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 conc