"Our people are conservative, "We intend to appear as though
faithful to the religious we were the liberators of the
ceremonies and customs which labouring man come to free him
have been bequeathed to us by from his oppression, when we
our ancestors, but our shall suggest to him to join
interest exacts that we should the ranks of our armies of
simulate a zeal for the social socialists, anarchists, and
questions which are the order communists.... We govern the
of the day, especially those masses by making use of
which deal with the feelings of jealousy and
amelioration of the condition hatred kindled by oppression
of workmen. In reality our and need.... When the time
efforts should be directed to comes for our Worldly Ruler to
capturing this movement of be crowned we will see to it
public opinion. The blindness that by the same means--that
of the masses, their is to say, by making use of
propensity to yield themselves the mob--we will destroy
to oratory as empty as it is everything that may prove to
sonorous, makes of them an be an obstacle in our way....
easy prey and a docile The populace in its ignorance
instrument of popularity and blindly believes in printed
credit. We shall find without words and in erroneous
difficulty among our own delusions which have been duly
people the expression of such inspired by us.... The mob is
factitious sentiments and as used to listen to us who pay
much eloquence as sincere it for its attention and
Christians find in their obedience. By these means we
enthusiasm. We must as much as shall create such a blind
possible sustain the force that it will never be
proletariat and bring it capable of taking any decision
within the reach of those who without the guidance of our
have money at their disposal. agents placed by us for the
By this means we shall be able purpose of leading them".[42]
to rouse the masses whenever
we please, to lead them into
upheavals and revolutions.
Each of these catastrophes
will advance by a long stride
our own racial interests and
will rapidly bring us nearer
to our one great end--that of
reigning over all the earth as
it has been promised to us by
our Father Abraham."
It would be easy to quote many other equally deadly parallels, but
this one will assuredly suffice to show that, in their main argument,
at any rate, the Protocols are not what they pretend to be--that is an
actual statement of secret Jewish teaching by a Jew--but that they are
not even an echo of Jewish ideas, seeing that they are derived from a
Gentile forgery based on a work of confessedly Gentile imagination.
When we examine Nilus's added matter the revelation of fraud becomes
still more remarkable. The main difference between Nilus and his
German and Czech fore-runners is that he works out in detail the
alleged Autocratic and Bolshevist philosophy of his Elders of Zion. He
pictures these fabulous personages as genuine believers in Autocracy,
but more intent on Jewish political domination than on merely
mercenary exploitation. Accordingly, he attributes to them the design
of practising a sort of State Bolshevism when their domination shall
have been accomplished--that is to say, the creation of a paternal
Jewish autocracy basing itself on a carefully controlled communistic
system. It is by this ingenious device that he endeavours to show that
the Jews are the arch-enemy at both extremes of the social organism.
Now, whence comes the autocratic philosophy he puts into the mouths of
his Jewish Elders? It is exclusively a Russian doctrine. Nilus knows
this very well, and he does not waste time in the hopeless task of
finding counterblasts to democracy in Jewish political literature. He
goes straight to the fountain-head of Russian obscurantism in the
person of the late Procurator of the Holy Synod, Konstantine Petrovich
Pobyedonoszeff! This expedient has the appearance almost of a
practical joke, for Pobyedonoszeff was not only a pure Muscovite and a
fanatical Greek Christian, but so conspicuous an anti-Semite and
oppressor of Jews, Stundists, and other Russian allogenes that he
earned for himself the sobriquet of "the modern Torquemada." Nilus's
Jewish Antichrist is, in short, nothing more than the austere
super-Christian Procurator masquerading, like Edward Alleyn's
Barabas, in a false nose and a prodigious property beard.
The evidence of this jumps to the eyes if we take the trouble to
compare the first part of "The Jewish Peril" with Mr. Robert Crozier
Long's translation of Pobyedonoszeff's "Reflections of a Russian
Statesman,"[43] especially the chapters on "The New Democracy" and
"The Great Falsehood of our Time." Many parallel passages might be
quoted, but it will, perhaps, suffice if I extract one, fundamental to
both writers, in which Nilus makes the Jewish Elder plagiarise the
argument of the Christian Procurator, in part almost textually:--