ford since he has
attained a conspicuous position, those who imagined themselves to be
the victims of conspiracies have outnumbered all the others. These
protocols are either preposterous forgeries deliberately wrought for
the purpose of fostering anti-Semitism in Russia, or they are the
pitiable ravings of a familiar type of monomaniac.
Concerning the authorship of the protocols, there has been much
conjecture, especially on the part of those who have seriously
regarded them as an authentic expression of Jewish opinion. It has
been whispered in those places where the so-called Jewish question is
discussed, that they are the work of the well-known Zionist leader,
Dr. Theodor Herzl. This is the theory which Nilus himself advances in
the introduction to the edition of 1917. He says:
... my book has already reached the fourth edition, but it is
only definitely known to me now and in a manner worthy of
belief, and that through Jewish sources, that these protocols
are nothing other than the strategic plans for the conquest of
the world under the heel of Israel, and worked out by the
leaders of the Jewish people ... and read to the Councils of
Elders by the "Prince of Exile," Theodor Herzl, during the first
Zionist Congress, summoned by him in August, 1897, in Basle.
This is the first time Nilus has so much as hinted at the date of the
alleged secret conclave of the Elders of Zion, at the close of which,
according to the story of 1905 so elaborately contradicted in 1917,
the protocols were stolen by a woman. It is perhaps as well to remark
in passing that the first Zionist Congress was held in the open and
its proceedings freely reported in the press. Now, Herzl stands among
the foremost of the intellectual Jews of modern times. All his known
work is characterized by clear, clean-cut reasoning and direct and
forceful statement. All his known writings are characterized by these
qualities. Whatever we may think about Zionism, it must be admitted
that the great Austrian journalist and critic never lacked the courage
of his convictions, as may be seen by anybody who will take the
trouble to read his writings or the evidence delivered by him before
the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, in 1902. If Herzl
wrote these documents he adopted the disguise of the style and method
of a much inferior mentality.
Unless we are to believe that he deliberately adopted a style of
writing and method of reasoning entirely unfamiliar and unlike his
publicly acknowledged work, for the express purpose of hiding his
authorship of the protocols--which, if we credit the story that they
were presented to a secret conference of the leaders of the alleged
conspiracy, is an impossible hypothesis--we are warranted in saying
that, whoever wrote them, it was not Theodor Herzl. It would be as
reasonable to ascribe a Walt Whitman chant to Emerson, or a Bernard
Shaw satire to Jonathan Edwards, as to ascribe these crude, meandering
pages to the crystalline intellect of Theodor Herzl. I do not find in
them any suggestion of the trained mind of a scholar and writer of
Herzl's attainments; rather, they seem to me to belong in about the
same intellectual category as the ordinary propaganda literature of
the numerous sects, ancient and modern, based upon peculiar
interpretations of Biblical prophecies. Since the outbreak of the
World War in 1914, and throughout the whole chapter of revolutionary
events following thereupon, there has been a steady flood of such
literature. Even the much-discussed forecast of Bolshevism does not in
any material respect differ from many similar "prophecies" that have
appeared in recent years.
It cannot be denied that Bolshevism actually conforms in a notable
degree to the specifications contained in the protocols, which I have
already summarized in the preceding chapter. Shall we, then, conclude
that the charge is proven and declare the case closed, or is it
necessary to examine the evidence further and more critically? I think
that a very brief period of honest reflection will convince any
fair-minded and intelligent person of the injustice of the rendering
of a verdict holding the Jews responsible for Bolshevism upon the
basis of such evidence. Let me direct the attention of my readers to a
coincidence of dates which once more directs suspicion against Prof.
Sergei Nilus and against the alleged stolen protocols. I have already
pointed out that in 1903, in the first edition of his book, Nilus did
not use the alleged protocols, though he claims that they had been in
his possession for two years prior to that time. That this is a
suspicious circumstance will, I think, be readily conceded by the
open-minded. In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic party was split
into two factions, and the word "Bolshevism" came into use as the
designation of the policy of one of these factions. In 1905 the first
Russian revolution took place. In the period between the split in the
Social Democratic party in 1903 and the outbreak of the revolution in
1905 the leaders of the Bolsheviki had been active in formulating and
propagating their theoretical and political views. During the
revolution a sharp conflict occurred between the Bolsheviki and other
factions of the Russian Socialist movement, and the Socialist press
gave much space to the controversy.
It will be seen from this brief historical sketch that when Nilus
published a second edition of his book, late in 1905, he could find in
the Russian Socialist press all the materials for such a general
description of Bolshevism as that contained in the protocols. Of
course, if we believe that the documents are genuine, that they are
authentic translations of documents actually stolen in 1896, delivered
to Nilus in 1901, and by him first made public in 1905, we have simply
a coincidence of dates. I submit, however, that there is not a shred
of credible evidence that the documents were so obtained by Nilus, or
that they existed in 1896, 1901, 1903, or at any date earlier than
1905, the year of their first publication. I submit, furthermore, that
it is highly probable that the passages in the alleged protocols which
are now hailed as conclusive evidence that the Bolshevist policy had
been formulated as early as 1896, were in reality written after 1903
and in the light of already published accounts of Bolshevist theories
and tactics. There is not a thing that we know about these documents
and their history which does not point directly to the conclusion that
they are forgeries.
When I was in London in October, 1920, an English journalist of
distinction, well known and influential on both sides of the Atlantic,
with great earnestness and evident conviction sought to impress me
with the serious importance of these alleged _Protocols of the Elders
of Zion_. He was quite convinced that the documents were genuine, and
that they proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a world-wide
Jewish conspiracy. With great solemnity and manifest sincerity he
sought to enlist my co-operation in defense of what he called
"Anglo-Saxon civilization," which he seemed to regard as synonymous
with Christian civilization. He was quite astonished when I directed
his attention to the fact that a well-known French writer, Louis
Martin, had published, as far back as 1895, a book in which he
attempted to prove the existence of such a world-wide Jewish
conspiracy. My friend honestly believed that the existence of this
conspiracy had never been known or suspected prior to the publication
of the work of the mysterious Sergei Nilus. He was still more
surprised when I told him that in his book, _L'Anglais Est-Il un
Juif?_, Martin had attempted to prove that the English people are part
of the Jewish race, and that the British government is the principal
directing power of the conspiracy; so that the world-wide Jewish
conspiracy must, according to Martin, be understood as a secret
compact between the British government, as a Jewish organization, and
the leaders of Jewry in all other lands. Thus is the theory of a
world-wide Jewish conspiracy reduced to absurdity. I confess that at
that time I was not aware that in the original Russian of the 1905
edition of the work of Nilus this absurd theory of Martin had been
reproduced, but carefully omitted from every English translation
published in this country and in England. The reason for the omission
is obvious; had the passage been given it would have made a
laughing-stock of the protocols. I submit, however, that the omission
of such an important passage from the text of Nilus without any
reference to or explanation of the liberty taken with the text, places
those responsible for the several translations in a very unfavorable
light.
In closing this chapter it is perhaps well that some record should be
made of the sinister use which was made of these alleged protocols
during the World War. Not long after the United States had begun
active participation in the war against Germany, it came to my
attention that typewritten manuscripts purporting to prove that the
war was part of a great conspiracy of international Jews were being
circulated. On at least three different occasions, early in 1918, I
was asked about this charge. I was told then that the British and
American governments were in a special sense the agents of this Jewish
conspiracy. In July, 1918, in Paris, a fuller account of the documents
was given to me by a loyal Socialist, to whom they had been shown.
There was not then, as there is not now, the slightest doubt in my
mind that the pro-German propagandists resorted to this trick in order
to weaken the morale of the principal Allied nations.
IV
IS SOCIALISM A JEWISH CONSPIRACY?
Upon the strength of statements made in this collection of documents
of mysterious and suspicious origin, a number of papers, including the
_Dearborn Independent_ and the _London Morning Post_, have attempted
to account for and explain the international Socialist movement as
part of this Jewish imperialistic conspiracy. Neither in the protocols
themselves nor in the newspapers making this particular charge has any
shred of authentic evidence been adduced in its support. True, a great
deal has been made of the undeniable fact that Karl Marx, Ferdinand
Lassalle, Wilhelm Liebnecht, and other noted Socialists belonged to
the Jewish race. Against this fact might very well be set the equally
undeniable fact that the foremost opponents of these men, and of
Socialism, were also of the Jewish race. Apparently, therefore, we are
to believe that the leaders of this Jewish conspiracy set up the
Socialist movement and fostered it, while at the same time they
enlisted their ablest minds to defeat it. Surely for the normal mind
that is not obsessed this is a theory too absurd for belief.