I do love your CT rhetoric here. Schliefler doesn't have "handlers". He might be connected to schools via a speakers' bureau as we previously discussed, who exist on very much a local level, in his case in Arizona. There is no national organisation coordinating these school talks.
Of course he's connected to schools via a speaker's bureau! It's probably even more local than the entire state of Arizona. Those are his "handlers"
Schiefler seems to have made one such talk mentioning soap, judging by the fact that there are only
381 hits for a targeted search for his name plus survivor and soap, and the overwhelming majority of those hits come from antisemitic and denier sites. There's no way of knowing whether he had been talking about soap to every single school before September 2009 when he became the latest poster boy for deniers.
There's also no way of knowing whether after the news story ran, someone from the local community pulled him to one side, or if they pointed out that deniers were kicking up a huge fuss because he mentioned soap. Or if he died three months later.
Well you gotta admit he's a pretty good poster boy for deniers. But it's true that this one story about one talk the guy gave. But he's not alone.
Repp was moved several times and survived death marches. He tells a story about being given soap to use, which later they discovered had been made from human Jewish flesh. They slept on slabs of wood at night.
or
Here, at the hands of the Nazis, pieces of soap, made from Jewish human fat, are buried. Led by Shaare Emeth's Rabbi James Bennett, we paused to say the ancient mourners' Kaddish.
or
Our first home in Israel was in the northern town of Nahariya. On the road to town stood a large building, a museum, where I was told 'human soap' was housed.
The soap story lives on despite all efforts to stop it.
Except Schliefler isn't fabricating stories about himself. If you can find me a videoed interview or transcript of a testimony at any time since 1945 that quotes him saying he saw Nazis make Jews into soap, then I will join you in calling him a liar. As it stands, Schliefler is at best repeating hearsay.
If you searched for Fred, surely you found the video of the local news
broadcast. He doesn't say he actually saw Germans making the soap but he saw the soap for sale after the war.
Then once again, until you prove that there is a measurable percentage of survivors who peddle myths or tell lies, you're cherrypicking and committing the fallacy of hasty generalisation.
OK, reality check here Nick. I'm what you would call a denier. Any survivor who says Jews were gassed as part of a final solution is peddling myths or telling lies. What percentage of survivors do you think say that?
Yes it does. Germany is the #2 exporter in the world and about the third most successful economy in the world. It gets
133 million visitors a year and is ranked 7th on the world list of popular tourist destinations. It is a member of the EU, NATO and UN among many other international organisations.
Moreover, it is also widely admired as a country which has come to terms with its past. Very few people think that the Germany of today is anything like the Germany of the 1940s.
Yet, later in the post you said: "Since the post to which you are ostensibly replying went into some detail about anti-German bigotry, how can you possibly say that I am not aware that some people don't distinguish between the two?"
Now you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I quite clearly did explain this, you just don't like the explanation. I did not simply say 'it's a false equivalency', in the previous post I went on to give reasons why it was a false equivalency. The most you can assert legitimately is that my explanation is wrong, but please can the childish denial about what appears in my posts and what doesn't. This is the second time you have resorted to lying about my posts.
You could prove I'm lying simply by linking back to the explanation you ostensibly gave.
In another post I predicted you were going to bring up Nuremberg. And once again we observe your total and utter inability to properly formulate appropriate comparisons without asymmetries or incompatibilities.
You're also stupid enough to ignore the obvious objection to the comparison, which is that 'soap' nowhere appears in any of the judgements of individual defendants at Nuremberg, and plunge on regardless, in the delusory belief that there are not plenty of cases where blood libel accusations have gone to trial - exclusively focused on the charge of killing Christian children - and resulted in executions or deaths under torture.
So this is the bar? A fact must be specifically mentioned in the final judgment of an individual defendant in order for that specific fact to be considered relevant to that individual's sentence? All the evidence that was introduced during the trial was for naught unless the evidence is specifically mentioned in an individual's final judgment? So the fact that soap was mentioned in the judgment on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity has no bearing on the relevance of that particular piece of evidence?
OK. "Gas chambers" aren't mentioned in any of the individual judgments either. Kaltenbrunner witnessed a demonstration of a gassing at Mauthausen but there's no mention even here of a 'gas chamber.' So we can logically conclude that the Tribunal didn't think 'gas chambers' were relevant (or maybe even believable) in pronouncing any individual sentence?
Frick, Ribbontrop, Seyess-Inquart, and Streicher (but not Kaltenbrunner) are the only defendants for whom participation in the "Final Solution" was mentioned in the Judgment and therefore deemed relevant to their sentence.
How much of a state sponsored genocide could there possibly be if only four of the defendants were a part of it? And nobody at all was punished for gas chambers?
The
Wiki page on blood libel summarises the tip of the iceberg of evidence on this subject, and it's not up to me to repeat the obvious when you're the one who has seemingly decided to commit intellectual suicide by wriggling and struggling against the facts.
Why do you keep lying about evidence of the blood libel causing any deaths? Show me the records of any trial where a Jew who was wrongfully convicted and executed for killing a Christian baby and using its blood to make matzoh.
Cremation wasn't introduced into the camp system as part of disease control. It was introduced because it was a convenient way of covering up the wounds inflicted on camp inmates by brutal SS guards, who arranged to have the bodies of their murder victims incinerated in local crematoria from virtually the get-go in the evolution of the Nazi camp system, at a time when there were no epidemics and when the number of deaths per year might be in single figures or the low tens per year. Cremation also went hand in hand with removing the registration of the death from civilian oversight by establishing specific registry offices inside the camps, and not as was initially the case, registering the dead in the local Standesamt.
For a while, cremation also served the purpose of terrorising target populations by presenting families with urns and no body. But mostly it served the purpose of providing a ready made excuse to Germans, Czechs, Poles and other nationalities about why they weren't going to get the bodies of their loved ones back for burial. Then they decided to forego cremating bodies one at a time and mixed up ashes, returning urns with the ashes of several prisoners to specific families. Then they stopped bothering to send out urns at all, and simply dumped the ashes in ponds and rivers, as at Auschwitz, or did god knows what with them. Most of the victims of Dachau and Buchenwald were Russians and Poles, and it wasn't like the SS were going to bother to send out urns of ashes to Kiev or Rovno in 1943 when an Ostarbeiter died.
That's not the argument. The point is an analogy. If the Nazis were capable of desecrating bodies in violation of the tenets of Judaism and Catholicism by cremating them, then the plausibility of a rumour that they were using the bodies for other purposes increases.
Hiding evidence of SS brutality? That's why they started cremating bodies? Where do you get these ideas? Don't try analogy. You may think you strike a good talking point but you rarely understand the logical consequences of your arguments.
And if a Hindu saw Jews "desecrating" dead bodies by burying them in the ground, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the Hindu would believe the Jews were making soap out of them?
There's no logical reason for anybody to think Nazis made soap out of the bodies of dead Jews except ignorance, bigotry, and blind hate.
Are you now trying to justify the blood libel accusation? Wow. Then you'll of course present evidence that Christians in the middle ages through to the 19th century mentioned circumcision as one of the reasons they found blood libel accusations plausible.
Sure, just as soon as you present evidence that Jews mentioned cremation as one of the reasons they found the soap libel accusations plausible.
