/lit/ - Literature

At one point in history: you could get shot for possessing a copy of this text.

It is in fact: one of the only books which would get you shot without a trial.

Is there any truth to this book?

>But it is a forgery!
Protocols reproduce and paraphrase sentences and metaphors found in a short book written by a certain Maurice Joly during the period of Napoleon's Second Empire.

These parts constitute less than 1% of the text in question. Where did the rest 99% come from?

This argument is truly irrelevant: those who decry plagiarism should keep in mind that this is not a matter of a literary work or of copyright. For example, when a general writes a plan, he could employ previous materials and writings as long as they contain ideas fit for his purpose. This would be a case of plagiarism, but it would not affect at all the question of whether or not this plan has really been conceived and carried out.

>It is an anti-semitic hoax!
It is true that many Jews have been and still are among the promoters of modern disorder in its more radical cultural expressions, whether political or social. This, however, should not prevent a deeper analysis, capable of exposing forces that may have employed modern Judaism merely as an instrument. After all, despite the fact that many Jews are among the apostles of the main ideologies regarded by the Protocols as instruments of global subversion (i.e., liberalism, socialism, scientism, and rationalism), it is also evident that these ideas would have never arisen and triumphed without historical antecedents, such as the Reformation, Humanism, the naturalism and individualism of the Renaissance, and the philosophy of Descartes. Such phenomena cannot be attributed to Judaism, but rather point to a wider web of influences.

My question is: How this document was literally able to predict the future?
It talks of world wars (Before World Wars happened), fiat money (Before Federal Reserve), monopoly of the press and of the media in democratic countries.