But, thank you UV, for allowing me to continue to post the mountains of evidence, direct and circumstantial, that prove the Protocols to be real, and on track up to this day...as Henry says: "In different ways, both Zionists and Nazis have made it synonymous with virulent anti Semitism and genocide.
But surely Jews should not be blamed for the machinations of a tiny secret society. The vast majority of Jews would disavow this master plan if they believed it existed.
Surely one can condemn all racism and genocide in the strongest possible terms and still believe the Protocols are authentic.
In my opinion, the equation with anti Semitism is really a ploy to divert attention away from this master plan.
The plagiarism claim is part of a propaganda campaign waged by conscious and unconscious collaborators in academia and the media."

UV,
Maurice Joly Plagiarized "Protocols of Zion" (not vice-versa)
August 3, 2018
(image: Maurice Joly 1821-1879, was a Jew named Joseph Levy with a history of plagiarism.)

The assumption is that since Protocols appeared some 40 years after Dialogue,
it plagiarized the earlier work. But the Protocols actually predated Dialogue
and Joly borrowed from it. In other words, far from being an anti-Semitic ruse,
the "Protocols of Zion" are authentic. henrymakow.com

Of the Protocols themselves little need be said in the way of introduction. The book
in which they are embodied was published by Sergyei Nilus in Russia in 1905. A copy
of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All
copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and

under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime
sufficient to ensure the owner's of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient
proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that
they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied

them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.
Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York WORLD, February 17th,
1921, put the case for Nilus tersely and convincingly thus: "The only statement I care
to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are

sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT

NOW." Indeed they do!

henrymakow.com Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that the book exhibits "the mind of a genius." Pretty good for a hoax, wouldn't you say?

Solzhenitsyn said it exhibits "great strength of thought and insight... Its design... (increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm)...is well above the abilities of an ordinary mind... It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb."

I believe the Protocols are genuine. They are lectures addressed to Jewish Freemasons (probably at the Mizraim Lodge in Paris) detailing an incredible plan to overthrow Western Civilization, subjugate mankind, and concentrate "all the wealth of the world... in our hands." They were given as a regular series of workshops to these Masons in Paris. The author describes them as an "exposition of our programme" and often begins by saying, "Today we will discuss..."

He has always been problematic. No doubt, taking up one's cross and following Christ is not easy for most of us. Accepting that we live in a vale of tears, and God's way to transform it is through suffering and obedience, is not a message the modern world wants to hear. The rebellious Protestants rejected the cross of crucification for the cross of resurrection, but resurrection only comes after crucifixion. Hence, suffering is inevitable in this world for most of us, and only the One True Faith gives us a way through it to Eternal bliss. We have to fight the good fight, but allow it to happen as God wills, without giving into fatalism. To be in the world but not "of" the world. It's walking the knife's edge, indeed the narrow path. Not easy. But worth it in the end as it is Our Lord's way.