true confession time: because I listened to some of his earlier podcast series I became a paying subscriber to MartyrMade several years ago but I recently set my account so it will not renew. I've given him what I think I owed for his previous work.
I (and many others) have said it often: The series on Jim Jones "God's Own Socialist" is excellent and I also found the series about the early days of Zionism pretty informative -- my great-grandmother immigrated from Poland to Jerusalem in 1920 and is buried at the Mount of Olives but I know little else about her. RE: Cooper I don't know if it's a case of "what happened to you man?" or what but I'm exhausted & disappointed by this whole situation and I'm happy to dip out; there are plenty of quality venues out there for me to support with my hard-earned $$ (I'm TFC-NFC now, for example!)
If anyone has recommendations for books &/or podcasts about those early days when my great-grandmother lived in Jerusalem prior to the formation of the state of Israel please send them my way, thanks!
Shooting from the hip here, I believe it’s likely the case that Cooper, like Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson (IMO) is a smart man who makes good entertainment but has now realized you can make more money by embellishing certain things and maybe sometimes acting like a clown. It’s ego driven, and that’s fine. I support these guys making money. Good for them. But “taking the money” and “acting like a clown” comes at the cost of losing your intellectually honest fan base.
See Dave Rubin (who maybe was never too bright but he was honest). See Bret Weinstein. Candace Owens was a clown from the beginning but throw her in there.
I don’t know. I don’t get that impression but I haven’t listened to too much. Enough for me to think he’s working out of the Tucker Carlson playbook, but that’s all
You're correct that God's Socialist is very good, and Aleks is also correct that many of the best parts are cribbed from Bryan Burroughs. (I haven't read the other book Aleks mentions.) AFAICT, Cooper re-told the story from a handful of sources, dropped in some People's Temple recordings, and put out the podcast as his own work. It is, I guess, but it's a pastiche, not original historiography in any real sense.
To be fair, a lot of narrative podcasts are probably doing something similar. But now that I know what they're up to, I'm trying to stick to podcasters like Dan Carlin who seem to read more widely and have fewer axes to grind.
For the curious, I recommend an historiographical essay from my grad-school days in the early 90s, when people across the humanities and social sciences were grappling with the first great wave of postmodernism. The author is one of the treasures of American academia, the environmental historian and historical geographer, William Cronon (Changes in the Land // Nature's Metropolis). The article examines competing narratives about the 1930s Dust Bowl, with different historians reviewing the same primary sources and yet telling sharply different stories, including stories of progress as well as stories of decline.
Cronon is a gifted writer, so even those who might not be inclined to read philosophical academic papers may enjoy this one. My tl;dr is that Cronon accepts postmodern critiques about the inherent subjectivity of doing history, but this does not mean that every story one might tell is equally good: the works of historians "are judged not just as narratives, but as nonfictions." History is written and read by a self-critical community, and a core principle of this community is that "our stories cannot contravene known facts about the past." Still, the storytelling part is important. Good history is more than just a pointless chronicle of names, dates, and places. History is a "place for stories", for narratives that make the past meaningful to audiences in the present, interested in questions such as "how did we get here?" and "where are we going?"
Throughout the essay Cronon displays a remarkable humility about the philosophical ideas with which he is wrestling. Such intellectual humility (and curiosity) might be a fourth point to add to Jack's list distinguishing competent historians from myth-making hacks like Darryl Cooper and Howard Zinn.
As another helpful corrective wrt to the Cooper defense above suggesting that the Wehrmacht was simply unprepared and overwhelmed by the number of Russian prisoners of war, I would recommend Bari Weiss’ Honestly podcast featuring Moynihan interviewing historian (PhD 1980 Stanford😬) Victor Davis Hanson . Moynihan and Hanson take up this question specifically and blow it to pieces. TLDR version: there is documented evidence including military orders etc. that this
slaughter was part of a deliberate plan to reduce the Soviet’s war making capability and allow the Wehrmacht to move quickly in impeded by the demands of caring for POW. As for the Jews: just look up Baba Yar.
I loved Moynihan's interview of Victor Davis Hanson. Although I'm not a fan of Trump, I thought this was a case where it was very effective to "platform" a conversation with a pro-Trump historian, because VDH so obviously wasn't criticizing Cooper or Carlson over 2024 politics but over their actual portrayal of WWII.
How has nobody included Metallica’s 4 album run. Kill’em all, ride the lighting, master of puppets and justice for all (you could make it five with the black album)
They changed d the course of an entire genre of music.
I was in college when Rogan and the alternative media scene was really starting to gain traction because of YouTube and podcasting apps.
I remember listening to guest like Randal Carlson and Graham Hancock, eating up every word and disavowing what my dusty old text books were telling me. I’m 34 now and it turns out those dusty old text books were largely correct.
I think the reason why people like Rogan, Tim Pool and the MartyrMade type characters is simply the digestibility of the content.
It takes years to read and fully comprehend historical doorstop books. I started Stanley lebergott’s The Americans an Economic Record in 2019 and don’t finish it until 2022.
Jack Henneman’s letter was of course excellent. I hope he can talk with you all about history and historians on a future Fifth Column episode. I highly recommend his podcast “The History of the Americans” and the related webpage (link below)
I had a good chuckle about random old dudes telling strangers about bedding disabled women. I hope to one day achieve old dude status without the over sharing.
Jack Henneman is one of those people that makes me envious whenever I listen. The amount of research he does is incredible. He is to American history what Carlin is to military history. I always felt that Cooper was among that group but in the dark sides of history. But the mounting evidence of lacking research has made me rethink that. All three have been inspirations for me in my work. But that's shifted now. I don't expect to match the likes of Hennemen or Carlin in my research, but I'm hoping I never beclown myself the way Cooper seems to have.
Thank you all for he nice words! FWIW, the link to the podcast website in the Matt's very nice post goes to a test site set up by the dude who designed it for me. The actual live site (which has lots of interesting stuff) is https://thehistoryoftheamericans.com/.
I might be being too generous yes. But I really don’t think hardly anyone these days is an actual fascist/nazi sympathizer. It’s become so cheap to just call someone that to shut down debate. However if Cooper doubles down instead of offering clarifications, that’ll be it for me.
Here are the three nut 'grafs, at least in my opinion. Judge for yourself:
(1) "...World War 2 was perhaps the greatest catastrophe in human history, and the starting point of any discussion about it must be that, of all the possible outcomes that could have resulted from events leading up to the conflict, the one that ended up happening was the worst of all. Given that the choices made in the 1920s and ‘30s led to the worst possible outcome, it is worthwhile to ask whether different choices might have led to a better one. In recent decades, only one such counter-factual has been permitted in polite discourse, namely, that of the cop who insists that the murder-suicide could have been averted if only the SWAT team had been sent in right away. And he might be right. Once the man inside kills his family, anyone arguing that the police should have been more conciliatory will find few sympathetic ears. But the lessons we take from the last crisis inform our response to the next one, and too often the lessons we take are wrong."
(2) "As for the atrocities that took place in the east, I certainly could have been clearer during my interview with Tucker, and I don’t blame people for raising an eyebrow given the way I put it. Part of the reason is that I am not very good at interviews - they make me anxious, and, as you heard, I jump around, leave points half-finished and open to misinterpretation. That’s why I rarely do them. The other reason is that this part of the discussion was a continuation of a discussion Tucker and I were having off-the-air, and rather than circle back to provide viewers with the full context, I dropped them into the middle of it to fend for themselves. Far from absolving the Germans, my point - and I did get to this by the end - was that even if one accepts all of the revisionist excuses and rationalizations for German behavior on the Eastern Front, even if you take them all at face value, Germany still launched an invasion with no plan to feed or care for the millions of people taken under its power. That is murder. Maybe your supply lines hampered food distribution, maybe the fighting had stopped crop cultivation, maybe you had no choice but to decide which people would eat, and which would starve. You launched the war, you took those people captive, they were your responsibility, and it was murder. Tucker knew what I was saying, and again I did actually say that in the interview, but what many people heard was “the Holocaust was an accident,” or the result of logistical problems. That is not what I said, but to those people I would still add: Even if the deaths were largely the result of resource deficiencies and poor planning, it doesn’t change the fact that Jews were targeted for death. Under circumstances that forced a choice between who would eat and who would starve, the built-in antisemitism of the Third Reich guaranteed that Jews would be among the last in line. That is not to say that Jews were not massacred. Of course Jews were massacred. Peoples of all ethnicities were massacred, and it would have been quite a mystery if the Jews were an exception - doubly so, given the Third Reich’s unique antipathy toward them. It is simply to say that even the most generous interpretation of Germany’s actions toward civilians on the Eastern Front is still a description of murder."
(3) "My position is really quite simple, and if we were talking about any other conflict, it would not be particularly controversial:
First, the war faction in Britain refused to countenance peace with Germany, despite lacking any capability to change the terms of war on its own.
Second, Germany’s offers to negotiate may or may not have been sincere. It is perfectly possible, as after previous confrontations, a peace deal would simply been interpreted as further British weakness, and Germany would have become even more aggressive. Nevertheless, I say the Allies had an obligation to try, so that they could at least go into the coming conflict knowing that they had done everything they could to avoid the worst outcome.
Third, Germany could not have carried out the atrocities in the east without the cover of a world war in which millions were already being killed. There are two objections to this. First, the SS started liquidating certain classes of people almost immediately upon the invasion of Poland in 1939. Already in 1939, a dissident German general would write in his diary of Jews being rounded up into barns and shot. Poland was in trouble regardless of what happened with Britain or France, but world war was never going to change that, and in fact made Poland’s trouble immeasurably more severe. In the end, of course, Poland was saved from Germany just to be handed over to our ally, Josef Stalin, whose stack of bodies put Hitler’s in the shade. The second objection is that Hitler had always had his eyes set on the east, and would have eventually invaded regardless of what the Allies did. And that may be true. Jim Jones and the hostage-taking father may have killed their families no matter how much they were appeased. But maybe not. And, agree or disagree, that “maybe” is worthy of discussion."
The British and the French had an agreement that they would go to war to defend Poland if Germany invaded. Hitler thought they wouldn’t honor it. They did and declared war on Germany. Cooper ignores this.
I'd like Victor's take on the tweets Noam Dworman referenced in his recent podcast. Those are much more damning than the stuff that spun off the Tucker interview.
I haven’t seen them but I can check it out. I general agree with Noam’s takes so probably don’t have much to add. I think i might’ve mentioned it in the email but my justification for Cooper only extends so far. He definitely gets himself into trouble and I wonder if he’s doing it (ie getting more extreme) because like someone else said, he realizes that he can make more money going a Tucker/Dave Rubin route of demagoguery.
That being said I definitely saw him being misrepresented in the media at least so some degree so felt the need to speak up.
I toyed with unsubbing from his Substack post 10/7 because it felt like he was too anti Israel for my tastes but held off because I really like his long form content, and his podcast on that subject pre-1948 was very fair. But we’ll see.
Which Noam episode are you referring to so I can check it out? Thanks
Didn't want you to feel called out, so apologies if it came off that way.
A lot of people in Cooper's audience seem dismayed by some of his behavior. I think most of us can say we've been there with ... someone, whether that's Rubin or Peterson or Weinstein or whoever. So, again, don't want you to feel singled out.
Also! I used to dovetail with his work because of Jocko. But I ended up ditching both after the the Afghan pullout (thought their take on it was obtuse).
Yeah no worries didn’t take it that way at all. It’s fun to hash out some potential differing of opinions. There are plenty of rational followers of Darryl’s podcast and we were calling him out and questioning him on intent. I’m sure now that the user base has expanded 10x in the last few weeks it’s going to be more of an echo chamber of the MAGA worldview.
I have a question about Darryl Cooper. He randomly popped up on my you tube feed as a guess of Dave Smith’s. I didn’t watch it. BUT same day I got a comedy short from As/Is (I think) which I had also never heard of and I think is a buzzfeed short of thing and it’s about 7-9 treats old, but one of the gay guys in a couple (show is about gay dog lovers) looks just like him. The same. Is Cooper an actor?
true confession time: because I listened to some of his earlier podcast series I became a paying subscriber to MartyrMade several years ago but I recently set my account so it will not renew. I've given him what I think I owed for his previous work.
I (and many others) have said it often: The series on Jim Jones "God's Own Socialist" is excellent and I also found the series about the early days of Zionism pretty informative -- my great-grandmother immigrated from Poland to Jerusalem in 1920 and is buried at the Mount of Olives but I know little else about her. RE: Cooper I don't know if it's a case of "what happened to you man?" or what but I'm exhausted & disappointed by this whole situation and I'm happy to dip out; there are plenty of quality venues out there for me to support with my hard-earned $$ (I'm TFC-NFC now, for example!)
If anyone has recommendations for books &/or podcasts about those early days when my great-grandmother lived in Jerusalem prior to the formation of the state of Israel please send them my way, thanks!
Shooting from the hip here, I believe it’s likely the case that Cooper, like Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson (IMO) is a smart man who makes good entertainment but has now realized you can make more money by embellishing certain things and maybe sometimes acting like a clown. It’s ego driven, and that’s fine. I support these guys making money. Good for them. But “taking the money” and “acting like a clown” comes at the cost of losing your intellectually honest fan base.
See Dave Rubin (who maybe was never too bright but he was honest). See Bret Weinstein. Candace Owens was a clown from the beginning but throw her in there.
Isn’t Daryl a fascist aficionado and perhaps even just a fascist? Or does he dispute this now?
I don’t know. I don’t get that impression but I haven’t listened to too much. Enough for me to think he’s working out of the Tucker Carlson playbook, but that’s all
You're correct that God's Socialist is very good, and Aleks is also correct that many of the best parts are cribbed from Bryan Burroughs. (I haven't read the other book Aleks mentions.) AFAICT, Cooper re-told the story from a handful of sources, dropped in some People's Temple recordings, and put out the podcast as his own work. It is, I guess, but it's a pastiche, not original historiography in any real sense.
To be fair, a lot of narrative podcasts are probably doing something similar. But now that I know what they're up to, I'm trying to stick to podcasters like Dan Carlin who seem to read more widely and have fewer axes to grind.
I appreciate Jack's thoughts on the distinctions between "Historians" and "Non-Historians," very clarifying.
Jack nailed it.
For the curious, I recommend an historiographical essay from my grad-school days in the early 90s, when people across the humanities and social sciences were grappling with the first great wave of postmodernism. The author is one of the treasures of American academia, the environmental historian and historical geographer, William Cronon (Changes in the Land // Nature's Metropolis). The article examines competing narratives about the 1930s Dust Bowl, with different historians reviewing the same primary sources and yet telling sharply different stories, including stories of progress as well as stories of decline.
http://www.williamcronon.net/writing/cronon_place_for_stories_1991.pdf
Cronon is a gifted writer, so even those who might not be inclined to read philosophical academic papers may enjoy this one. My tl;dr is that Cronon accepts postmodern critiques about the inherent subjectivity of doing history, but this does not mean that every story one might tell is equally good: the works of historians "are judged not just as narratives, but as nonfictions." History is written and read by a self-critical community, and a core principle of this community is that "our stories cannot contravene known facts about the past." Still, the storytelling part is important. Good history is more than just a pointless chronicle of names, dates, and places. History is a "place for stories", for narratives that make the past meaningful to audiences in the present, interested in questions such as "how did we get here?" and "where are we going?"
Throughout the essay Cronon displays a remarkable humility about the philosophical ideas with which he is wrestling. Such intellectual humility (and curiosity) might be a fourth point to add to Jack's list distinguishing competent historians from myth-making hacks like Darryl Cooper and Howard Zinn.
As another helpful corrective wrt to the Cooper defense above suggesting that the Wehrmacht was simply unprepared and overwhelmed by the number of Russian prisoners of war, I would recommend Bari Weiss’ Honestly podcast featuring Moynihan interviewing historian (PhD 1980 Stanford😬) Victor Davis Hanson . Moynihan and Hanson take up this question specifically and blow it to pieces. TLDR version: there is documented evidence including military orders etc. that this
slaughter was part of a deliberate plan to reduce the Soviet’s war making capability and allow the Wehrmacht to move quickly in impeded by the demands of caring for POW. As for the Jews: just look up Baba Yar.
I loved Moynihan's interview of Victor Davis Hanson. Although I'm not a fan of Trump, I thought this was a case where it was very effective to "platform" a conversation with a pro-Trump historian, because VDH so obviously wasn't criticizing Cooper or Carlson over 2024 politics but over their actual portrayal of WWII.
In an attempt to be selected for a safe Labour seat in the seventies, Robert Maxwell tried to bribe the father of one of my college tutors.
How has nobody included Metallica’s 4 album run. Kill’em all, ride the lighting, master of puppets and justice for all (you could make it five with the black album)
They changed d the course of an entire genre of music.
I was in college when Rogan and the alternative media scene was really starting to gain traction because of YouTube and podcasting apps.
I remember listening to guest like Randal Carlson and Graham Hancock, eating up every word and disavowing what my dusty old text books were telling me. I’m 34 now and it turns out those dusty old text books were largely correct.
I think the reason why people like Rogan, Tim Pool and the MartyrMade type characters is simply the digestibility of the content.
It takes years to read and fully comprehend historical doorstop books. I started Stanley lebergott’s The Americans an Economic Record in 2019 and don’t finish it until 2022.
The comments on the original post mentioned Metallica several, several times.
Jack Henneman’s letter was of course excellent. I hope he can talk with you all about history and historians on a future Fifth Column episode. I highly recommend his podcast “The History of the Americans” and the related webpage (link below)
https://thehistoryoftheamericans.com/
Thank you Andrew!
Great letter, will check out the podcast. I also want to cast a vote for having Henneman on the show for a more extended discussion.
Just subscribed, Jack. Looking forward to checking out your podcast.
Thanks!
I had a good chuckle about random old dudes telling strangers about bedding disabled women. I hope to one day achieve old dude status without the over sharing.
I'm thinking it's some old dudes spittin' game. Brilliant! Wheelchair Crashers.
Need Matt to start reading this and recording it like he sometime does for his reason articles. Need more stuff to listen to when driving and working.
Jack Henneman is one of those people that makes me envious whenever I listen. The amount of research he does is incredible. He is to American history what Carlin is to military history. I always felt that Cooper was among that group but in the dark sides of history. But the mounting evidence of lacking research has made me rethink that. All three have been inspirations for me in my work. But that's shifted now. I don't expect to match the likes of Hennemen or Carlin in my research, but I'm hoping I never beclown myself the way Cooper seems to have.
You're very kind. Thank you.
Thank you all for he nice words! FWIW, the link to the podcast website in the Matt's very nice post goes to a test site set up by the dude who designed it for me. The actual live site (which has lots of interesting stuff) is https://thehistoryoftheamericans.com/.
Whoops! Will fix when I can … but that won’t be soon.
Anything coming on EU and/or Brazil speech tyranny?
Not yet, but thanks for the prompt.
Victor,
“Should he have also brought up the Jewish aspect of Nazi policy?”…
“Should he have mentioned *HIS Hitler?”…
I think you’re too charitable here. You’re outlining exactly what it is that makes Cooper’s comments clown-like. It’s contrarian BS, IMO.
It seems like you’re calling him out (better than I could) but excusing it at the same time.
I might be being too generous yes. But I really don’t think hardly anyone these days is an actual fascist/nazi sympathizer. It’s become so cheap to just call someone that to shut down debate. However if Cooper doubles down instead of offering clarifications, that’ll be it for me.
You’re being entirely too generous: https://x.com/distastefulman/status/1414630956422602753
Cooper already published his response. https://x.com/martyrmade/status/1832552394871525414
Here are the three nut 'grafs, at least in my opinion. Judge for yourself:
(1) "...World War 2 was perhaps the greatest catastrophe in human history, and the starting point of any discussion about it must be that, of all the possible outcomes that could have resulted from events leading up to the conflict, the one that ended up happening was the worst of all. Given that the choices made in the 1920s and ‘30s led to the worst possible outcome, it is worthwhile to ask whether different choices might have led to a better one. In recent decades, only one such counter-factual has been permitted in polite discourse, namely, that of the cop who insists that the murder-suicide could have been averted if only the SWAT team had been sent in right away. And he might be right. Once the man inside kills his family, anyone arguing that the police should have been more conciliatory will find few sympathetic ears. But the lessons we take from the last crisis inform our response to the next one, and too often the lessons we take are wrong."
(2) "As for the atrocities that took place in the east, I certainly could have been clearer during my interview with Tucker, and I don’t blame people for raising an eyebrow given the way I put it. Part of the reason is that I am not very good at interviews - they make me anxious, and, as you heard, I jump around, leave points half-finished and open to misinterpretation. That’s why I rarely do them. The other reason is that this part of the discussion was a continuation of a discussion Tucker and I were having off-the-air, and rather than circle back to provide viewers with the full context, I dropped them into the middle of it to fend for themselves. Far from absolving the Germans, my point - and I did get to this by the end - was that even if one accepts all of the revisionist excuses and rationalizations for German behavior on the Eastern Front, even if you take them all at face value, Germany still launched an invasion with no plan to feed or care for the millions of people taken under its power. That is murder. Maybe your supply lines hampered food distribution, maybe the fighting had stopped crop cultivation, maybe you had no choice but to decide which people would eat, and which would starve. You launched the war, you took those people captive, they were your responsibility, and it was murder. Tucker knew what I was saying, and again I did actually say that in the interview, but what many people heard was “the Holocaust was an accident,” or the result of logistical problems. That is not what I said, but to those people I would still add: Even if the deaths were largely the result of resource deficiencies and poor planning, it doesn’t change the fact that Jews were targeted for death. Under circumstances that forced a choice between who would eat and who would starve, the built-in antisemitism of the Third Reich guaranteed that Jews would be among the last in line. That is not to say that Jews were not massacred. Of course Jews were massacred. Peoples of all ethnicities were massacred, and it would have been quite a mystery if the Jews were an exception - doubly so, given the Third Reich’s unique antipathy toward them. It is simply to say that even the most generous interpretation of Germany’s actions toward civilians on the Eastern Front is still a description of murder."
(3) "My position is really quite simple, and if we were talking about any other conflict, it would not be particularly controversial:
First, the war faction in Britain refused to countenance peace with Germany, despite lacking any capability to change the terms of war on its own.
Second, Germany’s offers to negotiate may or may not have been sincere. It is perfectly possible, as after previous confrontations, a peace deal would simply been interpreted as further British weakness, and Germany would have become even more aggressive. Nevertheless, I say the Allies had an obligation to try, so that they could at least go into the coming conflict knowing that they had done everything they could to avoid the worst outcome.
Third, Germany could not have carried out the atrocities in the east without the cover of a world war in which millions were already being killed. There are two objections to this. First, the SS started liquidating certain classes of people almost immediately upon the invasion of Poland in 1939. Already in 1939, a dissident German general would write in his diary of Jews being rounded up into barns and shot. Poland was in trouble regardless of what happened with Britain or France, but world war was never going to change that, and in fact made Poland’s trouble immeasurably more severe. In the end, of course, Poland was saved from Germany just to be handed over to our ally, Josef Stalin, whose stack of bodies put Hitler’s in the shade. The second objection is that Hitler had always had his eyes set on the east, and would have eventually invaded regardless of what the Allies did. And that may be true. Jim Jones and the hostage-taking father may have killed their families no matter how much they were appeased. But maybe not. And, agree or disagree, that “maybe” is worthy of discussion."
The British and the French had an agreement that they would go to war to defend Poland if Germany invaded. Hitler thought they wouldn’t honor it. They did and declared war on Germany. Cooper ignores this.
I'd like Victor's take on the tweets Noam Dworman referenced in his recent podcast. Those are much more damning than the stuff that spun off the Tucker interview.
I haven’t seen them but I can check it out. I general agree with Noam’s takes so probably don’t have much to add. I think i might’ve mentioned it in the email but my justification for Cooper only extends so far. He definitely gets himself into trouble and I wonder if he’s doing it (ie getting more extreme) because like someone else said, he realizes that he can make more money going a Tucker/Dave Rubin route of demagoguery.
That being said I definitely saw him being misrepresented in the media at least so some degree so felt the need to speak up.
I toyed with unsubbing from his Substack post 10/7 because it felt like he was too anti Israel for my tastes but held off because I really like his long form content, and his podcast on that subject pre-1948 was very fair. But we’ll see.
Which Noam episode are you referring to so I can check it out? Thanks
Didn't want you to feel called out, so apologies if it came off that way.
A lot of people in Cooper's audience seem dismayed by some of his behavior. I think most of us can say we've been there with ... someone, whether that's Rubin or Peterson or Weinstein or whoever. So, again, don't want you to feel singled out.
Also! I used to dovetail with his work because of Jocko. But I ended up ditching both after the the Afghan pullout (thought their take on it was obtuse).
Anyway, here's Noam on this: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-comedy-cellar-live-from-the-table/id1092965609?i=1000668506686
I appreciate you for adding context to the Cooper thing, but ultimately I think the rot probably runs deeper, unfortunately.
Yeah no worries didn’t take it that way at all. It’s fun to hash out some potential differing of opinions. There are plenty of rational followers of Darryl’s podcast and we were calling him out and questioning him on intent. I’m sure now that the user base has expanded 10x in the last few weeks it’s going to be more of an echo chamber of the MAGA worldview.
The most upsetting thing about it is that it’s a win for Tucker. Here we all are, still talking about it lol.
(This is to say, if it was *just* the Tucker stuff, maybe you could wiggle out of those cuffs. But it's not just the Tucker stuff.)
Loved these letters! Love Amanda!
I have a question about Darryl Cooper. He randomly popped up on my you tube feed as a guess of Dave Smith’s. I didn’t watch it. BUT same day I got a comedy short from As/Is (I think) which I had also never heard of and I think is a buzzfeed short of thing and it’s about 7-9 treats old, but one of the gay guys in a couple (show is about gay dog lovers) looks just like him. The same. Is Cooper an actor?
Good stuff and I liked Matt's new movie but there was no snek stepped on.