Hope you guys can make it a semi regular thing to do episodes together. Also loved your show with Tom Woods. I’ve been a big fan of Marty Made for years and years, I’m glad more people are going to be following your work because you deserve the recognition. Hope all is well!
It was a great interview man! Thanks for finally doing one with Dave, I wouldn't have found you if it wasn't for his repeated glowing reccomendations. I know you don't like interviews, but hopefully you two do another again soon.
This is from today's Wall Street Journal editorial page -- a part of the paper that is consistently and substantively more far-right than the rest of the paper, including the columnists and guest opinion pieces.
Today's editorial was a major, historical break from its political position -- it came as close as possible with out actually doing it, to cutting ties with Trump.
It attacked Trump for repeating the "Haitians are eating our pets" story; it attacked Laura Loomer for trafficking in this and other nonsense, conspiracies, and lies; and it attacked the American political right in general for devolving into a movement that traffics in nonsense, conspiracy theories, and lies, and is no longer capable of determining the difference between reality and delusion, truth and lies.
In this historical editorial it chose - - and it had hundreds, thousands of people that were better, more representative examples -- it chose an unnamed Darryl Cooper to represent everything that is wrong, corrupted and broken with the modern political right.
This is a mighty smear by association from the most financially poweful and respected organ of the political right.
WSJ:
"The problem here is deeper than Mr. Trump’s electoral prospects. A growing segment of the American right is populated by, and susceptible to, cranks and conspiracists.
A movement that used to admire William F. Buckley Jr. and Thomas Sowell now elevates a pseudo-historian who blames Winston Churchill for World War II and media personalities who sell falsehoods as a triumph for free speech.
This isn’t an intellectual or political movement that is going to win converts, nor will it deserve them"
I’m not sure that the WSJ has much power anymore. They only sell about 4.6 million copies (including online)and who knows how many of those go to coffee shops and other business where they sit ignored until they line someone’s bird cage. Their core audience are rich old guys (over 59, making more than 240k, with a college education) who honestly I don’t think have much influence anymore. Meanwhile Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin had 14 million views on YT and 185 million on Twitter. Even his interview with DC who in the grand scheme of the world was a complete nobody has gotten a million YT views and 34 million Twitter views. The WSJ is going extinct and they know it.
I love Dave, and am listening to the Tom Woods episode now. I like that you were able to go to these venues to explain your position in greater detail and with a little less bombast. Hopefully you made some converts there (and congrats on all your podcast subs). I was wondering, are you planning on doing that "hostile" debate with that Brit historian? I know you said you needed time to prepare. I wonder if this guy would have the humility to listen to your work before such a debate could be arranged.
Great interview! Couple questions for you Darryl, are you still going to do podcasts with Jocko? And did you listen to Honestly Podcast about you ordeal with Tucker? Curious how would answer their criticisms. For what it’s worth, I love your work and your takes on things, very well researched and presented in my opinion.
Jocko and I will definitely do stuff together. I live in a different state now, but we’ll get together from time to time to record.
No I didn’t hear the Honestly Podcast. Someone told me they talked about the massacres outside Kiev as if I didn’t spend 20 minutes describing them in F&LITNJ, so I skipped that one.
I (foolishly) hoped Bari Weiss was starting to wake up to the reality of the regime we live under when she came out as a COVID dissident, but her abrupt departure from Twitter Files coverage and return to her standard Zionist line since 10/7 disabused me of that notion. Paying her no mind is definitely the right way to go.
It seems to me one of Bari’s problems is she thinks the issues with the system are flaws and fails to understand they are the unavoidable outcomes of both the system and the ideology that she adheres to. She’s very upset that Jews are now on the losing side of identity politics, that they are considered the white oppressors but she can’t wrap her head around the fact that it’s identity politics and the oppressed/oppressor narrative that’s the problem. She just wants Jews to fall into their rightful place as the oppressed. It’s not that cancelling people for dissident ideas is wrong generally, it’s just that it was wrong when it happened to her.
Bari has never been particularly impressive or alluring to me. I’ve listened to her on other podcasts and she always just sort of came off a little self righteous and felt like she wasn’t actually willing to dig into an issue past a certain point.
I have been listening to and reading the Free Press a fair amount over the last year or more, I forget when it started, and they do I think generally have more open conversations, however I have noticed a shift over the past several months that I have found to be off putting.
The episode of Honestly that is mentioned was interesting. But I don’t think that they listened to (I think the historian even mentions that he didn’t listen) to the full Tucker interview, but I’d have to double check. I just thought hearing DC’s counter would be interesting. But I can understand why he didn’t listen to it, and I’d probably say he’s right not to since they aren’t truly considering his entire argument in the first place.
It was a great interview Daryl. I’m so surprised it took so long given he’s been singing your praises forever! Hopefully it’s not too long until your next appearance!
Had a thought in response to it that I'd like to throw your way. What if the current regime leading the GAE is the drugged out psycho holding us all hostage? Call this group the deep state, call it the Epstein cabal, call it whatever you want. But what follows for our behavior if we grant that they've got a lot of power to do a bunch of really nasty stuff to us? Shouldn't we be trying to deescalate as much as possible? And if we should--if we're somewhere between the responsible cop and the vulnerable wife/kids--what does that mean about how we engage the psychos?
I ask because the freakout over what you said really is deranged. And I think you're right to point out that it was deranged because you touched on something that has become sacred to a lot of people. So then how do you be a good witness (martus) to deranged people? How do you subvert their idols without being incendiary? For real Christian missionaries, there's often a new language that needs to be learned and perhaps new dress, etc. Can we do any more to make sure our enemies are tripping over the truth instead of us? We can't offer a pinch of incense to Caesar, but is a trigger warning and careful speech/conduct too much?
Another way to put this: your twitter feeds provides a lot of red meat for people to distort. A fair number of otherwise reasonable people have seen this over the past two weeks and concluded wrongly that they don't need to look into you. Dark red profile pic w blue eyes? Nazi lightning bolts? Often critical of the state of Israel? You look like a duck and quack like a duck to them, and so they miss out on the message you have for people. They miss out on your gift. Then I think of guys I like that are sort of similar to you. Scott Horton. Dave Smith. Charles Haywood. These guys are a provocative lot, and that's why we like them. But what if we need to deescalate? How do we navigate that when it's obvious that our enemies are psychos?
Despite my continued frustration with much of the meltdown of people who I previously respected I think I understand more where they are coming from (although frankly I’m not sure that realization does much other than further diminish the respect I have for them).
Personally I found DC and MM through Jocko. I was hooked and listened to all the podcasts. I joined Substack specifically to support MartyrMade (although I’m glad I did, I like the platform and might not have found it otherwise). So I also get all the subscriber only stuff. This gives me the impression that I somewhat understand DC and how he thinks, in some way I know who he is. So when he says something I disagree with or think he’s being outrageous about I wait to hear him out because I value what he has to say.
I also have a very dark sense of humor and perhaps most importantly don’t have X.
So I listened to the Tucker interview in that light. Knowing that he wasn’t a Nazi apologist and that understanding the mindset and motivations of all sides of a conflict is what DC is best at. I’m not sure I agree that Churchill is the chief villain of WWII (Stalin gets that title in my book) but I’m willing to spend thirty hours or whatever it takes for him to make his case. I didn’t see the X Nazi/trans meme until after the entire brouhaha started and I laughed at it and said to myself “well at least you can shoot at Nazis, I don’t know how to fight what happened at the Olympics”.
I think a lot of the people I previously respected saw the dust up on X first and then watched the interview already thinking that DC was some sort of Nazi apologist. They didn’t bother to listen to anything else he’s done that might flesh out his arguments more or see where he was coming from. He hit the right trigger words in the interview that confirmed what they had decided on Twitter. Then they expect five minute sound bite “debates” and “answers” as opposed to waiting for the several hour long explanation. These are the same people who were laughing at Putin for going deep into history to answer what they thought was a simple question.
So I see how you get to where they are. However it frustrates me because these are people who normally play lip service to things like understanding where the other side is coming from, understanding context, and being willing to have discussions with people you disagree with. These are people who would normally complain about superficial approaches to politics and history and who think that history is useful to learn from and as such should be preserved. It really does prove DC’s overarching point though, the mythos of WWII is still a sacred cow.
I think the credentialed historians have a two fold reason to be upset. Not only is their sacred cow being threatened but the value of their credentials is also being threatened. The internet really has made all those credentials useless. Where once someone had to travel across the world to look at a document in some dusty library now someone can look at a scan of it on their tablet. Any book or research they have access to anyone can access although they might have to pay for it. Plus because of all the nonsense required to get a degree (random unrelated classes etc) someone truly passionate can get more information in less time than those paying for a university experience. Imagine how much it must sting for some uncredentialed guy to get called the “best and most popular historian in the United States” when you’re Victor David Hanson. Not many men could take that sort of blow to the ego with grace.
Okay, so what did everyone think of the *second* part of the interview with Tucker Carlson about European population “replacement”? It’s interesting Darryl thought that, if anything, it was that part of the interview that was going to create a ruckus.
Having already listened to the entire Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem series (and having read similar criticisms of Churchill from the left), the discussion on Churchill and WW2 didn’t bother me at all. But to be honest I was deeply uncomfortable with the second part of the interview, and paused my subscription for a few days to take a breather. I resubscribed after listening to Antihumans and seeing the Churchill thing blow up online…FOMO, I guess, as well as a sense that Darryl has a solid moral compass, and a conviction that discomfort, even it it crystallizes into disagreement in the long run, is an opportunity for growth.
If I can permit myself some hyperbole of my own (and this was my comment when I briefly cancelled), I had and still have trouble seeing a principled difference between what Darryl and Tucker were talking about and a blatantly “14 words” position. If the argument is only that immigration levels are too high, or that Europe is doing a shit job at assimilation, fine. But Darryl seemed to be saying more than that when he said—and I apologize for paraphrasing—there would be hell to pay for any monarch that allowed their population to be “replaced” in the way that European leaders are presently doing.
Maybe it’s the fact I’m from Canada (where we claim to have a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”), but we also generally all live in modern, secular democracies that claim anyone can be a member as long as they are willing to play by the rules developed under what Rawls calls the veil of ignorance (ie if you didn’t know whether you would end up in the dominant or subordinate social position, what would you want society’s rules to look like?). To play devil’s advocate: societies change, culture changes with it, and as long as you aren’t being oppressed, why would you care if you’re the majority or minority?
And to look at it from an historical perspective, it’s not like Europe has not undergone massive and rapid cultural shifts in the past that have ultimately enriched its society: look at the conversion of Scandinavia, the Norman conquest and how that affected England, the back and forth over southern Spain—it’s a grand story of conflict and resolution into a new and arguably richer synthesis of cultures.
Anyway, I’ve already gone on far too long—I just thought it a pity that there hasn’t been any discussion of this topic, given its relevance to events today.
Your reply reminded me of a 2005 controversy here in Canada. The attorney general in our province had issued a report that recommended Muslims be allowed their own sharia-based family law tribunals, the decisions of which would be backstopped by the courts. It sounds a bit crazy when I summarize it like that but it was really just private arbitration, and we already permitted Jewish and Catholic tribunals of this sort. At the time, freshly out of law school, I held to what I thought was a principled pluralism and was cautiously supportive: if we were to allow this for some religious groups, we shouldn’t discriminate when it came to Muslims.
Anyway, there was an international outcry. Women’s groups were outraged. The local papers were brimming with letters from readers who thought it was nuts to pretend Muslim women would have a real choice to participate in these tribunals or not, or that the decisions rendered would be at all fair to women.
The provincial premier, a Liberal, was frustrated and annoyed that he was being pulled into a religious controversy and—surprisingly, in retrospect—pretty quickly drew a line in the sand and said that there would be one law for all in the province and, to avoid the appearance of discrimination, the use of *any* religious tribunals for family law was off the table.
Now, when I see the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and the attendant cultural clashes, I wonder if that may have been one of the most prescient decisions the premier made while in office.
All that’s to say, I understand where you’re coming from, though I’d suggest that it is early enough that we can temper the policy with a bit of perspective and prudence. For one thing, made-for-TV street clashes aside, Europe and the UK are nowhere close to being majority Muslim right now. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the UK is still 85%+ white. Moreover, we all know how the so-called “Muslim ban” went down in the U.S., and I’m not sure that explicitly anti-Muslim immigration policies would go over that well in Europe (though, again, it may be a different place now). However, it does seem like there has been a thaw in the political environment when it comes discussing reasonable limits on immigration in general, with a view to a society’s ability to accommodate, integrate, and—if necessary—aid new immigrants. Whether falling birthrates will allow such limits to be implemented is a whole other topic…
Why would I care if I'm the minority? When I've seen what the minority does when they become the majority, and it's to oppress the new minority, that's when I care. Especially when that nascent majority has been fighting a civilizational conflict with my continent for millenia. All your examples of demographic shifts, well the accounts were written by Christians and Normans weren't they. A 12th century Lithuanian pagan would feel different about the christianization of the east.
Thanks for your reply, Vasili. My examples aren't great analogues for what is happening today, of course. The Normans didn't arrive on work permits. These were protracted and bloody conflicts, often if not always driven by imperial powers (Normans vs. Anglo-Saxons, Charles Martel vs the Umayyads, etc.). In this case, we are talking about the relatively rapid but legalized accretion of foreign peoples from other continents. I use the term "legalized" advisedly, as I know "lawful" and "legal" immigration are contested terms, and most countries have processes to regularize asylum seekers who arrive by irregular means--in short, just because it's legal doesn't mean regular people think it's right). I also think it's safe to assume that Darryl & Tucker weren't talking about tensions between West Germans and East Germans moving west for work and, on the right generally, the outcry doesn't seem to have much to do with fear for the labour market.
The top source countries for EU migration (apologies if I have wrongly assumed that, when you say "my continent", you are referring to Europe) are currently Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan & India. And the concern you have--if I understand it correctly--is that the new majority will NOT play by the rules of democratic society, and that the tolerance that these societies may have extended to them when they were minorities would not be reciprocated. Presumably this would require one or more cooperative groups to dominate--I suspect that Catholic Venezuelans and Muslim Afghanis would not be coordinating their efforts.
So to further clarify (and feel free not to answer if you don't want to--I'm not trying to play gotcha here), when you say "civilizational conflict", do you mean the historic conflict between Christendom and the Islamic caliphate, and a fear that Muslims seeking a renewed caliphate want to establish this on the bones of decadent and weakened formerly Christian societies? If that's the case, would you be comfortable with immigrants from Venezuela (largely Catholic) and maybe Christian refugees from Syria or, say, Lebanon, Ethiopia, or Sudan, but a ban on most Muslim immigrants from India, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc?
Or is your concern more about ethnicity and culture: that non-European immigrants of whatever religion will subsume and, eventually, submerge European culture? This issue I find a bit harder to read into your comment because, to me, it seems like love for one's culture (and hence a fear that it will be lost) is deeply local, like the way that our French-speaking province of Quebec has very strict language laws to counterbalance the strongly Anglophone "Rest of Canada". Or the way my Dutch forebears had deep suspicions of the Germans and the English, for obvious reasons (WW2 and the Boer War)--though the Dutch love Canada for liberating the Netherlands, despite its British history. Prejudices don't have to be logical!
But the way you expressed the conflict was more generic, in that you referred to "my continent" vs. "my country" or "my people", suggesting that immigrants, of any origin, religion or ethnicity -- if they are coming from outside Europe -- won't really fit in anywhere. Would that also apply to North American or Australasian immigrants? I mean, Americans are sometimes perceived, rightly or wrongly, to lack culture or exhibit a belief that their way of doing things is superior to local traditions.
Your assumptions were correct. Although I'm American I was putting myself in the shoes of a European. My objection was to living under a Muslim majority, yes. It doesn't have to be a caliphate to be uncomfortable to live under, khaffir taxes are usually the best case scenario. Even if you live in a tolerant Islamic government, your beliefs still exist at their pleasure. Those stone Buddhas in Afghanistan were A-ok for centuries, until the Taliban woke up with a bug up their ass and they weren't. I wouldn't put a full stop to Muslim immigration, but there would be hard upper limits with the express intent that they could not become a majority.
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but since you brought up trying to get into the heads of all sides in all of you series, I thought it might work. I just relistened to the Blair mountain episode, and while I really enjoyed the episode and you definitely got into the heads of all the personnel on the ground, I felt like the bosses/owners as well as the middle class people who wanted the miners to go back to work were presented as nameless, faceless villains. I was wondering if this was on purpose or if it just would've been too broad and difficult to portray the motivations of those people?
Hope you guys can make it a semi regular thing to do episodes together. Also loved your show with Tom Woods. I’ve been a big fan of Marty Made for years and years, I’m glad more people are going to be following your work because you deserve the recognition. Hope all is well!
I had no idea Darryl has been on Tim Woods. I’ll definitely look this up. Thanks for the tip!
Great interview. Dave was the reason I started listening to you almost a year ago.
Dave stood up. Would have been just as easy to slide on by.
It was a great interview man! Thanks for finally doing one with Dave, I wouldn't have found you if it wasn't for his repeated glowing reccomendations. I know you don't like interviews, but hopefully you two do another again soon.
This is from today's Wall Street Journal editorial page -- a part of the paper that is consistently and substantively more far-right than the rest of the paper, including the columnists and guest opinion pieces.
Today's editorial was a major, historical break from its political position -- it came as close as possible with out actually doing it, to cutting ties with Trump.
It attacked Trump for repeating the "Haitians are eating our pets" story; it attacked Laura Loomer for trafficking in this and other nonsense, conspiracies, and lies; and it attacked the American political right in general for devolving into a movement that traffics in nonsense, conspiracy theories, and lies, and is no longer capable of determining the difference between reality and delusion, truth and lies.
In this historical editorial it chose - - and it had hundreds, thousands of people that were better, more representative examples -- it chose an unnamed Darryl Cooper to represent everything that is wrong, corrupted and broken with the modern political right.
This is a mighty smear by association from the most financially poweful and respected organ of the political right.
WSJ:
"The problem here is deeper than Mr. Trump’s electoral prospects. A growing segment of the American right is populated by, and susceptible to, cranks and conspiracists.
A movement that used to admire William F. Buckley Jr. and Thomas Sowell now elevates a pseudo-historian who blames Winston Churchill for World War II and media personalities who sell falsehoods as a triumph for free speech.
This isn’t an intellectual or political movement that is going to win converts, nor will it deserve them"
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-laura-loomer-conspiracist-2024-campaign-54e13cf8
Come on, man. I can only sub once (right?). I pledged my lifelong support after Darryl got chided by the white house. I have no more pledges to give.
The Wall Street Journal can seriously scare off sponsors, corporations, politicians, donors, publishers, collaborators, publications, reviewers.
They set out to destroy Laura Loomer and I'm good with that.
They also condemned the Trumpian political right and its embrace of
misinformation and lies which I'm also good with.
But taking a cheap shot at Cooper because tney don't have the guts to condemn actual
significant, powerful, allied
purveyors of lies and misinformation like
Trump,
Tucker Carlson, Fox News (same company as WSJ) Elon Musk, etc.
Take down an honest decent man to distract from the people that are actually dirty, the people that the WSJ propped up for years.
None of the “purveyors of misinformation” you’ve mentioned have ever lied us into a war that’s taken hundreds of thousands of lives.
Who’s the real danger here? Tucker Carlson? Or is it Dick Cheney?
not a strong take, sorry. Fine to rip Fox News and WSJ. No way in hell Tucker, Elon, Pres Trump can be considered anything but heroic, so you lose.
I’m not sure that the WSJ has much power anymore. They only sell about 4.6 million copies (including online)and who knows how many of those go to coffee shops and other business where they sit ignored until they line someone’s bird cage. Their core audience are rich old guys (over 59, making more than 240k, with a college education) who honestly I don’t think have much influence anymore. Meanwhile Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin had 14 million views on YT and 185 million on Twitter. Even his interview with DC who in the grand scheme of the world was a complete nobody has gotten a million YT views and 34 million Twitter views. The WSJ is going extinct and they know it.
Lol, WSJ can’t even hide their bitter resentment at those in alt media who are taking all of their would be readers.
It’s not too late for the Neocons to follow Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol in joining the Dems, they’ll be welcomed with open arms. Good riddance.
I love Dave, and am listening to the Tom Woods episode now. I like that you were able to go to these venues to explain your position in greater detail and with a little less bombast. Hopefully you made some converts there (and congrats on all your podcast subs). I was wondering, are you planning on doing that "hostile" debate with that Brit historian? I know you said you needed time to prepare. I wonder if this guy would have the humility to listen to your work before such a debate could be arranged.
Great interview! Couple questions for you Darryl, are you still going to do podcasts with Jocko? And did you listen to Honestly Podcast about you ordeal with Tucker? Curious how would answer their criticisms. For what it’s worth, I love your work and your takes on things, very well researched and presented in my opinion.
Jocko and I will definitely do stuff together. I live in a different state now, but we’ll get together from time to time to record.
No I didn’t hear the Honestly Podcast. Someone told me they talked about the massacres outside Kiev as if I didn’t spend 20 minutes describing them in F&LITNJ, so I skipped that one.
I (foolishly) hoped Bari Weiss was starting to wake up to the reality of the regime we live under when she came out as a COVID dissident, but her abrupt departure from Twitter Files coverage and return to her standard Zionist line since 10/7 disabused me of that notion. Paying her no mind is definitely the right way to go.
It seems to me one of Bari’s problems is she thinks the issues with the system are flaws and fails to understand they are the unavoidable outcomes of both the system and the ideology that she adheres to. She’s very upset that Jews are now on the losing side of identity politics, that they are considered the white oppressors but she can’t wrap her head around the fact that it’s identity politics and the oppressed/oppressor narrative that’s the problem. She just wants Jews to fall into their rightful place as the oppressed. It’s not that cancelling people for dissident ideas is wrong generally, it’s just that it was wrong when it happened to her.
Bari has never been particularly impressive or alluring to me. I’ve listened to her on other podcasts and she always just sort of came off a little self righteous and felt like she wasn’t actually willing to dig into an issue past a certain point.
I have been listening to and reading the Free Press a fair amount over the last year or more, I forget when it started, and they do I think generally have more open conversations, however I have noticed a shift over the past several months that I have found to be off putting.
The episode of Honestly that is mentioned was interesting. But I don’t think that they listened to (I think the historian even mentions that he didn’t listen) to the full Tucker interview, but I’d have to double check. I just thought hearing DC’s counter would be interesting. But I can understand why he didn’t listen to it, and I’d probably say he’s right not to since they aren’t truly considering his entire argument in the first place.
Tell all the truth but tell it slant — (1263)
BY EMILY DICKINSON
Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —
Watched it live. As usual it didn’t disappoint.
When worlds collide.
It was a great interview Daryl. I’m so surprised it took so long given he’s been singing your praises forever! Hopefully it’s not too long until your next appearance!
Listened this morning! Good stuff!
Had a thought in response to it that I'd like to throw your way. What if the current regime leading the GAE is the drugged out psycho holding us all hostage? Call this group the deep state, call it the Epstein cabal, call it whatever you want. But what follows for our behavior if we grant that they've got a lot of power to do a bunch of really nasty stuff to us? Shouldn't we be trying to deescalate as much as possible? And if we should--if we're somewhere between the responsible cop and the vulnerable wife/kids--what does that mean about how we engage the psychos?
I ask because the freakout over what you said really is deranged. And I think you're right to point out that it was deranged because you touched on something that has become sacred to a lot of people. So then how do you be a good witness (martus) to deranged people? How do you subvert their idols without being incendiary? For real Christian missionaries, there's often a new language that needs to be learned and perhaps new dress, etc. Can we do any more to make sure our enemies are tripping over the truth instead of us? We can't offer a pinch of incense to Caesar, but is a trigger warning and careful speech/conduct too much?
Another way to put this: your twitter feeds provides a lot of red meat for people to distort. A fair number of otherwise reasonable people have seen this over the past two weeks and concluded wrongly that they don't need to look into you. Dark red profile pic w blue eyes? Nazi lightning bolts? Often critical of the state of Israel? You look like a duck and quack like a duck to them, and so they miss out on the message you have for people. They miss out on your gift. Then I think of guys I like that are sort of similar to you. Scott Horton. Dave Smith. Charles Haywood. These guys are a provocative lot, and that's why we like them. But what if we need to deescalate? How do we navigate that when it's obvious that our enemies are psychos?
Would love to hear a Martyr Made Unscripted on this topic. This recent thread on movements and their character had me thinking about it: https://x.com/zugzwanged/status/1831669202588930302?t=E2CyjixL2FFr_V6CZN0GlQ&s=09
Great interview, I’ve started your Epstein series, excellent.
Despite my continued frustration with much of the meltdown of people who I previously respected I think I understand more where they are coming from (although frankly I’m not sure that realization does much other than further diminish the respect I have for them).
Personally I found DC and MM through Jocko. I was hooked and listened to all the podcasts. I joined Substack specifically to support MartyrMade (although I’m glad I did, I like the platform and might not have found it otherwise). So I also get all the subscriber only stuff. This gives me the impression that I somewhat understand DC and how he thinks, in some way I know who he is. So when he says something I disagree with or think he’s being outrageous about I wait to hear him out because I value what he has to say.
I also have a very dark sense of humor and perhaps most importantly don’t have X.
So I listened to the Tucker interview in that light. Knowing that he wasn’t a Nazi apologist and that understanding the mindset and motivations of all sides of a conflict is what DC is best at. I’m not sure I agree that Churchill is the chief villain of WWII (Stalin gets that title in my book) but I’m willing to spend thirty hours or whatever it takes for him to make his case. I didn’t see the X Nazi/trans meme until after the entire brouhaha started and I laughed at it and said to myself “well at least you can shoot at Nazis, I don’t know how to fight what happened at the Olympics”.
I think a lot of the people I previously respected saw the dust up on X first and then watched the interview already thinking that DC was some sort of Nazi apologist. They didn’t bother to listen to anything else he’s done that might flesh out his arguments more or see where he was coming from. He hit the right trigger words in the interview that confirmed what they had decided on Twitter. Then they expect five minute sound bite “debates” and “answers” as opposed to waiting for the several hour long explanation. These are the same people who were laughing at Putin for going deep into history to answer what they thought was a simple question.
So I see how you get to where they are. However it frustrates me because these are people who normally play lip service to things like understanding where the other side is coming from, understanding context, and being willing to have discussions with people you disagree with. These are people who would normally complain about superficial approaches to politics and history and who think that history is useful to learn from and as such should be preserved. It really does prove DC’s overarching point though, the mythos of WWII is still a sacred cow.
Victor Davis Hansen was the one that disappointed me.
I think the credentialed historians have a two fold reason to be upset. Not only is their sacred cow being threatened but the value of their credentials is also being threatened. The internet really has made all those credentials useless. Where once someone had to travel across the world to look at a document in some dusty library now someone can look at a scan of it on their tablet. Any book or research they have access to anyone can access although they might have to pay for it. Plus because of all the nonsense required to get a degree (random unrelated classes etc) someone truly passionate can get more information in less time than those paying for a university experience. Imagine how much it must sting for some uncredentialed guy to get called the “best and most popular historian in the United States” when you’re Victor David Hanson. Not many men could take that sort of blow to the ego with grace.
Okay, so what did everyone think of the *second* part of the interview with Tucker Carlson about European population “replacement”? It’s interesting Darryl thought that, if anything, it was that part of the interview that was going to create a ruckus.
Having already listened to the entire Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem series (and having read similar criticisms of Churchill from the left), the discussion on Churchill and WW2 didn’t bother me at all. But to be honest I was deeply uncomfortable with the second part of the interview, and paused my subscription for a few days to take a breather. I resubscribed after listening to Antihumans and seeing the Churchill thing blow up online…FOMO, I guess, as well as a sense that Darryl has a solid moral compass, and a conviction that discomfort, even it it crystallizes into disagreement in the long run, is an opportunity for growth.
If I can permit myself some hyperbole of my own (and this was my comment when I briefly cancelled), I had and still have trouble seeing a principled difference between what Darryl and Tucker were talking about and a blatantly “14 words” position. If the argument is only that immigration levels are too high, or that Europe is doing a shit job at assimilation, fine. But Darryl seemed to be saying more than that when he said—and I apologize for paraphrasing—there would be hell to pay for any monarch that allowed their population to be “replaced” in the way that European leaders are presently doing.
Maybe it’s the fact I’m from Canada (where we claim to have a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”), but we also generally all live in modern, secular democracies that claim anyone can be a member as long as they are willing to play by the rules developed under what Rawls calls the veil of ignorance (ie if you didn’t know whether you would end up in the dominant or subordinate social position, what would you want society’s rules to look like?). To play devil’s advocate: societies change, culture changes with it, and as long as you aren’t being oppressed, why would you care if you’re the majority or minority?
And to look at it from an historical perspective, it’s not like Europe has not undergone massive and rapid cultural shifts in the past that have ultimately enriched its society: look at the conversion of Scandinavia, the Norman conquest and how that affected England, the back and forth over southern Spain—it’s a grand story of conflict and resolution into a new and arguably richer synthesis of cultures.
Anyway, I’ve already gone on far too long—I just thought it a pity that there hasn’t been any discussion of this topic, given its relevance to events today.
Your reply reminded me of a 2005 controversy here in Canada. The attorney general in our province had issued a report that recommended Muslims be allowed their own sharia-based family law tribunals, the decisions of which would be backstopped by the courts. It sounds a bit crazy when I summarize it like that but it was really just private arbitration, and we already permitted Jewish and Catholic tribunals of this sort. At the time, freshly out of law school, I held to what I thought was a principled pluralism and was cautiously supportive: if we were to allow this for some religious groups, we shouldn’t discriminate when it came to Muslims.
Anyway, there was an international outcry. Women’s groups were outraged. The local papers were brimming with letters from readers who thought it was nuts to pretend Muslim women would have a real choice to participate in these tribunals or not, or that the decisions rendered would be at all fair to women.
The provincial premier, a Liberal, was frustrated and annoyed that he was being pulled into a religious controversy and—surprisingly, in retrospect—pretty quickly drew a line in the sand and said that there would be one law for all in the province and, to avoid the appearance of discrimination, the use of *any* religious tribunals for family law was off the table.
Now, when I see the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and the attendant cultural clashes, I wonder if that may have been one of the most prescient decisions the premier made while in office.
All that’s to say, I understand where you’re coming from, though I’d suggest that it is early enough that we can temper the policy with a bit of perspective and prudence. For one thing, made-for-TV street clashes aside, Europe and the UK are nowhere close to being majority Muslim right now. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the UK is still 85%+ white. Moreover, we all know how the so-called “Muslim ban” went down in the U.S., and I’m not sure that explicitly anti-Muslim immigration policies would go over that well in Europe (though, again, it may be a different place now). However, it does seem like there has been a thaw in the political environment when it comes discussing reasonable limits on immigration in general, with a view to a society’s ability to accommodate, integrate, and—if necessary—aid new immigrants. Whether falling birthrates will allow such limits to be implemented is a whole other topic…
Why would I care if I'm the minority? When I've seen what the minority does when they become the majority, and it's to oppress the new minority, that's when I care. Especially when that nascent majority has been fighting a civilizational conflict with my continent for millenia. All your examples of demographic shifts, well the accounts were written by Christians and Normans weren't they. A 12th century Lithuanian pagan would feel different about the christianization of the east.
Thanks for your reply, Vasili. My examples aren't great analogues for what is happening today, of course. The Normans didn't arrive on work permits. These were protracted and bloody conflicts, often if not always driven by imperial powers (Normans vs. Anglo-Saxons, Charles Martel vs the Umayyads, etc.). In this case, we are talking about the relatively rapid but legalized accretion of foreign peoples from other continents. I use the term "legalized" advisedly, as I know "lawful" and "legal" immigration are contested terms, and most countries have processes to regularize asylum seekers who arrive by irregular means--in short, just because it's legal doesn't mean regular people think it's right). I also think it's safe to assume that Darryl & Tucker weren't talking about tensions between West Germans and East Germans moving west for work and, on the right generally, the outcry doesn't seem to have much to do with fear for the labour market.
The top source countries for EU migration (apologies if I have wrongly assumed that, when you say "my continent", you are referring to Europe) are currently Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan & India. And the concern you have--if I understand it correctly--is that the new majority will NOT play by the rules of democratic society, and that the tolerance that these societies may have extended to them when they were minorities would not be reciprocated. Presumably this would require one or more cooperative groups to dominate--I suspect that Catholic Venezuelans and Muslim Afghanis would not be coordinating their efforts.
So to further clarify (and feel free not to answer if you don't want to--I'm not trying to play gotcha here), when you say "civilizational conflict", do you mean the historic conflict between Christendom and the Islamic caliphate, and a fear that Muslims seeking a renewed caliphate want to establish this on the bones of decadent and weakened formerly Christian societies? If that's the case, would you be comfortable with immigrants from Venezuela (largely Catholic) and maybe Christian refugees from Syria or, say, Lebanon, Ethiopia, or Sudan, but a ban on most Muslim immigrants from India, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc?
Or is your concern more about ethnicity and culture: that non-European immigrants of whatever religion will subsume and, eventually, submerge European culture? This issue I find a bit harder to read into your comment because, to me, it seems like love for one's culture (and hence a fear that it will be lost) is deeply local, like the way that our French-speaking province of Quebec has very strict language laws to counterbalance the strongly Anglophone "Rest of Canada". Or the way my Dutch forebears had deep suspicions of the Germans and the English, for obvious reasons (WW2 and the Boer War)--though the Dutch love Canada for liberating the Netherlands, despite its British history. Prejudices don't have to be logical!
But the way you expressed the conflict was more generic, in that you referred to "my continent" vs. "my country" or "my people", suggesting that immigrants, of any origin, religion or ethnicity -- if they are coming from outside Europe -- won't really fit in anywhere. Would that also apply to North American or Australasian immigrants? I mean, Americans are sometimes perceived, rightly or wrongly, to lack culture or exhibit a belief that their way of doing things is superior to local traditions.
Your assumptions were correct. Although I'm American I was putting myself in the shoes of a European. My objection was to living under a Muslim majority, yes. It doesn't have to be a caliphate to be uncomfortable to live under, khaffir taxes are usually the best case scenario. Even if you live in a tolerant Islamic government, your beliefs still exist at their pleasure. Those stone Buddhas in Afghanistan were A-ok for centuries, until the Taliban woke up with a bug up their ass and they weren't. I wouldn't put a full stop to Muslim immigration, but there would be hard upper limits with the express intent that they could not become a majority.
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but since you brought up trying to get into the heads of all sides in all of you series, I thought it might work. I just relistened to the Blair mountain episode, and while I really enjoyed the episode and you definitely got into the heads of all the personnel on the ground, I felt like the bosses/owners as well as the middle class people who wanted the miners to go back to work were presented as nameless, faceless villains. I was wondering if this was on purpose or if it just would've been too broad and difficult to portray the motivations of those people?