The Protocols of the Elders of Zion read more like a comedy than any actual substantive work. Going into the peculiar history surrounding the work it makes logical sense that the work reads so poorly as it was used as propaganda against an enemy that did not exist, and the only reason that this reading is not widely held as satire is due to the actions of those who read the work – such as Hitler- and did not hold the intellectual backbone to analyze the work as purely fictional. It is peculiar that this work could have ever affected someone’s attitude towards Jewish people, less it is peculiar to think that such an obviously incoherent work could influence the genocide of more than 6 million Jewish people. I believe that there can be no critical analysis of this time period and its atrocities without first delving into how a work like this could have ever been seen as intelligent or intelligible in the eyes of some laymen and in the eyes of powerful figures, including Ford and as previously mentioned Hitler. Unlike many other authoritarian texts there lacks any frame in which a reasonable human being, not caught within their own perverse prejudice, could construct any single meaningful argument from the bilge of this work. Thus the question must be prodded, did either Hitler or Ford actually read this text with any semblance of criticality or did they assume the notion that the text’s existence justified their prejudice and preconceptions?