Below is an excerpt, dealing with the reported ritual murder of Andrei Youshchinsky (a court-decided case), taken from the book -
The Jew as Criminal -
by J. Keller and Hanns Andersen
a translation by R. Belser of
Der Jude als Verbrecher
von J. Keller und Hanns Andersen
Nibelungen-Verlag, Berlin und Leipzig, 1937
 Bolshevist Soviet regime in 1919 made any clearing up of the murder and a prosecution of the perpetrators impossible at first. It was just in the Fall of 1919 that some of them were arrested. At the trial before the military divisional court in Budapest (02 August - 15 September 1920), the soldiers involved, Dobу and Sztanyikovsky, were condemned to death by the rope (Czernyбk, Horvбt-Szanovics and Pogбny had escaped abroad), at a following trial before the Budapest Criminal Court, proceedings were started against the civilian perpetrators (12 April - 05 October 1921). Kйri as the instigator of the crime was likewise sentenced to death by hanging, Gaertner as accomplice was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Kйri was then later exchanged along with other Hungarian Communists for the Hungarian officers, prisoners of war, who had been held as hostages by the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, a typical case; the Jewish murderer is treated as a "political" criminal and escapes his punishment. In this case it is all the more incomprehensible, when the connection between the murder of the Minister-President Tisza by the Jew Kйri has a direct connection with the establishment of the Judeo-Bolshevist regime of blood of Bela Kun (Aron Cohns) which followed it in Budapest. The Jewish crime of murder as prelude to the Judeo- Bolshevist overthrow of the government -- that is a legal sequence of events.
So it was, also, in Russia.
On 20 March 1911, the body of a boy was discovered by children playing on a plot of undeveloped land on the edge of the city of Kiev(1). It was found in the sitting position, the hands were bound behind the back with string. The body was dressed only in a shirt, underpants, and a single sock. The body showed wounds, without any kind of blood traces being found in the hole [The body was found in a excavated pit on grounds which had been used as a source of clay and which therefore had many clay pits; for a more detailed account of this and of other cases of alleged Jewish ritual-murder, see Hellmut Schramm: Der jьdische Ritualmord: Eine historische Untersuchung, 1943]. It soon turned out that the body was that of the student of the first class of the Kiev church school, Andrei Yuschinski. The forensic examination discovered the following wounds on the body of the child: 7 puncture wounds on the upper scalp and on the back of the head; 1 on the left temple, 13 on the right temple; on the right side of the neck, 7, on the larynx, 2; beneath the lower jaw, 1; on the right side beneath the armpit, 4; on the back, at the right side between ribs and pelvis, 4; on the left side of the chest, beneath the nipple, 7; on the sternum, 1: a total  of 47 stab wounds. The loss of blood from the inflicted wounds was so great that the body was nearly empty of blood.
The attempts of the Jews to mislead and cripple the investigation began immediately. The investigation was first in the hands of a certain Krassowski, who a year later was supposed to be arrested and brought before the Court on charges of offenses against his official duties. His predecessor, Mischtschuk, Director of the Kiev Criminal Police, likewise fell into the clutches of Jewry and later was convicted by the Senate on charges of forgeries and abuse of office.
Menachil-Mendel Beylis was arrested only on 22 July. Precious time had been lost during which the state organs had been systematically led astray by the Jews. Thus, for example, the murdered boy's own parents were arrested on 24 March on the basis of information from the Jew Barschewski. After 14 days, they had to be released again since their complete innocence could be proved. Directly after this, the boy's uncle, Theodor Neyinski was accused by another Jew. Here, too, the denunciation turned out to be totally without merit. During the trial proceedings, even the defense of Beylis, which was in the hands of the most celebrated attorneys of that time, had to frankly admit that the relatives of the murdered boy were completely innocent of any part in the crime.
Nevertheless, the Jews did not yet admit defeat. They regarded the accusation against Beylis, as always in such cases, as an accusation against Jewry as a whole, and pulled out all the stops to get Beylis off. An endless series of briberies, threats, denunciations, challenges, propaganda and interventions was put into play by them in order to set the investigating authorities, the jurors, the judges, the experts, but above all public opinion in Russia and in the entire world, in favor of Beylis and against his "anti-Semitic enemies."
The Jews invented ever newer versions. The unfortunate youngster was supposed to have been murdered by three characters of the Underworld in the residence of a woman, Vera Cheberak. This, too, was later shown to be a lie, although the Jews offered Vera Cheberak 4000 Rubels for a "voluntary confession."
It came out, namely through unimpeachable testimony, that on 12 March 1911, toward 8:15 A.M., i.e., perhaps an hour before the beginning of his matyrdom, the boy had been standing with some playmates at the entrance to the Sayzev factory, and then from there began to play with other playmates on the lot lying in front of it. The children were startled by Beylis and  two other Jews. They ran off in different directions; the boy Yuschinski, however, was seized by Beylis and dragged off in the direction of the factory. It seems extremely remarkable and suspicious that the two most important eyewitnesses for Yuschinski having been dragged away by Beylis, Schenya and Valya, died shortly after the arrest of Beylis. Beylis was arrested on 22 July: on 08 August Schenya died, and ten days later, Valya --
Menachil-Mendel Beylis, 39 years old, was an empolyee of the brick factory in whose ovenworks the crime almost certainly was committed. The brickyard had formerly belonged to a rich Jew, Ion Mordkovitch Sayzev, who had made his wealth, including the brickyard, over to the Jewish surgical clinic. Until the death of Sayzev in 1907, Beylis enjoyed his especial trust, since he, just like the old Jew, belonged to the sect of the Hassidim. On behalf of old Sayzev, each year Mendel Beylis baked about 3000 pounds of matzot on Sayzev's estate in the presence of a rabbi. Beylis belonged to the leading Jewish clique of rabbis and schдchter [= Jewish ritual-slaughterers] in Kiev. His friend, Feifel Schneerson, who, as later developed, had been stalking Yuschinski, also belonged to it. [The Schneerson dynasty of Hassidic rabbis produced no less than three individuals who came under strong suspicion and/or charges of ritual-murder over the course of two centuries. The late Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, revered as a messianic figure by the world-wide enclaves of his followers, died only recently -- around the turn of the 21st century -- and was a serious power broker to whom heads of state deferred and gave a constant stream of brotherhood and humanitarian awards, concessions, etc., etc., despite the rabbi's unequivocal position in support of Jewish supremacy.] After the murder, Schneerson disappeared without trace. Incidentally, he was a descendant of the famous Rabbi Salomon Schneerson, one of the founders of the Hassidic sect. His father was a schдchter and a relative of rabbis.
The forensic experts, the most outstanding experts in this field in pre-war Russia, made the following report concerning the murder(1):
The boy is pushed into the put in which clay is found. He receives some punctures through his cap; however, as yet he does not lose consciousness. He is seized and his hands held firmly. One of the murderers holds his head and plugs his nose and mouth, while the other murderer inflicts wounds in such places as are rich in blood supply. In particular, he receives a puncture in the left temple which strikes the artery and produces a fountain of blood. Directly after this his coat is pulled off and his shirt collar removed and he receives 7 puncture wounds in the neck, which strike veins as well as arteries. This again results in a forceful outward gush of blood. The body of the victim is at this point somewhat inclined to the left. There is now a pause of 5 to 8 minutes during which the boy is bleeding  to death. He loses 5Ѕ glasses of blood, i.e., about 1Ѕ kg. The victim then receives some further lethal punctures into the liver and kidneys and finally a stab into the heart.
Only the Petersburg surgeon Pavlov, who had obviously been bribed by the Jewish defense, gave a dissenting report. It suffices to indicate that Pavlov used the following expression in his expert opinion: "Herr Yuschinski, this young man -- had a somewhat comical wound inflicted in the region of his waist. . ." Of the theological experts, only the Catholic Prelate Pranaitis dared to speak of the fact that in the Jewish books on law ritual-murder is dealt with.
At the 34th session, on 28 October 1913, two questions were put to the jurors. The first question asked whether it was proven that on 12 March 1911 in Kiev, in a room of the brick factory which belonged to the Jewish surgical clinic, and which was under the management of the merchant Markus Sayzev, the thirteen-year-old boy Andrei Yuschinski first received a series of wounds, by which he lost five glasses of blood, and later new wounds, for a total of 47, which produced a nearly complete exsanguination and finally caused his death. The second question asked, if the above was proven, whether then the accused Menachil-Mendel Baylis, from motives of religious fanaticism, with forethought and deliberation, and with the participation of other persons who could not be discovered, had committed this crime.
The jurors said yes to the first question and no to the second. Thus ended the trial with the finding of tbe crime, but without determining the criminal.
The question concerning the perpetrator has remained unanswered to the present day. As with all ritual-murder trials of more recent times, the Jews have been not been able in this case, either, to produce proof of their innocence. That, in actuality, is a proof of their guilt, since at least in the case of Beylis they had unlimited means at their disposal, and beyond that, the sympathy of the entire misled public and also the full support of the police and the judicial investigative authorities, who regretably were only too little "anti-Semitic" in attitude.
Some years later, Jewry nevertheless subsequently furnished proof of its guilt and its evil conscience. All persons who had participated in the trial as judges, as officials of the state attorney's office, as members of the administration of justice or who otherwise acted in the trial against Beylis, were shot immediately after the seizure of power by the Bolshevists without any judicial procedure. While Menachil Beylis enjoyed his pension as "martyr of Jewry" in peace and quiet  in Palestine, the prosecuting attorneys Wipper and Schalpliski, the Kiev President of the Court, Boldyrev, the judges Yevashoff and Vigura and the Justice Minister Zheglovitov, fell to the bullets of the Jewish Cheka. The defense cousel of Beylis, the Jews Grusenberg and Sarudny, on the other hand, were appointed to the Senate by the government of the half-Jew Kerensky. Andrei Yuschinski, the martyr of the Russian people in its stuggle against Jewry, had been long forgotten. And who today thinks of this thirtenn-year-old Russian youngster, who bled out his life under unspeakable torture at the hands of the Jewish ritual-slaughterers?!
The Minister-President of the Russian Empire, Stolypin, fell as the first victim of the Jewish "revenge for Beylis."
Stolypin came to Kiew when the struggle over Beylis had reached its peak. In the eyes of the Jewish murderers, he was the most important obstacle which stood in the way of their criminal desires. He was "guilty" of the fact that the Russian government had dared to charge a Jew with murder. Stolypin had to die so that Beylis and the Jews could "live."
Up to the present day, the murder of Stolypin is been presented in a totally distorted manner. No one till now believes it necessary to call attention to the crucial fact that his murderer Dmitri Bogroff was in reality the Jew Mordko. Let us try to determine the true facts of the case(1).
On the evening of 01 September 1911, the victor of the Revolution of 1905, the creator of the revolutionary Russian peasant reforms, the Minister-President Peter Stolypin was murdered by two shots from a revolver while at the Czar's side, during a gala performance in the Kiev city theater. The assassin was arrested at the scene; it was the Jew Dmitri Bogroff.
The enormous Russian Empire was shaken to its foundations by this act. Stolypin was the great hope of the nation. He had found the way to lead the Empire between reaction and revolution, along the the road to reform, recovery and the national new order. He was a political personality  of the caliber of Bismarck, this powerful man with the broad shoulders, who seemed to be but lightly bowed from the burden of the huge historic responsibility. Three attempts to murder him had already been committed, the last on 12 August 1906, at which several dozen innocent bystanders had been killed. Revolutionaries incited by the Jews had thrown a bomb at his country house. The balcony on which the Minister-President was drinking tea with his family plunged far below. He himself remained unwounded, but two of his children were crippled from thence forward. But the constant threat to his life could not divert him from his path. He knew that he was a man consecrated to death and nonetheless did his duty.
How did this murder come about, why did it happen in Kiev in particular? The best explanation is furnished by some sobering figures.
The number of inhabitants of Kiev in the year 1874 amounted to 127,000, among which there were 14,000 Jews. In 1910, a year before the murder, the population figures for Kiev had grown to 470,000, of which 51,000 -- 11% -- were Jews. Then came the murder, the Revolution, and the breakthrough of the Jews into power. Until 1926, the total population figure for Kiev remained essentially stable (1926 = 493,873), but the number of Jews had climbed to approximately three times what it had been, to 140,256 -- i.e., 28.4%. Today [ca. 1937], accoding to official Soviet figures, the percentage of the populace which belongs to Jewry has climbed to 35%, but actually probably amounts to at least 50%(1).
These few numbers say it all. Jewry has beseiged and finally conquered Kiev. It has won the breakthrough-battle in Southern Russia and occupied the old capital of the Holy Russian Empire. Where are the approximately 100,000 non-Jews, whose places in Kiev have been taken by Jews? They have been supplanted, driven out, exiled, shot and starved to death. Then, in 1911, the national struggle against Jewry, the defense of the people against the incursions of the Jews, had reached its zenith. The Jews had already occupied the most important positions of power in public life and the economy in Kiev. The masses of the people put up ever more fierce resistance. The Jews responded with revolutionary agitation, with "exproriations," with terror,  with crime and murder. Beylis was the first Chekist, who fed on the torment of his helpless victim, the young Yuschinski. Later, the Checkist leaders LaziЯ, Schwarzmann and Luponitz followed; they no longer needed a "symbolic" victim of a ritual-murder; into the place of the "substitute" stepped the entire Russian and Ukranian people.
In the act of ritual-murder, the Jew kills his victim (as in hostage-murder) in "respresentation" of all non-Jews, over whom he does not yet have power; in the Cheka- murder [i.e., murder by the Soviet secret police], he makes real his "ritual." The murder of a hostage is a secularized ritual-murder; Cheka-murder is mass ritual-murder actualized, and the ritual-murder is an anticipated and vicariously enjoyed Checka-murder.
Thus it was in Kiev. The gate to the fortress had to be blown open -- that was taken care of by Mordko-Bogroff with the shots from his revolver.
Already, after his sentencing, on 10 September Bogroff delivered to the Colonel of the Ochrana Ivanoff a "final confession" written by his own hand, in which he explained in detail that he had been active in service to the Ochrana for long years, and had played the role of a provacateur for a regular monthly payment of 100 Rubels; but this informant role of his had been discovered by the revolutionary Anarcho-Communists and he was given a deadline of 05 Spetember, after which the sentence of death was to be carried out on him by his comrades. In his desperation, he had wavered between suicide and a crime by which to rehabilitate himself, and at last decided to perform a sensational assassination; thanks to the favorable circumstance that he had received a card of admittance into the theater, he had carried out the murder of Stolypin. In other words, he had been for years a collaborator of the Ochrana and had committed the murder in this capacity.
This post-judicial "confession" of Bogroff had the effect that a storm of outrage over the criminal methods of the Ochrana swept through all of Russia and through the entire world, outrage over the "bloody Ochrana," which itself bred the criminals whom it pretended to fight. -- Opinion was and is "unanimous" in believing that Minister-Preseident Stolypin was killed by the Ochrana itself, for whatever dark and impenetrable reasons. The whole depravity and corruption of the Czarist system was thereby demonstrated for all time.
Considering all this, what does the truth about Bogroff appear to be?
Dmitri Bogroff was born on 29 January 1887, the son of a Jewish landlord and attorney, who had at his disposal assets of about 1 Million Marks and who played a considerable role in  Kiev society. The father belonged to the left wing of the Constitutional-Democratic Party. His son Dmitri received a very good education; In 1905 and 1906, he studied at the University of Munich. In 1908, Dmitri was in Meran, Leipzig and Paris, in February 1910 he took the final bar examination, travelled to the Riviera and then, in February 1911, began his practice in the office of the attorney Goldenweiser in Kiev.
It is clearly evident from this short biography that the Jew Bogroff hadn't the remotest thing to do either with the "working class" or with Socialism, that he led the life of a well-to-do Jewish intellectual. In the last period of his life, his father also transferred to him the management of the property in Kiev, so that Dmitri in no sense experienced any sort of material need. Nonetheless, as was proven and admitted, he entered the service of the Ochrana, which he justified in his later "confession" by the fact that he still wanted to have a "certain sum of money beyond" what he already had. From the Ochrana, he received 100 - 150 Rubels monthly. He worked for them for about 2Ѕ years, and under the names Alemsky and Mordko.
That is the first apparently unexplained contradiction in the behavior of the Jew Bogroff. He certainly was not in need of the money from the Ochrana. Why, then, did he enter its service?
Dmitri Bogroff descibed himself as a follower of the Anarcho-Communists, who took the position that the entire state and economic order must be wholly destroyed. He subscribed to the so-called "Platform of the London Congress of Anarchists" of 1881, which had announced the slogan of the "Propaganda of the Act."
"The Anarchists take the position that every means is permitted for attaining their goals, and the rejection of the law is their highest principle."(1) The Anarchist organ Die Freihiet [Freedom] in New York, 25 January 1885 (Nr. 4), declared the following guidelines for conduct, which were also applicable for Bogroff(2): "One must attack when and whereever possible! The more quietly the lackeys of the order can be liquidated, the less danger is connected to the [liquidation of the] more prominent members. The revolver is good, when extreme danger threatens; dynamite should be used only for the most serious political campaigns. Otherwise, the dagger and poison are very practical means of propaganda."
That was the Weltanschauung [world view] of the young Bogroff.
 He belonged to a group of Anarcho-Communists in Kiev, but soon decided to act completely alone and independently. Very remarkable is his statement of 02 September 1911, to the effect that those alleged Anarcho-Communists "in the main pursue purely predatory goals." In the same statement, Bogroff explains: "I decided to furnish made-up reports to the Petersburg Division of the Ochrana or to the police department, in order, out of revolutionary objectives, to have close contact with these authorities and to become familiar with their activities." The investigation made after the murder showed that Bogroff had in reality not performed any service of value whatsoever for the Ochrana, but rather only pretended to belong to it. He was an agent of the Ochrana in 1907 in Kiev, in Petersburg in 1910, and then again in Kiev in 1911.
The result of the aforesaid investigation, which was conducted by Senator Trussevitch, was:
"One can maintain with complete correctness, that Dmitri Bogroff, who was well-known to the Kiev division of the Ochrana as a revolutionary Anarchist, led Kulyapko (Director of the Kiev Ochrana) around by the nose and exploited the Ochrana for his own revolutionary aims."
Senator Trussevitch came to the conclusion that the persons who had been entrusted with the guarding of the Czar in Kiev, namely Kurloff, Colonel Spiridovitch, Councilor Verigin and Colonel-Lieutenant Kulyapko, were guilty of a criminal negligence in office and must be made to answer for it.
Without a doubt, Trussevitch was correct. Bogroff, as one of his own comrades, Sandomirski expressed it, was a "Provocateur without provocation," or, better said: the Jew Bogroff not only incited the Anarcho-Communists, he incited and also betrayed the Ochrana. He was a provocateur raised to the second power. Accordingly, Dmitri Bogroff was a second and still worse Asev, because he instigated, prepared and personally carried out the murder of Minister-President Stolypin. By so doing, he consciously renounced having his own "revolutionary role" come to light. Rather, he described himself as an agent of the Ochrana, in order to add a yet enormous propagandizing effect to the effect of the murder -- the total defamation of the Ochrana. Indeed, the result of this was that not only the Ochrana, but he himself had bad repute in the (non-Jewish!) world. But to his Tribe, he had the status of a "super-hero." For example, this is how his brother, W. Bogroff writes of him:
 "Dmitri Bogroff brought still more than his life as a sacrifice to his revolutionary ideas, as he understood them: he sacrificed his revolutionary name and his revolutionary honor."
So much for the brother. In reality, of course, it has turned out differently. Dmitri Bogroff did not act as a "Revolutionary" and did not sacrifice his life and his "honor" in any sense to a "revolutionary idea"; rather, he acted as a Jew and executive of the Jewish struggle for power. There is abundant evidence for this in the utterances of the murderer himself.
For example, from Munich Dmitri Bogroff writes a letter to his parents, in which he comes to speak of the defense of the people against Jewry in Russia, the so-called pogroms, and then adds that he "cannot remain calmly abroad while in Russia people are beaten" (in place of "people" the word "Jews" should be used). In a completely confidential talk with the revolutionary Jew Lasareff in Petersburg in 1910, Bogroff communicates his goal of killing Stolypin. He tries to make clear to his racial comrade that, logically, he must perform this action entirely by himself, so that no persecution of the Jews will be caused by it, but that he is counting upon the "understanding" of his racial comrades. He says, to wit(1): "I am a Jew, and permit me to remind you that today we are still living under the rule of the Black Hundreds (anti-Semites). The Jews will never forget the Kruschevanovs, Dubrovins, Purischkevitches and like malefactors. And Herzenstein? And where is Yollos? Where are the hundreds, the thousands, of Jews who have been torn to pieces -- men, women, and children with bellies slit open, with noses and ears cut off(?!) . . .To point out the truly guilty to the masses is the duty of the Socialist parties and the intelligentsia anyway. You know that the leader of violent reaction is Stolypin. I come to you and say to you, that I have resolved to eliminate him."
These words of Bogroff are not to be outdone in their frankness. There is only one statement yet which is worthy of a place beside it: the statement of the Jew David Frankfurter, the murderer of Wilhelm Gustloff in Davos. David Frankfurter, like Dmitri Bogroff, confesses openly that they have acted as Jews. Neither for Frankfurter nor for Bogroff is it a matter of being "Socialists," "Anarchists" or "Revolutionaries" -- it is a matter of being instruments of the Jewish war against humanity, of being Jewish murderers.
 In another, strictly secret talk shortly before the murder with the Anarchist Lyapkovski, likewise released from jail, Bogroff explains(1): "I am a Jew. With a murder of Nicolaus [the then Romanov Czar, Nicolas II], I would cause an enormous persecution of the Jews. Better yet to murder Stolypin. Thanks to his policies, the Revolution is suffocated and reaction has set in."
Therefore, here, as well: the dam against the Revolution of Jewry must be broken through. Stolypin, who stands in the way of the struggle for control by the Jews, must fall.
On 11 September 1911, Bogroff was hanged.
The escape plan, which he had layed out with the help of his racial comrades, had failed.
So much for the case of Bogroff, who dealt a lethal blow to the anti-Jewish Russian Empire. An instructive example of the complete ruthlessness, cruelty and deliberation of Judeo- Bolshevist criminality, an instructive example, also, of the myopia and superficiality of the state defense for warding off revolutionary-criminal efforts; a defense which marched on past the essential core of these efforts, the Jewish core, and believed that it could place Jews in the service of this defense, even as provocateurs. The Jew as a provocateur -- as shown by the cases of Asev and Bogroff --- is always a "Provocateur without provocation," a super-provocateur, whose provocation is directed not against the overthrow [of the state], but against order, law, and the freedom of the people.
The Jew as informer is as customary a phenomenon as the Jew as swindler, as fence or as spy.
Still one more historical example of this.
On 05 March 1917, among the first orders of business of the "Report of the Provisional Government," there was published in Russia a prescription for the establishment of an "Extra-ordinary Investigatory Committee for the Discovery of Unlawful Official Dealings of the former Minister and higher officials." The commission met in the just-captured Winter Palace. It questioned a total of 59 persons, among them nearly all of the former ministers, state secretaries, governors, generals, the directors of police departments, well-known politicians, and other personalities of the old regime(2).
 Two topics in particular occupied the investigatory commission, which, incidentally, "met" so long that they themselves were hunted down and themselves interrogated by the victorious Bolshevists: the case of Rasputin and the question of provocation as means of struggle against the revolutionary parties by the old Ochrana (political police). The origin, composition and activity of this commission puts it beyond any suspicion of enmity toward Jews. On the contrary, it was a "prosecuting authority" staged by the Jews against the anti-Semitic old regime. All the more potently incriminating and irrefutable was the evidence of criminal double-agentry and political murders of the Jews, which was unwillingly brought to light by the commission -- the devastating facts about such "outstanding" representatives of Jewry as the provocateur Asev, the informer and swindler Manassevitch Manuilov, the jeweler and gambling club owner Simanovitch, the Court banker and traitor Rubenstein, etc.
The commission deliberated long and broadly over the famous "instruction for the organization and performance of internal surveillance," the basis for the highly developed system of provocation at the Ochrana. This instruction begins with the sentence: "The single reliable means for securely informing the organs of investigation about revolutionary work, is the establishment of an interior agency. The entire efforts of political observation must be directed toward the object of discovering the center of revolutionary organizations and to liquidate it in the moment of the highest development of its activity."
Certainly the system of "trusted people" and agents is as old as the history of the state itself, since there is hardly any other means for [acquiring] information about opposing organizations and for fighting enemies of the state. The very well thought-out instruction of the old Ochraca had foreseen all eventualities, incorporated all security measures, to create a well-functioning system of surveillance. And yet, this instruction, with its system of highly-disciplined provocation, without a doubt played an essential part in the collapse of the czarist state. The reason is to be found in the fact that the instruction and the Ochrana had no sensitivity for or view of the one decisive fact: the basic criminality, the fundamental revolutionism of Jewry. There were no proscriptions against the use of Jews as agents and informers. Thus Jewry succeeded in penetrating the Ochrana, in corrupting it and misusing it for the Jewish efforts at overthrowing the state. The Ochrana thought that it  was using the Jews, but in actuality was itself being used by the Jews. [This is the entire story, played out over milennia, of the interaction between the state and the Jews!]
The "classical" figure of the revolutionary Ochrana-Jew will always remain Yevno Asev, a figure about which just as many legends have been spun as about the figure of Rasputin. All these legends are deliberately silent about the Jewish core and represent him intentionally as a "betrayer of the Revolution." In reality, Asev was definitely, to be sure, a traitor to the honorable revolutionaries, and equally as much a traitor to his task-masters at the Ochrana. He was "loyal" only to his Jewish mission and fully consistent in executing it. The mission of the Jew Asev consisted, just as did that of the other Jewish provocateurs, revolutionaries, journalists and bankers, of nothing other than the simultaneous misdirection and corruption of the revolutionary powers on the one hand, and the corruption and misleading of the state aparatus on the other. These Jews prevented the finding of any positive outcome of the conflict between people and state in Russia, and thus prepared the way for and brought about the Jewish-Bolshevist seizure of power.