I have a question
Why is hitler regarded as the most evil dictator and the prime example of how bad humanity can get, when people in his own time period and before him were even worse?
Mussolini and Stalin both surpass him in their kill counts, Mao killed 40 million chinese, there's even that one british guy that managed the african genocide and enslaved everyone he didn't kill, and I was never even taught his name.
So, why? Was it because of his methods?
The problem is that those dictators only really shit on their own countries, so no one outside those countries really gave a shit. Hitler on the other hand, invaded all of his neighbors, and notnonly killed thousands of his own citizens, but also displaced thousands of citizens of other countries and killed them too.
No one really gives a shit how crazy you are until you start shitting on their doorstep. Hitler barged into everyhouse in the neighborhood and shit everywhere.
Propaganda was his best friend and worst enemy. WWII was the watershed moment in human history where the collective sum of humanity was capable of being fed mass ideas instantly and effectively. With no prior precedent for the speed and the effectiveness of imagery (espeically televised) being spread globally, across all cultures ,effectively instantaneously, humanity was prone to accept 'seeing is believing' in Hitlers case, as he was depicted as satan incarnate.
its only looking back, after decades upon decads of exposure to televised propaganda of all types and complexities, are we beginning to understand the magnitude of what this man did. As the years go by, much like rulers, conquerors and leaders before him, the constructed 'truth' will evolve in telling his story.
>one british guy that managed the african genocide and enslaved everyone he didn't kill, and I was never even taught his name.
He was Belgian, but you were close enough
estimated to 1-15 million deaths during the establishment of the Congolese rubber industry.
incomprehensible beauty and power of humanity, forever slandered by generations of indoctrination from the TV. all of it handwave away because of the "holocaust" and its intense emphasis on these insignificant peoples plight, when as history tells us, was merely one of many being unbelievably persecuted during the most important era of human history. THe cries of the jews rang louder than all others, where death and suffering was a global phenomenon.
Exactly, the propaganda machine was harnessed by the very people it was designed to combat.
With the Germans vanquished, the jews assumed control over "weaponized ideas" known as TV and radio. As the first victims of mass televised propaganda, they had first hand experience with the methodology and practical application to turn it in their favor.
Hitler killed millions of people based on a hateful, genocidal ideology. The holocaust was the ends for him.
Stalin and mao killed millions as a means to an end. If they could magically have guaranteed that people didn't starve, they would have; death counts would be much lower.
The evil of the death camps is unmatched kn history.
What makes the Holocaust stand out is not so much the death toll as it is the method of industrialized murder which, as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), has not been seen in any other genocide ever.
No other genocide had the extensive network of concentration and death camps used specifically for mass murder. The industrialization of the Holocaust is what made it so notorious.
This is not to say that this makes Hitler worse than Stalin and Mao, but it explains what makes the Holocaust so easy to sympathize with, as it is not "just another genocide".
That and what >>534912 said. What made Hitler stand out is how the entire world essentially united against him. Never in history has there been such an international consensus. In contrast, Stalin and Mao were just the other side of an international rivalry.
I don't think people realise that he wasn't as hated as everyone thinks before world war 2
The allies were quite happy to talk with him
He just got a bit crazy at the end
And humanity will most likely remember him as the clearest example of evil
So most of you guys believe in the holocaust? I'm Jewish, and I'm highly skeptical. Personally, I don't buy it. Were Jews killed? Sure. Six million? Highly doubt it. Gas chambers? Nope.
What makes you guys so convinced? It's a pretty ludicrous story desu senpaitachi
The whole story is ludicrous from start to finish.
The great powers of Europe destroying each other in a cataclysmic struggle over the fate Serbia?
The first successful rising takes place in fucking RUSSIA?
A corporal who took part in the revolution in Germany becomes the leading nationalist, who then becomes the Chancellor, who then achieves absolute power in under two years?
The Western powers acquiesce to Germany achieving more territorial gains then they contemplated during the first war?
What makes you so convinced any of this shit happened?
Yeah, it was a pretty crazy era, but there's a ton of footage and newspapers. The holocaust is pretty different in terms of the evidence that exists for it. I'll be glad to check out a book if you are really convinced it's the best book on the topic.
It's certainly not a given that Stalin surpasses him, now that Stalin's death count has been lowered thanks to access to the Soviet archives if you are blaming a significant number of the deaths in Europe in WW2 on Hitler then Adolf is way out in the lead.
The reason that Stalin and Mao get comparitively less flack is that a huge number of deaths they are held accountable for are due to starvation due to botched agricultural policy, which, horrific as it is, isn't quite the same as deliberate mass genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Of victims of the Holocaust, of concentration camps (including the smokestacks), etc. Some of the gas chambers are still standing and can be visited by tourists (I was at Majdanek this summer). This is despite the gas chamber at Auschwitz being a reconstruction.
I hate my future job already.
So, it's easier for you to just assume they did all that but not the actual thing that happened?
I wish I could make you fail in history.
Look, I don't even care about you, you're American and you guys probably don't know your edicational system is extremeley terrible. So have fun with your life.
>Where's the proof any of it happened?
Do you see a little problem here?
Where's the proof that I'm real?
You've never seen or heard of me. I could (of course I also am) an agent, trying to talk you out of your conspiracy because all your life you knew you're different. You're smart as fuck and a genius.
One thing I learned. You don't debate with crazy. You avoid it and move on.
The knowledge you missed in school is gigantic.
>mfw /pol/ turned this thread into another discussion of Holocaust denial
I don't put a number on it.
Though I definitely believe it is less than what is claimed.
My own country suffered genocide.
The number was 3 million I believe, yet, most of my countrymen don't give a fuck. Nobody gives a fuck, really.
Even my own mother said it wasn't that bad.
That number was very convenient for the neighboring country, who came in and 'liberated' us from him, then proceeded to take our land, under the role of 'saviour'.
Not that guy, but I'd wager most of them were bystanders rather than intentionally executed victims. It's goddamn shitty that they died, but it's not the same as gunning them down specifically.
>Their goal was in fact, to kill civilians.
As I understand it, it was mostly to destroy infrastructure used to sustain the Japanese military, it just so happened that civilians were usually present during such air raids. It's not the same as lining up civilians in front of a ditch and shooting them.
>See? You don't even know of the genocide of my country, it's not even on your radar.
You gave some fucking numbers and he took a shot in the dark.
>Why do the Jewish get all the special attention?
Largely the industrial manner in which their genocide was undertaken.
>As I understand it, it was mostly to destroy infrastructure used to sustain the Japanese military
They destroyed 70% of the urban area of Tokyo. About a million people lost their homes in Tokyo alone. No it's not the same thing, but the Americans knew what they were doing (not that guy btw.).
Where did you get that platitude from? Killing civilians as a deliberate strategy is so commonplace throughout the whole history of human warfare. It's overwhelmingly the rule and not the exception.
>So the deaths of my people are not as important?
No one said that and you bloody know it. You gave no reason to indicate that you were talking about the actions of the Khmer Rouge and then got upset because he guessed wrong.
>That is why the Japanese massacre of Nanking was okay too, because they would have contributed to the enemies output if they lived.
Again, different. Wilful execution is not the same as bystanders being killed via collateral damage. It's why we (at least we in the west, I don't know what they do in Cambodia, I'll admit) treat murder and manslaughter as separate crimes.
>Wilful execution is not the same as bystanders being killed via collateral damage.
You don't kill almost 1 million civilians trying to destroy factories.
'There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.' - Curtis LeMay
Because Jews control a good portion of the media and educational systems and tell us what narrative to believe. A good deal of them came here after Hitler exposed them and an even larger portion came after the fall of their most successful project ever, the Soviet Union.
also Khmer here.
For the record I can also say that I get the feeling that nobody outside of our ethnicity really gives a fuck about our genocide but that's probably just how everyone who isn't a European Jew feels.
I don't know what happened with your family but basically half of mine is dead. Just out of sheer curiosity for another Cambodian how did your family describe it to you, how much do you know of it?
I think he's making more of a "Genghis Khan piled up skulls for fun how is Hitler worse" argument. I mean when someone's acting imperialistic why dont we say "they're literally Genghis Khan" instead of calling everyone a moderately evil dictator? And no I'm not saying he dindu, though if you look at it through an unbiased lens a lot of his actions were in clear retaliation against enemies foreign and domestic. Other conquerors were pure sadists.
My father likes to complain about it, but he likes to complain about a lot of things, like why I'm not a rich doctor.
My mother says it wasn't that bad.
I know that the Vietnamese came in and got rid of him, and at the same time took some Cambodian land.
And now that Cambodia is almost a puppet state for Vietnam.
I see. Assuming you were the guy that started the holocaust quote chain I just thought it was interesting that you would be on the other side of the holocaust debate.
It's weird being Cambodian.
Because nobody gives a fuck about mongol atrocities anymore. It's too distant to have a real emotional impact. The Holocaust by contrast is still fresh in our minds, we have survivors, we even have some well crafted movies.
Give it 500 years and hitler will just be another historical tyrant.
Well WHAT THE FUCK COULD THEY HAVE DONE? Everyone tried was known to be in the regime and even before the trails they knew their fate was sealed. At least they went out with a sliver of honor by being honest about their crimes rather than putting their head in the sand and screaming that they were innocent
You mean the 'denial' side?
I'm obviously not the Jewish guy at the very start of the quote chain though.
It comes from how the Vietnamese profited off Pol Pot's genocide,
it is not hard for me to believe the Jewish/Soviets did the same thing with Hitler.
Fabricating things to profit even more, since the victor is the writer of history, after all.
Maybe in a logical, completly fair world, yeah, but the US were one of the winners of the war and wouldn't logically execute one of their best commanders after he helped them win a war. Even then, they raided for strategic reasons to help win the war (and yes, that in includes civilian attacks) and were not bombing them purely because "let's go kill gooks lmao"
It's because he did horrible things in war for reasons other than to win it. Nazi occupied areas, that had no industry working for the enemy, no army with a organized command structure, and with no reason be be attacked, were purged and killed and raped and plundered because of hate rather than trying to win. Its incomparable to anything else in history because it ripped through the line that separated soldiers and civilians. Even though people like Napoleon ended up having the same story and outcome as him, they aren't reviled because their warlike cruelty largely ended off the battlefield and any repression that was done in conquered areas was to further the war effort, like suppressing dissent or taking munitions, rather than to further an ideology
Depends on the size of the factories, the time of the raid, and how close said factories are to population centers ( in America we often have a portion of our city dedicated to such things, with many poor crammed into housing around them)
I guess you also have to consider what the factory is going to do. Will it leak poison gas? Explode, or cause a chemical inferno.
Remember smart bombs that hit exactly where we want them to are really fucking new.
Not saying we didn't bomb civvies intentionally, just arguing the point.
Ask a typical Westerner whose the worst person in history. They probably won't mention a lot of commies, doesn't fit the narrative so its not taught. Communism is good, it makes everyone equal!
>and were not bombing them purely because "let's go kill gooks lmao"
That was actually part of the reason though.
You do remember the propaganda posters depiction of the Japanese, right?
'According to Simon Harrison, all of the "trophy skulls" from the World War II era in the forensic record in the U.S., attributable to an ethnicity, are of Japanese origin; none come from Europe.'
'"to many Americans the Japanese adversary was no more than an animal, and abuse of his remains carried with it no moral stigma.'
>Communism is good, it makes everyone equal!
Ok, now you're talking out your ass. The standard narrative in the west about communism is that it was a totalitarian system that engaged in brutal, violent repression.
True, Hitler will overwhelmingly be the one they mention.
But that does not mean people *ignore* Commie atrocities.
In fact, one of the most go-to mentioned genocides by most people isn't just the Holocaust, it's also the Khmer Rouge genocide, which was perpetrated by Commies.
So try going outside and actually talk to be people, instead of thinking an average /pol/tard's worldview is how reality is.
Because the Jewish owned media wants to milk every scrap of sympathy they can because hitler killed one or two jews. basically its because the jews must jew and this lets them jew without us filthy goyim stopping them from jewing.
Jews will be Jews and commit the heinous crime of Jewery.
>When americans are awake
Holocaustfags confirmed for not checking facts.
We're still under the residual effects of the cold war so those atrocities come off as a self-inflicted wound of the big Soviet menace. In our subliminal arithmetic of horrors we chalked the Soviet deaths up to "stupid evil" rather than "threatening evil."
>They died because they were commies, see? Good honest freeworlders aren't dumb enough to fall for that nonsense!
So really what I mean to say is >>535853
Jews ran most news papers at the time, later most TV and internet news. They have a vested interest in making their 6 gorilion lolocaust deaths a bigger deal than the 30 million people Stalin murdered. The jews even have some shared interests with Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin, so Hitler has to be the bad guy if you read their propaganda.
Hitler's death count should include all of the life's lost during the second world war, considering unlike round 1 the Germans were the power soley responsible to starting a war of aggression, leading to the death of millions
Stalin, and arguably Mao may have been tyrants and caused millions of deaths in their home countries but neither had the global impact of Hitler's regime, and as far as internal policy goes, Pol Pot probably surpasses Hitler, though Hitler's genxoide probably does seem more abhorrent just due to how industrialised and efficient it's seen
Stalin and Mao killed more people and over a longer period of time.
Hitlers created an organized extinction of certain people that functioned like a modern factory. The holocaust was effective and industrialized, and that's one of the reasons Hitler is considered the worst of the worst.
It also doesn't help that he was one of the main perpetrators of the greatest war in human history. A war that, much like the holocaust, was done with inhuman efficency and without any care for the civilians on either side. People tend to forget this but the war, especially on the eastern front, was a war of extinction in a way that no other war had been before.
>If Armenians and Jews switched places, guess which genocide we'd never stop hearing about?
The reason is the death toll, not the people who died. The holocaust killed an estimated 6,000,000 Jews in Europe (maybe more, maybe less), while the Armenian genocide killed roughly 1,500,000 with one group clearly taking far more losses. Importantly too is the fact that far more primary sources of the holocaust exist, more personal accounts from the time allowing people to better sympathise with the situation and those who suffered, rather than just being given '5 bazillion died', similarly more survivors of the Holocaust actually exist due to the liberation of the camps in the final months of the war in Europe, allowing experiences to be explained. While most Armenian survivors today would have been children at the time of the Armenian genocide to be alive, and to be alive they wouldn't have been affected by the genocide, considering the Ottomans would deal with entire villages at a time before marching them into the Syrian desert to die. The Holocaust just appears more relatable to the average person today which is why it's used so often, being in the living memory of much of the older generation of society
Through I'll accept that the Jewish dominated median was a factor, not outside of the USA though, if you look at the largest papers in the UK post-WWII, none were owned by Jews, with three of the largest (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Express) taking highly pro-Hitler stances pre-1939, the Daily Mail and Mirror under Hitler's good friend Lord Rothmere, with the populist express always having been accused of anti-semitism
In international affairs there is often a strong spirit of for lack of a better term "Not in my backyard", like >>534912 said. The Christian world or Muslim world or Chinese world will find violence or brutality by an outsider to be much more intolerable and evil than self-imposed brutality even if said outside brutality is incredibly marginal compared to the cruelty done in house - the Muslims bemoan the crusades when Tamerlane killed some millions more, the christians bemoan the lost of constantinople when even by a contemporary greek who hated the Turks the death toll was less than the Sack of Magdeburg
Similarly Hitler represented the megalomania of a European Genghis Khan who desired not to be first among equals but to be the unilateral absolute power. Before Hitler was around it was Napoleon who was liable to get the anti-christ sticker for similar reasons. If your foreign policy involves invading and subjugating the Norwegians the Danish the Czechs the Slovaks the Poles the French the Belgians the Dutch and terror bombing the British and receiving the slavs who welcome you as a Messiah like a bunch of niggers in the colonies until circumstance forces you to accept them into your ranks, don't be surprised nobody likes you and looks fondly on you.
One doesn't even have to count the 6 gorillion to find Hitler abhorrent for his treatment of his European neighbors.
ITT: people confuse /his/ for /pol/
You already have a circle-jerk board. But if you really want the stay here, start alternative history threads.
As far as I know, there are two reasons:
1. Hitler was an active antagonist in a word war, and is seen as one of the main factor in starting it, stalin and mao weren't (but you're going to find just as many (if not more) americans that hate stalin an mao more just because they were communists)
2. Hitler killed out of a racial motivation, not to stabilize the state and remove opponent like Stalin or because of mismanaged economy and projects like Mao's "The great Leap forward" or the Cultural revolution.
Fair enough, there might have been conflicts could have been close to it in the brutality, however WWII outdid them in scale by a large margin.
I'm not that good on the crusades but they were over a long period of time and hade peace inbetwen them but from what i remember the first sacking of jerusalem was extremly brutal.
>if he disagrees with /pol/ he's automatically reddit
It's only fair to react that way when everything you disagree with is automatically /pol/
> twisted logic
Logic cannot be "twisted", it either is or isn't.
>hate of other "races".
Why do you put "race" in quotation marks? You're not one of those race deniers, are you?
All right, I'm falling for the bait.
>>if he disagrees with /pol/ he's automatically reddit
>It's only fair to react that way when everything you disagree with is automatically /pol/
Except that what you're saying is exactly the same as what /pol/ says.
>> twisted logic
>Logic cannot be "twisted", it either is or isn't.
It's a figure of speech. I don't see any logic, while you do.
>>hate of other "races".
>Why do you put "race" in quotation marks? You're not one of those race deniers, are you?
1. To annoy you, just like /pol/ annoys all of 4chan.
2. I do belive that races exist from a biological perspective (e.g. skin color), but not from a social perspective (i.e. just because he black he is a criminal and should be gassed to death). The biological factors are negligible, since skin color is irrelevant these days. So for me there is nothing to differentiate upon.
>Except that what you're saying is exactly the same as what /pol/ says.
/pol/ is not one person. By the way I didn't say anything since my first post ITT was the "hello reddit". I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
>It's a figure of speech. I don't see any logic, while you do.
This has more to do with your own mental deficiencies rather than logic.
>1. To annoy you, just like /pol/ annoys all of 4chan.
>2. I do belive that races exist from a biological perspective (e.g. skin color)
That's already a good sign
>but not from a social perspective (i.e. just because he black he is a criminal and should be gassed to death).
I don't believe anyone advocates for ethnic cleansing anymore.
>The biological factors are negligible,
That's wrong, they're quite substantial.
>since skin color is irrelevant these days.
Skin color is irrelevant, but average cognitive ability isn't.
>So for me there is nothing to differentiate upon.
There is indeed an essential variable to differentiate upon : IQ.
>>Except that what you're saying is exactly the same as what /pol/ says.
>/pol/ is not one person. By the way I didn't say anything since my first post ITT was the "hello reddit". I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
In that case I apologize, the phrase is commonly associated with /pol/, so I assume, you were from there. But on the other hand you assumed I was reddit, which is also wrong, they actually quite dislike me - so could you explain my hypocrisy?
>>It's a figure of speech. I don't see any logic, while you do.
>This has more to do with your own mental deficiencies rather than logic.
In that case I'm too mentally deviant to understand you point and why you are annoyed by a single expression.
>>but not from a social perspective (i.e. just because he black he is a criminal and should be gassed to death).
>I don't believe anyone advocates for ethnic cleansing anymore.
I'm criticising everything from ethnic cleansing to discrimination.
>>The biological factors are negligible,
>That's wrong, they're quite substantial.
>>since skin color is irrelevant these days.
>Skin color is irrelevant, but average cognitive ability isn't.
>>So for me there is nothing to differentiate upon.
>There is indeed an essential variable to differentiate upon : IQ.
I have never heard that race is responsible for the IQ, have there been any studies on the topic? Are the average social surroundings taking into consideration? Or cultural differences, like Asians putting more emphasis on education, than an average white family? These are all not biological or inherited, but could be possible factors for the phenomenon.
>You're not an IQ denier are you?
Yes. I'm not the guy you've been responding to, I just chimed in because IQ tests are scientifically regarded as meaningless and in short measure nothing except how good you are at IQ tests
t. msc in cognitive science
>In that case I apologize, the phrase is commonly associated with /pol/, so I assume, you were from there.
I do post on /pol/
>In that case I'm too mentally deviant to understand you point and why you are annoyed by a single expression.
I'm annoyed that you disregard facts which contradict your personal beliefs by calling them "twisted".
>I'm criticising everything from ethnic cleansing to discrimination.
Discrimination can make sense in certain cases. For instance, a discriminating immigration policy is a good thing.
>I have never heard that race is responsible for the IQ, have there been any studies on the topic?
Pretty much every study which attempted to measure racial differences in intelligence conducted over the past 100 years.
>Are the average social surroundings taking into consideration?
>Or cultural differences, like Asians putting more emphasis on education, than an average white family?
Yes. Such studies are often done on adopted children, to control for environmental and cultural factors.
>t. msc in cognitive science
Well if I were you I'd get a refund, because what you've said is blatantly wrong. IQ tests are scientifically regarded as perfectly valid in the academic community and are the most highly g-loaded tests which exist.
>There are races from a biological perspective,but biological factors are negligible,since skin color is the only factor and it is irrelevant so there are no races.
You do not read your posts before you hit that big red shitpost button,do you?
You're right, it's not really fair that the Holocaust is the only genocide that anyone seems to routinely care about.
However, that doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen. There really is a ton of evidence, there was a thread on here a few days ago that compiled a massive stockpile of proof, both witness testimony and hard, physical evidence. I'll see if I can find it.
>>In that case I'm too mentally deviant to understand you point and why you are annoyed by a single expression.
>I'm annoyed that you disregard facts which contradict your personal beliefs by calling them "twisted".
But there is definitive photographic evidence that the holocaust happened. It's universally accepted, but you are disregarding it, because it doesn't fit you world view.
>>I'm criticising everything from ethnic cleansing to discrimination.
>Discrimination can make sense in certain cases. For instance, a discriminating immigration policy is a good thing.
I might be misunderstanding you, but are you against immigration? Countries like the US are founded on Immigration, and they seem to have profited from it. You're ignoring all the long term benefits of immigration, and once again, selectively choosing to focus on what you want to believe.
But I do agree with pushing of criminals or individuals that endanger the public.
>>I have never heard that race is responsible for the IQ, have there been any studies on the topic?
>Pretty much every study which attempted to measure racial differences in intelligence conducted over the past 100 years.
>>Are the average social surroundings taking into consideration?
>>Or cultural differences, like Asians putting more emphasis on education, than an average white family?
>Yes. Such studies are often done on adopted children, to control for environmental and cultural factors.
Am I allowed to selectively disregard you sourceless argument or do I will we just go on listening to you're opinions and narrow minded experiences?
>msc in cognitive science
>IQ tests are meaningless
Did you graduate in fucking Afganistan? You do realize most of mathematics and by induction all of the other natural sciences rely heavily on pattern recognition,creative implementation and reconfiguration of data,finding errors and fallacies in "conventional" theories and that "10 000 hours and everybody can be a genius" is absurdly false? Google Gaussian curve and let that simple bitch blow your fucking mind away. Also, you might ask: "Gee Bill,why am I taught that the only sure way to succeed in life is to work hard?" Well, if you did not notice, capitalism and our modern society relies on one simple,but false, premise, that we are all equal. Guess what, fucking wrong. The game is rigged and you are not a blank slate ( every piece of scientifict and philosopical thinking since John Locke confirms this ) , but you are told that, since we all are the same, everybody has the same chance for success.
what about the Ethiopian genocide by Mengistu. He also forced migrations and failed to prepare for crop failure leading to famine or allow distribution of donated foodstuff. The famine and Red Terror killed nearly a million
>it's not really fair that the Holocaust is the only genocide that anyone seems to routinely care about.
Isn't though. assuming we are talking about a level of public discourse beyond retard-ter "well Hitler was a bad man and he lived somewhere over there"
>But there is definitive photographic evidence that the holocaust happened. It's universally accepted, but you are disregarding it, because it doesn't fit you world view.
The fuck are you talking about? Where did I ever mention the holocaust? Browsing /pol/ does not automatically make you a holocaust denier.
>I might be misunderstanding you, but are you against immigration?
>Countries like the US are founded on Immigration,
No, it was founded on conquest and colonization.
>and they seem to have profited from it
Depends which immigrant groups we're talking about.
>You're ignoring all the long term benefits of immigration
There are no long term benefits of immigration if the immigrants are inferior to the already existing citizens.
>Am I allowed to selectively disregard you sourceless argument or do I will we just go on listening to you're opinions and narrow minded experiences?
No, you're not allowed to disregard my "sourceless" opinions. They're not sourceless y'know, you can easily google it. But since you're forcing my hand...
Start with reading this wikipedia article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
>Calm down. I just said IQ tests are no longer accepted as a standalone measurement of intelligence, which they aren't, in academia.
But... they are.
What university did you go to? Was it located in Sweden?
>I just said IQ tests are no longer accepted as a standalone measurement of intelligence, which they aren't, in academia.
This is because academia has been infected by PC, not because IQ tests are useless or they have a better way of testing for a persons intelligence.
But what he's saying isn't even true.
IQ is widely accepted within the psychometrics academic community. Psychometrics is a subfield of psychology which deals with quantifying human behavioral characteristics (such as intelligence).
So when he says that "academia" doesn't accept the validity of IQ tests, I'm guessing he's referring to gender studies professors, because they sure as hell are accepted as valid by psychometricians.
You never said that and if you reread your post you will figure that out. Now, I see the root of your problem with this. The problem is that we redefined intelligence because it does not conform to our worldview. Now, I know that this may be futile,but I will try to explain this to you anyway. EVERYBODY can finish ANY college course, but you have people who finish them more "easily" than others, because they do not need to study as long as the average Joe because they recognize connections, spontaneously develop mnemonic techniques etc. Even though you have a lot of college graduates who go through the same courses, only a small fraction of them proceedes to make a significant impact in their fields, because of , wait for it, their IQs. Of course there is social intelligence, but the truth of the matter is that people do not want to be "discouraged" so it is easier to say "hurr durr iq doesnt matter hurr durr" because that Gaussian bitch blessed somebody with an abnormaly high capacity to find and implement patterns. Also, if you did not notice ,or read from my last post, patterns, structures and relationships between them are crucial in science and modern society and high IQ ensures you will find a connection or find a flaw in a complex pattern where most people will try to bruteforce the problem.
mfw if you really have msc in cognitive science
This may be true but recall James Watsons public shaming session for stating the simple fact that blacks have a lower IQ than whites and attempting to apply white policy to them will not work.
The general public and I am guessing most of academia does not support IQ being the quantifying means of a persons intelligence. If they did what he said would have been simple common fact. Instead it was considered a racist tirade worthy of scorn.
He was likely absolutely right.
>So most of you guys believe in the holocaust?
I don't believe there was mass scale industrialized mass murder as some anon her put it. I do believe Jews were persecuted and many of them died though, but I don't believe it should be singled out as the most important event in world history.
>The general public and I am guessing most of academia does not support IQ being the quantifying means of a persons intelligence.
Oh yes, I wholeheartidly agree.
It's pretty funny to read papers on psychometrics. It's well accepted in those reasearch papers that genetic differences in intelligence are real, and that group differences (read : race) in intelligence are also real.
There's a complete disconnect between what is "mainstream knowledge" and what is known by the expert. "mainstream knowledge" is still stuck in the 60s.
>Why is hitler regarded as the most evil dictator and the prime example of how bad humanity can get, when people in his own time period and before him were even worse?
We live in the society that tried to convince it's people to die for the sake of stopping Hitler. Post war it was mainly Jews playing it up for sympathy and free reign on their own atrocities.
Their likely all dead now but if you had a chance to talk to Germans who lived in Germany when Hitler came to power the picture they paint is very different. They viewed him as a savior of Germany, a great man who loved his country and his people.
>The fuck are you talking about? Where did I ever mention the holocaust? Browsing /pol/ does not automatically make you a holocaust denier.
And you seem to forget that I was originally referring to the deniers in this thread, and since you are fulfilling my expectation all the time, it was only fair to assume that you were one too.
>>Countries like the US are founded on Immigration,
>No, it was founded on conquest and colonization.
And all the people just magically appeared / are native Americans.
>Depends which immigrant groups we're talking about.
Yeah, when racism prevents people from contributing to society, it's perfect to excuse to say they're only bad.
>There are no long term benefits of immigration if the immigrants are inferior to the already existing citizens.
Contrary to my source. And how can people be inferior or superior? That's a horrible concept, and based on pure bias. You are overgeneralizing.
>No, you're not allowed to disregard my "sourceless" opinions. They're not sourceless y'know, you can easily google it. But since you're forcing my hand...
>Start with reading this wikipedia article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
I'm not really into being on watchlists for googling "Sources that prove that whites are better than all others". And until now, you didn't mention anything I could look for (in case you did I apologize for missing it).
Ok, now assuming this g-factor is real, which may very well be, how would you proceed with this information? What you you suggest to be done? How should this affect our lives? Should be allow people to suffer in civil war (caused by previous imperialist ambitions) just because they have a lower IQ? Why not help them, since they are people just as much as you and I am, to have a decent and fair life?
>loved his country and his people
yeah he sure helped germany out by sending millions of its young men to freeze or starve to death in russia, getting some of its greatest cities flattened by carpet bombing, and getting it divided and occupied for fifty years
bravo, hitler! a true patriot and a real human bean
you people are fucking deluded
and many more
And now that I finally have to opportunity, since you seem to be a racist, so could you clearly specify what races you hate and what not? And what, in your opinion, should all these "inferior" people do, and what should those do that don't oppose them as harshly as you do? What do you believe to be the reason for people standing up against racism, even though, you believe it's not in their interest? Why are Jews, even though they are allegedly smart enough to "control the media", still a inferior race. Have you always been right aligned, or has an event in you life pushed you there?
>And all the people just magically appeared / are native Americans.
What I meant is that the creation of America has absolutely nothing to do with modern immigration. To say that "America is a land of immigration" is a lie.
>Yeah, when racism prevents people from contributing to society, it's perfect to excuse to say they're only bad.
It's not racism which prevents people from contributing to society, it's their inferior intellectual capabilities. There's no racism in Haiti, since it's a homogenous black nation, but it's still horrendously shitty.
>Contrary to my source.
A single source based on macroeconomic anaysis does not refute anything. I could just as easily post a source about why immigration is bad.
>And how can people be inferior or superior?
By "superior" and "inferior" I mean in intellectual capabilities. Some people are tall, some people are short, likewise some people are smart, some people are dumb. On average blacks are taller than the japanese, and the japanese are smarter than blacks.
>That's a horrible concept,
It offends your sensibilities because you've been brainwashed from birth that anti-egalitarianism is literally Hitler. Stop being a fucking pussy.
>and based on pure bias.
It's based on peer-reviewed research...
>I'm not really into being on watchlists for googling "Sources that prove that whites are better than all others".
Jesus, I can't tell if you're being ironic or not. You fucking pussy. At least read the wiki article I linked to you.
>you people are fucking deluded
Perhaps the old woman who escaped from east Germany and lost most of her family in the war was deluded. In her old age that was still her take on Hitler.
I'm fairly certain she blamed the Jews for bringing the Americans into the war and causing Germany to lose the war but it was never said outright.
And you have blown your cover away cuck lord.
I'm not even him but this reply is fucking pathetic.
Why did you even bother to make yourself look like a fool by posting this as a reply to that? He has an argument, you have a picture of Louis.
>Ok, now assuming this g-factor is real, which may very well be, how would you proceed with this information? What you you suggest to be done?
I have many ideas off the top of my head :
-end all affirmative action
-allow giving IQ tests during job interviews
-only allow high IQ immigrants into the country
-implement tax breaks for high IQ people who have children to encourage high IQ couples to have children
-implement voluntary sterilization programs for low IQ people (they could get monetary compensation in exchange for sterilization. All voluntary of course)
>How should this affect our lives?
All in all it won't affect daily lives much. It will affect some aspects of public policy and that's pretty much it.
>Should be allow people to suffer in civil war (caused by previous imperialist ambitions) just because they have a lower IQ?
The fact that you immediately associate accepting IQ as a valid metric and "civil war" shows how fucking brainwashed you are. Your brain has been conditioned to exhibit a pavlovian response of "MUH NAZIS" whenever something contrary to marxist dogma is brought up. No, anon, it won't create a race war. Most people will be completely unaffected.
>Why not help them, since they are people just as much as you and I am, to have a decent and fair life?
I'm all for helping them. But I'm for helping them efficiently. For instance, it's moronic to try to make the average inner city kid go to college, because he lacks the intellectual capabilities to make good use of a college education. It would be more interesting to try to give opportunities to join an occupation more in line with his intellectual capabilities, a trade for instance.
Pretty much. They're hoping that when we'll discover "intelligence genes" the debate will break through in the open.
Shitpost deserves a shitpost response. I dare you to find that argument, I double dare you. If you count his "aaaaargh fuck fuck fuck I do not want this to be truee, this is making mee a saad pandaa" as an argument you two are on the same page.
I'll try to answer this post truthfully.
>And now that I finally have to opportunity, since you seem to be a racist, so could you clearly specify what races you hate and what not?
I don't hate any race. I treat everyone as an individual. There are perfectly fine, smart and upstanding blacks are there are stupid, criminal whites.
That being said... I cannot ignore statistical data. The fact is that blacks have a lower average IQ than whites and therefore blacks exhibit more anti-social behavior. That IQ difference is genetic in origin, not cultural. So while I don't hate individual blacks, I do consider them, as a group, to be inferior.
>And what, in your opinion, should all these "inferior" people do
Try to pursue happiness? I'm a libertarian, I believe in freedom. Blacks should do whatever they want to do.
>and what should those do that don't oppose them as harshly as you do?
I support a two state solution : a racist, bigoted conservative state (boo!) and a progressive, multicultural state (yay!). Then, depending on your ideology you can choose whichever state you want to live in.
Of course after a few decades one state will look a lot better than the other, and the leftist intellectuals of the progressive state will migrate to the conservative state and start whining there. Like pottery, it rhymes.
>What do you believe to be the reason for people standing up against racism, even though, you believe it's not in their interest?
Those people have been brainwashed by marxist egalitarian propaganda from the day they were born. I don't blame them. I blame the educational system.
>Why are Jews, even though they are allegedly smart enough to "control the media", still a inferior race.
They're not an inferior race, they're a parasitic race. Nuance.
The problem with jews is that they're a nepotistic bunch which puts their interests as G-d's chosen before the interests of their host nation. This is very much a problem considering the high degree of power jews wield. From this stems their historical reputation of "nation-wreckers".
>Have you always been right aligned, or has an event in you life pushed you there?
No, I was very much left aligned for a good part of my life. I met a guy in college who was pretty right wing, was intrigued, started reading about the subject and got "redpilled" I guess. I'd like to underline that both my parents are very liberal.
You seem to have a pure IQ oriented life, everything revolves around efficiency. This essential world view seems to be our differences, not brainwashing.
Ok, so you seem to be referring to american blacks, let's assume one one them is "not stupid". Should he be allowed to participate in society? If a black person had a higher IQ that you, would you totally accept him as a boss?
The civil war I was referring to it the one in Syria, or the one in Yugoslavia. There are people who don't want to be in a war lead by radical minorities, and have to go somewhere. These are the people I believe should be helped, and what would be even better would be to not even get them into those situations in the first place (Imperialism).
Another thing I would like to note is how we in some sense do have similar world views after all. The differences are mainly who is "brainwashed" about what.
>You seem to have a pure IQ oriented life, everything revolves around efficiency.
No, that's not the case. If it appears that I talk about a lot about IQ it's because we're talking about this subject right now. Obviously I don't advocate for the IQ of a person to be tattooed at birth on his forehead for identification.
>This essential world view seems to be our differences, not brainwashing.
Yes brainwashing because you are denying the validity of IQ. Likewise if you denied that the earth was spherical I would call you brainwashed.
>Ok, so you seem to be referring to american blacks, let's assume one one them is "not stupid".
Plenty of blacks are not stupid. It's just that they're a minority within the black community.
>Should he be allowed to participate in society?
Of course, everyone should be able to participate in society! I just told you I'm a libertarian!
>f a black person had a higher IQ that you, would you totally accept him as a boss?
>The civil war I was referring to it the one in Syria, or the one in Yugoslavia. [...] in the first place (Imperialism).
First of all, blaming "imperialism" as some sort of boogeyman for turmoil in the middle east is laughable and another symptom of your marxist brainwashing. (marxists sure like to use the word "imperialism")
Second of all, I agree that Syria must be helped. I believe that the middle east should be recolonized by western powers.
If your solution to this problem is massively displacing the german population and replacing them with a foreign population with a low IQ and an absolutely horrible culture, I believe that is a recipe for disaster.
Here's a blog by black guy if you're interested in questions such as race and IQ : https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/
It's my humanist side I guess? I don't like seeing middle easterners unnecessarily suffer. Giving them self-rule was a huge mistake.
Plus it makes sense from a pragmatic point of view. Resolving middle eastern turmoil will halt massive immigration to Europe, which is a good thing.
If you think forcibly subjugating the Middle East under foreign control will resolve regional conflict you know absolutely nothing about the Middle East.
I literally can't think of anything that would help the region less. It would make 2007 look like the Anglo-Zanzibar War
>If you think forcibly subjugating the Middle East under foreign control will resolve regional conflict you know absolutely nothing about the Middle East.
Care to give your reasons why?
The times when the middle east was the most stable was when it was unified under the control of a vast empire. The Ottomans, for instance. Or the Caliphate.
I think you're blinded by marxism.
I'm not a Marxist, never was, never will be, have never had anything but disdain for Marx, Marxism, and Marxists.
>The times when the middle east was the most stable was when it was unified under the control of a vast empire. The Ottomans, for instance.
Causation =/= correlation. There were many instances when the Middle East was definitively not stable whilst unified and under the control of a large empire - most of the early caliphates fell apart due to internal conflict.
I agree with your point about the Ottomans, but unification is less important than Ottoman governing practices, namely the millet system and their policy of benign neglect.
It's those kind of more organic or native systems of governance that we should look to rather than continuing to sponsor the artificial nation-state experiment which has totally fucking failed.
The Middle East would certainly be better off as decentralised small states which heavily devolve governance to their constituent communities rather than unified as a blob under an utterly foreign power
Spot the newfag from reddit, you don't put two of those in there.
I am using clover, and didn't notice I was quoting myself too.
Why do you believe that people can only be blinded by Marxism, and not libertarianism or other ideologies? Where is this Marxist propaganda, all I see is libertarian/capitalist.
The media always perpetuates free marketplaces and money as a prime object, but never do I see workers uniting or intellectual objectives being praised.
Most people I know oppose Marxism, or anything that has to do with it, because they want money, not peace.
The biggest mistake was implementing the flawed western concept of nation states, where such a concept never existed before.
You say imperialism is a buzzword, but also that the middle east must be "re"-colonized by the west and are the libertarian. And I'm the hypocrite.
>And all the people just magically appeared / are native Americans.
Conquest and colonization means people came in, conquered the locals, and colonized their lands. They didn't immigrate into an existing society.
>Yeah, when racism prevents people from contributing to society, it's perfect to excuse to say they're only bad.
This makes no sense, zero. Those words in that order don't convey anything sensible.
>Contrary to my source. And how can people be inferior or superior? That's a horrible concept, and based on pure bias. You are overgeneralizing.
People can easily be inferior to others, even with the same ethnic group all people are not equal. Doctors are more valuable to a society than uneducated labor, which is why countries immigration laws generally prefer highly skilled people.
>I'm not really into being on watchlists for googling
>implying being on 4 chan doesn't already put you on all those lists
>implying you were going to read something contrary to your unfounded beliefs.
It's not hard. He's an idiot, just rip him to shreds until he posts cuck memes out of failure.
The reason why Hitler is considered worse than Stalin or Mao is that Hitler was stopped. Had he have been able to complete his goals there would be man more deaths. Mao and Stalin died natural deaths, and while they killed man people the didn't target a large race of people for extinction. Also allied propaganda from WWII made Hitler a much more recognizable figure.
Let's add to this that he opposed the current way of thinking. He almost conquered the whole east europe and was about to get the british isles.
When you're the first face of opposition, and you do shitkilling of jews, communists, you'll be perceived as the greatest thread.
The other reason is that Hitler was given so, so many more chances than Stalin and Mao, and both Stalin and Mao called it quits before things turned into a giant shitfuck.
Imagine if in 1947 we let Stalin have Berlin, because that's reasonable. And then unify Germany, OK. And then he also seized and Annexed Norway without even asking. And then, only then, did we say "OK Stalin, you have your buffer against an Invasion, no more."
And THEN Stalin Invade France.
Oh, and in the course of fighting the giant, World War that he alone is responsible for, yeah, he also took part in the industrialized murder of entire peoples.
Hitler was given every chance, and given way more leeway by the governments of the world than Stalin and Mao.
Shit, Stalin alone gave Hitler more leeway than Mao.
Hitler plunged the world into war because he was that fucking Evil.
>the didn't target a large race of people for extinction
Stalin targeted the Ukrainians via the Holodomor. Also even if Hitler had killed every Jew in Europe he would not have come close to Mao's 78 million deaths.
>Stalin targeted the Ukrainians via the Holodomor.
>Famine in literally all of southern Russia
>It also affects Ukraine
>Soviet government ends the famine by providing relief once they get their shit together and stop acting like perpetually inept retards
What kind of country is so inept at genocide they also kill a ton of unrelated people and then VOLUNTARILY end the genocide? Most genocides end with the complete extermination of the targeted people or the collapse of the government carrying it out.
According to the world almanac and the Red Cross the total jews dead was less then 300000 and most of the deaths can be attributed to typhus and starvation mostly caused by allied bombing and the chronic fuel shortage the Germans had. If they had no fuel for their army how could they possibly torch 12 million people 24/7.
The pictures probably in my opinion came from those starving camps or possibly Russians trying to frame the Germans as the Russians had on several occasions committed atrocities in the name of Germany. Also all the Gas Chambers were in postwar Soviet territory which could mean the Soviets just constructed them as a lie to have permanent diplomatic leverage over Germany.
The Germans signed an unconditional surrender which meant the Allies could do whatever they wanted, plus the entire contintent was destroyed which gave them an advantage in spreading their lie.
>Mao killed 40 million Chinese
It's probably already been said, but this was not intentional. Mao was just a massive retard.
Stalin's killcount is also massively inflated by people counting dead soldiers and civilians in WW2, but he was a genocidal prick as well.
After ww1 Poland received large amounts of German land containing Germans. Before the war they started to abuse them and Germany invaded to both stop the atrocities and to reclaim it's land
I'll give it a stab:
After WWII there were 2 superpowers left who got to write the history. us hated hitler cause of U boat attacks as well as London bombings. Society hated hitter cause he betrayed their agreement and invaded. It helped that nazi ideology was fanatical and the industrialized slaughter of innocents was made to order for propaganda.
US painted both hitler and Stalin as evil
Russia painted hitler as evil Stalin as good. Both superpowers painting a dictator as evil with no one defending him allowed history to be written as such. Meanwhile Stalin was being defended by at least one superpower.
because the holocaust is the most advertised genocide in history.
I have circassian ancestors. Even I did not about the circassian genocide in the 1860ies until I was 24, but I learned all about WW2 in school, visited the concentration camp Mauthausen several times and payed reparations to jews with my taxes even though my family was never involved in ww2. while still nobody gives a shit about what happened to my ancestors.
I would say the holocaust was the main defining reason why he is looked as the worst dictator that and he started the worst war the worlds ever seen.
Stain was worse but he was an ally in WW2 so I thinks thats why the give pass for him.
China was brutalized my Japan, and Mussolini didn't start WW2 and kept it in their country.
invading Poland was the direct result of them declaring war though, if they didn't then WW2 wouldn't of happened so it techinally was France and Britian's delclaration of war that started WW2
All of the previous listed reasons are all valid reasons. Another reason is that communism was never really discredited as a genocidal political force like National Socialism was. There were no Nuremberg Trials for Stalin, Lenin, Mao, or Trotsky.
And the reason that never happened is because the American Government wouldn't allow it to happen. George Bush Sr. begged Boris Yeltsin not to put Communism on trial after the fall of the Soviet Union. Why? Because it would have exposed American complicity with it. The extreme penetration of the American Government from 1933-1945 by Soviet agents influenced America into assisting the Soviets in their atrocities. Operation Snow. Operation Keelhaul. Hiss at Yalta. The China Hands. Stalin and Mao didn't conquer anything. It was all given to them by their agents.
It would have exposed the lie of the Cold War. There was no Cold War before Reagan showed up. Just a series of limited and reactionary measures at best, and appeasement and accommodation to unrestrained Soviet imperialism at worst. Even during Republican administrations, liberals controlled the Cold War culture. And they had no interest in wanting to defeat Communism. Contain? Sure. Defeat? Never. I mean, why would you want to destroy something you liked at one point, and think you can salvage in the future.
>movies like Schindlers List
you know Oskar Schindler was a real person, and the events of that movie were based on his life and reports from survivors and others alive at that time? the novel they made the script from was written by an australian novelist after he met one of Schinderl's Jews, Poldek Pfefferberg
yeah it's a movie, but it's based on real shit that happened. you asshole.
why did it take so many years after WWII for there to be a movie anything like it if Jews run everything and control the media?
His reign happened less than a hundred years ago.
Many people are still alive from that era, and many who experienced war and the concentration camps.
Western media is much stronger than the eastern one, hence his popularity over Stalin.
It's an argument brought up by people who barely know history and just spout whatever the latest documentary said.
It appears /pol/ is leaking.
It's not even about the 6 million Jews. It's about the harsh reality check that the West had seeing the Industrial Revolution turned into a murder machine.
Nobody really argues that the Jews were all gassed: most of them died by deliberate Nazi negligence which led to disease and famine.
Because it happened in Europe by white people to white people.
If you tried to explain to a Congolese peasant in the forties why the Nazi's were the worst of the Europeans, they'd just laugh.
West see's what it likes to see. Nobody gave a fuck when Soviets invaded Poland, raped, pillaged and then carved up eastern europe by installed oppressive governments all over the fucking place by force. Its ok to romanticize red army but try to mention Hitler in positive light and you will get bad looks.
>t. butthurt ex commie republic