Look, EoZ was fabricated (my belief), but Bird urges you to read it. Notice that being fabrication doesn't mean it's completely baseless. Even fabrication should be rooted in *some* truth, or at least prejuices.

I have actual useful theory to read

You started fighting over EoZ instead of discussing.

theory lol

Also it links to the scanned old article somewhere on there

Just doesnt work for me cus mobile

yeah which you have to pay to read

Find it on archive or something

Actually ill do that for you

Phone too slow, find it yourself

I mean, if you're attempting to convince someone that EoZ is fake, I'm sure that there's better ways than 100 years old newspaper? Or should it be considered oddity?

The article is still relevant

@AsdfgQwert it would be good if it provided actual evidence and not just claims

I am aware there is bias in the book I am aware not everything is truthful

Read the 1921 article that new one is just rehashing it for unaware ppl

Reading it and comparing it to the modern day politics is eye opening and I recommend it

Read the book

You can use anything to color events

No its a forgery

What’s the point you’re trying to prove

EoZ is bs and you can paint events however you want

What does EoZ stand for, even?

You haven’t read the book you can’t make that claim

Protocols of the elders of Zion @Koninos

Ohhh.

Read the 1921 article

Yeah, it's quite cringe.

I haven't read it, but I've read about it.

I recommend it

Take what you can from it like anything in life

What does it have to offer, other than proposing that the Jews are planning to dominate the world?

We are planning to dominate the world 😈

Gives insight to some of the inner workings of Zionism

The thing is, conspiracy theories and books like EoZ, mix some truth with a lot of lies, and create some sort of believable propaganda.

https://archive.org/details/TheProtocolsOfTheLearnedEldersOfZion/mode/2up

Yes take what you can from it read and compare

Find the truth

I don't think this book will change my mind, really.

> In 1921, The Times of London published three articles written by the newspaper's Constantinople (now Istanbul) correspondent, Philip Graves, which showed that the Protocols had been extensively plagiarized from a book by a French lawye r and writer named Maurice Joly. The book by Joly was called (in French) Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. It was published in Brussels (Belgium) in 1864 (with a Geneva imprint, although the edition I have seen is dated 1868 and has a Brussels imprint). Cohn notes (p 74-5): "In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totaling two-fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half the text, in some they amount to three-quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. This should be enough to demonstrate that plagiarism occurred.
Sounds easy, verify Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu existed before EoZ and read it.

I was unaware of this I will look into it thanks

http://robscholtemuseum.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dialogue-in-Hell-between-Machiavelli-and-Montesquieu.pdf