White House slams Tucker Carlson's 'sadistic' interview with so-called historian who claimed Hitler was NOT the chief villain in WWII
Ultimately, I think Churchill was right to distrust and oppose Hitler but the situation was not so clear at the time. Hitler had made it clear that he had no quarrel with his British racial brethren and was quite happy to leave the British empire in place while he controlled Europe
Some prominent British politicians were inclined to trust him on that so, had their views prevailed, the outcome MAY have been a much reduced loss of British lives
The White House is slamming Tucker Carlson for his interview with a man he called 'the best and most popular historian in the US' over his claims that Adolf Hitler was not World War II's chief villain.
Daryl Cooper - a podcast host and so-called historian - caused controversy when he said that not only did the Nazis not intend to murder millions but that Winston Churchill is the main villain of the war.
The show caused outrage online, especially after X CEO Elon Musk quote-tweeted the video, writing: 'Very interesting. Worth watching'. Musk has since deleted the post.
White House spokesperson Andrew Bates issued a harsh rebuke to the episode of the show.
'Giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism, and to every subsequent victim of Antisemitism,' Bates said in a statement.
'Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history and the 'chief villain' of World War II, full stop. The Biden-Harris Administration believes that trafficking in this moral rot is unacceptable at any time, let alone less than one year after the deadliest massacre perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and at a time when the cancer of Antisemitism is growing all over the world.'
Much of what Cooper said about World War II blames Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
'Now, he didn't kill the most people, he didn't commit the most atrocities, but I believe... that when you get into it and tell the story right and don't leave anything out, you see that he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did,' Cooper said.
While he didn't consider Hitler to be the hero of World War II, he says that only erred when he got Germany into 'a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners.'
'They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there,' seeming to insinuate that the Holocaust happened by accident.
Cooper hosts a podcast called 'Martyr Made' which saw a massive boost in listenership following his appearance with Carlson.
The interview has been viewed over 29.1 million times, according to the social media platform's numbers.
Cooper doubled down on his blame of Churchill, posting a lengthy thread on the UK Prime Minister - considered by many the hero of World War II - on X after the controversy.
'I know that sounds like hyperbole. Churchill didn't order the most deaths, oversee the most atrocities, or commit the worst crimes. But most of those crimes could not have been committed if the war had not happened, and Churchill was the leader most intent on making it happen,' Cooper wrote.
Cooper's statements have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, including by many conservatives.
Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney wrote: 'Actually, this is pro-Nazi propaganda, including, 'Churchill was the chief villain of WW2' and Hitler 'didn't want to fight.' No serious or honorable person would support or endorse this type of garbage.'
'This is just the same old Hitler apologetics (“He didn’t want to widen the war,” “They didn’t know what to do with all POWs so he put them in camps,” etc.). Remarkably, there isn’t any historiography behind it. This “popular historian” just makes conclusory claims. Shameful,' added Compact Magazine Editor Sohrab Ahmari.
*************************************************
Christianity defends against tyrants
All religions, including Christianity, were created to control the population and make them docile?
You have heard the argument before. Old religion is the opiate of the masses…
This line of attack is so tired that it probably does not have much effect on any serious thinking person. However, there is a kind of lazy thinker who still finds it to be an attractive line of thought, hence its usage in this show. Let’s take a step back and consider this argument for a moment. Come reason with me, and let’s test the soundness of this position. You’ll see how far short it falls.
What is the most significant religious moment in the whole Old Testament? If you have not read the Bible you might not know the answer to this, but it is simple. Outside of creation itself, the most significant moment is the Exodus. All of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, leads toward the Exodus. The rest of the Old Testament, in large measure, harkens back to it. It is the central salvation event in the Old Testament which frames how God’s people should see their Lord, each other, and this world.
What happened during the Exodus? Moses, at the instigation of He Who Is Who He Is, the Lord Almighty, led a rebellion and an insurrection against the largest empire in the known world at that time. It was such a cataclysmic event that Egypt never fully recovered. Egypt diminished as a result of the economic and social devastation caused by that Exodus. The central narrative of the Old Testament is an account of people choosing God over comfort, stability, and loyalty to the state, and being willing to suffer in the wilderness instead. There were times when many amongst the Hebrews regretted their decision and longed for the garlic and leeks of Egypt, but still, they chose to break free of their oppressors at the instigation of their Lord.
The central account of the first part of the most influential book in history was a kind of revolution that set people free from oppression.
This event was to frame how this people saw themselves. This creates a unique kind of people. This creates a people who have a complicated and dynamic relationship with their leaders.
There is much in the Old Testament which encourages and even commands submission to authority figures. But this submission to Earthly leaders is always one link in a chain that leads to the highest authority, God himself, and those who know they can defy Pharaoh at the command of God, also know that they can reserve the right to defy any other tyrant or leader who comes between them and God.
How can such a religion be accused of being created by tyrants to pacify populations?
Those who are familiar with Sunday school classes, even if not the whole Bible, will probably remember the account of Daniel and the Lions’ Den, or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the blazing furnace. These two stories recount the godly defiance of unjust orders by four men who are considered heroes of the Christian faith. These men were part of the Jewish population in exile in Babylon at the instigation of the Lord himself, and they were under commands to work and pray for the welfare of the pagan cities amongst which they were sojourners. Yet they also understood that being good citizens of heaven was a higher priority than being good citizens of any earthly kingdom, and so when these two things came into conflict they chose the higher priority. This is what makes them heroes. They chose to risk terrible deaths, Daniel at the jaws of hungry lions, and the other three, the prospect of being burned alive, rather than risk defying their God.
They understood that the chain of authority is not a linear line. Yes, Kings stand at a higher point than the general populous in the hierarchy of authority ordained by God, but the authority of God overrules all other authorities at any point at which it comes into conflict with the authority of men. Therefore, everyone has a responsibility to follow God’s authority first. The kind of religion created by the Exodus creates the very kinds of heroes that we see in examples like Daniel and his three contemporaries. Men who obey God over other men. And they are not the only ones.
The most significant characters outside of the kings in the Old Testament are the prophets, who starting with Moses and ending with John the Baptist, often found themselves in conflict with the State. Tradition tells us that Isaiah, who was a high-ranking priest in Judah, was sawn in half. Jeremiah’s conflict with the authorities he is prophesying against is famous and recounted in some detail in the book named after himself. Many other prophets also found themselves in a similar situation, because they challenged the state structures that were defying the authority of God. Jesus himself describes what a prophet can expect, ‘Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.’ (Matt. 5:11-12). The whole concept of being one of these men was being willing to defy unjust orders, or general injustice when necessary. This creates a particular kind of faith, a faith where its adherents are expected to be willing to suffer for doing what is right, even when it is unpopular, especially when it is.
This brings us squarely into the New Testament. Christians serve a Lord and Saviour who was murdered by the state, both Jewish and Roman, because he refused to play along with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Take stock of that for a minute. Atheists, in all their grand intelligence, have the gall to argue that a religion where people serve a risen saviour who was killed for defying the state, was actually created to control the masses. Could you get a dumber premise? This premise is so illogical, to even assert it you would have to work really hard to either not think deeply about it, or to have worked equally hard to make sure you have never engaged with Christianity on a serious intellectual level.
I once considered writing a piece entitled Righteous Rebels, but I decided not to do so as the Bible is clear that the sin of rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. The motivation for Christians to defy tyranny is not based on a heart of rebellion, at least it is not meant to be. It is deeply grounded in a love for God and a love for our fellow man. We know we are called to prioritise our love for God and his commands above all else, and we are to oppose that which does wrong to our fellow human beings. This can bring us into conflict with the State even when we would prefer that it did not, because often the state is directed by men who defy the commands of our Lord.
I can tell you that most Christians, along with most unbelievers, would prefer to live a quiet life, minding their own business. This is our default setting. Indeed, we are told to prefer this in Scripture, ‘…and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you…’ (1 Thess. 4:11). You will even find Christians who define their faith around this sentiment, they want to withdraw from the world, work the land quietly, stay away from people, and stay as far away from any trouble as humanly possible. But remember, this passage was written by a man who was often coming into conflict with people both inside his churches and outside of them, from both Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes entire cities were thrown into a tumult, to such a point that once he was confused by a Roman soldier of being a violent Egyptian revolutionary even though he raised a hand to no one. We should prefer peace and quiet, and even work towards that, but there is what we would prefer and then there is what we sometimes have to oppose because God would not have us go along with evil.
When evil rises this can bring quiet and peaceful Christians into conflict with the world.
The tyrants of this world have often been hammers that the devil has sought to wield to destroy the Church, but he often comes into conflict with the anvil of the perseverance of the saints of the Lord who refuse to budge.
Now, I should note before I finish, that yes, there have been times when the State has overcome the authority in the Church and used the structure of the Church as a hammer against godly men and women. But whenever this situation arises, God lifts up ordinary men and women who will even stand up to that. Every believer knows they have a direct line from their conscience to God that no priest can override, and therefore, many believers have been forced even to confront ecclesiastical authorities across history as well. So, even those times which sceptics might use as proof of their position, times when Christianity was co-opted by corrupt forces, disprove their overall thesis. Christianity is designed from the inside out to be a self-critiquing religion where every human authority is shown its limits.
If you wanted to create a religion to pacify the masses then Christianity is the opposite of what you would come up with. Christianity is the anti-tyranny faith. It is the bane of oppressors throughout history. It is the thorn in the side of many humans who seek to claim absolute power. Jesus Christ is the greatest slayer of tyrants, precisely because he overcame evil with his death and resurrection, and inspires in his believers a hope in a better world. When believed and correctly applied Christianity makes great citizens, who always reserve the right, when needed, to remind their authorities who the greatest authority is; the Lord Jesus Christ. Tyrants hate that.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/christianity-defends-against-tyrants/
****************************************************Kamala protected by left’s curious silence about her new Trumpian policies
If Kamala is elected, will we get Trump in a skirt?
In her adoption of a swathe of Trumpian policies, only the naive would believe Kamala Harris had experienced some Damascene conversion.
Notwithstanding this, there have been no protests – not even a peek – from Democrat notables.
The explanation is that Democrat powerbrokers are agreed on three points.
First, there is no question that Ms Harris remains a radical leftist but that, for electoral purposes, she is playing a chameleon, something to which she is accustomed as recounted in Peter Schweitzer’s Profiles in Corruption.
Second, given her inability to handle a challenging interview, it is better to exclude her, as Biden was, from most of the normal cut-and-thrust of the election.
Third, given the corruption of the greater part of the mainstream media, who now act as the Democrat propaganda arm, they will provide cover on both points.
As to the real Kamala Harris, the National Review editor-in-chief, Rich Lowry, slams Ms Harris as ‘weak’ and ‘a phony’, one who doesn’t truly care about ‘the country or the middle class’, a ‘shape-shifting opportunist’ who ‘can and will change’ on ‘almost anything when politically convenient’.
Even if when she is saying something popular, i.e. Trumpian, Lowry insists she cannot ‘be trusted to hold to it once she’s in office’. Democrat grandees are no doubt delighted with this.
This election is of singular importance. It is a fork in the road, and not only for America. On the one side is the MAGA doctrine, on the other, the Obama doctrine for the managed decline of the US and the West, the core of which is the continued appeasement of the Beijing-Moscow-Tehran axis.
Associated is the endorsement of the new far-left ideology, spread by the march of Newcoms (new communists) through America’s institutions, beginning with education and ultimately extending even onto the boards of some of the great corporations.
The core has been the anti-Western, discredited dogmas of climate catastrophism and critical race and gender theory.
In the meantime, an open border policy is designed to lock in millions of future Democrat voters.
Ms Harris began her simulation of Trumpian policy with her blatant copying of ending the taxing of tips. This was despite her breaking the tie in the Senate to enable the IRS, among other things, to pursue taxpayers receiving that important part of their remuneration, tips.
Based on Trump’s policy, very popular in the battleground state of Nevada and with legislation already introduced by Senator Cruz, she failed even to acknowledge that she had taken their policy.
Following this, she has renounced the EV mandate so that people can keep their gasoline-driven cars, and her policies of abolishing private health care, defunding the police, and banning fracking. Then, she claimed, she would complete the wall on the southern border.
The impact was such that Senator Cruz jocularly referred to White House leaks that she planned to dye her hair blonde and her skin orange, while wearing enormously long red ties at future appearances.
On closer examination, the border change was not as Trumpian as she suggested.
Harris says Trump persuaded Republican senators to block a so-called bipartisan immigration bill, one she says she will sign on day one of her presidency.
But as Mark Levin points out, it entrenches ‘catch and release’, instead of Trump’s policy of requiring aspring immigrants to stay in Mexico until a decision is made, a policy overruled by an executive order signed by Biden. Capping this off, illegals will have work permits and taxpayer-funded lawyers.
This continues and legitimises the Biden-Harris policy of opening the border and letting the drug cartels bring in over ten million illegal immigrants including criminals and terrorists, as well as vast amounts of the drug fentanyl.
For those four years, she and Biden undermined or, to use a term from the English Civil War, dispensed with immigration law. When two English kings tried that, one lost his throne and the other his head. But Biden and Harris were not even impeached.
Meanwhile there has been one last, desperate use of lawfare to stop Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose appointment has been ruled invalid by a Florida court, filed yet another indictment against Donald Trump over his challenge to the results of the 2020 presidential election. The indictment obviously attempts to navigate around the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity for official acts.
As it cannot be heard before the election, Smith’s action is obviously political and unlikely to affect the vote.
Meanwhile, the so-called interview on CNN was purely a propaganda broadcast, with Harris insisting on her vice presidential nominee being there to save her and that it be prerecorded, no doubt so that it could be edited. Harris had ready-made answers and frequently referred to a crib sheet which seemed to follow the order of the questions.She did not need to search for the answer. This suggested she had notice of the questions.
Harris was allowed long, uninterrupted, unchallenged answers and she received very few follow-up questions. It would have been wiser not to have done this. Americans will only compare it with Trump’s continuing availability for questioning, his obvious ad-libbing, his detailed disclosure of his agenda and the fact that in his last term, he donated his salary to various federal agencies.
Meanwhile, the united front of the anti-Trump media propaganda arm is weakening.The comments above by Rich Lowry were in the New York Times. X, previously Twitter, is now under Elon Musk and is a bastion of free speech.
And Mark Zuckerberg seems to be breaking ranks. He has apologised for giving in to White House pressure to censor comments on Covid, and for accepting FBI advice that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation. He declares that he will not repeat his 2020 contribution of $400 million to what many saw as Democrat fronts.
Meanwhile, Trump is constantly on the road, speaking to the people. His contributions are accessible on the internet.
He remains the hope of America and the West.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/kamala-trumped-by-lefts-curious-silence/
**************************************************The Bizarre Alliance Between Transgenderism and Abortion
When discussing the transgender craze and abortion, less is often more. But the alliance between the trans movement and the pro-abortion movement has become so aggressive that we can’t avoid talking about it (as much as we might like to).
At first glance, the issues of abortion and LGBTQ appear unrelated. Same-sex relationships are sterile and can’t result in pregnancy. But the homosexual movement has actively inserted itself into the abortion debate because both the trans and pro-abortion movements are built on a shared philosophy: sexual license that accepts no sexual limitations from church, state, or culture.
Abortion advocates and LGBTQ advocates alike generally believe that sex should be free for any reason, with anyone, and with zero consequences. And they demand that this philosophy be accepted by everyone.
The two movements are locked arm-in-arm, not only in principle but financially. This is why you see so many “Pride” flags at pro-abortion events and abortion rights signs at “Pride” parades.
Enter the transgender movement.
Gay rights activists achieved total victory in 2015 when the Supreme Court forced all 50 states to legally recognize same-sex unions as marriages. But the revolution never ends—it just finds a new outlet for upending society. So it’s no surprise that the same year, the TQ (transgender/“queer”) end of the LGBTQ acronym rose to prominence as Olympic legend Bruce Jenner insisted he is a woman named Caitlyn.
Just like the homosexual cause, the trans movement has joined forces with the pro-abortion movement. Abortion appears to be next, as trans advocates shout, “Trans men are men … and sometimes they need abortions!” We are reaching peak insanity.
The pendulum may well swing back toward sanity sooner rather than later because the coalition of sexual deviants supporting the abortion industry becomes increasingly unstable.
The abortion industry long has been allied with a feminist movement built on advancing the interests of women. But now the abortion industry has joined forces with a trans movement that essentially denies there is such a thing as a woman. Increasingly bizarre rhetoric reveals that the unholy trinity of the abortion industry, radical feminism, and LGBTQ is built on a house of cards. And it’s on the brink of collapse.
Perhaps no two movements in the history of the world have put more emphasis on the reality of biological sex than feminists and homosexuals.
For more than a century, feminists have worked for equality in the workplace, equality in sports, and celebration of the many things that women can do as well as or better than men. This approach is well intentioned—even if it sometimes seriously goes off the rails by veering into advocacy of abortion and other evils.
But whether the feminist movement is right or wrong on a given issue, it’s indisputably true that for feminists being a woman matters. The difference between women and men matters.
Your sex was no more “assigned at birth” than the reproductive organs you have. Vaginas and penises are not interchangeable to feminists. They are absolutely binary, and they are relevant to feminists and to their cause.
Men cannot get pregnant. Men don’t bear the joys and pains of pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Men don’t make the sacrifices necessary to breastfeed their children. The feminists know this as well as anyone, and they have traditionally been the loudest in sharing it.
The homosexual movement, too, understands that “biological sex” is a redundant term. This is why the LGBTQ movement was always destined to fracture.
On one hand, you’ve got the “TQ” side of the acronym that argues an infinite number of genders exist, genders can change, or there’s no such thing as gender. On the other hand, the “LG” side of the acronym takes the reality of biological sex so seriously that homosexual people choose their sexual partners based on the reality of their biological sex.
Homosexual men want to have sex with other men because they’re men. Lesbians want to have sex with women because they’re women.
Homosexual people often go so far as to root their very identity in their attraction to the same sex. They dedicate an entire month to celebrating their attraction to members of the same sex. They spent decades pushing for legal and social recognition of same-sex marriage.
Christians and homosexual activists sharply disagree on the morality of sexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex. But we can at least agree on what those relationships are and who they involve.
Transgender activists throw that shared understanding—which has been in place for all of human history—right out the window. Some insist that gay men actually must be straight trans women. Others insist that lesbians are bigots if they refuse to date trans women (who are actually men).
The previous paragraph would be laughable—if it wasn’t the dominating philosophy in media, politics, business, entertainment, and academia. But the bottom line is, the transgender movement is driving a wedge between itself and some of the other progressive movements you probably think of as their natural allies: the feminist and homosexual movements.
They don’t always admit it publicly, but many feminists and homosexuals are outraged at how the trans movement has hijacked their causes. We got a peek at this when there were split opinions on whether trans women (actual men) could be part of the Women’s March. These types of divisions show why the alliance between feminism and transgenderism isn’t sustainable.
Remember these three points when transgender nonsense enters your discussion of abortion:
First, you’re not crazy. Men cannot be women and women cannot be men. There are two sexes—always have been and always will be. No medication or surgery can change this reality.
To affirm those suffering gender dysphoria is to participate in a lie. We cannot participate in the lie no matter how loudly and forcefully transgender advocates shout. If I demand that you call me a woman (or address me as Frank Sinatra or Rosa Parks or President Ulysses S. Grant), you should not acquiesce.
Second, the notion that men can get pregnant and have babies is the greatest insult to women of our lifetime. And it’s brand new. Can you imagine Jane Fonda, Whoopi Goldberg, Hillary Clinton, or any feminist from even 20 years ago saying, “Men can have babies”?
But amazingly, some of the same feminists who championed abortion by arguing, “I’m a woman, not a womb,” now reduce their identity to their reproductive capacity by self-identifying as “birthing persons.”
Clearly, the feminist movement has failed if women no longer can claim exclusive domain over the unique genius to conceive, bear, nourish, and nurture another human being. And if men can have babies, it was only a matter of time before we’d be told that men can have abortions.
Third, women who have abortions—whether they regret it or not—know it was a serious and hard decision. The way abortion supporters discuss the topic, you’d get the impression that abortion is the Vince Lombardi Trophy of what women can accomplish in post-Roe America. The staunchest and loudest abortion supporters have turned it into a sacrament.
In this brave new world, the essence of womanhood is access, willingness, and ability to get an abortion. Abortion is seen as the pinnacle of the female experience—socially, politically, and morally. There’s just one problem: Real women don’t agree.
Attacking women in the name of women’s rights isn’t something new. And it’s not something we should fear in conversation.
But the transgender attempt to annihilate women is just one more piece of evidence that the pro-life side is the side of science, reason, nature, compassion, medical alternatives, and—of course—women.
**************************************************
My main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment