Oh for fuck sake. Stop apologizing for posting a goddamn podcast link. Cooper has a lens by which he sees and reads history. Then he publishes an article on his sub, or podcast. That’s all.
Tucker Carlson had him on because he obviously thought the guy was somewhat interesting. There’s no crime in that, and they’re actually was a time when having controversial figures on to talk about their positions was courageous. That’s all gone in the shitter because of a bunch of thin skinned chickenshits.
I'm with you, Evans...the biggest battle we're fighting here is censorship, so no, it's not OK to censor just the folks you think have a "seriously flawed take" on issues. Let me hear what everyone has to say, on all sides of the question...then I'll decide. Once someone censors those who they think have "seriously flawed" takes, then they've decided for me. No thanks.
If we suppress seriously flawed takes then how do we expose and disqualify them? Secrets, and secret ideas are part and parcel to how a totalitarian state functions.
As for Tucker, one of the things which make him so great is that he is fearless in his selection of guests and subjects. Interviewing someone is not an implied endorsement of their views.
And sometimes, listening to an alternative POV -- even one you believe is totally wrong or evil -- can still help lend perspective, which is something the entirety of the Left possesses none of. It can also help to understand *how* they think what they think and possibly provide an "in" to help deprogram them.
My problem with Tucker is that he doesn't keep a healthy, dispassionate distance from those he interviews. He appears to be fawning most of the time which doesn't help either the credibility or the objectivity. On the other hand, he actually lets interviewees talk instead of talking over them or talking more than them (witness J. Peterson).
The best disinfectant is sunshine (can't remember who said that). Let the sh-tty takes roll and have people hear them for what they are. Period. Victor David Hanson did a great rebuttal post to this 'historian'. VDH is an actual historian.
Thank you. What is this tendency (right or left) to assume that everyone else is too fragile to hear certain things? If you don't want to listen, don't hit play.
Sasha needs to stand firm and be strong. Removing the interview is this worst thing she could have done. Greatly appreciated listening to Cooper’s take on history, especially re Jones. Take everything with a grain of salt. Keep up the good fight, Sasha.
Re: WW-2, which I look at as part two of WW-1, I think the more we try to understand the travesty of the first half of the 20th century, and all that lead up to it, the better off the world will be. I don’t agree with all that Cooper said, but to me he comes across as more rational and trustworthy then the BS we are fed, on a daily basis, by the MSM, Academia, and many elements of the federal government - the same people and institutions who have shaped most of what we know / learned during the past 79 years.
Excellent points. I watched the whole thing and found Cooper made numerous insightful and compelling arguments. (And I’ve read quite a few authors on the subjects covered.).
No, I don't think Cooper was insightful or interesting; I think he lacks knowledge of fundamental facts. I also don't think its appripriate to lable him right- wing, or even left wing. I think he'a a bad historian, period. BUT I firmly believe that he should be able to spout whatever nonsense he wants, as long as I, and everyone else, can point out all of his many failings.
You didn’t point out a single mistake though. You just said he was bad, not good, etc but gave not a single fact to support your challenge. And then you concluded that you could point out his many failings. I’ve read a fair amount of John Keegan and Cooper seems well aligned with Keegan’s writing. Anyway, I’m not in line to argue this at length because it’s pretty clear that the Zionists who think Israel didn’t commit genocide in Gaza by killing tens of thousands of innocent women and children also believe Cooper minimized the atrocities that Hitler did indeed commit. Ironic and sad that the group that was scarred so badly by genocide denies it when they did it too this year.
Well, if you believe Hamas's propaganda, you are an antisemite, so my explaining the facts would do no good. But if you care at all about facts, you could read Victor David.Hanson's response to Cooper. His response is factually correct and accurate.
Boom! If I disagree with what Israel is doing to innocent women and children then you call me an anti-Semite. Like a one trick pony. For the record, I am not an anti-Semite.
Now let’s try that tactic on you; you are an anti-Christian.
Also maybe Sasha didn’t listen all the way to the end of the interview. That’s where they discuss the major loss of various national cultures due to massive intake of immigrants who don’t want to be English and will never become English. Meanwhile the real English, as is true across Europe nations, are losing their own homeland small country. I don’t think Cooper is saying the English shouldn’t have defended themselves, that there shouldn’t have been a war. Cooper is questioning the historical myths about that war and wondering how those myths are functioning in the world today. Those are useful questions whether or not one agrees with Cooper’s analysis or not.
Sorry. The fact that the Muslims are overrunning the UK and much of Europe has nothing to do with the evilness of Hitler and the Nazis and the valor of Churchill. Yes he has a right to say it, but I question Tucker’s judgment in giving him a platform
Tucker didn't merely "give Cooper a platform," and Sasha's secondary fault in continued to platform Tucker is deeply troubling to me. Tucker actually praised Cooper as a great contemporary historian, a voice to listen to, which is utter nonsense, and dangerous to boot.
There should be a Goebbels award of the week.
I didn't cancel my subscription to Tucker after his Putin interview, but I did after his lickspittle platforming of Cooper.
I'm too appreciative of Sasha's work to go there, at least for now.
You sound exactly like people on the Left. It's terrifying. I chose to give Tucker the benefit of the doubt. I know that Cooper is known more for his writings on the war in Gaza than WWII. As VDH pointed out, what he said was stupid but not dangerous. I believe in better speech not canceling speech. That said, I would not have platformed him myself -- I gave readers the choice and we had the discussion and that is, to my mind, the better road. As to people subscribing or not - that's up to you. One of the reasons I don't put my work behind a pay-wall is for this reason, so as not to be punished by readers like you.
That's one of the ugliest and most unjust things anyone has ever said about me, Sasha. I've done nothing to punish you, and I'm gonna leave it at that, except to say that my continued reverence for you and your work prevents me from leaving.
But I'll try and keep a lower profile on Substack lest I provoke you unintentionally.
I love you Sasha, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
"That’s all gone in the shitter because of a bunch of thin skinned chickenshits."
No. That's not it at all. Tucker has a gigantic audience and Cooper has a seriously flawed take on WW2 and the Holocaust. Tucker conducts 'interviews' like this with almost zero pushback. For such an educated man, he plays the idiotic 'I'm just asking questions!' role too well. You don't have to be a 'thin skinned chickenshit' to see the problem here.
If there's anything I struggler with politically it's that I have no flock, no tribe, with which to align myself. Too often, as with Tucker and his cynical antics, I sit back and find myself saying, "Good grief, it's all gonna burn down and smart people like this are stacking up the fuel."
If you see a "problem" with Tucker just letting someone (anyone) talk, you definitely have a tribe. You may not wish to admit it, but you do. And the rest of us have been trying to save what's left of what promised to be one of the best systems of governance on the planet from your "tribe" for a while now.
So I'm a free speech absolutist. I hear and read types of wacky shit all the time. Just because I don’t like it or agree with it doesn’t mean that the individual doesn’t have the right to say it. Joe Rogan has had all kinds of nutty people on his podcast, but not once have I thought that he’s some sort of shill.
So yeah…..I don’t see ‘the problem’ in any of it and that goes for Tucker Carlson.
This is Sasha's platform. She is entitled to post whatever she wants to. That is her free speech right. She does not have to post something that she is not comfortable with. She has no obligation post anything. Discernment is a good thing. And so is her ownership of the site.
I couldn’t agree more. The point in my opening comment was that I wish people would stop apologizing for posting something that they found interesting. I don’t have any doubt that Sasha caught a bunch of shit for reposting Tucker’s interview with Cooper. It’s crystal clear that she did.
I agree with you, for the most part. Where we differ is - and I would apply this to myself - if I had an audience of millions, I would approach every interview with a critical eye. I would challenge ideas that are controversial. Maybe I would be wrong. Convince me. Why? Because millions of people, many of whom are the 'nutty people' you speak of, are all too willing to believe nutty ideas and Cooper is as nutty as they get when it comes to Hitler and Churchill and WW2. Again, Tucker plays that role of, "Golly, gee! I dunno! I'm just asking questions!" He's better than that. Or, he should be.
Nutty people do, or inspire others to do, nutty shit. And if you have a large audience you should take that into consideration.
Or, and increasingly thinking this may be true, Tucker is just one nutty SOB.
How about pronouncing Churchill guilty for the expansion of World War II., and calling him a psychopath, and not saying anything remotely as pejorative about Hitler?
Insightful takes on history are always welcome if they're grounded in sanity. Cooper's aren't.
He's also a dolt about Jonestown. The Jonestown archives are available to the public at sdsu.edu
Listen to the tape of the mass suicide, which Cooper says it was, not mass murder. If so, we should be hearing them singing joy, praise, and delight as they set off on their journeys to A Better World. We don't. We do hear a lot of screaming and wailing. The few who managed to slip out of Jonestown alive all said the same thing: many people did drink the Flavor Aid voluntarily, but only because they preferred that to being shot by one of the guards.
Jones wasn't exactly a "figurehead" at the time of the ultimate White Night, as Cooper says. His wife and son were planning to kill him the next week. Tragically, the son had gone into Jonestown for the basketball tournament.
Cooper would be a joke if he didn't have the potential to be dangerous.
Another thing about Tucker, whom I like and wish nothing but well, is his flat statement that we know the CIA killed John F. Kennedy. This is complete horseshit. I would wager every penny I have that Tucker has not read any of the books which do a brilliant, all but unanswerable job of dealing with JFK conspiracy maniacs. The three which I consider most important are:
"Reclaiming History," by Vincent Bugliosi. ( 1,500 pages long, death to conspiracists. )
"Case Closed," by Gerald Posner. ( About half the length of Bugliosi's book, it is generally, and I think rightly, the most accessible of the books which deal with the hardware of the assassination. )
"Oswald's Game," by Jean Davison. Ah, but criminals are human beings. Jean Davison's approach is more to the software side of things. Just what sort of man was Oswald? Jean Davison, a retired college English instructor and housewife, dedicated herself for the twenty years after the assassination to finding that out. Her book, now stupidly out of print but easily available, is a public service to the United States. She should have received a Congressional Gold Medal for it.
As former conspiracy maniac Fred Litwin says of any ideas that the CIA killed Kennedy, why would they have wanted to? He was giving them everything they wanted. At the very hour JFK was shot in Dallas, a CIA officer was meeting in Paris with a possible Castro assassin.
There's actually much more reason, maybe 2% as opposed to 0%, to think that Castro agents had something to do with the JFK assassination. Yet, Tucker is on the verge of becoming a menace with his blather about the CIA's having killed Kennedy.
Here is almost certainly why JFK assassination related documents are still being withheld: they contain the names of God knows how many people in Russia, Cuba, and Mexico who were informing for us in 1963 and who are still alive. No country which hopes to maintain informants abroad ever gives up any of its people. I dearly wish we could figure out a way to get everyone of those now extremely aged people out of where they are and into rather plush retirement in the United States. Then, everything could be declassified, and we'd have a merciful end to all of the "CIA killed Kennedy" garbage.
Maybe you have read a lot on the JFK assassination, but it’s obvious why the CIA would want to kill him. He just got done saying he would destroy the CIA and denied them war with Cuba and Russia. Not sure how much more motive you need. Furthermore, you could unclassify all the docs and redact names of informants. You also didn’t need to make up the fake Warren commission, if you have nothing to hide but your informants’ identities.
The us govt like all govts lies about anything that could threaten its power and lies about things to get more power. That’s the basic foundation of understanding anything from JFK, to the moon landing (who was running the video camera? How come we came get back there?), to Covid (how did part of Moderna/cdc’s trademark get in the original virus?!?).
Bobby-Thanks for this thoughtful take on things, and the book suggestions regarding the JFK assassination. I have only read around the periphery of the subject (in spite of having clear recollections of watching the coverage on TV as a very young child.) I always felt that if there were an actual conspiracy- the mafia was the most likely suspect.
What's funny is that in the preface to his book, Gerald Posner says that when he started his research, he expected to find a Mafia connection. He didn't. And if there was Mafia involvement, there should have been evidence of it, because Bobby Kennedy was bugging all their hangouts and tapping all their phone lines.
That is exactly the point. I have read all about WW2 from the time I was a youngster. I believe the Holocaust occurred and know Pearl Harbor was bombed but were these atrocities allowed to happen by the so called “white hats”. We tend to believe what is passed down. On another topic I have read almost everything printed about the JFK assassination. In 1964 most people believed what the Warren Report stated to happen. We believe the story because we trusted the sources Senators,Congressmen,Supreme Court Justices. Now we know this event was much more sinister. Especially because it involved scores of people and was most likely carried out internally.Not to mention our country tried to blame it on another. Either way JFK was dead. Either way millions died in the European Holocaust. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a bogus event which launched the US into a full fledged hot war in Southeast Asia.We are winning in Vietnam! 9-11? Was it as presented?The American consulate in Benghazi was overwhelmed by Libyan’s who were outraged by a filmmaker. Covid from a bat?
Russian Collusion! Ivermectin is a horse drug! The unvaccinated are spreading Covid! Masking works! Six feet of separation! The vaccine prevents Covid,You are killing Grandma!,Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Joe Biden had 81 million votes.
Ukraine is a democracy ! Ukraine is winning the war! Biden is cognitive until the bullet misses killing Trump. Suddenly he needs to be removed without the 25th Amendment.
The controlled media has the power to frame people’s minds. They decide what people see or not.
You don't know anything about the Kennedy assassination if you think we tried to blame it on some other country. Tell me, just which country was that?
You really don't know anything about the assassination, at all, that's pretty obvious. The evidence for Oswald as lone gunman is overwhelming. Go to YouTube and watch the following videos:
1. Sean Munger. He's a historian. His two part, three hour long video about Kennedy assassination conspiracy hypotheses is based on Vincent Bugliosi's masterful book, "Reclaiming History."
2. LEMMiNO. Watch his graphic analysis of what went on in Dealey Plaza in those fifteen seconds. I have never seen anything as brilliant.
Tucker does need to aggressively question his interviewees sometimes. The interview with Andrew Tate for example. Two things can be true: 1) an interview is not the same as an endorsement and 2) some people and their ideas are ridiculous.
Tucker took heat for interviewing Putin, though, which was courageous and informative, and some people said he wasn’t aggressive enough (I thought he was as aggressive as he could possibly be given the risks involved). Life is full of nuance but some people will always insist on black and white analysis.
This sort of attitude is Exhibit A for why we don't want the speech police. He's got a large audience so he's got a heightened obligation to censor, because you think Cooper's take on WWII and the holocaust are "seriously flawed?"
How about I don't think any of these people should defer to your take on others when they decide who to interview?
Have you ever read any history of World War II? No, of course not.
It's scary as Hell, almost. You do know that Hitler systematically exterminated six to seven million people, and had plans to exterminate many more, don't you? And you don't see the bizarre quality inherent in Cooper's referring to Churchill of all people as a psychopath?
I don't think much of Tucker anymore. If I ever met him in person, I would say something. Hell, he's a fan of Kid Rock and I think rather than being an American Badass I think he's an American Dumbass (with a lousy beard thingy).
I agree with you. His lack of response to Cooper shocked me. My God! What has happened to us?! Look at the stupidity and nastiness which runs through so many of the comments.
I agree. We need to look into history with an unbiassed lens—I’d start with the books that were burned during that time. A favorite channel of mine—Static in the Attic—on YouTube tried to do so, but YT said no.
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. The bombing of London was a war crime.
The booming of civilians to ‘take out’ terrorists is a war crime.
Who funded WW2?
Who set the stage for WW2 with the breaking of a country with reparations?
Why did Berlin look like San Francisco today?
Who’s behind breaking down our society with this immorality ?
Who was behind Berlin’s immorality?
Can you break a nation with immorality? Make them ashamed of who they are so that they won’t fight for their country try?
Who’s behind this constant teaching that our country is not worth fighting for?
Cooper was answering some of those questions that academia won’t ask. Media won’t ask. We get banned for asking.
Thank you for posting Tucker’s interview We need more questions not censorship.
If you know the list of banned books during that period of time, can you post them?
I don’t think Cooper should be censored but one problem with the social media is that people tend to say contrarian things to get clicks. Cooper is one of those. The assertion that Europe would have been better off if Churchill had left the Nazis in control of the continent is an outrageously stupid idea. This is not a researchable idea, it is just very bad judgment, and the presumption that is a researchable idea preys on weak minds who haven’t read much history. Similarly Cooper’s conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suffer a like failing. Lastly, history is not a podcast, history comes from books as Cooper’s research proves. When things are written down they become the culmination of a man’s opinion. Cooper ought to know this.
Okay, does your "free speech absolutism" allow not only Tucker's right to give a platform for someone's "wacky shit" but also my right to condemn the wacky shit by canceling my subscription to Tucker?
Because that's all I have done.
Or would you force me to continue my subscription and listen to a man for whom I now have much less respect?
I reserve my right to turn down the volume on anyone and even turn them off if I choose.
As Dana White said, "Freedom of speech, brother. There are no leashes!"
“The side that is most likely to build prisons or gulags to throw undesirables away like human garbage is Trump and MAGA.” You are missing a “not” before Trump. The ravenous left wants to throw all MAGAts into gulags.
Exactly. I felt like a gay, Black-Jew-Muslim-Skin-head during Covid just for saying my-body-my-choice.
And I would bet serious money that if the left had been serious about locking me up—I would be locked up, with friends and family turning me in—for my own good of course.
It’s the same people starting the same wars-using the same useful idiots and paying the same weasels to get the job done💵💵
I didn't watch the show. I read Darryl Cooper's thread on Twitter. My one takeaway was that Churchill was in part responsible for the rise of Hitler through his treatment of Germany after World War I. So to give credit to Churchill for stopping Hitler while not acknowledging Churchill's actions during and after World War I that led to the rise of Hitler is to miss a lesson about history that would be well worth learning.
Let's stipulate for a moment that Trump really is a Hitlerian figure, a budding autocrat that has half the country in his thrall. Why is that? Why would people be so attracted to him? Well, he says what the rest of us are thinking. The elites (the pseudo-nobility) of this country couldn't care less about the peasantry. They have been bleeding the peasantry dry for decades to enrich themselves. So whose fault is the rise of Trump really? Well, it is the ruling class themselves, the Clintons, the Bushs, the Obamas, and Biden.
In China and in Russia, the same pattern played out with the rise of Lenin/Stalin and Mao. The ruling class were so disconnected and so dismissive of the needs of the masses that those people chose a revolution and communism because to them the ruling class offered nothing and had oppressed them past the point of toleration. Something had to change.
And this isn't about whether or not you're defending Hitler. Hitler didn't rise in a vacuum. Hitler was the consequence of a vindictive nature by those who "won" World War I, including starving Germans to death even after they'd surrendered and the Kaiser, an autocrat, was deposed (I didn't know that until I read the Cooper's twitter thread).
The reason for those with the power (be they the country that wins a war or the ruling class) to be mindful of their actions is because the moment you leave an opening where a group of people think they have nothing to lose by resorting to violence and revolution to alter their situation and secure their freedom you run the risk that you will get a Hitler or a Nazi Germany.
That is a lesson so many would be better off learning than screaming about Cooper being a "Nazi sympathizer." Because in the end, I think that was very much Cooper's point.
Most of the English upper class were Nazi sympathizers fans at least until Germany bombed England. Moreover, any number of wealthy Americans (Henry Ford, for one) and some corporations were more than happy to do business with Hitler. IBM was one.
Stating lies as facts is the classic liberal playbook. Show us where Trump the dictator wan be took away any one’s liberty. Show us the person he has empowered the DOJ to manufacture a crime and then go to a court where the judge is corrupted in a community that voted heavily against him so he could get that person convicted. This wanna be dictator allowed his own FBI to lie to the American public about the contents of the Hunter Laptop top. He allowed the DOJ to investigate him for 2 years over a made up lie regarding him and Russia. I don’t think any of the real dictators you mentioned would have allowed that. So do the world a favor stop parroting DNC talking points you read or heard in the MSM.
I’d never heard of Cooper before and watched the whole interview, which I thought was fascinating. People need to keep an open mind because we clearly all don’t “know” what we think we know to be true. I have no idea if he is an anti-semite or of his opinions beyond what I saw in the interview. People are calling Tucker an anti-Semite. It seems to me it’s largely because he wants America to avoid getting sucked into wars that do not concern us and does not depend on whether these wars are being promoted by Jews or anyone else. (I don’t want my country to go to war with Iran; does that make me an anti-Semite?) Cooper seems to largely agree. He claims to not have an agenda and just wants to get at the truth. I can say that very much of the history we’ve been fed during my lifetime has definitely been a significant brainwash. For instance, I was totally in the bag for the Iraq War and a HUGE supporter of Bush and Cheney. So much so that I almost signed up with the military to fight the war, only to have God intersect my life with the angel that became my wife. Now I have basically done a 180 on the war, and that is largely due to Carlson’s reporting. Is used to believe Oswald killed JFK, and I don’t - also due to Carlson. If Cooper (and Carlson) is wrong about his take on history, that doesn’t bother me as much as the Goliath warmongering government apparatus that has continuously pissed down my back and told me it’s raining.
Excellent comment! You nailed it. American wealth has been squandered on proxy wars! Our big cities are crime ridden, with crumbling infrastructure, our poor and middle class decimated. Our tax dollars are going to every corner of the World for what???? Americans are getting the raw end of the deal!
Our troops fight these endless proxy wars! Our taxpayers fund them with virtually no say in the matter because the politicians won’t take a stand.
"which may or may not be shared by all"? That is a stretch, my friend.
WWII ended 79 years ago and since then thousands of books, editorials, essays, and opinions have been written. I have read my share, and this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that Churchill wished to proactively advanced the war....his reasons do not stand the test of 5 minutes of time.
I'm surprised TC gave Cooper as much time as he did, and would liked to have seen his summary.
This Cooper man is delusional, and I missed the reason why Sasha is discussing this.
You don't think the powers that be who use the mainstream media to push false narratives don't also use academia to create false historical narratives?
There are historians who have written books that refute the official narrative of World War II. David Irving comes to mind. For his efforts, Zionists destroyed his reputation and used lawfare to bankrupt him. They have also passed laws making it illegal to question the official narrative of World War II in most European countries. Maybe you should ask yourself why they felt the need to do so.
By the way, the woman who led the charge against Irving, Deborah Lipstadt, is now working for Anthony Blinken's Department of State as the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. The intent is to make it illegal to question the World War II narrative in this country too.
Ron Unz has done all of us a favor by compiling information on these questionable historical narratives in his American Pravda series, citing historians such as Irving as his references, and in some cases providing online copies of their books that are no longer available in print.
I think TC lauds this guy is because Cooper seems to belong to the same compartmentalism thinking that all wars are bad and totally avoidable at all times, which reveals to me, gross ignorance, not just of history, but of human nature itself.
The question becomes , at least for me, this sort of shadowy Jew hatred that I keep getting from Tucker. It’s been happening for a while. It may be time to let him go , he’s starting to feel toxic.
I love how "Jew hatred" simply means questioning US support for Israel or questioning the events of World War II. That's a pretty damn broad definition that says more about your fragility and less about what Tucker actually thinks about Jews and Judaism.
Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Ukraine just to name a few. All eyes on Iran for the next one. Nobody wins but the international banksters and arms dealers. Millions die. Our kids died in Korea,Vietnam, Lebanon,Iraq and Afghanistan all for nothing.
Naomi Wolf has a project where she is reading aloud an early English version of the Bible (the Geneva Bible of 1570), talking about it, and then doing a compare/contrast with a modern English version, and a Hebrew version. She realized that she is a perfect person to do this, because she is fluent in both modern/biblical Hebrew and renaissance-era English.
Tucker interviewed her in April. They talked about God, the Bible, and many similar subjects. His reverence for the (Christian-)Hebrew God was foundational to the conversation. she was so inspired that she picked the project up again, and has been doing it fervently since then. She has even dipped into a Hebrew version of the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew.
whatever "shadowy Jew hatred" you keep getting from him: it isn't against the Jewish God, nor their place as His Chosen People.
My sense from listening to him is that he hates hypocrisy. So if someone does things in the name of being Jews that are not in accord with what the Bible says that Jews should do? I am not going to speak for Tucker here. I hate it when that happens.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is contemptible. I won't be surprised if the current nation of Israel disappears because this is what the Lord says will happen if the Jews live the way that they do (sodomy, etc.) and do the things that they are doing to their neighbors.
I am not a Jew hater. I hate what the Jews are doing in the name of my Lord.
Israel is involved in an urban conflict that was started by Hamas. And according to some sources, they have among the lowest civilian / hostile death ratio among contemporary history.
If you want to ask what G-d's opinion would be, read the Torah and find the number of times Hashem chastized Israel for being too gentle with their enemies.
You're not going to find much.
But hey, if you think Hamas should be able to rape, kidnap, and murder 1500 Jews without response, just say so.
Hashem gave His people the choice between a blessing and a curse. Are the people of Israel walking in His ways and clinging tightly to Him? Or are they rejecting His commands and walking in their own ways? I am not there, I am in the US. But from here, it looks like Israelis are acting in their own strength and doing things detestable in the eyes of the Lord. For example, “The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an important part of Israeli legislation and may be found in several laws”
There are things Israel has done that I do not favor. I was extremely disappointed with their push of the Covid fascism. I even coined a joke then that there was no more Israel, no more Britain, no more France, no more United States. we were all just different branch offices of Pfeizer.
But this also happened Biblically, such as in the book of Judges. The Israelites go astray. Bad things happen, often an invasion. They repent. And Hashem empowers them to defeat their enemies and they get back on the good side for a time.
October 7 was Israel's wake-up call. Many synagogues were full upon the news, and reunited to a common purpose, much like 9/11 did for America.
Hearing things on Tucker or Candace or The View, is going to make you feel uncomfortable at times. I’ve heard and read reprehensible things on both the Left and the Right. You are not responsible for the thoughts and expressions of others, however much you may disagree with them. If you desire intellectual curiosity, then prepare yourself to be challenged.
If Cooper believes we should have left Hitler alone, then, as an historian, I do not trust Cooper's research or opinions.
As far as the Israel-Hamas ordeal goes, you're entitled to your opinion/position/indifference. Personally, I think it's time Israel removes its existential threat(s) once and for all.
Amazing how people can not stand to have their preconceived notions of what happened in the past challenged. Not a single one of us knew Hitler or Churchill or Stalin etc. we know that millions of people died because of them. This guy clearly stated that he wanted to understand both sides of an issue based upon what the people at the time knew and or perceived not what we know now. So if someone is not this perfect person that we lionized today this doesn’t make the person pointing it out an evil person. I was hoping to hear his take of the story of FDR having intelligence that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he kept that from the commanders at Pearl Harbor. If true why would he do that??? Or is it a case of putting puzzle pieces together after the facts are known and claiming that they should have done the same before the facts were truly known. IE the fog of war is real. Historians pretend sometimes that it’s not.
For crying out loud, Cooper isn't saying anything that Pat Buchanan wasn't saying in 2008. He has a different take on things, so what? Surely your readers aren't so sensitive that you would consider the need to take down the post? Most of us read you because you are an independent thinker with courage. No need to protect us from alternate ideas, if we think Cooper's full of BS, we'll move on.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is leery of Cooper. It's not on YOU Sasha, it's Tucker. He didn't even push back! Every time I hear the term "Zionist" I tune out because it's code for antisemitism, however I HAVE questioned some of WW2 as told by history just because I know winners write History and often lie. But I suspect factions of the US ruling class were tied to Stalin, and some funded Hitler. But I never heard this crazy take- blaming it on Churchill. Because he wanted Zionism. Wow. Antisemitism rises in tandem with communism it seems because here we are almost 100 years later with surges of both. Tucker needs to choose his guests better
I commend you for leaving the interview up. If you decide to steelman your current understanding of WW2-related narratives (w/o reference to Cooper), I can suggest perusing this synthetic overview of critical takes on some of the key WW2 related narratives from Ron Unz. Unz includes many valuable links and curates them fairly IMO. https://www.unz.com/runz/why-everything-you-know-about-world-war-ii-is-wrong/ Beyond that, if you want to check out a book or two, I cld suggest: David Irving's "Churchill's War" and AJP Taylor's "The Origins of WW2"
"Everything I know about WWII is wrong"? EVERYTHING?...as in there were no extermination camps? DDay was a trip to the beach? We never nuked Japan? My father had no patriotic duty when he risked his life every time he crawled into the cockpit of his torpedo bomber?
Sorry, that kind of headline isn't worth a spit in muddy sewer.
Why would you take the time to post this dog dirt?
The evidence suggests that those so-called extermination camps were work camps. It also suggests (according to Jewish historians) that the work camps started out as relocation camps, with Nazis and Zionists working together to round up and relocate Jews to Israel. The intent of the Zionists according to some historians was to pressure the British government into recognizing a Jewish state in Israel.
Likewise, logistics alone will refute the claim that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in a so-called Holocaust. Someone ran the data through AI using the number of crematoriums in the camps, the amount of space in each camp, and the time it would take to round up and transport 6,000,000 people in the equation. The answer? It would have taken 87 years for the Nazis to round up and kill 6,000,000 Jews.
The Red Cross worked with the camps during the war and during its aftermath. It estimated that fewer than 300,000 inmates died in the camps, and that most of those deaths were caused by a typhoid outbreak and from starvation after the allies bombed the supply lines. (The Red Cross claims to have tried to stop the Allies from bombing those supply lines.) I use the term "inmates" instead of Jews because they weren't the only people held in those camps. Indeed, it seems that Christians often outnumbered those inmates who were Jewish.
None of this is intended to negate the horror of forcibly removing innocent people from their homes and imprisoning them in camps, but it does seem to be that the official narrative is based on lies and exaggerations.
The Holocaust's systemic killing of Jews was not limited to the gas chambers. That's where your analogy of "dur, the crematoria in the camps was not enough for 6 million, dur, therefore no Holocaust."
No one ever said that every victim died via gas chamber and the creamtoria.
If you read Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning, he gives many accounts of German policemen who were ordered to gather up the Jews of towns. march them into the forest and shoot them all into a mass grave. One by one.
Does this act contribute to the math of the crematoria?
No, it does not.
However, it remains a part of the Holocaust.
Trying to play games that it didn't happen because of the numerical limits of the crematoria is a pretty deceptive method of argumentation.
To any Holocaust questioners, I recommend a fictional account of WWII, written by Herman Wouk. The two companion novels are "The Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance". Yes, Wouk was a practicing and observant Jew, and an admitted Zionist. These two novels provided me a greater understanding of Hitler's aims, the concentration camps, and the politics surrounding the conduct of the war by Roosevelt and Churchill.
Wouk's preface to the first edition includes this quote from a character in the book: " Either war is finished, or we are.". This is the overarching theme of both novels. He ends his preface as follows. "The beginning of the end of War lies in Remembrance." Words for all of us.
The crematoriums in the camps were used to dispose of the bodies of anyone who died regardless of the cause of death. The evidence also suggests that there were no gas chambers (Zyklon B is a pesticide that was used for delousing), nor does there seem to be evidence of mass graves.
If you can find books on World War II that were written by David Irving, please do so. Of course, the odds that you'll find one of his books are slim to none, perhaps because, unlike Christopher Browning, his research challenged the official narrative. This is why Zionists literally cancelled him, destroying his reputation and using lawfare to bankrupt him. The person who led the assault on Irving's well-being was Deborah Lipstadt. Be sure to look her up. She now works for Anthony Blinken's state department.
You might want to ask yourself why it is against the law to question the official narrative in most European countries and in Canada. In other words, even historians in those countries can be imprisoned for presenting research that challenge this narrative. There would be no reason for such laws if the official narrative was irrefutable.
Also ask yourself how the size of the global Jewish population was larger after the war if 6,000,000 had been killed during those years. Likewise, there were roughly 500,000 Jews living in Germany before the war and some 3,700,000 in the countries of their European allies. So where did the others come from?
Not a single word about the mass shootings of villages I discussed, from Browning's book? How convenient for you to just copy/paste the standard favorite historian of the Neo Nazis.
Regarding Browning's book, I didn't comment on it because I haven't read it, nor do I have the time to check out his bibliography. One can tell alot about a book from a bibliography. For example, did he actually do new research or is he simply repeating what historians for the official narrative have said. There is also the possibility that he may be cherrypicking, choosing to highlight the worst case scenarios while ignoring others. According to the Red Cross report on the camps, yes, there were instances where people were rounded up and shot, although this seems to have occurred primarily in Poland. Other countries were quite lax with their inmates, and in several instances (I believe this was Czechoslavakia, if memory serves), the inmates were allowed to go home at night.
So tell me, why is it against the law in most western countries to question the official narrative? You haven't said a single word about that situation.
Also, it has been my experience that people usually resort to insults when they can't formulate an argument to refute what another has said. Those were my own words, not copy/paste. And David Irving wasn't a Neo-Nazi but you seem to be willing to continue smearing him. The people who cite Irving aren't Neo-Nazis either. Some are even Jewish.
1948.....Is that why you edited your post? Because Nazis couldn't have rounded up Jews to send them to Israel before the Allies wiped them from the earth's surface.
87 years is not enough time for a simpleton. Try the CNN comment section. Believe me, no one here will miss you, but we'll be glad you're gone.
It should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the history that this collaboration with Nazis and Zionists occurred before World War II. In fact, the year was 1933.
The European Jews who founded Israel began pressuring Britain to recognize a Jewish state in Israel before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Hasbara needs to start hiring smarter people. Methinks you are the simpleton.
87 years is not enough time for you to gain some sense. What are you anyway, a Neo Nazi with no balls? Go get your keyboard jollies off somewhere else.
Unz is pretty anti-semitey,imo. Irving is a scholar, whose conclusions can seem anti-semitey (but are not, imo). Irving has strong evidence that Churchill was an appalling wimp who put his own countrymen in danger, and then fled the scene when he might have been in danger.
Oh thank you! I had not seen this Krainer piece. His book "Grand Deception" on the Bill Browder hoax is excellent - so I look forward to hearing his take on this topic :-)
NO!! Just NO!! David Irving is NOT a serious historian! His distorted views of WWII were litigated in England and they were proven false. There are multiple books written about the litigation and a movie made about it. Irving's history is factually incorrect. It is contradicted by original, historical documents and eye witnesses. This is not a debate any more; his views are not true.
Thank you. I'm... very conflicted on Darryl Cooper.
I found many of his podcasts to be very good, similar to how I feel about Dan Carlin. (Though I am far more impressed with Carlin's take on, say, ancient Rome or Greece or the Mongols, and far less to his opinion on contemporary matters)
I am Jewish and I am a strong supporter of Israel. Cooper's series on the Arab-Israeli conflict was, I think, an honest attempt to be as fair as possible regarding the conflict, and even allowed crusty old me to have a little sympathy for the Arabs.
But then.... October 7th.
At first, Cooper was horrified. I asked him on Twitter what he would do if he was Bibi. He answered (And I am paraphrasing from memory:) "Bibi is in an impossible situation. If I was him, I'd make Genghis Khan look like Ghandi."
Then israel's response began, and Cooper immediately seemed to jump onto Hamas's "Israel is committing genocide!" propaganda.
I reminded him of his line on Genghis Khan and Ghandi.
And he blocked me. On Twitter.
And I was one of his paid subscribers.
The present war in Gaza is a propaganda war as much of anything else, and I would argue this is Hamas's main tactic. It doesn't matter how gentle the Israelis are -- they would call anything a genocide. Much of this was planned even before 10/7.
Cooper on Twitter sounds a hell of a lot different than Cooper on his podcasts. His move to support the Hamas propaganda was pretty upsetting.
Not arguing here, just re-thinking things a little with hindsight. I look at what Trump did mostly using economic leverage to tamp our enemies; he unleashed hydrocarbon energy and tariffs to hobble China, Iran, and Russia by increasing the energy supply which lowered the price of oil. Did W do that? Did Barry Soetoro do that? No. They supported 20 years of wars to nowhere rather than just hunting down terrorist leaders. Oh, Trump sent one missile to kill the worlds leading terrorist(Soleimani) and then told Afghanistan 'leaders' that he will kill them if any of our people are harmed.
Peace. For four years.
FDR did everything in the world to destroy our economy - in Henry Morgenthau's language - for seven long years and probably looked at war as the way out of his disastrous policies.
IDK... Hindsight gives us an opportunity really look at why any war of the 20th century should have been fought. I took part in Desert Storm, and at the time, I thought it justified because we couldn't have on madman in control of the hydrocarbon energy supply.
And then I ask: If Trump unleashed our energy supply to exceed demand, like Ronaldus, to lower cost and avoid dependency on others and therefore potential war: why didn't other presidents use our economic leverage which is(was) our greatest weapon? Military Industrial Complex?
I think that's incredibly mean to ask if he's a Nazi sympathizer. I disagreed with his take on Churchill, but at the same time he's a highly thoughtful intelligent guy. Brilliant. So I imagine he'd be quite capable of defending his take, and would do so with you if you asked. He's heard all the arguments so wouldn't be unaware of those points you or I have made.
Oh for fuck sake. Stop apologizing for posting a goddamn podcast link. Cooper has a lens by which he sees and reads history. Then he publishes an article on his sub, or podcast. That’s all.
Tucker Carlson had him on because he obviously thought the guy was somewhat interesting. There’s no crime in that, and they’re actually was a time when having controversial figures on to talk about their positions was courageous. That’s all gone in the shitter because of a bunch of thin skinned chickenshits.
I'm with you, Evans...the biggest battle we're fighting here is censorship, so no, it's not OK to censor just the folks you think have a "seriously flawed take" on issues. Let me hear what everyone has to say, on all sides of the question...then I'll decide. Once someone censors those who they think have "seriously flawed" takes, then they've decided for me. No thanks.
If we suppress seriously flawed takes then how do we expose and disqualify them? Secrets, and secret ideas are part and parcel to how a totalitarian state functions.
As for Tucker, one of the things which make him so great is that he is fearless in his selection of guests and subjects. Interviewing someone is not an implied endorsement of their views.
And sometimes, listening to an alternative POV -- even one you believe is totally wrong or evil -- can still help lend perspective, which is something the entirety of the Left possesses none of. It can also help to understand *how* they think what they think and possibly provide an "in" to help deprogram them.
My problem with Tucker is that he doesn't keep a healthy, dispassionate distance from those he interviews. He appears to be fawning most of the time which doesn't help either the credibility or the objectivity. On the other hand, he actually lets interviewees talk instead of talking over them or talking more than them (witness J. Peterson).
Word.
The best disinfectant is sunshine (can't remember who said that). Let the sh-tty takes roll and have people hear them for what they are. Period. Victor David Hanson did a great rebuttal post to this 'historian'. VDH is an actual historian.
I'd love to read what Hanson has to say; do you have a link for that, or was his comment on his Blade of Perseus email? Thanks in advance....
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/victor-davis-hanson-the-truth-about?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=fuu7o Here you go.
Awesome! Thank you. I'm going there right now.
Thank you. What is this tendency (right or left) to assume that everyone else is too fragile to hear certain things? If you don't want to listen, don't hit play.
Sasha needs to stand firm and be strong. Removing the interview is this worst thing she could have done. Greatly appreciated listening to Cooper’s take on history, especially re Jones. Take everything with a grain of salt. Keep up the good fight, Sasha.
Re: WW-2, which I look at as part two of WW-1, I think the more we try to understand the travesty of the first half of the 20th century, and all that lead up to it, the better off the world will be. I don’t agree with all that Cooper said, but to me he comes across as more rational and trustworthy then the BS we are fed, on a daily basis, by the MSM, Academia, and many elements of the federal government - the same people and institutions who have shaped most of what we know / learned during the past 79 years.
Excellent points. I watched the whole thing and found Cooper made numerous insightful and compelling arguments. (And I’ve read quite a few authors on the subjects covered.).
His Twitter thread was interesting. I've only seen clips of the interview.
No, I don't think Cooper was insightful or interesting; I think he lacks knowledge of fundamental facts. I also don't think its appripriate to lable him right- wing, or even left wing. I think he'a a bad historian, period. BUT I firmly believe that he should be able to spout whatever nonsense he wants, as long as I, and everyone else, can point out all of his many failings.
You didn’t point out a single mistake though. You just said he was bad, not good, etc but gave not a single fact to support your challenge. And then you concluded that you could point out his many failings. I’ve read a fair amount of John Keegan and Cooper seems well aligned with Keegan’s writing. Anyway, I’m not in line to argue this at length because it’s pretty clear that the Zionists who think Israel didn’t commit genocide in Gaza by killing tens of thousands of innocent women and children also believe Cooper minimized the atrocities that Hitler did indeed commit. Ironic and sad that the group that was scarred so badly by genocide denies it when they did it too this year.
Well, if you believe Hamas's propaganda, you are an antisemite, so my explaining the facts would do no good. But if you care at all about facts, you could read Victor David.Hanson's response to Cooper. His response is factually correct and accurate.
Boom! If I disagree with what Israel is doing to innocent women and children then you call me an anti-Semite. Like a one trick pony. For the record, I am not an anti-Semite.
Now let’s try that tactic on you; you are an anti-Christian.
Also maybe Sasha didn’t listen all the way to the end of the interview. That’s where they discuss the major loss of various national cultures due to massive intake of immigrants who don’t want to be English and will never become English. Meanwhile the real English, as is true across Europe nations, are losing their own homeland small country. I don’t think Cooper is saying the English shouldn’t have defended themselves, that there shouldn’t have been a war. Cooper is questioning the historical myths about that war and wondering how those myths are functioning in the world today. Those are useful questions whether or not one agrees with Cooper’s analysis or not.
Sorry. The fact that the Muslims are overrunning the UK and much of Europe has nothing to do with the evilness of Hitler and the Nazis and the valor of Churchill. Yes he has a right to say it, but I question Tucker’s judgment in giving him a platform
Tucker didn't merely "give Cooper a platform," and Sasha's secondary fault in continued to platform Tucker is deeply troubling to me. Tucker actually praised Cooper as a great contemporary historian, a voice to listen to, which is utter nonsense, and dangerous to boot.
There should be a Goebbels award of the week.
I didn't cancel my subscription to Tucker after his Putin interview, but I did after his lickspittle platforming of Cooper.
I'm too appreciative of Sasha's work to go there, at least for now.
Thank God for real historians like VDH!
You sound exactly like people on the Left. It's terrifying. I chose to give Tucker the benefit of the doubt. I know that Cooper is known more for his writings on the war in Gaza than WWII. As VDH pointed out, what he said was stupid but not dangerous. I believe in better speech not canceling speech. That said, I would not have platformed him myself -- I gave readers the choice and we had the discussion and that is, to my mind, the better road. As to people subscribing or not - that's up to you. One of the reasons I don't put my work behind a pay-wall is for this reason, so as not to be punished by readers like you.
That's one of the ugliest and most unjust things anyone has ever said about me, Sasha. I've done nothing to punish you, and I'm gonna leave it at that, except to say that my continued reverence for you and your work prevents me from leaving.
But I'll try and keep a lower profile on Substack lest I provoke you unintentionally.
I love you Sasha, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Mike
So well said.
"That’s all gone in the shitter because of a bunch of thin skinned chickenshits."
No. That's not it at all. Tucker has a gigantic audience and Cooper has a seriously flawed take on WW2 and the Holocaust. Tucker conducts 'interviews' like this with almost zero pushback. For such an educated man, he plays the idiotic 'I'm just asking questions!' role too well. You don't have to be a 'thin skinned chickenshit' to see the problem here.
Welcome to the snowflake left where certain ideas must not be uttered lest the "children" get the wrong idea. *wink* My god, listen to yourself.
I've been accused of being many things, but being on the Left ain't one of 'em. Nor is being a snowflake!
HA!!!
Well, you sounded just like a "leftie snowflake." You're birds of a feather on this issue.
If there's anything I struggler with politically it's that I have no flock, no tribe, with which to align myself. Too often, as with Tucker and his cynical antics, I sit back and find myself saying, "Good grief, it's all gonna burn down and smart people like this are stacking up the fuel."
Just my outsider's opinion.
If you see a "problem" with Tucker just letting someone (anyone) talk, you definitely have a tribe. You may not wish to admit it, but you do. And the rest of us have been trying to save what's left of what promised to be one of the best systems of governance on the planet from your "tribe" for a while now.
So I'm a free speech absolutist. I hear and read types of wacky shit all the time. Just because I don’t like it or agree with it doesn’t mean that the individual doesn’t have the right to say it. Joe Rogan has had all kinds of nutty people on his podcast, but not once have I thought that he’s some sort of shill.
So yeah…..I don’t see ‘the problem’ in any of it and that goes for Tucker Carlson.
This is Sasha's platform. She is entitled to post whatever she wants to. That is her free speech right. She does not have to post something that she is not comfortable with. She has no obligation post anything. Discernment is a good thing. And so is her ownership of the site.
I couldn’t agree more. The point in my opening comment was that I wish people would stop apologizing for posting something that they found interesting. I don’t have any doubt that Sasha caught a bunch of shit for reposting Tucker’s interview with Cooper. It’s crystal clear that she did.
I agree with you, for the most part. Where we differ is - and I would apply this to myself - if I had an audience of millions, I would approach every interview with a critical eye. I would challenge ideas that are controversial. Maybe I would be wrong. Convince me. Why? Because millions of people, many of whom are the 'nutty people' you speak of, are all too willing to believe nutty ideas and Cooper is as nutty as they get when it comes to Hitler and Churchill and WW2. Again, Tucker plays that role of, "Golly, gee! I dunno! I'm just asking questions!" He's better than that. Or, he should be.
Nutty people do, or inspire others to do, nutty shit. And if you have a large audience you should take that into consideration.
Or, and increasingly thinking this may be true, Tucker is just one nutty SOB.
So I trust you feel the same way when Joe Rogan has someone like Alex Jones on his podcast?
I do! Alex Jones is entertaining - in the same way Louis Farrakhan is. They're both nuts.
Okie doke.
I think you need to clarify what Cooper said that you think flawed.
How about pronouncing Churchill guilty for the expansion of World War II., and calling him a psychopath, and not saying anything remotely as pejorative about Hitler?
Insightful takes on history are always welcome if they're grounded in sanity. Cooper's aren't.
He's also a dolt about Jonestown. The Jonestown archives are available to the public at sdsu.edu
Listen to the tape of the mass suicide, which Cooper says it was, not mass murder. If so, we should be hearing them singing joy, praise, and delight as they set off on their journeys to A Better World. We don't. We do hear a lot of screaming and wailing. The few who managed to slip out of Jonestown alive all said the same thing: many people did drink the Flavor Aid voluntarily, but only because they preferred that to being shot by one of the guards.
Jones wasn't exactly a "figurehead" at the time of the ultimate White Night, as Cooper says. His wife and son were planning to kill him the next week. Tragically, the son had gone into Jonestown for the basketball tournament.
Cooper would be a joke if he didn't have the potential to be dangerous.
Another thing about Tucker, whom I like and wish nothing but well, is his flat statement that we know the CIA killed John F. Kennedy. This is complete horseshit. I would wager every penny I have that Tucker has not read any of the books which do a brilliant, all but unanswerable job of dealing with JFK conspiracy maniacs. The three which I consider most important are:
"Reclaiming History," by Vincent Bugliosi. ( 1,500 pages long, death to conspiracists. )
"Case Closed," by Gerald Posner. ( About half the length of Bugliosi's book, it is generally, and I think rightly, the most accessible of the books which deal with the hardware of the assassination. )
"Oswald's Game," by Jean Davison. Ah, but criminals are human beings. Jean Davison's approach is more to the software side of things. Just what sort of man was Oswald? Jean Davison, a retired college English instructor and housewife, dedicated herself for the twenty years after the assassination to finding that out. Her book, now stupidly out of print but easily available, is a public service to the United States. She should have received a Congressional Gold Medal for it.
As former conspiracy maniac Fred Litwin says of any ideas that the CIA killed Kennedy, why would they have wanted to? He was giving them everything they wanted. At the very hour JFK was shot in Dallas, a CIA officer was meeting in Paris with a possible Castro assassin.
There's actually much more reason, maybe 2% as opposed to 0%, to think that Castro agents had something to do with the JFK assassination. Yet, Tucker is on the verge of becoming a menace with his blather about the CIA's having killed Kennedy.
Here is almost certainly why JFK assassination related documents are still being withheld: they contain the names of God knows how many people in Russia, Cuba, and Mexico who were informing for us in 1963 and who are still alive. No country which hopes to maintain informants abroad ever gives up any of its people. I dearly wish we could figure out a way to get everyone of those now extremely aged people out of where they are and into rather plush retirement in the United States. Then, everything could be declassified, and we'd have a merciful end to all of the "CIA killed Kennedy" garbage.
Maybe you have read a lot on the JFK assassination, but it’s obvious why the CIA would want to kill him. He just got done saying he would destroy the CIA and denied them war with Cuba and Russia. Not sure how much more motive you need. Furthermore, you could unclassify all the docs and redact names of informants. You also didn’t need to make up the fake Warren commission, if you have nothing to hide but your informants’ identities.
The us govt like all govts lies about anything that could threaten its power and lies about things to get more power. That’s the basic foundation of understanding anything from JFK, to the moon landing (who was running the video camera? How come we came get back there?), to Covid (how did part of Moderna/cdc’s trademark get in the original virus?!?).
“He just got done saying he would destroy the CIA and denied them war with Cuba and Russia.”
God help us.
I tried to reply. It got lost. It's just as well. It wouldn't have done any good.
Bobby-Thanks for this thoughtful take on things, and the book suggestions regarding the JFK assassination. I have only read around the periphery of the subject (in spite of having clear recollections of watching the coverage on TV as a very young child.) I always felt that if there were an actual conspiracy- the mafia was the most likely suspect.
What's funny is that in the preface to his book, Gerald Posner says that when he started his research, he expected to find a Mafia connection. He didn't. And if there was Mafia involvement, there should have been evidence of it, because Bobby Kennedy was bugging all their hangouts and tapping all their phone lines.
Read some books about WW2 and then you decide.
That is exactly the point. I have read all about WW2 from the time I was a youngster. I believe the Holocaust occurred and know Pearl Harbor was bombed but were these atrocities allowed to happen by the so called “white hats”. We tend to believe what is passed down. On another topic I have read almost everything printed about the JFK assassination. In 1964 most people believed what the Warren Report stated to happen. We believe the story because we trusted the sources Senators,Congressmen,Supreme Court Justices. Now we know this event was much more sinister. Especially because it involved scores of people and was most likely carried out internally.Not to mention our country tried to blame it on another. Either way JFK was dead. Either way millions died in the European Holocaust. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a bogus event which launched the US into a full fledged hot war in Southeast Asia.We are winning in Vietnam! 9-11? Was it as presented?The American consulate in Benghazi was overwhelmed by Libyan’s who were outraged by a filmmaker. Covid from a bat?
Russian Collusion! Ivermectin is a horse drug! The unvaccinated are spreading Covid! Masking works! Six feet of separation! The vaccine prevents Covid,You are killing Grandma!,Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Joe Biden had 81 million votes.
Ukraine is a democracy ! Ukraine is winning the war! Biden is cognitive until the bullet misses killing Trump. Suddenly he needs to be removed without the 25th Amendment.
The controlled media has the power to frame people’s minds. They decide what people see or not.
You don't know anything about the Kennedy assassination if you think we tried to blame it on some other country. Tell me, just which country was that?
You really don't know anything about the assassination, at all, that's pretty obvious. The evidence for Oswald as lone gunman is overwhelming. Go to YouTube and watch the following videos:
1. Sean Munger. He's a historian. His two part, three hour long video about Kennedy assassination conspiracy hypotheses is based on Vincent Bugliosi's masterful book, "Reclaiming History."
2. LEMMiNO. Watch his graphic analysis of what went on in Dealey Plaza in those fifteen seconds. I have never seen anything as brilliant.
I think some tried to blame it on Cuba/USSR
Tucker does need to aggressively question his interviewees sometimes. The interview with Andrew Tate for example. Two things can be true: 1) an interview is not the same as an endorsement and 2) some people and their ideas are ridiculous.
Tucker took heat for interviewing Putin, though, which was courageous and informative, and some people said he wasn’t aggressive enough (I thought he was as aggressive as he could possibly be given the risks involved). Life is full of nuance but some people will always insist on black and white analysis.
This sort of attitude is Exhibit A for why we don't want the speech police. He's got a large audience so he's got a heightened obligation to censor, because you think Cooper's take on WWII and the holocaust are "seriously flawed?"
How about I don't think any of these people should defer to your take on others when they decide who to interview?
How do you know Cooper's take on WWII is "flawed" ??
Have you ever read any history of World War II? No, of course not.
It's scary as Hell, almost. You do know that Hitler systematically exterminated six to seven million people, and had plans to exterminate many more, don't you? And you don't see the bizarre quality inherent in Cooper's referring to Churchill of all people as a psychopath?
I've read a lot.
Then go to Tucker about this.
I don't think much of Tucker anymore. If I ever met him in person, I would say something. Hell, he's a fan of Kid Rock and I think rather than being an American Badass I think he's an American Dumbass (with a lousy beard thingy).
I agree with you. His lack of response to Cooper shocked me. My God! What has happened to us?! Look at the stupidity and nastiness which runs through so many of the comments.
This country is done.
Toro poo-poo!!
I agree. We need to look into history with an unbiassed lens—I’d start with the books that were burned during that time. A favorite channel of mine—Static in the Attic—on YouTube tried to do so, but YT said no.
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. The bombing of London was a war crime.
The booming of civilians to ‘take out’ terrorists is a war crime.
Who funded WW2?
Who set the stage for WW2 with the breaking of a country with reparations?
Why did Berlin look like San Francisco today?
Who’s behind breaking down our society with this immorality ?
Who was behind Berlin’s immorality?
Can you break a nation with immorality? Make them ashamed of who they are so that they won’t fight for their country try?
Who’s behind this constant teaching that our country is not worth fighting for?
Cooper was answering some of those questions that academia won’t ask. Media won’t ask. We get banned for asking.
Thank you for posting Tucker’s interview We need more questions not censorship.
If you know the list of banned books during that period of time, can you post them?
Thanks, Sasha.
I don’t think Cooper should be censored but one problem with the social media is that people tend to say contrarian things to get clicks. Cooper is one of those. The assertion that Europe would have been better off if Churchill had left the Nazis in control of the continent is an outrageously stupid idea. This is not a researchable idea, it is just very bad judgment, and the presumption that is a researchable idea preys on weak minds who haven’t read much history. Similarly Cooper’s conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suffer a like failing. Lastly, history is not a podcast, history comes from books as Cooper’s research proves. When things are written down they become the culmination of a man’s opinion. Cooper ought to know this.
Okay, does your "free speech absolutism" allow not only Tucker's right to give a platform for someone's "wacky shit" but also my right to condemn the wacky shit by canceling my subscription to Tucker?
Because that's all I have done.
Or would you force me to continue my subscription and listen to a man for whom I now have much less respect?
I reserve my right to turn down the volume on anyone and even turn them off if I choose.
As Dana White said, "Freedom of speech, brother. There are no leashes!"
That’s silly. Of course you have the right to cancel your subscription. Who, in their right mind would object to that?
Someone who shall remain nameless (but you've heard of them, I promise) has this day accused me of acting just like a Leftist for doing that.
Evans W, thank you for writing exactly what I was thinking.
Amen Evans!!
Apologizing is just being kind. It's ok to be kind.
I wish my mom was alive so she could wash your mouth out with soap. Wow. Lighten up, Francis.
🤣🤣
“The side that is most likely to build prisons or gulags to throw undesirables away like human garbage is Trump and MAGA.” You are missing a “not” before Trump. The ravenous left wants to throw all MAGAts into gulags.
The fascist far-left loves to use the tactic of repetition as a substitute for evidence.
They simply repeat a lie over and over and after a while some people believe it.
Good catch...funny how the brain sees something missing and simply corrects it as you read.
So glad she fixed it because I was REALLY confused. Then I saw her "corrected version" and I went straight to that part and the NOT was added.
Thanks, Sasha, for the correction!!
Exactly. I felt like a gay, Black-Jew-Muslim-Skin-head during Covid just for saying my-body-my-choice.
And I would bet serious money that if the left had been serious about locking me up—I would be locked up, with friends and family turning me in—for my own good of course.
It’s the same people starting the same wars-using the same useful idiots and paying the same weasels to get the job done💵💵
When will we ever learn?
I'm not sure what you are saying, but I see the NOT.
Don't apologize if people are offended. I'm so sick of that. If the guy is a dickhead, people can make up their own minds.
I didn't watch the show. I read Darryl Cooper's thread on Twitter. My one takeaway was that Churchill was in part responsible for the rise of Hitler through his treatment of Germany after World War I. So to give credit to Churchill for stopping Hitler while not acknowledging Churchill's actions during and after World War I that led to the rise of Hitler is to miss a lesson about history that would be well worth learning.
Let's stipulate for a moment that Trump really is a Hitlerian figure, a budding autocrat that has half the country in his thrall. Why is that? Why would people be so attracted to him? Well, he says what the rest of us are thinking. The elites (the pseudo-nobility) of this country couldn't care less about the peasantry. They have been bleeding the peasantry dry for decades to enrich themselves. So whose fault is the rise of Trump really? Well, it is the ruling class themselves, the Clintons, the Bushs, the Obamas, and Biden.
In China and in Russia, the same pattern played out with the rise of Lenin/Stalin and Mao. The ruling class were so disconnected and so dismissive of the needs of the masses that those people chose a revolution and communism because to them the ruling class offered nothing and had oppressed them past the point of toleration. Something had to change.
And this isn't about whether or not you're defending Hitler. Hitler didn't rise in a vacuum. Hitler was the consequence of a vindictive nature by those who "won" World War I, including starving Germans to death even after they'd surrendered and the Kaiser, an autocrat, was deposed (I didn't know that until I read the Cooper's twitter thread).
The reason for those with the power (be they the country that wins a war or the ruling class) to be mindful of their actions is because the moment you leave an opening where a group of people think they have nothing to lose by resorting to violence and revolution to alter their situation and secure their freedom you run the risk that you will get a Hitler or a Nazi Germany.
That is a lesson so many would be better off learning than screaming about Cooper being a "Nazi sympathizer." Because in the end, I think that was very much Cooper's point.
Most of the English upper class were Nazi sympathizers fans at least until Germany bombed England. Moreover, any number of wealthy Americans (Henry Ford, for one) and some corporations were more than happy to do business with Hitler. IBM was one.
This is a very insightful explanation, thank you.🙏🏼
Stating lies as facts is the classic liberal playbook. Show us where Trump the dictator wan be took away any one’s liberty. Show us the person he has empowered the DOJ to manufacture a crime and then go to a court where the judge is corrupted in a community that voted heavily against him so he could get that person convicted. This wanna be dictator allowed his own FBI to lie to the American public about the contents of the Hunter Laptop top. He allowed the DOJ to investigate him for 2 years over a made up lie regarding him and Russia. I don’t think any of the real dictators you mentioned would have allowed that. So do the world a favor stop parroting DNC talking points you read or heard in the MSM.
I don’t think Trump is a dictator. Learn to read.
i took it all wrong. Sorrry
Thank you for the apology. That doesn’t happen often.
👏🏼
I’d never heard of Cooper before and watched the whole interview, which I thought was fascinating. People need to keep an open mind because we clearly all don’t “know” what we think we know to be true. I have no idea if he is an anti-semite or of his opinions beyond what I saw in the interview. People are calling Tucker an anti-Semite. It seems to me it’s largely because he wants America to avoid getting sucked into wars that do not concern us and does not depend on whether these wars are being promoted by Jews or anyone else. (I don’t want my country to go to war with Iran; does that make me an anti-Semite?) Cooper seems to largely agree. He claims to not have an agenda and just wants to get at the truth. I can say that very much of the history we’ve been fed during my lifetime has definitely been a significant brainwash. For instance, I was totally in the bag for the Iraq War and a HUGE supporter of Bush and Cheney. So much so that I almost signed up with the military to fight the war, only to have God intersect my life with the angel that became my wife. Now I have basically done a 180 on the war, and that is largely due to Carlson’s reporting. Is used to believe Oswald killed JFK, and I don’t - also due to Carlson. If Cooper (and Carlson) is wrong about his take on history, that doesn’t bother me as much as the Goliath warmongering government apparatus that has continuously pissed down my back and told me it’s raining.
Excellent comment! You nailed it. American wealth has been squandered on proxy wars! Our big cities are crime ridden, with crumbling infrastructure, our poor and middle class decimated. Our tax dollars are going to every corner of the World for what???? Americans are getting the raw end of the deal!
Our troops fight these endless proxy wars! Our taxpayers fund them with virtually no say in the matter because the politicians won’t take a stand.
Not even close. Cooper analyzes history from both sides. Cuts through the myths.
…and comes to his own, personal conclusions, which may or may not be shared by all.
Isn't that how public debate is supposed to work?
Precisely.
And after listening to Cooper, as well as some of his podcasts, I believe him to be a rather dim bulb.
"which may or may not be shared by all"? That is a stretch, my friend.
WWII ended 79 years ago and since then thousands of books, editorials, essays, and opinions have been written. I have read my share, and this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that Churchill wished to proactively advanced the war....his reasons do not stand the test of 5 minutes of time.
I'm surprised TC gave Cooper as much time as he did, and would liked to have seen his summary.
This Cooper man is delusional, and I missed the reason why Sasha is discussing this.
You don't think the powers that be who use the mainstream media to push false narratives don't also use academia to create false historical narratives?
There are historians who have written books that refute the official narrative of World War II. David Irving comes to mind. For his efforts, Zionists destroyed his reputation and used lawfare to bankrupt him. They have also passed laws making it illegal to question the official narrative of World War II in most European countries. Maybe you should ask yourself why they felt the need to do so.
By the way, the woman who led the charge against Irving, Deborah Lipstadt, is now working for Anthony Blinken's Department of State as the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. The intent is to make it illegal to question the World War II narrative in this country too.
Ron Unz has done all of us a favor by compiling information on these questionable historical narratives in his American Pravda series, citing historians such as Irving as his references, and in some cases providing online copies of their books that are no longer available in print.
https://www.unz.com/page/american-pravda-series/
I think TC lauds this guy is because Cooper seems to belong to the same compartmentalism thinking that all wars are bad and totally avoidable at all times, which reveals to me, gross ignorance, not just of history, but of human nature itself.
I couldn't agree more!
Freedom of speech! Open dialogue! All good!
The question becomes , at least for me, this sort of shadowy Jew hatred that I keep getting from Tucker. It’s been happening for a while. It may be time to let him go , he’s starting to feel toxic.
I love how "Jew hatred" simply means questioning US support for Israel or questioning the events of World War II. That's a pretty damn broad definition that says more about your fragility and less about what Tucker actually thinks about Jews and Judaism.
Agreed 100%.
💯
This^^^^
Tucker, it seems to me, has locked himself into some belief that ALL wars, between anyone and for any reason, are bad.
It is naive at best, but he appears to cling to it without reservation.
Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Ukraine just to name a few. All eyes on Iran for the next one. Nobody wins but the international banksters and arms dealers. Millions die. Our kids died in Korea,Vietnam, Lebanon,Iraq and Afghanistan all for nothing.
Agree-ALL wars are banker's wars
Naomi Wolf has a project where she is reading aloud an early English version of the Bible (the Geneva Bible of 1570), talking about it, and then doing a compare/contrast with a modern English version, and a Hebrew version. She realized that she is a perfect person to do this, because she is fluent in both modern/biblical Hebrew and renaissance-era English.
Tucker interviewed her in April. They talked about God, the Bible, and many similar subjects. His reverence for the (Christian-)Hebrew God was foundational to the conversation. she was so inspired that she picked the project up again, and has been doing it fervently since then. She has even dipped into a Hebrew version of the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew.
whatever "shadowy Jew hatred" you keep getting from him: it isn't against the Jewish God, nor their place as His Chosen People.
My sense from listening to him is that he hates hypocrisy. So if someone does things in the name of being Jews that are not in accord with what the Bible says that Jews should do? I am not going to speak for Tucker here. I hate it when that happens.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is contemptible. I won't be surprised if the current nation of Israel disappears because this is what the Lord says will happen if the Jews live the way that they do (sodomy, etc.) and do the things that they are doing to their neighbors.
I am not a Jew hater. I hate what the Jews are doing in the name of my Lord.
Israel is involved in an urban conflict that was started by Hamas. And according to some sources, they have among the lowest civilian / hostile death ratio among contemporary history.
If you want to ask what G-d's opinion would be, read the Torah and find the number of times Hashem chastized Israel for being too gentle with their enemies.
You're not going to find much.
But hey, if you think Hamas should be able to rape, kidnap, and murder 1500 Jews without response, just say so.
Hashem gave His people the choice between a blessing and a curse. Are the people of Israel walking in His ways and clinging tightly to Him? Or are they rejecting His commands and walking in their own ways? I am not there, I am in the US. But from here, it looks like Israelis are acting in their own strength and doing things detestable in the eyes of the Lord. For example, “The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an important part of Israeli legislation and may be found in several laws”
There are things Israel has done that I do not favor. I was extremely disappointed with their push of the Covid fascism. I even coined a joke then that there was no more Israel, no more Britain, no more France, no more United States. we were all just different branch offices of Pfeizer.
But this also happened Biblically, such as in the book of Judges. The Israelites go astray. Bad things happen, often an invasion. They repent. And Hashem empowers them to defeat their enemies and they get back on the good side for a time.
October 7 was Israel's wake-up call. Many synagogues were full upon the news, and reunited to a common purpose, much like 9/11 did for America.
In good times and in bad, they remain Hashem's chosen people. And the times can get pretty bad.
They can be, and they can go astray.
However. In my opinion, retaliation for 10/7 is not one of those times.
Hearing things on Tucker or Candace or The View, is going to make you feel uncomfortable at times. I’ve heard and read reprehensible things on both the Left and the Right. You are not responsible for the thoughts and expressions of others, however much you may disagree with them. If you desire intellectual curiosity, then prepare yourself to be challenged.
If Cooper believes we should have left Hitler alone, then, as an historian, I do not trust Cooper's research or opinions.
As far as the Israel-Hamas ordeal goes, you're entitled to your opinion/position/indifference. Personally, I think it's time Israel removes its existential threat(s) once and for all.
Amazing how people can not stand to have their preconceived notions of what happened in the past challenged. Not a single one of us knew Hitler or Churchill or Stalin etc. we know that millions of people died because of them. This guy clearly stated that he wanted to understand both sides of an issue based upon what the people at the time knew and or perceived not what we know now. So if someone is not this perfect person that we lionized today this doesn’t make the person pointing it out an evil person. I was hoping to hear his take of the story of FDR having intelligence that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he kept that from the commanders at Pearl Harbor. If true why would he do that??? Or is it a case of putting puzzle pieces together after the facts are known and claiming that they should have done the same before the facts were truly known. IE the fog of war is real. Historians pretend sometimes that it’s not.
For crying out loud, Cooper isn't saying anything that Pat Buchanan wasn't saying in 2008. He has a different take on things, so what? Surely your readers aren't so sensitive that you would consider the need to take down the post? Most of us read you because you are an independent thinker with courage. No need to protect us from alternate ideas, if we think Cooper's full of BS, we'll move on.
Give us evidence & a link to what Pat B said.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2258833.Churchill_Hitler_and_The_Unnecessary_War_
thanks for posting this....I wish Tucker would have Buchanan on as a guest. He's one of the original paleoconservatives.
see below......
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is leery of Cooper. It's not on YOU Sasha, it's Tucker. He didn't even push back! Every time I hear the term "Zionist" I tune out because it's code for antisemitism, however I HAVE questioned some of WW2 as told by history just because I know winners write History and often lie. But I suspect factions of the US ruling class were tied to Stalin, and some funded Hitler. But I never heard this crazy take- blaming it on Churchill. Because he wanted Zionism. Wow. Antisemitism rises in tandem with communism it seems because here we are almost 100 years later with surges of both. Tucker needs to choose his guests better
I commend you for leaving the interview up. If you decide to steelman your current understanding of WW2-related narratives (w/o reference to Cooper), I can suggest perusing this synthetic overview of critical takes on some of the key WW2 related narratives from Ron Unz. Unz includes many valuable links and curates them fairly IMO. https://www.unz.com/runz/why-everything-you-know-about-world-war-ii-is-wrong/ Beyond that, if you want to check out a book or two, I cld suggest: David Irving's "Churchill's War" and AJP Taylor's "The Origins of WW2"
"Everything I know about WWII is wrong"? EVERYTHING?...as in there were no extermination camps? DDay was a trip to the beach? We never nuked Japan? My father had no patriotic duty when he risked his life every time he crawled into the cockpit of his torpedo bomber?
Sorry, that kind of headline isn't worth a spit in muddy sewer.
Why would you take the time to post this dog dirt?
The evidence suggests that those so-called extermination camps were work camps. It also suggests (according to Jewish historians) that the work camps started out as relocation camps, with Nazis and Zionists working together to round up and relocate Jews to Israel. The intent of the Zionists according to some historians was to pressure the British government into recognizing a Jewish state in Israel.
Likewise, logistics alone will refute the claim that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in a so-called Holocaust. Someone ran the data through AI using the number of crematoriums in the camps, the amount of space in each camp, and the time it would take to round up and transport 6,000,000 people in the equation. The answer? It would have taken 87 years for the Nazis to round up and kill 6,000,000 Jews.
The Red Cross worked with the camps during the war and during its aftermath. It estimated that fewer than 300,000 inmates died in the camps, and that most of those deaths were caused by a typhoid outbreak and from starvation after the allies bombed the supply lines. (The Red Cross claims to have tried to stop the Allies from bombing those supply lines.) I use the term "inmates" instead of Jews because they weren't the only people held in those camps. Indeed, it seems that Christians often outnumbered those inmates who were Jewish.
None of this is intended to negate the horror of forcibly removing innocent people from their homes and imprisoning them in camps, but it does seem to be that the official narrative is based on lies and exaggerations.
The Holocaust's systemic killing of Jews was not limited to the gas chambers. That's where your analogy of "dur, the crematoria in the camps was not enough for 6 million, dur, therefore no Holocaust."
No one ever said that every victim died via gas chamber and the creamtoria.
If you read Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning, he gives many accounts of German policemen who were ordered to gather up the Jews of towns. march them into the forest and shoot them all into a mass grave. One by one.
Does this act contribute to the math of the crematoria?
No, it does not.
However, it remains a part of the Holocaust.
Trying to play games that it didn't happen because of the numerical limits of the crematoria is a pretty deceptive method of argumentation.
To any Holocaust questioners, I recommend a fictional account of WWII, written by Herman Wouk. The two companion novels are "The Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance". Yes, Wouk was a practicing and observant Jew, and an admitted Zionist. These two novels provided me a greater understanding of Hitler's aims, the concentration camps, and the politics surrounding the conduct of the war by Roosevelt and Churchill.
Wouk's preface to the first edition includes this quote from a character in the book: " Either war is finished, or we are.". This is the overarching theme of both novels. He ends his preface as follows. "The beginning of the end of War lies in Remembrance." Words for all of us.
The crematoriums in the camps were used to dispose of the bodies of anyone who died regardless of the cause of death. The evidence also suggests that there were no gas chambers (Zyklon B is a pesticide that was used for delousing), nor does there seem to be evidence of mass graves.
If you can find books on World War II that were written by David Irving, please do so. Of course, the odds that you'll find one of his books are slim to none, perhaps because, unlike Christopher Browning, his research challenged the official narrative. This is why Zionists literally cancelled him, destroying his reputation and using lawfare to bankrupt him. The person who led the assault on Irving's well-being was Deborah Lipstadt. Be sure to look her up. She now works for Anthony Blinken's state department.
You might want to ask yourself why it is against the law to question the official narrative in most European countries and in Canada. In other words, even historians in those countries can be imprisoned for presenting research that challenge this narrative. There would be no reason for such laws if the official narrative was irrefutable.
Also ask yourself how the size of the global Jewish population was larger after the war if 6,000,000 had been killed during those years. Likewise, there were roughly 500,000 Jews living in Germany before the war and some 3,700,000 in the countries of their European allies. So where did the others come from?
Not a single word about the mass shootings of villages I discussed, from Browning's book? How convenient for you to just copy/paste the standard favorite historian of the Neo Nazis.
Regarding Browning's book, I didn't comment on it because I haven't read it, nor do I have the time to check out his bibliography. One can tell alot about a book from a bibliography. For example, did he actually do new research or is he simply repeating what historians for the official narrative have said. There is also the possibility that he may be cherrypicking, choosing to highlight the worst case scenarios while ignoring others. According to the Red Cross report on the camps, yes, there were instances where people were rounded up and shot, although this seems to have occurred primarily in Poland. Other countries were quite lax with their inmates, and in several instances (I believe this was Czechoslavakia, if memory serves), the inmates were allowed to go home at night.
So tell me, why is it against the law in most western countries to question the official narrative? You haven't said a single word about that situation.
Also, it has been my experience that people usually resort to insults when they can't formulate an argument to refute what another has said. Those were my own words, not copy/paste. And David Irving wasn't a Neo-Nazi but you seem to be willing to continue smearing him. The people who cite Irving aren't Neo-Nazis either. Some are even Jewish.
What year did Israel become a state, einstein?
1948. What year did Israel attack the USS Liberty?
1948.....Is that why you edited your post? Because Nazis couldn't have rounded up Jews to send them to Israel before the Allies wiped them from the earth's surface.
87 years is not enough time for a simpleton. Try the CNN comment section. Believe me, no one here will miss you, but we'll be glad you're gone.
It should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the history that this collaboration with Nazis and Zionists occurred before World War II. In fact, the year was 1933.
The European Jews who founded Israel began pressuring Britain to recognize a Jewish state in Israel before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Hasbara needs to start hiring smarter people. Methinks you are the simpleton.
(As for the edit, it was to correct a typo.)
87 years is not enough time for you to gain some sense. What are you anyway, a Neo Nazi with no balls? Go get your keyboard jollies off somewhere else.
People who are incapable of formulating a counterargument usually resort to insults.
234, I don’t think we heard the same interview.
I'm referring to the post April made.
Unz is pretty anti-semitey,imo. Irving is a scholar, whose conclusions can seem anti-semitey (but are not, imo). Irving has strong evidence that Churchill was an appalling wimp who put his own countrymen in danger, and then fled the scene when he might have been in danger.
If you want to read similar things about how the Brits manipulated Germany and Russia into destroying each other, Alex Krainer has three excellent posts at https://thenakedhedgie.com/2021/12/17/appeasement-the-shocking-truth-about-the-1938-munich-agreement-part-1-of-3/
Oh thank you! I had not seen this Krainer piece. His book "Grand Deception" on the Bill Browder hoax is excellent - so I look forward to hearing his take on this topic :-)
Unz is Jewish.
Thanks. Guess I got that one wrong. : )
NO!! Just NO!! David Irving is NOT a serious historian! His distorted views of WWII were litigated in England and they were proven false. There are multiple books written about the litigation and a movie made about it. Irving's history is factually incorrect. It is contradicted by original, historical documents and eye witnesses. This is not a debate any more; his views are not true.
Thank you. I'm... very conflicted on Darryl Cooper.
I found many of his podcasts to be very good, similar to how I feel about Dan Carlin. (Though I am far more impressed with Carlin's take on, say, ancient Rome or Greece or the Mongols, and far less to his opinion on contemporary matters)
I am Jewish and I am a strong supporter of Israel. Cooper's series on the Arab-Israeli conflict was, I think, an honest attempt to be as fair as possible regarding the conflict, and even allowed crusty old me to have a little sympathy for the Arabs.
But then.... October 7th.
At first, Cooper was horrified. I asked him on Twitter what he would do if he was Bibi. He answered (And I am paraphrasing from memory:) "Bibi is in an impossible situation. If I was him, I'd make Genghis Khan look like Ghandi."
Then israel's response began, and Cooper immediately seemed to jump onto Hamas's "Israel is committing genocide!" propaganda.
I reminded him of his line on Genghis Khan and Ghandi.
And he blocked me. On Twitter.
And I was one of his paid subscribers.
The present war in Gaza is a propaganda war as much of anything else, and I would argue this is Hamas's main tactic. It doesn't matter how gentle the Israelis are -- they would call anything a genocide. Much of this was planned even before 10/7.
Cooper on Twitter sounds a hell of a lot different than Cooper on his podcasts. His move to support the Hamas propaganda was pretty upsetting.
Not arguing here, just re-thinking things a little with hindsight. I look at what Trump did mostly using economic leverage to tamp our enemies; he unleashed hydrocarbon energy and tariffs to hobble China, Iran, and Russia by increasing the energy supply which lowered the price of oil. Did W do that? Did Barry Soetoro do that? No. They supported 20 years of wars to nowhere rather than just hunting down terrorist leaders. Oh, Trump sent one missile to kill the worlds leading terrorist(Soleimani) and then told Afghanistan 'leaders' that he will kill them if any of our people are harmed.
Peace. For four years.
FDR did everything in the world to destroy our economy - in Henry Morgenthau's language - for seven long years and probably looked at war as the way out of his disastrous policies.
IDK... Hindsight gives us an opportunity really look at why any war of the 20th century should have been fought. I took part in Desert Storm, and at the time, I thought it justified because we couldn't have on madman in control of the hydrocarbon energy supply.
And then I ask: If Trump unleashed our energy supply to exceed demand, like Ronaldus, to lower cost and avoid dependency on others and therefore potential war: why didn't other presidents use our economic leverage which is(was) our greatest weapon? Military Industrial Complex?
I think that's incredibly mean to ask if he's a Nazi sympathizer. I disagreed with his take on Churchill, but at the same time he's a highly thoughtful intelligent guy. Brilliant. So I imagine he'd be quite capable of defending his take, and would do so with you if you asked. He's heard all the arguments so wouldn't be unaware of those points you or I have made.