All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
53:51
The Validity of Nazi Comparisons - feat. Three Arrows
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There is a selection of YouTube content creators that are colloquially known as BreadTube.
They are not necessarily affiliated with one another through anything other than ideology.
They are all politically very left-wing, tribally so, and therefore reflexively reject what they deem to be right-wing thought, in principle, as being their enemy.
Recently, one of these YouTubers, someone who calls themselves Dan Arrows from Deutschland, created a video called How Societies Turn Cruel, featuring Sargon of Accad.
I watched this video with great interest.
I don't tend to make response videos to these people because their videos are long and boring.
However, in this case, I'm prepared to make an exception.
But first, some background.
I'm an Englishman.
I lived in Germany for eight years, and Dan of Deutschland seems quite typical in my experience of dealing with Germans.
In his video, he was haughty but not directly impolite.
He appeared thorough, categorical, and blissfully unaware of his own cultural bias.
This will not be a response video per se.
With Dan of Deutschland, I just have the luxury of having many of the German philosophical pathologies condensed into one video.
This is not, of course, designed to insult Germans, but is instead meant to empathise with them.
There are serious cultural conversations that the Germans are currently having as a civilization, and I am sympathetic to their struggle in this regard.
There are many similar conversations that the English need to have as well.
But anyway, Dan of Deutschland starts in a particularly German fashion by asserting his superiority while feigning inferiority.
I stumbled over a video by YouTube's anti-feminist Mesopotamian Emperor titled TYT vs the Nazi Menace.
This video came out shortly after the news broke that the Trump administration was separating children from their parents at the border and the progressive news network TYT did a little piece on it pointing out how practices like these combined with the extremely hostile rhetoric of the Trump administration are reminiscent of the Nazis rhetoric and practices.
Now don't worry, we're not going to watch Karl's full response since it's mostly pretty self-defeating stuff, but I'll show some clips to sum up Karl's contention with comparisons like these.
These topics bring with it a tremendous amount of responsibility and for me as a layman to attempt to explain these very socially weighted and complex events really implies a great deal of arrogance on my part.
And while I always try to frame my videos as my opinion at the time or points to be considered, I can't negate that what it boils down to is the appearance of a lecture.
But I need to reiterate that I'm only able to provide a very narrow view on the discussed subjects since I'm neither an expert on the Third Reich nor a social psychologist.
It wouldn't be a Sargon of a card video without a conspiracy theory, I guess.
He is at once no expert on Nazi Germany, but he is going to lecture us at length about it.
I am apparently so low that I am a mere purveyor of self-refuting facts and conspiracy theories, which makes it all the more curious as to why Dan of Deutschland chooses not to debunk me, or why he even bothers with me at all.
The answer is because, despite his scorn, there were no conspiracy theories in the video he is responding to, and he cannot refute what I have said.
He can simply assert without evidence, claiming, for example, that Alexandro Casio-Cortez's stage-managed production at a board of fence was a conspiracy theory by me, despite the fact that I did not allege it to be a conspiracy, and there being manifest evidence that it was just that, a stage-managed production.
We can even see the photographers she is posing for.
The main contention of his video is that the way the United States is managing its borders can be analogized to events that led up to the Nazi takeover of Germany.
Dan of Deutschland thinks there is a parallel between the flight of the Jews from Russia to Germany in the 1920s and the way that they were housed on the German border to the journey of economic migrants from Central America through their own means or by left-wing NGOs and people traffickers and their detention on the US-Mexico border.
Near the beginning of his video, Dan of Deutschland gives us the framing from which we will be operating.
To portray Germany's descent into Nazism as a cautionary tale, it's somewhat necessary to explore how people thought at the time, shifts in their moral axioms and inner justifications for their crimes.
Historians like Richard Evans, who wrote the Thursday trilogy, which is fantastic, typically don't start their analysis with Hitler's first electoral victories, but go back as far as Bismarck.
They talk about the spreading of scientific racism in the 1890s or local anti-Semitic politicians pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in political discourse.
First, you stretch what is acceptable to say, then you push what is acceptable to do.
The discrimination of Jewish refugees in Weimar, laws like prohibiting Jews from owning dogs under the Nazis, these are just as much part of the genocidal process as is pulling the trigger years down the line.
You'll notice that it's assumed in Dan of Deutschland's framing that the intent of state action against the immigrants detained on the border is extermination.
And the thing that's holding that back are moral concerns selfishly from our own position that we don't want to become bad people in the process of doing that.
This is Dan of Deutschland's particular bias on display in this regard.
The US detention centers are not created with the intention of hurting the immigrants, but with the intention of helping them.
But I do agree with Dan of Deutschland in one regard.
We do need to explore the worldview of the early 20th century Germans in order to understand why the Nazis happened.
Since Dan of Deutschland does not actually do this, I shall do it for him.
We must begin with the most important point that Dan of Deutschland does not even recognize.
The cultural experience of being German is not universal.
It is, in fact, quite unique.
This is why Nazi comparisons are not only valid, but necessary.
Breaking news.
German man feels Nazi comparisons are necessary.
I'm sorry for being so flippant about this, but it is hilariously predictable.
The Nazis are a product of the German experience, still a part of the German experience, and cannot be separated from it.
Which is why Nazi comparisons are necessary for the German.
However, we are not Germans.
The Nazis do not haunt the nightmares of the English-speaking peoples.
We did not produce the Nazis, we were not taken over by the Nazis, and we did not shy away from going to war with the Nazis.
The Nazis are something separate to us.
One of the most jarring phrases I heard when speaking to Germans or reading German literature was the term, We Germans.
There is no English proxy for this phrase.
In England, it is never said we English.
The term sounds alien, dead on the tongue.
It sounds like something a foreigner would say.
Instead, if the English are to be self-referential, we do it in exactly the way that I have done it in this sentence already.
We refer to ourselves as the English.
I think these linguistic differences are very telling and at the tip of an iceberg, beneath which is the development of hundreds of years of divergent philosophies.
It is no accident that the German method of self-reference is subjective and the English method is objective.
Philosophically, the English have long been empiricists, stemming from the influence of thinkers such as Locke and Hume.
To be empirical, one must strive to be objective, an attempt to remove one's own sense of self from what is being examined.
English individualism gave rise to a worldview that is localized and centered on the individual, concerned primarily with those things directly associated with that person.
Since the Magna Carta through to the English Bill of Rights in 1688-1689 and on to the modern day, an Englishman actually had political rights.
A long tradition of constitutional limits of the power of government solidified the separation between the state and society in the English mind.
It was most preferable for each man to be the king of his own castle and treat others with that mutual consideration in mind.
You break into my house in the middle of the night.
You dare do something like that and you'll get this.
Make no mistake, you'll get this.
As is my freeborn right as an Englishman, defend my family.
I will defend my half, I will defend my family with my own regimental sword, and the Crown Prosecution Service can go to the devil.
Germany's philosophical development was different.
Where the English are pragmatic and locally minded, the Germans are idealists and systematically minded.
The origins of German idealism lie with Immanuel Kant, who is attempting to bridge the divide between rationalism and empiricism that emerged from the Enlightenment.
The rationalists believed that knowledge can be gained through intuition, and the empiricists believed that knowledge can only come through perception.
The English had chosen the latter as the method from which to better understand the world, and Kant's transcendental idealism attacked this worldview by highlighting the distinction between the thing and our perception of the thing.
This was taken up by subsequent German philosophers such as Ficht, Schelling, and Hegel, with Hegel being by far the most influential, who sought to continue this work and ended up creating a particularly abstract view of the world.
So what did Hegel think?
According to English political scientist Sir Ernest Barker, Hegel's political worldview can be outlined in the following excerpts from his 1951 work, Principles of Social and Political Theory.
The Romantic thought of Germany began by idealizing the folk, primarily the early Teutonic folk of old times, and then, by natural extension, the German folk of the present.
It regarded the folk as a maker of folklore, of folk songs, folk music, of folklore, and of general folk intuition into the world and life, Weltanschaung.
It made the folk an entity, a being, even a person, which sang, made ballads, created laws, and directed the march of history.
The romanticized folk, just because it's made an entity, a being, and even a person, can readily be identified, at any rate by the sympathetic mind, with the entity, being or person of the state.
That is to say, with the government.
That is to say, when we come to the last resort, with the person of the governor.
If this summary account is just, it follows that Hegelianism is a version and possibly the extremist version of the unified society state.
Hegelianism makes the state the vehicle of a system of social ethics, which is law and morality in one.
And by making it the vehicle of such a system, it makes it all inclusive.
It identifies the state, so regarded and conceived, with the folk, which is an organ of God in his truth.
Suddenly, it becomes clear why a totalitarian racial ideology such as Nazism was able to wrest control of the German nation.
If one has a systemic view of oneself as part of a greater whole, then it is not a great leap to attempt to take everything to its logical conclusion, especially given the Prussian mindset that had significant influence at the time.
As Douglas Murray observed in The Strange Death of Europe, German philosophy was almost at the very root of the problem.
The sense of neurasthenia felt in the late 19th century was in part created by a weariness of philosophy, and not only because there was an awareness that there was so much to think about, but because German thought was already characterized by a weightiness that too easily transferred in weariness and even fatalism.
There are, of course, many reasons for this, but among them is a peculiarly German pursuit of continuously, relentlessly pursuing ideas to their end point, wherever that may lead.
This tendency also has an expression in German, Drang Nach dem Absoluten, the drive towards the absolute.
Again, it is not a phrase that the English or English philosophy would use, but it does aptly sum up that habit of pushing and pushing ideas until they can then reach what can then seem to be an unavoidable and even predetermined endpoint.
Hegel and his fellow idealists had managed to conceive of, then radicalize the personified folk spirit of the German people and their understanding of themselves as part of a wider organism that is the Germans.
This was the worldview from which the Nazis evolved, as Hitler noted on page one of Mein Kampf.
Austria must be restored to the great German motherland, and not indeed on any grounds of economic calculation whatsoever.
No, no.
Even if the Union were a matter of economic indifference, and even if it were to be disadvantageous from the economic standpoint, still it ought to take place.
People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.
The German people will have no right to engage in colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state.
When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory.
Nazism is inseparable to the German experience, being little more than a formal political expression of the totalizing view of what it is to be a German expressed as the society state.
The romantic illusion of the German folk is an entity embedded in the German psyche until this day and manifests in the very way they think about themselves.
Hence, we Germans.
Where the Englishman can only speak for himself and state his own perception of other English people, he must say, I think, or the English seem to think.
A German can speak confidently of the desires of the folk mind because he is a part of it.
If his opinions are anything like the opinions of his fellow Germans, and why would his opinions not reflect the tenor of wider society?
He can speak as part of a racial block with an authoritative, subjective voice.
We Germans have a certain character, and you would do well to remember that, Auslander.
Dan of Deutschland is warning an Englishman to be careful of becoming a Nazi, because subconsciously, he is afraid that he might become a Nazi, and he is projecting this fear onto me.
I am not philosophically equipped to become a Nazi.
I have not got woke to the racial soul of my people.
I am an Englishman who simply wishes to be left alone in my castle.
What I have said here for the English really goes for what Winston Churchill described as the English-speaking peoples, and I think he was right to identify language as the unifying factor amongst the Anglosphere, because language dictates the way a person understands the world, something of which the French postmodernists were very aware.
Nazism is an expression of German self-consciousness, and so when a German starts drawing comparisons to the English-speaking world, I can do little but laugh.
There is nothing in English philosophy that can justify killing a man for merely existing.
Indeed, merely existing is the key axiom from which the English through the centuries have found the moral strength to push back the legitimacy of authoritarianism.
Nazism does not and will not take hold in the political outlook of the English-speaking peoples because they fundamentally disagree with the axioms of Nazism.
This is why Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League punched Nazis and burned swastikas before it was cool.
To them, Nazism is clearly tyrannical foreign nonsense that will do as much if not more damage to the small part of the world they call home, which is what they would like to retain as they inherited it, warts and all.
They saw it as racial politics writ large, and that was simply not the main contention of the EDL.
The EDL was concerned about Islamic extremism and the damage it was doing to their own communities.
They did not believe that they are a part of a folk mind that is a product of a contiguous organism that spans across space and time.
They view the past as something separate to themselves, which is why the British generally feel little guilt over the sins of their empire.
After all, those people are dead and we do not do such things now, why would we take responsibility for things that we as individuals did not do?
In summary, what I am saying in this section is that the German life experience is not universal.
It is, in fact, entirely specific and unique to the German people, a fact I am not alone in observing.
Over the centuries, many English-speaking authors have noted that there is something different about the German worldview to that of the English-speaking world.
Rudyard Kipling once wrote, there are only two divisions in the world, human beings and Germans, and Jewish-American businessman Theodor Kaufman wrote a genocidal screed against Germany, calling the Nazis organized Germanism and describing it as an insane beast that would be a perpetual threat to world peace, with the only method of salvation being the mass sterilization of Germans.
Kaufmann being Jewish and having written a short book advocating the genocide of Germans, naturally provided a huge boon to the Nazi cause, as it was claimed by them as proof positive of a Jewish conspiracy against the German people.
The organized destruction of the Jewish people by the Nazis was not something the Nazis did by accident.
The philosophical groundwork had been laid over the centuries.
The awakening of the German mind to be something contiguous with its race, and then the Nazi politicization of each individual German as a component, a cell of that organism, had to have occurred.
Against this, the non-Aryan Jew must be evaluated and judged by the Nazis to be a parasitic race that was actively working against the German race and that needed to be exterminated.
It wasn't with a heavy heart that the guards of the concentration camps went about their work.
They had fully dehumanized the Jew and other undesirables, so conducting their work did not seem to weigh on them.
These are the men and women who ran Auschwitz, a hill on earth, the most notorious death camp the world has ever known.
The photographs were taken at a nearby resort in the summer of 1944, when the slaughter was at its height.
This was the summer that confirmed Auschwitz's place in the annals of evil.
You know, you look at these pictures, they look almost like normal people.
They are dead devils.
There's something in human flesh.
Dan of Deutschland even gives us the example of the German police who shot children and rationalized it to themselves, but they still volunteered for the job.
These seem like the hallmarks of ideological possession.
People who identify with and believe in their cause with such intensity that it is no longer a political question, but a moral struggle of good against evil.
The way this occurred in Germany was unique to the German experience, reliant on the German worldview and actualized through the identity of German.
It seems worth pointing out here that this is not how the English-speaking peoples view illegal immigrants.
They seem to be viewed as individuals or small groups who have failed to observe the proper procedure for entering into the country because we operate open countries.
We allow almost anyone to come here and we're actually happy with this arrangement as long as it's done in an orderly manner.
Dan of Deutschland does not seem to realize that Germans are not the same as non-Germans, and I would postulate that this comes from him being a leftist and wishing all human cultures to be the same at their fundamentals, which they are, for him at least, Unfortunately not.
German leftists seem to see self-abasement as a virtue, as penance for the horrors of Nazism.
It is apparent in their approach to dealing with anything that can be considered to be German.
One example that springs to mind most insistently is a quote-unquote satirical video produced by German public broadcast service ZDF, published in March 2016.
This satirical political commentary video by a left-wing German comedian was a commentary in response to a xenophobic attack on a bus of refugees that arrived in Klausnitz, Saxony, a month earlier.
Around 100 locals surrounded the bus and chanted enough is enough and we are the folk in protest of the refugees that were being distributed around Germany after being allowed in by the million by Angler Merkel.
The protesters were handled roughly by the police and condemned by politicians, and as the state interior minister described them, they were shameful.
The video, B Deutsch, Achdung, Germans on the Rise, went viral and was widely shared and appreciated by left-wing commentators for its progressive message of self-abnegation.
B Deutsch is only satirical in the sense that it has self-awareness as a humorous commentary on the foibles of contemporary bourgeois German society.
The underlying message was still a valid left-wing proposition.
It begins, obviously, with a Holocaust reference, and it is framed in the collectivist language of the entire German race, the true Germans, who are here to actually eradicate the nationalistic Germans because of the cultural guilt of those who support the old German identity.
This new liberal regime will be imposed on those Germans who resist with a kind of hatred reserved only for mass murderers and child molesters.
We are even encouraged to read Kant, you cunt, the man who inadvertently began the German descent into self-hating madness.
And one of the reasons given for us to do this in the video is that he is also a German.
We are encouraged to study Kant's categorical imperative, that is, an absolute requirement that should be obeyed in all circumstances.
In my opinion, this is the defining difference between German philosophy and English philosophy.
I do not even agree that there can be such a thing as a categorical imperative.
I struggle to think of any proposition that all people should take to be correct at all times regardless of the circumstances.
But either way, the real question being answered by B Deutsch is, can a German love being German?
Ironically, B Deutsch answers this with, yes, but only if they hate themselves.
These days I am a changed man and this is the dawning of a new day.
I am now an avowed anti-racist and we are going to crash racism once and for all.
This is the struggle for the meaning of German identity presented in B Deutsch.
There can be no room for any other kind of German.
They are the true Germans.
They who carry the cultural guilt of being German and recognize that the only superiority they have is being inferior to others.
The true Germans are the real moral Übermensch, and any of the other kinds of Untermensch Germans need to be wiped out.
Diversity is a strength.
What I found most disturbing about this was the joy with which B Deutsch embraces its moral cause.
The progressive, tolerant, true Germans display the same kind of moral absolutism as the Nazis.
Their cause is all good.
Their opponent's cause is all bad and should be treated as such.
They must conquer the old Germans and establish a new order of what it truly means to be a German.
This leftist conception of German is a further mythologizing of what it is to be a German.
Instead of letting German be a composite observation of what already exists, it is instead a declaration of what it must be.
The cause can be embraced with a happy heart, and the bloody work can be done with a smile on one's face.
They in fact view themselves much in the same way as the Nazis viewed themselves.
They are saving the German race.
In perhaps the most remarkable photograph in the album, here he stands amidst a gallery of leading Nazi killers.
That's sing-along.
B. Deutsch claims that Germans are liberal, but to be liberal is to be a moderate.
Liberal democracies reject extremism and work only on compromise with the other side.
If your political view is unable to see the truth in the opposing side, then you are an extremist and do not believe in democracy.
You are not tolerant, you are not liberal, you are, in fact, a bigot.
B. Deutsch was produced in the same genre and style as a popular German metal band called Ramstein, who in 2019 released their answer to that very same question.
The song Deutschland was accompanied by a nine-minute short movie to give punch to its controversial cultural message.
The piece also wrestles with what it is to be German and how the conflicting narratives can be reconciled.
Germania, the embodiment of the German spirit throughout the ages, is depicted as a black woman.
She is dressed as a tribal savage, a shining knight, a queen, a Nazi officer, a Weimar degenerate.
She is a symbol of the German people through time.
All through the piece, she is surrounded by glory, wealth, gore and violence.
She is feasted upon by monks, venerated by knights, and then shot.
These juxtapositions show the cultural and psychological state of a civilization that has struggled to order the world and suffered in the process.
The lyrics of Deutschland are perfectly clear in their message, as you can see from the following extracts.
Germany, my heart in flames, want to love you, want to damn you.
I never want to leave you.
One can love you and want to hate you.
Overbearing, superior, to take over, to surrender, surprising to assault.
Germany, Germany over everyone.
Superior, needless, Übermenschen, weary.
The higher you climb, the farther you fall.
Germany over everyone.
Deutschland is a superb piece of cultural commentary and strikes at the two extremes that are in conflict in the German heart.
It is only natural to wish to celebrate one's successes and have a love of one's country, but in the case of the Germans, that self-love becomes absolute.
And to prevent that, the only solution in the German mind is absolute self-hate.
How are these to be reconciled?
What's worse is that the Germans are a manifestly brilliant civilization, with vast contributions to philosophy, art and science.
It is impossible to deny the many ways that German civilization has shown genius and provided it to the world.
Actually being better than everyone at some of the most important things makes it all the more difficult to self-abase and claim that actually we are all equal.
But if we don't, we have that drive towards the absolute, with absolutely horrific results.
All of this is meant to engender sympathy for the German.
He is trapped in a prison of someone else's making, an ethnic cage from which he cannot escape.
He must struggle against the sins of his ancestors and his own desire to order the world.
It prevents him from loving himself and his country for what they are because he knows that if he takes this too far, he becomes a tyrannical and bloodthirsty monster.
Ramstein's Deutschland is an exploration into the German self-understanding that Nazism is a part of the way that they view themselves, hence the German obsession with Nazism long after they have been defeated.
By foreigners, not other Germans, I might add.
This afflicts Dan of Deutschland too.
The very name of his channel and the logo, the three arrows, is a socialist symbol used by activists for the Social Democratic Party during the Weimar Republic.
The three arrows are three strikes through a swastika that have been drawn on a wall as a symbol of defiance.
The meaning of the arrows themselves cannot be separated from the swastika.
No.
The detention centers on the US border are not what we would consider to be concentration camps.
Dan of Deutschland knows this, which is why he addresses it in the beginning of his video, and then has to redefine what we understand to be concentration camps in order to confidently assert, yes, yes, they are concentration camps.
It's easy to see why a congresswoman calling the US detention facilities concentration camps would cause such an intense debate in the US considering that the education system focuses so much on concentration camps in the context of Nazi Germany.
And naturally, if that's what you associate with the term concentration camp, you would say, no, this comparison doesn't make sense.
He knows full well that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is using that terminology to evoke the Holocaust, which is why she said never again.
To say, well, in the original sense of a concentration camp, they are, is to say that there is nothing wrong with the original sense of a concentration camp because it was merely a way of detaining people at the border.
And the only reason the SDP stopped doing it in Weimar, Germany, was that they ran out of money.
These were the first camps on German soil to literally be called Koncentrazionslager.
Not that it should matter since facilities with the name concentration camp have been around since the Spanish-American War.
And if you don't know the difference between what a concentration camp and what a death camp is, maybe just, you know, shut your face about it.
See what I mean about the German arrogance and haughtiness there.
He knows that in English-speaking countries, the term concentration camp is used to refer to Nazi death camps.
And it's not like I think Dan is being dishonest on purpose either.
I genuinely don't think he understands how biased he is in this regard.
The German definition is not relevant.
Dan of Deutschland fails to connect the US migrant detention centers to the Nazis.
He instead gives us an example of the left-wing Social Democratic Party's detention centers in the 1920s that held Jewish refugees from Russia.
According to Dan, radical leftists in their day complained that the refugee camps were inhumane.
Rational people said that the conditions were acceptable, and that this complaint was political agitation from communists.
All in all, we can say that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion and is used for political agitation by the left.
As he says, this was 10 years before the Nazi Party was a political force in Germany.
How is this a society turning cruel?
The Nazis were not the consequence of poor conditions on the border, if we were to indeed agree that these camps were of inappropriately poor quality, which I don't.
Dan of Deutschland treats us to 10 minutes of obsessively detailed descriptions of Nazi psychology, even posting a quote from the commander of Auschwitz in which he claims that he was not an evil man.
The takeaway from this, of course, is that the Nazis were highly ideological.
They were not mad, they were not psychopathic, they were zealots.
The last question that's still unanswered is how does a society even get to that place where its frame of reference becomes that twisted?
At the beginning, there's always some sort of grouping taking place, so a subset of the population is defined as something else, and then a categorization is filled with meaning.
Brilliant analysis, Dan.
Humans identify different groups, then ascribe meaning to those groups.
Groundbreaking.
Let's see if we can give Dan's formula a try.
How about for the many, not the few?
Jeremy Corbyn has identified a group, the few, which in this case means the rich, and the meaning is that they are bad and his help is not for them.
They are in fact the problem.
I knew there was a reason that the Daily Stormer endorsed him.
Typically, that's because of racism, but that's rarely enough.
And just because a racist is elected into office doesn't mean there's a genocide down the line.
Which makes one wonder why is he even bringing it up then?
He of course puts content creators like myself as the first step to Nazism, because I can identify different groups of humans and observe that there is meaning in these differences.
Nazi confirmed.
Dan of Deutschland continues to obsess over Nazis further on in his video, but doesn't understand that it is the historian's job to tell you the chain of events that happened and the philosopher's job to tell you why they happened.
The discrimination of Jewish refugees in Weimar, laws like prohibiting Jews from owning dogs under the Nazis, these are just as much part of the genocidal process as is pulling the trigger years down the line.
This is why Nazi comparisons are not only valid, but necessary.
An example apart from immigration where I would consider this perfectly valid would be the attack on trans people by the Trump administration.
Removing them from their jobs if they serve in the military, rolling back protections against housing discrimination.
There are countless examples of this administration going out of its way to harm this community.
And a lack of pushback against government action like this will only lead to more severe actions down the line as it did in Germany and so many other places.
So expect a trans holocaust in the United States in the near future.
He chronicles with strange relish how Germany descended into Nazism, then assumes that this is a model that all other societies could potentially follow.
He, being completely unaware of his own assumptions in this regard, doesn't stop to consider whether there could be something unique in the German experience that produced Nazi Germany.
That would, of course, be singling out a subset of the human race, imbuing it with meaning, and that's the first step towards becoming a Nazi.
So you are not a Nazi anymore?
Oh no.
Quite syncontly actually.
My anti-racist organization is lobbying for an open border policy for Israel.
Non-Jews have just as much of a right to be here as anyone else.
You cannot restrict the country to a specific group of people.
That's racist.
In reality, all political movements are reflective of the context in which they arise.
The Soviet Union was not Maoist China, which in turn was not Castro's Cuba, although they were all nominally operating with the same intent.
Different histories, different existing cultural philosophies, and contemporary pressures filtered through the lens of Marxism resulted in their differences.
What Dan of Deutschland is doing is projecting his German worldview onto the wider world where it is not appropriate to do so.
In this case, the English-speaking world.
But his contention is not that we are Nazis, at least not yet.
Despite loading his video with a remarkable amount of focus on the Nazis, his contention is that we are making a society that is cruel.
It is not cruel to have border controls.
It is not cruel to make the facilities of the border less than desirable from our perspective.
It is not cruel to place children into a separate area while the parents are incarcerated for committing a crime or for their own protection against traffickers.
Indeed, there seems to be little alternative.
It starts with, you know, Trump is an idiot, but I really dislike Hillary, so yeah.
Then I'm a Trump supporter not because of specific policies, but because he makes the left so mad.
Until you find yourself saying stuff like, as long as children in concentration camps are not screaming at the top of their lungs, I don't see much of a reason to be concerned.
Dan of Deutschland frames this as if it's some kind of logical progression, but I held the final opinion long before Trump was even a politician.
Dan of Deutschland, I do not see a reason to be overly concerned.
Children cry.
The entire question of the welfare of children, or children being separated from their parents, emanating from left-wing activists smells incredibly fishy to me.
I could point out that the left runs the abortion industry.
I could point out that it is the left that's covering up grooming gangs.
I could point out that it is the left that is currently grooming children into becoming transgender.
Or it is the left that are eternally performing paedophilia apologetics, but that isn't really necessary.
It is not from a concern for children that the left agitates against border controls.
It is, as Dan pointed out in his video, from the position of leftist anti-nation state agitation.
All in all, we can say that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion and is used for political agitation by the left.
The communists do not want borders, and they are seizing on anything they think you will find persuasive.
I'm going to say this clearly and concisely, and I mean it literally.
Under certain circumstances, it is okay to separate children from their parents.
Shall I repeat that?
It is okay to separate children from their parents.
It is not inherently cruel.
In fact, in many cases, it is desirable to do so, but not all cases.
Sometimes it's terrible to do so.
In some cases, the parents are not fit or abuse their children.
In other cases, these parents simply see it as the responsibility of the state to look after their children.
For example, in my country, socialist MP Jess Phillips is currently campaigning the Conservative government to separate her from her children for a longer period of time than is currently the case.
I'm going to leave my son and the responsibility of Theresa May, the then current Prime Minister, maybe not for long, and show that it's her responsibility to be looking after the children of this country five days a week and educating them for five days a week.
We need to discern who the people who have crossed the US-Mexico border are, which means figuring out if they are actually related to the children, which many of them are not.
There is also the question of dangerous gangs, drug and arms smuggling, not to mention the wider list of social and economic problems that come along with mass uncontrolled immigration.
All of these practical concerns, in my view, pale in comparison to the more abstract concern of the undermining of the rule of law.
They are not allowed to cross illegally.
It is irresponsible not to secure the borders of a nation for both the people who live in the nation and the people who are arriving.
Will this make the children who have arrived happy?
No, probably not.
At least, those ones that aren't being trafficked.
What happens when children get unhappy?
Well, the childless millennial leftist probably has little idea, but luckily, my years as a father have given me direct experience that I shall pass along.
They cry.
That's right, Dan of Deutschland.
Children cry a lot when they bang their knee, when they can't have a chocolate, when they have to go to bed.
They cry because they don't know what else to do, and sometimes they cry deliberately because they know you will react to the tears and give in to their demands.
What I'm saying is that it's okay for children to cry.
The children will be fine.
They are not made of glass.
They will get used to their situation because the purpose of the camps is to keep them safe, and the migrants know this.
The following is a comment left on my Facebook page by a US soldier called Joseph Sharon.
Sorry for calling you out like this, Joseph, but you committed an act of journalism, and so I thought I'd use it.
I'm a US soldier that was deployed to the border to work on the pre-existing walls in both San Luis, Arizona, and Laredo, Texas.
I've seen firsthand on multiple occasions.
Immigrants will cross the border and then just sit there right in front of us to detain them.
We don't detain them, that's CBP's job.
A young Guatemalan jumped the fence, twisted her ankle, and then just sat there in the sand waiting for us to do something about it.
I've asked a CBP agent how often does this happen, and he says that it's an everyday occurrence.
Thousands of people cross that border and just wait to be detained.
That's simply the truth.
It's so infuriating when you see the truth with your own eyes and then watch the MSM twist the facts to their narrative.
The responsibility for children being separated from their parents lies entirely with the people who took them to the United States illegally, be it people traffickers or the parents themselves.
It is unreasonable to assume the US will not police its own borders, so being apprehended is an assumption that they must have made in advance.
The migrants view the camps as preferable to their current situation in Guatemala, and it is probable that they are preferable, at least as a stage on a journey that is taken at the expense of the American people, both native-born and legal immigrant.
It is not fair that these chances take advantage of their sense of kindness.
If they want to come, let them apply in the lawful way as millions of others have done.
And if they don't, they should be sent home.
This happens to also be the majority opinion amongst legal Mexican immigrants to the US as well.
None of this is the first step towards becoming a Nazi.
This is merely the responsible management of a country.
There is no need to make Nazi references because there will be no genocide.
The English-speaking peoples are not extremists.
They do not have a tradition of taking ideas to their furthest point.
In fact, they have a history of political moderation and temperance through English-style liberal democracies, which, incidentally, they invented.
I have a severe problem with the left's xenophilia.
It has been observed by philosophers since antiquity that tyrants prefer the foreign to the domestic and use it to secure their position.
Going back as far as Aristotle, this can be observed, through tyrants such as Agathcles of Syracuse.
Is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike everyone who has dignity or independence, but anyone who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative and is hated by him as an enemy to his power.
Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens and lives with them and invites them to his table, for the one are enemies, but the others enter into no rivalry with him.
The left's characteristic fetishization of the foreign and despising of the domestic is something I'd personally find quite repulsive.
It is irrational, and it ignores the negative aspects of foreign cultures along with the positive aspects of domestic ones.
It is also used as a moral cudgel against the domestic population, which is precisely what Dan of Deutschland is doing with his video.
I see the left's pathological love of the foreign to be just as destructive as an extremist love of the self.
This was as much evident as anything of Dan of Deutschland's work when he attempted to refute Stephen Crowder's claims about the Crusades being defensive wars.
Spoiler, the Crusades were defensive wars, and it is simply absurd to argue the reverse, especially when one so casually brushes over the violence and brutality of the Muslim conquerors.
All responsibility lies with the Crusaders, and any evils the Muslims did in order to provoke this was not really that bad and certainly doesn't justify fighting back.
In his video, Dan of Deutschland also asks something like, Would the people of Europe really be concerned about a foreign invasion 300 years ago?
This is a mildly ridiculous thing for a German to ask, when contemporary Germans do nothing but obsess about the things that happened long ago, from Teuterberg to Auschwitz.
Yes, yes, they would, which is why it was brought up in Urban II's speech at Clermont, a section of which Dan incidentally left out of his video.
The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march of two months.
On whom therefore is the labour of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you.
You upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.
Dan of Deutschland is not a reliable source, and Nazi comparisons are rarely relevant to English-speaking liberal democracies.
He suffers from acute bias in this regard, and his videos prune his sources for information that support his narratives while overlooking information that would counteract them.
Western English-speaking societies are not becoming cruel societies, but quite the opposite.
Under the influence of the socialist left, they are becoming weak societies, with larger and larger numbers of activists who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of them entirely, beginning with the abolition of their own borders.
Any kind of structure or discipline is considered to be oppression by these activists, and they apply their own cultural fears and guilt onto contemporary issues that do not resemble the comparison.
More worryingly, by Dan of Deutschland's own logic, he is positioning himself as a key step in the rise of what he would consider to be the next Nazi movement.
If there is a comparison to be made, he admits that he is part of the process of civilizational erosion that could lead to a populace adopting extreme authoritarian governance.
There will not be any organized effort to exterminate illegal aliens in the US.
These people will be lawfully repatriated to their countries of origin as has been done en masse by the previous administrations.
This is not only morally justified, it is a moral necessity.
It is irresponsible and irrational to do anything else, and no amount of leftist agitation will change that.
Many thanks to everyone who helped make this video possible.
Thank you to all my patrons on Subscribestar who helped fund these long-form videos and provide me the time I need to do the research.
Thank you to Arch Warhammer, Undoomed, not so obvious, Mauler and Britisher for their wonderful voice contributions.
I'll leave links to their channels in the description.
And if Dan of Deutschland wishes to discuss the continuum of societal violence that he feels both the Nazis and the American government share, I'd be happy to do so.
I mean, I'm expecting a three-hour response video pretending not to understand anything I've said here, but if he does feel the need to chat, Dan, it's pretty easy to contact me.
you can just Google my email address.
BBS, this just in, an entire battalion of weaponized misogynists will be descending on hapless Chicago to forcefully fondle the city's innocence.
With them are notorious fascist pug handler Count Dankula, rape joke enabler Sargon of ACAD, alt-right menace Mr. Reagan, Satan himself Paul Elam, and the devil's handmaid Karen Strawn.
We have just received word from an expert in hatology that if you even so much as look upon this conference, your eyes will be burned out of your skull, your tongue will invert, and your anus will seethe from the union.
We repeat, do not so much as glance at this convention and its related paraphernalia of evil.
And keep in mind that when Germany's first domestic concentration camps were set up, the country had a left-leaning government which openly condemned anti-Semitism.
The Nazi party barely even existed at this point and was far from entering the national parliament.
About two to three years after being established, Germany's first domestic concentration camps will close their doors again because the conditions continued to spark public protests and operating them became too much of a fiscal burden for the government.
The reason why I like this German example so much is because in retrospect we can clearly see it as being a stepping stone to the eventual genocide of the European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators about two decades later.
▲
Export Selection