:(1) Your comments above - all sweeping useless generalizations - are also extremely discribable as highly incoherent, as it concerns reason. What are you talking about? What's your question, on "text validity?" Where do we find your "jewish conspiracy theories" besides the insides of the workings of your private mind - which is inaccessible to us? How are we to figure out what your talking about? Cann't you have been more specific? 
 :(2) Also, why is this article about Wikipedia in general? You seem to be criticising the whole world. Why is this article the place for you to do that? 
 :(3) Can you give us a citation, just one authority which supports any of your many opinions "expressed" here? 
 :(4) And by the way, a text is never valid - what is valid is an argument, none of which has been made by any of the words used above. In fact, the above paragraph - which unfortunately must go by the name of language can only give us some meaning by being psychoanalyzed. But we are not shrinks here. But you leave us no choice. My - amateur - psychological interpretation of the giberish expressed above tells me that you have some feelings regarding Jews and that you seem to read those feelings into "The Protocols", right? And that you are disappointed that those feelings of yours are not at all adequately reflected in our Wikipedia article, right? But as Wikipedians that's not our job here - nor is it yours. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss the private views of people who may feelings that there is some "validity" to your view that "jews" - somewhere - are "conspiring" - to do what, by the way?