Tab 18. Zundelsite - Power Letter - July 1996 - Part B

"Remember Jewish Professor W.D. Rubenstein of Australia who wrote in Sept 1979, "If the Holocaust can be shown to be a 'Zionist myth', the strongest of all weapons in Israel's propaganda armory collapses. " Knock that shield away, and they will have no choice but to defend themselves on their own merits. Without the self-bestowed "victim " status and without their copyright on pain and suffering, they will be revealed to be a rather paranoid, shrill, whining group of shysters, common racketeers, distorters of history, falsifiers of documents who created a gangster enclave in the Middle East called Israel to which thieves, crooks, swindlers, real estate and stock market frauds and Mafia king pins like Meyer Lansky, Flatto Sharon and thousands of other can retire to a safe haven. From there they can send forth their hit men and assassination squads, riding in bombers or on the banks of tanks, terrorizing their neighbors or even individuals in far off lands, sometimes even governments or heads of state."

"Until now, the "Holocaust " story and their stranglehold on the media in many parts of the world have made them immune, so far, from exposure - but now their defenses are crumbling, for every day brings to light more misdeeds, more con games, more insider trading, more lies and more cheating - and more and more crimes against the Germans, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Iraqis and the hapless Russians during their Bolshevik reign of terror and destruction there."

The day of global reckoning is dawning. The Jewish Century is drawing to a close. The Age of Truth is waiting to be ushered in, and we will be its ushers."

Analysis

In the first paragraph, the writer focuses on the Jewishness of Professor Rubenstein, and quotes from him (without citation of source):

"If the Holocaust can be shown to be a 'Zionist myth', the strongest of all weapons in Israel's propaganda armory collapses."

However, the reader is provided no context in terms of which to assess the thrust of this statement. In particular, there are (at least) two possible and conflicting interpretations:

[Page 23]

1. Professor Rubenstein's context is one in which he is `defending' the truth of the Holocaust and pointing out that the deniers of the Holocaust are attempting to represent the Holocaust as a Jewish myth.

2. Professor Rubenstein's context is one in which he is `attacking' the truth of the Holocaust and urging it to be seen as a product of Jewish propaganda.

The writer invites the second interpretation, since the second sentence follows with approval upon the first, suggesting that the Holocaust Zionist myth is a shield protecting Jews The writer has moved quickly and fluidly from Zionists to the class of all Jews.

In the second and third sentences, the pronoun they has no overt antecedent. The reader is thus forced to construct an antecedent, a referent such that the use of the pronoun can make sense. Following upon Sperber and Wilson's relevance principle, the reader constructs such an antecedent which will be congruent with the context. In this instance, the naturally invited referent is the Jews. That is, it cannot be the French or dogs, etc., because these nouns are simply not relevant to the context. Once the reader constructs the antecedent as the Jews, this entity serves via topic continuity (i.e., there is no other competing referent), to be the subject of the predication of the sentence. In this case, all Jews (Jews as an identifiable class) are attributed with a series of negative characteristics (shysters, gangsters. racketeers, distorters of history, falsifiers, etc. ) By invoking the names of two Mafia king pins, namely Meyer Lansky and Flatto Sharon, the writer quickly moves to extend the group of such criminals to thousands of others, with absolutely no evidence cited for such a number. in the same paragraph, they (the Jews) are asserted to have created a corrupt state (Israel) which conceals evil activities and which has adopted a state policy of providing safe haven to criminals.

Thus, in this paragraph, although Jews are never overtly mentioned, they are nevertheless invoked via relevance as the referential antecedent of the pronoun they, after which they, (the Jews) are assigned negative and inflammatory attributes and characteristics.

The same strategy is employed in the second paragraph, where they is again introduced. Again here, the natural referent is the Jews, sustained via topic continuity from the first paragraph. In their Bolshevik reign of terror, their refers to Jews and implies that the Jews as an identifiable group are gangsters and Zionists and that this group is co- referential with the Bolsheviks. Thus, here again the Jews are singled out negatively as criminals.

The third paragraph constitutes a covert threat against the Jews. In it, the writer contrasts the Jewish Century with the Age of Truth. The contrast itself constitutes a rhetorical device which pits the two terms against one another along some particular dimension. In this instance, the relevant dimension is that of truth, a term overtly used. Thus, the contrast implies that the opposite of truth resides in the contrasted term, the Jewish Century. Specifically, the contrast implies that the Jewish Century, presumably the present twentieth century, is one dominated by lies. The we in this paragraph also needs an interpretation: who is/are the referents? The relevance principle invites the interpretation that the we refers to those who oppose the Jewish position, and threaten to lead in its destruction. When we is read with its inclusive sense, the

[Page 24]

reader is allowed to be a member of the writer's group. This paragraph is an implicit threat of violence.

In summary. the passage singles out Jews and assigns them negative attributes. It accuses Jews of criminal actions. It treats all Jews as a single group and threatens them with violence.

[ Previous | Index | Next |

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor