Saturday, August 21, 2021
Thursday, August 19, 2021
"More Pressing Issues" Than Afghanistan? Left Unsaid About the Chaotic Debacle in Kabul Is that the Democrats Need Their Generals to Focus More on "Domestic Insurrectionists," aka Red-Blooded Americans, Than on Islamists and Communists, Foreign or Domestic
After 20 years of military presence and war in Afghanistan, reports the Wall Street Journal (thanks to Instapundit), "Biden Wanted to Leave … He Knew the Risks. Generals and diplomats warned about a pullout, but the president told his team the U.S. was simply providing life support for the Kabul government while neglecting more pressing issues."
Joe Biden — Ken Thomas and Vivian Salama explain in more detail —
was committed to ending the U.S. military role in the country. The president told his policy advisers the U.S. was providing life support for the Afghan government, which, in his view, was corrupt and had squandered billions of dollars in American assistance, according to current and former administration officials. He wanted to reorient American foreign policy onto what he sees as more pressing international matters, including competition with China, and domestic issues including infrastructure and battling Covid. “I am deeply saddened by the facts we now face, but I do not regret my decision,” he said Monday.
What is missing here? What Biden wants, the WSJ reports, is "to reorient American foreign policy onto what he sees as more pressing international matters, including competition with China, and domestic issues including infrastructure and battling Covid."
It seems to me that the main issue missing here regarding "the more pressing international matters" and the more pressing "domestic issues" is that there is a point where the two converge. That is, the members of the Biden administration, like the drama queens in all Democrat administrations, knows that the true enemies of America, of the planet, and of all mankind are not the Taliban, the Islamists, the Chinese, the Russians, the Soviets, the communists, etc, etc, etc…
The top pressing issue is to turn the United States government and the United States military against those whom all leftists, both in America and abroad, know are America's, are humanity's, true enemy — the Republicans, i.e, the American people who still believe in the country, in the flag, and in the Constitution. Also known as fascists, as Nazis, as Adolf Hitlers, and — to this administration — as "insurrectionists" and as "domestic terrorists."
Those include rewriting elections laws so that the good and competent people (such as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris), deserving dreamers all, will remain in power forever, and using all the force necessary to change hearts and minds or at least keep the despicable deplorables in line — such as keeping the January 6 rioters (aka the mutineers?) jailed in isolation forever…
The memes and jokes that the joint chiefs of staff, along with the rest of the Democrats, are more concerned with Critical Race Theory, Karl Marx, and white supremacy turn out, unfortunately, to be very serious: that is precisely where they see the true enemy, aye, the only enemy… (Thanks to Instapundit…)
Update: In the Biden White House's "overarching focus on the domestic matters [that] it has prioritized for the last eight months" (Los Angeles Times), the Instapundit blog just reminded us of Jonah Goldberg's take on the Democrats' “the moral equivalent of war”. As Ed Driscoll puts it:
Not surprisingly, the party whose organizing method is “the moral equivalent of war” views American politics as the continuation of warfare by other means, to flip von Clausewitz’s axiom on its head. And as the last week has illustrated, they’re far more focused on fighting against the American people, rather than Middle Eastern terrorists.
“In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because ‘we kept the gloves on’, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas. You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns?”
From Larry Correia's comments page:
“How does that saying go? ‘If you want to know who your rulers fear, look at who they threaten to nuke?’ It’s quite obvious that ruling class America hates and fears the American people much more than they hate and fear any foreign power on Earth.”
In our new compassionate, tolerant, be-nice-to-everybody world where hatred and stereotypes are taboo, there is in fact one type of person throughout the five continents whom it is not only acceptable to ridicule, castigate, demonize and, yes… hate, it is in fact almost mandatory to do so. And that is: a leader or member of America's Republican party. And no, that it is not something that is recent (or the fault of Donald Trump or George W Bush…)
As an 1860 presidential contender, Abraham Lincoln, put it more than 160 years ago, as he tried to address Southerners and members of the Democrat Party only five or six years after the birth of the Republican Party,
You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people … Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans]. In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all.
Update 2: 2020s Democrats prove 1860s Republican right — Biden ally claims Trump greater 'threat' to US than al Qaeda by Fox News' Cameron Cawthorne:
A Democratic insider and vocal ally of the Biden administration claimed last week that former President Trump and "Trumpist extremists" are a bigger threat to the United States than the Taliban and all the al Qaeda fighters combined.
David Rothkopf, who is frequently retweeted by White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, tweeted, "The Taliban, all of them together, plus every Al Qaeda fighter in the world, do not pose the threat to the United States that Trump or Trumpist extremists do. Let's maintain our perspective."
… His columns also attacked Republicans, including one earlier this year that said the Republican Party is the "party of thugs, terrorists, racists and dopes."
… In an email to Fox News on Wednesday, Rothkopf … doubled down on his tweet and claimed they do not "pose an existential threat to the United States or our way of life" like Trump and his supporters do.
"Trump and his supporters have, with support of one America's most dangerous enemies, actively sought to undermine democracy in America. The coup attempt on January 6th and the propagation of the Big Lie are an example of this," he said. "Their efforts to suppress the vote are an example of this. Trump's active obstruction of justice is an example of this. Should they succeed, democracy in America will be gutted, our way of life end, our values undermined and our standing in the world destroyed. They may yet succeed. As a consequence the threat they pose is far greater to the United States as a whole."
Update 3: Joe Biden Threatens to Fight Texas Harder Than He Ever Fought the Taliban, remarks Bryan Preston, leading Stephen Green to comment, laconically, HE HAS PICKED HIS ENEMIES and Ed Driscoll to quip that
To be fair, that’s what Obama-era retreads simply do out of reflex:
‘Where the Obama Administration Sees War, and Where It Doesn’t.’
While Bruce Carroll shakes his head at Biden "showing more anger toward unvaccinated Americans than toward Taliban terrorists who still hold hundreds of Americans hostage" — indeed, JD Vance protests that "Biden is talking about millions of American citizens like they're vermin" — Glenn Reynolds points out that
Democrats always hate Americans who won’t bend the knee more than foreigners who want Americans dead.
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
A Century and Half of Apartheid Policies: From Its 1828 Foundation, the Democrat Party Has Never Shed Its Racist Past
Once again, Democrats, liberals, and other drama queens are going berserk as they proclaim how "racist" a particular Republican is, or all Republicans are. That is rich, quips American Thinker's Deborah Bucknam (thanks to Instapundit), given that
the Democrat party is the oldest and most enduring racist political party in history, and its racism continues to this day. Here are the facts:
The Democrat Party was founded in 1828. Its first national party platform, ratified during the 1840 Presidential election, stated:“ that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people… and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.”
The message was clear: the Democrat Party did not consider Black Americans to be “people” deserving of “happiness.”
That same language was in every national Democrat party platform for the next 16 years.
Democrat party leaders acted on their racist principles, committing high treason against their country and their fellow Americans between 1861-1865 in order to preserve the system of Black human bondage.
In 1868, the Democrat Party platform urged amnesty for the traitors who, during the Civil War, killed hundreds of thousands of Americans for the purpose of preserving slavery. The platform also called for “the abolition of the Freedmen's Bureau; and all political instrumentalities designed to secure negro supremacy”:
In 1904, seventy-six years after its founding, the Democrat party’s platform complained about the Republican platform:
“The race question has brought countless woes to this country. The calm wisdom of the American people should see to it that it brings no more. To revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed. We therefore deprecate and condemn the Bourbon-like selfish, and narrow spirit of the recent Republican Convention at Chicago which sought to kindle anew the embers of racial and sectional strife, and we appeal from it to the sober common sense and patriotic spirit of the American people.”
The Republican party’s “hateful” rhetoric in their party platform that the Democrats condemned? Here it is:
“We demand equal justice for all men, without regard to race or color; we declare once more, and without reservation, for the enforcement in letter and spirit of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution which were designed for the protection and advancement of the negro, and we condemn all devices that have for their real aim his disfranchisement for reasons of color alone, as unfair, un-American and repugnant to the Supreme law of the land.”
Throughout most of the 20th century, Democrats condoned or excused policies of apartheid and disenfranchisement of Black Americans. Senate Democrats successfully filibustered a Republican led anti-lynching bill in 1934, and a Republican-led effort to ban the poll tax in 1940. At the time, the poll tax was so effective in the American South that only 3% of Black Americans were registered to vote there. Elected Democrats fought tooth and nail against anti-racist legislation, filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and engaging in so-called “massive resistance” against school integration into the early 1970s. A century and half of racist policies vigorously supported by Democrat party leaders -- no other political party in history comes close.[Vermont Democrat Party chair Bruce] Olsson’s commentary included the perennial claim that Republican President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” -- an effort to bring two-party rule to the South in the 1960s -- was racist. I lived in Tidewater Virginia in the late 1960s. Coming from New England, I was shocked at the abject poverty of Black American families and the rigid segregation of virtually all institutions there, despite the heavy federal military presence. The South was truly, as one historian put it, a third-world country in a first-world nation. Since the successful Republican Southern strategy, the South is no longer a third-world country, but a first-world economic powerhouse. And today, the South is more integrated than the northern cities run by Democrat machines. Some “racist” strategy.
The Democrat party has never shed its racist past. Today the party fights vigorously against school choice and voter ID laws, both overwhelmingly supported by minority communities. Its leaders support abandoning crime-ridden Black communities by its “defund the police” movement. It zealously supports expensive and unreliable “renewable” energy which hurts the poor and minorities, and its environmental land use policies are the equivalent of yesterday’s restrictive covenants that redlined minorities. The Democrats’ latest racist push is critical race theory, which denigrates the courage, sacrifice and enormous achievements of Black Americans, while pushing for resegregation through so-called “affinity groups.” As they say, a tiger doesn’t change its stripes.
It’s time for a racial reckoning. Democrats insist on apologies and accountability from the rest of us. Democrats must take their own advice and own up to their own endemic racism. Then perhaps real racial healing can take place.
Did you know that in the 1850s, members of the Democrat party were referred to regularly as fire eaters or as locofocos? It kind of sounds like my calling them drama queens, with BDS and TDS being replaced by LDS (Lincoln Derangement Syndrome), does it not?
Related: • What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It
Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something
Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House?
• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder? (Wait 'til You Hear About… Georgia's Dark Secret)
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"
• The Greatest Myth in U.S. History: Yes, the Civil War Era Did Feature Champions of States' Rights, But No, They Were Not in the South (Au Contraire)
• Harry Jaffa on the Civil War Era: For Democrats of the 21st Century as of the 19th, "the emancipation from morality was/is itself seen as moral progress"
• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Why They Don't Tell You the Whole Truth: The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence
Monday, August 16, 2021
Before we get to the controversy surrounding the Yellow Star badge — examining various pertinent facts of World War II with the help of one of our generation's greatest historians in the process (in the second third and in the third third of this post, below Renaissance painting) — let us set the stage somewhat: Glenn Reynolds reproduces two memes in the New York Post from mask bullies that Ann Althouse saw on Facebook.
One read: “It took ‘click it or ticket’ to get people to wear a seatbelt. I wonder if ‘mask it or casket’ might work.” The other said: “It’s a face mask, not a Star of David or pink triangle, you whiny, privileged dolt. You’re not being shoved into a cattle car and taken to camp. You’re going to Walmart for twinkies and Diet Coke. Grow up.”
They’re both poor efforts at persuasion, of course: Generally, calling people names, threatening them and saying they’re stupid are ineffective ways of winning them over.
… Maybe the mask fanatics are just poor persuaders. But it seems just as likely that they are engaging in poor persuasion because they aren’t trying to persuade.
As with so much that goes on in today’s society, and especially on social media, this sort of thing isn’t aimed at convincing those who disagree, but rather at garnering high-fives from people who agree and, ultimately, creating an ideological veneer for unquestioned elite rule.
"I don't want to villainize anyone here," (re)assures Arnold Schwarzenegger — right after calling any mask-averse person "a schmuck" in addition to spitting out "screw your freedom" (if that ain't the height of gaslighting, I don't know what is) — "but I just wanted to tell everyone, let's work together and let's stop fighting."Austrian loudmouth" wants it both ways, effectively saying, both as a threatening bully and as a gentle father figure, Shut up, ye despicable deplorables, and show pride as ye join the growing army of valiant fellow travelers (or, if you prefer, as ye join behind our intrepid leftist leaders in yet another “moral equivalent of war” or as ye join our archbishops in their latest holy crusade).
Here is one of the memes that I chanced upon, with the final word doubling as a sexual (homophobic?) command to stuff your face and effectively "Shut up":
"lol Imagine having the eligibility and access to get the vaccine and saying nahhhhh" writes one Philip DeFranco with a couple of smileys. "Also to the pearl clutchers offended by this tweet yes I am calling you stupid and you can go fuck yourself you ignorant selfish fuckface."
Leftists can't debate; those drama queens are so full of scorn and… hatred (yes, correct, they are the true haters — with Caroline Glick explaining why below) for the despicable deplorables that they can only insult and demand we shut up. (Danke Schön for the link, Ed Driscoll.)
"The illogical structure of “Click it or Ticket” bugs me every time I see it," JPS tells Althouse:
Setting aside the parallel illogic, “Mask it or casket” would be self-discrediting. “Wear your seatbelt or you’ll get a ticket” only works as a threat if you then have a fairly high chance of getting a ticket if you don’t. “Wear your mask or you’re going to die,” for a malady with a case fatality rate under 2%, tells people who aren’t already on their side, Yes. You people are panic-mongers.
Lloyd W. Robertson adds that
Something has changed in the way people are accepting conformity that is enforced in one way or another. A mask mandate: if the evidence is in dispute, we are asked to believe the onus is on citizens to prove the inconvenience is comparable to being shipped to a concentration camp and perhaps killed. Isn't the onus on public officials and their alleged experts to prove there is some good goddam reason to do all this? Isn't liberty precious, even during a pandemic?
The overlying problem with the drama queens' attitude is that not only is the dire seriousness of the Coronavirus not proven, everything points in fact toward it being no worse than the pandemics of 2009 and 2002 (not to mention the 1968, the 1957, and the 1889 outbreaks), or even a common flu season. (The comparison with getting "people to wear a seatbelt" is therefore immaterial and beside the point, as is Arnold Schwarzenegger's parallel with deliberately driving through a red light…)
In view of the fact that during those other pandemics, not to mention during the annual flus,
• the authorities did not force (or even simply ask) the population to wear unhygienic, oxygen-blocking face coverings;
• did not try to destroy the economies of the Western world (with bankruptcies running into the tens of thousands);
• and did not try to implement a freedom-destroying vaccination passport,
some of us are somewhat skeptical as to why any one of those should be necessary this time around…
Related: Here Is the Key Question Regarding the Coronavirus
• And here are the 7 Basic Points about Covid-19 that You Need to Know
And from the March 2020 and April 2020 archives:
• Is There 100% Irrefutable Proof that the Covid19 Pandemic Is Overstated?
• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619
Now let us examine the central point of this post: to what extent, if at all, is it inappropriate to use the Yellow Star badge as a comparison for the vaccine pass?
Calling the comparison nothing less than odious, Chuck has assembled a list of nefarious villains ("schmuck" and "whiny, privileged dolt" are far too gentle for this this liberal; "ignorant selfish fuckface" is more like it — Chuck is seething with hatred for those dastardly despicable deplorables):
The "Star of David" reference is purely reactive in the context of the vaccine debate. The list of Trumpublicans who began this odious chapter in the saga of the COVID vaccine have made specific references to the Jews' holocaust-era forced wearing of the Star of David is almost too long for a single comment. But...
A GOP state representative in Washington actually wore a yellow star:
Congressional maniac Marjorie Taylor Greene did it back in May:
The Chairman of the Oklahoma GOP engaged in the comparison:
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) made a more general holocaust comparison. Check out this delightful takedown from The Bulwark:
There are many, many more links. But you get the idea.
But let us examine the question: in this particular case, might the leftists have a point?
But it turns out that the true question is actually this: is it even a correct assessment to state that (clueless) conservatives using the Star of David image cannot see the difference between those wanting to (cough) protect us from China's Wuhan virus and the instigators of the Holocaust?
Leave aside, for the moment, the — entirely legitimate — point that the drama queens outraged by the Jewish badge (besides putting on regular displays of antisemitism) have themselves been — invariably — comparing everything and everybody to Hitler and to National Socialists for years, nay, for decades.
They invent the so-called Godwin's Law (click here to see Mike Godwin in person reacting — haughtily and dismissively (i.e., in a typical liberal fashion) — to our blog's pointing out his Law's greatest flaw, i.e., its double standard; see Update 3); and then the drama queens segue into comparing everybody and everything to Adolf and to Nazis and to fascists, from presidential candidates to their wives through the rest of the conservative population…
Like Antifa and BLM seething with rage at despicable deplorables, and doing all in their power to make them second-class citizens and rain violence upon their heads, the leftists do not realize that if we are seeing seeing echoes of Hitler's Germany, Nazism, and fascism, it is clearly on one side only: that of Antifa, BLM, and like-minded liberals.
Listen to Caroline Glick's insight:
… the Democrats have repeatedly projected all of their prejudices, malicious actions and plans onto Trump and the Republicans
… What is clear … is that if you want to understand who the Democrats are and what they are doing, all you need to do is look at what they are accusing Trump and his colleagues of being and of doing.
Chuck derides the comparison of the vaccine passport with the "Jews' holocaust-era forced wearing of the Star of David" while the meme quoted by Ann Althouse said "You’re not being shoved into a cattle car and taken to camp."
What is the truth?
The truth is that the Yellow Star and the Holocaust, although (obviously) related, are not exactly the same thing.
The Holocaust did not start until after the eruption of war, and only (so to speak) two years and almost six months after it broke out, to wit only after the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, although in Soviet occupied territory, it started as early as August 1941 (albeit by bullets, not by gas).
That was three years and six months after the Yellow Star was introduced, at the end of the 1930s, as a means of a means to publicly identify, humiliate, and isolate despicable and deplorable elements of the population. But no one imagined at the time — including the top leaders of the Third Reich (as we shall see)! — what horrors it could, or would, lead to.
Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels was the first to suggest a "general distinguishing mark" for German Jews in a memorandum in May 1938.
The yellow star led to the second-class citizens' removal from public life but it — and the accompanying ostracizing, scorn, and hatred (along with their easy identification) — did not have to lead to their internment in concentration camps, although it eventually did.
The demonization and internment of the second-class citizens did not have to lead to, second, the horrors of the Shoah, but it eventually did.
In any case, the whole point of the Star of David badge imagery is not the Holocaust; it is that it is the start of a slippery slope…
However, at the outset of the Yellow Star policy, few people had imagined the Final Solution. As Antony Beevor states below, they include the Third Reich's top leaders, not excluding, as incredible as it may sound, the fiends who would eventually meet at Wannsee…
Indeed, leftists: Any Jew, or any other person, for that matter, including pro-Nazis, who would have predicted in the late 1930s, that the Yellow Star would lead to the Shoah would have been as ridiculed and vilified as American conservatives are being in the 2020s, as mad, as outrageous, and as insulting to the (Third Reich) government.
Moreover: Had any Americans of the 1930s charged that the Weimar Republic was curtailing freedom by simply registering firearms (not even banning them), might they not have been mocked and vilified as well? And yet the policies of their Democratic predecessors allowed the National Socialists, once in power and that only years later, to confiscate the weapons, from Jews and non-Jews alike.
What we have, here, is from the good ol' Democratic playing book (aka the handbook of Saul Alinsky?): Just like leftists charge that despicable Republicans are against immigration — when conservatives are only against illegal
immigration — they charge that republicans are "anti-vaxers" (sometimes
they add "flat earth" anti-vaxxers to hammer the alleged anti-science
point home) when conservatives are only against forced vaccination. And the leftists pretend that conservatives are using the Holocaust as a comparison when they are only using the instigating Yellow Star as one.
Until September 1939, the Nazis had hoped to force German, Austrian and Czech Jews to emigrate through maltreatment, humiliation and the expropriation of their property. Once war began, that became increasingly difficult. And the conquest of Poland brought a further 1.7 million Jews under their jurisdiction.
In May 1940 during the invasion of France, Himmler had written a paper for Hitler entitled "Some Thoughts on the Treatment of Alien Populations in the East." … [Regarding] the Jews, he wrote: "I hope completely to erase the concept of Jews through the possibility of a great emigration to a colony in Africa or elsewhere." At that stage, Himmler considered genocide — "the Bolshevik method of physical extermination" — to be "un-German and impossible."
Himmler's idea of shipping European Jews abroad focused on the French island of Madagascar. (Adolf Eichmann, still a junior functionary, was thinking of Palestine, a British mandate.) … The problem was that, even if Vichy France agreed, the 'Madagaskar Projekt' would not work in the face of British naval superiority. Yet the idea of deporting Jews to a reservation somewhere still remained the preferred option.
So: let us review some core points here:
• At its outset, the Yellow Star was passably benign, relatively speaking, brought about to humiliate the despised second-class citizenry, and was meant to lead to their banishment from public life and eventually to their emigration out of the homeland
• At the time, as improbable as it may sound, the Final Solution had not been thought of, not even in the minds of the worst Nazis (such as Himmler and Eichmann)
• As an aside, even the fascists initially considered genocide as an exclusive communist way of operating (how many socialist-loving kids are taught about this communist trait in school?)
So, as it turns out, the Yellow Star debate (or outrage) fits just about as beautifully as any other "controversial" subject into Larry Correia's summary of the matter (via Instapundit):
There were essentially two parts to the Holocaust — what Vasily Grossman later called "the Shoah by bullets" and "the Shoah by gas" — and the process which eventually led to the industrialized murder of the death camps was uneven, to say the least.
… The "Shoah by bullets" is usually remembered by the activities of the 3,000 men in the SS Einsatzgruppen. As a result, the massacres carried out by the 11,000 men in twenty-one battalions of Ordnungspolizei, acting as a second wave well to the rear of the advancing armies, have often been overlooked.
… there seems to have been no official indication at this stage of encouraging the murder of Jewish women and children.
The killing of Jewish males began as soon as the German armies crossed the Soviet frontier on 22 June . Many of the early massacres were carried out by Lithuanian and Ukrainian anti-semites, as [Reinhard] Heydrich had predicted. … the process became self-escalating. The original targets of "Jews in party and state positions" immediately expanded to include all male Jews of military age, then to all males regardless of age.
… The "Shoah by gas" also had a haphazard development. … As several historians have emphasized, the Nazis' [earlier] euthanasia program provided not just the blueprint for the Final Solution, but also the foundation for their ideal of a racially and genetically pure society. … Only from the month of August  did total genocide become standard, with Jewish women and children also killed en masse.
As Kurt Schlichter writes (Danke schön to Ed Driscoll),
THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST
- Skim until Offended
- Disqualify that Opinion
- Attack, Attack, Attack
- Disregard Inconvenient facts
- Make Shit Up
- Resort to Moral Equivalency
- Concern Trolling
- When all else fails, Racism!
There’s an important lesson here for when the fake outrage weenies try to swarm you on social media. Never apologize, never explain, always mock. They suck, and they are nobodies.