There are two ways to get ahead in life.
You can make yourself look better – usually by doing better – or you can make other
people look worse.
The former is considerably more difficult, so most people default to the latter.
This is especially the case when whatever it is you're doing or whatever it is you
want to make look good is indefensible.
Few people will outright deny that the Holocaust happened.
There are those people, but they're easily debunked and dismissed, so they're not the
ones I want to talk about.
I want to talk about the people who secretly, and sometimes openly, wish the Holocaust was
more successful.
It's usually a pretty hard sell to say something as brazen as "the Holocaust was good."
Most people are going to slowly back away from you if you say something like that.
So you have to switch gears when trying to make your side look better by saying something
like "it wasn't that bad."
This is the first step in making your ideas more palatable to the average person and get
them to question if maybe things have been exaggerated.
Most people are against whole-sale genocide – really, I'm talking about genocide again?
But it's only been like, two months…
So the apologists have to reframe the deaths as not the main goal, but just a side effect.
Here is the "Auschwitz wasn't that bad" narrative in action.
Auschwitz had a nice orchestra- and a soccer team.
They had a pool, they had a gym… they had a symphony orchestra, I had a, I mean there's
Mexicans in America who would kill for those living conditions, I mean c'mon.
Their clothes were lice and pest free.
Now a lot of that is actually true.
They did have an orchestra and a soccer team and a swimming pool.
But Auschwitz was a massive complex consisting of multiple camps, with three* major ones.
One was a concentration camp for political prisoners, one was a factory labor camp, and
the one that we all know, Auschwitz II-Birkenau, was the concentration and extermination camp.
Guess which one didn't have any of those amenities.
But he also threw one* in there that you probably didn't catch unless you're in the know.
Their clothes were lice and pest free.
Is he talking about the normal de-lousing that prisoners go through?
Of course not.
The gas used in the mass execution of human beings at the concentration camps was Zyklon
B, which was invented in the 1920s as an insecticide.
This is a dog whistle to holocaust deniers.
Suggesting that the mass amounts of the chemical located at the camp was used for pest control
and not… what we all know it was used for.
So it's worth asking, what is a dog whistle?
In real life, it's a whistle that you blow that nobody else looking at you will hear,
except for your intended target – usually a dog.
So when listening to their little discussion, you probably didn't hear any holocaust denial
among all of the… "jokes."
But holocaust deniers did and that's a dog whistle.
There are literally so many dog whistles that people have made hours of content exposing
and explaining them.
I've even done a few of them in the first few minutes of this video just to show how
easily these fly under the radar.
Including having that in the background.
Clyde….
Clyde frog!
You've likely seen a lot of these if you've spent any amount of time on the internet.
Ever seen these seemingly unimportant numbers in someone's username?
Like me, you probably thought that was their birthday or something.
Or having these two letters at the end of your Twitter handle – it's an abbreviation
for YouTube, I swear!
How about these triple parentheses, what does that mean?
Jews.
But saying Jews is a little too on the nose, so instead they say (International Banking)
or (The Media) or- The Globalists are going to overthrow everything!
Globalists, Zionists, Cultural Marxists, all of these are codewords to talk about Jewish
people without actually saying it.
And then there's this guy, who says that Hitler didn't actually hate individual Jews,
he just hated "International Jewry."
Now a lot of mere mortals with a pleb-tier understanding of the world say like 'Oh
Hitler hated Jews.'
No, he actually didn't.
Hitler's battle was against International Jewry, international finance.
This reframing of Hitler's reasoning for the Holocaust isn't unique to open white
supremacists, but it isn't always so out in the open as
Did Hitler do anything wrong?
No!!!
It's usually a little more subtle and nuanced.
Hitler was obsessed with order and cleanliness, he was a very orderly person.
He was very sensitive to disgust, that's what it looks like.
And if you're disgusted by something, you want to eradicate it.
Increase the levels of hygiene in the factories, to get rid of the rats and the mice, to plant
flowers out front to make everything look neat and orderly.
And the insecticide they used was Zyklon.
A slightly different formulation was the gas that was used in the concentration camps.
So Hitler went from cleaning up the rats and the mice in the factories and the insects.
And then he went into the mental hospitals and started cleaning up in there and then
like it just went... broader and broader, again, sort of one step at a time.
That's Jordan Peterson.
A well-spoken clinical psychology professor who has gained a lot of popularity recently
for defending free speech against feminism.
But as people started to listen to what he had to say, they realized that he also harbors
a lot of unorthodox views on Hitler.
In that previous clip, he posthumously diagnoses Hitler with cleaner-type OCD and suggests
that the Holocaust was just an escalation of that pathology.
And that the use of the insecticide Zyklon B on people was just a natural extension of
using them on pests.
According to this narrative, he didn't hate the Jews, he just wanted to clean up things
that disgusted him.
The fact that he is a real clinical psychologist with a PhD lends a dangerous legitimacy to
that idea.
Exterminating the physically and mentally disabled didn't come out of a desire to
"clean up."
These people were often described as drags on the economy and society and were known
as "life unworthy of life" or "useless eaters."
Remember that the time leading into World War 2 was the Great Depression, money and
food were rather scarce.
Eliminating these useless eaters, as well as the Jews and everyone else, increased rations
for the rest of the German people, which kept morale high during the war.
The only people who ate better than the Germans were Americans.
Saying that Hitler's motivation for the Holocaust was anything other than racial hatred
distances us from the possibility that we too are capable of such evil.
A number of famous psychological studies in the 60s and 70s showed us that almost anyone
is capable of horrific acts if they can justify their actions.
I mean who's responsible if anything happens to that gentleman.
I'm responsible if anything happens.
Alright, next one: Slow.
That doesn't sit well with most people so they dismiss the Nazis by saying Hitler was
just crazy.
Let no man call us crazy – they called Hitler crazy.
But Hitler wasn't crazy, he was stupid.
It's generally accepted among historians that Hitler was a rather poor military commander
– some might even go so far as to call him stupid.
He made a lot of decisions during the war that in hindsight seem rather incompetent
and likely led to Germany's defeat.
Analyzing these decisions as anything other than mistakes is, well…
So here's what you should have done if you were a Nazi and you wanted to win the war.
You should have enslaved the Jews and the Gypsies and had them work, right?
You should have had them work for the benefit of the victory and then if you wanted to,
you liquidate them afterwards.
That's the logical thing to do if you want to win.
And we assume that Hitler wanted to win, but that's not a very intelligent assumption,
why would you assume that?
He wasn't exactly a good guy.
So why should we assume that he was aiming at the good that he was promoting even in
his own terms – the glorious, everlasting Fourth- Third Reich.
Fourth Reich is a dog whistle, it's the ethno-state that neo-Nazis want to create.
I know he plays it off like he misspoke, but that's kind of the point of a dog whistle,
that you can claim that's not what you meant when you're called out on it.
Nobody speaking intelligently about Hitler would mix that up.
So what do you do with the Jews and the Gypsies?
Well, round em up, fine.
Enslave em, fine.
You don't kill them.
You certainly don't devote a substantial proportion of your war resources, while you're
losing, to accelerate the rate at which the extermination is taking place.
Cause that's a bit counter-productive.
Unless what you're aiming at is the maximum possible mayhem in the shortest period of
time.
So firstly, that's exactly what the Nazis did.
They rounded them up and enslaved them.
As I said, Auschwitz III-Monowitz was a labor camp.
Once they had been worked nearly to death and their usefulness had diminished, they
were liquidated as he puts it.
It wasn't until later in the war that Auschwitz II-Birkenau was expanded so that people were
gassed shortly after arrival.
But rather than chalk that up to an extension of the overall plan, Peterson attributes this
to a desire to lose on purpose.
Whenever you interpret Jordan Peterson, the common response from his supporters is that
you're taking him out of context, so…
No, he believed that the Germans had betrayed him with weakness, and so he was perfectly
willing to accelerate the rate at which Germany was losing the war.
He supposes that the Holocaust was part of Hitler's secret plan to maximize mayhem.
The Holocaust started in 1941, Auschwitz-II was expanded in 1943, the D-Day invasion wasn't
until 1944.
So Hitler had chosen to accelerate the rate at which Germany was losing, before Germany
really started losing?
Sure, they lost North Africa and Sicily at that point, but to say he flipped the table
in 1943 is a bit of a stretch.
He comes to this conclusion by citing Carl Jung.
If you can't figure out what someone is doing, or why, look at the outcome.
And infer the motivation.
If it produces mayhem, perhaps it was aiming at mayhem.
Hitler wasn't incompetent or filled with racial hatred, he accomplished exactly what
he set out to.
Do you see the problem with this line of thinking?
You can't infer motivations by looking at outcomes, that's not how people or history
works.
That's not how any of this works.
Was the Civil War the war to end slavery?
If you look at the outcome, sure… kind of.
Yes, we're going to talk about the Lost Cause, because all too often, the Venn Diagram
of people who think Hitler didn't do anything wrong and people who think the South will
rise again is just a circle.
We've seen these apologetics happen before, we're just an extra century removed from
it now.
So it's fairly easy and important to draw parallels to see where this might be going.
Just changing the name that you call that war can signal what you think the war was
about – most foreign countries call it The War Between the States which is a beautifully
accurate and neutral term.
But most people here in the United States call it the Civil War, which makes it sound
like it was a rebellion which needed to be p….
next.
If you call it the War of Northern Aggression… you're probably from the South.
I've done several videos about the causes of the Civil War, but in short, the North
did not set out to end slavery or the Southern way of life… whatever that was beyond slavery.
Several states in the North actually kept slavery and didn't end it until the Thirteenth
Amendment was passed in 1865.
In fact, the North didn't start the aggression at all – the South fired the first shots.
Because they wanted to keep slavery.
There was no plan to end it, they just thought that it was going to end soon, so… chose
to accelerated the mayhem…
huh.
If you just look at the outcome and infer the motivation, it looks like it was the war
to end slavery, but it wasn't.
It was a war to keep slavery for the South and preserve the union for the North.
But descendants of the people who fought for the Confederacy don't really like attaching
that racist institution to their relatives, so they have to change the motivation somehow.
One common way is by saying that the average soldier was just fighting to defend his homeland.
Literally every soldier thinks that, even I was told that when I was on the other side
of the world.
But it really doesn't matter what the lowest soldier thought he was fighting for.
What matters is the government's stated purpose – which in this case was the preservation
of slavery.
But that still doesn't sound very nice so they've rebranded it as states' rights.
It wasn't about states' rights, we all know it w…
No it wasn't!
Unless you consider slavery to be a state right.
It's 2018, I can't believe I still have to say that.
But that just goes show how this subtle change in narrative can completely change public
attitude towards history.
Which is why you need to pay attention to what these people are saying and why they're
saying it.
You do still see out-right defenders of slavery, the people saying that it wasn't really
that bad.
Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government.
This should remind you of those Auschwitz orchestra comments from earlier, we've seen
this story before.
For decades before and after the Civil War, the White Man's Burden idea flourished across
the world, saying that it was the white race's responsibility to civilize and educate the
"sullen people."
Even Robert E. Lee lamented this great evil placed on the white race.
What a terrible burden to have to colonize and enslave people around the world…
I don't know how we ever survived.
Every once in a while, you'll see this meme pop up on facebook, because yes, Grant owned
slaves through his wife's estate.
This is the other side of the coin: they were just as bad.
Or worse if you leave out the fact that Lee also owned slaves through his wife's estate.
Weird how that's left out of this picture.
You can make yourself look better, by saying the war was about something else, or you can
make the other side look worse… usually by lying.
And this of course occurred significantly later when Churchill bombed the Germans and
so on.
Look at Winston Churchill.
I was happy to get a picture with his statue in London.
Bet let's say people demanded it be taken down one day due to the Dresden bombings.
Do you know about Dresden?
Do you guys know about that place?
I do not.
So after World War 2 ended, like two days after the Nazis surrendered officially.
The allies went and bombed – Dresden was like a historic city in Germany, said to be
one of the most beautiful cities to ever exist.
And it was untouched by the war because it was just a civilian city, there was no military
there.
Two days after the war ended, the allies, England specifically and I think America,
they firebombed the whole f***ing city.
Just out of straight revenge.
And they killed 300,000 civilians.
A few months ago I did a video where I said "In fact more people died in Tokyo than
Hiroshima or Nagasaki."
He just said that as many people died in Dresden as all three of these cities put together
– and a few days after the surrender?
Why have we never heard about this?
Because that's not how it happened, like at all.
Dresden was not just a civilian city, it was a major industrial, communications, and transportation
hub – there were legitimate military targets there.
The bombing occurred in mid-February of 1945, three months before the surrender.
And how many people died?
25,000 max.
Don't worry Ethan, you were only off by a factor of twelve.
You go to their channel looking to laugh at vape culture, maybe hear some commentary about
excessively PC SJWs, and make fun of legitimately over-the-top feminists.
Disgusting!
Then you're watching them interview a musician on their podcast, and before you know it,
you're listening to Nazi propaganda.
Not the alt-right, but literal 1945 Nazi propaganda.
Ethan got the number from Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut… kinda.
Who consulted with this guy, David Irving, a notoriously discredited Holocaust denier.
The false story continues to circulate because it's a way of saying that the allies were
just as bad.
You've probably heard of this tactic before, called a Whataboutism.
It's a way of pointing out a perceived hypocrisy without addressing your own wrongdoings.
What about Grant owning slaves?
What about Dresden?
What about that time the US put people in camps?
I mean a state rounding up a potentially subversive enemy population within its own borders during
a war is not really something the- The US put Japanese in camps.
Do you know who loves it when you call the Japanese internment camps "concentration
camps?"
White supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Because it puts what the US did to the Japanese on the same moral footing as what the Nazis
did to the Jews.
Don't get me wrong, the internment camps were one of the most shameful things the United
States has ever done, but… it wasn't Auschwitz.
They intentionally dilute terms like concentration camp, and even genocide, until they don't
carry the same weight they used to.
Speaking of terms that don't mean what they used to, you've probably seen this meme
as well.
Yes, Lincoln was a Republican who freed the slaves and the Democrats started the KKK shortly
afterwards.
But the parties flipped during the Civil Rights movement.
If you were a Republican 100 years ago, you would be probably be considered a Democrat
or Liberal now.
That's another set of terms that have completely switched meaning compared to a century ago.
I have been a libertarian in my past but now I consider myself a classical liberal.
Classical liberal, what does that mean?
A classical liberal means he would be considered a liberal back in the day.
He's definitely closer to a conservative, or libertarian, by today's standards.
Doing this muddies the waters and makes the terms so confusing, they're stripped of
all their meaning.
Labels are stupid anyway, right?
What does liberal and conservative even mean anymore?
You consider yourself conservative?
I do…
I mean I'm a millennial so I don't really like labels but yes, I'm conservative in
thought.
Oh, and everyone is apparently a Nazi now too.
The media has spent the last two years trying to convince you that Donald Trump is a Nazi.
Trying to convince you that anybody on the political right is a Nazi, okay?
Everyone to the left, is a Nazi.
They're going to call right-wingers Nazis regardless of who was there.
I've repeatedly stated my position on Nazism, I don't c- I'm not a Nazi.
That haircut isn't helping his case any, but okay, he's right, he's not a member
of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
But he is a prominent member of the alt-right, a term popularized by Richard Spencer… this
Richard Spencer.
Hail Trump!
Hail our people, hail victory!
Because alt-right sounds a hundred times better than neo-Nazis.
That's just one of the many ways they use to get the average person to at least listen
to their arguments and hide what they really want.
Being completely honest, there were a couple people there with swastika flags or Hitler
iconography or whatever.
In all of our footage, I think I had seen a combined three swastika flags?
Three swastika flags.
So let's say that for every swastika flag there are ten Nazis there in support.
Okay, so that puts you at thirty Nazis, right?
This event had 1200 plus people.
So in his voiceover there he shows this frame.
Here's the swastika flag, so that guy is definitely a Nazi and according to him, we
can assume that there are also nine other people who are Nazis.
But what are all these flags?
I didn't know this at the time of the rally, but this is the flag of the National Socialist
Movement.
C'mon guys, are you even trying?
So using his math of ten supporters per flag, that's more people than are shown in this
frame.
They can get away with this by hiding behind lesser known symbols and euphemisms.
And not even hiding well by the way, it's like hiding behind a pane of glass.
But that's all it really takes to fool the average person.
They're not white supremacists, they're "identitarians."
They're not marching for white pride, they're marching for southern pride.
Except you don't really see anyone waving any current-day state flags at these rallies,
which would make sense.
It's always that one flag from 150 years ago of a country that only existed for about
as long as most of us went to high school.
What did that country fight to preserve again?
They're honoring their heritage or defending their history, things that most of us can
agree with or at least understand.
But they're only defending a specific heritage and a specific history and it's important
to remember what that history is and what it represents.
It's the kind of history that Germany actively suppresses out of shame.
They don't forget it, but they don't encourage reenacting it or cling to a romanticized version
of it.
You could say that this goes against freedom of speech – yet another shield the alt-right
uses to continue pushing their narrative, as if any of these people are being silenced.
Free speech and "diversity of thought" are ideas that we can all get behind.
But any time the far-right or the anti-SJWs are criticized for what they say, they claim
that their free speech is being suppressed and that they should be allowed to say whatever
they want.
Which is true, but also…
The instant anyone stops defending their argument and starts complaining about their right to
have it – something has gone horribly wrong.
If people continuously lump you in with Nazis and Nazis seem to be attracted to your political
positions and historical perspectives, it's worth asking yourself why you hold these opinions.
Is your narrative a neo-Nazi euphemism for something else?
Is your reason for supporting something an alt-right dog whistle?
You may have well-researched, well-informed reasons backing up your positions – but
they don't, they have simple, racially-motivated reasons – and your narrative may have been
co-opted by them in order to draw people to their side.
So if you hear a story that is so counter to what you've always been taught that it
strains believe…
Maybe look it up before you unwittingly spread neo-Nazi propaganda, because now, you know
better.
It's the two year anniversary of my channel, so that the survey is still open if you haven't
taken it and I'm still accepting Q&A questions down in the comments below.
I'll be at vidcon this week, stay away from me, the idea of having fans who want to meet
me in person is terrifying.
But if you're new here make sure to deny that subscribe button, follow me on facebook
and twitter, and join us on the subreddit.
For more infomation >> 전통 그릇 뚝배기 세척은 바로 이렇게! ► My Life ► https://goo.gl/Nbx1rX - Duration: 3:36. 
For more infomation >> How I Make Money Online
For more infomation >> একটি বাবার গল্প || Father`s Day Special Video || Life Changing Motivational video in bangla. - Duration: 5:08. 
For more infomation >> Purdue University - Duration: 27:16. 
For more infomation >> "POURQUOI S'ENDETTER?" - Duration: 5:13. 
For more infomation >> 4 erreurs de coiffure que les femmes font et qu'il faut absolument éviter ! - Duration: 8:47. 
For more infomation >> 20 años sin Lady Di: del furor de la "Dianamanía" a la era digital de Kate Middleton - Duration: 7:32. 
For more infomation >> Les personnes qui pleurent devant les films sont très spéciales d'après les chercheurs - Duration: 6:22. 
For more infomation >> Full Schiff Interview: 'Just plain wrong and immoral' to separate families | Meet The Press - Duration: 6:43. 
For more infomation >> NE ÇİZDİN OLUM SEN :D - ÇİZDİĞİMİ BİL OYUNU [GARTİC.İO] - Duration: 9:41. 
For more infomation >> Cómo Autopublicar tu Libro con Éxito - Mi Estrategia Personal - Duration: 2:47. 
For more infomation >> Inside Texas Politics (06/17): Full episode - Duration: 27:09. 
For more infomation >> ITP (06/17): Newsmaker - Duration: 7:02. 
For more infomation >> [TUTO] Comment Éduquer Son Chien en 15 MINUTES PAR JOUR 🐶👩🏫 - Duration: 11:51. 
For more infomation >> Dinesh Finally Got Massive Revenge On Man Who Ruined His Life Right After Trump Pardoned Him - Duration: 5:28. 
For more infomation >> Meloni non molla: "Continueremo a batterci per la via ad Almirante" - Duration: 2:25. 
For more infomation >> #120 [On y va ou pas ?] OCEAN'S 8 //Critique à chaud - Duration: 2:09. 
For more infomation >> Last Week Tonight with John Oliver 133 - Duration: 29:57. 
For more infomation >> 中國最神秘兩款軍機曝光，一款對抗F-22，一款是轟20好搭檔 !!Kiwi New - Duration: 4:11. 
For more infomation >> SOUTH KOREA vs MEXICO - Military Comparison - 2018 [FOOTBALL EDITION] - Duration: 3:29. 
For more infomation >> GERMANY vs SWEDEN - Army Comparison - 2018 [FOOTBALL EDITION] - Duration: 3:35. 
No comments:
Post a Comment