WWII Sacred Cows
Tucker Carlson caused quite a stir earlier in September when he invited Darryl Cooper, the host of “The Martyr Made Podcast,” to dispel myths surrounding the World War II legacy of Winston Churchill.
Virtually every neoconservative and neoliberal interventionist pundit of note lost his mind about Tucker’s gall to interview someone who would dare challenge one of the foundational myths of our current political order.
World War II was a pivotal moment in modern history that continues to shape the way politics is conducted in the West to the very present. system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and, in some notable cases, by Jewesses.
At the time of his writing, Western discourse was far less politically correct when it came to pattern recognition. Most political figures and pundits in the know understood that the Pale of Settlement—the Western region of the Russian Empire where Jews were allowed to permanently settle in—was a hotbed of Bolshevik radicalism. Churchill, like his American coun terpart Franklin Delano Roose velt, is among the pantheon of 20th-century leaders who are worshipped by Court Historians, pundits, and politicians in the Anglosphere.
For decades, the images of these figures as brave World War II leaders has remained squeaky clean. By contrast, German leader Adolf Hitler is branded as the epitome of all evil. To suggest otherwise, or to challenge any of the many sacrosanct establish ment “truths” about WWII, can result in citizens being shamed, fined, sued, bankrupted or locked up in multiple nations in the Western world.
The good vs. evil framing of WWII has served as a model for virtually all foreign policy analyses since then. Any leader who makes an attempt to upend the liberal international order is likened to Hitler, thereby justifying Western military intervention. However, the Carlson-Coop er inter view may have unexpectedly reju venated WWII Revisionism and brought some much-needed nuance to these dis cussions.
The most important portion of the podcast was Cooper’s portrayal of Churchill as a warmonger, beholden to Jewish/Zionist interests. Cooper did a masterful job de monstrating that Churchill was a loose cannon. In 1920, Churchill penned the infamous article “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” where he exposed the disproportionate Jewish over representation in the Bolshevik revolutionary movement.
He wrote: In the Soviet institutions, the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the For Churchill and many other elites in the Anglosphere, this presented a major problem. Large numbers of revolutionary-minded Jews from East ern Europe were already begin ning to settle down in the United States and the UK, bringing their radical ideologies with them. To pre vent the crystalliza tion of Bolshevik unrest in the UK and elsewhere, Churchill was of the belief that it would be preferable that Jews become Zionists as opposed to rabid Bolshe viks.
Churchill’s observations would be branded as anti-Semitic in our pol itically correct era of racial sensitivity, but they reflected an uncomfortable reality of historical behavior. Never theless, Churchill was no anti-Semite when it came to his political decisions —the only thing that truly matters when analyzing the actions of political figures these days.
The rise of National Socialist Germany 1930s scared organized Jewry in the Anglosphere to the point where several secretive groups were formed to mold public opinion and combat the rise of national socialism. Revisionist historical analysis by historian David Irving determined that Churchill was heavily involved with a secretive pro-war group called the Focus.
Jewish industrialists like Henry Strakosch and Robert Waley Cohen—both of whom were close associates of Churchill—with other Zionists, secretly bank rolled the Focus to ensure that British foreign policy swayed against Germany.
In the lead up to WWII, Churchill was committed to getting the UK to go to war with Germany. He had a consistent habit of rejecting all efforts to appease or diploma tically engage with the Germans. Once he became prime minister in 1940, he maintained his bellicose posture toward Germany. When Germany decided to launch an invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, in response to the Polish gov ernment’s ethnic cleansing cam paign against Germans living in western Poland, the UK and France declared war on Germany on Sept. 3.
Curiously, the British did nothing when the Soviet Union invaded east ern Poland 16 days after Germany’s invasion of Poland. The UK’s bel ligerent stance toward Germany yet non-hostile reaction to the Soviets continued under Churchill’s steward ship. Churchill was committed to defeating Germany at all costs, even if it meant forging an unholy pact with mass-murderer Josef Stalin.
Throughout the interview, Cooper made it a point to correctly portray Churchill as the consummate war monger who looked for every opportunity to fan the flames of war on the European continent at the end of the 1930s and early 1940s. Cooper high lighted how Churchill went to great lengths to keep the conflict with Ger many going, even when it was clear that the British did not have the re quisite military strength to confront Germany head on.
Regardless, Churchill had the Royal Air Force firebomb the Black Forest and carpet bomb civilian neighborhoods in Germany in clear acts of terrorism.
At this point, Churchill was just throwing kerosene on the fire, and praying that his escalation on the Old Continent would draw the United States into the conflict.
Churchill and his backers got their wish after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, prompting the United States to declare war on Japan on Dec. 8. Germany responded with its own declaration of war against the United States, citing previous provocations by the U.S. government.
The United States had feigned neutrality during the initial phase of World War II. With America now involved in World War II, Churchill could rest easy in knowing that the industrial behemoth of the Western Hemisphere had the island nation’s back against the Axis powers.
The Allied forces of America, the UK, and the Soviet Union soon teamed up to form a frightening war machine that would terrorize the Asian and European theaters. In the latter, the bombing of civilians was dialed up to a barbaric degree when the RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps synchronized their efforts to fire bombing German civilian centers.
The ghastly culmination of this bombing campaign occurred in Feb ruary 1945, when the Americans and British firebombed the German city of Dresden. Official estimates point to 25,000 to 35,000 perishing after the bombing raids, with some figures pointing to the death count reaching 250,000 due to the influx of refugees from the Eastern Front that ended up sheltering in Dresden. In sum, the air forces of Churchill and Roosevelt killed roughly 600,000 German civilians in their bombing raids of non-military targets.
Churchill was no hero when one looks at his historical record soberly. The very fact that Carlson facilitated this conversation about World War II has frightened the legacy media and tenured academia. They fear more people might begin to question the “history” they have been taught by the victors for 85 years. Are the same people feeding us this fake history the same ones who manipulated the United States into World Wars I and II? This is a bridge too far for the political and historical gatekeepers.
The key to returning sanity into politics in the 21st century is to correct the many lies of the 20th century. It starts by setting the historical record straight by dispelling the mythology surrounding WWII. Those falsehoods have been used to justify the current immoral political order that strives to erase Western civilization.
Virtually every neoconservative and neoliberal interventionist pundit of note lost his mind about Tucker’s gall to interview someone who would dare challenge one of the foundational myths of our current political order.
World War II was a pivotal moment in modern history that continues to shape the way politics is conducted in the West to the very present. system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and, in some notable cases, by Jewesses.
At the time of his writing, Western discourse was far less politically correct when it came to pattern recognition. Most political figures and pundits in the know understood that the Pale of Settlement—the Western region of the Russian Empire where Jews were allowed to permanently settle in—was a hotbed of Bolshevik radicalism. Churchill, like his American coun terpart Franklin Delano Roose velt, is among the pantheon of 20th-century leaders who are worshipped by Court Historians, pundits, and politicians in the Anglosphere.
For decades, the images of these figures as brave World War II leaders has remained squeaky clean. By contrast, German leader Adolf Hitler is branded as the epitome of all evil. To suggest otherwise, or to challenge any of the many sacrosanct establish ment “truths” about WWII, can result in citizens being shamed, fined, sued, bankrupted or locked up in multiple nations in the Western world.
The good vs. evil framing of WWII has served as a model for virtually all foreign policy analyses since then. Any leader who makes an attempt to upend the liberal international order is likened to Hitler, thereby justifying Western military intervention. However, the Carlson-Coop er inter view may have unexpectedly reju venated WWII Revisionism and brought some much-needed nuance to these dis cussions.
The most important portion of the podcast was Cooper’s portrayal of Churchill as a warmonger, beholden to Jewish/Zionist interests. Cooper did a masterful job de monstrating that Churchill was a loose cannon. In 1920, Churchill penned the infamous article “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” where he exposed the disproportionate Jewish over representation in the Bolshevik revolutionary movement.
He wrote: In the Soviet institutions, the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the For Churchill and many other elites in the Anglosphere, this presented a major problem. Large numbers of revolutionary-minded Jews from East ern Europe were already begin ning to settle down in the United States and the UK, bringing their radical ideologies with them. To pre vent the crystalliza tion of Bolshevik unrest in the UK and elsewhere, Churchill was of the belief that it would be preferable that Jews become Zionists as opposed to rabid Bolshe viks.
Churchill’s observations would be branded as anti-Semitic in our pol itically correct era of racial sensitivity, but they reflected an uncomfortable reality of historical behavior. Never theless, Churchill was no anti-Semite when it came to his political decisions —the only thing that truly matters when analyzing the actions of political figures these days.
The rise of National Socialist Germany 1930s scared organized Jewry in the Anglosphere to the point where several secretive groups were formed to mold public opinion and combat the rise of national socialism. Revisionist historical analysis by historian David Irving determined that Churchill was heavily involved with a secretive pro-war group called the Focus.
Jewish industrialists like Henry Strakosch and Robert Waley Cohen—both of whom were close associates of Churchill—with other Zionists, secretly bank rolled the Focus to ensure that British foreign policy swayed against Germany.
In the lead up to WWII, Churchill was committed to getting the UK to go to war with Germany. He had a consistent habit of rejecting all efforts to appease or diploma tically engage with the Germans. Once he became prime minister in 1940, he maintained his bellicose posture toward Germany. When Germany decided to launch an invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, in response to the Polish gov ernment’s ethnic cleansing cam paign against Germans living in western Poland, the UK and France declared war on Germany on Sept. 3.
Curiously, the British did nothing when the Soviet Union invaded east ern Poland 16 days after Germany’s invasion of Poland. The UK’s bel ligerent stance toward Germany yet non-hostile reaction to the Soviets continued under Churchill’s steward ship. Churchill was committed to defeating Germany at all costs, even if it meant forging an unholy pact with mass-murderer Josef Stalin.
Throughout the interview, Cooper made it a point to correctly portray Churchill as the consummate war monger who looked for every opportunity to fan the flames of war on the European continent at the end of the 1930s and early 1940s. Cooper high lighted how Churchill went to great lengths to keep the conflict with Ger many going, even when it was clear that the British did not have the re quisite military strength to confront Germany head on.
Regardless, Churchill had the Royal Air Force firebomb the Black Forest and carpet bomb civilian neighborhoods in Germany in clear acts of terrorism.
At this point, Churchill was just throwing kerosene on the fire, and praying that his escalation on the Old Continent would draw the United States into the conflict.
Churchill and his backers got their wish after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, prompting the United States to declare war on Japan on Dec. 8. Germany responded with its own declaration of war against the United States, citing previous provocations by the U.S. government.
The United States had feigned neutrality during the initial phase of World War II. With America now involved in World War II, Churchill could rest easy in knowing that the industrial behemoth of the Western Hemisphere had the island nation’s back against the Axis powers.
The Allied forces of America, the UK, and the Soviet Union soon teamed up to form a frightening war machine that would terrorize the Asian and European theaters. In the latter, the bombing of civilians was dialed up to a barbaric degree when the RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps synchronized their efforts to fire bombing German civilian centers.
The ghastly culmination of this bombing campaign occurred in Feb ruary 1945, when the Americans and British firebombed the German city of Dresden. Official estimates point to 25,000 to 35,000 perishing after the bombing raids, with some figures pointing to the death count reaching 250,000 due to the influx of refugees from the Eastern Front that ended up sheltering in Dresden. In sum, the air forces of Churchill and Roosevelt killed roughly 600,000 German civilians in their bombing raids of non-military targets.
Churchill was no hero when one looks at his historical record soberly. The very fact that Carlson facilitated this conversation about World War II has frightened the legacy media and tenured academia. They fear more people might begin to question the “history” they have been taught by the victors for 85 years. Are the same people feeding us this fake history the same ones who manipulated the United States into World Wars I and II? This is a bridge too far for the political and historical gatekeepers.
The key to returning sanity into politics in the 21st century is to correct the many lies of the 20th century. It starts by setting the historical record straight by dispelling the mythology surrounding WWII. Those falsehoods have been used to justify the current immoral political order that strives to erase Western civilization.
By: John Anderson
Ask John Anderson a question now