Back to episode — Episode 3006 CWSA 11/01/25
Context —
roversy? So in the Wall Street Journal, there's an editorial by somebody named Dominic Green, and he's talking about the MAGA right's anti-semitism problem. You ready for this? So if you've been watching the news, you know that there's sort of a controversy or somebody's trying to make it into one. It's sort of a wannabe controversy, meaning that people keep talking about it like they want to make…
← Previous segment →'s called a job. Is that okay? Is it okay that he got a job? Can I get a job? I got cancelled. Am I a bad person if I got cancelled and then I went and got a job? I got a job to make money. That's okay, isn't it?
Anyway, this is what else he says about him. And he reinvented himself as the second coming of Alex Jones. Now, you recognize that as an attack by association. If you don't have something to say about the person, you say something about who they had a photograph with or who they remind you of. Why would you have to do that? Why would you have to mock them for a photograph, an association, or who they remind you of? It's because you don't have a real thing to complain about. These are just made-up things.
What else? He says that Mr. Carlson has interviewed a podcaster who thinks Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II. Now, I watched a little bit of that content. Do you think that describes the nuance of what happened there? That we know who it is, but the one podcaster who thinks that Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II, worse than Hitler. Do you think that if we talked to the podcaster and said, "Hey, this Dominic Green says you think that Winston Churchill was worse than Hitler in World War II." Is that right? Do you think he would say, "Oh yeah, that's kind of what I said." Do you think he'd say that? Oh no, he wouldn't.
No, while I am not, let me be clear, I'm not defending Daryl Cooper. I don't really know anything about that point of history. I've heard him say some things that I thought certainly things that raised my eyebrows, but I saw it under free speech. Didn't necessarily change my opinion because of anything he said. Thought it was interesting that a person exists with opinions I hadn't heard before. I thought it was interesting that he was brave enough to go public with things that he knew would be a little controversial. Little controversial. But is this an accurate summary of who he is? This is Daryl Cooper if you wondered. I think that there's plenty of room for criticizing his or anybody else's message. So that's not the point. So I'm not supporting him. I don't even know entirely what his opinions were about Churchill, but that's not my poi
Context —
nt. My point is almost certainly he's being mischaracterized. Even if he really should be criticized for something, this is not the way to do it. All right. They say that Tucker raised discredited claims that Ashkenazi Jews are immune to COVID. Did that happen? Did that really happen? Now, if the discredited claims are things that are in the news, aren't you allowed to ask about that? And if the…
Next segment → →