“This it should also do in the future, carefully following the outlined plan, until the cycle of the road travelled by it is completed by the return of the head of the snake to Zion, and until the snake will thus include and concentrate in the sphere of its circle the whole of Europe, and through Europe the rest of the world, utilizing all forces of conquest and by economic means in order to subject also the other continents to its influence, to the influence of its cycle. The return of the head of the snake could be accomplished only over the razed plains of the governmental power of all the European countries,—that is through economic disorganization and ruin, introduced by Zion everywhere by means of spiritual decadence and moral turpitude, chiefly, with the aid of Jewish women under the guise of French, Italian and Spanish women, the best introducers of immorality into the conduct of the rulers of nations. Women in the hands of Zion serve as bait for those, who owing to them are always in need of money, and therefore barter their conscience in order to get money at any cost. This money, in fact, is only loaned to them, for it quickly comes back to the hands of bribing Zion through these very women, and at the same time they have secured slaves for Zion.” A comparison of these pages shows that Nilus merely added to Lutostansky’s version the statement to be found in Butmi’s version that the political plan for the peaceful conquest of the world for Zion, was devised in theory by Solomon and other sages _929 years before the birth of Christ_. Lutostansky said in 1907 that “the head of the snake represents the sages of Zion, and the body—the Judean nation,” while Nilus said that the “head should constitute the government of the Jews initiated in the plans of the sages (always masked even from their own people) and the body—the Judean nation.” Thus the sages of Zion were transformed by Nilus into “the government of the Jews” in order to connect the “political plan” all the more closely with the “protocols.” The American editors have omitted this part of the Nilus epilogue, evidently because it seemed even to them too absurd for American consumption. All of the literature about the “protocols” that appeared in various parts of the world in 1920 is based on the “documents” vouched for by the mysterious Sergius Nilus, and fortified by the irresponsible Jew-baiter and intellectual pervert Ippolit Lutostansky. That the Nilus-Lutostansky-Butmi campaign was just what the Tsarist government desired may be seen from the photographic reproduction of the letter sent to Lutostansky by Grand Duke Michael, who was regarded as the most liberal among the Russian Grand Dukes. The letter appears together with other letters of congratulation from members of the Imperial family in the volume containing the passages quoted above. [Illustration: Cyrillic