I caught a few episodes of Nick Fuentes’ show off and on before the whole Groyper War began, and have followed recent developments with great interest. I’ve seen the small handful of out-of-context clips they’ve used to try to frame him as racist, anti-Semitic, White Nationalist, Alt-Right 2.0, and as a Holocaust denier. These smears are a transparent attempt by anti-American “liberals” and “conservatives” to silence a rising star who speaks for the sixty-three million Americans who voted for Donald Trump. They refuse to engage with him and want him deplatformed because they know he would run circles around them in a debate, if given the chance.
Fuentes’ political views align more or less with Candidate Trump. The people currently opposing Fuentes also opposed Trump as part of the #NeverTrump movement. They flip-flopped to support President Trump once they realized Candidate Trump only existed to get himself elected. They never supported nationalism to begin with, and can’t deal with entirely reasonable questions about vitally important issues. Contrary to the smears, one need not be racist, a White Nationalist, or Alt Right to be concerned about mass immigration, or an anti-Semite to question America’s obscene support for Israel.
Nor is Fuentes (or Charles Murray, or Stefan Molyneux, and so on) a White Nationalist, Alt Right, or racist for discussing racial differences. There are obvious, testable differences in historical voting trends and average intelligence and behavior. These differences have social and political ramifications that will become unavoidable as America’s white population is dispossessed. Any attempt to keep a lid on these admittedly touchy subjects with the tired smears of yesteryear will soon prove futile. At some point, serious people are going to have to tell the pearl-clutchers with their heads in the sand to pipe down so that the adults in the room can discuss solutions besides “blame whitey” and “pay up, whitey” lest the country devolve into civil war. Those who try to shut down the conversation reveal themselves to be complicit in America’s destruction.
One clip taken out of context shows Fuentes making light of the deprivations of segregation. In fact, he was merely echoing what Joe Biden once said about segregation being not so bad for blacks. This really puts the attacks on Fuentes into perspective: Are we to believe that Fuentes should be deplatformed and ostracized out of polite society as an incorrigible racist (when in reality he’s a big Kanye West fan), while Joe Biden – who once said essentially the same thing – currently sits as the Dems’ frontrunner for President? Truly, the establishment – including supposedly conservative organizations like Turning Point USA and outlets like National Review – has one set of rules for itself and another for the rest of us. Canadian liberals showed just how much they care about “racism” by reelecting Justin Trudeau in the wake of his blackface scandal, yet these conservatives are waging war on Fuentes? What’s really going on here?
Other clips supposedly prove that Fuentes is anti-Semitic. In both examples, one dealing with Dave Rubin and another with Matt Walsh, Fuentes crassly stresses the Jewishness of the pundit or outlet to imply a pro-Jewish political slant. Of course, Jews audaciously cry foul when they get lumped together as having shared interests (“hello, no one is buying it” department?), but it’s a tactic regularly exercised by pundits of all stripes to undermine the credibility of sources they don’t like or simply disagree with. Whether it’s Tucker Carlson – who has been described by some as parroting White Nationalist talking points – or the state media aparati of nations at odds with American interests like Russia Today or PressTV, everybody has a slant . . . except for Jews, they admonish.
One of the more odious attacks has been to label Fuentes a Holocaust denier. However, he has repeatedly told his audience – some of whom delight in taboo subjects – that he does not actually deny the Holocaust. This has never been acknowledged by his detractors, nor has the fact that Fuentes does not make a habit of discussing the subject. He was asked about it by one of his viewers in the form of a joke, and he riffed on its premise. Fuentes does not even rise to the level of a Holocaust revisionist: His answer to the question dealing with the mathematics of the death toll at Auschwitz reveals he’s unfamiliar with even the basic claims made about it.
For starters, it is not claimed that six million Jews were systematically gassed and cremated at Auschwitz, as suggested by the question. Nor is it claimed that the systematic killing of Jews took place over the course of a five-year period (the crematory at Auschwitz wasn’t built, and thus could not have been operational, until early 1941, and camp operations ceased before Germany’s defeat). In other words, the person asking Fuentes about the Holocaust got the basic details of the subject wrong; that Fuentes did not catch these errors implies he hasn’t seriously investigated the Holocaust himself. Ironically, the clip in question belies the notion that Fuentes is Jew-obsessed or studies revisionist material.
Furthermore, if entertaining the notion that the six million figure is malleable makes Fuentes a Holocaust denier, what should we make of Jewish historian Raul Hilberg’s estimate of between 4.9 and 5.4 million total victims, as stated in his “three volume, 1,273-page magnum opus” The Destruction of the European Jews? Hypothetically, Fuentes could have stated outright that the oft-quoted tally of six million Jews is off by more than a million and he would merely be quoting the conservative tally of one of the foremost authorities on the Holocaust. It would not be a denial, and not even controversial.
By the same logic, Holocaust scholar Dr. Deborah Lipstadt must be a Holocaust denier, too. She has admitted that the Nazis never made soap out of Jewish victims – a vicious anti-German narrative repeated as established fact for half a century following the war. It turns out it was nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated rumor, and likely black propaganda. If this story could go unchallenged for that long without a shred of evidence to back it up, nobody should be unpersoned – let alone criminalized – for raising doubts about other questionable claims. Yet if non-Jews threaten to debunk unsubstantiated and demonstrably unscientific stories, they are immediately ritually defamed as “anti-Semitic” deniers, if not outright Nazis – and in some twenty countries can be thrown in jail! In contrast, not one Jew who has spread the soap blood libel ever had his or her life ruined for doing so, or for revising what had been a core tenet of Holocaust orthodoxy. The double standard doesn’t end there, either.
It must also be said that it is the Jewish state’s official policy to deny the Holodomor and the Armenian genocide, which together claimed more victims than the Holocaust. Given that most of Fuentes’ critics tacitly support Israel, they’re total hypocrites. Further, as Fuentes points out, Ben Shapiro once openly argued for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It seems Fuentes’ detractors believe that denying a genocide (which Fuentes has never done) or supporting ethnic cleansing (which he has also never done) is only problematic if it involves Jewish victims. This could accurately be described as a form of Jewish supremacy, something to keep in mind whenever the same cabal of pro-censorship authoritarians project smears of “supremacism” onto young and inexperienced pundits like Fuentes.
Moreover, one must also take into consideration the style of Fuentes’ show and the often flippant manner in which he deals with the onslaught of oddball, non sequitur questions from the chat. Many are clumsy attempts at edgy humor in an effort to make the host laugh. Because of this, Fuentes often berates his own viewers’ bad jokes – which is part of the fun of his show. Reading a viewer’s comments isn’t an endorsement; often he’s just doing it to entertain his viewers. Besides, the humor of the joke wasn’t really a jab at the victims of the Holocaust, but at what Norman Finkelstein calls “The Holocaust Industry” and its attendant social norms and etiquette. If you put a sign that says “do not push” on a big red button, what do you think will happen? This is Internet Humor 101.
That said, having a laissez-faire attitude towards the Holocaust is a normal and healthy progression towards healing. Such tragedies must become historified; that is to say, they inevitably lose their emotional impact over time. Attempting to keep the bodies warm through an emphasis on Holocaust education, and yearly Holocaust-related films and television shows, is now desensitizing people to the topic. They’ve begun to wonder why this one chapter in human history is put on a pedestal at the expense of all others. Indeed, treating the subject lightly does not imply Jew-hatred at all; the same Zoomers who joke about the Holocaust have no problem with shoot-‘em-up video games based on the Second World War, which in some cases claimed the lives of their own great-grandfathers. Respect for the dead is fleeting, and every tragedy becomes a comedy, as they say.
The more these reality-deniers (demographics-deniers, science-deniers, genetics-deniers, sex-deniers, and so on) tell us that “the great replacement is a white supremacist conspiracy theory,” “there’s no such thing as race,” “whites have privilege,” “men can be women” and vice versa, and yes, even the sacred “six million died, not one more and not one less,” the more they will provoke a generational backlash that will make their heads spin. And with so many of these anti-American, anti-free speech, Marxist activists being Jewish, they’d better be careful or “okay, Boomer” might well become “Okay, Jew.”
The Worst Week Yet: May 2-8, 2021
Do White People Exist?
Pressing the Snooze Button on the Ziological Clock
Mihai Eminescu: Romania’s Morning Star
The Worst Week Yet: March 21-27, 2021
The Power of Myth: Remembering Joseph Campbell (March 26, 1904–October 30, 1987)
Thwarting Jewish Conquest: Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together Part 6 of 6
The Russian Civil War: Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, Part 4