J.D.Vance declines to criticize Tucker Carlson over his friendly chat with Holocaust Denier

[cdemundo]

Just now, cdemundo said:

" 2019 was the lowest reading on the poverty index"

 

From that you conclude that ""Trump wants to help the poor"?

What do you conclude about Trump and pandemic respiratory diseases?

Apparently he promotes those as well since they were so popular during his presidency; same logic.

 

Parse this one for me:

Socrates is a man.

All men are mortal.

Socrates is mortal.

Therefore all men are Socrates.

 

Makes as much sense as your conclusion.

Maybe this would help.

Fun and easy!

[maesariang]

15 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

" 2019 was the lowest reading on the poverty index"

 

From that you conclude that ""Trump wants to help the poor"?

What do you conclude about Trump and pandemic respiratory diseases?

Apparently he promotes those as well since they were so popular during his presidency; same logic.

 

Parse this one for me:

Socrates is a man.

All men are mortal.

Socrates is mortal.

Therefore all men are Socrates.

 

Makes as much sense as your conclusion.

Maybe this would help.

Gibberish

[mdr224]

Is voting for the left really a better alternative for american jews the way things are going?

[mdr224]

On 9/7/2024 at 5:40 AM, Yagoda said:

When are Biden Harris going to apologize for their support/encouragement of Genocide. Sure outweighs radio hosts and podcasters doesnt it.?

 

Imagine

 

Hey Mr. Editor, Harris/Biden gave another $1,000,000 dollars to Hamas.

Huh. Run that in our Arab language edition. Otherwise, shhhhhhh.

Hey Mr. Editor, Tucker Carlson just talked to some nobody who supposedly is a Holocaust Denier.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT....STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!! HEADLINE:

 

Screaming, 

 

TRUMP POLICY PLANNERS CONSULT NAZIS

 

I feel sorry for so many of you guys here LOL

 

I noticed nobody replied to this post. Tells me everything i need to know

[Yagoda]

10 hours ago, mdr224 said:

Is voting for the left really a better alternative for american jews the way things are going?

No Jew in America should ever vote Democratic again. 

[Cameroni]

The controversy unleashed by the pearl clutching left media in tandem with the left White House has succeeded in driving up Daryl Cooper's subscribers to over quarter of a million and have catapulted his podcast martyr made into the very top of all podcast lists.

 

He has commented on X that the reaction to his interview confirms what he said, that WW II is part of the foundng myth of modern institutions and therefore telling the truth about it is received with emotional attacks by some.

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The controversy unleashed by the pearl clutching left media in tandem with the left White House has succeeded in driving up Daryl Cooper's subscribers to over quarter of a million and have catapulted his podcast martyr made into the very top of all podcast lists.

 

He has commented on X that the reaction to his interview confirms what he said, that WW II is part of the foundng myth of modern institutions and therefore telling the truth about it is received with emotional attacks by some.

This level of reasoning makes him totally unbelievable.

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This level of reasoning makes him totally unbelievable.

 

How so?

[stevenl]

50 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

How so?

People disagree and therefore he is telling the truth. That level of reasoning.

[Cameroni]

Just now, stevenl said:

People disagree and therefore he is telling the truth. That level of reasoning.

 

I suppose you had to have seen the interview, he said there that speaking uncomfortable truths about WWII is still going to cause controversy today because WWII is a foundational myth for many institutions of today.

 

It is normal for him to see the reaction to his interview then as confirmation of this belief.

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I suppose you had to have seen the interview, he said there that speaking uncomfortable truths about WWII is still going to cause controversy today because WWII is a foundational myth for many institutions of today.

 

It is normal for him to see the reaction to his interview then as confirmation of this belief.

*This is from Andrew Roberts, an historian writing on at the freebeacon.com, a very rightwing site:

 

"Cooper's first argument was that Churchill "was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland." Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister. Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain's navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground."

https://freebeacon.com/culture/no-churchill-was-not-the-villain/

 

At best, Darryl Cooper is an ignoramus.

[stevenl]

Cooper is being called out.
https://aseannow.com/topic/1337790-revisiting-history-the-unlikely-campaign-to-vilify-winston-churchill/#comment-19222709

 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

*This is from Andrew Roberts, an historian writing on at the freebeacon.com, a very rightwing site:

 

"Cooper's first argument was that Churchill "was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland." Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister. Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain's navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground."

https://freebeacon.com/culture/no-churchill-was-not-the-villain/

 

At best, Darryl Cooper is an ignoramus.

 

It is rather amusing that you would trot out, of all people, Andrew Roberts, to discredit Cooper. Andrew Roberts of course

 

"...defended acts such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the Second Boer War concentration camps for Afrikaners during the Second Boer War, and mass internment in Northern Ireland (Operation Demetrius). Hari also wrote that Roberts made a speech at the expatriate South African Springbok Club, which flies the apartheid-era flag of South Africa and calls for "the re-establishment of civilised [i.e. white] rule throughout the African continent". Roberts claims that he did not realise the Springbok Club was racist when he took on the speaking engagement, despite the apartheid era flag, and the fact that the event was a commemoration of the 36th anniversary of UDI."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia

 

But Andrew Roberts is not just the worst kind of ultra nationalist, ie English nationalist but his historical  writing itself has been extremely suspect. 

 

Although Roberts's 2006 work A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 won critical acclaim from some sections of the media,[44][45] The Economist drew attention to some historical, geographical, and typographical errors, as well as presenting a generally scathing review of the book. The newspaper referred to the work as "a giant political pamphlet larded with its author's prejudices". More generally, Reba Soffer described him in 2009 as "devoted ... to public, polemical conservatism as well as to historical revisionism".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia

 

Andrew Roberts also accused another historian of "blood libel" in one  of his books and lost this dispute, being completely humiliated due to his faulty historiography:

 

One claim made by Roberts in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 was that Harvard historian Caroline Elkins had committed "blood-libels" in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book Imperial Reckoning on British actions during the Kenya Emergency. Elkins was subsequently vindicated when files released by the UK's National Archives showed that abuses were described as "distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia" by the Solicitor General of the time. The Foreign Secretary William Hague subsequently announced compensation for the first round of victims with statements that the British government "recognises that Kenyans were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment" and "sincerely regrets that these abuses took place" during the Kenya Emergency.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia

 

So Andrew Roberts speaks at white supremacist clubs that want to re-establish apartheid, had his history  books torn apart by reviewers, and libelled a Harvard historian before then being found completely wrong on his history.

 

Personally, I consider Andrew Roberts one of the worst historians of our lifetime, whose life's work has been to diminish the atrocities comitted by the British Empire, going so far as to speak at a white supremacist pro Apartheid club. He was himself accused of being a historical revisionist because of this. His scholarship, as the British Economist pointed out, is so biased and laden with inaccuracies that his books are political pamphlets at best.

 

But anyway, let's look at the actual argument. Whilst it's true that Churchill became prime minister in 1940, he was of course a member of government and a high ranking member of the Conservative Party long before that. In 1938 already Churchill called

 

"...for a mutual defence pact among European states threatened by German expansionism,".

 

"...Following the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Churchill and his supporters called for the foundation of a national coalition."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

 

For a long time the German hating Churchill had been agitating for a coaltion against Germany, long before his ascent to Prime Minister.

 

When Churchill did become Prime Minister he then DID do all he can to drag the US and then Russia into a war with Germany, when the British could no longer fight Germany on their own.

 

Churchill could have accepted peace terms with Germany, that were offered in 1940, but he did not.

 

The date of Churchill's appointment as prime minister clearly has no impact on Cooper's argument that  Churchill conspired to drag the US and Russia into a war that could have ended in 1940, had it not been for Churchill's decision to continue the war and reject the German peace offer.

 

But it's good that you pick up on by far the most interesting argument Cooper has made, though I would consider Robert's objection as a facetious objection at best. It has no real impact on the thrust of the argument that Churchill did all he could to turn a local European war into world war, which he did, and that he did his utmost to drag the US and Russia into the war, which he did. Cooper is also right that Churchill could have ended the war in 1940 by accepting the German peace offer.

[placeholder]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

It is rather amusing that you would trot out, of all people, Andrew Roberts, to discredit Cooper. Andrew Roberts of course

 

"...defended acts such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the Second Boer War concentration camps for Afrikaners during the Second Boer War, and mass internment in Northern Ireland (Operation Demetrius). Hari also wrote that Roberts made a speech at the expatriate South African Springbok Club, which flies the apartheid-era flag of South Africa and calls for "the re-establishment of civilised [i.e. white] rule throughout the African continent". Roberts claims that he did not realise the Springbok Club was racist when he took on the speaking engagement, despite the apartheid era flag, and the fact that the event was a commemoration of the 36th anniversary of UDI."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia

 

But Andrew Roberts is not just the worst kind of ultra nationalist, ie English nationalist but his historical  writing itself has been extremely suspect. 

 

Although Roberts's 2006 work A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 won critical acclaim from some sections of the media,[44][45] The Economist drew attention to some historical, geographical, and typographical errors, as well as presenting a generally scathing review of the book. The newspaper referred to the work as "a giant political pamphlet larded with its author's prejudices". More generally, Reba Soffer described him in 2009 as "devoted ... to public, polemical conservatism as well as to historical revisionism".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia

 

Andrew Roberts also accused another historian of "blood libel" in one  of his books and lost this dispute, being completely humiliated due to his faulty historiography:

 

One claim made by Roberts in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 was that Harvard historian Caroline Elkins had committed "blood-libels" in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book Imperial Reckoning on British actions during the Kenya Emergency. Elkins was subsequently vindicated when files released by the UK's National Archives showed that abuses were described as "distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia" by the Solicitor General of the time. The Foreign Secretary William Hague subsequently announced compensation for the first round of victims with statements that the British government "recognises that Kenyans were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment" and "sincerely regrets that these abuses took place" during the Kenya Emergency.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia

 

So Andrew Roberts speaks at white supremacist clubs that want to re-establish apartheid, had his history  books torn apart by reviewers, and libelled a Harvard historian before then being found completely wrong on his history.

 

Personally, I consider Andrew Roberts one of the worst historians of our lifetime, whose life's work has been to diminish the atrocities comitted by the British Empire, going so far as to speak at a white supremacist pro Apartheid club. He was himself accused of being a historical revisionist because of this. His scholarship, as the British Economist pointed out, is so biased and laden with inaccuracies that his books are political pamphlets at best.

 

But anyway, let's look at the actual argument. Whilst it's true that Churchill became prime minister in 1940, he was of course a member of government and a high ranking member of the Conservative Party long before that. In 1938 already Churchill called

 

"...for a mutual defence pact among European states threatened by German expansionism,".

 

"...Following the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Churchill and his supporters called for the foundation of a national coalition."

 

For a long time the German hating Churchill had been agitating for a coaltion against Germany, long before his ascent to Prime Minister.

 

When Churchill did become Prime Minister he then DID do all he can to drag the US and then Russia into a war with Germany, when the British could no longer fight Germany on their own.

 

Churchill could have accepted peace terms with Germany, that were offered in 1940, but he did not.

 

The date of Churchill's appointment as prime minister clearly has no impact on Cooper's argument that  Churchill conspiered to drag the US and Russia into a war that could have ended in 1940, had it not been for Churchill's decision to continue the war and reject the German peace offer.

 

But it's good that you pick up on by far the most interesting argument Cooper has made, though I would consider Robert's objection as a facetious objection at best. It has no real impact on the thrust of the argument that Churchill did all he could to turn a local European war into world war, which he did, and that he did his utmost to drag the US and Russia into the war, which he did. Cooper is also right that Churchill could have ended the war in 1940 by accepting the German peace offer.

So, you're claiming, contrary to Roberts, that it's a fact that  Winston Churchill was PM when Hitler was making his proposals? 

[mdr224]

Keep virtue signalling for jews. The left is pro islam. 

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, you're claiming, contrary to Roberts, that it's a fact that  Winston Churchill was PM when Hitler was making his proposals? 

 

No, what I am saying is that Churchill becoming Prime Minister in May 1940 has no real impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill could have accepted Hitler's peace offer, Hitler's "appeal to reason" speech came after Churchill was prime minister. 

 

Robert's argument also has no impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill went out of his way to try and get other nations involved in what was essentially a local European conflict, from the US to Russia. Indeed Churchill had been calling for this since 1938.

 

It also does not change Cooper's assesment of Churchill that he authorised strategic bombing and launched the greatest terrorist campaigns in history designed to kill women, children and the elderly (since the British knew the men were away at war).

 

Andrew Roberts, is grasping at straws to try and defend his idol Churchill, alas, he is not being terribly successful.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

When Churchill did become Prime Minister he then DID do all he can to drag the US and then Russia into a war with Germany, when the British could no longer fight Germany on their own.

First off, I see you have no answer for Cooper accusing Churchill of turning Hitler down. And Churchill failed to persuade America to fight against Germany. Credit for that coup belongs to another party. Maybe you've heard of him? A certain A. Hitler?

 

On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a "series of provocations" by the United States government when the U.S. was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, following two days of consultation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Churchill could have accepted peace terms with Germany, that were offered in 1940, but he did not.

Because Hitler was an honorable man? And if you don't believe me, just hold a seance with Neville Chamberlain. Munich anyone? This belief in Hitler as someone who could be counted on to keep his word is just plain nuts.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, what I am saying is that Churchill becoming Prime Minister in May 1940 has no real impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill could have accepted Hitler's peace offer, Hitler's "appeal to reason" speech came after Churchill was prime minister. 

 

Robert's argument also has no impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill went out of his way to try and get other nations involved in what was essentially a local European conflict, from the US to Russia. Indeed Churchill had been calling for this since 1938.

 

It also does not change Cooper's assesment of Churchill that he authorised strategic bombing and launched the greatest terrorist campaigns in history designed to kill women, children and the elderly (since the British knew the men were away at war).

 

Andrew Roberts, is grasping at straws to try and defend his idol Churchill, alas, he is not being terribly successful.

Apart from the ridiculousness of crediting Hitler's offer as sincere, you are ignoring that fact that Cooper also blamed Churchill for the war expanding beyond Poland.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because Hitler was an honorable man? And if you don't believe me, just hold a seance with Neville Chamberlain. Munich anyone? This belief in Hitler as someone who could be counted on to keep his word is just plain nuts.

 

As early as Mein Kampf Hitler had expressed his admiration for the British Empire. He repeatedly stated on record that he believed the British Empire was necessary to defend against the Communist menace. His peace offer provided guarantees that the British could keep the empire, something which Hitler saw in Germany's interest, or rather the interest of germanic people generally.

 

Invading Britain would have been nonsensical, since Britain offered nothing to Germany in terms of resources, but the invasion would have been extremely costly.

 

Had Britain accepted it would have been almost certain Germany would not have invaded Britain or the empire. Why would he have done that?

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Apart from the ridiculousness of crediting Hitler's offer as sincere, you are ignoring that fact that Cooper also blamed Churchill for the war expanding beyond Poland.

 

Actually Roberts' article is so nonsensical that he also drags in Poland, when Cooper had never said the Polish war was due to Churchill.

 

I am not ignoring the fact that Cooper blamed Churchill for atttempting to drag the US and Russia into essentially a European war, I am saying the record is clear, and Churchill did try to do that, both before and after he became Prime Minister.

 

Let's not forget that yes Germany invaded the Benelux countries in order to defeat France, and again ,the British had a major influence on France declaring war in the first place.

[placeholder]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

As early as Mein Kampf Hitler had expressed his admiration for the British Empire. He repeatedly stated on record that he believed the British Empire was necessary to defend against the Communist menace. His peace offer provided guarantees that the British could keep the empire, something which Hitler saw in Germany's interest, or rather the interest of germanic people generally.

 

Invading Britain would have been nonsensical, since Britain offered nothing to Germany in terms of resources, but the invasion would have been extremely costly.

 

Had Britain accepted it would have been almost certain Germany would not have invaded Britain or the empire. Why would he have done that?

Sure. A megalomaniac like Hitler wouldn't have eventually turned against Britain.  

[Cameroni]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, I see you have no answer for Cooper accusing Churchill of turning Hitler down. And Churchill failed to persuade America to fight against Germany. Credit for that coup belongs to another party. Maybe you've heard of him? A certain A. Hitler?

 

On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a "series of provocations" by the United States government when the U.S. was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, following two days of consultation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States

 

The fact is that LONG before this declaration of war the United States had effectively been aiding the British. So Churchill succeeded in dragging the Americans into the conflict LONG LONG before the December 1941 declaration of war.

 

The mood in America was very isolationist, and only British overtures to FDR to try and get the US involved resulted in massive amounts of military aid, protection for convoys etc from America. Long before December 1940.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Sure. A megalomaniac like Hitler wouldn't have eventually turned against Britain.  

 

We have no evidence that he would have, all we have is his statements on record that he believed the British Empire was a crucial bulwark against the threat of communism, his admiration expressed in his writings for the British empire and his peace offer to the British where he guarantees the Empire.

 

Where is the evidence that he would have attacked Britain had they accepted?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Actually Roberts' article is so nonsensical that he also drags in Poland, when Cooper had never said the Polish war was due to Churchill.

Nor did Roberts. Read this again:

Cooper's first argument was that Churchill "was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland." Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister. Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain's navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

We have no evidence that he would have, all we have is his statements on record that he believed the British Empire was a crucial bulwark against the threat of communism, his admiration expressed in his writings for the British empire and his peace offer to the British where he guarantees the Empire.

 

Where is the evidence that he would have attacked Britain had they accepted?

We would have to go on past form. 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The fact is that LONG before this declaration of war the United States had effectively been aiding the British. So Churchill succeeded in dragging the Americans into the conflict LONG LONG before the December 1941 declaration of war.

 

The mood in America was very isolationist, and only British overtures to FDR to try and get the US involved resulted in massive amounts of military aid, protection for convoys etc from America. Long before December 1940.

The British dragged American into the war? You mean that America didn't see Hitler as a threat? Franklin Roosevelt and others were tricked into supporting the UK?

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The British dragged American into the war? You mean that America didn't see Hitler as a threat? Franklin Roosevelt and others were tricked into supporting the UK?

 

Even Andrew Roberts sees it that way and agrees with Cooper on this fact:

 

"Cooper was correct in saying that Churchill and Britain did as much as possible to engage the United States in the war,"

 

https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/no-churchill-was-not-the-villain/

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Even Andrew Roberts sees it that way and agrees with Cooper on this fact:

 

"Cooper was correct in saying that Churchill and Britain did as much as possible to engage the United States in the war,"

 

https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/no-churchill-was-not-the-villain/

No, saying that Churchill and Britain did as much as possible is not the same thing as saying that they dragged the United States into War.  That would mean that they pulled an unwilling American into the War. Do you believe that the UK had that kind of clout?

[Cameroni]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nor did Roberts. Read this again:

Cooper's first argument was that Churchill "was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland." Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister. Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain's navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground.

 

This is what's called a "red herring" argument. Cooper never claimed that Churchill forced Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the Benelux countries. That would be a ridiculous claim, very obviously.

 

That was NOT Cooper's argument. His argument was that Hitler did not want to fight France and Britain. This is documented and well established. His argument was that Hitler had exepcted Britain and France not to fight over Polland, as they had refused to do over Bohemia and Moravia. There is first hand evidence that Hitler was stunned the British and French declared war.

 

We also know that Churchill since 1938, long before he became Prime Minister, has agitated for a coalition against Germany. Roberts proceeds to agree with Cooper that Churchill did all he could to bring the USA into the war.

 

I still think Cooper has a point that it was Britain which worked hard to make a local European war into a world war.