The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/p/prideaux.gary/zundelsite-analysis-methodology.11

Archive/File: people/p/prideaux.gary/zundelsite-analysis-methodology.11
Last-Modified: 1997/10/16

Tab 28. Good Morning from the Zundelsite: (July 10,1997)

     ''Meanwhile, here is your Thought for the Day, as taken
     from Protocol 9 of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders
     of Zion ":
     'Anti-Semitism is the means by which we control our
     lesser brethren. '
     P.S. Please note that I note here for my protection
     that ''The Protocols", as this document is called in
     the vernacular, was declared a `forgery' by various
     Jewish spokespeople and in a questionable legal
     proceeding in Bern, Switzerland, during the 1930s.
     So my question is. 'Where is the original? A `forgery'
     can only be done against an existing 'original ' -
     otherwise Monopoly money would be real money? "

                                                   [Page 33]

In this citation, the author employs the use of scare quotes
to highlight her (?) attitude of suspicion that the document
cited (the "Protocols ...") is indeed a forgery. First, she
attributes the declaration of forgery solely to "Various
Jewish spokespeople", implying that the declaration was done
solely by Jews. Second, she implies that the legal
proceeding is not legitimate, via her use of "questionable".
Thus, in this instance, the writer attributes improper legal
proceedings to Jews. By using the expression "P.S. Please
note ... for my own protection .."  The writer used the
rhetorical device of inversion to imply that the forgery is
in fact not a forgery.

The writer appears to misunderstand, and clearly misuses,
the English term forgery. The `Random House Webster's
College Dictionary (1991)' defines forgery as:

     1. the crime of falsely `making' or `altering' a
     writing by which the legal rights or obligations of
     another person apparently affected.
     2. a writing so made or altered, as a false document or
     3. any spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as
     a painting or coin, counterfeit.
     4.  an act of producing something forged

A forgery therefore need not necessarily be a false
replication of an original, though it may be such. Indeed, a
forgery can be something created and then falsely attributed
to someone. Thus, one could imagine a forged painting by van
Gogh or a newly created fugue falsely attributed to Bach or
a diary falsely attributed to Hitler. In such cases, there
need not have been an original painting, fugue, or diary of
which the forgery is a copy.

Thus, the claim that the "Protocols" document is a forgery
does not entail that there is an original from which it is
copied or altered. The document is attributed to Jews, and
the quote above reflects the attitude that certain
unspecified Jews (the "elders of Zion") are manipulating non-
Jews (the "lesser brethren") by the use of anti-Semitism.
The thrust of this use of anti-Semitism echoes the earlier
inversion in which Holocaust victims become aggressors.
Moreover, the use of the term lesser brethren places Jews in
the position of practising racism rather than being its

The thrust of the passage is something like the following:

     I (= the writer)
          1. assert that Jews use a strategy of anti-
          Semitism to control non-Jews
          2. assert that Jews
                                                   [Page 34]
               a. themselves consciously constructed the
               strategy in (1)
               b. committed it to writing in a document
               called the "Protocols of the Learned Elders
               of Zion"
          3.assert that some have claimed that the document
          is a forgery
          4.assert that the "Protocols" is not a forgery
               a. a forgery must be modelled on an original,
               b. therefore, an original must exist
          5. therefore imply that the document is not a
          6. assert that, since the Protocols is not a
          forgery (i.e., is true), then
               a. Jews are engaged in a massive, secret
               b. Jews practice racism against their lesser

The flawed step in the argument hinges on the use and misuse
of the term `forgery,' coupled with the use of the inversion
strategy which implies that the forgery is not a forgery.
Therefore, the argument fails. Accordingly, the passage
ascribes to Jews a strategy (the use of anti-Semitism)
without a sound reason, thereby singling out Jews as a group
and asserting that they are racist and are engaged in a
secret conspiracy against non-Jews.

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.