Of what? The "Protocols" were contrived ca. 1905 by the Okhrana, as very recent research has confirmed. They were known to be a hoax at the time they were popularized in Germany.

The scholarship on this appears pretty solid. It seems a convenient trick to dispose of the fact that it is a hoax by saying it is a plagiarism of something authentic. Where would be the proof of that? And how would that supposed original not also be a hoax?

This seems a problem of "itchy ears" seeking to hear what they want to hear. The blatant bias confirmation is so sweet, that being based on a lie is dismissed as inconsequential.

Of what? The "Protocols" were contrived ca. 1905 by the Okhrana, as very recent research has confirmed. They were known to be a hoax at the time they were popularized in Germany.

The scholarship on this appears pretty solid. It seems a convenient trick to dispose of the fact that it is a hoax by saying it is a plagiarism of something authentic. Where would be the proof of that? And how would that supposed original not also be a hoax?