That "section" is just a twenty-or-so second clip. It's not even a complete thought. He says "that's not what happened" and then it cuts off. Well, what did happen? The clip includes both "the whole national socialist political movement from its earliest days in the 1920s" language and the "foreign policy" language. The post describing the clip truncates and cherry-picks. Nobody is denying that the Nazis were, like many of the time (and of course more than most) eugenicists. So were the British colonialists. You're overstating the history that the Nazis' Lebensraum project as first proposed involved death camps (which you're adverting to by the word "extermination") or that as later first practiced did not principally involve ghettoization and displacement—which was an aim of several post World War I bandits and governments after the postwar fall of the prewar multi-ethnic empires. Our World War II ally Stalin displaced ethnic Poles from Ukraine and Belarus. Most of these displacements, the Nazis' included, foreseeably and intentionally killed and starved masses of men. It hardly makes it right, but mass murder was commonplace in early 20th-century Europe and so was starvation. The German people themselves starved during and shortly after World War I from an allied blockade. The Russian people starved. The Ukrainians starved. And where people starved, often the dominant militaries and militias redirected food to themselves and their confederates. Hence the Bolshevik Cheka in the Russian countryside during the Russian civil war, for example. And compared to whether the Nazis were racists, it certainly is news to the average American that the "average German" was not a genocidal freak. The Zionist myth of World War II, which tries to explain the pogroms to Kristallnacht to the camps, is that the average German was. The average American surely has no idea what the Nazis ran on in '32. And, the news about the "average German" *is* controversial. If the willingness of "average Germans" to vote for a Nazi party in '32 hostile to Jews is *not* entirely explained by the "average German's" genocidal bloodlust, it may in some part be explained by the prominence of Jewish leadership in the bloody interwar (and for Germany, intra-war) communist revolutions. That's controversial of course because uncharitable objectors cry that to claim that is to say the Jews murdered in the death camps "deserved it," which is a wildly scurrilous mischaracterization. The claim is just an attempt to describe actual causes for actual effects. Darryl is not going to give "token admission" to the Holocaust being bad. He's going to give due regard to World War I and the communist revolutions being bad and also horribly violent for ordinary and civilian Europeans and Russians. As for your concession, if you're conceding that the "mass of ordinary Germans" who voted for Nazis in '32 were not motivated by the more belligerent and genocidal aims of the Nazi state in, say, the mid-40s, then you're conceding the possibility that the "platform and policies" of the early Nazi party may have been less diabolical in comparison to those of the latter Nazi government even though you say that you're not. We can't have it both ways. The progression of Nazi aims, again, would make more sense than, as Darryl counterfactually posits, a rather cosmopolitan German citizenry just waking up one day in the '30s and deciding to exterminate European Jewry because of German DNA Adolf Levin identifies as some sort of hostile threat to a chosen race of people (does *that* sound familiar?). Levin is what happens when you let myths go unchallenged by facts.

Were you in the IMAX?

I just said this: "Of course [Darryl] says that Nazis were motivated by dislike of Jews and (like many in the 1930s, actually) eugenics." Some random twenty-second clip of Darryl from the account "Jesus Hates Hitler" happens to omit this mantra everybody knows already so he's a horrible man? What we doin' here? In the clip, Darryl is talking about a "driving force." He's talking about "the whole national socialist political movement, from its earliest days in the 1920s . . . ." He's talking about how to explain where it came from and where it wound up: the "driving force." The "force" that "drove" it through history, and he's saying that it is not properly summed up as "white supremacy" or Napoleonic conquest for conquest's sake. And, he's absolutely talking about the mass of ordinary Germans who by a plurality first voted the Nazis into power in '32. The explicit theme of his recent podcast series, which he's talking about in the cited clip, is to examine the Second World War from the perspective of ordinary Germans. His explicit aim is to pierce the obvious myth that the sufficient or even principal reason the Nazis came to power in Germany is the German people's spontaneous or latent Jew hatred. We have Mark Levin literally saying in public that Jew hatred is in the "goyim's" DNA and that that's why people oppose Israel. That's just the World War II myth generalized: that history goes bad when so-called "anti-semitism" (a term popularized by a Zionist trying to get Jews to leave the nations and come to Palestine) is fanned and goes good when it is violently combated. That the "driving force" of history is how well the Jews are regarded by the nations. It's not "all about the Jews all the time." It's okay to understand the actual history leading into and through World War II. Don't you agree? It's okay to consider whether violent communism in interwar Europe accounts for a greater share of the actual cause of the Nazis' ascendance—and perhaps even their later war aims like the invasion of the communist Soviet Union—than the Levin thesis of Jew hatred baked into the German genetics, yes? Maybe you could consider being a little less reflexively hostile to every twenty-second clip of Cooper that falls into your feed and just listen to his podcast series. You can start at the first minute and stop the minute he makes a false factual historical claim.

You must like Digger. X has decided.

I'm not suggesting it. I know what he says on this subject inside and out. He's got dozens of hours talking about it. The point is that the Nazi party did not get a plurality of votes in the '32 election because the German people wanted to conquer Europe for the white race.

Good point. A score made for the IMAX sound system.

What? And, you're wondering how people could be in Hell?

Oh for frick's sake. Much of this is nonsense. He doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Well I mean, I follow him so I must respect him. But your reply is still funny.

"This old rabbi with a white beard and a tent-sized kippah is the true face of antisemitism."

Free equity in the nation's most important enterprises. Is that too socialistic for you?

Huh. What was it like? What was the screen size it was projected on?

We'll change earth's orbit before then.