Of "Jewish Soap" and Veiled Hatreds

It is a sad fact that our social sciences, most particularly sociology and political science, devote much effort to the study of average people, with a view toward controlling their thoughts, votes and attitudes.

Far more interesting and important is the study of the motivations of our elites. Such studies are seldom, if ever, done outside the field of economics.

In this post we are going to ask a simple question: - When confronted by an elite too smart to simply admit in opinion polls their real motives, what are the indicators that their ideas and actions are motivated by malice?

At what point may we conclude that contradictory statements and utterly irrational arguments voiced by visibly talented people are motivated by passion and prejudice?

What extremes of internal contradiction would allow us to take alarm that the motivating passion might be hatred?

Let's look at "Jewish Soap" and the Holocaust.

Jewish historian Walter Laqueur acknowledged in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality.

Deborah Lipstadt, professor of modern Jewish history, in 1981:

Jewish historian Gitta Sereny noted in her book, Into That Darkness:

In April 1990, professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel's Hebrew University, regarded as a leading Holocaust historian, as well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's Yad v Shem Holocaust center, confirmed that the human soap story is not true.

Notice the dates.

After 1980, it simply was not possible for any proponent of the Holocaust to repeat the "Jewish Soap" story in good faith. Nevertheless, we have the following:

Author Konnilyn Feig, in her 1981 work, Hitler's Death Camps, repeated the soap story in lurid detail, accepting the story because:

In Washington in April 1983, Rabbi Arthur Schneier repeated the tale at the opening ceremony of the largest Holocaust meeting in history. In his invocation to the "American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors," the Rabbi solemnly declared:

We are being asked to believe a collection of specific factual assertions about the Holocaust.

The problem is that the proponents of this collection of assertions cannot agree. They cannot get their story straight. If they disagree about the facts of the story, then why should we believe?

But the credibility of the collection of Holocaust assertions that comprise the "Jewish Soap" story suffer not just from the disagreements of the proponents.

The factual premise of that story about Jewish soap contradicts the proponents' frequent and plausible assertions that victims of gassings were starved and overworked. How would one be able to get sufficient body fat to make soap from emaciated gassing victims?

The problem with Holocaust belief is the facility with which the images of camp life and conditions conjured by the proponents change, depending upon the point to be proven.

For example, when one poster on alt.revisionism questions the practical details of how all the corpses could be removed quickly from delousing chambers at Aushwitz turned into makeshift gas chambers, a proponent of the "Holocaust" notes:

Indeed, hunger in the camps was so pervasive that, according to one proponent, food motivated camp inmates themselves to operate the gas chambers for the SS.

And indeed, the image of hunger, disease and misery in the camps is universal throughout all of the assertions about the Holocaust, except the "Jewish Soap" assertions. But if the plausible image of hunger is so widely held by proponents, then why do so many proponents have difficulty rejecting the "Jewish Soap" assertions?

To make soap, we need large numbers of camp inmates with ample body fat.

Could ethnic anger and aggression be so strong within the Holocaust proponents that many of them (perhaps most) will believe fundamentally contradictory stories?

The Holocaust is intended to shame Western Europeans into honoring the ideals of "compassion", "tolerance" and "diversity."

Yet how can these Holocaust proponents, who so strenuously advocate the values of "compassion", "tolerance" and "diversity" for others have such a powerful need to believe the worst about their real and imagined enemies, even when the stories are utterly implausible?

Could it be that this value system of "compassion", "tolerance" and "diversity" is meant to be followed by others, but not by the Holocaust proponents themselves? Could it be that for Holocaust proponents values and ideas are artifacts of convenience and advantage depending upon who benefits at the time?

Could it be that when you are a minority in "diaspora" you build "Tolera-centers" to showcase the Holocaust in Los Angeles, because "tolerance" and "diversity" benefit you, but that when you are a majority in Israel "tolerance" and "diversity" have no place?

The Jerusalem Report of April 7, 1994 , p.24, says of Rafael Eitan, one of Israel's most influential leaders:

The Jewish Press for October 28 to November 3, 1994, on page 107, quotes Yitzak Rabin as follows:

Is "Jewish Soap" just one more example?

Could the words "compassion", "tolerance" and "diversity" have a double meaning when spoken by such people? Could these words require passivity of the audience but leave plenty of room for unbridled aggression and veiled hatred for the speakers of such words?

Caution is in order.


Back to Main Page

(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.