Abraham Lincoln: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races" also the slavery thing was just an exuse he didn't give a damn about the slaves,if the South was going to unite with the North he would have let them have slaves, he did think that slavery was moraly wrong but he also said that if he could have riunite the States without freeing the slaves he would do it
@@loneokami6560 yes because it was poliitcs. You do realize lincoln had to content with a voter base of white supremacists right? So obviously when he speaks publicly he will make it seem like he would never be in favor of abolition. Its clearly him just being a politican. He drafted thr emancipation pretty early on in the Civil War as well waiting for the right time.
@@orlandof6496 That's just not true he didn't want equality, he only tought that slavery was moraly wrong,still in that regard he was ahead for shure i give him that credit
@@loneokami6560 "also the slavery thing was just an exuse..." It wasn't an excuse, it was a strategic maneuver. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but he was also a politician. During the war, he maintained that he fought to maintain the union, rather than to free slaves, and stated that he felt this attitude was his duty as president, regardless of his own personal disposition. Making slavery a focal point of the war was a maneuver to make sure that England didn't help the South. The fact that it happened to align with his abolitionist beliefs, he might say, was a happy coincidence.
As a Southerner, I love to point out to the "Heritage Not Hate" crowd that the history of the American South is 400+ years old, while the Confederacy lasted no longer, as you pointed out, than the time that most spent in high school. Well done!
For 18:43Absolutely NO! Germany does NOT suppress that part of history. Japan does with their part. How the Nazis rose to power and what they did is thuroughly taught in school (multiple times) and callbacks are very very present in political speeches and/or actions. Just never in any glorifying way, hence it may look to you like "suppression". But it's not, we remember, as a warning.
I think he means the banning of far-right symbolism etc., otherwise the phrasing makes little sense in context. And while I do agree that education on our own country‘s past wrong-doings luckily is extensive, more so than in probably any other country, I wished we were taught a lot more about the long-term consequences for marginalized groups pretty much everywhere (like the idea of eugenics, the impact on Jewish culture but also that of Sinti and Roma and so on, and very importantly the hallmarks of modern day fascism)
@@isnitjustkit Exactly, but the wording was a bit odd, especially for non-native English speakers. Also I wouldn’t agree that our remembrance culture exists (merely) out of shame (or for that purpose anyways), as was rightly pointed out in the original comment.
@@thatgirlinautumn5995 Right, it exists to help people understand the history of our country, and make informed decisions for the future. If we didn't teach in school that people were enslaved, and the entire history of the civil rights movement, and women's suffrage, and much more, it would be easy to assume a lot of people wouldn't understand how wrong it is, or the impact segregation had on the development of different cultures all across the nation.
Babylon 5, Farscape, and the Vine video service lasted as long as the Confederate States of America. Fucking My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic lasted *over twice as long* as the Confederacy. That's more my heritage than the Confederacy is theirs.
I had a similar thought: "Why only 10 nazis per nazi flag? I think if anyone brings a nazi flag to participate in a rally, everyone going to that rally is suspect." Edit: of course I mean bringing a nazi flag to actually participate in a rally and not to counter-protest any kind of leftist movement, and of course by "everyone going to that rally" I mean "everyone also participating in that rally for that rally's goal", and not people showing up to counter-protest facist shit
If I went to a wedding and they had one Nazi flag I would leave and then I would no longer be friends with that couple. Any Nazi symbolism that isn't in the context of a museum or a history book it's too many
@@breadtubediet1524 Yeah I agree. Sure, maybe some people just showed up to see what's going on, but I think anyone who didn't decide "what's going on" isn't anything they are interested in *once the nazi flags come out* is pretty suspicious imo.
@Peeshy let’s assume for a moment you’re correct and I can’t dispute anything James Allsup claims. Even if what he were saying is true, his world view I vehemently oppose and will never agree with. White people do not deserve an Anglo Saxon nation. Europeans fucked that up when your ancestors decided to exploit minorities. Historically, you’ve lost the fight. So anyway, while I’m enjoying life with my beautiful Caucasian wife and adorable mixed children, stay mad on the internet. I have my guns, we all know you do too, but we also know y’all wouldn’t target people who can actually fight back lmao.
I dont know where you got the idea from but in germany we dont hide the past or are too ashamed to talk about it. It is near impossible to go through school without being taught what happened. And it usually is taught in brutal honesty. We dont want to forget the events to prevent them repeating. I had to read at least 2 books from the perspective of victims in class and some schools even travel to the camps to let you see the inhumane history in person.
you misunderstand the meaning of supress in this context. germany is not trying to hide it but instead trying to supress it as in banning flags, symbols and songs and that typ of stuff
He is saying you don't celebrate it, like how America has reenactments of the civil war. You don't have a designated day, like Nazi day or something like that, you don't romanticize it. "They don't forget it, but they don't encourage reenacting it" literally his words.
@@lobear3074 Indeed, someone else explained it too, I simply misunderstood. Though I figured I could leave my original comment up. I admit I kinda brainfarted while watching the video
@@tophan5146 Saying "somebody is disgusted by something" doesn't mean he doesn't hate it, right? JP: - Hitler was disgusted by the Jews. OP: - Owww, JP meant that Hitler didn't hate the Jews. Don't you see the logical fallacy here? You can be and disgusted and hating something at the same time.
Tophan really you hate things you’re disgusted by. And being disgusted by anybody because of their race still makes you horrible. That’s Jordan Peterson‘s point
Brice Lafond if your mother were covered by feces you would be disgusted by her but not hate her. Disgust is primal, visceral. Hate is one level higher, emotional. Animals can be disgusted but they don’t hate (there may be exceptions for the most intelligent ones) I’m not saying you can’t be disgusted and hate someone at the same time. But these are very specific, separate things.
@@tophan5146 Just that you're disgusted by other humans... which is.. well dehumanization at it's ultimate form with eradication of entire group of people as it's end goal. Which allows the perpetrator to think one is doing "good job" while at it. How is this making light of anything? You're not disgusted of mother, but of feces, of which what you do? Clean, remove. Disgust is primal, visceral. - yes.That's why it's so dangerous it subverts all of the "higher level" processes as you describe. It's far more entrenched and sinister than just mare emotion. I think people like you are simply afraid that admitting this somehow minimizes the responsibility of the person following it's path. Short answer - it does not. However to explain that would require to go deep into personality and how different neural circuits develop as a person interacts with the world.
D-Day was not the point where Germany started losing. Most high ranking Nazis and Generals likely knew the war was lost shortly after the Battle of Stalingrad.
@@Soundbrigade Stalin was gearing up to declare war on Germany which could have taken place in 1942 or 1943. The supply problems Germany exacerbated by invading the USSR would have proceeded anyway even if they didn’t, just slower. Not invading the USSR wouldn’t have saved Germany either.
This video really hit me hard.. because it always baffles my mind.. if the holocaust didn't happen then what the fuck happened to 75% of my family? Why the hell did I have a very lucky relative with numbers tattooed on his arm against his will? I'm sorry but NEVER AGAIN.
It's horrific to think that there are apologists for the Holocaust especially in the US. I hope you're well prepared because what was old is renewed again under a party that technically was OK with Hitler until they couldn't ignore it anymore. Nearly every single one of those comments used on the "others" is constantly in the news and social media its just a rebranded version of 80 years ago. Whether it's the border, social programs that help all Americans and not just the white ones, to Putin and his efforts to rebuild the Soviet Empire they all use some of the same rhetoric that was used a century ago to justify the actions then.
I saw this in a different comment section, thought it was funny so I'll share it: Never ask a woman her age Never ask a man how much he earns Never ask an Argentinian their SS rank
18:50 Germany also doesn't build public monuments to Nazi generals and soldiers. The majority of Confederate monuments were built between 1890 and 1920. You can find timelines of monument installations and compare them to important legal battles and racially charged events (Plessy v Ferguson, foundation of the NAACP, the Klan's resurgence in 1915, the Red Summer and Tulsa race riots). Funny how installations spiked afterwards, isn't it?
@@ferrisbueller9991 k fine sure but honestly, why are people confused about the timing? Like, "OMFG they built the monuments about 30 years AFTER the war!?! 0.o" like, yeah, that's probably the average amount of time it takes kids and grandkids to get around to making monuments of their parents. A lot of us still perceive time as linear right?
Yeah the bit about Germany not talking about things is false. I personally minored in German in school for a while, and my teacher (who was born and raised in Frankfurt, Germany) noted that one could not escape this growing up and that you got hammered with WWII history and the atrocities that occurred more than any other period of history that was taught. And I know this is true for most other Germans I have met as well.
In Japan the US Civil War is called the "Nanboku sensou," or literally "north-south war," which in addition to being fairly accurate, is an interesting metaphorical reference to Japan's own civil war during the 14th century, when two separate lines of the imperial dynasty tore the country apart in civil war for half a century.
in Poland we usually call it "wojna secesyjna", "wojna" meaning war and "secesja" means "secession", so it is named after secession (withdrawal) of southern states from the Union
"According to this narrative, he didn't hate the Jews. He just wanted to clean up things that disgusted him" And how in all of Earth and Narnia are those not the same thing? This is a total strawman of his position.
Sporeguy, dude, I've been listening to Jordan peterson like non stop for the past week and if I have to hear "straw man" or "throw the baby out with the bath water" or "dominance hierarchy" again I'm poking my eyes out 😂😂😂
in this lecture JP is actually discussing indicators of sociopathy/psychopathy. He is explaining that many sociopaths are easily repulsed/disgusted by things and are often driven by those feelings of disgust. It's different from hatred, its deeper and more divisive than hatred. I dunno go listen to the JP video if u want a better explanation. I don't have time to reinvent the wheel.
"The South was fighting for states rights, not slavery!" Yea if you just ignore all the declarations of secession, Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Constitution and the views on slavery and abolition that the majority of Southern politicians and civilians alike had consistently expressed
A large majority of why the South fought was definitely about and for slavery, but that doesn't mean they weren't also fighting for state rights to govern themselves as they saw fit. They saw the encroaching federal government and that it was slowly gaining power in ways it was never meant to, and today it can be seen in the vast over extension of the federal governments power and influence in strictly state affairs. One small example of this unlawful over extension of power, certain states have voted into law the right for licensed dispensaries to legally sell Marijuana yet the federal government regularly and illegally shuts down these businesses.
@@malachor5ve actually this is the Knowing Better channel if you wanted to be featured in Atun Shei’s cringe compilation on his Checkmate Lincolnites series then you’ve come to the wrong place my friend
@@scl1332 I stand by my comment. The majority of why the south fought was for slavery that's not under debate, but that doesn't mean they didn't also fight for individual states rights to govern themselves as they saw fit. The federal government was never meant to rule over the the states, it was meant only to be there in cases of emergency and to help coordinate the states against foreign invasion. The federal government was overextending it's power then, and continues to overextend it's power now
@@malachor5ve Um, slavery is a direct violation of basically the entire Bill of Rights, which the federal government has the right to impose on the states. That may not be how the north and south justified the civil war at the time, but from a legal perspective slavery was always constitutionally illegal.
In Sweden we call it: the American Civil War, and we usually view it as a good thing to end slavery, but a terribly tragic and bloody way of accomplishing it
In all honesty I don’t view ending slavery in any other way besides a bloody conflict, liberation is often bloody that doesn’t make it any less important and good though. The switch to the more peaceful approach to Reconstruction simply allowed terrorist groups like the KKK and White Supremacists to run rampant with lynchings being able to get away with it. A peaceful approach is not always a good idea, violence is often more effective. And before anyone says the Civil Rights Movement, even MLK said riots and more violent methods played a huge role towards equality, and the riots that started after the murder of MLK provoked further legislation towards solidarity to pass. Violence should not be glorified but I think it’s downright ignorant to say that it’s not necessary for liberation.
@@fishsteakyelk341 I agree that the violence was necessary to a degree. A riot held for the good of mankind is a thing of beauty. However, I wouldn't compare a series of riots to a full-blown war. Yet the fact remains that the the white southerners would rather sacrifice the lives of their sons and fathers than give up power to freely and monstrously abuse their fellow humans. And if that isn't tragic, then I don't know what is
@@idek6585 That’s because we were one of the few countries that had it in the mainland and not just in a colony. Many countries that abolished slavery kept it in their colonies, and it isn’t the first time liberation from slavery was a bloody conflict nor will it ever be the last. And half of the war was fighting to keep it and the other half was mostly trying to preserve the union only then abolishing slavery to deter Britain and France from going on the side of the confederates.
It's kinda weird to me. I am german and in school we were taught about the holocaust. To us its undeniable...like..who exactly would deny that? I mean wtf
Speaking words are harmless. Let them deny it, show that they're wrong. Censoring them just means the German government doesn't believe it happened either, otherwise they'd be happy to show every generation what happened. I'm sorry, but this is the only way in a free country. Although Europe doesn't seem to be very open to free dialogue anymore. Tragic because Europeans have alot to offer.
@@deadpilled2942 did you even READ my comment? I am from germany and we are taught about it. We germans know and accept it happened. We teach about it at school so yeah.
@@YvaiatheDemon yes, I'm aware that you were taught it. I was saying that it's better to prove it than make a law saying you cant deny it. I don't know maybe I'm overestimating people. I've done that with Anglo Saxon Europe before
Dead Pilled but it’s never mentioned that there is a law against it, just that no one would deny it because it’s considered common knowledge learned in school...
I'm Irish, and we're also taught about the Holocaust in secondary school, and I remember knowing about it from an early age, so I'm glad that's the case.
Seriously! The number should be zero. The fact that anyone would voluntarily march alongside anyone flying those flags means that they're in solidarity, and at best a Nazi sympathizer, which isn't much better than being an outright Neo-Nazi. Who is really fooled by these bottom-barrel apologetics?
Just like the guy with the rebel flag who were one of the protestors who stormed the Capitoleum. Anyone who let him bear it hates America as much as him.
@@AbandonedVoid also there were plenty of other (neo )nazi or “alt right “ or “identitarian” -whatever they want to rebrand themselves as - flags , ffs they even had the black sun flag
Don't blame the swastika, it's been around for millenia. It's used in ALL other contexts as a symbol of "hope" and "doing good", "wellbeing". A quick check of Buddhism, ancient Norse culture, even some American first nations and many more used it as a symbol of "good" things. Just because one "evil" regime , for 6 years used it as their symbol shouldn't change the 1,000's of years it has been used as a symbol of goodness. At the very least, only the reversed black swastika on red and white should be reviled.
As someone who personally knew an active school shooter, the phrase "causing the maximum amount of mayhem in the least amount of time" really sounds absurdely familiar
Edit: Before this gets any more upvotes, I need to admit that I was mistaken; Haidt hasn't said anything affirming Peterson's theory about hitler. The hypothesis that disgust sensitivity and bigotry are linked is a mainstream view among psychologists, but not one that Haidt has espoused. If you're going to criticize JBP for linking Hitler's evil to disgust sensitivity, you're going to have a problem with Johnathan Haidt and many other psychologists. They aren't denying hate, they're explaining its roots.
Dude, don't use the term "important psychologists." You clearly don't read psychological literature or know the experts in the field. You know 2 people who hold your anti left views, who aren't respected in the field, because you want to criticize the left. That's your agenda and ideology and not Knowing Better's problem or any of ours.
@@jasong7373 Is the idea of Hitler having disgust sensitivity inherently an anti-left view? I think it's more nonpartisan, evaluating Hitler on the individual level. Could Peterson be wrong in his examination? Hell yes but that doesn't mean he's some evil anti-left biggot from hell.
@@JoeyPerp Buddy, reading comprehension. Haidt doesn't discuss Hitler as far as I know. The views that the two have in common are that universities are too homogeneous, free speech is under attack, we can't discuss certain ideas (usually racist ones), all that usual complaining. The reason OP knows about Haidt and Peterson is not because he has an undergrad degree in psychology or because he reads, but because of Haidt and Peterson's anti left positions. Last, Peterson is absolutely a bigot, from his debunked sexist theories about women to his comparing trans rights to fascism. Haidt (as far as I can tell) isn't a bigot, is more serious, but gained notoriety through the standard IDW grift. Neither are particularly respected or read.
I mean, when you said that Jordan Peterson was saying that it was "an extension of killing rats", and that Hitler didn't hate Jewish people, I think you misunderstood what he meant. Mr Peterson was saying that Hitler couldn't handle anything that disgusted him, and I'm pretty sure if Jewish people disgusted him, he probably hated Jews...
So i like your reasoning and all, it could be a great argument, but the biggest mistake almost everyone makes is making Hitler out to be that big figure that the nazis wanted you to think he was. That was one way of the government to subtle "brainwash" and manipulate people into the new system. It wasn't only Hitler. There was a whole government and many many people behind that one man. This man just came in handy at the right time. The nazi regime could have put any other person in Hitlers shoes if there was a better option in their eyes. Saying "Hitler killed all the jews" is like saying "Hitler build the autobahn" which is both not entirely wrong but implies, that he did all that by himself- which he didn't he maybe had a say in these decisions at most. So reasoning with that "Hitler" was not okay with jews and more or less based on that assume he had OCD which made him do even more horrible/extreme things is just kinda pretty dumb and pretty wrong at that too. And kinda makes it seem more "harmless" but that could be just me. I mean yes he hated the jews that was part of his view on life and because of that and his history with drunken uprisings in bavaria he was seen as such a perfect candidate to do that representing job for the npd. There are other reasons than "Hitler" and his "OCD" that Nazi Germany killed the jews or hunted them down in the first place. Not like Germany was the only country that absolutley hated jews at that time, but to be fair they took it to a rather extreme level. So i would rather advise you to look this up in some history books or find yourself some WWII survivors or Holocaust survivors preferable from Europe maybe even Germany to inform yourself about this topic.
@@ploppsilly Peterson's point about the link between ethnic cleansing and disgust applies to the German nation as a whole, not just to Hitler. It's also useful for explaining anti-immigration policies: people sub consciously see foreigners and minority groups as a source of disease. Peterson's points have been made by other psychologists like Johnathan Haidt.
@@ploppsilly You must understand that, while the Nazi party existed before Hitler joined, it was his manifesto that the party coalesced to. He made the party, not the other way around. anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe at the time, so it would have been hard to find people to do what he needed them to.
I usually use 88 in screennames (my youtube handle pre-dates that) because it's a lucky number in many Asian cultures and it's also my birth year. It's interesting how some things are an evil secret code to one group and auspicious to others.
Don't worry, in Germany it is also literally being used to mean "HEIL HITLER" because "H" is the 8th letter of the alphabet. (also 18 is used for Adolf Hitler). We had a Neo-Nazi Biker-Bar in our city called "Club Doppelacht" (Double 8). Then again the swastika is still being used in India by a lot of Gurus and Holy people
@@scivi7060 not sure if I understood you correctly on that last part. The swastika that's used in India and Nepal predates WWII, it was a religious symbol long before hitler came around and flipped it around for his banner. So if you are saying it is wrong they still use this symbol I must disagree. However I could have just misread and you were pointing out the different meanings of symbolism around the world. In that case I agree.
6:54 - 9:22 I always interpreted this speech of Peterson's to say that Hitler was evil for the sake of being evil. Even hearing your explanations, I really can't see how that was possibly a defense of Hitler.
8:46 I have to disagree. The turning point of the war was not D-day but when the invasion of the Soviet Union failed, and this failure became clear in autumn of 1941. Yes, so early. Before that, Nazi Germany had known only success in the war. Many Germans were enthusiastic about it. Now, they became worried, but it was still a vague situation. The obvious point at which Germany had lost the war was the Battle of Stalingrad in late 1942, more that a year before D-day.
@@soulofastro because Germany is in Europe, they wouldn't admit defeat unless they saw it at their borders, I doubt they'd capitulate just by seeing the African front or Japan losing some islands at the other side of the planet
@@soulofastro That had nothing to do with Hitler, that was a Japanese crime. The Japanese and Germans were allies but they were fighting separate wars.
Analyzing hitlers psyche doth not make you a sympathizer. It's sooo important to not only remember history, but to understand it as much a s possible too.
Analyzing Hitler's psyche is important, but I fail to see how making it about "Hitler just had a OCD and thought Jews were gross" is helpful. It ignores a literal century of eugenic thought and even moderate practices that led up to that worldview. If Hitler just thought Jews were gross due to a mental disorder, then that's not actually a lesson we can broadly apply to combat bigotry in the world today. Whereas if we take for granted that Hitler was shaped by the popular noxious beliefs of his day, then there's something we can do about it to keep it from happening again. I'm saying this as someone who has a mild neurodevelopmental disorder (ADHD). I can tell you that my disorder does not make me take the political and social positions I do (unless you count the fact that every time I hear about the inner thinkings of bigots, I just think it sounds way too complicated and I could never maintain that level of attention to essentially meaningless differences to make an entire worldview out of it). Does it affect my expression of them? Probably. But not to any extent that's useful to consider in shaping policy.
Erraticonteuse 1. It doesn’t matter if you can’t get a lesson out of it to combat bigotry. That’s *really* dangerous. What matters is the truth. If it was just OCD, then that’s it; how ‘useful’ that truth is to your personal causes should have *0* effect. 2. Peterson wasn’t just saying it was OCD. If you had actually watched his content and actually listened to his words, you’d have heard him talk about a variety of other factors. He was just talking about OCD because it seemed to be how Hitler’s feeling towards Jews was contextualised.
@The Icon of Sin and a lot of people are vegetarians, who also was a vegetarian? hitler. all vegetarians are nazis and if you try to correct me or even just disagree with me well guess what bitch, you're a nazi too
Peterson was once asked to mention a moment when the right went too far, he responded, "How about Auschwitz?" I believe he attempts to rationalize whatever Hitler's methods were by analyzing his erratic behavior. Rationalize, not validate. I hardly think anyone is willing to validate Hitler's actions, outright. He could be wrong about Hitler's intentions, but doesn't validate his actions. Because that would be insane.
@@nabii5951 Well what exactly has he done that is insane to you? I'm thinking maybe that one time he mentioned that he worked 50 something hours a week for like 5 years. That's pretty insane
@@thisisdavidvarela No, no, no - I'm agreeing with you! The meat-diet guy, who thinks that lobsters form the foundation of sociology, has never done anything insane in his life!
@@nabii5951 God.. Lobsters form the foundation of sociology? I’m not gonna call you an idiot, but I’m going to call you lazy. Go look at what Peterson says about lobsters.
Peterson's "max mayhem" theory seems wrong for other reasons, but to counter it on the idea that Germany does not start losing until June 1944 is ridiculously uninformed. Each winter, Germany lost massive areas they would never recover starting in 1941. By 1943, even the high-spin Wochenschau cannot conceal the impending defeat. Also, I believe Peterson refers to the April 1944 spike in holocaust deaths, at which point the front was less than 100 miles from Treblinka and utterly collapsing. The expansion of Auschwitz in 1943 mentioned in the video actually occurs after Operation Reinhardt and does not coincide with a major increase in killing rate.
I have always interpreted Peterson's "max mayhem" theory as saying that Hitler was evil for the sake of being evil. I can't possibly see that as a defense of Hitler. It just isn't.
@@EpicEverz Even that is an intentional obfuscation of the ideological component to the holocaust. It creates the narrative that Hitler was just a subhuman anomoly and that no ordinary person would or could be motivated to participate in such atrocities based on politics. And once you believe that, you won't feel suspicious when Peterson starts whining about "degeneracy" and calling Elliott Page's doctor a criminal and stuff. It's a goddam Trojan Horse!
10th graders in my country usually go on a one-week buss trip to Germany and Poland to visit the concentration camps, usually with a time witness who had been sent there (or some other camp in Europe) during the war, or a close family member to someone who had. It's been half a life since I went, so there were still time witnesses left to join us back then. Even so many years later, I still think about it from time to time. We could just walk out through the front gates when we were done with the tour, free, I don't know why, but that specific thing made an impact on me. I can never forget the rooms filled with glasses, or hair, of suitcases, prosthetic limbs even. When I say filled, I mean filled. You could probably drown in them.
I’m from Norway too, we were supposed to go on that trip this year, but corona made that impossible. I was pretty disappointed, it was an experience I think I would’ve found very important.
@@TheAussieRod I didn't realize that the decisions of Israel represented the Jewish people as a whole. Unless this is a new angle to shoe horn antisemitism back into the main stream. Have a little nuance you edge lord.
Dresden is literally my state's capital. I'm sure the bombing would've been a much bigger point of discussion in my history class if it had actually happend after the surrender and that many people would've actually been killed.
@Christs Revenge ...great job defeating the history deniers by being completely and utterly misinformed about the dresden bombing and denying it even took place.
Would it have been a bigger point of discussion in Soviet occupied East Germany? Or in West Germany where any dicussion of German history between 1933-1945 that seems sympathetic to the Nazis is subject to criminal complaint? Maybe we will never know the actual death toll, but the fact that for over 50 years any party to the event had no interest in examining it speaks volumes and when an investigtation was done the stated goal was to silence right wing nationalists, the conclusion is dubious.
Only time I heard someone argue that the internment camps were concentration camps they went on to argue that the Nazi concentration camps were death camps. So they still maintained that one was worse then they other, their argument was that we downplay the severity of both of them.
Concentration camps kill through inaction. Generally through putting people in crowded conditions so that disease spreads more easily and then not attempting to properly deal with the disease. That's what they initial did anyway when the UK came up with the idea. Death camps are places that actively kill people. Since the camps in America did see people die from lack of medical care it was to some extent a concentration camp.
Yep. ‘Concentration camp’ is often used synonymously with ‘death camp’, hence why there’s so much controversy around calling various countries’ immigration detention camps (including the ones on the US-Mexican border) concentration camps. By the original definition, the camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned were definitely concentration camps.
They are both terrible and should have never happened. But, yes, one is worse than the other. The one that resulted in the deaths of millions is worse.
@@citywinesspirits6583 I'm afraid to even look up what the mortality rate in the US Japanese internment camps was. I'd probably say that the one where they deliberately murdered millions of people was worse.
About Jordan Peterson @ 4:15: I'm not a fan of his, but it seems like a really big mental leap to equate his statement in that clip to anything related to neo-Nazism. The way he equates all of Hitler's actions to some out-of-control subconscious obsession with cleanliness is in no way dissimilar to the way a Freudian psychologist might be very interested in explaining Daddy-kink relationships using Freud's theories. Peterson's statements are mostly just, "Well have you ever thought of it like this?" statements. There's no gateway to neo-Nazism hidden within. It's just pop psychology. That's all that Peterson is famous for; pop psychology and some drawn-out statements on feminism which attracted an internet audience. I've had to explain to people that there was no cultural-Marxist agenda behind The Last Jedi that was determined to emasculate Luke as one step on the way to the dismantle the West, but I guess now I have to defend Peterson as a goofball (and not a neo-Nazi) from the other side, too. Also just on the topic of taking things out of context: I'm not blasting you personally or anything for it, but this is definitely one of your weaker videos. I agree pretty much wholesale with your points on the Civil War, but I think the dog whistle conspiracy makes it too easy for detractors to latch onto that single point and try to discredit the rest of your whole video.
Yeah, I’m not really a fan of his either. But from the few interviews I have seen of him he literally references Hitler and Nazism as embodiment of pure evil. He definitely isn’t downplaying any aspect of the Holocaust.
We can go on and on about whether they want to destroy the west. But do you really believe that Academia and the Hollywood elite haven't bought into the lefts victimhood ideology? Because I'd say that The Last Jedi is solid proof of that.
Don't get me wrong but this honestly kinda seems like propaganda I'm a Libertarian to state my political views. he talks about conservitaves in a negative light when it is CLEAR that he has a bias against conservitaves and Trump.
The point is that mental illness didn't cause the holocaust, it was nationalism. The 'gateway' being talked about here is misplacing the blame, which isn't necessarily a slippery slope, but it's disingenuous and dangerous.
Grant did buy slaves when he lived in Missouri, but he did it to free them. He was nearly destitute, and continued doing it. Some say to piss off his wife's family.
He inherited a slave but let him free within the year, at a time where he was struggling financially and could have made a pretty penny selling that person.
The story goes that he was given a slave by his wife’s father, and after some time, he chose to free him. HOWEVER, what often goes unsaid is that his wife had slaves, and kept them while they were married. Now here’s a question: isn’t it interesting that in the 1800’s, a man’s WIFE owned slaves, but he didn’t? At a time when wives were considered to be the property of their husbands? It’s almost like there’s some kind of special carve-out to push the historical slave-owning on the wife in order to protect Grant’s heritage…
When I was a teenager i had some skinheads try indoctrinating me, it's scary shit. I'm half Mexican which was no secret, i just don't look it. Anyway, It was obvious what was happening so I distancd myself from those aquaintances. They gave me books, cd's, told me all about there beleifs and I wan't having it. I knew what was going on. However, I had a teacher who was very kind and friendly to me that I thought the absolute world of who was attempting to do the same to me. It wasn't as obvious at first, he went into this whole thing about Dresden and i researched it. After that I paid very close attention to his rethoric and noticed he was no different than the skinheads, only he had a cleaned up granddad way of talking.
You are mexican, you just don't look it? Wtf, being Mexican isn't a type or a racial thing, it's a cultural heritage thing, and yes, it is something that shows. At least, it shows for people of Mexican origin. I think you mean you don't look like most Mexicans with predominant indigenous ancestry (which, I grant you, counts for a large chunk, if not a majority, of Mexican population, especially from the High Plateau and the Southeast)
9:00 I’d argue D-Day wasn’t what turned the war against Hitler. Him invading the Soviet Union prior and refusing to retreat was a huge loss and created a war on two-fronts, which would make Petersons point make a little more sense
the only thing that turned the war in the favor of the german queen was alan turing's invention of the computer which allowed koneaghn saxe-humbug (the german queen of england) to break hitler's enigma code! later she forced alan onto hormones because he was gay. he later took his own life! "there is a reason no one studies history, it just teaches you too damn much!" Noam Chomsky.
@@thenaturalmidsouth9536 erm yes he does, it's Knowing better who has proven he knows nothing. The writing was on the wall for Germany by February 43 with the Soviet victory at Stalingrad, denying Germany fuel, combined with the defeat of Rommel's Afrika core, also denying Germany fuel. This combined with an immediate Soviet offensive after the destruction of the 6th army on top of the knowledge an imminent allied invasion of mainland Europe is what signalled the death of the third Reich. Not Normandy. Meaning when knowing better says his BS about Germany not losing the war in 43, he is objectively wrong. Hatred of things that disgust you means you hate the things that disgust you. Ergo Hitler hates the Jews because they disgust him. Knowing better isn't an idiot, so he is purposely changing the context of not only Jordans words but the nature of words in general. Evidence for bias. Also by summing up Jrodan Peterson as a man who simply tries to defend freedom of speech against feminism, is evidence Knowing better is biased and just has a grudge. This is evidence that knowing better isn't actually Tring to educate you on the matter, but has a grudge against Jordan Peterson and is trying to besmirch him by grasping at straws with this flimsy argument he's constructed with historical inaccuracies, assumptions and insults.
@davidbowie50yearsofbowiean23 sorry, but that rambling reply doesn't change the fact that Peterson, with a definite axe to grind, has no more expertise in WWII history than any other layman, which is exactly what he is in regards to this subject. Peterson is very subtly using his Gish gallop style of nonsense rambling to undermine the criticality of the Holocaust. There's a reason why Holocaust deniers love Peterson.
@@thenaturalmidsouth9536 it's funny because you call my argument " a rambling reply" yet despite this can't actually refute it, because if you could you would yet you can't, so you just insult it. My last comment speaks basic historical facts in regards to years and dates, the facts do support the argument Jordan was making, not Know betters argument. Now fyi the support of one group or another doesnt actually mean anything. And proving my point that you and your ilk don't actually have an argument but are just clutching at straws to make JP look bad, is that his argument isn't downplaying the Holocaust, it isn't even making excuses for Hitler, he's finding motivations and common psychological patterns in Hitler, the most retarded part of this video is when he says that JP tells people that Hitler didnt hate Jews just found them disgusting. But the reality is why would he hate them if he didn't find them disgusting? It's language spagethii that propaganda artists like this youtuber are using to deceive people because they can't make counter arguments honestly. Ones that may very well be true, but hey any argument that isn't just "Hitler the devil" can be misconstrued not only by holocaust deniers but you people aswell. You and the Holocaust deniers are two different sides of the same coin.
As soon as he said "Dresden happened 2 months after the end of the war" I got weird looks for saying "where the hell did you get that idea" at work. It's just not often I'm met by historical incompetence at that level.
Hi KB, maybe you should make a whole video on dog whistle politics like the Reagan Campaign "Cadillac driving welfare queens", or "healthy young bucks buying t-bone steaks with food stamps".
As a German (was Grandpa fought in the east) i found Jordan Peterson explanations, how ordinary people could do such pure evil things, very interesting. When you want to avoid that in the future, you need to know how overall kind and rational people were led on that path of brutal genocide. Peterson doesn't defend it, he tries to explain it, in hindsight most protagonist didn't start as monsters, they ended as them. I think it's a goog thing to try to find explainations, it also strengthens the fact that these things really happened. Look at the japanese, turkish or russians, they forget and start to deny the attrocities of the past.
I think you're misunderstanding OPs point. You may not agree with him, but I'll try to clarify what Knowing Better is trying to say. He's saying that JP is assigning some convolunted motive to Hitler's actions (Hitler was illogical, he was obsessed with cleanliness) and then arriving at the same conclusion that we are all capable of this violence. The fact that we are capable of the same atrocities as Nazis has been evident by the fact that the US genocided Native Americans, enslaved Africans and even interned Japanese Americans at the same time. That "point" that normal people can horrible commit crimes that Jordan Peterson is making isn't new or even really interesting, its how he gets there that is confusing. Why does he need to talk about Hitler's obsession with cleanliness to justify this? And his weird point about Hitler not wanting to win the war? Okay? Doesn't it strike you as weird, like why he's he talking about this just to get to the same point? Knowing Better is arguing that he's doing it because its supposed to be a 'dogwhistle' to those who believe the conspiracy letting them know he's one of them. And he's done this before, like how he's made tons of random Bible illusions while saying he's an athiest lol. Jordan Peterson is great at talking in circles about nothing but somehow connecting with tons of people through these random points.
@@wonderfulworldofmarkets9033 why? Very easy question, he’s just trying to offer an explanation of Hitlers strange behavior in the war. Ya know, like a psychologist might try to do? What is strange about that exactly? He is not misinterpreting what knowing better said, he very obviously alluded to him being some sort of holocaust denier in a video about holocaust denial like cmon man, it’s just ignorant of everything JP says, who on dozens of occasions denounced everything about the holocaust and has said just as many times that he wasn’t trying to justify his behavior, merely offering a interpretation of motive.
@@thepracticalgymnast8001 It's okay if we disagree, I thought this video was bullshit when I first watched it too. I was a huge fan of Jordan Peterson and was always confused why he brought up the halocaust as much as he did (before I ever found this video). Just like I was confused why he kept talking about the bible and biblical stories, but claimed he was agnostic. Or about how he kept talking about transgender pronouns , but claimed he was left wing. What I realized is that Jordan Peterson never says anything so he can't get pinned to it. He'll talk around subjects forever without any real point. But eventually I realized THAT IS the point. It's like your friend that keeps talking about a girl, but at the end of the story insists he doesn't like her.
@@wonderfulworldofmarkets9033 yeah I don’t think were talking about the same person here, because their could not be a poorer characterization of what JP says. First of all, why does it matter he speaks about religion as an agnostic? That does not effect the content of his arguments, it is literally his job to understand the things that influence peoples mindsets and thought…. Like religion. He doesn’t go anywhere with his arguments you say… really? That comment gives me doubts you have watched anything more than short clips on instagram or twitter. Once again, he’s an extremely educated psychologist, he interprets things not purely on opinion, but mostly on statistical fact. I haven’t seen a single clip pf the man saying he is a leftist, usually when asked he says he follows what the science says, especially when it comes to political and social issues like transgenderism he relies on the available data. Watch literally any one of his debates with feminist or trans activists and he adheres to the data, I’m willing to accept your disagreement, but only if I believe you’ve actually watched his content not short clips. I call bs.
@Loki Fish I don't like JPs interpretation of Hitlers motives either but interesting nonetheless. It is in fact deeply irrational to fabricate such an enormous act of an genocide, in a manner the world has never seen it before, in midst of the greatest war to this date. Hitler was by fact a dilluded narcissist who thought of all his actions to be approved by destiny, so he could never be wrong. He strongly believed, that he was gonna win everything because he was the only one who could do it and he was successful all the time before. But I'm not sure if the agenda which he followed were his true intentions or just merely a tool for his gain of power. At the end of the day everyone's doing what he believes to be right and so did he and the nazis. But here JPs interpretation becomes interesting because it depicts him as someone, who does something knowing it was wrong. And Hitler being someone who loves Hegel, you know, a Thesis needs an Antithesis which then concludes in a solution (basically), knows that from a great catastrophe the learning process and the good that comes from it is also great if not greater. Also wars improve science and technology, so the greatest war in history led to the the greatest jump in technology research and human rights. And as no one can be sure of his true intentions (everyone that could have known this committed suicide as Eva Braun, Goebbels, Himmler or Goering) this still needs to be a considerable interpretation of his intentions
The point is that to most people killing is a much clearer and more shocking term but liquidate sounds far more removed from human life and is less abrasive
@@mikeellsworth750 also it is obvious that in that context liquidate means to anihilate also, killing people doesn't imply that you want to eradicate all people of a particular category, while that's what liquidate implies
@@tjer4635 The precise dictionary definition is not nearly as relevant as the way the words are commonly perceived by the majority of people. Liquidate feels less human and less explicit regardless of what is technically a correct use of the word. It's the same difference between saying "Grandma passed away last night" and "Grandma died last night". They both clearly mean the same thing but are not understood with the same tone are harshness. It's use of language that softens the blow of the words and let's the listener avoid some of the hurtful reality. Although I suspect actual reason and logic are not really the intention of your comments.
I guess if that's the only slip of the tongue Petersen has ever made, ever, sure it's a clear dog whistle. Because clearly intelligent professors who drone on for hours on end don't misspeak.
Also, he's literally talking negatively there. Like it puts an inherent negative connotation in his students minds about the 4th Reich so even if it was intentional it would be destructive so why would it be?
@@heathernicholson5052Germany has sadly but quite literally the receipts. Not just reports from the survivors and perpetrators, which are rather compelling and plenty…. Lots of paperwork, Germans generally love paperwork and produce way too much that it could be all destroyed… in addition people wrote diaries and letters… The Holocaust is one of the best researched Genocide in history. Denying or minimising the Holocaust is just rather pathetic…
For more context. Grant was in financial hardship at the time and slaves were extremely expensive. An average slave in 1860 cost about $800, which was the equivalent to $22,000 today. (I strong slave able to work fields would be worth $33,000). Meaning Grant could have sold the slave to save his financial situation, but stuck to his moral code and freed the slave instead, forfeiting a potential 20k. Many people even now would struggle to reject that kind of money for the sake of a personal belief. It takes a lot of character to stick to your principles with so much to lose.
@@Conns2239 Honestly I feel like I wouldn't need as much money if I had a slave. You can rent them out and shit to make passive income... Point being that there ARE a lot of reasons (mostly financial) to own slaves if you can - but We as a People have decided that the moral costs outweigh the benefits.
@@Stop_Gooning Bro’s got the capitalist brain rot, yes owning a person is very profitable because you can work them to death and don’t have to pay them 💀 it’d also cost more to feed two mouths opposed to one, so no you couldn’t just rent the one you have out. That’s why it was common place to own several
@@Binowhy depends on how many of my other costs are offset by the slave's labor and the quality of the food I give them lmao Anyway the point is is that slavery is a Moral Wrong and not necessarily a Pragmatic Wrong. We don't own slaves *because they're **_people_* and not because slaves don't function as intended.
this is so stupid. No shit Sherlock if i throw up an okay sign after someone compliments me im not dog whistling. However if your the ChristChurch shooter a white supremacist and you throw it up in your court photo after killing 50 people thats a DOGWHISTLE
@@Brandon-bc1fz first of all you're a disgrace to shinobu second of all the ok symbol is a 4 Chan meme no one actually uses it as a sign for white supremacy third of all the issue with this video is that he claims that people who would have no reason to use dogwhistles (ie Jordan Peterson) did use them But then he would say the fact that there's no evidence to suggest it would be used in that way is why it's a dogwhistles which is just a really stupid argument
@@Brandon-bc1fz Or maybe it's just trolling and not an attempt at subcommunication. It'd be an awful "dogwhistle" anyway, if cats can hear it more clearly than dogs.
7:03 I looked up this whole clip and his final point was that hitler was so evil that he neglected the war effort because he was so fixated on committing genocide. The title is literally, how hitler is more evil than you think.
Yes, you’re right. I am somewhat bothered by KB’s inaccuracy, but I also think you’re missing the point. I think KB is calling more attention to the fact that Jordan is seemingly seen trying to disassociate Hitler (evil) from the movement he stood behind, effectively isolating him as the evil of the Nazi Party, rather than the party itself. I think he makes his intentions pretty clear with the dog whistle to the fourth reich, allegedly showing his support for the ideas in the modern era though not the man. Take note of the placement of the supposedly referential “glorious” before the “error of speech.” There is always the possibility that this was an earnest mistake, but the arguments for that idea are relatively unconvincing for me at least.
@@ryan-yh7vo I just really think it’s disingenuous to frame it as though JP was “dogwhistling”. Dogwhistles imply intent. JP’s intent was, as his title stated, Why hitler was more evil than you think. So to frame it as though JP was in any way defending or advancing nazism is just ridiculous
yeaaaaa the argument was lost for me there. JBP isn't a holocaust apologist nor denier, he made a presentation about why Hitler was even more evil than you thought...inclusion of the fourth/third reich comment is only a dogwhistle if his intent was to show some sort of apologism, but I think the content pretty clearly shows that that wasn't his intent. But also, the statement about Hitler's mentality moving from keeping things clean and killing insects, to keeping things clean and killing Jews, was likely EXACTLY his thought process at the time. Keep in mind that JBP is a psychologist, which means he takes a lot of time in analyzing peoples' thought process, even if they are compulsive, illogical, or evil. Hitler's mind had likely become so terribly pathological that he probably truly believed that Jews were the lowest possible scum creature, like an insect. This isn't apologism, but rather an attempt at understanding the mind of a truly deplorable person, and honestly if after listening to that JBP video you conclude that he's even an ounce of an apologist regarding this topic, you really have to listen again to what he said about Hitler in that video...it is really hard to hear about someone so evil and analyze them as if they are a person, but that whole presentation from JBP was meant to attempt that. Side note: I dislike that there's weird political narratives and dredging peoples' reputations in videos that are meant to be informational, that's actually way more pernicious than a dogwhistle (which you're not certain is an actual threat). Misconstruing someone's explicit words is far far worse.
Carl Smith he gets a lot wrong. The alt right wasn’t popularized by Spencer but brightbrait (I probably spelled that wrong). When it started was for conservatives against the the mainstream republicans similar to the tea party. Then the alt right was taken over by neo Nazis.
Attacking the free press is a pretty standard sign of authoritarianism or fascism. Similarly, "experts" who claim to have hidden secrets and denounce entire disciplines or scientific consensus are usually frauds, like Peterson, or Sam Harris. Attacking the press can absolutely be a dog whistle, often paired with a racial coding.
20 minutes of misinformation, disinformation, out-of-context commentary and a nasty guilt-by-association argument supported with a heaping helping of "you're too stupid to understand the Neo Nazis are dogwhistling you, so you can't think for yourself" will do that.
Funny because thats what this guys videos are about - adding context. Yet with JP he cherry picked some clips and forced his own interpretation on them, even if that wasnt what was meant
So Peterson said not to intefer motives from the outcomes while interfering motives from the outcomes It's almost as if what ppl say and what they do are two different things Trump said he wouldn't play golf ever if elected or that he was gonna drain the swamp and yet he did the opposite.
@Eriko. Oy this is the classical Jordan Peterson fanboy argument. Jordan Peterson is right 100% of the time He only seems to be wrong cause you misinterpreted or you are leaving the it context. Jordan Peterson has never been wrong in the fanboys eyes
@@topranked5465 Here comes the "everything you say is wrong because you're a JP fanboy" while not debating the actual reasons of the accusation used against him. It doesn't matter what you say, so long as it is not a valid argument. This is a discussion, not a verbal battle.
I'll never understand why a group so focused on pride and superiority pretends that their biggest accomplishment never happened. They're so snakey, they don't even realise it contradicts their entire movement.
@Emmet Anderson if you want to "clean a group up" you can't do it wothout hating that group, so it wouldn't even make sense for the speaker to even claim that Hitler didn't hate the jews. He just expained Hitler's perspective.
The nature of dogwhistle's makes it very easy for someone with an agenda to find dogwhistling in everything their political opponents say. The problems with this I hope are very clear.
Yep, if everything has a double meaning, regardless of whether it's intended or not, anything and everything may be imputed. It's a particularly pernicious way to deal with people.
This is why it's best to ignore potential dogwhistles. There's no way to prove someone's intent to dogwhistle, and calling out potential dogwhistles all the time makes you look like a paranoid loon. It's also sort of malicious because you're essentially putting words in people's mouths. Like claiming Jordan Peterson is a secret alt-right neo nazi sympathizer because he accidentally said "Fourth Reich" is both fucked up and crazy.
Ever heard of Lee Atwater? A Republican politician self-professing to the idea that “States’ Rights” and other such ideas were fill-ins to him and others being blatantly racist?
I really agree with the first few lines you spoke in this video. A lot of people want to bring others down instead of boosting themselves up because it's simply easier for them to fill up their insecurities. I hope everyone continues to better themselves instead of lowering others.
@@thetrain47539 I think he was misunderstanding alot about what Dr. Peterson was talking about, and viewed it very negatively. If he actually watched more than one lecture on Hitler, he would know that Dr. Peterson literally believes that Hitler was evil, and regardless of what mental acuityHitler had, it did not excuse his actions, as the guy in the video claims Dr. Peterson is trying to do. Thats a severe misrepresentation of who Dr. Peterson is as a person. And people don't quite understand that hatred of others is fueled deeply by a need to cleanse things. Not all hatred stems from racism. Usually it stems from ignorance, or something far more personal and terrible, it can also stem from mental illness. Ofcourse if one has never experienced true hatred, (lucky you) you would know that there is a desire to cleanse those you perceive as filthy. After all, we don't call the people we hate, "scum" and "filth" for nothing.
The turning of the 'ok' hand symbol into a dog whistle pisses me so much. I often use that hand gesture in place of a chefs kiss, and immediately remember and cringe after the fact. Wankers, fucking up everything they touch.
@@amoureux6502 The whole point of the 4chan trolling operation was to make the media (and their audiences) think actual white supremacists use it. The fact that you think they DO use it unironically is proof that the trolling worked!
@@_MysticKnight the Christchurch shooter used the sign in court. It WAS originally a troll, but that doesn't mean no actual white supremacists have used it since then.
Just because some white supremacists try to use it as a clearly stupid sign, doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden a white supremacist sign. If a white person eats a taco, does that make it American food?
I heard about it being a dog whistle before people started trolling with it. If I had to second a guess it probably wasn't very widely used before it was in public attention, but someone who knew about it and could get that information out there brought it to public attention and unintentionally spurred further use of it as a way to troll or dogwistle. The trolls only further legitimized this and then use of it in an inappropriate manner only went on from there.
@@geraltdirivia8278 he didn't misunderstand. KB did this as a massive virtue signal to this tiny extreme (m)arxist minority. I don't know why, but he's getting worse
@Nelson's Rudolph but you still have no idea if he's a antisemitic, or a bigot. You're just accusing him because someone else did. You're a follower and you reason with yourself that you have to be right. Exactly what a young nazi would do
READ BELOW FOR HISTORICAL CORRECTION POINT: As a historian I think you’re missing much of the point. The psychology of evil. Just because there’s an intellectual engagement with evil does not mean there is historical revisionism. Examples: The parallel of Hitler’s acceleration of carnage towards the end of the War is not only exactly true with the reality of the concentration camp system’s evolution (it wasn’t the original idea, but one that evolved from the movement) but also parallels with other mass murderer’s goals to kill as many people as possible before destruction. The psychology of evil is the banality of it. Evil people are not simply crazy, they are intensely logical in their thinking. An ideology like Nazism cannot be easily reduced to “pure racism” and you even exhibit this concept with your whole segment on dog whistles. It’s an ideology centered around a perceived threat. This one point is why whataboutism is so effective: it creates false equivalencias. IMPORTANT: Final point: the parties never flipped. They evolved. Republicans do not advocate Jim Crow laws just like the Democrats don’t. You peddled a myth immediately after condemning H3 from peddling a myth from Slaughterhouse five. You are purely factual wrong on this point. The primary explanation is that as the South got wealthier and race relations eased, their racial politics eased over time. Very very very very few prominent Klan members or anti civil rights politicians actually ever switched parties. Those that did were outliers. Why? Because republicans never harbored Jim Crow politicians.
Actually looking back. Both parties were once very right wing, on social issues though. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves not on the obvious moral problems with slavery but because he did not want America to lose its white majority. In the 60's the Democrats moved further to the left than the Republicans were.
"The primary explanation is that as the South got wealthier and race relations eased, their racial politics eased over time." Incorrect. European Americans, specifically Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants, treated African Amercans as inferiors who could be beaten, assaulted, threatened, even murdered and raped, with little, and most of the time, to no punishment at all. Rape of black women in the South was a known occurrence on many farms where black women worked.
Rodney Falberg , thank you for your response and indeed what you said was true. In my own academic experience, it’s important to recognize these realities. However, racist ideology was itself a product of capitalist incentive insofar that a defined racist ideaology supplanted former qualifications for enslavement that existed prior to colonialism to accommodate the new concept. The end of slavery did not immediately erode this ideology and it persisted but the trend can be tracked without making the claim that the Republican Party became interested in “putting down blacks” as goes the allegation.
Declan Newton-Maharaj I think such a metric as “right or left” are reductionist and certainly when we speak historically are entirely useless. Often, we might find ourselves disagree as to what the metric of “right and left” meant. The political parties themselves both during and before the Civil War were a coalition of different movements that united over the usefulness of overlapping interests. While Lincoln and other Republicans may have different ideas or motivations about how to address slavery, it’s unifying issue was abolition.
Thanks for bringing a bit of nuance to this surprisingly biased video from what is usually a very nuanced content creator, hopefully now I know better.
In Nazi Germany "marxism" was a code word for Jews, because they thought Jews were behind it. Kind of ironic, since Stalin too oppressed Jews, but what ever. Anyway, saying that "cultural marxism" is a code word for Jews today, is acting as if the cold war never happened.
Mr Traumatik Yes. My focus at college was Hegel, and in turn know a good bit about Marx. Cultural Marxism is a term people use to describe the intentional redirection of oppression narratives from class to race and identity after the failure of class-based narratives to catch on in America, fueled by the collapse of state-run communism from the 60s-80’s.
M McManus Okay but I’m correct when I say Marxism had heavy Jewish influence and cultural Marxism is just Marxist ethos which had Jewish influence when being created. So to say that cultural Marxism has nothing to do with Jews would be dumb but to say that it’s a dog whistle for the alt-right would be equally as dumb.
I gotta say, when I listened to Jordan Peterson I took away the exact opposite interpretation. I took away the conclusion that: yes, Big Adolph really was incredibly, evilly racist. He wasn't sabotaging Germany's war machine out of spite to the people who betrayed him; rather, he was focusing on his real priority of genocide. So if Jordan Peterson was trying to convince me that Big Adolph wasn't all that bad, well he kinda failed miserably
The idea that Hitler's "main priority" was genocide at all costs (rather than domination/power) is ludicrous, and Peterson suggesting this is WILDLY at odds with what we know about Hitler historically. There's so much information about this. But, as usual, Jordan Peterson waxes on a limited set of information about a subject. While the Jews were commonly refered to by Nazis as enemies of the state and instrumental in Germany's surrender in WW1 (they weren't), Hitler very intentionally took control of all major facets of society by eliminating those most able to challenge him: political opponents. Jewish people were regularly terrorized - but the Reichstag fire (resulted in eliminating political opponents) was before the Night of the Long Knives (in which Hitler killed important Nazis who weren't 100% in line with him) was before the Night of Broken Glass (which became an excuse to really start terrorizing the Jewish population). Hitler's economy was also *ENTIRELY* dependent on conquest, and usage of those resources. They fully intended to conquer other countries and use resources via slave labor to expand the war effort. Because conquest was his goal. One of the many, many things that Hitler was very poor at though was establishing an organized chain of command, despite the seemingly common belief that the German army or gov't at the time was like a well oiled machine. Like many poor leaders from ALL up and down the chain, all he valued was in them was loyalty. Nothing else. Because all he wanted was power. So you get a bunch of shitty people running things that don't know WTF they're doing. I mean - the economy in the 1930's started recovering significantly with some pretty impressive policies for the time. And that person (Schacht), after pointing out the fucking disaster that was German military spending, was basically ousted form his position, and GOERING was put in place of the four year plan because Hitler wanted to DOMINATE EUROPE. Yes, part of his world vision was eliminating those he saw as sub-human: because he had a psychotic view of what an idyllic German society would be. He talked about this *A LOT*. I could go on here, but I'm not a historian. Other people are though. And none of them would agree with this nonsense Peterson is talking about. He's taking a VERY limited amount of information, and then applying what he knows about psychology to it. Which is inherently highly speculative. And it doesn't need to be because WE ALREADY KNOW A LOT OF THIS STUFF.
@@MESchem You kinda missed the point of my comment. Let me spell it out in a more convenient format. Peterson claims: Big Adolf was deliberately sabotaging the German army by pouring resources into bad investments as a calculated move to spite his own commanders. (which is self-evidently wrongs) KnowingBetter claims: Peterson isn't just wrong, but deliberately lying to his audience. KnowingBetter further claims: that Peterson is secretly an anti-semite, as evidenced by his blurting out the words "fourth reich". I say: that if Peterson was trying to make me doubt the historical understanding of Big Adolf, then he screwed up, because I'm now convinced that Mr. 88 was completely incompetent and would rather perpetuate genocide than actually win the war. As for historical stuff: yes, I know that Germany at the time was dependent on conquest. But I've also heard it said that attacking Russia when he did was completely the wrong idea: Germany relied on Russian treaties and Russian-controlled trade routes to acquire rubber, tungsten, and molybdenum (especially rubber) as well as access 70% of Poland's oil; so attacking Stalingrad did nothing but cut off Germany's most desperately-needed resources. Basically Mr. 88 completely screwed himself over in his deranged attempt to kick all those semites and poles off the planet, because he literally couldn't wait to do so even if his life literally depended on it
@@MESchem I'm also of the idea that Hitler while obviously had a genuine hatred for jews gypsies homosexuals and communists etc. that wasn't his motivation for war. Rather it was blind nationalism along with his views on German superiority. Jordan downplays that by saying he had some sort of odc rather than admitting that he was just an extreme anti semite.
The Nazis did use Jews as slaves. The concentration camps were divided into labour camps and extermination camps. Only those who were determined to not be helpful as workers were killed immediately. The others would be worked to death.
@@akshatgupta4817 regardless of that fact that does not make Jordan Peterson a Hitler sympathizer. The video that clip is taken from is literally titled "why Hitler is even more evil than you think."
Wait, where did you get Peterson saying there wasnt any racist views involved? You just took a splice of his interview out of context ... and in that splice he even implicitly says it was racist. "Cleaning up" groups of people like they were insects. It cant get more racist than that. Loved your Columbus video, but you really have to check your bias in this one.
Marcel P yeah I think he isn’t looking at Jordan Peterson as a psychologist, who finds the root cause of behavior and uses that as a method to treat mental illness, not to dismiss those mentally ill as if they aren’t still responsible for what they do. Instead I think he comes at this as a historian which has more political focus I think
@@kingtaylor5613 Or he is just stating a fact. It's clear as day that Hitler had some serious mental issues. I don't think there's anything you can say that would make a rational person feel any sympathy whatsoever for Hitler
I'd never heard of dog whistling before this, very informative! Although I must say that Germany was already VERY much losing the war in 1943, manpower, rubber, coal, and oil shortages had been plaguing the army for a while.
Unfortunately a lot of this video is not knowing better’s best work a lot of clip have been taken out of context and sometimes the point being completely missed like claiming JBP is a a nazi sympathiser he’s not a lot of the clips in this we’re actually about how they were worst than most people imagined and the examples he uses as dog whistles aren’t real like saying ‘the media’ is a dog whistle
@@boomamathics2666 yet oddly alt-right and even neo nazis seem to flock to and make up a significant portion of his fanbase. so even if hes not directly saying it, apparently something is still clicking with those crowds
@@Cracked_Moon not a lot of neo nazis like Peterson, he’s seen as a grifter who says the bare minimum. Not to mention the alt-right is a very loaded term Becuase it means anyone who right wing but doesn’t support the Republican Party
This is the only video I really disagree with thus far from you. Most the eagerness to lump people like Jordan Peterson in with the alt-right. I also think you've misinterpreted some terms like classical liberalism as right wing (which is like saying that a centrist position is exclusive to one faction which is incorrect)
I don't see very many comments about the dem/republican flip either which is a gross mischaracterization of history. Overall, I think he tries and I commend him for it, but there are some inaccuracies which I attribute to personal bias.
Le0, much as I disagree with a lot of the garbage that was said in this video, in the US, Classical Liberalism *is* Right Wing. It's the principles our country was founded upon. The problem is that people shut down their brains and grab pitch forks whenever someone even suggests something is right wing. How people came to despise individual liberty is, frankly, well beyond my understanding.
>Lol..”muh Liberty” is the exact reasoning the south used to justify slavery muh dude. So personal liberty is bad because people attacking personal liberty claimed they championed it? Get over yourself.
I belong to a group of historical reenactors that covers all times and places from before 1600. Vikings are one of the most popular cultures in the group, and while most of us are into Vikings because Vikings are cool, there's a small percentage who are into Vikings because Vikings are, um, white. Sometimes they're easy to deal with: They get kicked out of social media groups as soon as they reveal their true colors, vendors who sell racist merch are blacklisted, and non-racist craftspeople avoid using racist symbols in their work. (Not always easy because white supremacists are constantly co-opting new symbols, and because the runes are literally letters of the alphabet. The symbol on the neo-Nazi flag toward the end of this video is the letter O. If your character's name is Olaf, Ottar, or Oddny, better give up on monogramming your gear.) And sometimes they're harder to deal with. If they have social capital and they're willing to fly under the radar most of the time, they can get into positions of power, or at least collect major awards despite the protests of most of the rest of the group. (Those awards are a massive help in rising to power.) The group as a whole trends liberal, but some regions are more conservative than others, and of course the culture wars have made it a badge of honor among some folks to "stand up to bullying," even when the "bullying" amounts to "Stop being a massive goddamned racist." So there are conversations to be had, and issues to be grappled with. The good news is we're having those conversations and grappling with those issues. And if you like Vikings because Vikings are cool (or if you like any other pre-1600 culture because it's cool), then the Society for Creative Anachronism would love to have you.
Super unrelated but it's super cool seeing an SCA member in the wild, when I was a kid my family would go to every event and I loved it so much, we hung out with the pirates and danced all night. I'm happy to know it's still going strong even after COVID
@@mrjones2721 i like vikings because im from iceland and being norse is my heritage ……stop banning our symbols 😡you are part of the problem… can you not see that?
Fizzy Fusion Buddy, there is no “we” let’s just get that clear. The South lost, therefore you’re a part of the Union. GG, good fight, the South lost, end of story.
Well sort of. The beginnings of the war are very complicated. The Confederacy knew it couldn't military conquer the Union and never really tried. When you say that the South shot first I assume you are talking about Ft. Sumter. Well think of it from their perspective. You think of yourself as a sovereign state (South Carolina). You leave the Union you were apart of, but their military garrison just won't leave. From your perspective that is a foreign army on your territory. There are a couple of other interesting examples. Thomas Jackson was in charge of defending Harper's Ferry which is an impossible task. He put artillery on the nearby Maryland heights, but Lee told him to bring them down as there was still hope that Maryland would join and they didn't want to piss them off. As crazy as it sounds to our modern ears Kentucky actually declared neutrality, and that they would join the side that didn't violate that neutrality. Oddly enough North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee basically did the same thing. General Polk violated Kentucky's neutrality, whereas from the other borderstates perspective the Union violated theirs by asking them to raise regiments.
Please leave Texas.....the north invaded the southern state that had succeeded....thereby causing the Southern army to fire on them.....seriously go live up in the Yankee states......we don't want you here.
I think Peterson was just trying to find explanation how Hitlers’s disturbed mind worked ending in holocaust. From all his lesson I never find him siding with nazis....but yes psychologist, sociologists and historian talking about hitler and his motivations and you get 3 different stories :) I think history need to stay a domain of historians.
I don't think he's a Nazi either, and yes history should be left to the historians - and Peterson is an absolutely _abysmal_ "historian". Problem is, he keeps trying to talk about it, and the actual Nazis love it. He may not be a Nazi himself, but he's a great easy gateway into their ideology.
I would suggest that you ask Jordan Peterson for a discussion on this topic. You can intelligently call him out on the items that you feel are incorrect in his lectures, and I am fairly certain that he would appreciate an intelligent rebuttal to some of his current thoughts and opinions.
Not sure what foundation you might base that conclusion on... he seems quite willing to discuss and even change his views if evidence is presented. His own beliefs often seem a bit tenuous compared with most people, I think because he is a very cautious and careful man that wants to ensure his positions are thoroughly considered before he adopts them. But regardless, I wasn't suggesting that Peterson is or is not a free speech advocate. I suggested that our 'Knowing Better' host engage him in discussion to clarify some of Peterson's positions, rather than engage in guesswork.
From all the videos and interviews he hates character assassination attempts and traps. Check his actual content and see he talks with plenty of people if they actually want a real debate.
14:16 "legitimate over the top feminists" Ah yes, Zarna... I actually know her in real life, or well knew... I live on the opposite corner of the continent now, but back in 2013 and 2014, I actually used to work with her in a non-profit organization called "SAFE" (Seattle Against Foreclosure and Eviction) that protested fraudulent foreclosures that banks were sometimes doing back then, and worked with Seattle's politicians to try to find solutions to help the homeless rather than attack them... and yeah... she was cartoonish even when she wasn't going on about social justice. Frankly, I stopped volunteering there partly because of her. It was so surreal to me when the video of her and Hugh Mungus started circulating on the internet.
I do understand her point with the Hugh Mungus thing and I do think it could be taken as sexual harassment. I don’t find that to be a stretch by any means. However, her reaction was extremely obnoxious and is working on the assumption that she knows for sure it was intended to be sexual, when it also could have been intended as a weight joke. I think it would’ve been more productive to calmly ask him what he means and have him expose himself because the way she reacted made her out into a villain and allowed him to assume an innocent persona lmao
Personally I didnt watch any of the other full videos from the clips used, except the peterson lecture. He was trying to get at that Hitler didnt commit genocide because it would help his “glourious reich”, thats just what he told his people. Peterson explains his intent was more evil then people think and it was that he wanted to have control over a group of people that he hated, not for Germany, but for his own ego.
The problem with Peterson is that he sees the world exclusively in terms of Jungian metaphors, so he tries to shoehorn the actions of famous historical figures into whatever archetype he thinks they "represent", instead of taking the simpler route and realizing that they were motivated by what they said and demonstrated they were motivated by.
The idea that Hitler (or anyone for that matter) was a mustache-twirling cartoon villain who did everything he ever did for the evulz is so preposterously childish and ridiculous that I am seriously dumbfounded that anyone, much less someone with a PhD, could believe it.
@@asdfsdfsdf5114 That's the point bro. He didn't do it "for the evils" because he didn't think what he was doing was evil. He genuinely thought he was doing the world a service. How can you manage to take the absolute worst possible take on this.
I've always felt the lack of genuine sincerity for proper dialogue with these people. But I always fell short on how to call it out. But now I know they don't actually want a dialogue at all and just want to propagate and shut down the opposing positions while hiding behind moderation That was my intuitive observation but I could never find the exact words and methods to it. I could only see the lie due to the natural dissonance of the point, but not identify it.
Hiter was literally on meth, and crack near the end of the war. Put in that context, the military tactics near the end of ww2 started to make a ton of sense.
You have it exactly backwards . Holocaust fact checkers are desperate for an open good-faith debate. The establishment refuses to allow it and instead ruthlessly suppresses all inquiry into the Holocaust, in many countries literally imprisoning people for simply asking questions or disputing facets of the official narrative. If everything the establishment asserts is true it’s awfully strange that they suppress open debate since if it’s all actually true then an open discussion would ostensibly prove revisionists wrong
@@thegrandnil764 He wasn't on crack, it wasn't invented till the 1970s. He was popping meth pills all day and balancing them out with morphine or heroin, also benzos may have been in the mix...
@@Stop_Gooning so if i assert that the sky during the day without clouds is black and full of stars despite all evidence of the contrary and i keep asserting it and continue to push the burden of proof to others and deny all forms of proof anyway. What i say still has value?
About the first Jordan Peterson clip: it sounded to me as if you thought Jordan was trying to almost make Hitler sound less bad or that he didn't hate jews. If i got that right, why's that? I haven't seen that whole clip so don't know the entire context. Disgust and hatred aren't mutually exclusive. I have listened a podcast in the past, where Robert Sapolski said that the same part of the brains that detects disgusting objects (like the taste of rotten food) is also activated by moral judgements, and that's often why in propaganda people used to compare their adversaries to vermin and cockroaches etc. to stimulate a more visceral response. Sapolski also mentioned a study in which people did a survey of their political interest, but the room had a foul smell, and a considerable amount of the participant answered more conservatively than they normally would. I haven't personally checked the study so i don't know what the exact numbers are. So a strong sense of morality and sense of disgust can possibly correlate with each other. I think he had both. Using literal pesticide to kill the group he hated kinda also plays into the disgust he likely felt. I also think he might have really thought he was cleansing the world of something foul. He talked of jews as parasites and something like the root of what's wrong in the world. I don't personally understand what could be even downplayed or defended if Jordan would even say "oh he didn't hate them, he was just viscerally repulsed by them to the point of committing genocide". But like i said, i haven't watched the whole clip, neither have i followed what Jordan's been talking about for a long while. Edit: also his comment on hitler wanting to maximize mayhem goes along with the public consensus of the events. I've understood that as he noticed the incoming defeat, and thus he started killing more and more of the jews to kill the witnesses and evidence (for war crimes), and possibly to just destroy as many of the group he hated before he went down. I think this is what JP meant by 'causing mayhem' His argument of inferring motivation from the end results is pretty damn flawed though. I don't think there's any valid reason to think that the whole nazi thing was just a Joker in real life. But it still doesn't click with me how this would be promoting nazism or it's modern equivalents in any way.
Peterson’s hypothesis about Hitler and Nazism are absolutely ludicrous. Any reputable historian would dispute his claims as Hitler/ Nazi apologetics that are not based in facts. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels… were simply racist. They embraced Nazism due to it being a racist ideology. “Aryan/ Germanic” superiority appealed to them as a racist ideology. Blaming minorities for everything that went wrong worked for them. If you read the writings of the Nazis leadership you realise that they were rather pathological in their hate towards specific Ethnic groups and minorities…
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Maybe all Nazis were capable of that and maybe all the members of that party were capable of that but there were ppl who opposed Hitler and others who didn't say anything simply cause they couldn't Not all of us are capable of that I'd say most of us aren't capable of that unless we choose to be brainwashed by someone.like Hitler
Hitler doesn't have to lead you to do horrible things! You can do them on your own and if you find yourself in the right place (wrong place) you can commit unspeakable violence! If you don't think so you're in complete denial!
I saw a lot of backlash on the comments and doubted if I should continue to listen to your video. Then I saw the stuff about Jordan Peterson and felt suspicious.. but I watch it all and at the end, I can see your point. I just wanna leave this comment to let somebody out there that not everyone thinks you are not worthy of a subscription.
C'mon, Jordan Peterson is not a god. His argument has been debunked by several youtubers already. One of the most disturbing argument he made is "all morality comes from religion, even though you didn't realize it". That's a very unscientific claim. It's not falsifiable.
@@binshuo yeah I really dont trust him. I meant the part about "forth reich" think. I felt the argument a little forced. But yeah I agree. Peterson is full of bs.
@@binshuo And easily debatable. So many things in life result in natural motivations to be good. You wouldn't kill someone's wife because you wouldn't want someone else to kill your beloved wife. The problem is when someone else doesn't have a wife and envys you for having one and being happy. Or you have more money than them, more attractive than them, better than them in some sport, etc etc. You wave at your neighbors and help homeless people unless you have no reason to love people. You can't have "good" people without "bad" people.
The problem with dog whistles is that people who don't know about them might use them by accident, so they kind of lose meaning. Like, imagine someone saying "hey, I like that froggy, I will get one"
Somebody explain to me how I'm wrong, please. It looks like the first clip from Peterson was him explaining the role of disgust in genocidal racial hatred. The other clips seem to be him describing Hitler as someone so evil that he chose to prioritize destruction of those he hated over victory. In the first he explains how an ordinary person might radicalize to Hitler-levels of evil. In the second he describes Hitler's level of evil as being akin to a demon in human skin. Where am I messing up? Where's the Holocaust denial that I'm missing?
Read the thumbnail and title of the video, very slowly so that your don't miss the point. Peterson may not be denying the holocaust openly (yet) but he is twisting the narrative. Distancing Hitler from being ordinary and calling him crazy.
@@spiritmatter1553I'm having a hard time understanding how your definition of ordinary comes in here. My question was in regard to Akshay Anand accusing Peterson of distancing Hitler from ordinary by calling him crazy. Are you saying that crazy people don't start life as regular human babies?
8:48 Stalingrad happened in the end of 1942/beginning of 1943 and many non Western centric historians see that, Stalingrad was the more important turning point in the war, not D-Day which happened when the Soviets were already pushing them back succefully.
D-day was the turning point on the Anglo-American front. The Ruskies, by sheer force of numbers and significant Western aid, halted and successfully turned the Axis forces back. Without American aid and fighting on the western and southern front Russia was unlikely to win on its own. And without the Russian victories in the East the Anglo-American efforts would probably have failed. One would not have happened without the other.
I generally agree with this video, but the JP part sticks out like a sore thumb. He made an oversimplistic reading of what JP is saying, and wasn't educated on the context regarding history and JP's work on the matter.
@@mailman63155 Which is bullshit if you listen to any historian with as little as two living braincells. The Soviets stopped the Germans in Stalingrad thanks to not numbers but a combination of Soviet numbers, their strategies and German idiocy. First the Germans bombed the city to the ground, making it hard to move easily through the now ruined streets, while also making the defensive easier for the Soviets. Then the Soviets managed to overrun and encircle the entire city, crushing the now defending Germans. As for Allied aid, you need to keep in mind that most of the American and British equipment was severely limited in numbers compared to their Soviet counterparts. What Lend Lease provided them with instead were not military equipment but mostly stuff like trucks, trains, rail cars and other goods. Tanks sent through lend-lease for example constituted of only 8% of the tanks used by the Red Army through the war. In fact, the country that received most aid from the US was... UK of all places. It's clear to me that you know little about how the war actually went and just go with the American propaganda of "'Murica, fuck yeah". What the Soviets did to the European people while ehm "liberating" them from the Nazis is certainly an important thing but to claim they wouldn't have won without Allied support is just laughable and it's the west trying to (as it seems to be more common nowadays with American companies putting African-Americans into European history even) insert itself into the loss of the Nazi Germany in a role more significant than it really was.
The turning point is the German defeat at the Battle of Moscow, January 7 1942. It was only after realizing he was not going to take Moscow that Hitler decided to change the goal for Stalingrad. The decision on how to handle the Final Solution was taken on January 20 1942, at the Wannsee Conference. It's important to note that Einsatzgruppen were already mass killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians and Russians way before that, of course.
@@mailman63155 Nah, USSR would have won even without US landing in france, but the land lease was important. the only 2 reasons i can see for US even landing is that they wanted to make the war shorter, and didnt wat USSR to take all of europe after the war is over
visiting back to this video and the denier at 3:52 is hilarious. In an ironic sad way I mean. The image of the strong 'bavarian looking German soldier' was of one Werner Boldberg. The Nazi's made him into a literal poster boy until they found out to late that his grandfather was Jewish. He was discharged, put into menial labor details but when the government tried to round up his grandpa to deport him to a camp he came in with all his medals[he'd been decorated during the Polish invasion] with his uniform and all of their saved posters and fliers of him used that to support a point to not deport his grandpa. It Worked! They both survived the war but it's an example of the idiocy of anti-semitic racism type thought.
@The Liverr It's weird, because from some of the videos I've seen from him, they were actually really well done and historically-accurate, actually debunking blatant bullshit (even with the occasional retarded, ham-fisted comparison between Trump and the Nazis). So it's always kind of bewildered me as to how someone can not have their head shoved up their ass on those things, and call people out for cherry-picking and misrepresenting what was actually said, while literally doing the exact same thing when it comes to people he politically disagrees with.
It actually was a major turning point. It affected the war by making hitler fight two fronts on the same continent. The Eastern front was the worst part of the European theater, but hitler's fear of the US caused him to stop 30 miles (50km) shy of the Russian oil fields. If he had pressed on, the soviets would have been finished. With them out of the way, the Allies would have been able to hold onto half of France (probably), but Market Garden and the Bulge wouldn't have ever happened because Germany would have had the needed resources to halt the allied advance.
@@neurocell159 Opening yet another front in Europe (1. Eastern front, 2. Italian campaign) was one of the very important events of the WWII. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't any turning point. The turning point was the Battle of Stalingrad. And the second most important event was the Battle of Kursk. Opening of the western front was just yet another very hard blow against the enemy, seriously bleeding already. And I agree, the eastern front was the most bloody part of the European theater. But the rest of what you're saying is just a fabulation.
@@rostislavsvoboda7013, Who needs to stop an army from entering Europe, and coming up behind you? It was a turning point because it put a strain on the axis ability to concentrate on Russia. If hitler hadn't been dead set on keeping France, or hadn't put off the battle of Kursk several times, the war would have had a different outcome. His stupidity not only stretched his forces, but he also allowed British intelligence to inform the Soviets exactly where he would be attacking. hitler's biggest mistakes were actually invading Russia when he said that he wouldn't, declaring war on the US (His mutual pact with Japan could have withstood him not declaring war on the US until he consolidated the Eastern front, subjugated Britain, or ensured he had a treaty with a in all but name defeated France/Britain.) which brought the US industry and aid to Europe. Kursk was reinforced by the withdrawal of the troops that had been devoted to Stalingrad. Hitler does any one of these differently, especially allowing the Soviets to build up more than twice the number of tanks, and the war goes in another direction. D Day was a turning point because it forced him to give up any dreams of conquering Russia, and he began fighting the rear guard actions that led to his defeat. It was almost a year after Kursk, but the outcome of the war was still in doubt. Without the Eastern Front collapsing for Germany, there are too many troops for the Allies to regain a foothold through Northern France. Without D Day, or the 18 month threat of its start, hitler is able to reinforce, and especially resupply, the battle against the Russians. The luckiest break the allies had was the fact that hitler was a dynamic, charismatic, politician that considered himself Cesar's equal, but was a military buffoon. If he had taken time to consolidate, or even listen to his generals, world history would be very different.
@@rostislavsvoboda7013 - There was no one specific "turning point" you can really turn to as the definitive "this is where we won the war". There are many points you can point to though and say, "if this didn't go like it did, we might have lost". Obviously Stalingrad was important. Obviously Kursk was important. But so was D-Day. Being forced to fight on two fronts stretched supply lines for both fronts. No D-Day means the Nazis have better supply lines to fight on the Eastern front.
@@rostislavsvoboda7013 You really need to check the veracity of your statements. Turning point: a time at which a change in a situation occurs, especially one with beneficial results. Was D Day a major turning point? Yes, it was the turning point that signaled the final death throes of Germany. Was it THE major turning point? No, the two we were discussing were. But if D day never happens, hitler finally listens to his generals, calls a cease fire with Russia, builds up, and attacks them when he has an overwhelming advantage, such as moving more V-2s into the Eastern front, or getting enough Me 262s into the war. You really need to get your confabulation under control, stop repeatedly espousing your argument, fully read and understand that people are agreeing with your main points but keep pointing out that you dismiss anything that even approaches a minor contradiction to your narrative. I have not been arguing that Stalingrad and Kursk weren't the most important battles, thus the main turnnig points, I've just been saying that D Day was one step below those two.
omg did you even watch the video? He talks how jordan peterson fan boys try to always defend him by saying " its out of context " then he shows the comment in context.
Friendly Neighbourhood Savage just because he tries to preempt being called out for taking Jordan Peterson out of context by saying he would be does not negate the fact he did just that. You fell straight into that fallacy.
@@saintsolider3359 Have you watched the whole video? Have you watched the dozens of hours of JP on RUclips? He could not possibly state more clearly the exact opposite of what this video says. Yes it's a lot of time to invest, but it's necessary to understand how off base your comment is. Listen to ALL of the words, not just the ones in a tiny clip if you want the complete picture.
You express concern that Peterson is saying that Hitler had a unique pathology and this enables the idea that not anybody could turn out exactly the same. The problem is that he EXPRESSLY says this in other places, even saying that everyone is capable of immense evil not different to that of the Nazis.
The bit about saying "4th Reich" before immediately correcting yourself as some kind of Freudian slip about the future you want to see is the kind of mental gymnastics we all expect from RUclips talking heads these days. It's so disappointing.
You make fun of conspiracy theorists who slander others, like Alex Jones, while slandering Jordan B Peterson with conspiracy theories under the guise of dogwhistles. Alex Jones also makes unbased claims about dogwhistling so I don't think you should be doing it either. This was very hypocritical and I sure hope it wasn't your bias getting in the way of making us "know better". I really like most of your other videos and hope that you will try and do some better research and make more evidence based claims in your future ones.
The point is why so many Nazis run to Peterson for validation. You missed the part of unintentional dog whistling where people take your statements way beyond your intended context?
Tom Lam Yeah as soon as I heard him start calling everything “dog-whistles”, I knew this was gonna be a bad episode... And sure enough, the double-think wasn’t far behind. Also, seriously, “globalists” and “neo-marxists” are dog-whistles for jews? Now sure, I think the libertarians calling everyone globalists is a bit cringe, but come on, most of the libertarians I’ve seen ARE Jews! Plus, at this point there’s no denying that there are some actual globalists out there. And they are *crazy.* And unfortunately they tend to be the category of feminists working in Silicon Valley companies.
@@mangalores-x_x There's no way Peterson is unintentionally dog whistling. He constantly uses the cultural marxist conspiracy, which is literal white suppremacist propaganda.
@Michael Whittmann The thing is everyone is biased and its important to recognize what your biases are and understand them but this is simply conspiratorial, nothing has any real evidence other than links that could be simply explained away
@Michael Whittmann You didn't its just that knowing better didn't seem to recognize his own bias when making this video ending up in a extremely unfair and one sided video, he should have... known better
Amazing video. I do think from a historical context that the biggest issue of people saying the civil war was about "states rights" is that that is a true statement but it isn't a complete statement. The "states right" that led to the war was the right of New states to be free states or slave holding states. Bleeding Kansas had happened before the war as did John Browns march. Both were about slavery.
I had to laugh when the one dude said that Dresden was a "historical" german city. Well....it wasnt just a historical city it is still a BIG city. Greetings from Germany by the way and thank you for the informative video
Dresden was a catastrophe and is often downplayed here in Germany because of political far-right _"using it"._ But if you hear these complete bs "facts", in these short clips, you know why it's _"downplayed"_ so often.
BTW, i have to add that the Dresden Bombing, just like the Japanese bombings had really one purpose: to demoralize the enemy into submission. Sure there were some military objectives in Dresden as can be said for any large city with production infrastructure in the world, but definitely not enough to warrant a total carpet bombing of an entire city. It was an "example" and a major war crime that we chalk up to "ah the good guys won so who cares?". The civilians who lived in that city cared... Same can be said of Japan, but it is much more hideous there because the atomic bombings were also tests to see how the a-bomb affects people in short and long term. Japan was on the brink of defeat with the US fleet literally parked next to the islands. They WANTED to use the a-bombs specifically. It's like when you are playing a strategy video game, can win the mission objectives, but still use that super weapon thingy just to see what it looks like...
@@yannick245 What happened to Dresden was sad, but it was a legitimate target with war industry, and GERMANY STARTED IT. So please, don't squeeze more sympathy out of Dresden than what there is.
@@xwing2417 it absolutely is INTENTIONALLY taken out of context. JP has been a target of the left because he dared to object to compelled speech. It leads to a lot of lying. JP spent a lot of time talking about how evil, disgusting, and insane Hitler was… what he was initially confused about how you get such a large number of people to go along with such obviously immoral behavior. For this channel to claim JP is secretly racist and in support of Hitler/Aryan terrorists takes a BIG leap and requires ignoring hours upon hours of easily accessible footage. It’s a purposeful lie.
@@kylehager4113 It's amazing how Knowing Better makes one claim about how "if someone says something here is out of context they are wrong" and, instead of looking at the entire body of work Peterson has about Hitler that is very, very clearly against Hitler and against Nazism, you simply take Knowing Better's word for it and assume anyone who says the video is out of context is some sort of racist or Nazi sympathizer.
Yeah, what the guy above me said. Either way Mr. Peterson has made it very clear that he detests hitler. JP was just trying to (in my opinion) understand what hitler's mindset and motivation was, more importantly he was trying to teach a lesson to his classes.
It's also very dangerous because this makes Hitler look like a historical singularity which could've only happened under those special circumstances. While actually this should be used as an example to always be aware of psychopaths gaining political power via clever use of propaganda.
I like the idea of playing "devil's advocate" to challenge one's beliefs, but it should be done correctly. Why is Hitler and the Nazis considered the "ultimate evil" even though there were far more lethal "governments" (Mao's China and Stalin's Russia)? Simply because this kind of planned genocide is unrivaled in human history (thank god) even compared to similar incidents: while Stalin and Mao caused more deaths, they've never planned to murder millions with their fucked up economic/politic systems. Maybe the Japanese came close with the Nanking massacre and their WW2 atrocities when it comes to outstanding atrocities, nonetheless, the planned and industrialized murder of a whole human race is even beyond that. While i wont advocate for any country to hide the atrocities they've done in the shadow of the greater evil, there truly is nothing compared to what was achieved in Nazi-Germany.
Very interesting comment and I didn't know about those Soviet "endeavors" (not that I needed another reason to dislike communism and its representative states in history): though taken into account the whole mindset behind this ideology, planned mass-murder should be expected. One could say the Soviets had the better PR department when it comes to their atrocities... or the worse, we're talking about Supervillians after all (so the worse, the better, if thats proper english). I agree with you that we shouldn't make the mistake of weighing those systems and thus making one look less bad in comparison. Personally, I think communism is the greater danger nowadays based upon its quite numerous iterations throughout history in contrast to its horrific outcomes every time (where genocide would just be the icing on the cake really).
@@MrPobanz JP literally said in his lectures "If you were in Nazi Germany, you would probably be a nazi". I'm pretty sure he would agree a lot with you.
It's so disgusting how none of their symbology is even original. Like, they basically plagiarized and bastardized all their symbols because of course they have to ruin everything
You completely missed what it was Peterson was trying to say. He wasn't trying to argue Hitler wasn't racist. He obviously was. He was trying to describe the core personality disorder that lead to his racism.
Abraham Lincoln: "I've heard much about the benefits of slavery, but I've yet to meet a man who wanted to become one"
Abraham Lincoln: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races" also the slavery thing was just an exuse he didn't give a damn about the slaves,if the South was going to unite with the North he would have let them have slaves, he did think that slavery was moraly wrong but he also said that if he could have riunite the States without freeing the slaves he would do it
@@loneokami6560 the quote still good tho
@@loneokami6560 yes because it was poliitcs. You do realize lincoln had to content with a voter base of white supremacists right? So obviously when he speaks publicly he will make it seem like he would never be in favor of abolition. Its clearly him just being a politican. He drafted thr emancipation pretty early on in the Civil War as well waiting for the right time.
@@orlandof6496 That's just not true he didn't want equality, he only tought that slavery was moraly wrong,still in that regard he was ahead for shure i give him that credit
@@loneokami6560 "also the slavery thing was just an exuse..."
It wasn't an excuse, it was a strategic maneuver. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but he was also a politician. During the war, he maintained that he fought to maintain the union, rather than to free slaves, and stated that he felt this attitude was his duty as president, regardless of his own personal disposition. Making slavery a focal point of the war was a maneuver to make sure that England didn't help the South. The fact that it happened to align with his abolitionist beliefs, he might say, was a happy coincidence.
Fun Fact: If you say “Heritage, not Hate” 3 times in the mirror, General Sherman will appear and burn your House down
That is an awesome joke 😂
I'm going to do that right now
Sherman was actually very bothered to be so remembered for his march to the sea specifically.
@@rafal2959 I like Atun-Shei's explanation on Sherman's memetic celebration; he claims it's a mirror of Stonewall's.
@@TeeComedian except Sherman was a winner, and Stonewall was killed by his own men.
As a Southerner, I love to point out to the "Heritage Not Hate" crowd that the history of the American South is 400+ years old, while the Confederacy lasted no longer, as you pointed out, than the time that most spent in high school. Well done!
One of my guilty online pleasures is pointing out to the Confederate fanboys that the Spice Girls lasted longer than the CSA did.
@@gaiusjuliuspleaser 💀
@@gaiusjuliuspleaser I will have to use that one :)
But the flag went on to be used in other places after the confederacy disbanded
@@andrewprahst2529 Yes, it was used at every MAGA rally, every Klan gathering, every pro-Segregation demonstration ...
For 18:43Absolutely NO! Germany does NOT suppress that part of history. Japan does with their part. How the Nazis rose to power and what they did is thuroughly taught in school (multiple times) and callbacks are very very present in political speeches and/or actions. Just never in any glorifying way, hence it may look to you like "suppression". But it's not, we remember, as a warning.
I think he means the banning of far-right symbolism etc., otherwise the phrasing makes little sense in context. And while I do agree that education on our own country‘s past wrong-doings luckily is extensive, more so than in probably any other country, I wished we were taught a lot more about the long-term consequences for marginalized groups pretty much everywhere (like the idea of eugenics, the impact on Jewish culture but also that of Sinti and Roma and so on, and very importantly the hallmarks of modern day fascism)
That isn't at all what he meant by 'Suppress'
@@jakobschober8261 and he is widely hated for (among other similar things) this view
@@isnitjustkit Exactly, but the wording was a bit odd, especially for non-native English speakers. Also I wouldn’t agree that our remembrance culture exists (merely) out of shame (or for that purpose anyways), as was rightly pointed out in the original comment.
@@thatgirlinautumn5995 Right, it exists to help people understand the history of our country, and make informed decisions for the future. If we didn't teach in school that people were enslaved, and the entire history of the civil rights movement, and women's suffrage, and much more, it would be easy to assume a lot of people wouldn't understand how wrong it is, or the impact segregation had on the development of different cultures all across the nation.
I did not realize this but The republic Texas lasted longer than the south
fucking star wars and avatar lasted longer than the south
Gay marriage has been around longer than the Confederacy as well ;-)
*SO HAS MINECRAFT!!*
NASCAR: lasted longer than the South
Babylon 5, Farscape, and the Vine video service lasted as long as the Confederate States of America.
Fucking My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic lasted *over twice as long* as the Confederacy. That's more my heritage than the Confederacy is theirs.
in Australia our major conservative party is called the "liberal" party and it makes talking about them to non Australians really annoying lmao
Ha ha ha, I'm so glad I found your comment! That explains my friend's FB posts while she was living in Australia.
Interesting, here in Latam being pro free market/libertarian is called being Liberal
The conservative party used to be called liberal until recently
In Sweden, one of our more conservatie parties are called The Moderates, and for a while they were known as The New Moderates, which makes no sense.
To be fair, our Liberal party would be considered centre at best in the states.
Their left makes our right look centre.
I wonder how many “per capita Nazis” need to present at a rally before Allsup begins to questions his life choices…
I had a similar thought: "Why only 10 nazis per nazi flag? I think if anyone brings a nazi flag to participate in a rally, everyone going to that rally is suspect."
Edit: of course I mean bringing a nazi flag to actually participate in a rally and not to counter-protest any kind of leftist movement, and of course by "everyone going to that rally" I mean "everyone also participating in that rally for that rally's goal", and not people showing up to counter-protest facist shit
So glad this clown got banned off RUclips.
If I went to a wedding and they had one Nazi flag I would leave and then I would no longer be friends with that couple. Any Nazi symbolism that isn't in the context of a museum or a history book it's too many
@@breadtubediet1524 Yeah I agree.
Sure, maybe some people just showed up to see what's going on, but I think anyone who didn't decide "what's going on" isn't anything they are interested in *once the nazi flags come out* is pretty suspicious imo.
@Peeshy let’s assume for a moment you’re correct and I can’t dispute anything James Allsup claims. Even if what he were saying is true, his world view I vehemently oppose and will never agree with. White people do not deserve an Anglo Saxon nation. Europeans fucked that up when your ancestors decided to exploit minorities. Historically, you’ve lost the fight. So anyway, while I’m enjoying life with my beautiful Caucasian wife and adorable mixed children, stay mad on the internet. I have my guns, we all know you do too, but we also know y’all wouldn’t target people who can actually fight back lmao.
I dont know where you got the idea from but in germany we dont hide the past or are too ashamed to talk about it. It is near impossible to go through school without being taught what happened. And it usually is taught in brutal honesty. We dont want to forget the events to prevent them repeating.
I had to read at least 2 books from the perspective of victims in class and some schools even travel to the camps to let you see the inhumane history in person.
you misunderstand the meaning of supress in this context. germany is not trying to hide it but instead trying to supress it as in banning flags, symbols and songs and that typ of stuff
@@rdtarcade7644 Ooh that makes more sense
He is saying you don't celebrate it, like how America has reenactments of the civil war. You don't have a designated day, like Nazi day or something like that, you don't romanticize it. "They don't forget it, but they don't encourage reenacting it" literally his words.
@@lobear3074 Indeed, someone else explained it too, I simply misunderstood. Though I figured I could leave my original comment up. I admit I kinda brainfarted while watching the video
@@TheGrandSilence all good friend, I do the same thing all the time.
🏳️This is the real Confederate Flag.
Get fucked rebels
Polish Lad thats not a flag sir
No.
It’s not white enough.
@@Llamasomenumbers 👀 I see what you did there...
Looks like the Taliban flag to me
5:19 "clean up things that disgusted him"... isn't that about the same as "he hated them"?
@@tophan5146 splitting hairs
@@tophan5146 Saying "somebody is disgusted by something" doesn't mean he doesn't hate it, right? JP: - Hitler was disgusted by the Jews. OP: - Owww, JP meant that Hitler didn't hate the Jews. Don't you see the logical fallacy here? You can be and disgusted and hating something at the same time.
Tophan really you hate things you’re disgusted by. And being disgusted by anybody because of their race still makes you horrible. That’s Jordan Peterson‘s point
Brice Lafond if your mother were covered by feces you would be disgusted by her but not hate her.
Disgust is primal, visceral.
Hate is one level higher, emotional.
Animals can be disgusted but they don’t hate (there may be exceptions for the most intelligent ones)
I’m not saying you can’t be disgusted and hate someone at the same time. But these are very specific, separate things.
@@tophan5146 Just that you're disgusted by other humans... which is.. well dehumanization at it's ultimate form with eradication of entire group of people as it's end goal. Which allows the perpetrator to think one is doing "good job" while at it.
How is this making light of anything?
You're not disgusted of mother, but of feces, of which what you do? Clean, remove.
Disgust is primal, visceral. - yes.That's why it's so dangerous it subverts all of the "higher level" processes as you describe. It's far more entrenched and sinister than just mare emotion.
I think people like you are simply afraid that admitting this somehow minimizes the responsibility of the person following it's path. Short answer - it does not. However to explain that would require to go deep into personality and how different neural circuits develop as a person interacts with the world.
D-Day was not the point where Germany started losing. Most high ranking Nazis and Generals likely knew the war was lost shortly after the Battle of Stalingrad.
The loss at Stalingrad and the subsequent losses in Africa was the beginning of the end for Germany.
All hail the motherland
The YT channel WW2 hints that the nazis started loosing in June 1941 by invading Soviet Union.
@@Soundbrigade Stalin was gearing up to declare war on Germany which could have taken place in 1942 or 1943. The supply problems Germany exacerbated by invading the USSR would have proceeded anyway even if they didn’t, just slower. Not invading the USSR wouldn’t have saved Germany either.
Loss in Africa
This video really hit me hard.. because it always baffles my mind.. if the holocaust didn't happen then what the fuck happened to 75% of my family? Why the hell did I have a very lucky relative with numbers tattooed on his arm against his will? I'm sorry but NEVER AGAIN.
It's horrific to think that there are apologists for the Holocaust especially in the US. I hope you're well prepared because what was old is renewed again under a party that technically was OK with Hitler until they couldn't ignore it anymore. Nearly every single one of those comments used on the "others" is constantly in the news and social media its just a rebranded version of 80 years ago. Whether it's the border, social programs that help all Americans and not just the white ones, to Putin and his efforts to rebuild the Soviet Empire they all use some of the same rhetoric that was used a century ago to justify the actions then.
I saw this in a different comment section, thought it was funny so I'll share it:
Never ask a woman her age
Never ask a man how much he earns
Never ask an Argentinian their SS rank
This sounds quite racist, bro.
@@itacom2199 Nah
... or how many FIFA World Cups Argentina has
@@itacom2199 Then you ain't no Italian communist.
@@numbersix8919 but you're surely full of crap.
18:50
Germany also doesn't build public monuments to Nazi generals and soldiers. The majority of Confederate monuments were built between 1890 and 1920. You can find timelines of monument installations and compare them to important legal battles and racially charged events (Plessy v Ferguson, foundation of the NAACP, the Klan's resurgence in 1915, the Red Summer and Tulsa race riots). Funny how installations spiked afterwards, isn't it?
I don’t find it mysterious that a war monument would be built after a war. When would you expect it to be built?
Museums are where they ought to be.
@@goblinslayer7096 lol
@@ferrisbueller9991 k fine sure but honestly, why are people confused about the timing? Like, "OMFG they built the monuments about 30 years AFTER the war!?! 0.o" like, yeah, that's probably the average amount of time it takes kids and grandkids to get around to making monuments of their parents. A lot of us still perceive time as linear right?
@@ferrisbueller9991 holy shit, you're Ferris Bueller!
"They're not lootboxes, they're suprise mechanics"
@Jack the Gestapo but god does not exist?
@@imakevideos5377 Says the Atheist
Well played sir! XD XD XD
Precisely
“It’s not an invasion it’s just surprise democracy”
Yeah the bit about Germany not talking about things is false. I personally minored in German in school for a while, and my teacher (who was born and raised in Frankfurt, Germany) noted that one could not escape this growing up and that you got hammered with WWII history and the atrocities that occurred more than any other period of history that was taught. And I know this is true for most other Germans I have met as well.
Do you learn about the atrocities during the 2nd Reich with Shark Island?
In Japan the US Civil War is called the "Nanboku sensou," or literally "north-south war," which in addition to being fairly accurate, is an interesting metaphorical reference to Japan's own civil war during the 14th century, when two separate lines of the imperial dynasty tore the country apart in civil war for half a century.
in Poland we usually call it "wojna secesyjna", "wojna" meaning war and "secesja" means "secession", so it is named after secession (withdrawal) of southern states from the Union
Then there's the Korean war next door...
@@JG-bi6ci same in France ! We call it "Guerre de Sécession", or War of Secession
In Australia we just call it the American Civil War. I feel boring.
In Brazil we call the secession war too
"According to this narrative, he didn't hate the Jews. He just wanted to clean up things that disgusted him"
And how in all of Earth and Narnia are those not the same thing? This is a total strawman of his position.
Sporeguy, dude, I've been listening to Jordan peterson like non stop for the past week and if I have to hear "straw man" or "throw the baby out with the bath water" or "dominance hierarchy" again I'm poking my eyes out 😂😂😂
It is a strawman
What about mentions of lobsters? Did you know they have a dominance hierarchy?
Haruhi Suzumiya, ik, but there are so many different phrases you can use lol. I'm not saying he's wrong.
in this lecture JP is actually discussing indicators of sociopathy/psychopathy. He is explaining that many sociopaths are easily repulsed/disgusted by things and are often driven by those feelings of disgust. It's different from hatred, its deeper and more divisive than hatred. I dunno go listen to the JP video if u want a better explanation. I don't have time to reinvent the wheel.
"The South was fighting for states rights, not slavery!" Yea if you just ignore all the declarations of secession, Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Constitution and the views on slavery and abolition that the majority of Southern politicians and civilians alike had consistently expressed
A large majority of why the South fought was definitely about and for slavery, but that doesn't mean they weren't also fighting for state rights to govern themselves as they saw fit. They saw the encroaching federal government and that it was slowly gaining power in ways it was never meant to, and today it can be seen in the vast over extension of the federal governments power and influence in strictly state affairs.
One small example of this unlawful over extension of power, certain states have voted into law the right for licensed dispensaries to legally sell Marijuana yet the federal government regularly and illegally shuts down these businesses.
@@malachor5ve actually this is the Knowing Better channel if you wanted to be featured in Atun Shei’s cringe compilation on his Checkmate Lincolnites series then you’ve come to the wrong place my friend
@@scl1332 I stand by my comment. The majority of why the south fought was for slavery that's not under debate, but that doesn't mean they didn't also fight for individual states rights to govern themselves as they saw fit. The federal government was never meant to rule over the the states, it was meant only to be there in cases of emergency and to help coordinate the states against foreign invasion. The federal government was overextending it's power then, and continues to overextend it's power now
@@malachor5ve Um, slavery is a direct violation of basically the entire Bill of Rights, which the federal government has the right to impose on the states. That may not be how the north and south justified the civil war at the time, but from a legal perspective slavery was always constitutionally illegal.
The perfect response any time someone says this is to simply ask them 'A state's right to *what*, sir?'
And then you watch them gape like a fish.
In Sweden we call it: the American Civil War, and we usually view it as a good thing to end slavery, but a terribly tragic and bloody way of accomplishing it
Eh, thems the brakes.
In all honesty I don’t view ending slavery in any other way besides a bloody conflict, liberation is often bloody that doesn’t make it any less important and good though. The switch to the more peaceful approach to Reconstruction simply allowed terrorist groups like the KKK and White Supremacists to run rampant with lynchings being able to get away with it. A peaceful approach is not always a good idea, violence is often more effective. And before anyone says the Civil Rights Movement, even MLK said riots and more violent methods played a huge role towards equality, and the riots that started after the murder of MLK provoked further legislation towards solidarity to pass.
Violence should not be glorified but I think it’s downright ignorant to say that it’s not necessary for liberation.
@@fishsteakyelk341 I agree that the violence was necessary to a degree. A riot held for the good of mankind is a thing of beauty. However, I wouldn't compare a series of riots to a full-blown war. Yet the fact remains that the the white southerners would rather sacrifice the lives of their sons and fathers than give up power to freely and monstrously abuse their fellow humans. And if that isn't tragic, then I don't know what is
@@fishsteakyelk341 I mean we are the only country that had to fight a war among ourselves to end it.
@@idek6585 That’s because we were one of the few countries that had it in the mainland and not just in a colony. Many countries that abolished slavery kept it in their colonies, and it isn’t the first time liberation from slavery was a bloody conflict nor will it ever be the last. And half of the war was fighting to keep it and the other half was mostly trying to preserve the union only then abolishing slavery to deter Britain and France from going on the side of the confederates.
*Sees thumbnail*
Me: "I wonder if he's critical of JBP here."
*Sees dislikes*
Me: "Yep."
If completely taking him out of context and trying to make him out to be a neo-nazi counts as "criticism" that is.
Yeah the jordan cult is definitely in this thread...YUNG WAS A MORON AND JORDAN PETERSON IS DOING THIS FOR MONEY
@@TheLastSoundNL wtf is a "thought crime"?
By strawmanning his positions
I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson, but he's not a Nazi sympathiser.
It's kinda weird to me. I am german and in school we were taught about the holocaust. To us its undeniable...like..who exactly would deny that? I mean wtf
Speaking words are harmless. Let them deny it, show that they're wrong. Censoring them just means the German government doesn't believe it happened either, otherwise they'd be happy to show every generation what happened. I'm sorry, but this is the only way in a free country. Although Europe doesn't seem to be very open to free dialogue anymore. Tragic because Europeans have alot to offer.
@@deadpilled2942 did you even READ my comment? I am from germany and we are taught about it. We germans know and accept it happened. We teach about it at school so yeah.
@@YvaiatheDemon yes, I'm aware that you were taught it. I was saying that it's better to prove it than make a law saying you cant deny it. I don't know maybe I'm overestimating people. I've done that with Anglo Saxon Europe before
Dead Pilled but it’s never mentioned that there is a law against it, just that no one would deny it because it’s considered common knowledge learned in school...
I'm Irish, and we're also taught about the Holocaust in secondary school, and I remember knowing about it from an early age, so I'm glad that's the case.
min 17:20 "I think I saw a combined... three?... three swastika flags "
Three swastika flags are three too many.
Seriously! The number should be zero. The fact that anyone would voluntarily march alongside anyone flying those flags means that they're in solidarity, and at best a Nazi sympathizer, which isn't much better than being an outright Neo-Nazi. Who is really fooled by these bottom-barrel apologetics?
Not to mention it's easy to assume that the people tagging alongside are sympathetic to the cause of the flag bearer.
Just like the guy with the rebel flag who were one of the protestors who stormed the Capitoleum. Anyone who let him bear it hates America as much as him.
@@AbandonedVoid also there were plenty of other (neo )nazi or “alt right “ or “identitarian” -whatever they want to rebrand themselves as -
flags , ffs they even had the black sun flag
Don't blame the swastika, it's been around for millenia. It's used in ALL other contexts as a symbol of "hope" and "doing good", "wellbeing". A quick check of Buddhism, ancient Norse culture, even some American first nations and many more used it as a symbol of "good" things.
Just because one "evil" regime , for 6 years used it as their symbol shouldn't change the 1,000's of years it has been used as a symbol of goodness. At the very least, only the reversed black swastika on red and white should be reviled.
As someone who personally knew an active school shooter, the phrase "causing the maximum amount of mayhem in the least amount of time" really sounds absurdely familiar
weird flex
I mean, thats what theyre going for usually. Right?
nice name :I
Which one? I happen to know a lot about them.
@@blackcorsair8466 2 boys from a city called suzano, in brazil, they were full of shit honestly
Edit: Before this gets any more upvotes, I need to admit that I was mistaken; Haidt hasn't said anything affirming Peterson's theory about hitler. The hypothesis that disgust sensitivity and bigotry are linked is a mainstream view among psychologists, but not one that Haidt has espoused.
If you're going to criticize JBP for linking Hitler's evil to disgust sensitivity, you're going to have a problem with Johnathan Haidt and many other psychologists. They aren't denying hate, they're explaining its roots.
Including Bret Weinstein.
Thus dude has been showing his left leaning bias of late.
Dude, don't use the term "important psychologists." You clearly don't read psychological literature or know the experts in the field. You know 2 people who hold your anti left views, who aren't respected in the field, because you want to criticize the left. That's your agenda and ideology and not Knowing Better's problem or any of ours.
@@jasong7373 Is the idea of Hitler having disgust sensitivity inherently an anti-left view? I think it's more nonpartisan, evaluating Hitler on the individual level. Could Peterson be wrong in his examination? Hell yes but that doesn't mean he's some evil anti-left biggot from hell.
@@JoeyPerp Buddy, reading comprehension. Haidt doesn't discuss Hitler as far as I know. The views that the two have in common are that universities are too homogeneous, free speech is under attack, we can't discuss certain ideas (usually racist ones), all that usual complaining.
The reason OP knows about Haidt and Peterson is not because he has an undergrad degree in psychology or because he reads, but because of Haidt and Peterson's anti left positions.
Last, Peterson is absolutely a bigot, from his debunked sexist theories about women to his comparing trans rights to fascism. Haidt (as far as I can tell) isn't a bigot, is more serious, but gained notoriety through the standard IDW grift.
Neither are particularly respected or read.
I mean, when you said that Jordan Peterson was saying that it was "an extension of killing rats", and that Hitler didn't hate Jewish people, I think you misunderstood what he meant. Mr Peterson was saying that Hitler couldn't handle anything that disgusted him, and I'm pretty sure if Jewish people disgusted him, he probably hated Jews...
So i like your reasoning and all, it could be a great argument, but the biggest mistake almost everyone makes is making Hitler out to be that big figure that the nazis wanted you to think he was. That was one way of the government to subtle "brainwash" and manipulate people into the new system. It wasn't only Hitler. There was a whole government and many many people behind that one man. This man just came in handy at the right time. The nazi regime could have put any other person in Hitlers shoes if there was a better option in their eyes. Saying "Hitler killed all the jews" is like saying "Hitler build the autobahn" which is both not entirely wrong but implies, that he did all that by himself- which he didn't he maybe had a say in these decisions at most.
So reasoning with that "Hitler" was not okay with jews and more or less based on that assume he had OCD which made him do even more horrible/extreme things is just kinda pretty dumb and pretty wrong at that too. And kinda makes it seem more "harmless" but that could be just me.
I mean yes he hated the jews that was part of his view on life and because of that and his history with drunken uprisings in bavaria he was seen as such a perfect candidate to do that representing job for the npd.
There are other reasons than "Hitler" and his "OCD" that Nazi Germany killed the jews or hunted them down in the first place.
Not like Germany was the only country that absolutley hated jews at that time, but to be fair they took it to a rather extreme level.
So i would rather advise you to look this up in some history books or find yourself some WWII survivors or Holocaust survivors preferable from Europe maybe even Germany to inform yourself about this topic.
@@ploppsilly yes, hitler had a government to organise things for him.
are you arguing that Hitler didn't hate jews? or...
Jumped into the comment section right after hearing this part, glad to see people are on top of it.
@@ploppsilly Peterson's point about the link between ethnic cleansing and disgust applies to the German nation as a whole, not just to Hitler. It's also useful for explaining anti-immigration policies: people sub consciously see foreigners and minority groups as a source of disease. Peterson's points have been made by other psychologists like Johnathan Haidt.
@@ploppsilly You must understand that, while the Nazi party existed before Hitler joined, it was his manifesto that the party coalesced to. He made the party, not the other way around. anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe at the time, so it would have been hard to find people to do what he needed them to.
I usually use 88 in screennames (my youtube handle pre-dates that) because it's a lucky number in many Asian cultures and it's also my birth year. It's interesting how some things are an evil secret code to one group and auspicious to others.
Don't worry, in Germany it is also literally being used to mean "HEIL HITLER" because "H" is the 8th letter of the alphabet. (also 18 is used for Adolf Hitler). We had a Neo-Nazi Biker-Bar in our city called "Club Doppelacht" (Double 8). Then again the swastika is still being used in India by a lot of Gurus and Holy people
@@scivi7060 not sure if I understood you correctly on that last part. The swastika that's used in India and Nepal predates WWII, it was a religious symbol long before hitler came around and flipped it around for his banner. So if you are saying it is wrong they still use this symbol I must disagree. However I could have just misread and you were pointing out the different meanings of symbolism around the world. In that case I agree.
@@yoda538 I think that’s what he meant
@@scivi7060 its not a swastika in Hindu culture its not a 45 degrees angle its a religious simple thats thousands of years old be quiet
Yes it is considered lucky in both Asian countries that I lived in, China and Vietnam
6:54 - 9:22 I always interpreted this speech of Peterson's to say that Hitler was evil for the sake of being evil. Even hearing your explanations, I really can't see how that was possibly a defense of Hitler.
I was about to say the same thing, if anything Peterson is explaining why hitlers hate was so obsessive and disturbing.
8:46 I have to disagree. The turning point of the war was not D-day but when the invasion of the Soviet Union failed, and this failure became clear in autumn of 1941. Yes, so early. Before that, Nazi Germany had known only success in the war. Many Germans were enthusiastic about it. Now, they became worried, but it was still a vague situation. The obvious point at which Germany had lost the war was the Battle of Stalingrad in late 1942, more that a year before D-day.
That's a very euro-centric view of the second world war.
@@soulofastro because Germany is in Europe, they wouldn't admit defeat unless they saw it at their borders, I doubt they'd capitulate just by seeing the African front or Japan losing some islands at the other side of the planet
@@soulofastro the war was, in large part, euro-centric
@@PutinsMommyNeverHuggedHim The over 20 million dead Chinese would disagree with you.
@@soulofastro That had nothing to do with Hitler, that was a Japanese crime. The Japanese and Germans were allies but they were fighting separate wars.
Analyzing hitlers psyche doth not make you a sympathizer. It's sooo important to not only remember history, but to understand it as much a s possible too.
Analyzing Hitler's psyche is important, but I fail to see how making it about "Hitler just had a OCD and thought Jews were gross" is helpful. It ignores a literal century of eugenic thought and even moderate practices that led up to that worldview. If Hitler just thought Jews were gross due to a mental disorder, then that's not actually a lesson we can broadly apply to combat bigotry in the world today. Whereas if we take for granted that Hitler was shaped by the popular noxious beliefs of his day, then there's something we can do about it to keep it from happening again.
I'm saying this as someone who has a mild neurodevelopmental disorder (ADHD). I can tell you that my disorder does not make me take the political and social positions I do (unless you count the fact that every time I hear about the inner thinkings of bigots, I just think it sounds way too complicated and I could never maintain that level of attention to essentially meaningless differences to make an entire worldview out of it). Does it affect my expression of them? Probably. But not to any extent that's useful to consider in shaping policy.
@@erraticonteuse amazing response mate, seriously
@@brunothekiwi7804 no it's shit
Erraticonteuse
1. It doesn’t matter if you can’t get a lesson out of it to combat bigotry. That’s *really* dangerous. What matters is the truth. If it was just OCD, then that’s it; how ‘useful’ that truth is to your personal causes should have *0* effect.
2. Peterson wasn’t just saying it was OCD. If you had actually watched his content and actually listened to his words, you’d have heard him talk about a variety of other factors. He was just talking about OCD because it seemed to be how Hitler’s feeling towards Jews was contextualised.
@The Icon of Sin and a lot of people are vegetarians, who also was a vegetarian? hitler. all vegetarians are nazis and if you try to correct me or even just disagree with me well guess what bitch, you're a nazi too
Peterson was once asked to mention a moment when the right went too far, he responded,
"How about Auschwitz?"
I believe he attempts to rationalize whatever Hitler's methods were by analyzing his erratic behavior. Rationalize, not validate. I hardly think anyone is willing to validate Hitler's actions, outright.
He could be wrong about Hitler's intentions, but doesn't validate his actions. Because that would be insane.
"...And the 'all-meat-diet' lobster guy never does anything /insane/."
@@nabii5951 Well what exactly has he done that is insane to you? I'm thinking maybe that one time he mentioned that he worked 50 something hours a week for like 5 years. That's pretty insane
@@thisisdavidvarela No, no, no - I'm agreeing with you! The meat-diet guy, who thinks that lobsters form the foundation of sociology, has never done anything insane in his life!
@@nabii5951 "who thinks that lobsters form the foundation of sociology", what drug are you on? I want it too
@@nabii5951 God.. Lobsters form the foundation of sociology? I’m not gonna call you an idiot, but I’m going to call you lazy. Go look at what Peterson says about lobsters.
Peterson's "max mayhem" theory seems wrong for other reasons, but to counter it on the idea that Germany does not start losing until June 1944 is ridiculously uninformed. Each winter, Germany lost massive areas they would never recover starting in 1941. By 1943, even the high-spin Wochenschau cannot conceal the impending defeat.
Also, I believe Peterson refers to the April 1944 spike in holocaust deaths, at which point the front was less than 100 miles from Treblinka and utterly collapsing. The expansion of Auschwitz in 1943 mentioned in the video actually occurs after Operation Reinhardt and does not coincide with a major increase in killing rate.
It's not just wrong, it's a deliberate attempt to put people to sleep about contemporary fascists.
I have always interpreted Peterson's "max mayhem" theory as saying that Hitler was evil for the sake of being evil. I can't possibly see that as a defense of Hitler. It just isn't.
@@EpicEverz Even that is an intentional obfuscation of the ideological component to the holocaust. It creates the narrative that Hitler was just a subhuman anomoly and that no ordinary person would or could be motivated to participate in such atrocities based on politics. And once you believe that, you won't feel suspicious when Peterson starts whining about "degeneracy" and calling Elliott Page's doctor a criminal and stuff.
It's a goddam Trojan Horse!
(grabs combat helmet)
(checks gear)
(grabs weapon)
(breathes)
*JUMPS INTO THE COMMENT SECTION*
ur gae
*WATCH MY BACK, CHARLIE IN THE TREES*
"A rifle and a hammer in my hand, I'll be a fighting man."
DIVES INTO THE COMMENT WARS
Well, KB *is* a veteran
@@Pat4ever. giết người mỹ!
10th graders in my country usually go on a one-week buss trip to Germany and Poland to visit the concentration camps, usually with a time witness who had been sent there (or some other camp in Europe) during the war, or a close family member to someone who had. It's been half a life since I went, so there were still time witnesses left to join us back then. Even so many years later, I still think about it from time to time. We could just walk out through the front gates when we were done with the tour, free, I don't know why, but that specific thing made an impact on me. I can never forget the rooms filled with glasses, or hair, of suitcases, prosthetic limbs even. When I say filled, I mean filled. You could probably drown in them.
what country do you live in?
@@save_bandit Norway
I’m from Norway too, we were supposed to go on that trip this year, but corona made that impossible. I was pretty disappointed, it was an experience I think I would’ve found very important.
Do you plan to go visit Gaza too? Maybe that would stop you from passing a blank check to murderous colonialists
@@TheAussieRod I didn't realize that the decisions of Israel represented the Jewish people as a whole. Unless this is a new angle to shoe horn antisemitism back into the main stream. Have a little nuance you edge lord.
Dresden is literally my state's capital. I'm sure the bombing would've been a much bigger point of discussion in my history class if it had actually happend after the surrender and that many people would've actually been killed.
Which state do you live in by chance?
@@alexbesong5731 Saxony, Germany
@@m4rieh166 Was denken du oder deine Familie über die Bombardierung ?
Außerdem Props an dich sonem coolen youtuber zu folgen 👍🏻
@Christs Revenge ...great job defeating the history deniers by being completely and utterly misinformed about the dresden bombing and denying it even took place.
Would it have been a bigger point of discussion in Soviet occupied East Germany? Or in West Germany where any dicussion of German history between 1933-1945 that seems sympathetic to the Nazis is subject to criminal complaint? Maybe we will never know the actual death toll, but the fact that for over 50 years any party to the event had no interest in examining it speaks volumes and when an investigtation was done the stated goal was to silence right wing nationalists, the conclusion is dubious.
Only time I heard someone argue that the internment camps were concentration camps they went on to argue that the Nazi concentration camps were death camps. So they still maintained that one was worse then they other, their argument was that we downplay the severity of both of them.
Concentration camps kill through inaction. Generally through putting people in crowded conditions so that disease spreads more easily and then not attempting to properly deal with the disease. That's what they initial did anyway when the UK came up with the idea.
Death camps are places that actively kill people.
Since the camps in America did see people die from lack of medical care it was to some extent a concentration camp.
Yep. ‘Concentration camp’ is often used synonymously with ‘death camp’, hence why there’s so much controversy around calling various countries’ immigration detention camps (including the ones on the US-Mexican border) concentration camps.
By the original definition, the camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned were definitely concentration camps.
@@skyclaw it’s because they are associated with FDR. If it had been a republican it’s guaranteed to be referred to as a concentration camp
They are both terrible and should have never happened. But, yes, one is worse than the other. The one that resulted in the deaths of millions is worse.
@@citywinesspirits6583 I'm afraid to even look up what the mortality rate in the US Japanese internment camps was. I'd probably say that the one where they deliberately murdered millions of people was worse.
About Jordan Peterson @ 4:15:
I'm not a fan of his, but it seems like a really big mental leap to equate his statement in that clip to anything related to neo-Nazism. The way he equates all of Hitler's actions to some out-of-control subconscious obsession with cleanliness is in no way dissimilar to the way a Freudian psychologist might be very interested in explaining Daddy-kink relationships using Freud's theories. Peterson's statements are mostly just, "Well have you ever thought of it like this?" statements. There's no gateway to neo-Nazism hidden within. It's just pop psychology.
That's all that Peterson is famous for; pop psychology and some drawn-out statements on feminism which attracted an internet audience. I've had to explain to people that there was no cultural-Marxist agenda behind The Last Jedi that was determined to emasculate Luke as one step on the way to the dismantle the West, but I guess now I have to defend Peterson as a goofball (and not a neo-Nazi) from the other side, too.
Also just on the topic of taking things out of context: I'm not blasting you personally or anything for it, but this is definitely one of your weaker videos. I agree pretty much wholesale with your points on the Civil War, but I think the dog whistle conspiracy makes it too easy for detractors to latch onto that single point and try to discredit the rest of your whole video.
Yeah, I’m not really a fan of his either. But from the few interviews I have seen of him he literally references Hitler and Nazism as embodiment of pure evil. He definitely isn’t downplaying any aspect of the Holocaust.
We can go on and on about whether they want to destroy the west. But do you really believe that Academia and the Hollywood elite haven't bought into the lefts victimhood ideology? Because I'd say that The Last Jedi is solid proof of that.
Don't get me wrong but this honestly kinda seems like propaganda I'm a Libertarian to state my political views. he talks about conservitaves in a negative light when it is CLEAR that he has a bias against conservitaves and Trump.
Agreed
The point is that mental illness didn't cause the holocaust, it was nationalism. The 'gateway' being talked about here is misplacing the blame, which isn't necessarily a slippery slope, but it's disingenuous and dangerous.
Grant did buy slaves when he lived in Missouri, but he did it to free them. He was nearly destitute, and continued doing it. Some say to piss off his wife's family.
Thank you, Columbo ....we fight for the betterment of mankind....not to argue what is right or wrong....we already know !
He didn't buy them he got them from his wife's father.
I have no clue about if Grant bought slaves or not but I know for a fact if it weren’t for Grant there would be a huge chance the north would’ve lost
He inherited a slave but let him free within the year, at a time where he was struggling financially and could have made a pretty penny selling that person.
The story goes that he was given a slave by his wife’s father, and after some time, he chose to free him. HOWEVER, what often goes unsaid is that his wife had slaves, and kept them while they were married. Now here’s a question: isn’t it interesting that in the 1800’s, a man’s WIFE owned slaves, but he didn’t? At a time when wives were considered to be the property of their husbands?
It’s almost like there’s some kind of special carve-out to push the historical slave-owning on the wife in order to protect Grant’s heritage…
When I was a teenager i had some skinheads try indoctrinating me, it's scary shit. I'm half Mexican which was no secret, i just don't look it. Anyway, It was obvious what was happening so I distancd myself from those aquaintances. They gave me books, cd's, told me all about there beleifs and I wan't having it. I knew what was going on. However, I had a teacher who was very kind and friendly to me that I thought the absolute world of who was attempting to do the same to me. It wasn't as obvious at first, he went into this whole thing about Dresden and i researched it. After that I paid very close attention to his rethoric and noticed he was no different than the skinheads, only he had a cleaned up granddad way of talking.
Thanks for sharing but skinheads aren’t racist , their culture was heavily birthed & influenced by Jamaican immigrates to Europe
You are mexican, you just don't look it? Wtf, being Mexican isn't a type or a racial thing, it's a cultural heritage thing, and yes, it is something that shows. At least, it shows for people of Mexican origin.
I think you mean you don't look like most Mexicans with predominant indigenous ancestry (which, I grant you, counts for a large chunk, if not a majority, of Mexican population, especially from the High Plateau and the Southeast)
What happened in Dresden was disgusting nonetheless...
@@jacques.cousteau Looks like someone didn’t watch the video lol
@@heretic1157 are you trying to justify war crimes?
9:00 I’d argue D-Day wasn’t what turned the war against Hitler. Him invading the Soviet Union prior and refusing to retreat was a huge loss and created a war on two-fronts, which would make Petersons point make a little more sense
Peterson has no cogent point when talking on this subject.
the only thing that turned the war in the favor of the german queen was alan turing's invention of the computer which allowed koneaghn saxe-humbug (the german queen of england) to break hitler's enigma code! later she forced alan onto hormones because he was gay. he later took his own life!
"there is a reason no one studies history, it just teaches you too damn much!" Noam Chomsky.
@@thenaturalmidsouth9536 erm yes he does, it's Knowing better who has proven he knows nothing.
The writing was on the wall for Germany by February 43 with the Soviet victory at Stalingrad, denying Germany fuel, combined with the defeat of Rommel's Afrika core, also denying Germany fuel.
This combined with an immediate Soviet offensive after the destruction of the 6th army on top of the knowledge an imminent allied invasion of mainland Europe is what signalled the death of the third Reich. Not Normandy.
Meaning when knowing better says his BS about Germany not losing the war in 43, he is objectively wrong.
Hatred of things that disgust you means you hate the things that disgust you. Ergo Hitler hates the Jews because they disgust him. Knowing better isn't an idiot, so he is purposely changing the context of not only Jordans words but the nature of words in general. Evidence for bias.
Also by summing up Jrodan Peterson as a man who simply tries to defend freedom of speech against feminism, is evidence Knowing better is biased and just has a grudge.
This is evidence that knowing better isn't actually Tring to educate you on the matter, but has a grudge against Jordan Peterson and is trying to besmirch him by grasping at straws with this flimsy argument he's constructed with historical inaccuracies, assumptions and insults.
@davidbowie50yearsofbowiean23 sorry, but that rambling reply doesn't change the fact that Peterson, with a definite axe to grind, has no more expertise in WWII history than any other layman, which is exactly what he is in regards to this subject.
Peterson is very subtly using his Gish gallop style of nonsense rambling to undermine the criticality of the Holocaust. There's a reason why Holocaust deniers love Peterson.
@@thenaturalmidsouth9536 it's funny because you call my argument " a rambling reply" yet despite this can't actually refute it, because if you could you would yet you can't, so you just insult it.
My last comment speaks basic historical facts in regards to years and dates, the facts do support the argument Jordan was making, not Know betters argument.
Now fyi the support of one group or another doesnt actually mean anything.
And proving my point that you and your ilk don't actually have an argument but are just clutching at straws to make JP look bad, is that his argument isn't downplaying the Holocaust, it isn't even making excuses for Hitler, he's finding motivations and common psychological patterns in Hitler, the most retarded part of this video is when he says that JP tells people that Hitler didnt hate Jews just found them disgusting. But the reality is why would he hate them if he didn't find them disgusting? It's language spagethii that propaganda artists like this youtuber are using to deceive people because they can't make counter arguments honestly. Ones that may very well be true, but hey any argument that isn't just "Hitler the devil" can be misconstrued not only by holocaust deniers but you people aswell.
You and the Holocaust deniers are two different sides of the same coin.
As soon as he said "Dresden happened 2 months after the end of the war" I got weird looks for saying "where the hell did you get that idea" at work. It's just not often I'm met by historical incompetence at that level.
It’s mad that he and his wife are ethnic Jews like bruh of all people you should be the last to facilitate that kind of bigotry
Bombing of Dresden Feb.1945, Germany surrendered May 1945.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 hey look another idiot who doesn't understand the bombing of dresden at all. get in the back of the line buddy
@@joedatius then instead of slinging insults like a mad lad educate us then.
@@Budderluvr educate yourself its not difficult whatsoever im not gonna spoonfeed you history because you're lack of ability to learn things yourself.
"there were 3 swastika flags" well, that's already 4 to many
Turnip Singularity
obviously, I was exaggerating to get the point across.
-1 is still too many!
The entire point was not everyone there was a Nazi not condoning Nazi flags.
@@bernie421 and my point was that there were too many Nazis, even if you lowball your estimate
@@marcopohl4875 really brave thing to say, we will be sending your nobel peace prize soon
@@Brandovichielol
>They intentionally dilute terms like concentration camp
I see what you did there
if you dilute a concentration camp, you just get... camp
@@yourunclejoe9500 it feels a bit wrong to laugh, but dammit, you got me.
@@yourunclejoe9500 Or at dilution camp.
Hi KB, maybe you should make a whole video on dog whistle politics like the Reagan Campaign "Cadillac driving welfare queens", or "healthy young bucks buying t-bone steaks with food stamps".
Yup. And protesters are actually antifa.
And people who do/will do "crime".
As a German (was Grandpa fought in the east) i found Jordan Peterson explanations, how ordinary people could do such pure evil things, very interesting. When you want to avoid that in the future, you need to know how overall kind and rational people were led on that path of brutal genocide. Peterson doesn't defend it, he tries to explain it, in hindsight most protagonist didn't start as monsters, they ended as them.
I think it's a goog thing to try to find explainations, it also strengthens the fact that these things really happened. Look at the japanese, turkish or russians, they forget and start to deny the attrocities of the past.
I think you're misunderstanding OPs point. You may not agree with him, but I'll try to clarify what Knowing Better is trying to say. He's saying that JP is assigning some convolunted motive to Hitler's actions (Hitler was illogical, he was obsessed with cleanliness) and then arriving at the same conclusion that we are all capable of this violence. The fact that we are capable of the same atrocities as Nazis has been evident by the fact that the US genocided Native Americans, enslaved Africans and even interned Japanese Americans at the same time. That "point" that normal people can horrible commit crimes that Jordan Peterson is making isn't new or even really interesting, its how he gets there that is confusing. Why does he need to talk about Hitler's obsession with cleanliness to justify this? And his weird point about Hitler not wanting to win the war? Okay? Doesn't it strike you as weird, like why he's he talking about this just to get to the same point? Knowing Better is arguing that he's doing it because its supposed to be a 'dogwhistle' to those who believe the conspiracy letting them know he's one of them. And he's done this before, like how he's made tons of random Bible illusions while saying he's an athiest lol. Jordan Peterson is great at talking in circles about nothing but somehow connecting with tons of people through these random points.
@@wonderfulworldofmarkets9033 why? Very easy question, he’s just trying to offer an explanation of Hitlers strange behavior in the war. Ya know, like a psychologist might try to do? What is strange about that exactly? He is not misinterpreting what knowing better said, he very obviously alluded to him being some sort of holocaust denier in a video about holocaust denial like cmon man, it’s just ignorant of everything JP says, who on dozens of occasions denounced everything about the holocaust and has said just as many times that he wasn’t trying to justify his behavior, merely offering a interpretation of motive.
@@thepracticalgymnast8001 It's okay if we disagree, I thought this video was bullshit when I first watched it too. I was a huge fan of Jordan Peterson and was always confused why he brought up the halocaust as much as he did (before I ever found this video). Just like I was confused why he kept talking about the bible and biblical stories, but claimed he was agnostic. Or about how he kept talking about transgender pronouns , but claimed he was left wing. What I realized is that Jordan Peterson never says anything so he can't get pinned to it. He'll talk around subjects forever without any real point. But eventually I realized THAT IS the point. It's like your friend that keeps talking about a girl, but at the end of the story insists he doesn't like her.
@@wonderfulworldofmarkets9033 yeah I don’t think were talking about the same person here, because their could not be a poorer characterization of what JP says. First of all, why does it matter he speaks about religion as an agnostic? That does not effect the content of his arguments, it is literally his job to understand the things that influence peoples mindsets and thought…. Like religion. He doesn’t go anywhere with his arguments you say… really? That comment gives me doubts you have watched anything more than short clips on instagram or twitter. Once again, he’s an extremely educated psychologist, he interprets things not purely on opinion, but mostly on statistical fact. I haven’t seen a single clip pf the man saying he is a leftist, usually when asked he says he follows what the science says, especially when it comes to political and social issues like transgenderism he relies on the available data. Watch literally any one of his debates with feminist or trans activists and he adheres to the data, I’m willing to accept your disagreement, but only if I believe you’ve actually watched his content not short clips. I call bs.
@Loki Fish I don't like JPs interpretation of Hitlers motives either but interesting nonetheless. It is in fact deeply irrational to fabricate such an enormous act of an genocide, in a manner the world has never seen it before, in midst of the greatest war to this date. Hitler was by fact a dilluded narcissist who thought of all his actions to be approved by destiny, so he could never be wrong. He strongly believed, that he was gonna win everything because he was the only one who could do it and he was successful all the time before. But I'm not sure if the agenda which he followed were his true intentions or just merely a tool for his gain of power. At the end of the day everyone's doing what he believes to be right and so did he and the nazis. But here JPs interpretation becomes interesting because it depicts him as someone, who does something knowing it was wrong. And Hitler being someone who loves Hegel, you know, a Thesis needs an Antithesis which then concludes in a solution (basically), knows that from a great catastrophe the learning process and the good that comes from it is also great if not greater. Also wars improve science and technology, so the greatest war in history led to the the greatest jump in technology research and human rights.
And as no one can be sure of his true intentions (everyone that could have known this committed suicide as Eva Braun, Goebbels, Himmler or Goering) this still needs to be a considerable interpretation of his intentions
From dictionary: Liquidate also has a meaning of "get rid of by killing". Jordan is clear to condemn Hilter many times.
JP is known to obfuscate
The point is that to most people killing is a much clearer and more shocking term but liquidate sounds far more removed from human life and is less abrasive
@@Alter292 No he is not xd
@@mikeellsworth750 also it is obvious that in that context liquidate means to anihilate
also, killing people doesn't imply that you want to eradicate all people of a particular category, while that's what liquidate implies
@@tjer4635 The precise dictionary definition is not nearly as relevant as the way the words are commonly perceived by the majority of people. Liquidate feels less human and less explicit regardless of what is technically a correct use of the word. It's the same difference between saying "Grandma passed away last night" and "Grandma died last night". They both clearly mean the same thing but are not understood with the same tone are harshness. It's use of language that softens the blow of the words and let's the listener avoid some of the hurtful reality. Although I suspect actual reason and logic are not really the intention of your comments.
7:26
Okay.......REALLY?????
Are you FRIGGING KIDDING ME? That is an ACTUAL slip of the tongue.
Your confirmation bias is STRONG with this one.
I guess if that's the only slip of the tongue Petersen has ever made, ever, sure it's a clear dog whistle. Because clearly intelligent professors who drone on for hours on end don't misspeak.
Also, he's literally talking negatively there. Like it puts an inherent negative connotation in his students minds about the 4th Reich so even if it was intentional it would be destructive so why would it be?
Peterson would call it a Freudian Slip
Jk I think that this being a dog whistle is a stretch
Christopher Nacinovich no one with any amount of intelligence would refer to the fourth Reich as part of history
@@jamesbutcher8009 Ah.....I see. And YOU being the holder of ALL the intelligence there is, would be qualified to say that, eh?
As a German, I met those who say: "The Holocaust was real and I'm for it."
Bruh such people are in every country, just hop onto /Pol/ and see for yourself.
@@heathernicholson5052Germany has sadly but quite literally the receipts. Not just reports from the survivors and perpetrators, which are rather compelling and plenty…. Lots of paperwork, Germans generally love paperwork and produce way too much that it could be all destroyed… in addition people wrote diaries and letters… The Holocaust is one of the best researched Genocide in history. Denying or minimising the Holocaust is just rather pathetic…
Ah yes, Grant, the guy who had a slave as a present then immediately freed that slave, proves that the north was just as bad.
For more context. Grant was in financial hardship at the time and slaves were extremely expensive. An average slave in 1860 cost about $800, which was the equivalent to $22,000 today. (I strong slave able to work fields would be worth $33,000).
Meaning Grant could have sold the slave to save his financial situation, but stuck to his moral code and freed the slave instead, forfeiting a potential 20k.
Many people even now would struggle to reject that kind of money for the sake of a personal belief. It takes a lot of character to stick to your principles with so much to lose.
While the humble general Lee, sold them like candy when he felt like it.
@@Conns2239 Honestly I feel like I wouldn't need as much money if I had a slave. You can rent them out and shit to make passive income...
Point being that there ARE a lot of reasons (mostly financial) to own slaves if you can - but We as a People have decided that the moral costs outweigh the benefits.
@@Stop_Gooning Bro’s got the capitalist brain rot, yes owning a person is very profitable because you can work them to death and don’t have to pay them 💀 it’d also cost more to feed two mouths opposed to one, so no you couldn’t just rent the one you have out. That’s why it was common place to own several
@@Binowhy depends on how many of my other costs are offset by the slave's labor and the quality of the food I give them lmao
Anyway the point is is that slavery is a Moral Wrong and not necessarily a Pragmatic Wrong. We don't own slaves *because they're **_people_* and not because slaves don't function as intended.
also: not all “dogwhistles” are dogwhistles. some people might be using them regularly withiut knowning the meaning
this is so stupid. No shit Sherlock if i throw up an okay sign after someone compliments me im not dog whistling. However if your the ChristChurch shooter a white supremacist and you throw it up in your court photo after killing 50 people thats a DOGWHISTLE
@@Brandon-bc1fz first of all you're a disgrace to shinobu
second of all the ok symbol is a 4 Chan meme no one actually uses it as a sign for white supremacy
third of all the issue with this video is that he claims that people who would have no reason to use dogwhistles (ie Jordan Peterson) did use them
But then he would say the fact that there's no evidence to suggest it would be used in that way is why it's a dogwhistles which is just a really stupid argument
sh1nobu why did a bunch of people at Charlottesville throw that sign up
@@rossman3388 just a bunch of trolling 4channers duh rofl lmao xD triggered them libtards.
@@Brandon-bc1fz Or maybe it's just trolling and not an attempt at subcommunication. It'd be an awful "dogwhistle" anyway, if cats can hear it more clearly than dogs.
The problem with dog whistle accusations is that they are impossible to prove or refute unless the alleged dog whistlers announce their intentions.
Jordan Peterson is a fraud with Fascist tendencies
@@TurtleChad1 you dont become a professor by being a fraud. and peterson is quite outspoken against fascicm/nazis
Honestly, since hes the only one who's hearing the dogwhistle its obviously hes the 1 who's racist
@@TurtleChad1 May God bless you with the virtues Jordan Peterson tries to teach.
He literally doesnt run for political power
7:03 I looked up this whole clip and his final point was that hitler was so evil that he neglected the war effort because he was so fixated on committing genocide. The title is literally, how hitler is more evil than you think.
Yes! He took it completely out of context.
Yes, Jordan would have won the war first then committed the genocide, because he's much less evil.
Yes, you’re right. I am somewhat bothered by KB’s inaccuracy, but I also think you’re missing the point. I think KB is calling more attention to the fact that Jordan is seemingly seen trying to disassociate Hitler (evil) from the movement he stood behind, effectively isolating him as the evil of the Nazi Party, rather than the party itself. I think he makes his intentions pretty clear with the dog whistle to the fourth reich, allegedly showing his support for the ideas in the modern era though not the man. Take note of the placement of the supposedly referential “glorious” before the “error of speech.” There is always the possibility that this was an earnest mistake, but the arguments for that idea are relatively unconvincing for me at least.
@@ryan-yh7vo I just really think it’s disingenuous to frame it as though JP was “dogwhistling”. Dogwhistles imply intent. JP’s intent was, as his title stated, Why hitler was more evil than you think. So to frame it as though JP was in any way defending or advancing nazism is just ridiculous
yeaaaaa the argument was lost for me there. JBP isn't a holocaust apologist nor denier, he made a presentation about why Hitler was even more evil than you thought...inclusion of the fourth/third reich comment is only a dogwhistle if his intent was to show some sort of apologism, but I think the content pretty clearly shows that that wasn't his intent.
But also, the statement about Hitler's mentality moving from keeping things clean and killing insects, to keeping things clean and killing Jews, was likely EXACTLY his thought process at the time. Keep in mind that JBP is a psychologist, which means he takes a lot of time in analyzing peoples' thought process, even if they are compulsive, illogical, or evil. Hitler's mind had likely become so terribly pathological that he probably truly believed that Jews were the lowest possible scum creature, like an insect. This isn't apologism, but rather an attempt at understanding the mind of a truly deplorable person, and honestly if after listening to that JBP video you conclude that he's even an ounce of an apologist regarding this topic, you really have to listen again to what he said about Hitler in that video...it is really hard to hear about someone so evil and analyze them as if they are a person, but that whole presentation from JBP was meant to attempt that. Side note: I dislike that there's weird political narratives and dredging peoples' reputations in videos that are meant to be informational, that's actually way more pernicious than a dogwhistle (which you're not certain is an actual threat). Misconstruing someone's explicit words is far far worse.
Using the term "the Media" is not a Nazi dogwhistle.
Carl Smith he gets a lot wrong. The alt right wasn’t popularized by Spencer but brightbrait (I probably spelled that wrong). When it started was for conservatives against the the mainstream republicans similar to the tea party. Then the alt right was taken over by neo Nazis.
@@ONEIL311 +1 Andrew Breitbart would have disavowed Richard Spencer in a heartbeat.
Carl Smith he did but the media didn’t care
Neither is cultural Marxism
Attacking the free press is a pretty standard sign of authoritarianism or fascism.
Similarly, "experts" who claim to have hidden secrets and denounce entire disciplines or scientific consensus are usually frauds, like Peterson, or Sam Harris.
Attacking the press can absolutely be a dog whistle, often paired with a racial coding.
Holy crap I feel like this video was just bait for a civil war in the comments.
LOL, that would be meta-cool if that was in intent, the comments are fucking hilarious.
War between the comments
20 minutes of misinformation, disinformation, out-of-context commentary and a nasty guilt-by-association argument supported with a heaping helping of "you're too stupid to understand the Neo Nazis are dogwhistling you, so you can't think for yourself" will do that.
@@kma3647 ♡
Yoda, what are you doing in our world? Are you sick of Star Wars?
The original Jordan Peterson clip said that you shouldn’t infer the motives from outcomes, and he said to use it carefully.
Funny because thats what this guys videos are about - adding context. Yet with JP he cherry picked some clips and forced his own interpretation on them, even if that wasnt what was meant
So Peterson said not to intefer motives from the outcomes while interfering motives from the outcomes
It's almost as if what ppl say and what they do are two different things
Trump said he wouldn't play golf ever if elected or that he was gonna drain the swamp and yet he did the opposite.
@Eriko. Oy this is the classical Jordan Peterson fanboy argument. Jordan Peterson is right 100% of the time
He only seems to be wrong cause you misinterpreted or you are leaving the it context. Jordan Peterson has never been wrong in the fanboys eyes
@@topranked5465 Here comes the "everything you say is wrong because you're a JP fanboy" while not debating the actual reasons of the accusation used against him. It doesn't matter what you say, so long as it is not a valid argument. This is a discussion, not a verbal battle.
Imagine defending Jordan Peterson
I'll never understand why a group so focused on pride and superiority pretends that their biggest accomplishment never happened. They're so snakey, they don't even realise it contradicts their entire movement.
5:19
No. Following the logic, Hitler wanted to eradicate what he saw as a pest
Which lends to having a god complex
Exactly
He certainly wasn't the first or the last to consider those people rats
Exactly. He saw the Jews as a "pestilence", to use the Biblical term.
@Emmet Anderson if you want to "clean a group up" you can't do it wothout hating that group, so it wouldn't even make sense for the speaker to even claim that Hitler didn't hate the jews. He just expained Hitler's perspective.
The nature of dogwhistle's makes it very easy for someone with an agenda to find dogwhistling in everything their political opponents say. The problems with this I hope are very clear.
Yep, if everything has a double meaning, regardless of whether it's intended or not, anything and everything may be imputed. It's a particularly pernicious way to deal with people.
This is why it's best to ignore potential dogwhistles. There's no way to prove someone's intent to dogwhistle, and calling out potential dogwhistles all the time makes you look like a paranoid loon. It's also sort of malicious because you're essentially putting words in people's mouths. Like claiming Jordan Peterson is a secret alt-right neo nazi sympathizer because he accidentally said "Fourth Reich" is both fucked up and crazy.
And if a dogwhistle can only be decoded by the intended audience, KB just outed himself as alt-right.
Now that I understand dog whistling, I'm convinced that the entire state of Oklahoma (OK) is one large neo-nazi camp. /s
Ever heard of Lee Atwater? A Republican politician self-professing to the idea that “States’ Rights” and other such ideas were fill-ins to him and others being blatantly racist?
I really agree with the first few lines you spoke in this video. A lot of people want to bring others down instead of boosting themselves up because it's simply easier for them to fill up their insecurities. I hope everyone continues to better themselves instead of lowering others.
And then he started making up bullshit about dog whistles, and from there on the entire video was ruined.
@@thetrain47539 🐕🦺
@@Tsukiru Huh?
But the resz is buleshit xD. I am sorry but he list me with the 4th reich acusement on JP
@@thetrain47539 I think he was misunderstanding alot about what Dr. Peterson was talking about, and viewed it very negatively. If he actually watched more than one lecture on Hitler, he would know that Dr. Peterson literally believes that Hitler was evil, and regardless of what mental acuityHitler had, it did not excuse his actions, as the guy in the video claims Dr. Peterson is trying to do. Thats a severe misrepresentation of who Dr. Peterson is as a person. And people don't quite understand that hatred of others is fueled deeply by a need to cleanse things. Not all hatred stems from racism. Usually it stems from ignorance, or something far more personal and terrible, it can also stem from mental illness. Ofcourse if one has never experienced true hatred, (lucky you) you would know that there is a desire to cleanse those you perceive as filthy. After all, we don't call the people we hate, "scum" and "filth" for nothing.
The turning of the 'ok' hand symbol into a dog whistle pisses me so much. I often use that hand gesture in place of a chefs kiss, and immediately remember and cringe after the fact. Wankers, fucking up everything they touch.
The thing that pisses me off the most about it was it started as a 4chan troll and then actual white supremacists latched onto it.
@@amoureux6502 The whole point of the 4chan trolling operation was to make the media (and their audiences) think actual white supremacists use it. The fact that you think they DO use it unironically is proof that the trolling worked!
@@_MysticKnight the Christchurch shooter used the sign in court. It WAS originally a troll, but that doesn't mean no actual white supremacists have used it since then.
Just because some white supremacists try to use it as a clearly stupid sign, doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden a white supremacist sign. If a white person eats a taco, does that make it American food?
I heard about it being a dog whistle before people started trolling with it.
If I had to second a guess it probably wasn't very widely used before it was in public attention, but someone who knew about it and could get that information out there brought it to public attention and unintentionally spurred further use of it as a way to troll or dogwistle. The trolls only further legitimized this and then use of it in an inappropriate manner only went on from there.
Didn't JP meant that Hitler consider jews as bugs? Also he said himself that he hate nazi?
Exactly. He completely misunderstood JP's thought
I don’t believe that he’s a Nazi, just that he fell for some dog whistles like Ethan did.
"Life unworthy of life", "useless eaters." I think the that is a good description of someone you consider an insect.
@@geraltdirivia8278 he didn't misunderstand. KB did this as a massive virtue signal to this tiny extreme (m)arxist minority. I don't know why, but he's getting worse
@Nelson's Rudolph but you still have no idea if he's a antisemitic, or a bigot. You're just accusing him because someone else did. You're a follower and you reason with yourself that you have to be right. Exactly what a young nazi would do
READ BELOW FOR HISTORICAL CORRECTION POINT:
As a historian I think you’re missing much of the point. The psychology of evil. Just because there’s an intellectual engagement with evil does not mean there is historical revisionism.
Examples:
The parallel of Hitler’s acceleration of carnage towards the end of the War is not only exactly true with the reality of the concentration camp system’s evolution (it wasn’t the original idea, but one that evolved from the movement) but also parallels with other mass murderer’s goals to kill as many people as possible before destruction.
The psychology of evil is the banality of it. Evil people are not simply crazy, they are intensely logical in their thinking. An ideology like Nazism cannot be easily reduced to “pure racism” and you even exhibit this concept with your whole segment on dog whistles. It’s an ideology centered around a perceived threat. This one point is why whataboutism is so effective: it creates false equivalencias.
IMPORTANT:
Final point: the parties never flipped. They evolved. Republicans do not advocate Jim Crow laws just like the Democrats don’t. You peddled a myth immediately after condemning H3 from peddling a myth from Slaughterhouse five. You are purely factual wrong on this point.
The primary explanation is that as the South got wealthier and race relations eased, their racial politics eased over time. Very very very very few prominent Klan members or anti civil rights politicians actually ever switched parties. Those that did were outliers. Why? Because republicans never harbored Jim Crow politicians.
Actually looking back.
Both parties were once very right wing, on social issues though.
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves not on the obvious moral problems with slavery but because he did not want America to lose its white majority.
In the 60's the Democrats moved further to the left than the Republicans were.
"The primary explanation is that as the South got wealthier and race relations eased, their racial politics eased over time." Incorrect. European Americans, specifically Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants, treated African Amercans as inferiors who could be beaten, assaulted, threatened, even murdered and raped, with little, and most of the time, to no punishment at all. Rape of black women in the South was a known occurrence on many farms where black women worked.
Rodney Falberg , thank you for your response and indeed what you said was true. In my own academic experience, it’s important to recognize these realities. However, racist ideology was itself a product of capitalist incentive insofar that a defined racist ideaology supplanted former qualifications for enslavement that existed prior to colonialism to accommodate the new concept. The end of slavery did not immediately erode this ideology and it persisted but the trend can be tracked without making the claim that the Republican Party became interested in “putting down blacks” as goes the allegation.
Declan Newton-Maharaj I think such a metric as “right or left” are reductionist and certainly when we speak historically are entirely useless. Often, we might find ourselves disagree as to what the metric of “right and left” meant. The political parties themselves both during and before the Civil War were a coalition of different movements that united over the usefulness of overlapping interests. While Lincoln and other Republicans may have different ideas or motivations about how to address slavery, it’s unifying issue was abolition.
Thanks for bringing a bit of nuance to this surprisingly biased video from what is usually a very nuanced content creator, hopefully now I know better.
I love your videos but Cultural Marxism is not a code word for Jews, even if a few holocaust deniers try to use it that way
M McManus
Marx was a Jew, you realise that right?
In Nazi Germany "marxism" was a code word for Jews, because they thought Jews were behind it. Kind of ironic, since Stalin too oppressed Jews, but what ever. Anyway, saying that "cultural marxism" is a code word for Jews today, is acting as if the cold war never happened.
Mr Traumatik Yes. My focus at college was Hegel, and in turn know a good bit about Marx. Cultural Marxism is a term people use to describe the intentional redirection of oppression narratives from class to race and identity after the failure of class-based narratives to catch on in America, fueled by the collapse of state-run communism from the 60s-80’s.
M McManus
Okay but I’m correct when I say Marxism had heavy Jewish influence and cultural Marxism is just Marxist ethos which had Jewish influence when being created. So to say that cultural Marxism has nothing to do with Jews would be dumb but to say that it’s a dog whistle for the alt-right would be equally as dumb.
Jews theme selves prize Marxism as a Jewish invention
I gotta say, when I listened to Jordan Peterson I took away the exact opposite interpretation. I took away the conclusion that: yes, Big Adolph really was incredibly, evilly racist. He wasn't sabotaging Germany's war machine out of spite to the people who betrayed him; rather, he was focusing on his real priority of genocide.
So if Jordan Peterson was trying to convince me that Big Adolph wasn't all that bad, well he kinda failed miserably
The idea that Hitler's "main priority" was genocide at all costs (rather than domination/power) is ludicrous, and Peterson suggesting this is WILDLY at odds with what we know about Hitler historically. There's so much information about this. But, as usual, Jordan Peterson waxes on a limited set of information about a subject.
While the Jews were commonly refered to by Nazis as enemies of the state and instrumental in Germany's surrender in WW1 (they weren't), Hitler very intentionally took control of all major facets of society by eliminating those most able to challenge him: political opponents. Jewish people were regularly terrorized - but the Reichstag fire (resulted in eliminating political opponents) was before the Night of the Long Knives (in which Hitler killed important Nazis who weren't 100% in line with him) was before the Night of Broken Glass (which became an excuse to really start terrorizing the Jewish population).
Hitler's economy was also *ENTIRELY* dependent on conquest, and usage of those resources. They fully intended to conquer other countries and use resources via slave labor to expand the war effort. Because conquest was his goal.
One of the many, many things that Hitler was very poor at though was establishing an organized chain of command, despite the seemingly common belief that the German army or gov't at the time was like a well oiled machine. Like many poor leaders from ALL up and down the chain, all he valued was in them was loyalty. Nothing else. Because all he wanted was power. So you get a bunch of shitty people running things that don't know WTF they're doing. I mean - the economy in the 1930's started recovering significantly with some pretty impressive policies for the time. And that person (Schacht), after pointing out the fucking disaster that was German military spending, was basically ousted form his position, and GOERING was put in place of the four year plan because Hitler wanted to DOMINATE EUROPE. Yes, part of his world vision was eliminating those he saw as sub-human: because he had a psychotic view of what an idyllic German society would be. He talked about this *A LOT*.
I could go on here, but I'm not a historian. Other people are though. And none of them would agree with this nonsense Peterson is talking about. He's taking a VERY limited amount of information, and then applying what he knows about psychology to it. Which is inherently highly speculative. And it doesn't need to be because WE ALREADY KNOW A LOT OF THIS STUFF.
@@MESchem You kinda missed the point of my comment. Let me spell it out in a more convenient format.
Peterson claims: Big Adolf was deliberately sabotaging the German army by pouring resources into bad investments as a calculated move to spite his own commanders. (which is self-evidently wrongs)
KnowingBetter claims: Peterson isn't just wrong, but deliberately lying to his audience.
KnowingBetter further claims: that Peterson is secretly an anti-semite, as evidenced by his blurting out the words "fourth reich".
I say: that if Peterson was trying to make me doubt the historical understanding of Big Adolf, then he screwed up, because I'm now convinced that Mr. 88 was completely incompetent and would rather perpetuate genocide than actually win the war.
As for historical stuff: yes, I know that Germany at the time was dependent on conquest. But I've also heard it said that attacking Russia when he did was completely the wrong idea: Germany relied on Russian treaties and Russian-controlled trade routes to acquire rubber, tungsten, and molybdenum (especially rubber) as well as access 70% of Poland's oil; so attacking Stalingrad did nothing but cut off Germany's most desperately-needed resources. Basically Mr. 88 completely screwed himself over in his deranged attempt to kick all those semites and poles off the planet, because he literally couldn't wait to do so even if his life literally depended on it
@@MESchem I'm also of the idea that Hitler while obviously had a genuine hatred for jews gypsies homosexuals and communists etc. that wasn't his motivation for war. Rather it was blind nationalism along with his views on German superiority. Jordan downplays that by saying he had some sort of odc rather than admitting that he was just an extreme anti semite.
The Nazis did use Jews as slaves. The concentration camps were divided into labour camps and extermination camps. Only those who were determined to not be helpful as workers were killed immediately. The others would be worked to death.
@@akshatgupta4817 regardless of that fact that does not make Jordan Peterson a Hitler sympathizer. The video that clip is taken from is literally titled "why Hitler is even more evil than you think."
Wait, where did you get Peterson saying there wasnt any racist views involved?
You just took a splice of his interview out of context ... and in that splice he even implicitly says it was racist. "Cleaning up" groups of people like they were insects. It cant get more racist than that.
Loved your Columbus video, but you really have to check your bias in this one.
Yeah like, I'm pretty open to see anyone critiquing Peterson. Disagreeing with just a set of ideas is one thing, but this one was a stretch though...
Marcel P yeah I think he isn’t looking at Jordan Peterson as a psychologist, who finds the root cause of behavior and uses that as a method to treat mental illness, not to dismiss those mentally ill as if they aren’t still responsible for what they do. Instead I think he comes at this as a historian which has more political focus I think
@@kingtaylor5613 Or he is just stating a fact. It's clear as day that Hitler had some serious mental issues. I don't think there's anything you can say that would make a rational person feel any sympathy whatsoever for Hitler
I'd never heard of dog whistling before this, very informative!
Although I must say that Germany was already VERY much losing the war in 1943, manpower, rubber, coal, and oil shortages had been plaguing the army for a while.
Unfortunately a lot of this video is not knowing better’s best work a lot of clip have been taken out of context and sometimes the point being completely missed like claiming JBP is a a nazi sympathiser he’s not a lot of the clips in this we’re actually about how they were worst than most people imagined and the examples he uses as dog whistles aren’t real like saying ‘the media’ is a dog whistle
@@boomamathics2666 yet oddly alt-right and even neo nazis seem to flock to and make up a significant portion of his fanbase. so even if hes not directly saying it, apparently something is still clicking with those crowds
ofc i dont think he's actually a nazi sympathizer
*1941
@@Cracked_Moon not a lot of neo nazis like Peterson, he’s seen as a grifter who says the bare minimum. Not to mention the alt-right is a very loaded term Becuase it means anyone who right wing but doesn’t support the Republican Party
This is the only video I really disagree with thus far from you. Most the eagerness to lump people like Jordan Peterson in with the alt-right. I also think you've misinterpreted some terms like classical liberalism as right wing (which is like saying that a centrist position is exclusive to one faction which is incorrect)
I don't see very many comments about the dem/republican flip either which is a gross mischaracterization of history. Overall, I think he tries and I commend him for it, but there are some inaccuracies which I attribute to personal bias.
Classical liberalism is actually what the Republican party was born out of. (look at their wiki, second paragraph)
Le0, much as I disagree with a lot of the garbage that was said in this video, in the US, Classical Liberalism *is* Right Wing. It's the principles our country was founded upon. The problem is that people shut down their brains and grab pitch forks whenever someone even suggests something is right wing.
How people came to despise individual liberty is, frankly, well beyond my understanding.
Nick K you are a moron if you honestly believe that Libertarianism and classical Liberalism are the same, or Far-right ideologys.
>Lol..”muh Liberty” is the exact reasoning the south used to justify slavery muh dude.
So personal liberty is bad because people attacking personal liberty claimed they championed it? Get over yourself.
I belong to a group of historical reenactors that covers all times and places from before 1600. Vikings are one of the most popular cultures in the group, and while most of us are into Vikings because Vikings are cool, there's a small percentage who are into Vikings because Vikings are, um, white.
Sometimes they're easy to deal with: They get kicked out of social media groups as soon as they reveal their true colors, vendors who sell racist merch are blacklisted, and non-racist craftspeople avoid using racist symbols in their work. (Not always easy because white supremacists are constantly co-opting new symbols, and because the runes are literally letters of the alphabet. The symbol on the neo-Nazi flag toward the end of this video is the letter O. If your character's name is Olaf, Ottar, or Oddny, better give up on monogramming your gear.)
And sometimes they're harder to deal with. If they have social capital and they're willing to fly under the radar most of the time, they can get into positions of power, or at least collect major awards despite the protests of most of the rest of the group. (Those awards are a massive help in rising to power.) The group as a whole trends liberal, but some regions are more conservative than others, and of course the culture wars have made it a badge of honor among some folks to "stand up to bullying," even when the "bullying" amounts to "Stop being a massive goddamned racist."
So there are conversations to be had, and issues to be grappled with. The good news is we're having those conversations and grappling with those issues.
And if you like Vikings because Vikings are cool (or if you like any other pre-1600 culture because it's cool), then the Society for Creative Anachronism would love to have you.
Super unrelated but it's super cool seeing an SCA member in the wild, when I was a kid my family would go to every event and I loved it so much, we hung out with the pirates and danced all night. I'm happy to know it's still going strong even after COVID
What do you call racist viking symbols?
@@hodor6994 Do you mean, which ones are racist? The ones that white supremacists like to use most often are Odal and Tiw.
@@mrjones2721 i like vikings because im from iceland and being norse is my heritage ……stop banning our symbols 😡you are part of the problem… can you not see that?
@@mrjones2721 i almost never comment on anything…ever. But reading your speech really made me upset
“War of Northern Aggression?”
Did they forget the south shot first.
The Southern narrative is the Special Edition edits of history.
@Fizzy Fusion Well it should not make you feel embarrassed unless you called the Civil War, "The War of Northern Aggression."
Fizzy Fusion Buddy, there is no “we” let’s just get that clear. The South lost, therefore you’re a part of the Union. GG, good fight, the South lost, end of story.
@Fizzy FusionFair enough! Just clarifying.
Well sort of. The beginnings of the war are very complicated. The Confederacy knew it couldn't military conquer the Union and never really tried. When you say that the South shot first I assume you are talking about Ft. Sumter. Well think of it from their perspective. You think of yourself as a sovereign state (South Carolina). You leave the Union you were apart of, but their military garrison just won't leave. From your perspective that is a foreign army on your territory.
There are a couple of other interesting examples. Thomas Jackson was in charge of defending Harper's Ferry which is an impossible task. He put artillery on the nearby Maryland heights, but Lee told him to bring them down as there was still hope that Maryland would join and they didn't want to piss them off.
As crazy as it sounds to our modern ears Kentucky actually declared neutrality, and that they would join the side that didn't violate that neutrality. Oddly enough North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee basically did the same thing. General Polk violated Kentucky's neutrality, whereas from the other borderstates perspective the Union violated theirs by asking them to raise regiments.
Please leave Texas.....the north invaded the southern state that had succeeded....thereby causing the Southern army to fire on them.....seriously go live up in the Yankee states......we don't want you here.
I think Peterson was just trying to find explanation how Hitlers’s disturbed mind worked ending in holocaust. From all his lesson I never find him siding with nazis....but yes psychologist, sociologists and historian talking about hitler and his motivations and you get 3 different stories :) I think history need to stay a domain of historians.
I don't think he's a Nazi either, and yes history should be left to the historians - and Peterson is an absolutely _abysmal_ "historian".
Problem is, he keeps trying to talk about it, and the actual Nazis love it. He may not be a Nazi himself, but he's a great easy gateway into their ideology.
so you can't even analize hitler's mind if you're not a historian? ok
I would suggest that you ask Jordan Peterson for a discussion on this topic. You can intelligently call him out on the items that you feel are incorrect in his lectures, and I am fairly certain that he would appreciate an intelligent rebuttal to some of his current thoughts and opinions.
Not sure what foundation you might base that conclusion on... he seems quite willing to discuss and even change his views if evidence is presented. His own beliefs often seem a bit tenuous compared with most people, I think because he is a very cautious and careful man that wants to ensure his positions are thoroughly considered before he adopts them. But regardless, I wasn't suggesting that Peterson is or is not a free speech advocate. I suggested that our 'Knowing Better' host engage him in discussion to clarify some of Peterson's positions, rather than engage in guesswork.
Where do you base this statement on?
From all the videos and interviews he hates character assassination attempts and traps. Check his actual content and see he talks with plenty of people if they actually want a real debate.
I would pay to see that. (Breaking out the popcorn.) :)
14:16 "legitimate over the top feminists"
Ah yes, Zarna... I actually know her in real life, or well knew... I live on the opposite corner of the continent now, but back in 2013 and 2014, I actually used to work with her in a non-profit organization called "SAFE" (Seattle Against Foreclosure and Eviction) that protested fraudulent foreclosures that banks were sometimes doing back then, and worked with Seattle's politicians to try to find solutions to help the homeless rather than attack them... and yeah... she was cartoonish even when she wasn't going on about social justice. Frankly, I stopped volunteering there partly because of her.
It was so surreal to me when the video of her and Hugh Mungus started circulating on the internet.
Hugh Mungus was the man lol
I do understand her point with the Hugh Mungus thing and I do think it could be taken as sexual harassment. I don’t find that to be a stretch by any means. However, her reaction was extremely obnoxious and is working on the assumption that she knows for sure it was intended to be sexual, when it also could have been intended as a weight joke. I think it would’ve been more productive to calmly ask him what he means and have him expose himself because the way she reacted made her out into a villain and allowed him to assume an innocent persona lmao
Personally I didnt watch any of the other full videos from the clips used, except the peterson lecture. He was trying to get at that Hitler didnt commit genocide because it would help his “glourious reich”, thats just what he told his people. Peterson explains his intent was more evil then people think and it was that he wanted to have control over a group of people that he hated, not for Germany, but for his own ego.
The problem with Peterson is that he sees the world exclusively in terms of Jungian metaphors, so he tries to shoehorn the actions of famous historical figures into whatever archetype he thinks they "represent", instead of taking the simpler route and realizing that they were motivated by what they said and demonstrated they were motivated by.
@@Nemo12417 maybe both perspectives are right
The idea that Hitler (or anyone for that matter) was a mustache-twirling cartoon villain who did everything he ever did for the evulz is so preposterously childish and ridiculous that I am seriously dumbfounded that anyone, much less someone with a PhD, could believe it.
@@asdfsdfsdf5114 That's the point bro. He didn't do it "for the evils" because he didn't think what he was doing was evil. He genuinely thought he was doing the world a service. How can you manage to take the absolute worst possible take on this.
@@Nemo12417 Precisely 👏👏
It's like that time some ppl told me something like"poor Japan had to kill so many innocents because US was bullying them economically"
Is this what the Japanese think?
Holy F*
I've always felt the lack of genuine sincerity for proper dialogue with these people. But I always fell short on how to call it out.
But now I know they don't actually want a dialogue at all and just want to propagate and shut down the opposing positions while hiding behind moderation
That was my intuitive observation but I could never find the exact words and methods to it. I could only see the lie due to the natural dissonance of the point, but not identify it.
Hiter was literally on meth, and crack near the end of the war. Put in that context, the military tactics near the end of ww2 started to make a ton of sense.
You have it exactly backwards . Holocaust fact checkers are desperate for an open good-faith debate. The establishment refuses to allow it and instead ruthlessly suppresses all inquiry into the Holocaust, in many countries literally imprisoning people for simply asking questions or disputing facets of the official narrative. If everything the establishment asserts is true it’s awfully strange that they suppress open debate since if it’s all actually true then an open discussion would ostensibly prove revisionists wrong
It is never really _good_ to conclude that there is no further value in dialogue.
That is precisely the type of thinking that makes people "bad guys."
@@thegrandnil764 He wasn't on crack, it wasn't invented till the 1970s. He was popping meth pills all day and balancing them out with morphine or heroin, also benzos may have been in the mix...
@@Stop_Gooning so if i assert that the sky during the day without clouds is black and full of stars despite all evidence of the contrary and i keep asserting it and continue to push the burden of proof to others and deny all forms of proof anyway. What i say still has value?
About the first Jordan Peterson clip: it sounded to me as if you thought Jordan was trying to almost make Hitler sound less bad or that he didn't hate jews. If i got that right, why's that? I haven't seen that whole clip so don't know the entire context. Disgust and hatred aren't mutually exclusive. I have listened a podcast in the past, where Robert Sapolski said that the same part of the brains that detects disgusting objects (like the taste of rotten food) is also activated by moral judgements, and that's often why in propaganda people used to compare their adversaries to vermin and cockroaches etc. to stimulate a more visceral response. Sapolski also mentioned a study in which people did a survey of their political interest, but the room had a foul smell, and a considerable amount of the participant answered more conservatively than they normally would. I haven't personally checked the study so i don't know what the exact numbers are.
So a strong sense of morality and sense of disgust can possibly correlate with each other. I think he had both. Using literal pesticide to kill the group he hated kinda also plays into the disgust he likely felt. I also think he might have really thought he was cleansing the world of something foul. He talked of jews as parasites and something like the root of what's wrong in the world.
I don't personally understand what could be even downplayed or defended if Jordan would even say "oh he didn't hate them, he was just viscerally repulsed by them to the point of committing genocide".
But like i said, i haven't watched the whole clip, neither have i followed what Jordan's been talking about for a long while.
Edit: also his comment on hitler wanting to maximize mayhem goes along with the public consensus of the events. I've understood that as he noticed the incoming defeat, and thus he started killing more and more of the jews to kill the witnesses and evidence (for war crimes), and possibly to just destroy as many of the group he hated before he went down. I think this is what JP meant by 'causing mayhem'
His argument of inferring motivation from the end results is pretty damn flawed though. I don't think there's any valid reason to think that the whole nazi thing was just a Joker in real life. But it still doesn't click with me how this would be promoting nazism or it's modern equivalents in any way.
Peterson’s hypothesis about Hitler and Nazism are absolutely ludicrous. Any reputable historian would dispute his claims as Hitler/ Nazi apologetics that are not based in facts. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels… were simply racist. They embraced Nazism due to it being a racist ideology. “Aryan/ Germanic” superiority appealed to them as a racist ideology. Blaming minorities for everything that went wrong worked for them. If you read the writings of the Nazis leadership you realise that they were rather pathological in their hate towards specific Ethnic groups and minorities…
3:21
“But saying jews is a little too on the nose”
I see what you did there
How did I miss that? It took me way too long to realize the joke
I don't get it what's the joke?
@@sriramramesh5318 gru
Geez, that is a dad joke. Groan!
It seems like he meant "in the know". Possibly a slip-up.
Peterson has said over and over we're all capable of that type of evil
you certainly are
@@abhisheksah and you're not?
I'm sorry but I don't buy that.
Maybe all Nazis were capable of that and maybe all the members of that party were capable of that but there were ppl who opposed Hitler and others who didn't say anything simply cause they couldn't
Not all of us are capable of that
I'd say most of us aren't capable of that unless we choose to be brainwashed by someone.like Hitler
Hitler doesn't have to lead you to do horrible things! You can do them on your own and if you find yourself in the right place (wrong place) you can commit unspeakable violence! If you don't think so you're in complete denial!
Fyi I would have spoke out against the nazi party myself!
I saw a lot of backlash on the comments and doubted if I should continue to listen to your video. Then I saw the stuff about Jordan Peterson and felt suspicious.. but I watch it all and at the end, I can see your point. I just wanna leave this comment to let somebody out there that not everyone thinks you are not worthy of a subscription.
This is a really nice, wholesome comment. If he doesn't see it, I noticed it, Dario; your good intent is not worthless. I appreciate this a lot.
@@BottegaVenetaa hyperbole is intense in this comment section.
C'mon, Jordan Peterson is not a god. His argument has been debunked by several youtubers already. One of the most disturbing argument he made is "all morality comes from religion, even though you didn't realize it". That's a very unscientific claim. It's not falsifiable.
@@binshuo yeah I really dont trust him. I meant the part about "forth reich" think. I felt the argument a little forced. But yeah I agree. Peterson is full of bs.
@@binshuo And easily debatable. So many things in life result in natural motivations to be good. You wouldn't kill someone's wife because you wouldn't want someone else to kill your beloved wife. The problem is when someone else doesn't have a wife and envys you for having one and being happy. Or you have more money than them, more attractive than them, better than them in some sport, etc etc. You wave at your neighbors and help homeless people unless you have no reason to love people. You can't have "good" people without "bad" people.
The problem with dog whistles is that people who don't know about them might use them by accident, so they kind of lose meaning.
Like, imagine someone saying "hey, I like that froggy, I will get one"
Exactly. And that makes it dangerous to read intentions into ambiguous actions
Somebody explain to me how I'm wrong, please.
It looks like the first clip from Peterson was him explaining the role of disgust in genocidal racial hatred.
The other clips seem to be him describing Hitler as someone so evil that he chose to prioritize destruction of those he hated over victory.
In the first he explains how an ordinary person might radicalize to Hitler-levels of evil. In the second he describes Hitler's level of evil as being akin to a demon in human skin. Where am I messing up? Where's the Holocaust denial that I'm missing?
Read the thumbnail and title of the video, very slowly so that your don't miss the point.
Peterson may not be denying the holocaust openly (yet) but he is twisting the narrative. Distancing Hitler from being ordinary and calling him crazy.
@@xmlthegreat I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Hitler was ordinary?
@@thomasjenkins5727 He started life as a regular human baby, so yes.
@@spiritmatter1553I'm having a hard time understanding how your definition of ordinary comes in here.
My question was in regard to Akshay Anand accusing Peterson of distancing Hitler from ordinary by calling him crazy.
Are you saying that crazy people don't start life as regular human babies?
@@spiritmatter1553 hey, you still haven't told us what crazy people start human life as.
So Peterson made this 4th reich dog whistle back when he was teaching in Toronto and had no major online following? Ok pal lol
Ash40000 40000 You missed his point, the point is that wasn’t a dog whistle as there was no audience to hear it.
That was literally just a mistake
@@sjappiyah4071 someone who takes time to actually read a comment. 👏👏
Ash40000 40000 are you being serious?
It’s so obviously just a mistake. This “dog whistle” bullshit is such a witch hunt.
@@fantasick8880 that specific case was obviously a mistake. That doesn't mean dog whistles don't exist.
8:48 Stalingrad happened in the end of 1942/beginning of 1943 and many non Western centric historians see that, Stalingrad was the more important turning point in the war, not D-Day which happened when the Soviets were already pushing them back succefully.
D-day was the turning point on the Anglo-American front. The Ruskies, by sheer force of numbers and significant Western aid, halted and successfully turned the Axis forces back.
Without American aid and fighting on the western and southern front Russia was unlikely to win on its own. And without the Russian victories in the East the Anglo-American efforts would probably have failed.
One would not have happened without the other.
I generally agree with this video, but the JP part sticks out like a sore thumb. He made an oversimplistic reading of what JP is saying, and wasn't educated on the context regarding history and JP's work on the matter.
@@mailman63155 Which is bullshit if you listen to any historian with as little as two living braincells.
The Soviets stopped the Germans in Stalingrad thanks to not numbers but a combination of Soviet numbers, their strategies and German idiocy.
First the Germans bombed the city to the ground, making it hard to move easily through the now ruined streets, while also making the defensive easier for the Soviets. Then the Soviets managed to overrun and encircle the entire city, crushing the now defending Germans.
As for Allied aid, you need to keep in mind that most of the American and British equipment was severely limited in numbers compared to their Soviet counterparts. What Lend Lease provided them with instead were not military equipment but mostly stuff like trucks, trains, rail cars and other goods. Tanks sent through lend-lease for example constituted of only 8% of the tanks used by the Red Army through the war.
In fact, the country that received most aid from the US was... UK of all places.
It's clear to me that you know little about how the war actually went and just go with the American propaganda of "'Murica, fuck yeah".
What the Soviets did to the European people while ehm "liberating" them from the Nazis is certainly an important thing but to claim they wouldn't have won without Allied support is just laughable and it's the west trying to (as it seems to be more common nowadays with American companies putting African-Americans into European history even) insert itself into the loss of the Nazi Germany in a role more significant than it really was.
The turning point is the German defeat at the Battle of Moscow, January 7 1942. It was only after realizing he was not going to take Moscow that Hitler decided to change the goal for Stalingrad.
The decision on how to handle the Final Solution was taken on January 20 1942, at the Wannsee Conference. It's important to note that Einsatzgruppen were already mass killing Jews, Poles, Ukrainians and Russians way before that, of course.
@@mailman63155
Nah, USSR would have won even without US landing in france, but the land lease was important.
the only 2 reasons i can see for US even landing is that they wanted to make the war shorter, and didnt wat USSR to take all of europe after the war is over
visiting back to this video and the denier at 3:52 is hilarious. In an ironic sad way I mean. The image of the strong 'bavarian looking German soldier' was of one Werner Boldberg. The Nazi's made him into a literal poster boy until they found out to late that his grandfather was Jewish. He was discharged, put into menial labor details but when the government tried to round up his grandpa to deport him to a camp he came in with all his medals[he'd been decorated during the Polish invasion] with his uniform and all of their saved posters and fliers of him used that to support a point to not deport his grandpa. It Worked! They both survived the war but it's an example of the idiocy of anti-semitic racism type thought.
Kathy Newman: So Jordan Peterson what you’re saying is...
Knowing better: hold my beer
Perfectly put, lol
Amen.
@The Liverr I lost it once he said that cultural Marxists was code for Jews
Yeah this video is pretty sad
@The Liverr It's weird, because from some of the videos I've seen from him, they were actually really well done and historically-accurate, actually debunking blatant bullshit (even with the occasional retarded, ham-fisted comparison between Trump and the Nazis). So it's always kind of bewildered me as to how someone can not have their head shoved up their ass on those things, and call people out for cherry-picking and misrepresenting what was actually said, while literally doing the exact same thing when it comes to people he politically disagrees with.
9:01 yes, mr American. Dday was the decisive factor in the war, even though 8/10 Germans died on the eastern front.
It actually was a major turning point. It affected the war by making hitler fight two fronts on the same continent. The Eastern front was the worst part of the European theater, but hitler's fear of the US caused him to stop 30 miles (50km) shy of the Russian oil fields. If he had pressed on, the soviets would have been finished. With them out of the way, the Allies would have been able to hold onto half of France (probably), but Market Garden and the Bulge wouldn't have ever happened because Germany would have had the needed resources to halt the allied advance.
@@neurocell159 Opening yet another front in Europe (1. Eastern front, 2. Italian campaign) was one of the very important events of the WWII. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't any turning point. The turning point was the Battle of Stalingrad. And the second most important event was the Battle of Kursk. Opening of the western front was just yet another very hard blow against the enemy, seriously bleeding already. And I agree, the eastern front was the most bloody part of the European theater. But the rest of what you're saying is just a fabulation.
@@rostislavsvoboda7013,
Who needs to stop an army from entering Europe, and coming up behind you?
It was a turning point because it put a strain on the axis ability to concentrate on Russia.
If hitler hadn't been dead set on keeping France, or hadn't put off the battle of Kursk several times, the war would have had a different outcome. His stupidity not only stretched his forces, but he also allowed British intelligence to inform the Soviets exactly where he would be attacking.
hitler's biggest mistakes were actually invading Russia when he said that he wouldn't, declaring war on the US (His mutual pact with Japan could have withstood him not declaring war on the US until he consolidated the Eastern front, subjugated Britain, or ensured he had a treaty with a in all but name defeated France/Britain.) which brought the US industry and aid to Europe.
Kursk was reinforced by the withdrawal of the troops that had been devoted to Stalingrad. Hitler does any one of these differently, especially allowing the Soviets to build up more than twice the number of tanks, and the war goes in another direction.
D Day was a turning point because it forced him to give up any dreams of conquering Russia, and he began fighting the rear guard actions that led to his defeat. It was almost a year after Kursk, but the outcome of the war was still in doubt.
Without the Eastern Front collapsing for Germany, there are too many troops for the Allies to regain a foothold through Northern France. Without D Day, or the 18 month threat of its start, hitler is able to reinforce, and especially resupply, the battle against the Russians.
The luckiest break the allies had was the fact that hitler was a dynamic, charismatic, politician that considered himself Cesar's equal, but was a military buffoon.
If he had taken time to consolidate, or even listen to his generals, world history would be very different.
@@rostislavsvoboda7013 - There was no one specific "turning point" you can really turn to as the definitive "this is where we won the war". There are many points you can point to though and say, "if this didn't go like it did, we might have lost".
Obviously Stalingrad was important. Obviously Kursk was important. But so was D-Day. Being forced to fight on two fronts stretched supply lines for both fronts. No D-Day means the Nazis have better supply lines to fight on the Eastern front.
@@rostislavsvoboda7013 You really need to check the veracity of your statements.
Turning point: a time at which a change in a situation occurs, especially one with beneficial results.
Was D Day a major turning point? Yes, it was the turning point that signaled the final death throes of Germany. Was it THE major turning point? No, the two we were discussing were. But if D day never happens, hitler finally listens to his generals, calls a cease fire with Russia, builds up, and attacks them when he has an overwhelming advantage, such as moving more V-2s into the Eastern front, or getting enough Me 262s into the war.
You really need to get your confabulation under control, stop repeatedly espousing your argument, fully read and understand that people are agreeing with your main points but keep pointing out that you dismiss anything that even approaches a minor contradiction to your narrative.
I have not been arguing that Stalingrad and Kursk weren't the most important battles, thus the main turnnig points, I've just been saying that D Day was one step below those two.
Jordan Peterson did not minimize or downplay the Holocaust. What an example of cherry picked, out of context comments. He denounces Nazis and Hitler.
omg did you even watch the video? He talks how jordan peterson fan boys try to always defend him by saying " its out of context " then he shows the comment in context.
Friendly Neighbourhood Savage just because he tries to preempt being called out for taking Jordan Peterson out of context by saying he would be does not negate the fact he did just that. You fell straight into that fallacy.
@@saintsolider3359 Have you watched the whole video? Have you watched the dozens of hours of JP on RUclips? He could not possibly state more clearly the exact opposite of what this video says. Yes it's a lot of time to invest, but it's necessary to understand how off base your comment is. Listen to ALL of the words, not just the ones in a tiny clip if you want the complete picture.
You express concern that Peterson is saying that Hitler had a unique pathology and this enables the idea that not anybody could turn out exactly the same. The problem is that he EXPRESSLY says this in other places, even saying that everyone is capable of immense evil not different to that of the Nazis.
The bit about saying "4th Reich" before immediately correcting yourself as some kind of Freudian slip about the future you want to see is the kind of mental gymnastics we all expect from RUclips talking heads these days. It's so disappointing.
It's Clutching at straws bollox
@@JoeZUGOOLA does it mean to grab something thats not there?
You make fun of conspiracy theorists who slander others, like Alex Jones, while slandering Jordan B Peterson with conspiracy theories under the guise of dogwhistles. Alex Jones also makes unbased claims about dogwhistling so I don't think you should be doing it either. This was very hypocritical and I sure hope it wasn't your bias getting in the way of making us "know better". I really like most of your other videos and hope that you will try and do some better research and make more evidence based claims in your future ones.
The point is why so many Nazis run to Peterson for validation. You missed the part of unintentional dog whistling where people take your statements way beyond your intended context?
Tom Lam Yeah as soon as I heard him start calling everything “dog-whistles”, I knew this was gonna be a bad episode... And sure enough, the double-think wasn’t far behind.
Also, seriously, “globalists” and “neo-marxists” are dog-whistles for jews? Now sure, I think the libertarians calling everyone globalists is a bit cringe, but come on, most of the libertarians I’ve seen ARE Jews!
Plus, at this point there’s no denying that there are some actual globalists out there. And they are *crazy.* And unfortunately they tend to be the category of feminists working in Silicon Valley companies.
+mangalores-x_x
"Unintentional dogwhistles" are not dogwhistles, that's just people hearing what they want to hear
@@mangalores-x_x There's no way Peterson is unintentionally dog whistling. He constantly uses the cultural marxist conspiracy, which is literal white suppremacist propaganda.
6:10 You know who else said anyone is capable of horrific acts? Jordan Peterson.
That's exactly what I was thinking. From the polite murder convict story?
I swear to god this is the worst misrepresenting of a person I have seen from someone I thought was less bias than this
@Michael Whittmann The thing is everyone is biased and its important to recognize what your biases are and understand them but this is simply conspiratorial, nothing has any real evidence other than links that could be simply explained away
@Michael Whittmann You didn't its just that knowing better didn't seem to recognize his own bias when making this video ending up in a extremely unfair and one sided video, he should have... known better
@Michael Whittmann No but in this video he is definitely skewing the truth and now you're starting to sound like katie hopkins
Amazing video. I do think from a historical context that the biggest issue of people saying the civil war was about "states rights" is that that is a true statement but it isn't a complete statement. The "states right" that led to the war was the right of New states to be free states or slave holding states. Bleeding Kansas had happened before the war as did John Browns march. Both were about slavery.
I had to laugh when the one dude said that Dresden was a "historical" german city. Well....it wasnt just a historical city it is still a BIG city. Greetings from Germany by the way and thank you for the informative video
Mein Gott. Seriously dude. As a History teacher, that was a full on cringe moment. 😬
You would not be surprised then to hear most of what he was saying is intentionally incorrect or emotionally charged unresearched opinion.
Dresden was a catastrophe and is often downplayed here in Germany because of political far-right _"using it"._
But if you hear these complete bs "facts", in these short clips, you know why it's _"downplayed"_ so often.
BTW, i have to add that the Dresden Bombing, just like the Japanese bombings had really one purpose: to demoralize the enemy into submission. Sure there were some military objectives in Dresden as can be said for any large city with production infrastructure in the world, but definitely not enough to warrant a total carpet bombing of an entire city. It was an "example" and a major war crime that we chalk up to "ah the good guys won so who cares?". The civilians who lived in that city cared...
Same can be said of Japan, but it is much more hideous there because the atomic bombings were also tests to see how the a-bomb affects people in short and long term. Japan was on the brink of defeat with the US fleet literally parked next to the islands. They WANTED to use the a-bombs specifically.
It's like when you are playing a strategy video game, can win the mission objectives, but still use that super weapon thingy just to see what it looks like...
@@yannick245 What happened to Dresden was sad, but it was a legitimate target with war industry, and GERMANY STARTED IT. So please, don't squeeze more sympathy out of Dresden than what there is.
It is interesting you used that clip of JP, he usually talks about how WE would BE nazis. And how easily humans slide into that butchery mindset
is this one of those "you took him out of context" situations?
@@xwing2417 seems to be
@@xwing2417 it absolutely is INTENTIONALLY taken out of context. JP has been a target of the left because he dared to object to compelled speech. It leads to a lot of lying.
JP spent a lot of time talking about how evil, disgusting, and insane Hitler was… what he was initially confused about how you get such a large number of people to go along with such obviously immoral behavior.
For this channel to claim JP is secretly racist and in support of Hitler/Aryan terrorists takes a BIG leap and requires ignoring hours upon hours of easily accessible footage. It’s a purposeful lie.
@@kylehager4113 It's amazing how Knowing Better makes one claim about how "if someone says something here is out of context they are wrong" and, instead of looking at the entire body of work Peterson has about Hitler that is very, very clearly against Hitler and against Nazism, you simply take Knowing Better's word for it and assume anyone who says the video is out of context is some sort of racist or Nazi sympathizer.
Yeah, what the guy above me said. Either way Mr. Peterson has made it very clear that he detests hitler. JP was just trying to (in my opinion) understand what hitler's mindset and motivation was, more importantly he was trying to teach a lesson to his classes.
All you're saying is "its too dangerous to not just label hitler as satan", that's not how intellectual discussion works
It's also very dangerous because this makes Hitler look like a historical singularity which could've only happened under those special circumstances. While actually this should be used as an example to always be aware of psychopaths gaining political power via clever use of propaganda.
I like the idea of playing "devil's advocate" to challenge one's beliefs, but it should be done correctly. Why is Hitler and the Nazis considered the "ultimate evil" even though there were far more lethal "governments" (Mao's China and Stalin's Russia)?
Simply because this kind of planned genocide is unrivaled in human history (thank god) even compared to similar incidents: while Stalin and Mao caused more deaths, they've never planned to murder millions with their fucked up economic/politic systems. Maybe the Japanese came close with the Nanking massacre and their WW2 atrocities when it comes to outstanding atrocities, nonetheless, the planned and industrialized murder of a whole human race is even beyond that.
While i wont advocate for any country to hide the atrocities they've done in the shadow of the greater evil, there truly is nothing compared to what was achieved in Nazi-Germany.
Very interesting comment and I didn't know about those Soviet "endeavors" (not that I needed another reason to dislike communism and its representative states in history): though taken into account the whole mindset behind this ideology, planned mass-murder should be expected.
One could say the Soviets had the better PR department when it comes to their atrocities... or the worse, we're talking about Supervillians after all (so the worse, the better, if thats proper english).
I agree with you that we shouldn't make the mistake of weighing those systems and thus making one look less bad in comparison. Personally, I think communism is the greater danger nowadays based upon its quite numerous iterations throughout history in contrast to its horrific outcomes every time (where genocide would just be the icing on the cake really).
@@MrPobanz JP literally said in his lectures "If you were in Nazi Germany, you would probably be a nazi". I'm pretty sure he would agree a lot with you.
It's so disgusting how none of their symbology is even original. Like, they basically plagiarized and bastardized all their symbols because of course they have to ruin everything
I’m so happy I’m not alt-right anymore, damn I had forgotten about James Allsup, I used to eat his garbage up so fast
Aaah man same. But now were both BASED
I’m glad I never was. Who is James Allsup?
@@mr.starfish4965 he is pretty much a blackshirt
@@bigcheese1061 Blackshirt??
@@mr.starfish4965 that’s what Mussolini’s henchmen were called, now it means fascist, but not Nazi, just fascist
I would love to see this guy do an analysis of the history of Liberia.
Does dumpster fire cover it? Beautiful country wonderful people in general but man the history was and is a messy bit of events
@Attica Centurius. how was my off the cuff analysis?
@Attica Centurius. also I may be thinking of Libya......... Apologies for being an asshole if I'm totally incorrect
This guy has 0 idea what he's talking about
@@matthewpetto8942 no critical thought has ever crossed his brain lol.
You completely missed what it was Peterson was trying to say. He wasn't trying to argue Hitler wasn't racist. He obviously was. He was trying to describe the core personality disorder that lead to his racism.
or in this case the core personality order
No, petersen is trying to diminish the Holocaust by playing it off as nothing more than a personality order.