That's an interesting new approach you're trying there, jewfag.
The problem is that it's not going to persuade anyone here. Nobody will see your statement that the blood passover thing is false or that the Times of London debunked the protocols and be persuaded.
You are anonymous here and your beliefs don't matter. If you have proof, post proof.
Finklefag does a better job of providing background information. Nobody needs to accept finklefag's statements because they can investigate the matter for themselves.
You're not an authority on "the political purpose of anti-semitism" either.
It's actually quite funny to see a jewfag claiming to know what the purpose of anti-semitism is.
You may be an authority on the talmud, but if you're actually bound by jewish law then you would be forbidden from telling us the truth about it.
I've read bits and pieces from the Talmud. You're right that it's enormous. If there's one overarching theme that I could find in it, it seems to be "How to get what you want by finding a twisted interpretation of the law."
In that context, the parts about molesting children seem to me to be examples of rabbis trying to escape their responsibilities.
For example, "A maiden aged three years and a day can be acquired in marriage by coition," seems to me to be a rabbi saying "I shouldn't have to marry this little girl that I fiddled and this is the excuse that I'm using."
I don't think it's to be interpreted as an actual instruction to molest kids.
But I'd like to hear your jewfag take on that. Maybe you can come up with an interpretation that doesn't make judaism look bad.