u/Francis_J_Eva

I didn't realise he'd recently followed up (and doubled down) on them, which is what the last image shows.

Source:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/07/martyr-made-darryl-cooper-nazi-jews-juggernaut-nihilism-tucker-carlson-joe-rogan-substack/

Context:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/1pe89zc/darryl_cooper_exposed_as_a_cryptonazi_douglas/

Comments:

I wish people cared this much about Marxists.

>Kind of hard when Academia is run by them.

I'm quite frustrated.

Calling someone a racist today doesn't mean anything and it doesn't do anything. For the past 20 years, Democrats have driven the impact of being called a racist into the ground and now when there's genuine need to call out racism there's no social impact to being a racist.

I've been seeing anti-Semitism and outright racism being encouraged and endorsed on other platforms and if you call them racist they'll agree.

>Super important point. > >Coleman Hughes made the same point recently, using the fable of the boy who cried wolf. > >False claims of racism became commonplace, so people starting ignoring claims of racism. > >In the same way, the boy's false claims of a wolf coming made the townsfolk start ignoring claims of a wolf coming. But the issue is, the wolf eventually did come. And they weren't prepared for it. > >Now that there's an actual rise in racism/antisemitism in some corners of the right, many people are unable to see it because the word "racism" was effectively destroyed.

>>You didn't call Cooper a racist, stupid. You called him a Nazi. The fact that you're using the two interchangeably is proof enough that you're talking out of your ass.

y'all are taking the word of fucking Mother Jones now? Doubt.

The entire allegation that Darryl Cooper was genuinely arguing that "Winston Churchhill was the true villain" is a bogus out of context lie from the start. That was never the case. He was only ever pointing out that the allies weren't perfect, and things might not have escalated the same way if they'd done some things differently.

The saying itself is in reference to how, when anyone makes a mistake in part of the chain of critical events that lead to disaster, then from a myopic perspective the blame can go entirely on that mistake. It's a way of rhetorically emphasizing how that specific thing had to happen for the rest to turn out like it did. It is not saying that we should retain that myopic perspective when talking about history as a whole. This is a totally normal way to talk about deep history and no one ever calls it a dogwhistle in any other context.

>I don’t care about Cooper one way or another, but I don’t believe anything from Mother Jones. Especially since if they want to paint someone as a Nazi.

>>Mother Jones uncovered it, but it can be independently verified. >> >>Here's a tweet from 2018 that proves Darryl Cooper was going by Juggernaut Nihilism back then. Here's a direct link to the tweet and here's an archived link. >> >>And here's Cooper's comment on Counter-Currents as Juggernaut Nihilism. That's the one Coleman is going over in the video.

>>>Lol. That's the big "proof", you fucking mindless leftist talking point repeater?

Exactly. On October 9, 1939, Hitler outlined his plans to invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. That was 7 months before Churchill took office!

>Did you not read the very first part? This is saying “…if England and France continue waging war against us, we will have to…..” > >Churchill had been advocating for war against Germany and this advocacy was the reason he became PM. > >Hitler invaded Poland to preempt an attack from Russia. > >There is no way to know how things would have turned out if England and France said…”We agree that Russia is bad. As long as you don’t invade anyone else, we will look the other way on Poland.” > >Perhaps he would have stopped there and England would still have their empire instead of being conquered by the millions of 3rd world invaders. > >It’s hard to say. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another but calling someone “racist” or “antisemitic” for having one of those opinions is very stupid.

>>Britain voluntarily allowing in immigrants has nothing to do with them losing their empire. Do you think empires have lower rates of immigration? Japan lost their empire much more brutally than Britain did in WWII and they allowed like no immigrants since then.

>>>I’m not saying one thing caused the other. I am saying that both things happened after they decided to kill a half a million of their best men fighting Germany. >>> >>>Under no metric can you look at WW2 and say, “That worked out well for the UK.” >>> >>>It was the absolute worst outcome that could have possibly happened. Now I hear that if someone looks back and says, “maybe that was a mistake.”….. they are labeled an antisemite.

>>>>I don’t see why you think this is the worst outcome. UK is a liberal democracy and one of the richest countries in the world. It’s suffered economic stagnation in the past 10 years but I don’t see how this is the worst outcome for the UK which could have truly devastated the UK economically or could have lead to fall of liberal democracy.

When Cooper made those comments, I wondered how any seemingly rational person could hold the viewpoint that Churchill was the main villain of WWII. Now I know.

A very similar thing is happening right now with a person many in this sub probably agree with and admire; Tucker Carlson. Just the other day he was talking with Piers Morgan. He was implying that, since England wasn’t initially attacked by Germany, it was dumb of England to declare war on Germany. It was very clear that Hitler had ambitions well beyond Poland, but Tucker’s position was that it wasn’t Englands business since they weren’t attacked (yet).

It was a frightening display of revisionist history from one of the leading conservative voices in media. It felt like he was trying to paint Nazi Germany as innocent, or even as a victim. Tucker’s argument is completely obliterated by the fact that there is no way Germany would have stopped. Hitler clearly explained Lebensraum in Mein Kampf. He was always going to strike further East.

It was such a bizarre interview. Another highlight was Tucker repeatedly and gleefully saying a certain homophobic slur like a child that learned a new naughty word. He even dared Piers to say it on camera. Tucker is clearly going down the Nick Fuentes path of conservatism, which is a scary thought since he is so influential. Hell, the man might even run for president in the future.

I do hope you guys in this sub recognize how absurd and even dangerous this type of rhetoric is. It’s like we’re living in bizarro world where you can defend Nazi Germany and scream slurs publicly and nobody even bats an eye.

>There's a shitload of revisionist history from nearly every historian on world war II. To pretend your perspective got it right while it also happens to perfectly align with your beliefs should be a red flag. > >For instance, every gas chamber extermination camp was liberated by the soviets. Every camp liberated by Western Allies all the evidence was gone. Historians certainly placed a lot of trust and authority in the Soviet story. The notoriously brutal Red Army liberated Sonnenburg concentration camp on Feb. 2nd 1945 and claim every prisoner was executed a day or two earlier on January 31st.

>>In 2 hours, the only reply I get is a guy going straight to holocaust denial? This is much worse than I feared. >> >>God help us.

>>>And there it is... anyone who questions the historical truth will instantly get called a nazi.

>>>>I’m simply stating that Hitler would not have stopped at Poland, and I questioned why Tucker suggested that he would have. >>>> >>>>Feel free to elaborate exactly what you’re questioning and the conclusions you’ve arrived at.

>>>>>'Germany never wanted war with Britain' has always been the narrative, and you can hear Pat Buchanan explain it 17 years ago: https://x.com/HistoryArcs/status/1994088840571822400 >>>>> >>>>>Why Tucker would repeat this? Because practically no one knows it, because anyone who mentions it is labeled a nazi. The fact you believe Tucker invented this theory just shows why it was important for him to say it.

>>>>>>It doesn’t matter if Nazi Germany didn’t want war with England at that particular moment. They wanted to kill hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, and subjugate entire continents. Can’t just stand around and let that happen. >>>>>> >>>>>>Or do you think England should have let that happen?

>>>>>>>And the soviet union didn't want to kill hundreds of millions of people and subjugate entire continents? You are aware the victor wrote the history books, right? How many christians did the Soviet Union slaughter? (Hint: More than the holocaust numbers.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is amazing to me no one believes Russia today when they rightly calls Ukrainians nazis... even the jewish organizations who's singular goal is identifying nazis. But they are perfectly ok with Russian recollection of world war II history because the communists were on our side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can watch history repeating itself today... everyone screaming that Putin is planning to subjugate Europe. All while we watched Ukraine negotiations sabotaged by the UK to provoke this war. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The west provokes war for generations and historians can't seem to bring themselves to not blame the other team.

Here is the thing tho…

The absolute worst possible outcome is what actually happened. 60 million people died. A genocide occurred. The UK lost its empire. The Christian west was so weakened and decimated that it was defeated within 60 years following the war. UK and France were overrun and conquered by 3rd world invaders, etc….

What is actually revisionist history, is to look at all of that and say, “Yeah, but imagine how worse it COULD have been had England not gotten involved.”

The thing with England's treaty with Poland was that it wasn't a matter of Poland being attacked, it was a matter of Poland being attacked by Germany.

England didn't give two shits or start defending Poland from the Eastern Soviet invasion that occurred two weeks later.

Same story from WW1. The heir of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is assassinated, and instead of allowing controlled retribution, England (and other countries) start enacting treaties against the victimized party.

England's anti-German agenda played just as much a role in the escalation of WW1 and WW2.

As far as German's attack on the Soviet's, go read Suvorov, and it's clear that the Soviet's were developing FOB's on their Western border for an invasion. The attack on the Soviet's was a pre-emptive strike.

Now, go and read the Venona papers and other literature on communist fifth column activities in America and other Western countries, and it becomes quite apparent that Western countries were dragged into war against Germany (in WW2) through the manipulation of subversive communists (anti-Fascists).

Or read about the German civil war of 1919, where communists attempted to do in Germany what the Bolsheviks had successfully done in Russia.

If you don't like communists or their allies today, it might be worthwhile looking into the only regimes that successfully countered them.

>Two replies. Two defenses of Nazi Germany. > >I honestly didnt expect this from this sub, but maybe I should have.

>>All shrieking and no substance. >> >>You'll call people names to dogwhistle, but you won't address the content.

Call him a Nazi but don't call him a liar, interesting.

>He is both > >Next