Nick Fuentes and the 'Holocaust'

[Callafangers]

Anyone who is paying attention to "underground" (and increasingly mainstream) American political discourse over recent years has most likely encountered Nick Fuentes, a strong anti-Israel (and "anti-semitic") commentator who has raised a great deal of attention and long-overdue criticism against Jewish institutions and organizational schemes. In one of his recent podcasts, he discusses his own views on the 'Holocaust' in response to some criticism levied against him by Jewish anti-Israel commentator Dave Smith [who suggested Nick should 'explain' or 'take back' some of his ostensible Hitler-endorsement]. Nick does sort of acknowledge his own belief in some elements of the 'Holocaust' narrative however his over-arching emphasis has always been that (1) this is largely irrelevant in modern discourse, and (2) that this narrative is used as a weapon for the political benefit of Jews, primarily.

This might be worth watching in its entirety but main discussion of the Holocaust starts at 10:00:

[Callafangers]

Here is another amusing exchange, this one between Nick Fuentes and Piers Morgan, in a segment pertaining to the 'Holocaust':



After you see the above, if you need a laugh:



What a time to be alive.

[Stubble]

Not much to say about Nick the ****, but, I did find this little jewel.

https://odysee.com/@MyAwesomeChannel:06 ... he-Holly:c

Unexpectedly, this is on YouTube;




[Admin Note: had to cut-out the racial slur... this is not that kind of forum.]

[HansHill]

I am a big Nick fan. While he is certainly not the most knowledgeable Revisionist, and even calling him a "Revisionist" in the first place requires the loosest of definitions, he is doing more for Revisionism that almost anybody else.

The most important thing he is doing, is he is breaking the taboo around this conversation in the turbo-mainstream. He makes it funny, cool, and edgy to "deny the holocaust". In addition, he makes it almost mandatory for his generation to not care. This latter point alone is huge.

I also understand the criticisms he draws from revisionists and the wider dissident-right. Nick is a very unique person in that he splits opinion amongst huge categories people, for example:

- Rightoids vs Libtards
- Rightoids vs Dissident Right
- Dissident Right vs Holocaust Revisionists
- Whites vs Non-Whites
- Whites vs - Other Whites
- Zionists vs Non-Zionists
- Non-Zionists vs Other Non-Zionists
- Boomers vs Zoomers
- Zoomers vs Other zoomers
- Men vs Women
- Men vs Other men
- Religious vs Non-Religious
- Catholic vs other Christians

I could easily double or triple the length of this list, and every "split" would be meaningful. This is extremely insightful because, I for one cannot think of a singular person who personifies the cutting edge of modern political discourse to such a meaningful extent. Not even for example Donald Trump.

On his treatment of the Holocaust specifically, i do think he missed a few slam dunks on his Piers Morgan appearance, which is unfortunate, but is also the nature of the beast in live 1v1 debates. If it were me coaching Nick (not that he needs coaching, and it's not impossible for him to see this, as I am sure he is aware of this forum), I would advise him to adopt a strategy like his:

Nick: "You know Piers, I read a book from this German guy who's a qualified Chemist. He traveled to Auschwitz and took samples from the bricks and mortar of the gas chambers, sent them to a lab to be tested for cyanide. When the lab results showed nothing, they arrested him"

Piers: "blah blah blah"

Nick: "You should get him on your show, you have no reason not to. Your show is called "uncensored", that's exactly the platform he needs to tell his story. For all your audience watching, his name is Germar Rudolf"

[Callafangers]

I am a big Nick fan. While he is certainly not the most knowledgeable Revisionist, and even calling him a "Revisionist" in the first place requires the loosest of definitions, he is doing more for Revisionism that almost anybody else.

I could not agree more. I would put Nick even higher on the list than Mattogno and Rudolf in terms of actual conversions to revisionism, or at least openness to it, at least within the last ~2-3 years (even when accounting for The Holocaust Encyclopedia, itself a monumental work responsible for many conversions). This doesn't take away from the academics/scholars in revisionism, in any case, as the time for more technical and in-depth historical debates will inevitably come around. But I think so far, many revisionists have tried to shift the Overton window by exposing the 'Holocaust', and Nick and his following are circumventing this entirely with, "f**k the Holocaust". Obviously, with policy changes that Nick and the "groypers" would introduce, free and open debate of the Holocaust will be a given, as will an abundance of more critical perspectives ready to engage with it.

[Callafangers]

Nick: "You should get him [Germar] on your show, you have no reason not to. Your show is called "uncensored", that's exactly the platform he needs to tell his story. For all your audience watching, his name is Germar Rudolf"

I think Nick recognizes he is too uneducated on the broader 'Holocaust' debate to risk committing himself to it (or its figures) too heavily. It's safer (and perhaps smarter) for someone with limited understanding of revisionism to stay ambiguous on it and emphasize its irrelevance to the question of whether Jewish power, etc., is a serious modern problem.