this thread has exploded my brain
First off, I'm not Jewish. And secondly, taking websites created by people as crazy as you does not support your argument at all, if anything it entirely discredits it.
The Protocols were initially published in the Russian newspaper Snamia in 1903 and are believed to have been also published in 1902/1903 in the newspaper Moskowskija Wiedomosti. Despite a copy of the book written by Professor Sergyei Nilus (an official at the Department of Foreign Relations at Moscow) being registered in the British Museum on August 10th, 1906, they were otherwise unknown outside of Russia until after the Bolshevik Revolution when Russian emigrants took copies to North America and Germany. In Bolshevik Russia, they carried the death sentence for anyone found to be in possession of them. (As far as I am aware, the entire document deposited in the British Museum has never been fully translated into English).
The Protocols gained widespread recognition upon their translation into English, in 1920. They soon became notorious. Esteemed newspapers such as The Times and The Morning Post (whose Moscow correspondent Victor E Marsden was responsible in 1921 for the translation used in this document) covered the story in numerous articles, much to the chagrin of world Jewry, who immediately began the propaganda bandwagon rolling. They not only denied that the Protocols were a Jewish plot, but also that there was any plot whatsoever. The latter was quite clearly false to all educated men and women of the time.
'Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.' The period of 1920 'marks the end of the time when the Jewish question could be impartially openly discussed in public.'
(Reed - 'The Controversy of Zion ')
The Press was firmly under the thumb of the vested interests. Those that went against the grain and published information on the Protocols were soon brought into line or brought down by financial and political pressure. As an example, in 1920, Lord Northcliffe, the owner of several newspapers, as well as being joint proprietor of The Times, caused to be published in The Times an article called 'The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry'. This article on the Protocols called for a proper investigation into the documents. In February 1922, he set about a fervently anti-Zionist mission, a series of articles about what was really going on in Palestine. On August 14, 1922 Northcliffe died of ulcerative endocarditis. He had been confronted on a train to Evian-les-Bains in June by the editor of The Times, Mr Wickham Steed, with a doctor who had certified Northcliffe 'insane'. On the strength of this he was barred from entering the offices of The Times by a police guard, and his communications were ordered to be ignored by the staff. All of this despite showing no outward signs of madness to those who later commented on his appearance or state of mind. However, he had stated that he believed his life was in danger and that he was being poisoned. This whole story was suppressed until the publication of 'The Official History of the Times', thirty years later in 1952!
Thus, one man who had enough power and will to challenge the Protocols and Zionism on an international stage to an audience of millions, who was committed to illuminating the world as to the true agenda, had been removed.
The often cited 'fact' that the Protocols are a 'proven fraud', is easily dismissed, as it is actually entirely untrue and based upon a very specific court case. Numerous unsuccessful attempts had been made by world Jewry to have the Protocols denounced as a forgery. But it was not until 1933 that any legal action was taken in this respect:
On 26th June, 1933, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Switzerland and the Berne Jewish Community brought an action against five members of the Swiss National Front, seeking a judgment that the Protocols were a forgery and a prohibition of their publication. The procedure of the Court wa