- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 America’s Most “Honest” Historian
🌊 America’s Most “Honest” Historian
Is Darryl Cooper being honest or ideological?

We’ve made today’s article free for all subscribers. If you support our mission, please consider subscribing.
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
We quit our jobs to start Roca because we loathe establishment outlets like Fox and CNN. Decades of their relentlessly negative, partisan, and fear-mongering content have left 66% of Americans without trust in the news media. That public backlash has allowed new media to prosper.
We are proud to be part of the new media alongside some people who are making the best content anywhere, people like Peter Santenello, Tim Dillon, and Tommy G. These people wander outside party lines, platform unheard voices, and seek the truth.
But in new media, like old media, the easiest way to grow audiences and make money is to create ever more divisive content. This has created a never-ending cycle where creators try to “out-anti-establishment” the next.
On the legacy media end of the spectrum, the truth is always boring: Establishment media writes off anything that challenges conventional narratives as a “conspiracy theory.”
On the other end of the spectrum, the truth is never boring.
And the king of that is Tucker Carlson.
On every episode of his show, Tucker – who has the third-most popular podcast on Spotify – attacks a sacred truth or highlights a heretical guest. For him, the truth is never simple. Nothing exemplifies this more than Tucker’s treatment of Darryl Cooper, whom Tucker calls the West’s bravest and “most honest historian."

But who is he really?

Raised by a single mother in California, Cooper attended over 30 schools from K-12. He has said that he read constantly as a child to “[maintain] some consistency as we moved from place to place,” sparking his interest in history. After three semesters of college, he dropped out, leaving for a 10-year career in the Navy. After that, he worked for the Pentagon, helping the Navy to sell weapons systems abroad.
Cooper has said he began pursuing history full-time in 2014, when the outbreak of war in Gaza led him to read up on the history of Israel/Palestine. His ensuing reading binge inspired him to start a history podcast, Martyr Made, which was inspired by Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History.
Cooper began his first series with a graphic description of a pogrom of Jews in Europe, before shifting between dense academic perspectives from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Despite being an amateur, his extensive, thorough analysis – some episodes are up to eight hours long – earned him legions of fans.
Cooper’s website describes his approach as such:
Think you know your world? Your story?
So did I until I started digging deeper and realized my whole understanding was only a snapshot of the bigger picture.
In a world where headlines dictate our understanding of the world, I know there are others like me who want more than the headlines but simply don’t have the time to do the research.
So I did it for you.
In practice, this meant challenging standard historical narratives, something he says he does by taking the perspectives of radical figures – both the heroes and villains – involved. He applied this approach to the Jonestown cult, 19th-century authors, the American labor movement, and more. Eventually, he would arrive at World War II.

Cooper’s histories caught the attention of Tucker Carlson, who hosted him for an episode that dissected the legacies of Hitler and Winston Churchill. In one clip, he called Churchill the “chief villain of the Second World War”; in another, he shared the debunked theory that concentration camps were actually a “humane” way to kill prisoners, rather than a deliberate attempt to “exterminate” them. He played down Hitler’s anti-Semitism, claiming that Hitler was not publicly anti-Semitic before 1940.
The core of Cooper’s argument was that by 1940, Hitler – having secured enough “living space” by conquering parts of its neighbors – wanted peace. Churchill ( a “psychopath,” per Cooper) instead chose war, plunging the world into its deadliest-ever conflict and making Churchill most responsible for the resulting millions of deaths. That proved a fitting parable for Tucker’s recurring theme that bloodthirsty “Neocons” continually try to draw America into foreign wars.
Cooper’s Tucker appearance catapulted him into both stardom and infamy overnight. Buoyed by a subsequent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, his podcast became Spotify’s seventh-most listened to, while his Substack hit number one on the history charts. Historians, meanwhile, labeled Cooper a misinformed anti-Semite and the pinnacle of a faux intellectual. The world’s most prominent World War II experts lined up to highlight the errors in Cooper’s telling, but by that point, he was big – and each accusation by the establishment was just received as more proof that “experts” had concocted narratives that didn’t hold up to scrutiny.

A major flaw in mainstream media is that they use their privileged positions in society to create narratives and tell half-truths. When they err, they bury corrections at the bottom of their articles, where no one will ever see them. A million people will read the article; 100 people will see the correction.
And with mainstream media, so it is with the new media.
In the months that followed Cooper’s appearance on Rogan, he walked back many of his statements. After his criticisms of Churchill racked up hundreds of millions of impressions, the leading Churchill historian offered to debate him. Cooper replied, “I’m not a Churchill expert.” He later said he had been “hyperbolic” about Churchill. And after millions heard – and believed – his take that concentration camps had been intended as a “humane” way to put starving prisoners out of their misery, he acknowledged logistical problems didn’t cause the Holocaust. He later struggled to read testimony from victims of the Nazi massacre at Babi Yar.
Yet by that point, Cooper’s repeated media appearances and engaging, anti-establishment content had made him a staple of the new media. Even as one viral post after another (see below tweets from Cooper, @martyrmade) suggested that he was actually the opposite of an objective observer, his audience was entrenched.


Everything from his views on tyranny (“Democracy is a disease. Tyranny is the cure”) to fascism (“Fascism is merely what happens when normal people realize that the left will never stop until they’re forced to”) and Hitler (Cooper says he’s in heaven) suggests that his history is, in fact, as ideologically captured as any left-wing historian.


Cooper thus embodies the best and worst of new media.
On the one hand, he has shattered ceilings and built a mass audience by himself; he’s not afraid to question orthodoxies; and despite lacking the traditional credentials, he’s organically built a popular product and mass audience. Yet on the other hand, he’s used that position to promote half- or non-truths and portray them as reality, just as mainstream media often does.
Trusting someone with views like Cooper’s about fascism to give an honest history of World War II is like trusting a woke professor to give an honest take on children’s sex changes. For Tucker, that makes him “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” – because, whether right or wrong, his version of history isn’t boring.

Editor’s Note
With Roca, we are building a news outlet that truly isn’t ideologically captured. That is beholden to neither the establishment nor the populists, the “Neocons” nor the Hitler apologists. If you support that mission, please subscribe. Subscribers enable us to do what we do.
Whether you agree or disagree with this, please send us your thoughts. We’re sure we have some Cooper/Tucker fans in the audience. We want to hear from you!
Speaking of, we had a number of people write in about yesterday’s article on the potential demise of pub banter. Find a sample below.
Kim wrote:
Normally, I don’t believe in public commentary on other sovereign nations’ laws and morals. Their citizens/subjects, or representatives in such duly elected governments, have the responsibility to flesh out their own laws. That said, I am, as an American citizen, imbued with the distinct right to air my opinions. I believe ‘banter bans’ a horrible idea. People need to be exposed to offensive ideas, so they can learn the process of defending themselves and their ideas, beliefs, limits, nature, habits or inclinations. Otherwise, we rely too much on someone else protecting our ever-increasing umbrageous natures and lose the ability to explain our personal choices. Don’t you agree? It creates too many ineffectual and quivering citizens to be considered a strong or healthy nation.
Brian wrote:
British pubs are the focus of British society and wonderful places to be. This bill is ridiculous. I can't tell you how often I have sat in ancient pubs having a pint or two and discussing school (my work at the time), University (when I was at Oxford), and family life when we went for dinner, afters, and a pint or two. I studied there and worked on a Fulbright exchange there. As different as it was from the states, pub life made me feel welcome when no place else could. To ban free speech in such a revered British institution is simply insane.
And Lida wrote:
I escaped from communist country in Europe years ago. It was terrible, BUT people could talk and joke in pubs over the cheap beer to vent. It’s was like letting the vapor out of the pressure cooker.
What British are planning to do is not only stupid , but dangerous. I would never expect this horrendous law to come from this country, who calls itself democracy.
There is a global push for scary tactics to control people. Sad and scary.
Thank you for letting us know
And if you missed any of our recent reporting, it’s available here:
Thanks for reading. See you tomorrow.
—Max and Max