Source: Bigstock

I know Tucker Carlson reads me and I know he’s aware of my Holocaust work. Last week Tuck interviewed someone I knew nothing about, a rabbit-looking dweeb named Darryl Cooper. Apparently he’s some blogger who, in between digging burrows, opines on “dangerous” topics.

“There’s the deadly blogger!”

“What, behind the rabbit?”

“It is the rabbit.”

While on Tuck’s podcast, the crepuscular pundit spewed Holocaust revisionist pseudo-history (that Elon Musk retweeted, only to delete a few days later with an “oopsie!”).

Here’s the Cooper quote that went viral:

You know, Germany, look, they put themselves into a position and Adolf Hitler’s chiefly responsible for this, but his whole regime is responsible for it, that when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners, and so forth that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there. You know, you have, you have like letters as early as July, August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people they’re rounding up and they’re—so it’s two months after, a month or two after Barbarossa was launched, and they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, “We can’t feed these people, we don’t have the food to feed these people.” And one of them actually says, “Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?”

And here’s a passage from my banned 2014 book…a passage reproduced in full three weeks ago (Aug. 16) on my Substack:

What fascinated me was how Hitler and Himmler progressed from their 1940 pledge to not kill Jews, to the death camps that were created in Poland in 1942. What changed? The first thing that changed was that the plan to permanently expel the Jews into the “Asian” part of Russia was thwarted when the German front stalled that winter. But that was a practical setback. More important, I believe, was a theoretical concept expressed by Sturmbannführer Höppner several months earlier. In a memo to Adolf Eichmann, Höppner floated this idea:

“A danger persists this winter that not all of the Jews (of the Warthegau district in Poland) can be fed. It should be seriously considered if the most humane solution is not to finish off those Jews incapable of work by some quick working means. In any case, this would be more pleasant than letting them starve to death.”

“Höppner’s July 1941 suggestion had nothing to do with being ‘humane’ to Jews that winter; the ‘humane’ angle was for everyone except the Jews.”

Never underestimate the power of an idea. Here’s where I believe we find the reason for the change in attitude from “we can’t kill them—that would be Bolshevist” to “it’s okay to kill them.” Höppner provided a perfect rationalization. When the “Bolshevists” liquidated entire peoples, they did so in the cruelest possible way—sending them to Siberia to slowly freeze and starve to death. Höppner’s take was, if you don’t want to be Bolshevist, don’t let those poor wretches freeze and starve. Rather, do the “humane” thing—euthanize them quickly and “pleasantly.”

See what he did there? He took Hitler and Himmler’s desire to do the opposite of what the Bolshevists do, and he turned it around, allowing them to now define “not being Bolshevist” in a way that would be most practical for his needs.

A new rationalization was born. Now, the “anti-Bolshevist” thing to do was “humane” euthanasia. And that pretty much sealed the fate of the Polish Jews.

I’m an easy guy to steal from. Banned from having a book on Amazon, banned from Twitter, banned from YouTube, and unacknowledged by most who read me. So I’m a sitting duck. But I can’t sit by while a dimwit mangles what he cribbed.

As I make clear in my book, the “humane” angle—which I purposely put in scare quotes every time—was a cynical ploy by Höppner to make his life easier. Similarly, Höppner’s suggestion didn’t make Hitler and Himmler decide to kill Jews; the Jew-killing had already started. Rather, Höppner’s suggestion helped solve two problems. First, it gave H&H a new clear-conscience vigor for the deadly work, by addressing their shared desire to eliminate Jews in a manner that was not Bolshevist. Wartime leaders often fall for their own ex post facto justifications (“war expert” Tucker should know that).

H&H were already killing Jews in summer 1941, but they welcomed an angle that made them feel “less Soviet” about it. Also, Wehrmacht leaders were bitching that their soldiers found the brutality of the SS commandos “Bolshevist” (see the report of Generalstabsoffizier Helmuth Groscurth and his chaplains). So H&H weren’t looking for a reason to kill—they were killing already. They were looking for a rationale that would make them feel less “Bolshevist” while also mollifying the Wehrmacht.

Second, Himmler’s Einsatzkommandos were dealing with serious mental breakdowns on the part of the soldiers who shot Jewish women and children (besonders starke seelische Belastung, “particularly severe mental stress” in the words of Einsatzgruppe C Commander Otto Rasch). After being lectured by Higher SS and Police Leader Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski over his men’s seelische Belastung, Himmler ordered Einsatzgruppe B’s Arthur Nebe to find a murder method “less stressful” than shooting.

The point? Himmler was searching for a “humane” method to kill Jews who were already being murdered right then and there, that summer. They were not going to be around in winter. Höppner’s July 1941 suggestion had nothing to do with being “humane” to Jews that winter; the “humane” angle was for everyone except the Jews. It was for H&H to alleviate their concerns about appearing “Bolshevist” while committing murders they’d be committing anyway, it was a quick fix for Wehrmacht complaints about “Bolshevist” killing methods, it was an excuse for Höppner to reduce his “useless eaters,” and it was a way to quell the seelische Belastung of the SS men.

What it wasn’t was genuine concern about being “humane.” It was cover. Military and ethical cover. A true historian would be wise to that, not a gullible dupe falling for a murderous regime’s cover story.

In an October 1943 speech to the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter at Posen, Himmler very frankly stated the reason for the Jewish umbringen (“killing”), and it was not to “be humane.” It was to ensure that “this people disappear from the earth” (dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden). But Himmler assured the assembled that the murders were carried out in a manner to avoid “our men and their leaders” suffering “damage to mind and soul” (Schaden an Geist und Seele).

Himmler would repeat that talking point three times at Sonthofen, assuring SS generals that precautions were taken so that the executioners didn’t “become raw/brutish and no longer respect human life” (roh werden und menschliches Leben nicht mehr zu achten).

The “humane” ploy was for the benefit of the murderers, not the murdered. But Cooper spoke the word humane with the greatest of sincerity…ironically reviving the ploy 83 years later. To this imbecile, yes, it really was about the Nazis accidentally finding themselves in a troublesome position and trying to be kind to the Jews.

You have to be incredibly simple to believe that. You also have to be ignorant of Holocaust documents.

Not to put too fine a point on Cooper’s pinhead, but I’ll cite Max Taubner, an Untersturmfuhrer tried by the SS in 1943 for killing Jews in too bestial a fashion. In expelling Taubner from the SS and sentencing him to ten years imprisonment, the court said “The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be annihilated (vernichtet) and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss” (es ist um keinen der getöteten Juden schade, also translated as “it’s not a pity for any of the Jews who were killed”). But Taubner “let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions that are unworthy of a German man and an SS officer,” actions that “jeopardized the discipline of his men.” The court concluded “It is not the German way to apply Bolshevik methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people.”

Again, the “humane” angle was for Nazi consciences, not Jewish comfort.

And as Tucker sat there “haw-haw-hawing” as Elon who banned me cheered and his coddled deniers sent Cooper’s nonsense viral and nobody can get a copy of my book anywhere and no publishing company will touch it because an Amazon ban is the mark of death, I had to sit there and take the fact that my work was being used to spread pseudo-history to millions of people while (just last week) Macmillan published a book calling me a “prominent hardcore Holocaust denier” knowing full well that I’m completely disenfranchised and can’t fight back and honestly, at this point I’ve lost the ability to take this shit with grace.

Fuck these people. All of ’em.

Okay…back to my futile endeavors.

Cooper declared, regarding uncertainties in Holocaust history, “We’ve spent the last seventy years in Europe’s case like literally throwing people in jail for looking into the wrong corners, right?” (BTW, anyone who apes the retarded fad of ending every other sentence with “right?”—a favorite verbal tic of Kamala Harris and every talk-show mouthbreather—should be dismissed on sight.)

Putting aside that most laws against Holocaust denial only came into existence in the 1980s and ’90s, and only a small number of people have ever been tried under them, and most were fanatics who willingly challenged those laws (that doesn’t make the laws okay; they’re not), as someone who spent time in Europe in the early 1990s with Zundel, Irving, Faurisson, and Guillaume (Faurisson’s publisher), I can tell you that they had all the freedom they needed for research. Yes, anti-speech laws are foul. No, they didn’t hobble denier research. The deniers fail to make their case because they have no case, not because of Europe’s draconian speech laws.

Were I angling to go on Tucker’s show (and I’m not), I’d point out that I’m the only party in this debate who’s truly frozen out. The ADL and Wiesenthal Center have the run of the mainstream, Musk boosts the deniers, Tuck platforms the pseudo-historians. Everybody gets a platform but ol’ Dave, who’s banned everywhere.

Why doesn’t Tuck ever ask, “Hmm…why is that? What’s Cole saying that’s so dangerous?”

C’mon, that coward won’t even admit reading me.

Though I suppose it is dangerous to be the only person not pandering to the ideologues. Not dangerous to me, but dangerous to the zealots, who fear anyone who jeopardizes their game by speaking with no agenda.

Freezing out the no-agenda guy is always the one goal that unites opposing extremists.

As I find out daily.

Haw haw haw.