Former Fox News host Tucker Carlsonprefaced his latest podcast episode by lauding guest Darryl Cooper as “the best and most honest popular historian,” and then looked on entranced in the video recording of it as Cooper argued Nazi Germany dictator Adolf Hitler wasn’t the “chief villain” of World War II.
Cooper, who has shared pro-Hitler posts on social media, argued on the podcast that then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was to blame for the war.
“I thought Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War,” he told Carlson, adding that “maybe” he was being provocative. “Now, he didn’t kill the most people, he didn’t commit the most atrocities, but … he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did.”
Cooper accurately stated that Hitler “launched a war” but then claimed the Nazi high command only ordered “the millions and millions of prisoners of war” killed out of pity — to save them from dying of starvation — as the Nazis were “completely unprepared to deal” with them.
Meaning “a war that the Allies eventually won”?
There are LOTS of reasons to dislike Churchill, but his actions in WW2 was not really one of them…
I hate the idea of sticking up for Churchill as a person, but set against Hitler…well, that’s the reason people liked him in the first place. 
It certainly wasn’t all the shitty pro-imperialism before the war…
Several right wing figures are entangled with this
It is long past time this shit was revealed and shut down. 8 years or more past due. But I will take it now over never.
It’s a useful shibboleth to be sure.
For us, yes. It lets us know who to not take seriously.
Actually, what I think it might be trying to evoke is a certain historical use of identity as an insult. It’s only available in a few cases where the noun form of an identity term is different than the adjective form, but it’s been around forever.
The one that most immediately comes to mind is something like: “Jew senator” for “Jewish senator” (offensive construction blurred, though the individual word is not necessarily considered offensive historically).
I’m not entirely sure, psycholinguistically, why this is insulting, but it’s definitely given and received as an insult. If I had to wager a bet it’s that it serves as a rhetorical mechanism to alienate and other the target: “This person is a senator and also has this identity” versus “This person is a senator, but also a member of class Other and thus not Like Me.”
Another example would be “woman senator” as opposed to “female senator” or just “senator”.
Hear tell that JD Vance has been proposing “senatorette.”
At least make it the grammatically correct senatrix
Jon Bob ended up having a very terrible night
