It just happened the other day when kissing had said, oh, yeah,
well, Darryl Cooper, he's had the opportunity to debate Andrew
Roberts, someone I've been begging to debate, by the way.
And you know, he didn't take that.
And Cooper has used David Irving as his source.
Now, this is the ultimate attempt to poison the well.
It this is a perfect SJW woke tactic where they say person A,
Well he's loosely correlated to person B and person B can be
dismissed. So therefore I've dismissed the
argument of person A that is a totally woke tactic.
It's as though it's like, you know what another citation could
be for someone you looked into and said, well this doesn't all
add up. You could read Neville
Chamberlain's declaration of war on September 3rd of 1939.
He says we told the Germans to get out of Danzig, Poland by
this hour. They have not.
Therefore, on behalf of Polish independence, we are going to
wage a war on Germany. But then the Soviets invaded
Poland 2 weeks later, on September 17th, 1939, and they
didn't declare war. Maybe that could raise some
eyebrows. Maybe the fact that the war
ended with 7 million dead Poles and Poland under Bolshevik
occupation. Maybe that could be a reason why
someone questions the validity of the Second World War, Mr.
Kissen, Not just because, well, there might be a connection to
David Irving, who has said good things about National Socialism.
That's much more plausible. How about you?
You could use Winston Churchill as your source for being
skeptical of the Second World War.
Churchill wrote a book titled The World Crisis 1911 to 1918.
So let's take it out of the Second World War and just look
at Churchill when he's operating in a war that today almost had
very few defenders. Barbara Tuchman will defend the
First World War, but everyone more or less looks at it and
says, well, this was a mass death, which really could.
I mean, as as bad as Kaiser Wilhelm was, he was better than
what followed. So maybe we should have just
tolerated that. In Churchill's book The World
Crisis, he said that the policy that he enacted as First Lord of
the Admiralty was a deliberate starvation of the population of
Germany to to push people into submission.
He uses the word submission, men, women and children wounded
and sound into submission. The whole population of Germany.
I don't remember the exact quote but I know it's on page 672 of
that book. He says this is a policy among
the civilian population of Germany.
A very pro Churchill historian Martin Gilbert said that there
were roughly 700,000 deaths as a cause result of this blockade.
Meanwhile, Kaiser Wilhelm went to the Netherlands to retire and
live the rest of his life. So it could be that we feel bad
for the German civilian population.
That could be an explanation. And then in the Second World
War, Churchill writes another book titled The Gathering Storm,
where he says the human tragedy reaches its climax.
That after all the exertions and sacrifices of the righteous
'cause we have found neither peace nor security and we lie in
the grip of even worse perils than those we have surmounted.
Meaning we fought the war against National Socialism and
now the Bolsheviks control East Germany to Vladivostok and have
a loose alliance science with Mao in China and their bases,
you know, very close to North Korea, later expanding into
Vietnam. So you could use Chamberlain and
Churchill as your sources, not David Irving.
There are people in Churchill's cabinet.
Charles Percy Snow, who was a science advisor who gave a
series of lectures at Harvard titled Science and Government
where he said this was in 1961. He said the paper on bombing by
Frederick Lindemann, who was known as Bycount Sharewell, went
out to to Churchill's cabinet and we found that we could use
bombs to make half of the German population homeless, especially
in cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants.
So you could use him as a source, JM Spate said.
We were the ones who authorized the initial bombing of civilians
in German cities and we knew that this would bring the war
into Britain, but it was necessary because his book is
titled Bombing Vindicated. So he's saying that the sooner
you to start bombing, the sooner you can get them to wave the
white flag and surrender. So you have people, this was the
air principal secretary of the ministry saying, yes, we started
the bombing, we should be proud of it.
You have Frederick Lindemann himself giving a memorandum to
Winston Churchill in May of 1940.
This was published in a book by Max Hastings titled Bomber
Command, where he explicitly says we're aiming at the
civilian population. That's a very plausible
explanation. Another source you could use is
Charles de Gaulle, who was, you know, calling the shots for the
French government in exile. In his memoirs, Charles de
Gaulle says, you know, I asked Winston Churchill why he was so
interested in having the Germans bomb Britain.
And Churchill told me that once the Americans see the bombing of
Oxford and Coventry, the Americans will have to come into
the war. These are totally legitimate
sources that you could be using as opposed to David Irving.
And then that there's another one, Martin Gilbert, who was the
Churchill historian before Andrew Roberts became the
Churchill historian. And he said Churchill told
Londonderry in 1935, we're going to have to go to war with
Germany because they're the biggest power in Europe.
Just as we would take on the Spanish if they got too
powerful, just as we've taken on the French Empire or the French
monarchy, just as we would take on any other nation.
It looks like Germany is the one we're going to have to oppose
now. But previously, Churchill said
in an article titled Zionism versus Bolshevism in the early
1920s that the Bolsheviks were going to be the ones they might
have to go after because he saw them as the competitor on the
potentially the encroaching competitor on the continent at
the time. All of these reasonable
explanations and all kissing has to respond as you probably think
the Holocaust didn't happened. It is so pathetic.
And then one last one. One last one on the the the
Second World War, Henry Stimson wrote a diary.
This was the Secretary of War and in 1946 there was the Pearl
Harbor investigation. If you look at Stimson's diary
entry on November 25th of 1941, two weeks before Pearl Harbor,
he said. We met with the president on
Monday. We had discussions that the
Japanese were to planning to attack us as soon as next
Monday. The question was how we could
convince them to commit the first overt act of war against
us in order to justify intervention.
I mean, we're quoting people who are in positions to know these
things. That is totally legitimate and
has nothing to do with us denying the Holocaust, hating
Jews, or loving David Irving. Yeah, well, this is I I mean,
it's part of the reason why I found Pat Buchanan's book so
compelling. Churchill, Hitler in the
unnecessary war it. And what what's interesting
about it is when there is the response of like, oh, what?
So what are you saying the Holocaust didn't happen?
And I'm sure there are people out there who are saying that I
think they're wrong. But the whole point that Pat
Buchanan's making is like, no, I'm saying it did happen.
I'm saying it happened in the middle of this war.
And it's just hard. I think just like I'm I'm almost
the most common sense litmus test to go, OK, so the results
of the war were first of all, as you mentioned, British entry
into the war. The official justification was
to protect the independence of Poland.
OK. The results of the war were the
biggest bloodbath in human history, the Holocaust and
Joseph Stalin taking over half of Europe.
And I mean, when those are the results, it's just pretty easy
for someone to go like, maybe an alternative scenario would have
been better. Like maybe playing things a
little bit differently could have led to a preferable
outcome. Now, I understand to some
degree, and this is partially because of how evil the Nazis
were and partially because of years of of indoctrination.
But I understand people immediately going like, well, if
the Nazis had survived, it would have been a worse outcome.
You know, like if if the Nazi regime was still standing and
Adolf Hitler was still alive, then that's a worse outcome.
It's just like that's not so self evidently clear.
And, and I'm not saying it's a great outcome for for Adolf
Hitler to still be alive in the Nazi regime to have continued.
But like, let's say hypothetically the 60 million
people didn't die who died in that war.
Let's say hypothetically a deal could have been worked out to to
get the Jews out of there. Let's say hypothetically the
Soviet Union didn't take over all of of Eastern Europe.
It's not so obvious, you know, it's not, it's not so obvious
that there isn't a path that could have been or there isn't
policies that could have been pursued that would have led to a
better path. Now, by the way, so with the
Constantin thing, 'cause I, I want to just do this, but before
we wrap up like it, the thing I was arguing with him about was
Darryl Cooper also, you know, it started with that.
What's his name? Niall, the guy Scott Horton
debated Fergus. Niall Ferguson called Darrell
Cooper a Nazi apologist. I took issue with that and
insulted him a little bit. I feel like, you know, I'm
sticking up for a friend who's unfairly being smeared.
And then Constantine was like, no, he is a Nazi apologist.
And so me and him started arguing and I was like, yeah,
but dude, like, come on. I mean, he's just not like, I, I
don't know, look at look at the guy's work.
He's not a Nazi apologist. And So what Constantin's thrown
at me again, it reminded me of kind of, you know, that a lot of
this stuff we've been talking about with the woke on the left
and the right assuming the the motivations must be this one
thing. This is the only motivation that
could lead you to this place. And it was really amazing to me,
especially because I think Constantine is still, well,
trigonometry is a pretty big podcast, but at least at a point
what he was most known for was this speech where he that he
gave eviscerating woke ISM left woke ISM.
And it was beautiful. I mean, it's like one of the
most eloquent and devastating speeches against woke ISM you'll
ever see. You could if you Google
Constantine Oxford woke, you'll find it real quick.
It's got millions and millions of views.
Great speech. And I'm like, hey, so how are
you that guy? And then we're still at the and
his argument to me is he's like, well, look, Darryl Cooper posted
a picture with a mug, you know, like with, with Nazi imagery on
it. And he posted the thing about a
Nazi, you know, Hitler marching on Paris, being preferable to
like fat trans men in dresses or whatever.
And that, you know, he's got. And then and and so, and then he
brings up the fact that he goes, he goes also, he said Churchill
was the true villain of, of the war.
And I was like arguing with him. And I'm like, OK, well, first of
all, on your first point, what he said was, OK, so I say this
to kind of rib my friends and I'm saying this in I'm being
hyperbolic, but I like to say to him that Churchill was the real
villain of World War 2. And he goes now it's I'm not
saying he committed the most atrocities or he had the most
blood on his hand necessarily. But here's why I think he's
really the real villain. And it's like, OK, well, then
look, if we're being fair here and we're not being woke zealots
about this, instead of just like, oh, I got red meat.
Like, here's my conclusion. Let me work backward from that.
I was like, why can't you guys ever include that in your
retelling of the story? And then he responded to me, and
you could go look this up. This is on Twitter.
He goes, dude, you're telling me that he said that on Tucker
Carlson in order to rib a friend and that he was being
hyperbolic. Well, he still said it.
And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, I'm saying that on Tucker
Carlson, he said like, I'm not saying he did this to rib a
friend being hyperbolic and then just said this thing.
I was like, no, that's what he said on Tucker Carlson, that to
rib my friend. I use hyperbole and I say this.
And so we're going back and forth on this and then I'm just
talking about like, I'm like, wait, he shit posted like a time
or two like this is this just sounds like what?
Like first of all, why do you have to as I put it on Twitter,
I go, why do you have to very fine people on both sides him.
Why do you have and this thing that's on tape that anyone can
go back and watch like it? It really is strikingly similar
to me to them saying Trump said there's very fine people on both
sides and it's like, dude, it's on.
You can go back and listen to what he said.
Same with Darryl Cooper on Tucker Carlson show.
And I was like, OK, so on in your corner you have that he
made some off color jokes that he shit posted it a time or two.
And then I ultimately said to Constantine, and this is where
we stopped the interaction is that I went fine, look, you're
not convinced by me. Take my non woke challenge.
OK, and here's my non woke challenge.
Listen to the 1st 30 minutes of fear and loathing in the New
Jerusalem and then listen to the 30 minutes that he did in the
addendum piece after it about the suffering of Jews during
World War 2. I go just listen to it's an hour
combined. Listen to those two half hours
and you tell me, is it possible, like is it conceivably possible
that a Jew hating Nazi apologist could have possibly ever made
that content? Like how can you square that
circle together? How is it possible?
That is the one thing that you could you could always count on
any Jew hating Nazi apologist would never tell you about the
individual suffering of Jewish people who had nothing to do
with this bigger cabal and we're just totally fucked over.
And just like so. And this is Daryl's superpower
really is that he's is just like the most intensely empathetic
person. So this is what people love
about his work. It's all just like, Oh my God,
put yourself in that guy's shoes.
Imagine you're here as this mob of people is ripping your kids
and your wife apart and beating you to death and you just got to
watch it all and you're powerless.
And it's just. And then he just responded with
like a I've seen it, I've listened to it and I still
convinced. And once he said that, I was
like, well, I mean, if you're, you know, if you could, if you
could listen to that and not just be shaken of any feeling
that like this is OK. So in my, on my corner, I have
here is this guy's work that he put out by his own free will
where he's deeply empathetic to the suffering of Jews during
the, the, the Second World War. And in your corner you have he
posted something provocative on Twitter once.
What are we even like? What it's like arguing with a
woke leftist who's like, that guy's a racist because he told a
joke. And I was like, well, you know,
he's got a black wife and three black kids, right?
And you're like now told a joke he's raised.
He's like, what are you? What are we even saying here?
This is just arguing with the folk leftist now.
They're so obsessed with symbology, they're like, all
right, racism is a huge issue. We got to take down statues.
We got to remove that bitch and Jemima.
We got to take down the Indian on the the butter and we we
can't have any schools named Lee because that might be Robert E
Lee. It's like, all right, have any
black kids learn to read as a cause result of that?
Have any gotten on the job training skills?
No, no. OK, Well then you're obviously
much more focused on symbology. And it's still symbology for him
to focus only on Darryl Cooper. It's like, OK, your criticism of
the revisionist World War 2 narrative is to focus on one
person. Why don't you take a different
person? How about President Herbert
Hoover in 1953 wrote a book titled Freedom Betrayed where he
has 18 points, very clear as to how through diplomacy this World
War could have been avoided. His cases is basically that it
was almost inevitable for the National Socialists and the
Bolsheviks to collide. That in no way means Britain or
the US has to make a regional dispute into a World War.
He says that even if we had to go to war with Japan, he of
course knows that the Export Control Act of 1940 by Roosevelt
was intentionally done to provoke the Japanese to attack
America so the Americans can take the side of the British
again. Former president in 1953 was
saying this. Kissen can just respond to that.
Hoover goes on to say if we didn't demand absolute,
unconditional surrender of the Japanese, they wouldn't have had
to withdraw their colonies, two of which were in Korea and
Vietnam. After pulling back their
colonies, the US had to go to war in Korea for three years.
We then went to war in Vietnam, fighting a proxy war against the
Bolsheviks there. So that there are very
reasonable explanations for all these things from a large number
of other people who are not Darrell Cooper.
And Kissen is still not addressing these very obvious
claims. And we just know how pathetic it
is when you say, well, we can never allow independence to be
violated. So that means all citizens of
all the 50 states need to wage a war for independence against the
Washington, DC regime, which claims the right to rule them.
This small group of people claims the right to impose
taxes, claims the right to regulate their lives In all, in
a large number of aspects, that's a violation of
independence. Surely we're going to have to go
to war over that. Or you could say the people of
the Donbass region felt that their independence was being
violated by the 2014 coup in Tiev led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk in
his anti terrorism operation. So even the independence thing,
they clearly see the cost of war are extraordinarily high and the
outcomes are extraordinarily uncertain.
Whenever you take it out of whatever individual frame they
want to put things in, because they're always, they're
primarily focusing on the potential motives of the person
presenting the evidence as opposed to very plausible
evidence. The woke right is Constantine
kissing Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager and
Sean Hannity. Yeah 100% couldn't agree more.