Well, the bit around the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is extremely irresponsible.
What part around the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is extremely irresponsible. He does not speak of a Jewish conspiracy at all in that section, but questions it's legitimacy in several places - even though the section has nothing to do with the authenticity of the document as a source of Jewish conspiracy.
However, as any meta-historian would do, he marks it as an example of a revolutionary text with historical significance. In other words, he discusses the content of the protocols and how they inspired actors in the world (the inspiration occurred regardless of the document's authenticity.) And even critical sources like Heredom will confirm it's place as such.
Thus, it is discussed inside the context of Proudhon, Bukanin (with Necheyev), and Weishaupt - of which it is a reflection of their collective ideologies. In other words, the use of the text is qualified.
I don't know how you can say it's irresponsible, unless you haven't read it with understanding. It's easy to critique something out of context. You miss the point that Fr. Rose goes through significant lengths to make clear.
In your mind, is the discussion of a documents historical impact, such as Hitler's use of the document to (quoting Fr. Rose) "enflame hatred of the Jews... and blame all the problems of Germany on them" as 'extremely irresponsible.' That needs explaining, more than making an issue with the mere fact that the Protocols get discussed at all.
I think it kind of funny in regard to your reasons you gave as to why not to ban BLM support from this forum that you'd then call this extremely responsible. I don't think you are being consistent here.
