White House and Media Demonize Tucker Carlson and Historian Darryl Cooper
White House and Media Demonize Tucker Carlson and Historian Darryl Cooper
Error has no rights and the legacy media will decide what constitutes error
Copyright ©2024 by Independent History and Research
Last week I listened to an interview with historian Darryl Cooper on the Tucker Carlson program after Elon Musk recommended it.
I strongly disagree with many of Cooper's assessments which however, were far more nuanced than what is being reported by legacy media such as the NY Times (NYT).
In the September 6 edition of the Times online, reporter Jonathan Wiseman wrote: "Vance Declines to Denounce Carlson After Interview With Holocaust Revisionist. JD Vance’s campaign said he 'doesn’t believe in guilt-by-association cancel culture' but doesn’t share the views of Tucker Carlson’s guest, who claimed the Holocaust was not premeditated genocide.
"Senator JD Vance, the running mate of former President Donald J. Trump, has declined to denounce the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson for praising and airing the views of a Holocaust revisionist who falsely claimed that the Nazis’ destruction of European Jewry was not an intentional act of premeditated genocide.
"Mr. Vance is scheduled to be interviewed live by Mr. Carlson for his social media show on Sept. 21 in Hershey, Pa. Mr. Carlson is no stranger to controversy, but his recent interview with Darryl Cooper, whom he described as 'the best and most honest popular historian in the United States,' has faced particularly fierce blowback..."
"Mr. Cooper, in an interview with Mr. Carlson shared on the social media site X earlier this week, falsely claimed the Holocaust was an accident of history, perpetrated by a German military overwhelmed with prisoners of war..."
[End quote from the New York Times]
Did Mr. Wiseman listen to the interview in the entirety of its 138 minutes?
Mr. Cooper never claimed anything like the enormity, falsely attributed to him by the Times writer, that "the Holocaust was an accident of history." Cooper suggested that much of the mass murder was the result of the chaos of Hitler's war in the east. He did not deny that a terrible holocaust occurred, nor did he maintain that it was entirely the result of Nazi Germany's war with the Soviet Union.
Cooper stuck to his version of what he regards as anomalous facts, and argued them in a reasonable manner. Because he is a dissenting or revisionist researcher should not provoke a storm of frenzied demands for "denunciation!"
J.D. Vance will not condemn Tucker Carlson for providing a dissident historical point of view which was free of hate and filled with intriguing viewpoints of an alternative nature. Good for Vance.
I recommend hearing the interview and judging for yourself. Is that even permissible these days, or are we to tremble at the thought of violating taboos decreed from corporate headquarters? I am weary of incentives to conform to the mainstream consensus, and so too are millions of others.
In his interview with Tucker, in my opinion Copper missed certain key elements of Hitler’s iniquity, but not from malice. Cooper is reading and perceiving the record differently from my reading. So what? I can handle it, given that I believe I have the truth. Mr. Cooper's views don't threaten me. I welcome the opportunity to contest some of his points.
For example, he associated Hitler with peace-making in Europe and Britain. Yet, Hitler wasn’t even much of a peacemaker in Germany. itself. In 1934, without even a pretense of trials, the bloodthirsty despot ordered the murder of dozens of his former associates, including Gregor Strasser. He had these men who were innocent of conspiracy, shot at the same time he ordered the execution of guilty plotters such as Ernst Röhm, which was a cunning means of making the innocent appear guilty by association. This “Night of the Long Knives” slaughter receives little sustained study from those who fantasize that Hitler was not entirely evil.
Hitler's non-bellicose efforts were primarily for the benefit of a British empire he admired. He was a warmonger toward Jewish and Slavic people.
Hitler gullibly overlooked the extent to which the British empire was hardwired into Freemasonry and its perpetual objective of rebuilding the Temple at Jerusalem.
Because a parade of eccentric English aristocrats pilgrimaged to Berlin in the 1930s to have tea with the Nazi dictator, he mistakenly believed they were representative of the ruling class, when it was in fact city firebomber Winston Churchill who was the personification of that class.
Cooper appears to be at the very least, naive concerning Hitler's early career, when he formulated many of his plans, including the attack on the Soviet Union. Hitler’s incorrigible propensity for Jew-hatred arose beginning circa 1919, when he was mentored by a malevolent occult organization which competed with its rival Freemasonry for members and influence (the occult imperium is not a seamless garment). This hidden chapter in his life is explored in this writer’s book, Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People.
I surmise that Mr. Cooper would challenge these assertions and would do so from his command of the documentary record, and not, I would hope, from any secretly harbored prejudice in favor of Nazism or against Jews. Intellectual space must be provided for dissidents and a newsman like Carlson.
Many do not agree. Basketball billionaire Mark Cuban demanded that Elon take down his recommendation of the Cooper-Carlson conversation. Mr. Musk, who is defying the government of Brazil, chose not to defy the diktat of Mr. Cuban. He complied and removed his own tweet.
The fever pitch of furious outrage increased in the New York Times on September 6. In less than 12 hours the Times published a second article on this tempest in a teapot, this one headlined, “Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust Revisionist.” She added that “Mr. Carlson’s endorsement of Mr. Cooper has sparked considerable outrage from the Biden administration.”
An excitable rush of rhetoric repeating discredited tropes
Andrew Bates, White House Deputy Assistant to the president, turned up the volume a hundred decibels by announcing in an excitable rush of rhetoric repeating discredited tropes substituting for empirical refutation:
“Giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over six million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism and to every subsequent victim of antisemitism.
“The Biden administration condemns trafficking in this moral rot that is unacceptable at any time, let alone less than one year after the deadliest massacre perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and at a time when the cancer of antisemitism is growing all over the world.”
Observe how the trope functions: any deviation from the official World War Two narrative constitutes “Nazi propaganda” and makes the one who offers an alternative view, a “Holocaust denier.”
We note that a person who has those pejoratives unjustly pinned to his back is likely to be canceled online, lose his career, bank account, standing in the community and reputation in general. Instant pariah status is conferred by the enforcement arm of the White House itself, because a thought criminal had the audacity to offer another perspective.
Listening to his talk with Tucker, I did not hear Cooper deny that the unconscionable suffering of Jewish people in World War II was a holocaust.
What then qualifies him for the “denier” label applied by the Biden administration? Departing one iota from the official line?
That line would appear to be so weak and insecure that a lone online dissenter has been assailed in two separate NY Times articles in one day, and then labeled by a spokesman for the president of the United States as a “morally rotten” individual who has the temerity to venture to offer his independent views less than one year after the massacre of Israelis by Hamas terrorists.
By the same reasoning we can demand that the far-Right Zionist racists who have “trafficked” their “morally rotten” views should be silent out of deference to the 50,000 Palestinian civilians shot, bombed and buried under rubble in Gaza as of yesterday, last week, last month and all the months before that, since October.
Following the “logic” of the White House with regard to Carlson’s guest Darryl Cooper, in the face of the “the deadliest massacre perpetrated against the Palestinian people since the founding of the Israeli state,” supporters of the Israeli military’s Gaza genocide machine ought to be refused a “microphone.”
Of course that would be censorship, which is permissible in Cooper’s case while it’s considered an offense to deny Zionist war advocates a platform. Actually, it’s an offense in either case. Let both sides speak and the people decide.
Several hours before the Times and the White House elicited their paroxysms of protest over Copper’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, 26-year-old American peace activist Aysenur Eygi was murdered by a “disgusting and sadistic” Israeli sniper in the West Bank.
Her killing—the shedding of the innocent blood of an American citizen— has not elicited much outrage or independent investigation into the Israeli sniper’s crime from Joe Biden’s factotums or the New York Times, compared with their inconsolable rage over a conversation which a talk show host conducted with a scholar.
Less than twelve hours after the second article was published, the Times on September 7 published a third diatribe, this one penned by columnist Michelle Goldberg: “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His Show.” She stated:
“Over the course of a wide-ranging two-hour conversation, Cooper presented the mainstream history of World War II as a mythology shrouded in taboos intended to prop up a corrupt liberal political order…Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history…The idea that Nazi Germany represented the epitome of evil, argued Cooper, is such a ‘core part of the state religion’ that we have ‘emotional triggers’ preventing us from examining the past dispassionately…Churchill was a ‘psychopath’ propped up by Zionist interests…”
Actually, Cooper was alluding to the common belief propagated throughout the Right wing and most notoriously at conservative Hillsdale College, that Churchill was the “savior of western civilization.”
The depraved notion that Anglo-Saxon society was rescued from downfall by drenching the ancient Saxon capital of Dresden in flames, testifies to the moral vacuum at the heart of the “USA! USA! USA!” jingoism displayed at both the Republican and Democratic conventions this summer. The embrace of America’s budget-busting, world policeman role is founded partly on “the leadership principles of Winston Churchill.”
One of those Churchillian principles is the doctrine of the mass incineration of German civilians by the hundreds of thousands, a barbarous crime invoked by Israeli war criminals in their bombing of Gaza back to the stone age.
The victims of Churchill’s inferno are less-than-zero German women, children and non-combatant men and therefore there is no memory to kindle and no serious examination of what this near genocide represents for the reputation of Churchill.
This is a legitimate area of study. In the Internet Age the legacy media’s maniacal repugnance of any probing inquiry into their revered dogmas will fail in its goal of intimidating the free exercise of our investigative faculties.
Goldberg resorts to the tired obfuscations of the pre-social media era when independent researchers and revisionist scholars had no audience anywhere near as large as that of the corporate media.
Now Tucker Carlson’s televised program has tens of millions of viewers on Musk’s “X” forum, dwarfing that of the Times, which finds itself shaking a Lilliputian fist in the face of ideological foes it has been accustomed to caricature into oblivion.
Goldberg descends into incoherence when she rants, “Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression and ethnic grievance…”
How does Goldberg define the mortal sins of “glib contrarianism” and “right-wing transgression”? We are expected to accept that these intimations of thought crime are barometers of Nazi affiliation, or sympathy.
Does Goldberg and her fellow pompous polemicists know how dangerous it is to irresponsibly toss the Nazi imprecation? The Left raises the specter of “Donald Trump concentration camps,” while rendering “contrarianism” and “ethnic grievance”indicators of “Nazi sympathy.” This would be laughable except for the fact that this guilt-by-association is itself only a few steps away from concentrating supposed Nazi sympathizers in confinement facilities (the Orwellian Establishment would forbid terming them concentration camps).
Miss Goldberg also showcases her mind-reading abilities when she detects that “Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history…”
What exactly was faux about it? She impugns the man’s sincerity on no evidence other than her ipse dixit, issued from the corporate stratosphere before which we are expected to genuflect.
Why does she seem to hold it against Cooper that he was “soft-spoken”? Would she have preferred that he shouted? Her trivial objections amount to dime store psychoanalysis that detract from her indictment.
Discarding all epistemological and moral guardrails
Lastly, she autopsies what she imagines are the horrible consequences that occur when we defy herd conformity:
“For parts of the contemporary right…the social consensuses undergirding liberalism are artificial and even tyrannical. After all, the ‘Matrix’-derived metaphor of being ‘red-pilled’ implies a realization that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs. And once you discard all epistemological and moral guardrails, it’s easy to descend into barbarous nonsense.”
Michelle is waxing eloquent. Now let’s see who actually has “discarded all epistemological and moral guardrails.” Churchill for one, whose Royal Air Force in tandem with Roosevelt’s burned alive 500,00 civilians in Germany; Roosevelt who incinerated 100,000 civilians in Tokyo; Truman who vaporized 150,000 non-combatants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Ariel Sharon whose Israeli Air Force bombs killed 30,000 Lebanese in Beirut; Madeleine Albright who approved the killing of a half million Iraqi innocents; Bill Clinton and NATO who terror-bombed Serbia’s cities, trains, buses, churches and monasteries; George W. Bush who invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq to wage aggressive war, and Hillary Clinton, Obama and NATO who destroyed Libya and facilitated the murder by torture of Muammar Gaddafi.
The winner of the crocheted pisspot in my inventory of Establishment-approved moral and epistemological breakdown and barbarity, is the Israeli state, where Hashem’s privileged purloiners have been extruding, shooting, bombing and butchering the indigenous population of Palestine since 1948.
Goldberg should climb down off her high horse with regard to the pious doctrine of World War II Allied benevolence, whose mantle of immunity continues to cloak American and Zionist war crimes, and where radical challenges to the U.S. and Israeli killing machines are met with an umbilical attachment to Nazi-baiting and facile Hitler analogies.
On September 11 Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial pages were long on insults and haughty contempt. On p. A16, under “Tucker Carlson’s History Lessons,” the editorial board wrote:
“…why are some on the right now indulging their own false history of World War II and Nazi Germany? That’s the question raised by Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with Darryl Cooper, a provocateur who offers a bizarre history of the Holocaust and Winston Churchill…Mr. Carlson presented Mr. Cooper to his millions of Twitter followers as an ‘honest popular historian,’ but he’s closer to a crackpot…Mr. Carlson traffics in nutty falsehoods…There has always been a temptation on the political right to wade into…crank history. Think Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. The rise of social media has made bad ideas and demagoguery easier to spread…”
The Journal’s lead editorial refrained from accusing Mr. Cooper of Holocaust denial. They charged him with “Holocaust rationalization.” Perhaps they listened with more attention to the interview than most of Cooper and Carlson’s detractors. Cooper specifically mentions the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust, so blaming him for denial of that which he affirms is not reasoning, it’s emotion.
What sticks in the craw of most of those who denounce the conversation is this segment of the 138 minutes: “The Nazis launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners…They went in with no plan for that and just threw these people into camps. Millions of people ended up dead there.”
The factual first sentence reveals a great deal about the mental state of Hitler. He did indeed launch a war on Soviet Russia for which Nazi Germany was completely unprepared. Hitler bet the destiny of Germany and his own life on finishing off Stalin’s millions of fighting men in a matter of months. Hitler’s racist disdain for Slavic people led him to a reckless gamble: that a Blitzkrieg-type victory would be the nearly certain outcome. When the quick finish didn’t happen his quartermaster general informed him the war could not be won—Germany’s supply of weapons, ammunition, fuel, transport and clothing could not fill the desperate needs of the Ostheer (the troops on the East Front).
The other hole in Hitler’s suicidal plunge into the USSR was as Cooper has described it: no plan for the POWs and Jewish and Slavic civilians captured. So they died, of starvation, freezing and gunfire. In some cases this was, contrary to Cooper, a matter of Nazi policy. Einsatzgruppen forces were dispatched to the east to annihilate captured Jewish Communist commissars attached to Red Army units, and they weren’t too particular about who they shot. Cooper’s suggestion that millions were shipped to camps where they died is wrong. There was nowhere near the rail transport or fuel for extractions from Russia on so vast a scale (“millions”). The camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau contained some POWs, but most were Judaic, Slavic and Christian civilians seized in Western and Central Europe, including Poland.
In his talk with Tucker, Cooper never once cast doubt on many of these people in the camps being gassed to death. It seems that his intent was to clarify, not deny, the Holocaust.
The Overlords however, will not concede even one inch of the historical territory they have decreed to be so holy it’s beyond the critical scrutiny of mere peasants. These monopolists have fashioned the events of the Second World War into a chronicle etched in marble—the only history not susceptible to revision by newly discovered artifacts and archives.
Conformity is enforced through ridicule, defamation and the invocation of “experts” who have been anointed as authorities so impeccable that those who challenge their deified narratives are shamed as bigots. Our thought-managers demonize any empirical discovery which has the potential to challenge their pieties.
A second attack appeared September 11 in the Journal, this one on p. A15, by “Politics & Ideas” columnist William A. Galston titled, “Trump Must Disavow Tucker Carlson: The host crossed a line by providing a friendly platform for Holocaust denial.”
Mr. Galston calls Cooper “an unabashed Holocaust denier.” He adds, “Elon Musk, just named to head up Mr. Trump’s commission on government efficiency, promoted it as ‘very interesting’ and ‘worth watching.’ (He subsequently deleted his post, without explanation.)”
Musk didn’t explain in that he didn’t want to plunge into more hot water. As I noted earlier, he caved to the demands of Mark Cuban. This has received scant attention in the mainstream media.
The Right wing bemoans censorship when it is on the receiving end, yet since the days of William F. Buckley Jr. “conservative” thought cops have policed the marketplace of ideas on behalf of shielding Zionism from defections in the ranks of Conservatives. Catholic wordsmith Joseph Sobran was one victim of the witchhunt.
Galston notes: “Jonathan Tobin recalls William F. Buckley’s efforts to purge antisemites from the conservative movement he helped found. The only comparably popular commentator on the right today is Mr. Carlson, who is working assiduously to bring into the mainstream the sort of fringe voices Mr. Buckley worked to expel. This brings us back to Donald (Trump), the only person left on the right who can put an end to this madness. He can denounce Mr. Carlson.”
We sees expulsion and denunciation praised and advocated in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal where not a week goes by without issuing stirring calls for “Freedom of expression against woke Leftist censorship!”
In 2024 this corrosive hypocrisy is beginning to unravel due to social media like “X,” and The Tucker Carlson Show where the 138 minute conversation with Darryl Cooper remains online.
His lengthy exchange with Tucker was more than what emotionally-stressed detractors have described; which is one reason why it was compelling. For instance, I personally benefited from Cooper’s astute summation of the core of Christian philosopher René Girard’s scapegoat thesis.
The weakness of ideologues and their propaganda is that no matter how stylistically polished they may be, they’re fundamentally boring. Being propaganda and not an adventure in unfettered learning, their agit-prop excludes information which would subvert their credibility. Whereas, the conversation between Cooper and Carlson, however flawed, was refreshing in the scope of its originality.
I don’t think Mr. Cooper is a plotter of a Fourth Reich. He evidently has read deeply in the documents and literature of WWII in the Atlantic theater. The work he has undertaken has earned him a hearing from those of us who believe in thinking for ourselves, as opposed to deferring to a clairvoyant at Command Central in New York.
Error has no rights and the legacy media will decide what constitutes error
Moreover, and this is missed in the current controversy, Americans have the right to be wrong. Error has rights because history teaches that what was thought to be false in one time period is sometimes proven true in another. Human progress depends on healthy skepticism toward any consensus imposed by an authority which renders doubt disreputable. “Error has rights” is a free-thinking Enlightenment truism that was championed by Thomas Jefferson.
It was the Inquisition that decreed error has no rights. That totalitarian standard has been revived now in the campaign to denounce JD Vance for failing to denounce Tucker Carlson for failing to denounce Darryl Cooper and keep him off his program. Ours is an age of virtue-signaling denunciation to the point of madness.
Nothing is gained by suppressing the views of historians like Cooper who appear to be genuine truth-seekers.
Believe it or not, a man or woman can dissent from the World War II Allied liturgy without being a hater. Many haters are on the other side— howling for the heads of Vance, Cooper and Carlson predicated on little more than a mobocracy.
People of good will on both sides of the political spectrum and of all race and religions should consider that the more conversations like the one Tucker conducted with Mr. Cooper are damned and diabolized, the more they will attract listeners and believers on the premise that because the Establishment seeks to suppress them it confirms their thesis. I call this the forbidden fruit syndrome. It has a magnetic pull regardless of the merits of the speaker’s arguments. Make a martyr out of a dissident and sometimes you unnecessarily increase his audience dramatically. Those who disagree with Cooper should debate him — or Carlson, or JD Vance. Enough with the cancel culture.
Let's stand for the advancement of knowledge without a White House flunky or legacy media thought cops standing over us demanding that we besmirch those who think differently.
Copyright ©2024 Independent History and Research • RevisionistHistory.org
I am grateful to the paid subscribers who make these columns possible. Please give serious consideration to joining them. I will continue this Truth Mission for as long as I have the resources to do so. Securing those resources is a constant struggle. We have not yet obtained enough paid subscriptions to sustain the work required to produce this column weekly. Donations toward the support of my research, writing and broadcasting are gratefully received: P.O. Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816—or at this link. Thank you.
Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman is the author of the book Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People, as well as an exposé of Nazi abortion ideology and praxis.
A New York native, Michael is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and a former paid consultant to the news department of the New York Times. Hoffman’s books have been published in translation in Japan and France. Listen to his broadcasts on his Revisionist History® podcast, find him on X (Twitter) and browse his website.
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Winston Churchill: Enemy of Western Civilization (podcast)
The Neo-Nazi Attack on the Bible
Thanks for your analysis concerning the Tucker interview with Mr. Cooper and the media and government response to it. I see historical research in pursuit of the truth as producing a mirror where we can collectively look into - one that shows us where we truly succeeded and failed. Your efforts along with others help to polish that mirror. Without that polished mirror, our collective learning fails and as a result our social situation becomes up for grabs to those who care only for power. Once again, thanks.
Many thanks to Michael for this examination of Carlson's revisionist history interview and the way in which it has been so vehemently demonized by the "Lilliputian fist of the NYT" -- which tells us how weak and desperate the illegitimate White House feels itself to be. I would not have listened otherwise.
In this fascinating dialogue, Darryl Cooper mentioned that the farce of the Nuremberg Trials was mounted in order to affix a "binary model as rhetorical device" on the victor's narrative of history, the good guys vs the bad guys equation -- impossible to go into here the full scope of the shrinking of mind and spirit that involves. And how it teaches hate. But Michael brings up the Inquisition, and from this article and interview we might learn that we in the "West (Allies)" have lived for decades under an Inquisitorial model of thinking. We should beware of the collective insanity this could lead us to, as Darryl Cooper eloquently describes (Jonestown).
In response to Tucker's observation that current conditions in the UK and the USA would make it look as though we really lost WWII, Mr. Cooper made the fascinating statement that the US and the Soviet Union conquered the West; certainly demonic seeming ideologies have swept in to our lives. By Michael's analysis, I realize perhaps what Cooper means: we are living under a neo-Stalinist ideology, which will impose upon us what we can know and not know, lest we be branded as heretics. Silenced and disappearing. Or continuing to watch our world be murdered. Martyr Made.