Tucker Carlson’s Non-Denial Denialism of the Holocaust

Well, the Jewish Lobby is at it again. In the latest kerfuffle over “Holocaust denial,” Jews and their sycophants are in an uproar over a podcast interview aired on September 2 in which Tucker Carlson spoke at length with a “popular historian” named Darryl Cooper. The two-hour episode is titled “The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe” – a bit of a stretch for a single show, but with the central theme that conventional or orthodox history is often wrong about events small and large, and thus frequently in need of revision. History is not only written by the victors, it is sustained by powerful lobbies that have a vested interest in a certain interpretation of past events. This much is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning.

Video Link

And yet, when it comes to World War Two and especially the Holocaust, all rules go out the window. The “victors” cannot be named; alternate interpretations are not allowed; and revisionism is declared a crime. In the interview, Cooper offers the mildest of mild statements regarding his thoughts on WW2 and on what happened to “civilians and prisoners of war” at that time. Two points seemed to have raised the greatest ire: that Churchill, not Hitler, was the true villain of the war; and that the millions of people who died – presumably meaning millions of Jews – were, in effect, accidental victims rather than targets of a premediated and planned genocide. Our cultural guardians are upset by the first point but truly enraged by the second.

The horror of stating such views was too much for both our Jewish media and for our Jewish-inspired Biden regime. The headlines are alarming: “Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust Revisionist” (NYT); “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His Show” (NYT, Michelle Goldberg); “White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s ‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’” (CNN); “Tucker Carlson Blasted for Interview with Holocaust Revisionist” (The Hill). CNN reports that the Biden administration took the unusual step of publicly “denouncing Tucker Carlson” and his guest. Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates issued a formal statement, not only calling the interview “a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans” but also condemning Carlson for “giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda.” Bates’ chief concern seems to be with “the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler.” “Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history,” Bates assures us – “full stop.” Certainly no revisionism allowed in this most “freedom-loving” of nations.

This whole incident is worthy of some reflection. Let me start with what exactly Cooper said. Here are the relevant statements (from 46:30 to 49:00):

“When [the Germans] went into the East, in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps, and millions of people ended up dead there.

You have letters as early as July, August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people they are rounding up. And it’s two months after [Operation] Barbarossa was launched [in June], and they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, ‘We can’t feed these people…’ And one of them actually says, ‘Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?’

At the end of the day, [Hitler] launched that war [against the USSR] with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were going to come under [his] control. And millions of people died because of that.”

To assess what Cooper is saying here, we must remind ourselves of the basic facts: Hitler launched his war against Poland in early September 1939. Based on a mutual non-aggression pact, Stalin attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, and the two great powers quickly divided Poland in half. England and France then declared war on Germany, not vice versa (wait – who was the aggressor again?), and so Hitler was compelled to direct his military efforts to the west. He never wanted a war to his west, and as Cooper explains, Hitler tried frequently to make peace with Chamberlain (not yet Churchill). Chamberlain sought compromise, but the rest of his divided government – including Churchill – preferred to continue a war they were ill-equipped to fight. Germany invaded the Low Countries in May 1940, Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill was elevated to prime minister.

Throughout the second half of 1940 and into the first half of 1941, Hitler continued his impressive string of victories. France was all but defeated, and England was on its last legs. Then suddenly, on 22 June 1941, Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union (“Operation Barbarossa”). This, says Cooper, was the war in which Germany was unprepared to handle “millions” of prisoners. And indeed, more than 3 million Soviet POWs came under Germany control by the end of 1941, many of whom in fact surrendered or defected. They were initially housed in the nearly 100 ad-hoc camps established in German-controlled Russia, and conditions were indeed horrible, as Cooper suggests. Upwards of 500,000 Soviet POWs died each month: around two million dead by the end of 1941. As far as we know, this was unplanned; the Germans were too busy fighting on the front to take much care for their 3 million newly captured prisoners. They indeed simply “ended up dead,” as Cooper says.

Notably, nowhere does Cooper talk about Jewish prisoners. The whole discussion centers on Soviet POWs and other political prisoners, of whom there were relatively few Jews. Jews did pay a price during Barbarossa, but it was because they were partisan fighters: attacking German troops from behind the front lines. According to international rules of warfare, partisans are to be treated the same as soldiers – meaning, they could be captured, or they could be killed. And the Germans preferred to kill partisans; this was logical, given their already overcrowded ad-hoc POW camps.

This resulted in the true beginning of “the Holocaust,” if we wish to call it that. Thousands of partisan Jews were shot on the Eastern Front – perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 in 1941, based on reasonable estimates (certainly not the 400,000 or 500,000 that our orthodox historians would have us believe). But Cooper was not discussing these deaths. Jews also died in the ghettos in 1941 – perhaps another 40,000 or 50,000, most from natural causes (old age, illness, accident, suicide). And precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” or “death camps” in 1941; none of the infamous six camps – Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chełmno and Majdanek – were operational that year. For that matter, precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” during the entire war, exactly because such things did not exist. But neither Carlson nor Cooper dared step into that sticky wicket.[1]

So, in Cooper’s (and Carlson’s) defense, the passage at hand says nothing about Jews and thus nothing about “the Holocaust.” Everything Cooper said there was factually correct. In fact, in the entire two-hour-plus interview, Jews were only mentioned a handful of times, and the “Holocaust” not once, that I can recall.

Jews Go on the Attack

But that’s not how our Jewish Lobby sees it. Every reference to “millions” of deaths is, to them, a coded reference to Jews. Even discussing Hitler as anyone other than a comically evil madman means that you are a Nazi sympathizer, a “denier” (whatever that means), or simply “disgusting and sadistic.”

A good example the absurdly inane orthodox response can be found in (Jewish) Michelle Goldberg’s op-ed in the (Jewish) New York Times of September 6. The alleged “Hitler apologist” Darryl Cooper failed to toe the party line on the unconditional evil of the Nazis, and so she condemns him in the strongest terms, without even knowing what she is talking about. She clearly doesn’t like the idea that Holocaustianity is our current “state religion” (which it is), and she is incensed when Cooper rightly mentions the “emotional triggers” that keep us from asking tough questions. To Goldberg, Cooper offers us only “clever rhetorical formulations” that are presented in a “soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way.” So overwhelmed is she by Carlson’s and Cooper’s audacity that she is reduced to the following idiocy:

“Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression, and ethnic grievance.”

This, from a staff writer at the New York Times.

More to the point, despite the utter lack of mention of the Holocaust in the interview, Goldberg is fixated on this supposed inference. She laments “Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism”; she frets over the “disgraced, Holocaust-denying author David Irving” (as if he is relevant here); and she bemoans the fact that “there are few better trolls than Holocaust deniers.” Those clever deniers “love to pose as heterodox truth-seekers,” and they “excel at mimicking the forms and language of legitimate scholarship” – when in fact their level of scholarship often equals or exceeds that of our conventional so-called experts.[2] Deniers “blitz their opponents with out-of-context historical detail and bad-faith questions” (How dare they go into detail! How dare they ask questions!). In the end, “they only know how to use crude provocation to get attention” – says the attention-seeking Jewess.

One of Goldberg’s biggest fears is that, in her Jewish-controlled ideological universe, the jig might be up. She worries about the red-pilled right-wing belief “that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs.” In fact, much of what we have been told by our Jewish-inspired orthodoxy has been a lie, or a half-truth, or otherwise deeply deceptive, and Goldberg worries that more and more people are figuring this out. And she is right to worry: a mass awakening will spell big trouble for her and her co-ethnics.

Finally at the end of her piece, she puts her finger on a bit of truth:

“Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future.”

Hitler and the Nazis must be viewed “as the negation of our deepest values,” or else we are “softened up” for Trump-like fascism. Holocaust denial – that is, deeply questioning the basic assumptions of that event – is indeed not really about history simply because the revisionists have won: the orthodox story of the “homicidal gas chambers,” “the 6 million,” and the alleged National-Socialist mad plot to kill all the Jews – all these have been utterly demolished. Orthodox historians no longer even try to respond to revisionists, because they know that they will be disgraced. Instead, they and their potent Jewish backers resort to censorship, lawfare, slander, intimidation and (in many countries) imprisonment to stifle revisionism. Such things are a sure signs of defeat.

As for her remark about what is permissible and imaginable, this too is correct: The standard Holocaust story is the keystone of present-day Jewish power in the US and the West; everything rests on our collective guilt, and all Jewish/Israeli atrocities are thereby justified. Jewish power presently declares that questioning the Holocaust is impermissible; and that a society in which Hitler and National Socialism are viewed neutrally or even positively is unimaginable. But this will soon change. When Holocaust revisionism become permissible, and National Socialism becomes imaginable, then everything – everything – will change. That day cannot come soon enough.

The great irony in this whole much-ado-about-nothing is that it could have been something: Carlson and Cooper could have actually discussed the many problems with the Holocaust story, and they could have actually asked the tough questions that orthodoxy cannot answer. They could have examined the many works of Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno; they could have reviewed the reasons why homicidal gas chambers were technically impossible; they could have explained that the best evidence to date suggests that perhaps 500,000 Jews died during the war, not 6 million. And when all that comes out, Michelle Goldberg and friends will truly have something to fear.

Notes