Nick Fuentes continues to bore people and move his political goalpost towards what’s acceptable in Jew Clown World.
He again went on the radio show of secret Israeli intelligence officer Alex Jones to tell the world that he’s got “no problem with Israel”, that it’s fine to be partisan for Israel, and that he’s not a “Holocaust denier” as some media are saying.
Fuentes also gave several statements to the media affirming his belief in the Holy Holocaust of the Jews.
“In an interview with The Hill, Fuentes insisted that he is not racist, anti-Semitic or a white nationalist. Fuentes said he believes that the Holocaust did take place and that the “cookies” bit was said for shock value.”https://t.co/pbgHp5jDrQ pic.twitter.com/ovHsg3AjYM
— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) November 19, 2019
“Fuentes said… he acknowledges that the Holocaust was the systematic persecution and murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. ‘I’ve never denied the Holocaust,’ he said.”https://t.co/n7HU9vvUKy pic.twitter.com/adtQdUOB21
— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) November 19, 2019
By hiding behind irony and jokes, Fuentes can claim plausible deniability for anything. He vexatiously dances around the issues, refusing to make firm statements for or against a certain position.
He’s desperately trying to gain the approval of the Jewish-owned press. It’s completely cringe what he’s doing here.
By denying that he is all of these things, he’s letting the Jewish and leftist establishment control the discourse and put him on the defensive.
Instead of this weak backpedaling, cucking and disavowing, what he should be doing is refuting the validity of such meaningless slurs as “racist,” “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier” by explaining that preserving one’s racial group is the natural right of all races, that there are serious questions about “the Holocaust” that need to be investigated, and that “anti-Semites” are people with valid criticisms of the destructive and subversive behaviour of Jews.
But no, that’s not what Fuentes is doing.
Instead, he’s ceding considerable ground to the Enemy Jews in power so he can maintain his presence on Jewish-controlled platforms and gain new footing on other Jewish-controlled platforms like the Israeli media company Infowars.
This is all very stupid and cringe.
His mistake is even to listen to them in the first place. He should be calling for the nationalization of television and silicon valley media, because a minority group of no more than 2% of the people controls it all, and is using that control to destroy the nation.
Hitler was not a White Nationalist. It makes no sense for White Nationalists to take interest in Holocaust Revisionism, unless you are a National Socialist yourself, which, judging from your writings, it seems you are a Francoist.
This is what Hitler thought of Franco BTW:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/hitlers-fury-francos-guile-and-the-bribe-that-saved-the-world/
“I would rather have four of my teeth pulled out than deal with that man again,”
Because the Holocaust isn’t the foundational myth of modern White Guilt and the multicult agenda, right?
As for Franco/Hitler… they had some tactical disagreements, but so what? Hitler was a hothead when he didn’t get what he wanted. They were both admirable in their own spheres.
Hitler not a White Nationalist? Maybe he didn’t call himself one, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
A trout presumably doesn’t call itself a fish, but….
P.S. I guess we have a reason to dislike Franco for something, eh? If that filthy, fucked war ended at least in a stalemate, such as might have happened had the Brit-shills lost control of the Med, how different would things be today–how much better for our people and civilization! Deutschland and Italia stood for White self-love and pride, but that war destroyed them; and what happened in the Med was so important in that destruction from which we MAY not recover. White self-love and pride became crimes in effect–their stock crashed with the fall of their champions.
I personally take the Charles Lindbergh/Pat Buchanan isolationist position re WW2. Pre-War America was more WN friendly than National Socialist Germany, for instance. I really don’t see any point in Holocaust Revisionism unless you want to revive National Socialism.
As for the Holocaust and White Guilt, it is easy to counter this argument by dethroning its moral sanctity, thereby trivializing the event and making it entirely irrelevant to White Nationalism.
For example, the neocon/j-left talking point that those “brave men in Normandy” fought against “racists”, is easily countered by bringing up the fact that the Allied troops had segregated units, and so forth.
“As for the Holocaust and White Guilt, it is easy to counter this argument by dethroning its moral sanctity, thereby trivializing the event and making it entirely irrelevant to White Nationalism”
Far, far easier instead to counter this argument by making note to every Jew you encounter that they drew First Blood when they easily murdered more than probably 30 million Christians in the Ukraine by starvation prior to the second world war. The Jews created their own personal ‘Holocaust’ which they practiced on Christian whites before they ever were presumably ‘ Holocausted’ as has been endlessly depicted in books and movies, and so on…
In my polemics, both in my writings and in personal debate, I stay away from the holohoax as much as possible. In the pursuit of what I most want politically, it’s not all that germane (as suggested by argument #4 below) and tends to complicate things. But when the discourse inevitably leads to it, I have at least four retorts to rely on:
1) many studious men reject the narrative, declaring it a cynical fable based on the will to extort–among them a number of Jews themselves–e.g., Freedman, Menuhin, Cole, Unz, Fischer (bringing up Jewish holocaust-denial undercuts the opposition’s ability to attribute denial necessarily to “neo-Nazism”);
2) affirmers must not conveniently dismiss denial as “anti-Semitic” but must consider the deniers’ evidence and actually discredit it, and if they can’t they must abandon their affirmation for at least a suspension of judgment;
3) even IF we assume that the thing happened, estimates for the total number of WWII dead START at 55 million: WHY are the other 49 million deaths so unimportant–why are the six million Jewish deaths made so much of compared to the non-Jewish ones, unless Jews have an axe to grind by depicting them as so incomparably significant; and the fact that doubters are PERSECUTED and even imprisoned for mere belief–as “heretics” were for doubting the Church’s indoctrination–should raise a HUGE RED FLAG for anyone with a claim to a brain, both in that it insinuates that the narrative can’t survive free examination and indicates an extreme Jewish vested interest in promoting belief;
4) even if we assume that the thing happened, it doesn’t do for Jews to tell us “WE have a right to preserve ourselves through ethnocentrism but you don’t”–which is analogous to someone telling you “I nearly died of pneumonia, so I can take this cure: you can’t and should REALLY die because unlike me you didn’t nearly die.”