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!
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.
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?
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?
I've been listening to Dave for years - I think I discovered him in '18 or '19 when he interviewed with James Corbett, right after his daughter was born. I discovered you some other way, perhaps independently of other podcasts. I listened to FALITNJ before that - in '17 or '18 even. I've been through the entire 30 hours twice now, and listened to most of the other podcasts.
You are a gift to history learners. Your presentation is amazing, and it's obvious how much time and research you put in before laying down a track. I also appreciate how you interact with the histories in a personal way.
The recent kerfuffle was a nothingburger, IMO. You didn't say anything to Tucker that seemed outrageous or out of place, at least not to your listeners. Screw the mainstream reactionaries - your comments regarding Churchill are well-considered and shouldn't be controversial in light of everything that is known about the world wars and their causes in this day and age.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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
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?
Darryl,
I've been listening to Dave for years - I think I discovered him in '18 or '19 when he interviewed with James Corbett, right after his daughter was born. I discovered you some other way, perhaps independently of other podcasts. I listened to FALITNJ before that - in '17 or '18 even. I've been through the entire 30 hours twice now, and listened to most of the other podcasts.
You are a gift to history learners. Your presentation is amazing, and it's obvious how much time and research you put in before laying down a track. I also appreciate how you interact with the histories in a personal way.
The recent kerfuffle was a nothingburger, IMO. You didn't say anything to Tucker that seemed outrageous or out of place, at least not to your listeners. Screw the mainstream reactionaries - your comments regarding Churchill are well-considered and shouldn't be controversial in light of everything that is known about the world wars and their causes in this day and age.
Keep up the good work! I appreciate all you do.