This is a followup to his previous idiocy, when he compared not liking rich people to the Holocaust.
I've known several old-school Silicon Valley managers that do this frequently - they toss out a strawman that's way more extreme than anything anybody would want to do, which anchors your outrage so that whatever the actual goal is seems perfectly reasonable. It's basic behavioral economics - people do it in negotiations all the time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini#Design_and_development
But here, it's hard to tell whether he's really trying to change the terms of the debate, or if he's just spent so long in his privileged bubble that he can't comprehend what life is like for 99.9999% of the world.
40 thousand deaths vs 70 million deaths...
Edit: And no... I don't think animal hair and the Holocaust are interchangeable.
The guillotine was, historically, the symbol of revolutionary response by a victimized peasant class against wealthy, out of touch overlords. Yes, it's obnoxious, but it's basically correct to the situation. If the balance of power and distribution of wealth continue to tip toward a tiny minority, revolution becomes a real danger.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, was not a revolution against a class of wealthy overlords (unless you happen to agree with Hitler, and I'm assuming you don't). It was a racist genocide. The only thing the French revolution and the Holocaust have in common are politically motivated violence. The root causes of the violence are totally different.