I just want to point out the obvious- if students in Columbia would have done all these things to ANY other group of people. Black students, LGBTQ people, Latino, pick your group- this would not have been tolerated even for a second. If Columbia would have taken steps to make sure this won’t get out of hand, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with, with every TikTok account becoming an expert on immigration laws, or his poor wife (who everyone makes sure to mention- is pregnant) claiming that “he was kidnapped”, and Rashida stealing the bring them home slogan for the hostages for this creep. And now, we need to sit with our burned popcorn while these idiots are making him the new George Floyd.
Even if you take at face value the protestor's claim that they are not anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel, imagine if a bunch of MAGA hats and Russian students spent a year harassing Ukrainian students and demanding an immediate ceasefire. These are sick, sick, sick people and sick institutions that are tolerating them.
Another example I’ve been thinking about - what if it was a white green card holder who took part in the Charlottesville protests? Lefties would be screaming their heads off to get him kicked out.
I have even heard it claimed he was "disappeared". If you want to see "disappeared", watch this/last year's Oscar nominated movie I'm Still Here. To cmpare that with this is just nuts.
Yeah, the “he was disappeared!” talking point annoys me too. As with so many other things, the truth is arguably bad enough that you don’t need to make shit up. Especially not dumb shit that falls apart under light scrutiny.
Exactly. He was instead simply moved to detention in the middle of Louisiana with intent to deport. We’ll see if there was any basis for this action. If not, I imagine you’ll join in saying this was just nuts.
Sounds like a whole lot of hand waiving vs the actual issue which is whether the action by the Trump admin is legal/has any basis. Of course gets upvoted because of the amount of people here who care more about university review inconsistencies (and bad anologies between country/state conflicts and ethnicity only targeted action) vs actual constitutional questions.
Nope. I didn’t say anything about the legality of this issue because I’m not an expert on the subject, and he may well be within his rights. The thing I AM saying, is that this sort of conduct wouldn’t have been tolerated against ANY other group, and if the university would have kept these protests non violent, we wouldn’t be in this place.
Yes and I’m saying it’s like the dumbest statement you can make about anything. “Well Y important thing being discussed never would have never happened if X didn’t happen”. Lmao.
It’s so obvious why you make a comment like this. It’s to detract from the actual conversation/reason this was brought up in the pod… the question of whether this is extreme executive over reach.
When Newsom was mayor of SF, there was some kind of "Fitness Day" and I was representing a local fruit delivery business. He made a speech and invited everyone to walk around the Embarcadero with him as some kind of "let's get walking!" thing. It was an absolutely gorgeous day, there were tons of kids and families in the large group, everyone was having a nice time. I was at the head of the walking group with him and I said, very casually, "This must be one of the nicer things you get to do as Mayor," to which he replied, "Pffft, yeah, right..."
I should add that I was dressed as a banana at the time.
Imagine not knowing how this threading comment system works, but dunking on me. You absolute idiot. When mom brings you dinner tonight hug her extra hard.
Imagine being a regard who hides his comments and continues to get owned on new posts because I fucked your face on the last one. Fuck thyself Billie Billy boy
A. I don't think you know you understand comments work. B. You are deep in troll territory and this never ends well for the likes of you if you continue to harass specific people.
Nah I do. Dude started trolling me on another comment and then hid his comment. So I just trolled back here on one of his rando comments. This is all after he lost a basic argument in a prior post and then switched to trolling me. I just responded in kind.
Thanks for your bad read/take though. You’re great with those!
What the actual fuck are you talking about you retarded child? Only my friends call me Billie. That’s how I sort them into the burn pile. You silly child.
Touched a sore spot Billy. I get it. Reminds you of your childhood thus your obsession with the child word lmao. Tell me where the bad man touched you.
Khalil shouldn't be deported for protest, but there is a reason Lukianoff hedges so much. If it comes out that Khalil is legit connected or financially backed by terrorists, engaged in illegal activity, and/or is an international asset, then bye! Keep in mind he has only been here 2.5 years, and already has a green card (?), was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria (?), received his education in Lebanon (?), had security clearance with the UK (?), and has Algerian citizenship...somehow(?). Plus, how does a refugee son born of former farmers afford an international masters program at Columbia? If he was just a super brilliant, impassioned youth using his speech rights to forward his POV, I will don a keffiyeh. I would put all my Substack money (so little) that he engaged in illegal activity.
I restarted my subscription too. It goes like this, I love the show, then something annoys me, I unsubscribe, then I listen again and I’m like, I love these guys. Rinse and repeat. It’s what my Dad said about the old Sports Illustrated - you’d subscribe for a year, get pissed off at something somebody writes, you’re ready to unsubscribe, then out comes the swimsuit issue and you’re like, ah heck sign me up again.
It was explained to me by my grandparents, Jews, at least those who were living in Russian empire, had to be very good at school and get a university degree so that they could move out the pale of settlement
I believe you could move to Moscow if you were considered a merchant or trader considered economically useful to the Empire, but that status could be revoked and was renewed annually. Might be getting the details wrong, but an ancestor had that status.
might be, my grandparents were born after the revolution, all of that had been cancelled by Soviets. The reason they ended up in Moscow was because they were evacuated there during the war. Soviets later implemented jew quotas for higher ed admissions
I had to pause and walk up the street to see if it was my neighbor/coworker who got in the horrific accident.
Great talk this evening. You guys tackled all the fuckers. Went great with my Sierra Nevada Bigfoot 2025 on this Friday evening. I do believe Moyn would've TP'd Candice Owens' home multiple times and keyed her car by now if he was 12.
I’m only 30 minutes into the episode, but people like Cooper and Owens, et al., are basically illiterate. Sure, they can read a lot and write a lot, but they have no ground, no foundation. And so they react to every new (for them) “revelation,” not knowing that it is not only not new, but has been proven untrue numerous times.
Numbskulls have overtaken the institutions. Is this what Ortega was getting at in The Revolt of the Masses?
I'm going to defend Cooper here. I thought the criticism of his Tucker interview was justified, and I think he probably does hold authoritarian right wing personal viewpoints, but I found the characterizations of what he said in the JRE interview on Twitter to be mostly in bad faith. My background is I was a European history major at a shit undergrad like 20 years ago, but have read a bunch of the authoritative tomes of the era (Kershaw's 2-part Hitler biography, Evans' 3-part history of the Third Reich, etc...) more recently. A lot of the criticism seems to come down to these few points (these were not so much the criticisms on the pod, but I get to those briefly at the end)
1) Cooper makes an offhand reference to Hitler growing up in a "small town in Germany." This is the one that kind of bothers me the most. Obviously, Hitler is from Austria. Basically everybody knows this. Do people really think it's more likely that Cooper didn't know this versus him just making a slip of the tongue?
Say what you want about him, but it's obvious he has read a ton of books about the era. In the middle of the pod, he even gives a critique of Sir Ian Kershaw's history. To be sure, that doesn't mean that ANY of his opinions are correct. But to me, it makes it exceptionally unlikely that he read all of these books and managed to miss the fact that Hitler was not a German citizen for a long time (this would pose modest obstacles at various points in his political career).
2) Cooper makes a statement that "Hitler wasn't going around making anti-Semitic speeches in public" before 1938. I believe this is hyperbole, but also directionally correct for the point he was making, but that's not a point that makes Hiter look sympathetic. It is just a statement that Hitler took effort to tailor his message to whatever audience he was speaking to in order to gain power. This point is made in the mainstream histories. Again, I think Cooper's claim was worded too broadly, but it is definitely true that Hitler devoted extensive time to non-Jewish enemies in the earlier years of his Chancellorship in addition to Jews. Chief among them were Marxists, which (to anticipate a rebuttal) were not always explicitly tied to Jews at the time. Again, the basic point is that Hitler was a paranoid lunatic about multiple topics. I don't see it as apologia.
Also, people (including Moynihan) have cited the "prophecy speech" as evidence that he always talked about Jews and made his plans crystal clear. First, this speech was in 1939, so it was after the period being discussed on the podcast. Second, and more importantly, I am not an historian but I know enough to know that the meaning of this speech is one the most hotly debated issues in the academic discipline of history. It is basically coextensive with the intentionalism vs. functionalism debate. So if you are saying this speech is clear evidence of Hitler's genocidal intentions, you have a reasonable view shared by many eminent historians, but also a view that is not shared by other eminent historians.
3) He made a comment that we should take what Hitler said in Mein Kampf with a "grain of salt" because it was political propaganda. I disagree with the grain of salt part of it to the extent that it implies that what Hitler was saying in it were not his true beliefs. I think Hitler's subsequent conduct made it clear that they were. However, I'm not sure that he meant to say that. The other branch of this--that Mein Kampf was political propaganda--is supported by mainstream historiography on the subject. Before I read some of these histories of the era all that I knew was that Hitler wrote this book in prison after the failed Beer Hall Putsch and my assumption was it was just a personal account from someone giving his true thoughts who was in despair that his political career was ruined. This is actually not the case as while in prison Hitler very quickly began planning his next steps upon release and writing the book was part of that. Again, that doesn't mean that anything in there doesn't reflect his actual beliefs.
4) If people want a more legitimate criticism of Cooper's approach to this go look at his recent tweet where he posted a stack of all the books he was reading to prep his podcast series on the topic. Not only does it include a lot of David's Irving work (which is now discredited and Moynihan got at on the pod), it includes a few books where I noted "IHR" on the spine. Google it (Moynihan will be familiar).
5) Finally, Moynihan's claim that Cooper "holds himself out as a serious historian" is unfair as everything Cooper actually says on this is to the contrary. For this reason, his saying he didn't want to debate a professional historian which Moynihan brings up as a dunk is to his credit on this point. Also, it's a bit unfair to leave out that Roberts is not only a professional historian but basically a professional rhetorician and debater. I'm not sure Cooper being apprehensive about debating him indicates anything but sensibility.
I mean, I think a large part of the issue with Cooper is that he presents hotly debated topics as settled facts. To me, that speaks to the fact that he’s more interested in pushing his agenda than honestly informing people about history.
See and here i thought the main cooper criticism was that he’s probably a non racist fascist (with all the standard window dressing non racist facsists use to hide their power levels nowadays) and that his “Churchill was the chief villain of ww2 and like possibly all of modern history” takes are regarded. But that’s maybe just me simplifying.
Thank you. I think you make a lot of great points. I think the key problem with Cooper is that he was not ready for primetime when Tucker brought him up on stage. I believe it was his Benjamin Boyce interview where Cooper states Tucker and him were at dinner the night before and Tucker called him the Greatest Living Historian. Tucker told Cooper he was going to call him that on the show the next day, and that he should not deny it.
Cooper made the big mistake of not denying that he was a historian, and I think that's why everyone in the internet is so over-bothered about him. I don't think he fully understood the kind of reach he was about to get, or at least didn't take it very seriously.
Let's face it. Tucker loves a good controversy, and he knew what he was doing with Cooper. It was great for ratings.
Cooper also is a bit of a punk and likes to screw around on Twitter. Plus before Tucker, he had a limited reach and felt like he was just goofing around with a bunch of his friends. Cooper has admitted as much.
That said, I still can't get over that the Fifth bros, as much as they like to talk about Cooper, still haven't listened to the first 10 minutes of Fear and Loathing in New Jerusalem. They really should just invite him on to talk. I think it would be interesting.
Meh I remember listening to it years ago on a recommendation and was underwhelmed. Came away retaining almost zero knowledge of the conflict compared to say just listening to Destiny’s live stream research on Israel/Palestine where I had retention/understanding/plus a general interest in reading more in my own.
Is the first 10 mins just the pogrom stuff? Yeah dude is a self professed “non racist fascist” so narrating a Jewish pogrom Dan Carlin style (who called him a fascist in a rare twitter outburst) is right up his alley. Fuck Daryl Cooper and all tyranny lovers like him.
Moynihan was never hailed as "the most important historian in America" at any point by anyone, ever.
(He's also a journalist who reads widely -- Cooper has admitted to reading only a handful of single-sourced, oft-debunked books, and is then cited as an expert, despite the fact that he will not debate his beliefs, something we used to criticize Ibram Kendi for, btw. Moynihan has never been held up as an expert in history).
I have some concerns about some of the books that Cooper chooses to rely on which I noted above, but he reads the mainstream histories and reports on them too. A lot of the Arab-Israeli war series came from the "New Historians" like Benny Morris for example. I see no actual evidene that Moynihan reads more than he does to develop his takes.
This full wall of text and still the only thing I can make out is that you’re defending Cooper against the twitter posts (you don’t describe which posts) and then 5 rando points.
Pretty sure the central thrust of Moynihan’s criticism is that a) he pretends to be a top historian but he is not… just reads lots of books b) he’s probably a fascist (sorry that may be more me than Moynihan but I think he’s coming around) c) his Churchill takes are regarded and he would never try to defend them with a real historian in the room.
In short… your defense is silly as it’s completely random and doesn’t address/engage with any of these main points directly.
II'm defending him against bad faith takes on easily explicable statements he made, and your substance-free post here is exactly the type of thing I had in mind when i made it. The context of the Twitter posts are ascertainable from my post if you have any historical literacy, but in short they were dunks on Cooper based on his saying on JRE that 1) Hitler gew up a small town in "Germany" (as opposed to Austria); 2) Hitler was not always raving about Jews in public before 1939 because such rants were not always popular in certain areas of Germany (particularly Berlin), and that Hitler tended to modify how much racial animus he put into his public addresses depending on time and place; 3) [n response to a question of what work represents Hitler's "true views," Cooper said that] Mein Kampf "should be "taken with a grain of salt" because the book was a piece of poltiical propaganda (but did not say it did not reflect his views)
You offer no actual critique of either him or my post at all, but instead repeat the same unsupported bullshit that I was taking issue with in my post.
To address each part specifically: a) Cooper has never pretended to be a "top historian," and even if he did that would have nothing to do with whether his takes were actually correct. You idiots just keep repeating this line without actually providing any support for it. This appeal to authority is especially stupid for a podcast that has long been skeptical of academic credentialism, particularly outside of STEM/hard sciences.
b) This is just an ad hominem that even if it was true would be irrelevant.;
c) lol -- oh no, there's a "real historian!" in the room, I'm sure the guy who is otherwise extremely opinionated knows that he better not dare breath his actual beliefs lest they be refuted by the one true scholar! This is also another example where whatever answer he gave would be taken in bad faith by by twerps like you. If he went full "debate me, bro!" you would just post sneering comments about this idiot (who's not even a trained historian!) daring to think he was worthy of sharing the same stage with the British historian. You'd probably even use the word "hubris."
The criticism in (c) may have held weight eight if the "holds himself out as an historian" critique from (a) was actually true, but it's not. Instead, Cooper has explained multiple times that i) he is not a fan of the "debate" medium to begin with and would rather speak in long-form to get his point across; ii) Roberts is both a preeminent historian of the era and a trained debater and rhetorician while Cooper readily admits he is neither. Being wary of a debate on those grounds has nothing to do who is more "correct," but is instead is just a basic showing of humility.
Bud I made a very basic case that your defense of cooper (presumably from Moynihan’s critiques on this epsiside) didn’t address any of Moynihan’s top 3 points on Cooper and instead just threw out random responses to things only you saw on twitter which is silly. Yes I can surmise the rando criticisms you saw on twitter about Cooper but I don’t really care… this is a 5th column episode post and Moynihan made actual criticisms of cooper that you skirted and instead defended 5 rando twitter things you saw lmao. You then got your feelings hurt when i said this.
You then posted no defense against Moynihan’s arguments (except a bit on the last one which was an out Moynihan already provided) against the dude in any of the 3 points I said were Moynihan’s top criticisms.
A) So did Moynihan lie about him calling himself a top historian? Did he misread something… or did Daryl let Tucker call him a top historian and he didn’t correct him while on his widely watched/listened to podcasts? Come on let’s try some good faith on why Moynihan said this or if you don’t know that’s fine.
B) It’s not though. It’s part of what Moynihan is criticising… that this guy’s personal views (fandom of fascism minus the racism… at least to hide his power level) is why he’s coming up with his historical takes on things like Churchill and rewriting him as the chief villain of WW2.
C) Again, Moynihan’s criticism was that Cooper admitted he wouldn’t want to debate a proper historian as his propaganda history on Churchill would get exposed. On my end I would love to see a pop historian go up against an actual historian (one that does primary research and writes books from that research). It’s fun seeing a Finkelstein go up against a Benny Morris (more so if the actual historian has the ability to debate; Morris not quite as skilled at this and that’s usually the case with most actual historians). Usually it’s the pop historian that looks down upon debating non historians (ie Finkelstein not wanting to debate the streamer Destiny on Israel-Palestine). With the latter being the case here it’s fine for Cooper not to want to debate. Moynihan even stated this “out” was understandable. Would help Cooper’s case though if he at least was open to a long form response vs live debate. He doesn’t seem to want that either but hey I guess we’ll see.
I am reacting to the same thing they are: the brouhaha over Cooper’s appearance on JRE and all the controversy over certain things he said on that interview. I’m not sure what your claiming Moyns' “arguments" are that need to rebutted that aren’t already addressed. Especially since Moynihan has admitted (or more accurately, bragged, as he has a habit of doing for those he wants to discredit) that he's never listened to his content I don't find his opinon on whether said content is influenced by Cooper being a fascist.
In any event I never presented my post as a rejoinder to just “Moynihans Arguments alone. But on that topic, on this pod all he does is rehash the “scared to debate” point and then raises an apparent inaccuracy concerning with the reach of a book Cooper cited in w new video (I would have to do research to evaluate this particular claim). But the reason they are talking about him again at all is due the outrage over his Rogan interview which my post was saying was unjustified.
Meh you should relisten starting at minute 5. Moyn lists multiple points of concern not just “scared to debate” and you even get that wrong… Moyn himself explained that Robert’s is skilled debater so he understood that portion of Cooper not wanting to debate him. He addressed that point charitably towards Cooper.
In general, you should probably care more about his “‘misstatements” that you’re defending him on/apoligizing for/giving him the benefit of a doubt. His ideology and the intent behind it are a driving force in his historical framing now mixed with a higher receptive audience for that type of alt history reframing (aka audience capture or even audience magnetism; all leading towards that eventual “the upside of the 3rd reich”).
Looking forward to hearing Andrew’s and others (ie Moyn if he does follow through and review himself) like what he shared with the Spectator:
Yeah, this is more of the type of bad faith argumentation that inspired my initial post. First, it was you who started this with the allegation that "the central thrust of Moynihan’s criticism is that a) he pretends to be a top historian but he is not… just reads lots of books." Also, Moynihan started off the discussion with a crack that Cooper's declining to debate Roberts was "one of the funniest thigns of all time" and made a crack that Cooper "will go on Rogan but won't debate his ideas" (or something similar) so no, i I did not "even get that wrong."
Second, thanks, but I don't need some idiot to tell me what I should "care more about." Moynihan started off the podcast with a rhetorical sleight of hand typical of the bad faith arguments I started this discussion critiquing. Specifically, he claimed "I identified 3 errors in the first few seconds!" of listening to a clip from Cooper.
The error in question seemed to be based on Cooper's apparent claim that a book called "Germany Must Perish" had wide reach in America, when in reality it did not. While he admits that the book's existence was noted by Time Magazine and Washington Star, Moynihan says Cooper's claims of wide reach were false and claims that it was reviewed in the NY Times and Washington Post were false and that Cooper made these claims due to fabircated quotes from these publications on the back book's dust jacket (though it was mentioned in the Washington Star) . The reason why I can't take a further position on this is I don't have any familiarity with the book in question. My original post did state that I took some issue with Cooper's reliance on dubious sources (while also noting that he reads and reports more traditional sources as well), so if what Michael is saying is true it is notable, but without having looked into any of this or evens een the clip in question I can't say anything more. I will also note that the wikipedia page for this book, which I had never looked at until now is more suportive of a claim that the book did receive wide attention than Moynihan's dismissal of it. But again, I have no idea if that's accurate.
However, if Moynihan is correct and this was an error, it doesn't strike me as all that damning as it seems like Cooper had a good faith basis for his belief, even if it was wrgong. I can both think Cooper has some valubale insights to offer while also retaining skepticism due yes, in part to his status as an amateur historian. I'm also sure if someone went through all of Michael's assertions on historical events there are plenty of inaccuracies that could be identified.
Related to a comment I made above about Cooper being illiterate and seemingly ungrounded, I notice in those photos of the books he’s read, no Karl Kraus (e.g., The Third Walpurgis Night), Eric Voegelin (e.g., Hitler and the Germans), and John Lukacs (any number of his WWII books, but notably, The Hitler of History). Not that these books address directly when and where and to whom Hitler first began railing against the Jews, but they come at things from a literate and spiritual approach - one that I find missing not only in Darryl Cooper, but in people like Scott Horton - who may know more about the war on terror than anyone, but to what purpose? Similarly, Cooper “knows” an awful lot about Hitler. But to what purpose? I think this is what MM was getting at.
Yes there are many other examples of anti-Semitic statements and policies as well. It’s fucking Nazi Germany after all. I didn’t take his point to be saying there wasn’t. I took his point to be that sometimes Hitler cynically dialed up or dialed down the rhetoric depending on the time place and audience and it wasn’t fire and brimstone 100 percent of the time. More importantly, I dont believe it was supposed to be done sort of apologia just an observation, so that’s what I’m reacting to.
Dude (Cooper) is ideologically driven. Like most modern versions of these maligned ideologies (ie fascism) he’s fairly good at hiding his power level. But that doesn’t change his power level. His intent isn’t mere observations. He’s like one of many candidates for the future Dan Carlin forecasted book “the upside of the 3rd reich”.
And let’s be honest, he’s in pole position to be the one with the most reach and with an apparent large community of apologists for him ready to go.
Lots of conclusory allegations in this post without anything resembling support or evidence. I question why someone would have such a strong opinion on an obscure figure without any actual basis for that opinion.
Still no response here Gil? Is this what set you off? Don’t like Cooper’s fascist power level being exposed. Just add the list of items you’ll have to find a way to apologize for.
Yes, you got me. I am very upset that some retarded dgg-orbiter has exposed the fascist power structure that I was hoping would allow me to ascend to power.
I’m a pop history fan what can I say. I listened to his whole Israel-Palestine series back in the day. Dan Carlin (another pop history guy; possibly the greatest in the modern podcast form) called him a fascist. I looked into it and there was a solid history of pro fascist things on his twitter.
He then tried to explain it away as “bros I was just trolling” that wasn’t very convincing. And now dude is out there rocking the Churchill was the real villain stuff on major shows/podcasts like Tucker/JRE.
Possibly the only Idahoan in this community checking in...
I won't defend its disgusting history, but I think a lot of people would be shocked by how nice Northern Idaho is. For starters a significant part of this region (and the entire state for that matter) is totally uninhabited, untouched, and stunningly gorgeous. It's essentially the outdoor playground for the booming "metropolis" that is Spokane, WA, with its massive lakes for boating (e.g. Pend Oreille) and legitimate resorts for skiing (e.g. Schweitzer).
And the Three Percenter militia types, who unfortunately do remain, are being crowded out by the (okay maybe just slightly less right wing but reasonably wealthy and contributing to economic growth) political refugees from California, Oregon, and Washington since 2020.
I’d like to own land there someday. The space between Spokane and Missoula is one of the most stunningly beautiful in the country that almost no one seems to know about.
Judging by his audio, Kmele must be staying in one of Matt’s murder motels.
I'm just relieved it's not my headphones failing
Ironically, I’m certain HE has the most state-of-the-art mic.
Yeah, it’s annoying.
His Matrix thread was glitching
Kmele madlibs episode.
Okay, so it wasn't just me or my phone.
Thank you for the episode guys.
I just want to point out the obvious- if students in Columbia would have done all these things to ANY other group of people. Black students, LGBTQ people, Latino, pick your group- this would not have been tolerated even for a second. If Columbia would have taken steps to make sure this won’t get out of hand, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with, with every TikTok account becoming an expert on immigration laws, or his poor wife (who everyone makes sure to mention- is pregnant) claiming that “he was kidnapped”, and Rashida stealing the bring them home slogan for the hostages for this creep. And now, we need to sit with our burned popcorn while these idiots are making him the new George Floyd.
Even if you take at face value the protestor's claim that they are not anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel, imagine if a bunch of MAGA hats and Russian students spent a year harassing Ukrainian students and demanding an immediate ceasefire. These are sick, sick, sick people and sick institutions that are tolerating them.
Another example I’ve been thinking about - what if it was a white green card holder who took part in the Charlottesville protests? Lefties would be screaming their heads off to get him kicked out.
I have even heard it claimed he was "disappeared". If you want to see "disappeared", watch this/last year's Oscar nominated movie I'm Still Here. To cmpare that with this is just nuts.
Yeah, the “he was disappeared!” talking point annoys me too. As with so many other things, the truth is arguably bad enough that you don’t need to make shit up. Especially not dumb shit that falls apart under light scrutiny.
Exactly. He was instead simply moved to detention in the middle of Louisiana with intent to deport. We’ll see if there was any basis for this action. If not, I imagine you’ll join in saying this was just nuts.
I came here to write this. Thank you.
Sounds like a whole lot of hand waiving vs the actual issue which is whether the action by the Trump admin is legal/has any basis. Of course gets upvoted because of the amount of people here who care more about university review inconsistencies (and bad anologies between country/state conflicts and ethnicity only targeted action) vs actual constitutional questions.
Nope. I didn’t say anything about the legality of this issue because I’m not an expert on the subject, and he may well be within his rights. The thing I AM saying, is that this sort of conduct wouldn’t have been tolerated against ANY other group, and if the university would have kept these protests non violent, we wouldn’t be in this place.
Yes and I’m saying it’s like the dumbest statement you can make about anything. “Well Y important thing being discussed never would have never happened if X didn’t happen”. Lmao.
It’s so obvious why you make a comment like this. It’s to detract from the actual conversation/reason this was brought up in the pod… the question of whether this is extreme executive over reach.
Sigh. Okay. Have a great weekend 🙏
I know you’ve got zero counter. It’s a dumb statement/framing. Sigh. Cheers.
Hello, silly child. Are you out of Legos?
Yes buddy. You’ve got me. As I said, enjoy your weekend.
Lmao/lol dumb/stupid. Cheers. I'm smart/superior. Lmao. Sigh. Bye.
Uh oh we have another scholar on our hands
When Newsom was mayor of SF, there was some kind of "Fitness Day" and I was representing a local fruit delivery business. He made a speech and invited everyone to walk around the Embarcadero with him as some kind of "let's get walking!" thing. It was an absolutely gorgeous day, there were tons of kids and families in the large group, everyone was having a nice time. I was at the head of the walking group with him and I said, very casually, "This must be one of the nicer things you get to do as Mayor," to which he replied, "Pffft, yeah, right..."
I should add that I was dressed as a banana at the time.
This comment needs more likes.
Talk about burying the lede. A banana? A fucking banana.
Hiding your comments Billie boy? Lmao
Imagine not knowing how this threading comment system works, but dunking on me. You absolute idiot. When mom brings you dinner tonight hug her extra hard.
Imagine being a regard who hides his comments and continues to get owned on new posts because I fucked your face on the last one. Fuck thyself Billie Billy boy
Goodnight sweet prince.
Goodnight inbred dipshit
A. I don't think you know you understand comments work. B. You are deep in troll territory and this never ends well for the likes of you if you continue to harass specific people.
Nah I do. Dude started trolling me on another comment and then hid his comment. So I just trolled back here on one of his rando comments. This is all after he lost a basic argument in a prior post and then switched to trolling me. I just responded in kind.
Thanks for your bad read/take though. You’re great with those!
What the actual fuck are you talking about you retarded child? Only my friends call me Billie. That’s how I sort them into the burn pile. You silly child.
🎶Billie Allen is not a retard,
he’s just a list’ner who likes to own JXJ
whose dumb posts are very gay
A hee hee hee🎶
Touched a sore spot Billy. I get it. Reminds you of your childhood thus your obsession with the child word lmao. Tell me where the bad man touched you.
In a sane world you wouldn’t exist.
In a sane world you could put together a coherent argument vs going full boomer lmao
Here is the link to the Andrew Roberts Spectator interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM6b-zogMvs
Including a solid "rhinocerine capacity for Alcohol" quote about Churchill.
I hope that whoever gave Mahmoud Khalil a green card has a dog that poops in his shoes every day.
On his kitchen counter. In the shoes is not nasty enough.
Why? What egregious action did the USCIS agent overlook on his application?
Khalil shouldn't be deported for protest, but there is a reason Lukianoff hedges so much. If it comes out that Khalil is legit connected or financially backed by terrorists, engaged in illegal activity, and/or is an international asset, then bye! Keep in mind he has only been here 2.5 years, and already has a green card (?), was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria (?), received his education in Lebanon (?), had security clearance with the UK (?), and has Algerian citizenship...somehow(?). Plus, how does a refugee son born of former farmers afford an international masters program at Columbia? If he was just a super brilliant, impassioned youth using his speech rights to forward his POV, I will don a keffiyeh. I would put all my Substack money (so little) that he engaged in illegal activity.
Okay you fucks you got me paying again. Bravo. Make sure to have a few drinks and take a few edibles.
I restarted my subscription too. It goes like this, I love the show, then something annoys me, I unsubscribe, then I listen again and I’m like, I love these guys. Rinse and repeat. It’s what my Dad said about the old Sports Illustrated - you’d subscribe for a year, get pissed off at something somebody writes, you’re ready to unsubscribe, then out comes the swimsuit issue and you’re like, ah heck sign me up again.
Fifdom is a commitment, and we need to bring back commitment in this country, especially the involuntary kind.
Reminds me of "marriage is an institution, but who wants to be in an institution?"
The difference here being that a Fifth Column swimsuit edition would lead the permanent cancellation of my subscription.
And insulin
And Adderall.
It was explained to me by my grandparents, Jews, at least those who were living in Russian empire, had to be very good at school and get a university degree so that they could move out the pale of settlement
I believe you could move to Moscow if you were considered a merchant or trader considered economically useful to the Empire, but that status could be revoked and was renewed annually. Might be getting the details wrong, but an ancestor had that status.
might be, my grandparents were born after the revolution, all of that had been cancelled by Soviets. The reason they ended up in Moscow was because they were evacuated there during the war. Soviets later implemented jew quotas for higher ed admissions
And her constant disappointment is an effective reinforcement tool, well not for me, but for other family members
I had to pause and walk up the street to see if it was my neighbor/coworker who got in the horrific accident.
Great talk this evening. You guys tackled all the fuckers. Went great with my Sierra Nevada Bigfoot 2025 on this Friday evening. I do believe Moyn would've TP'd Candice Owens' home multiple times and keyed her car by now if he was 12.
I’m only 30 minutes into the episode, but people like Cooper and Owens, et al., are basically illiterate. Sure, they can read a lot and write a lot, but they have no ground, no foundation. And so they react to every new (for them) “revelation,” not knowing that it is not only not new, but has been proven untrue numerous times.
Numbskulls have overtaken the institutions. Is this what Ortega was getting at in The Revolt of the Masses?
Can we get Kmele a working mic? That was really hard to listen to.
If you’re trying to throw together a decent Peterson impression, this guy is a good template https://youtu.be/8MprcNIKYrM
I'm going to defend Cooper here. I thought the criticism of his Tucker interview was justified, and I think he probably does hold authoritarian right wing personal viewpoints, but I found the characterizations of what he said in the JRE interview on Twitter to be mostly in bad faith. My background is I was a European history major at a shit undergrad like 20 years ago, but have read a bunch of the authoritative tomes of the era (Kershaw's 2-part Hitler biography, Evans' 3-part history of the Third Reich, etc...) more recently. A lot of the criticism seems to come down to these few points (these were not so much the criticisms on the pod, but I get to those briefly at the end)
1) Cooper makes an offhand reference to Hitler growing up in a "small town in Germany." This is the one that kind of bothers me the most. Obviously, Hitler is from Austria. Basically everybody knows this. Do people really think it's more likely that Cooper didn't know this versus him just making a slip of the tongue?
Say what you want about him, but it's obvious he has read a ton of books about the era. In the middle of the pod, he even gives a critique of Sir Ian Kershaw's history. To be sure, that doesn't mean that ANY of his opinions are correct. But to me, it makes it exceptionally unlikely that he read all of these books and managed to miss the fact that Hitler was not a German citizen for a long time (this would pose modest obstacles at various points in his political career).
2) Cooper makes a statement that "Hitler wasn't going around making anti-Semitic speeches in public" before 1938. I believe this is hyperbole, but also directionally correct for the point he was making, but that's not a point that makes Hiter look sympathetic. It is just a statement that Hitler took effort to tailor his message to whatever audience he was speaking to in order to gain power. This point is made in the mainstream histories. Again, I think Cooper's claim was worded too broadly, but it is definitely true that Hitler devoted extensive time to non-Jewish enemies in the earlier years of his Chancellorship in addition to Jews. Chief among them were Marxists, which (to anticipate a rebuttal) were not always explicitly tied to Jews at the time. Again, the basic point is that Hitler was a paranoid lunatic about multiple topics. I don't see it as apologia.
Also, people (including Moynihan) have cited the "prophecy speech" as evidence that he always talked about Jews and made his plans crystal clear. First, this speech was in 1939, so it was after the period being discussed on the podcast. Second, and more importantly, I am not an historian but I know enough to know that the meaning of this speech is one the most hotly debated issues in the academic discipline of history. It is basically coextensive with the intentionalism vs. functionalism debate. So if you are saying this speech is clear evidence of Hitler's genocidal intentions, you have a reasonable view shared by many eminent historians, but also a view that is not shared by other eminent historians.
3) He made a comment that we should take what Hitler said in Mein Kampf with a "grain of salt" because it was political propaganda. I disagree with the grain of salt part of it to the extent that it implies that what Hitler was saying in it were not his true beliefs. I think Hitler's subsequent conduct made it clear that they were. However, I'm not sure that he meant to say that. The other branch of this--that Mein Kampf was political propaganda--is supported by mainstream historiography on the subject. Before I read some of these histories of the era all that I knew was that Hitler wrote this book in prison after the failed Beer Hall Putsch and my assumption was it was just a personal account from someone giving his true thoughts who was in despair that his political career was ruined. This is actually not the case as while in prison Hitler very quickly began planning his next steps upon release and writing the book was part of that. Again, that doesn't mean that anything in there doesn't reflect his actual beliefs.
4) If people want a more legitimate criticism of Cooper's approach to this go look at his recent tweet where he posted a stack of all the books he was reading to prep his podcast series on the topic. Not only does it include a lot of David's Irving work (which is now discredited and Moynihan got at on the pod), it includes a few books where I noted "IHR" on the spine. Google it (Moynihan will be familiar).
5) Finally, Moynihan's claim that Cooper "holds himself out as a serious historian" is unfair as everything Cooper actually says on this is to the contrary. For this reason, his saying he didn't want to debate a professional historian which Moynihan brings up as a dunk is to his credit on this point. Also, it's a bit unfair to leave out that Roberts is not only a professional historian but basically a professional rhetorician and debater. I'm not sure Cooper being apprehensive about debating him indicates anything but sensibility.
I mean, I think a large part of the issue with Cooper is that he presents hotly debated topics as settled facts. To me, that speaks to the fact that he’s more interested in pushing his agenda than honestly informing people about history.
See and here i thought the main cooper criticism was that he’s probably a non racist fascist (with all the standard window dressing non racist facsists use to hide their power levels nowadays) and that his “Churchill was the chief villain of ww2 and like possibly all of modern history” takes are regarded. But that’s maybe just me simplifying.
Thank you. I think you make a lot of great points. I think the key problem with Cooper is that he was not ready for primetime when Tucker brought him up on stage. I believe it was his Benjamin Boyce interview where Cooper states Tucker and him were at dinner the night before and Tucker called him the Greatest Living Historian. Tucker told Cooper he was going to call him that on the show the next day, and that he should not deny it.
Cooper made the big mistake of not denying that he was a historian, and I think that's why everyone in the internet is so over-bothered about him. I don't think he fully understood the kind of reach he was about to get, or at least didn't take it very seriously.
Let's face it. Tucker loves a good controversy, and he knew what he was doing with Cooper. It was great for ratings.
Cooper also is a bit of a punk and likes to screw around on Twitter. Plus before Tucker, he had a limited reach and felt like he was just goofing around with a bunch of his friends. Cooper has admitted as much.
That said, I still can't get over that the Fifth bros, as much as they like to talk about Cooper, still haven't listened to the first 10 minutes of Fear and Loathing in New Jerusalem. They really should just invite him on to talk. I think it would be interesting.
Meh I remember listening to it years ago on a recommendation and was underwhelmed. Came away retaining almost zero knowledge of the conflict compared to say just listening to Destiny’s live stream research on Israel/Palestine where I had retention/understanding/plus a general interest in reading more in my own.
Is the first 10 mins just the pogrom stuff? Yeah dude is a self professed “non racist fascist” so narrating a Jewish pogrom Dan Carlin style (who called him a fascist in a rare twitter outburst) is right up his alley. Fuck Daryl Cooper and all tyranny lovers like him.
Only thing that matters to me is #5 -- why are we listening to him, then?
Is Moynihan a trained historian? Why do you listen to his takes on any historical event then?
Moynihan was never hailed as "the most important historian in America" at any point by anyone, ever.
(He's also a journalist who reads widely -- Cooper has admitted to reading only a handful of single-sourced, oft-debunked books, and is then cited as an expert, despite the fact that he will not debate his beliefs, something we used to criticize Ibram Kendi for, btw. Moynihan has never been held up as an expert in history).
I have some concerns about some of the books that Cooper chooses to rely on which I noted above, but he reads the mainstream histories and reports on them too. A lot of the Arab-Israeli war series came from the "New Historians" like Benny Morris for example. I see no actual evidene that Moynihan reads more than he does to develop his takes.
The dude literally name-drops a book every 3rd sentence when he talks about history lol. Do you even listen to the podcast?
Yeah, sounds almost like an "amateur historian" who shouldn't be taken seriously under your argument.
This full wall of text and still the only thing I can make out is that you’re defending Cooper against the twitter posts (you don’t describe which posts) and then 5 rando points.
Pretty sure the central thrust of Moynihan’s criticism is that a) he pretends to be a top historian but he is not… just reads lots of books b) he’s probably a fascist (sorry that may be more me than Moynihan but I think he’s coming around) c) his Churchill takes are regarded and he would never try to defend them with a real historian in the room.
In short… your defense is silly as it’s completely random and doesn’t address/engage with any of these main points directly.
II'm defending him against bad faith takes on easily explicable statements he made, and your substance-free post here is exactly the type of thing I had in mind when i made it. The context of the Twitter posts are ascertainable from my post if you have any historical literacy, but in short they were dunks on Cooper based on his saying on JRE that 1) Hitler gew up a small town in "Germany" (as opposed to Austria); 2) Hitler was not always raving about Jews in public before 1939 because such rants were not always popular in certain areas of Germany (particularly Berlin), and that Hitler tended to modify how much racial animus he put into his public addresses depending on time and place; 3) [n response to a question of what work represents Hitler's "true views," Cooper said that] Mein Kampf "should be "taken with a grain of salt" because the book was a piece of poltiical propaganda (but did not say it did not reflect his views)
You offer no actual critique of either him or my post at all, but instead repeat the same unsupported bullshit that I was taking issue with in my post.
To address each part specifically: a) Cooper has never pretended to be a "top historian," and even if he did that would have nothing to do with whether his takes were actually correct. You idiots just keep repeating this line without actually providing any support for it. This appeal to authority is especially stupid for a podcast that has long been skeptical of academic credentialism, particularly outside of STEM/hard sciences.
b) This is just an ad hominem that even if it was true would be irrelevant.;
c) lol -- oh no, there's a "real historian!" in the room, I'm sure the guy who is otherwise extremely opinionated knows that he better not dare breath his actual beliefs lest they be refuted by the one true scholar! This is also another example where whatever answer he gave would be taken in bad faith by by twerps like you. If he went full "debate me, bro!" you would just post sneering comments about this idiot (who's not even a trained historian!) daring to think he was worthy of sharing the same stage with the British historian. You'd probably even use the word "hubris."
The criticism in (c) may have held weight eight if the "holds himself out as an historian" critique from (a) was actually true, but it's not. Instead, Cooper has explained multiple times that i) he is not a fan of the "debate" medium to begin with and would rather speak in long-form to get his point across; ii) Roberts is both a preeminent historian of the era and a trained debater and rhetorician while Cooper readily admits he is neither. Being wary of a debate on those grounds has nothing to do who is more "correct," but is instead is just a basic showing of humility.
Bud I made a very basic case that your defense of cooper (presumably from Moynihan’s critiques on this epsiside) didn’t address any of Moynihan’s top 3 points on Cooper and instead just threw out random responses to things only you saw on twitter which is silly. Yes I can surmise the rando criticisms you saw on twitter about Cooper but I don’t really care… this is a 5th column episode post and Moynihan made actual criticisms of cooper that you skirted and instead defended 5 rando twitter things you saw lmao. You then got your feelings hurt when i said this.
You then posted no defense against Moynihan’s arguments (except a bit on the last one which was an out Moynihan already provided) against the dude in any of the 3 points I said were Moynihan’s top criticisms.
A) So did Moynihan lie about him calling himself a top historian? Did he misread something… or did Daryl let Tucker call him a top historian and he didn’t correct him while on his widely watched/listened to podcasts? Come on let’s try some good faith on why Moynihan said this or if you don’t know that’s fine.
B) It’s not though. It’s part of what Moynihan is criticising… that this guy’s personal views (fandom of fascism minus the racism… at least to hide his power level) is why he’s coming up with his historical takes on things like Churchill and rewriting him as the chief villain of WW2.
C) Again, Moynihan’s criticism was that Cooper admitted he wouldn’t want to debate a proper historian as his propaganda history on Churchill would get exposed. On my end I would love to see a pop historian go up against an actual historian (one that does primary research and writes books from that research). It’s fun seeing a Finkelstein go up against a Benny Morris (more so if the actual historian has the ability to debate; Morris not quite as skilled at this and that’s usually the case with most actual historians). Usually it’s the pop historian that looks down upon debating non historians (ie Finkelstein not wanting to debate the streamer Destiny on Israel-Palestine). With the latter being the case here it’s fine for Cooper not to want to debate. Moynihan even stated this “out” was understandable. Would help Cooper’s case though if he at least was open to a long form response vs live debate. He doesn’t seem to want that either but hey I guess we’ll see.
I am reacting to the same thing they are: the brouhaha over Cooper’s appearance on JRE and all the controversy over certain things he said on that interview. I’m not sure what your claiming Moyns' “arguments" are that need to rebutted that aren’t already addressed. Especially since Moynihan has admitted (or more accurately, bragged, as he has a habit of doing for those he wants to discredit) that he's never listened to his content I don't find his opinon on whether said content is influenced by Cooper being a fascist.
In any event I never presented my post as a rejoinder to just “Moynihans Arguments alone. But on that topic, on this pod all he does is rehash the “scared to debate” point and then raises an apparent inaccuracy concerning with the reach of a book Cooper cited in w new video (I would have to do research to evaluate this particular claim). But the reason they are talking about him again at all is due the outrage over his Rogan interview which my post was saying was unjustified.
Meh you should relisten starting at minute 5. Moyn lists multiple points of concern not just “scared to debate” and you even get that wrong… Moyn himself explained that Robert’s is skilled debater so he understood that portion of Cooper not wanting to debate him. He addressed that point charitably towards Cooper.
In general, you should probably care more about his “‘misstatements” that you’re defending him on/apoligizing for/giving him the benefit of a doubt. His ideology and the intent behind it are a driving force in his historical framing now mixed with a higher receptive audience for that type of alt history reframing (aka audience capture or even audience magnetism; all leading towards that eventual “the upside of the 3rd reich”).
Looking forward to hearing Andrew’s and others (ie Moyn if he does follow through and review himself) like what he shared with the Spectator:
https://youtu.be/zM6b-zogMvs
Yeah, this is more of the type of bad faith argumentation that inspired my initial post. First, it was you who started this with the allegation that "the central thrust of Moynihan’s criticism is that a) he pretends to be a top historian but he is not… just reads lots of books." Also, Moynihan started off the discussion with a crack that Cooper's declining to debate Roberts was "one of the funniest thigns of all time" and made a crack that Cooper "will go on Rogan but won't debate his ideas" (or something similar) so no, i I did not "even get that wrong."
Second, thanks, but I don't need some idiot to tell me what I should "care more about." Moynihan started off the podcast with a rhetorical sleight of hand typical of the bad faith arguments I started this discussion critiquing. Specifically, he claimed "I identified 3 errors in the first few seconds!" of listening to a clip from Cooper.
The error in question seemed to be based on Cooper's apparent claim that a book called "Germany Must Perish" had wide reach in America, when in reality it did not. While he admits that the book's existence was noted by Time Magazine and Washington Star, Moynihan says Cooper's claims of wide reach were false and claims that it was reviewed in the NY Times and Washington Post were false and that Cooper made these claims due to fabircated quotes from these publications on the back book's dust jacket (though it was mentioned in the Washington Star) . The reason why I can't take a further position on this is I don't have any familiarity with the book in question. My original post did state that I took some issue with Cooper's reliance on dubious sources (while also noting that he reads and reports more traditional sources as well), so if what Michael is saying is true it is notable, but without having looked into any of this or evens een the clip in question I can't say anything more. I will also note that the wikipedia page for this book, which I had never looked at until now is more suportive of a claim that the book did receive wide attention than Moynihan's dismissal of it. But again, I have no idea if that's accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish!
However, if Moynihan is correct and this was an error, it doesn't strike me as all that damning as it seems like Cooper had a good faith basis for his belief, even if it was wrgong. I can both think Cooper has some valubale insights to offer while also retaining skepticism due yes, in part to his status as an amateur historian. I'm also sure if someone went through all of Michael's assertions on historical events there are plenty of inaccuracies that could be identified.
Related to a comment I made above about Cooper being illiterate and seemingly ungrounded, I notice in those photos of the books he’s read, no Karl Kraus (e.g., The Third Walpurgis Night), Eric Voegelin (e.g., Hitler and the Germans), and John Lukacs (any number of his WWII books, but notably, The Hitler of History). Not that these books address directly when and where and to whom Hitler first began railing against the Jews, but they come at things from a literate and spiritual approach - one that I find missing not only in Darryl Cooper, but in people like Scott Horton - who may know more about the war on terror than anyone, but to what purpose? Similarly, Cooper “knows” an awful lot about Hitler. But to what purpose? I think this is what MM was getting at.
The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935.
Yes there are many other examples of anti-Semitic statements and policies as well. It’s fucking Nazi Germany after all. I didn’t take his point to be saying there wasn’t. I took his point to be that sometimes Hitler cynically dialed up or dialed down the rhetoric depending on the time place and audience and it wasn’t fire and brimstone 100 percent of the time. More importantly, I dont believe it was supposed to be done sort of apologia just an observation, so that’s what I’m reacting to.
Dude (Cooper) is ideologically driven. Like most modern versions of these maligned ideologies (ie fascism) he’s fairly good at hiding his power level. But that doesn’t change his power level. His intent isn’t mere observations. He’s like one of many candidates for the future Dan Carlin forecasted book “the upside of the 3rd reich”.
And let’s be honest, he’s in pole position to be the one with the most reach and with an apparent large community of apologists for him ready to go.
Lots of conclusory allegations in this post without anything resembling support or evidence. I question why someone would have such a strong opinion on an obscure figure without any actual basis for that opinion.
Still no response here Gil? Is this what set you off? Don’t like Cooper’s fascist power level being exposed. Just add the list of items you’ll have to find a way to apologize for.
Yes, you got me. I am very upset that some retarded dgg-orbiter has exposed the fascist power structure that I was hoping would allow me to ascend to power.
I’m a pop history fan what can I say. I listened to his whole Israel-Palestine series back in the day. Dan Carlin (another pop history guy; possibly the greatest in the modern podcast form) called him a fascist. I looked into it and there was a solid history of pro fascist things on his twitter.
Stuff like this: https://x.com/distastefulman/status/1414630956422602753
He then tried to explain it away as “bros I was just trolling” that wasn’t very convincing. And now dude is out there rocking the Churchill was the real villain stuff on major shows/podcasts like Tucker/JRE.
Possibly the only Idahoan in this community checking in...
I won't defend its disgusting history, but I think a lot of people would be shocked by how nice Northern Idaho is. For starters a significant part of this region (and the entire state for that matter) is totally uninhabited, untouched, and stunningly gorgeous. It's essentially the outdoor playground for the booming "metropolis" that is Spokane, WA, with its massive lakes for boating (e.g. Pend Oreille) and legitimate resorts for skiing (e.g. Schweitzer).
And the Three Percenter militia types, who unfortunately do remain, are being crowded out by the (okay maybe just slightly less right wing but reasonably wealthy and contributing to economic growth) political refugees from California, Oregon, and Washington since 2020.
Gentrification for the win?
I’d like to own land there someday. The space between Spokane and Missoula is one of the most stunningly beautiful in the country that almost no one seems to know about.
Funny how we reviled people like Ibram X. Kendi for skipping challenging debates, but Darryl Cooper gets a pass from some of those same folks.
"Bring your fuckin' terrorists here & we'll punch 'em in the dick"
Bravo, Matt