The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Notes on a Discourse Analysis
of Selected Zündelsite Materials
(Part 10 of 13)

Tab 21. Power Letter - January 97 - Part B

Passage 1

"Now the Federal government is appealing this decision, and as per usual, the Canadian politicians have a few friends in the public "B'nai Brith" and the Jewish Lobby. Or is it the other way around? There would be no such hearing and persecutions by the Government of Canada of dissidents like Ernst Zundel, were it not for the constant meddling and whining of this noisy, powerful Jewish Lobby group!

[Page 27]

Here, too, time will tell how long these people will be allowed to use the Federal government bureaucracy as its patsy or hit squad to silence B'nai Brith's opposition. Jewish history and the Jewish track record shows that organized Jewry repeatedly clenched defeat from the jaws of near-total victory by their arrogant abuse of power and influence, once they thought they had "arrived"! Some people simply have no feel for when enough is enough!

There is always that last straw that breaks the camel's back!

The pattern has been the same from the Weimar Republic, where Jewish elements had immense power, to various Bolshevik countries where they lost their near-total power because of their own excesses, to Clinton's grotesque and disproportionate Cabinet appointments, where Jews - who represent only 5% of the U.S. population, if you believe those fudged statistics which hide all those "Holocaust survivors" - make up over 50% of the Clinton Cabinet and other major appointments. By deduction this can only lead people to conclude that, with the exception of this small tribal group, the rest of American citizens are seen as incompetent or stupid and unworthy to hold cabinet posts!

Do they like it? Of course not! My American friends tell me that America is seething with resentment! In Canada, the power of the tribe is more hidden and not as brazen. However, few who still think are fooled."


The first two paragraphs first construct an entity called the Jewish Lobby, apparently distinct from the legitimate organization B'nai Brith, which, the writer asserts via stipulation, is both very powerful and at the same time manipulative, arrogant. Moreover, the use of the expression public B'nai Brith implies the existence of a secret B'nai Brith, which is sinister and conspiratorial in nature. The terms meddling, whining and noisy are pejorative in nature, implying that Jews should properly have no interest or involvement in cases in which they as a group have been singled out as criminals. The use of the expression the other way around invites the reader to conclude that Jews as a group are controlling the Canadian government.

In the second paragraph, the writer implies through the use of scare quotes (...who think that they have "arrived".. ) that Jews are lesser people than others, and constitute a group who do not know their proper place in some (undefined) social order, implicitly a position less than that of the writer. The writer stipulates that Jews have overstepped their proper place in the social order, using the warrants supposedly revealed in "Jewish history" and the "Jewish track record", although these warrants have no force, since they are only stipulations themselves. The term these people, like the expression some Jews in Tab 13, Passage 4, is used pejoratively, identifying Jews as a group and singling them out in an accusatory way. The last sentence is an implicit threat to Jews, suggesting that their activities must be stopped.

[Page 28]

The third, single sentence, paragraph is an implicit threat to Jews. It takes its force from the preceding paragraph which attempts to establish the proposition that Jews do not stay in their proper social place, and therefore they must be put back Into what the writer considers their appropriate place in the social order.

The fourth paragraph likens the governments of the Weimar Republic and the United States by asserting the common factor of being influences [sic] by Jews. In the former case, Jews are accused, without warrant, of "excesses" of an undefined nature, while in the putative parallel case of the United States government, the President's cabinet is asserted to contain an excessive number of Jews. The writer fails to establish why the number is excessive, claiming only that the percentages do not reflect the overall populations percentages. The pejorative expressions tribe and tribal imbue Jews as a group with special negative tribal properties, assigning them with such attributes as organized exclusiveness, manipulativeness, and secrecy. The implication is that Jews are manipulative (and should not be, since manipulativeness is a negative attribute) is congruent with the earlier passage in which the writer has attempted to claim that Jews should remain in a subservient social role.

The writer's claim that "by deduction", non-Jewish Americans are stupid, etc. thereby fails, since the premises are not warranted, and the argument by population analogy, in the absence of other possible factors, is also unwarranted.

The overall thrust in the passage is the attempt to establish that Jews are overstepping (undefined) social boundaries and are exerting power and authority in inappropriate ways, with the concomitant sub-theme that such activities are improper, illicit and must be stopped. The passage is an attempt to provide rationalization for the writer's dislike for Jews and to propagate that attitude via unwarranted claims.

Passage 2

"...Hitler was also born as a reaction to the same strident, shrill, ruthless power grabs by Jewish bankers, gangsters, culture perverters, stock market swindlers and criminals of every stripe The "Holocaust", whatever it was in reality - Germany's anti-Jewish policies, laws and decrees - can ultimately ONLY be understood if we put them in the context of the time. We can never neutralize the heated, emotional nonsense surrounding the "Holocaust" promotion if we do not explain properly WHY Hitler came on the scene!

We must fill the vital link If we don't we will be forever apologizing for perfectly logical steps undertaken by the German government of the time - steps which were carbon-copies and standard procedures in most civilized countries, including England, Canada and the United States, against criminal elements, security risks, agitators, saboteurs and alien minorities. Remove the Iying accusation of "genocide by gas chambers " and you will see that the German policies were often more benign and far less racially motivated than the policies of the Canadians and the Americans - against their citizens of Japanese origin, for instance! "

[Page 29]


In the texts made available to me, this passage is one of the clearest instances in which the writer specifically targets Jews as a group of criminals. Its tone is strident, inflammatory, and highly negative. The writer indulges in an out-pouring of anti-Semitic rhetoric in the first sentence, labelling Jews as a group as "gangsters, culture perverters. stock market swindlers and criminals of every stripe " . The writer attempts to give this assertion, a stipulation without overt warrant, added strength by asserting that issues surrounding the Holocaust are "heated, emotional nonsense". The writer then attempts to justify the violent anti-Semitic language by telling the reader that it is only by acknowledging the accusations against Jews that the rise of Hitler can be understood. Thus, anti-Semitism is justified in the passage by virtue of assigning Jews as a group both negative attributes (criminality, cultural perversion, etc.) which must be accepted as the basis for the revisionist position advocated by the writer. The form of the logic is A implies B, where A is the attribution of evil characteristics to Jews, and B is Hitler's rise to power. Of course, the truth of B does not imply the truth of A. Thus, ((A implies B) & B ) does not imply A.

The writer also asserts that the actions of the German government of the Third Reich were less severe and less racially motivated than those of the American and Canadian governments of the time. This argument is doubly flawed. First, there is no warrant for the claim that the "perfectly logical steps" undertaken by the German government is either "standard procedures in most civilized countries" nor was the same as undertaken in England, Canada, and the United States. The second flaw is that in order for the argument to go through, the hearer must subscribe to the writer's claim that the Holocaust, and in particular, "genocide by gas chamber" is false.

The cooperative principle necessarily requires that the writer and reader share a common set of discourse assumptions. Thus, the reader, to facilitate the understanding of the rhetoric of the writer, must subscribe to the notion that the writer in fact does not utter something for which there is no evidence, which is ambiguous or deliberately misleading, which is irrelevant, etc. The cooperative principle simply means that when trying to construct a meaning representation from a text of this sort (as opposed to, e.g., a work of fiction), the reader assumes the truthfulness and honesty of the writer.

More important, however, is the fact that in this passage, the writer overtly singles out Jews, calls them criminals of every stripe, and invites the reader to hold them in the same contempt that the reader would presumably hold any gangster, culture perverter, swindler and criminal.

The passage stands as a justification for the Nazi policy of dealing with Jews. The writer asserts that whatever German (Nazi) policies were adopted, including the destruction of six million Jews, those policies were perfectly logically justified as a way for dealing with monstrous Jewish criminals.

[ Previous | Index | Next | [an error occurred while processing this directive]