I never claimed otherwise. I’m fully aware that Jews are not a homogeneous group, nor anyone else for that matter. Don’t put words in my mouth or over interpret my statements. However, Israel is explicitly THE Jewish State. A quick ChatGPT search answers this question, but that requires bit of work, right?
Discussion
I apologize if it appears that I’m putting words in your mouth and misinterpreted your meaning.
More Jews live outside of Israel and have no intention of ever living there. Think of it this way, if some Bitcoiners formed a community called themselves THE Bitcoin community, would it automatically represent all of us?
Zionism has its roots in secular socialism, terrorism and violence — hardly represents the values of all the Jews. In my view zionists = shitcoiners :)
ChatGPT is more likely to represent the widespread propaganda of Zionist ideas, unless you know how to push it deeper.
There are great resources in the libertarian movement that would help you dig deeper if you are interested:
- Martyr Made podcast has 30+ hour deep dive into the history of Israel’s creation.
- Aniwar.com is a libertarian website covering all the US imperial wars, including the wars US state sponsors and finances.
- Scott Horton’s books are excellent. Not specific to Israel, but you’d get a greater context of the oversized role Israel plays in our war state.
- Dave Smith is excellent in covering this in his podcast and debating anyone who is still not afraid to face him on this topic!
Hi Alex,
I appreciate your perspective. I share some of it, though not all. It’s refreshing to be able to exchange ideas without rancour.
I value the points you raised about Jews worldwide. Most of the Jewish friends and acquaintances I’ve known are secular, much as I was raised Catholic but now mark holidays more culturally than spiritually. To be clear, my arguments are coming from a historical and strategic perspective, not religious conviction.
I know full well that most Jews don’t live in Israel and many are ambivalent about its policies or even its existence. That tension itself is part of the story. I’m currently preparing a series of articles on the historical development of Zionism, why it emerged, and what it means today. I come at this as a Canadian, aligned with our longstanding position: neutrality in the conflict, support for Israel’s right to exist, and support for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. That’s also Israel’s official position, even if terminology differs (Judea and Samaria, etc.). Names change — Sumer and Akkad are now Iraq.
On ChatGPT: I agree with your caution. I never take its first answer at face value, especially on contested issues. I use it as one tool among many, testing, probing, and vetting what it gives me. My background in historiography helps me separate useful synthesis from errors or bias.
On politics: I’m not a libertarian. I respect that view but I believe it’s naïve. The answer to bad government isn’t to abolish it; it’s to improve it with free speech, oversight, and gradual reform. Liberal democracy is not perfect, but it is the least bad option we have. Churchill was right about that, and Mises was right that it is the best system for peaceful adaptation.
Finally, for context: I served 26 years as an infantry officer, including Bosnia and multiple other multinational operations, including the Middle East. I have many friends—including my brother and father-in-law—who have served in the Middle East. I’ve studied military history and strategy for more than 45 years. I don’t claim omniscience, but I bring real-world experience to these discussions.
If you’re interested, my blog is here: www.thestrategiccode.com. I also post articles on Nostr.
I appreciate your suggestions, Alex. But here’s my wider point: the ‘outsider revealer of secrets’ is itself an archetype. Cooper, Smith, Horton, and others all play that role. They present themselves as brave truth-tellers exposing what hidden powers don’t want you to know. A segment of the audience laps it up, not because the history is sound, but because it fulfills an archetypal need for revelation. I’ve already written a critique debunking Cooper’s pseudo-historical takes on WWII and antisemitism, which shows how thin the "scholarship" really is. See link following.
More broadly, this isn’t new — American politics has long been fertile ground for conspiratorial thinking, as Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Thomas Konda’s Conspiracies of Conspiracies both demonstrate. Graham Hancock does the same with ‘hidden ancient civilizations’ — different subject, same script. This isn’t history. It’s science fiction written in the style of history.
Hi Richard,
Finally got to the second part of my response. I’ve read your post too and what’s interesting is that unlike the previous topics, it feels to me that we are not differing in opinion, but we are working of off different factual base. This should really put the end to any discussion, what’s the point, right?
So having set a low bar, I’m going to describe my views. Given my background I’m going to use references to my own experience in the USSR.
People in the former USSR have deep multigenerational trauma of the WWII. It had an enormous impact on every family. Every person has someone who either died or suffered horribly in the war or its aftermath. The two world wars resulted in Soviet revolution and a horrible loss of life:
WWI: 15-20M
WWII: 70-85M
Under Lenin and Stalin: 23-33M.
I once worked on a software project that was 2 years late and over budget. We did deliver the project on time and were praised for it. However, we had an extensive review to understand what went wrong and how to make sure mistakes are not repeated.
I’m sure having a military background you’ve had multiple After Action Reviews. This is basic stuff.
Have we ever had an AAR of the WWII? Yes, we did defeat Hitler and there has been no shortage of praise for the people who did this. But has there ever been an AAR? Did the holocaust have to happen? Did 100+M people have to die? The Europe have to be ruined? Did Russia have to be ruined? Did decades of oppression in Eastern Europe have to happen?
So why are we so afraid to have this discussion? This is where you and I differ, I don’t buy the version of history provided to us by the winning powers. I think the old “History is written by the victors” applies.
Regarding Darryl Cooper, Scott Horton, Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. To me I see a parallel between them and Soviet dissidents like Sakharov, Brodsky and Solzhenitsyn. Copies of their book were distributed using carbon copies to the point where it was barely possible to read them. They had an impact, but it was not huge. With the internet, modern dissidents are able to have a much bigger impact and much wider audience. If you’ve listened to them enough and read their books, you’d also know that they are genuine and decent people, no matter if you agree with their opinions or not. This is in stark contrast to people like Konstantin Kisin and Douglas Murray. They are intelligent, well read and witty, but appear to be flawed human beings: self important and contemptuous intellectuals. In their interactions they appear more interested in winning than in learning. They resemble the “high quality” journalists who used to work for Pravda.
It’s ironic that with all the advances in propaganda, the regime is still using “misinformation” and “disinformation” so familiar from my Soviet past. They did change enemy of the people to white suprematists, racists and antisemites, so there is progress!
Finally, I’ve read your article and, unfortunately, I’ve not seen any specific commentary on the points discussed in the Cooper interview that prompted me to rethink what was said. I walked away feeling that you dislike both of them and dislike the idea of them having these discussions, but not specifically what they said that was wrong. It seemed more like respected experts have already written everything on this topic and the amateurs are looking to score cheap points. I’m willing to accept this as a hypothesis, but it would be great if you could substantiate this accusation with a specific argument on the specific points made during the interview. Similarly, I’ve yet to hear a specific response to the facts laid out by Darryl Cooper in his Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem series or on any of Scott Horton’s books.
This was a long post on the topic where we have an unbridgeable gap in our views! Haha.
Alex, I appreciate the seriousness of your reply. Let me clarify my point. I am not dismissing criticism of Israel or of Western powers. I am drawing a distinction between serious historiography and what I call ‘hidden history.’
Real revisionism is a scholarly process. It introduces new sources of evidence or reinterprets existing ones, and it always weighs those findings against the accumulated record. It is Bayesian in the sense that new information shifts probabilities, but it must still meet the threshold of plausibility.
Consider Victor Suvorov’s Icebreaker thesis, which argued that Stalin intended to attack Germany and Western Europe before being preempted by Barbarossa. His work has received serious attention because it raises genuine questions. The consensus is that his evidence is circumstantial and there is no smoking gun, but scholars continue to examine it, and they may ultimately be vindicated if Soviet archives yield more. That is how serious historical debate proceeds.
By contrast, Roosevelt-at-Pearl-Harbor conspiracies or Cooper’s pseudo-historical narratives about WWII do not meet that threshold. They offer insinuation, not evidence. The fact that scholars still scrutinize Suvorov’s work but dismiss Roosevelt conspiracies outright proves the point: credible historiography demands evidence, not performance. That is why I resist ‘hidden history’ narratives. They are not history, they are inventions.
I completely agree with you that theories need to be checked against facts and you’re proving a great example of this.
My concern, though, is that the way propaganda works is by selectively presenting the facts that fit the narrative and conveniently ignoring the facts that don’t. People like Darryl Cooper simply bring those facts to light.
He’s only released the first episode on the WWII and in my view it was excellent. You said that his narrative was pseudo-historical, which makes me think that I missing something. Can you point to a specific example in that episode where he was not factual or somehow misrepresented the information?
I know a lot of people are attacking him as a person, which isn’t working for me as I actually like the guy! I think he is genuine, compassionate, very thorough in his research. So if he’s saying something that not true, than I would definitely like to know!
Have a great night!
A good example is Cooper’s claim that mass Jewish deaths were due to food shortages. That’s simply not accurate. Nazi Germany implemented a deliberate Hunger Plan to starve millions, including Russian civilians and Soviet prisoners of war, and we have extensive documentation of the Final Solution. This isn’t hidden history; it’s central to the historical record. The problem with his narrative isn’t that he uncovers new facts, but that he strips real facts from context and ignores overwhelming contradictory evidence. That’s why historians call it pseudo-history.
See my latest note providing even more evidence. You need to get a better grasp of genuine historical scholarship and the science of historiography in general. I can recommend some good sources if you wish for you to get a better grounding in the history of WW2.
As for this discussion, I'm done.