e
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