On the discussion of the Protocols, one can easily take the stance that the framing of the Protocols as if it were written by jewish hands themselves and sourced by credible jews as a plot by jewish leaders is in fact fake; however, if instead the document was presented as if written by non-jews who wished to describe the plot which they believed the jews were enacting without actual primary jewish sources but included the author's beliefs, rational for coming to them and whatever actual factual evidence was presented, then it wouldn't be considered "fake". The question would be whether the author was right about what the jews were plotting or not. That latter question is far more valuable than discerning whether the document was or was not written by jewish hands and sources by credible primary jewish sources; however, that discussion almost never occurs because of everyone's immediate dismissal of the document as "fake". I find that very interesting because if a group of people didn't want anyone to discuss the plans laid out within the document because of their potential accuracy to the plans they were plotting then this group of people did an amazing job at deflecting the potential reveal of their plot within the Protocols. The focus of the Protocols is always whether it's real/fake rather that just discussing if the plan itself seems to align with how our reality has unfolded.

On the discussion of the Protocols, one can easily take the stance that the framing of the Protocols as if it were written by jewish hands themselves and sourced by credible jews as a plot by jewish leaders is in fact fake; however, if instead the document was presented as if written by non-jews who wished to describe the plot which they believed the jews were enacting without actual primary jewish sources but included the author's beliefs, rational for coming to them and whatever actual factual evidence was presented, then it wouldn't be considered "fake". The question would be whether the author was right about what the jews were plotting or not. That latter question is far more valuable than discerning whether the document was or was not written by jewish hands and sources by credible primary jewish sources; however, that discussion almost never occurs because of everyone's immediate dismissal of the document as "fake". I find that very interesting because if a group of people didn't want anyone to discuss the plans laid out within the document because of their potential accuracy to the plans they were plotting then this group of people did an amazing job at deflecting the potential reveal of their plot within the Protocols.

On the discussion of the Protocols, one can easily take the stance that the framing of the Protocols as if it were written by jewish hands themselves and sourced by credible jews as a plot by jewish leaders is in fact fake; however, if instead the document was presented as if written by non-jews who wished to describe the plot which they believed the jews were enacting without actual primary jewish sources but included the author's beliefs, rational for coming to them and whatever actual factual evidence was presented, then it wouldn't be considered "fake". The question would be whether the author was right about what the jews were plotting or not. That latter question is far more valuable than discerning whether the document was or was not written by jewish hands; however, that discussion almost never occurs because of everyone's immediate dismissal of the document as "fake". I find that very interesting because if a group of people didn't want anyone to discuss the plans laid out within the document because of their potential accuracy to the plans they were plotting then this group of people did an amazing job at deflecting the potential reveal of their plot within the Protocols.

On the discussion of the Protocols, one can easily take the stance that the framing of the Protocols as if it were written by jewish hands themselves and sourced by credible jews as a plot by jewish leaders is in fact fake; however, if instead the document was presented as if written by non-jews who wished to describe the plot which they believed the jews were enacting without actual evidence beyond their beliefs and actual factual evidence presented, then it wouldn't be considered "fake". The question would be whether the author was right about what the jews were plotting or not. That latter question is far more valuable than discerning whether the document was or was not written by jewish hands; however, that discussion almost never occurs because of everyone's immediate dismissal of the document as "fake". I find that very interesting because if a group of people didn't want anyone to discuss the plans laid out within the document because of their potential accuracy to the plans they were plotting then this group of people did an amazing job at deflecting the potential reveal of their plot within the Protocols.

On the discussion of the Protocols, one can easily take the stance that the framing of the Protocols as if it were written by jewish hands themselves as a plot by jewish leaders is in fact fake; however, if instead the document was presented as if written by non-jews who wished to describe the plot which they believed the jews were enacting, then it wouldn't be fake. The question would be whether the author was right about what the jews were plotting or not. That latter question is far more valuable than discerning whether the document was or was not written by jewish hands; however, that discussion almost never occurs because of everyone's immediate dismissal of the document as "fake". I find that very interesting because if a group of people didn't want anyone to discuss the plans laid out within the document because of their potential accuracy to the plans they were plotting then this group of people did an amazing job at deflecting the potential reveal of their plot within the Protocols.