He goes far beyond "humoring". He straight up agrees with paragraph long denunciations of the Evil Jews and their century-spanning conspiracy to corrupt and destroy Western civilization, with the very light push back of "nevertheless, it's harmful to let yourself be consumed by hate".
Really sorry to follow you around from article to article, but you really need to include in your historiography of Daryl Cooper the possibility that he really really doesn't like Jews as a motivating factor for all this. It would take you less than a half hour of browsing his comment section to find pretty strong evidence to that effect; certainly less time than reading Evans.
I'm only bothering you because you're one of like, 5 people on earth who are willing to critique Darryl seriously and fairly.
His comment section does have a lot of reprobates that he is far too willing to humor, from what I’ve seen. I don’t think that speaks to his feelings about Jews though; I think it does more to the quality of his work because he doesn’t want to alienate a lot of those fans that he doesn’t see as too far gone.
Honestly I can’t speak to that without seeing specific instances where that happened so I can get the full context.
I also think it’s always important to keep in mind the fact that he is directly interacting with people who pay him so that changes the dynamic. It’s very different than writing a broad post denouncing low-IQ antisemites as he calls them—which was the right move—to speak to someone who is being polite but saying something problematic or offensive, especially if they’re generous enough to give you their money. It doesn’t make it right. It just is what it is.
The latter point he has also admitted to Noam Dworman that it came from David Irving, but to his credit he largely walked it back and never stated it AS his position; that he was willing to humor it or Irving at all is pretty bad in and of itself, but having read a fair bit more about where this revisionism comes from I don’t think he’s as inspired by Irving apart from his contrarian impulses and a knee-jerk sympathy for people he sees as persecuted underdogs (which with Irving is ridiculous to say since Irving was a mentally unhinged bigot who brought everything on himself).
Darryl can continue down this path of playing with the narrative of WWII and I’ll be interested to see how he incorporates the good sources he has—and there are a lot—into the narrative he has clearly predetermined. But I just thought it would be good practice to point out where that narrative originated in the historiography so people don’t come away with the impression that he gleaned all this on his own after reading a dozen or so books, most of which outside of Nolte, Suvorov, and of course Irving, are acceptable quality.
He goes far beyond "humoring". He straight up agrees with paragraph long denunciations of the Evil Jews and their century-spanning conspiracy to corrupt and destroy Western civilization, with the very light push back of "nevertheless, it's harmful to let yourself be consumed by hate".
Really sorry to follow you around from article to article, but you really need to include in your historiography of Daryl Cooper the possibility that he really really doesn't like Jews as a motivating factor for all this. It would take you less than a half hour of browsing his comment section to find pretty strong evidence to that effect; certainly less time than reading Evans.
I'm only bothering you because you're one of like, 5 people on earth who are willing to critique Darryl seriously and fairly.
His comment section does have a lot of reprobates that he is far too willing to humor, from what I’ve seen. I don’t think that speaks to his feelings about Jews though; I think it does more to the quality of his work because he doesn’t want to alienate a lot of those fans that he doesn’t see as too far gone.
I think calling it "humoring" is very generous. He explicitly says "I agree but..." to multiple multi-paragraph denunciations of Jews.
Honestly I can’t speak to that without seeing specific instances where that happened so I can get the full context.
I also think it’s always important to keep in mind the fact that he is directly interacting with people who pay him so that changes the dynamic. It’s very different than writing a broad post denouncing low-IQ antisemites as he calls them—which was the right move—to speak to someone who is being polite but saying something problematic or offensive, especially if they’re generous enough to give you their money. It doesn’t make it right. It just is what it is.
Oh yeah that (and the roundabout implication of Zionist financiers) were dogshit claims, which I addressed back when he made them in my Merion West piece (here’s a link in case you missed that; warning it’s long: https://www.merionwest.com/2024/09/26/darryl-cooper-revisionist-history-and-misplaced-empathy/).
The latter point he has also admitted to Noam Dworman that it came from David Irving, but to his credit he largely walked it back and never stated it AS his position; that he was willing to humor it or Irving at all is pretty bad in and of itself, but having read a fair bit more about where this revisionism comes from I don’t think he’s as inspired by Irving apart from his contrarian impulses and a knee-jerk sympathy for people he sees as persecuted underdogs (which with Irving is ridiculous to say since Irving was a mentally unhinged bigot who brought everything on himself).
Darryl can continue down this path of playing with the narrative of WWII and I’ll be interested to see how he incorporates the good sources he has—and there are a lot—into the narrative he has clearly predetermined. But I just thought it would be good practice to point out where that narrative originated in the historiography so people don’t come away with the impression that he gleaned all this on his own after reading a dozen or so books, most of which outside of Nolte, Suvorov, and of course Irving, are acceptable quality.