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.

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 key 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.

[HansHill]

I think Nick recognizes he is too uneducated on the broader 'Holocaust' debate to risk committing himself to it (or its key 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.

I do agree with this in principle, the golden rule in a debate like this:



I do feel at some point though, he would need to break the holding pattern, and the strategy I mentioned would be one of the better way to do so.

- I read a book
- This guy is an expert
- The lab results found nothing
- He has been arrested and persecuted
- You should have him on your show
- For those watching, his name is Germar Rudolf

This is catnip for boomers and normies and it steers the conversation off the goofy wooden door, 6 million cookies stuff, onto more credible revisionism in a structured way, and reduced exposure and liability for Nick.

Piers: "You're not a qualified chemist Nick, you don't know what you're talking about"
Nick: "That's why I'm out here reading what I can on the subject Piers, what have you got to hide?"
Piers: "That's all been debunked!"
Nick: "I see, tell your audience who debunked it, and more importantly how, and they will decide for themselves"

The downsides do of course exist, and on the next episode he will bring on Rabbi Shmuley or someone of the like, to shit all over Rudolf, but that my friend, is called damage control!

[Callafangers]

Gotta acknowledge the Fuentes critics, I have had mixed thoughts on Nick but have overall appreciated his bringing of opposition to Jewish schemes to the political fore. The guy hosting this video (Jackson Hinkle) is far from anything I'd consider credible or trustworthy (he's a co-founder of the American Communist Party or "MAGA [pro-Trump] Communism", whatever the hell that is) but it's a reminder to take every famous figure (e.g. Fuentes) with a grain of salt:



If I ever find myself agreeing with Netanyahu, it's a guarantee I may be way off-course. That Nick sees no problem with this is perhaps the first truly red flag I have seen from him. This isn't to say there aren't other 'flags', only that I have not been paying much attention.

[Wetzelrad]

I agree that Fuentes greatly helped the revisionist cause by destigmatizing it. "Me mum" and "too soon?" may resonate for a long time.

I disagree that Fuentes should reference Rudolf or argue any point of revisionism. Don't mess with success. It's enough that he's opening the door by saying that doubt and debate should be permitted. Others can get through that door and make those arguments, as e.g. Bilzerian did or tried to do.

Gotta acknowledge the Fuentes critics, I have had mixed thoughts on Nick but have overall appreciated his bringing of opposition to Jewish schemes to the political fore. The guy hosting this video (Jackson Hinkle) is far from anything I'd consider credible or trustworthy (he's a co-founder of the American Communist Party or "MAGA [pro-Trump] Communism", whatever the hell that is) but it's a reminder to take every famous figure (e.g. Fuentes) with a grain of salt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n68_F43h0SI

If I ever find myself agreeing with Netanyahu, it's a guarantee I may be way off-course. That Nick sees no problem with this is perhaps the first truly red flag I have seen from him. This isn't to say there aren't other 'flags', only that I have not been paying much attention.

Regarding Venezuela and interventionism, I hardly favor it myself, but I suspect that with a few years' time everyone will convert to Fuentes's view. Most of the people who are opposed are opposed for the wrong reasons (anti-power, anti-America, anti-White) while the few who have actual good reasons (anti-semitism) still flirt too close to the bad reasons. I saw it written today that effectively nothing can ever be good for the U.S. because it would in all cases benefit Jews. I think some people would support a foreign invasion of America purely because it would be bad for Jews. This position is ridiculous, useless, and it will marginalize you. Fuentes learned this lesson before.

What Netanyahu thinks about Venezuela is of little consequence. That angle of argument approaches the Hitler-drinks-water fallacy, though ironically for his diametric opposite.

On the other hand, to "agree" with Jackson Hinkle -- who is among so many other questionable behaviors a frequent Holocaust propagandist -- could also be a red flag. He has only ever worked against CODOH's cause. Agreeing with him on anti-Zionism alone is not a good reason to align with him on anything else. Hinkle is also an immense hypocrite for having said all this while he vigorously supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even as he recorded this from his new home in Moscow.

One place where there may be actual cause to disagree with Fuentes is where he has shown an openness to the anti-revisionists. In the below clip he says that in his DMs his mutuals have tried to convince him that the Holocaust Narrative is accurate by sending him "blog posts", obviously meaning HC.



The overall takeaway is that he entertains the idea that revisionists could be substantially wrong. Granted, this is just one clip among countless that give a contrary impression, and it has more to do with his mutuals than it does with himself, but I think it's an important reveal. People who care about the ultimate fate of revisionism should prepare themselves for the possible future point where this debate becomes much more public. When anti-revisionists try to seize our thunder, they will have to be totally crushed, all their mendacity revealed, in the most persuasive format possible, etc.

[HansHill]

Very poor set of takes from Fuentes here, i certainly didn't have this on my 2026 bingo card. I am glad to see his base reject these poor takes, but ultimately i think its regrettable and unfortunate that he now has ended his "generational run" as the above video phrased it.

@Wetzelrad fair enough, we can agree to disagree on that strategy. I believe it would be a net positive for the tiny Revisionist movement were it to be promoted to Piers' ~4 million person audience and let the chips fall where they may, but I do see your point about opening doors is enough for him, and he risks blundering a certain key point (which holds for any debater online to be fair).

[Callafangers]

Regarding Venezuela and interventionism, I hardly favor it myself, but I suspect that with a few years' time everyone will convert to Fuentes's view. Most of the people who are opposed are opposed for the wrong reasons (anti-power, anti-America, anti-White) while the few who have actual good reasons (anti-semitism) still flirt too close to the bad reasons. I saw it written today that effectively nothing can ever be good for the U.S. because it would in all cases benefit Jews. I think some people would support a foreign invasion of America purely because it would be bad for Jews. This position is ridiculous, useless, and it will marginalize you. Fuentes learned this lesson before.

Most people will "come around" to support Jewish schemes that Nick Fuentes stamps approval on? No, no thanks. I don't want Jewish schemes regardless of which Jew-namers sanction them. Wahrheitssucher's recent post/summary of this captures the problems with the recent Venezuela op, focusing on the judge assigned to Maduro's trial (AI summary):

• Judge Alvin Hellerstein's background: Orthodox Jew (likely Zionist, as >90% of Orthodox Jews support Zionism), appointed by Clinton; presided over 9/11 cases, pushed victims' families to settle to avoid discovery/evidence, enabling 9/11 cover-up.
• Family Zionist ties: Late sister emigrated to Israel; late wife treasurer/VP of Amit Network (funds Israeli settler schools/homes); son Joseph Z. Hellerstein immigrated to Israel (2001), lives in illegal settlement, now Israeli lawyer.
• Son's professional ties: Worked at firm (Amat, Pollack, Madallon) representing Cukierman & Co. (French-Israeli firm by Roger Cukierman, French-Jewish CEO of Rothschild Group/Israel General Bank/VCs); Cukierman owns ICTS.
• ICTS/9/11 link: ICTS (Israeli/Mossad-controlled) owned Huntleigh USA (9/11 airport screening); key Israeli defendant in Hellerstein's 9/11 litigation; trial would expose checkpoint failures/terrorist boarding (names not on manifests); inappropriate Hellerstein connections noted in court docs.
• Shared law firm: Father and son both at Jewish firm Stroock, Stroock & Lavan; son there while it represented Silverstein Properties (Larry Silverstein leased WTC July 2001).
• Maduro context: Anti-Zionist/pro-Palestine defendant before this judge, implying biased handling tied to Jewish/Israeli power networks which protected 9/11 secrets.

Based on video, here: viewtopic.php?p=20640#p20640

None of this is trivial. Is Fuentes talking about this? Or is he unable to think about it over the sound of his own praise of Donald Trump, a philosemitic traitor President with Jewish grandchildren?

What Netanyahu thinks about Venezuela is of little consequence. That angle of argument approaches the Hitler-drinks-water fallacy, though ironically for his diametric opposite.

Is this about drinking water? Or is it about removing a staunch anti-Zionist, antisemitic head-of-state (Maduro)?

Do you really see no difference, here?

On the other hand, to "agree" with Jackson Hinkle -- who is among so many other questionable behaviors a frequent Holocaust propagandist -- could also be a red flag. He has only ever worked against CODOH's cause. Agreeing with him on anti-Zionism alone is not a good reason to align with him on anything else. Hinkle is also an immense hypocrite for having said all this while he vigorously supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even as he recorded this from his new home in Moscow.

I made 100% clear that I do not support nor even really know much of anything about Hinkle other than my 15-second Google search and seeing he's the founder of "MAGA Communism" which I immediately ridiculed/condemned.

Fuentes, on the other hand, overtly agrees and celebrates (to his vast audience, i.e. moving public opinion) these recent actions of Donald Trump, also celebrated by the Jewish head of state Netanyahu.

That's a problem.

[Wetzelrad]

Most people will "come around" to support Jewish schemes that Nick Fuentes stamps approval on?

No, most people will once again accept that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for aggressive foreign policy. For the last 90 years, "isolationist" is the label Jews have used to disparage America Firsters, but we should not actually become isolationists just because they call us that.

Wahrheitssucher's recent post/summary of this captures the problems with the recent Venezuela op, focusing on the judge assigned to Maduro's trial (AI summary):

• Judge Alvin Hellerstein's background: Orthodox Jew (likely Zionist, as >90% of Orthodox Jews support Zionism), appointed by Clinton; presided over 9/11 cases, pushed victims' families to settle to avoid discovery/evidence, enabling 9/11 cover-up.
• Family Zionist ties: Late sister emigrated to Israel; late wife treasurer/VP of Amit Network (funds Israeli settler schools/homes); son Joseph Z. Hellerstein immigrated to Israel (2001), lives in illegal settlement, now Israeli lawyer.
• Son's professional ties: Worked at firm (Amat, Pollack, Madallon) representing Cukierman & Co. (French-Israeli firm by Roger Cukierman, French-Jewish CEO of Rothschild Group/Israel General Bank/VCs); Cukierman owns ICTS.
• ICTS/9/11 link: ICTS (Israeli/Mossad-controlled) owned Huntleigh USA (9/11 airport screening); key Israeli defendant in Hellerstein's 9/11 litigation; trial would expose checkpoint failures/terrorist boarding (names not on manifests); inappropriate Hellerstein connections noted in court docs.
• Shared law firm: Father and son both at Jewish firm Stroock, Stroock & Lavan; son there while it represented Silverstein Properties (Larry Silverstein leased WTC July 2001).
• Maduro context: Anti-Zionist/pro-Palestine defendant before this judge, implying biased handling tied to Jewish/Israeli power networks which protected 9/11 secrets.

Based on video, here: viewtopic.php?p=20640#p20640

None of this is trivial. Is Fuentes talking about this?

Is Fuentes talking about Hellerstein? No, he's on vacation and hasn't done a show recently.

Maduro was captured on January 3, and everyone had already formed their opinions about it within moments of it happening. No one knew Hellerstein was assigned the case until January 5. On temporal grounds alone I reject the idea that Hellerstein is anyone's reason for opposing this operation.

Plus it doesn't even make sense. You oppose taking out a foreign country's head of state because they were brought to America for trial under a Jewish judge? No, I'm pretty sure the reason you oppose it is because of the geopolitical significance, not because of a trial. I will return to the geopolitics below. (It will be interesting to see if the trial has any legitimacy. It has every appearance of being a show trial right now.)

Or is he unable to think about it over the sound of his own praise of Donald Trump, a philosemitic traitor President with Jewish grandchildren?

Weird framing. We would all like to have a president that represents our interests, but we don't have one, which is why so many of us are negative on Trump. Fuentes took more flak for opposing Trump in the election than anyone. He has also given approval to Trump in the rare circumstances that he did things right, e.g. securing the border. Maybe this is one of those circumstances. Is your idea that we should be anti-Trump on all issues and circumstances?

What Netanyahu thinks about Venezuela is of little consequence. That angle of argument approaches the Hitler-drinks-water fallacy, though ironically for his diametric opposite.

Is this about drinking water? Or is it about removing a staunch anti-Zionist, antisemitic head-of-state (Maduro)?

Do you really see no difference, here?

I see the difference and I also take that you see the similarity.

I made 100% clear that I do not support nor even really know much of anything about Hinkle other than my 15-second Google search and seeing he's the founder of "MAGA Communism" which I immediately ridiculed/condemned.

Well, that figures. What's worth knowing about Hinkle is that he previously dodged a debate with Fuentes, he and his ACP (American Communist Party) have been trying to capture Fuentes's audience for years, and he's the exact stereotype of a Communist that you imagine him to be. Pro-Stalin, pro-BLM, pro-third-world, defends farm murders, denies the existence of race and genes, denies that known Jews are Jews, etc. You probably couldn't have picked a worse person to represent Fuentes's critics.

I don't think it's too conspiratorial to suggest that people like him are bad actors put in place to steer people away from our politics and onto useless off-ramps, and their relentless attacks on Fuentes are part of that job.

Fuentes, on the other hand, overtly agrees and celebrates (to his vast audience, i.e. moving public opinion) these recent actions of Donald Trump, also celebrated by the Jewish head of state Netanyahu.

That's a problem.

Returning to Maduro. I'm not a geopolitics guy, nor do I wish to stir up enmity here, but I will say a few more things and you can take them however you like.

Having listened to a lot of people float their theories on Israel's connection to Venezuela, the strongest case that can be made has to do with their oil. In the event that Iran comes under threat, Iran has the ability to cut off the Strait of Hermuz, which accounts for a quarter of the world's oil consumption. Venezuela supposedly controls one fifth of the world's oil supply (though it exports comparatively little). From this, the case can be made that Israel wants to shore up access to Venezuela's oil to limit Iran's leverage before a potential war. It's plausible.

The case for Maduro being ousted because he said "free Palestine" one time is not so convincing. He wasn't deposed for something so small. Maduro is an anti-Zionist, sure, and that has some relevance to the greater analysis, but it's not as if he was amassing a fleet to sail across the ocean and invade Israel. A better explanation than this is needed.

As it happens, Maduro is a left-wing Jew. Because he's an anti-Zionist the Zionists will predictably celebrate anything bad that happens to him. Another left-wing Jew is Alex Soros, son of George. Most of the same Zionists would likewise celebrate if something bad happened to Soros. If Trump decided to take action against Soros and his OSF, would this be a substantive reason to defend them? I don't think so.

Whatever theory you go with, you must agree that at this point in time all the reasoning is speculative and ill-defined. Therefore it should not be off the table to consider alternative theories. Is it possible that Trump believes the United States stands to benefit from turning Venezuela from what is currently an enemy into an ally? This seems at least as plausible as any other theory, and I might approve of it if it could succeed with minimal blood spilled.

Adding on, Maduro is certainly no friend to the average American. Under his regime, something like 3% of Venezuela's population has relocated to our land. This is his greatest crime despite being the one least talked about. I have little faith that Trump will deliver on returning them all, but this is a stated goal of his, and it is possible under and consistent with his current trajectory. Even better if it would extend to the rest of South and Central America.

[Callafangers]

No, most people will once again accept that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for aggressive foreign policy. For the last 90 years, "isolationist" is the label Jews have used to disparage America Firsters, but we should not actually become isolationists just because they call us that.

It has nothing to do with being defensive about name-calling. America should be engaging in ways that benefit America, not Jews. Any portrayed 'mutual benefit' cannot be trusted at this stage. Why aren't we screwing Israel's political system and stealing their resources, instead of Venezuela's? It's because Jews control America and decided to screw Venezuela.

Is Fuentes talking about Hellerstein? No, he's on vacation and hasn't done a show recently.

But had time to tweet favorably for Jewish-plant Trump's actions which had Israel's green-light, at best, or foremost benefit (more likely, as is the continuing pattern).

Maduro was captured on January 3, and everyone had already formed their opinions about it within moments of it happening.

If "Feldberg Goldstein" was our President and openly admitted he's only doing what Israel wants or approves, should we still give applause when his actions superficially/coincidentally benefit America in the short-run? Or, should we recognize that Goldstein is doing what Jews want, aligning toward Jewish visions of global conquest, and any actions in-between are no doubt meant to align as such, necessarily screwing America along the way?

No one knew Hellerstein was assigned the case until January 5. On temporal grounds alone I reject the idea that Hellerstein is anyone's reason for opposing this operation.

"No one knew"? So we should then rule out that this was intended or coordinated in-advance, even though you acknowledge it as a "show trial" below? What?

Plus it doesn't even make sense. You oppose taking out a foreign country's head of state because they were brought to America for trial under a Jewish judge? No, I'm pretty sure the reason you oppose it is because of the geopolitical significance, not because of a trial. I will return to the geopolitics below. (It will be interesting to see if the trial has any legitimacy. It has every appearance of being a show trial right now.)

I oppose taking out almost any country's head of state unless they are my enemy or support my enemy (Israel). I oppose it because when Feldberg Goldstein runs the USA, nothing is actually for American interests. He is guilty until proven innocent on all counts, obviously. Is it good global PR for America to further establish itself as global tyrants? This is globalism at its core and no coincidence that it aligns with Jewish ambitions of a globalized world with Jerusalem as its capitol.

Weird framing.

There is zero framing in acknowledging Donald Trump as a philosemitic traitor President with Jewish grandchildren. That's an actual statement of fact.

We would all like to have a president that represents our interests, but we don't have one, which is why so many of us are negative on Trump.

"Negative on Trump" until he takes more action on Israel's behalf, at key foreign policy moments, so long as there is ostensibly some benefit for America? Then we're "positive"?

This is how subversive plants operate: they herd you 95% of the time, then misguide you at key moments. I believe the jury is still somewhat out on Nick but this immediately puts him on "thin ice", in my view. This is hugely uncharacteristic of him, from what I have seen/understood of him. But I could be wrong -- I have not followed the AF cult; I have been doing this research independently for much longer.

Fuentes took more flak for opposing Trump in the election than anyone.

This means nothing since he has also (1) gotten rich for it, and (2) has been inconsistent in his messaging, as shown on Venezuela. We are all free to be inspired by Nick's story of perseverance but it doesn't guarantee he is legitimate. I gave some leeway in his support for Alex Jones (blatant gatekeeper for Israel until Nick's rise) and other "big yellow flags" I have seen thus far. But this unusual and "convenient" inconsistency at critical events is precisely what I have seen in shills, over and over again, for the last two decades.

He has also given approval to Trump in the rare circumstances that he did things right, e.g. securing the border. Maybe this is one of those circumstances. Is your idea that we should be anti-Trump on all issues and circumstances?

This is an obnoxious take. This portrays the notion that Trump is just a guy caught between a rock and a hard place, making tough decisions on complex issues, so "give him due credit". Total nonsense. Trump is reading the daily agenda faxed to him by his Jewish clique in Israel and NYC -- he commits treason daily, punishable by death per US law. Nothing whatsoever that he has done -- not a single thing since his first day in office -- has put America before Israel. Anything appearing this way has at best been a facade to throw off accusations/criticism of him being a Jewish plant at important moments where such deflection might have been needed. His true colors are unmistakable and perfectly consistent.

Is this about drinking water? Or is it about removing a staunch anti-Zionist, antisemitic head-of-state (Maduro)?

Do you really see no difference, here?

I see the difference and I also take that you see the similarity.

The difference is what matters, here. The 'fallacy' only exists if the action is meaningless.

I made 100% clear that I do not support nor even really know much of anything about Hinkle other than my 15-second Google search and seeing he's the founder of "MAGA Communism" which I immediately ridiculed/condemned.

Well, that figures.

Wetzelrad, do you think it is important for someone to be deeply familiar with communist Jackson Hinkle, merely to point out that his arguments against Nick Fuentes on a single issue appear valid?

What's worth knowing about Hinkle is that he previously dodged a debate with Fuentes, he and his ACP (American Communist Party) have been trying to capture Fuentes's audience for years, and he's the exact stereotype of a Communist that you imagine him to be. Pro-Stalin, pro-BLM, pro-third-world, defends farm murders, denies the existence of race and genes, denies that known Jews are Jews, etc. You probably couldn't have picked a worse person to represent Fuentes's critics.

Irrelevant, 100%. I never endorsed the man, I recognized the validity of certain arguments.

I don't think it's too conspiratorial to suggest that people like him are bad actors put in place to steer people away from our politics and onto useless off-ramps, and their relentless attacks on Fuentes are part of that job.

What his motives are (or whether he's a serial rapist or whatever) don't change whether his arguments here are valid. If I had known he's such a bad representative for a given argument, I might have presented it a different way (simply transcribed the arguments myself to avoid giving him exposure) but, again, irrelevant.

Returning to Maduro. I'm not a geopolitics guy, nor do I wish to stir up enmity here, but I will say a few more things and you can take them however you like.

Having listened to a lot of people float their theories on Israel's connection to Venezuela, the strongest case that can be made has to do with their oil. In the event that Iran comes under threat, Iran has the ability to cut off the Strait of Hermuz, which accounts for a quarter of the world's oil consumption. Venezuela supposedly controls one fifth of the world's oil supply (though it exports comparatively little). From this, the case can be made that Israel wants to shore up access to Venezuela's oil to limit Iran's leverage before a potential war. It's plausible.

Here's the thing about Iran: we should be allies with Iran, not enemies. Iran's long history of opposition to the US comes almost entirely (if not entirely) from our support for Israel. Same goes historically with Syria, Libya, even Iraq; all of these could/should have become powerful, independent nations keeping Israel firmly in-check in the Middle East, and should have retained great economic relations with the US ever since this time. Instead, we have 'terrorism' cultivated by Israel and raising Americans into a panic against every nation but the source of it all, whose representatives also siphon our wealth and morals from within. The problem was never Venezuela -- it was Israel, and still is.

The case for Maduro being ousted because he said "free Palestine" one time is not so convincing. He wasn't deposed for something so small. Maduro is an anti-Zionist, sure, and that has some relevance to the greater analysis, but it's not as if he was amassing a fleet to sail across the ocean and invade Israel. A better explanation than this is needed.

Perhaps there is truth on more than one angle; if he had no oil and was anti-Zionist, perhaps no invasion/arrest would have occurred. But the bottom-line is that Jewish-controlled USA just seized the power and resources of yet another anti-Zionist nation. Add that to a long list thus far.

What we need instead is the USA being controlled by anti-Zionists who subvert/counteract any/all Jewish/Zionist interests. This is not extremism, this is not a "pipe dream" -- it is common sense, and the only way that is truly forward.

As it happens, Maduro is a left-wing Jew. Because he's an anti-Zionist the Zionists will predictably celebrate anything bad that happens to him. Another left-wing Jew is Alex Soros, son of George. Most of the same Zionists would likewise celebrate if something bad happened to Soros. If Trump decided to take action against Soros and his OSF, would this be a substantive reason to defend them? I don't think so.

He's vaguely a self-proclaimed and unconfirmed Jew, according to Jews:

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-882298

My interest is in reducing Jewish power and influence, period. There is an order of operations to that which does not entail overthrowing nations which are anti-Israel, even if they have oil.

Whatever theory you go with, you must agree that at this point in time all the reasoning is speculative and ill-defined. Therefore it should not be off the table to consider alternative theories.

Then why was Nick's choice of a side on the matter so immediate (same-day)?

Is it possible that Trump believes the United States stands to benefit from turning Venezuela from what is currently an enemy into an ally? This seems at least as plausible as any other theory, and I might approve of it if it could succeed with minimal blood spilled.

Trump is the enemy. Is it a trademark of AF to support Jewish subversive traitors sometimes if their behavior at least superficially appears beneficial for America?

Adding on, Maduro is certainly no friend to the average American. Under his regime, something like 3% of Venezuela's population has relocated to our land. This is his greatest crime despite being the one least talked about. I have little faith that Trump will deliver on returning them all, but this is a stated goal of his, and it is possible under and consistent with his current trajectory. Even better if it would extend to the rest of South and Central America.

We clearly agree on the problem of mass immigration but Trump for some 'strange reason' hasn't meaningfully reversed it, certainly not in ways that the next left-wing president won't immediately undo and double-down in the opposite direction. Strange how no matter what we do, the Jewish vision of "demographic change" keeps pressing on.

Almost seems like Jews are very patient and -- so long as their actions appear superficially 'good for America' in the short-run at any moment -- feel they can get away with anything because enough complacency will still enable the subversive "bigger picture" to come to fruition.

Maybe it's just trivial that WW2 Germany seemed to think nothing could be 'good for Germany' with Jews in power... That Hitler fellow was probably indeed just a raving lunatic. Germany should have instead celebrated the small wins that Jewish schemes sometimes delivered along the way.

[fireofice]

I believe the jury is still somewhat out on Nick but this immediately puts him on "thin ice", in my view.

Oh he's on "thin ice" with you, huh? I'm sure he'll be devastated to hear that. I've disliked him for quite a while yet I'm still waiting for this to have an effect on him. Any day now I'm sure.

Not trying to cause any offense here, but that just gave me a good laugh. I'm sure you didn't even intend to make it sound like you had a big effect on him, but it kind of amusingly came across that way.

On interventionism, I'll quote Hitler from Mein Kampf here.

In this world, human culture and civilization are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, then the dark shroud of a barbarian era will again envelop the Earth.
In the eyes of a folkish worldview, to undermine the existence of human culture by destroying its carriers would be a deplorable crime. Anyone who dares to raise a hand against that highest image of God sins against the bountiful creator of this miracle, and collaborates in the expulsion from Paradise.
Hence the folkish worldview corresponds to the innermost will of Nature. It restores the free play of forces that will lead to a continuous higher breeding, until at last the best of humanity, through possession of the Earth, will be free to act in every domain in and above it.
We all feel that, in the distant future, we will be faced with problems that can only be solved by a highest race of master human beings–those who have at their disposal the means and resources of the whole world.

I pretty much agree entirely with the sentiment here. I am not a non-interventionist. That said, modern interventionism is done on behalf of Jews a lot, so extreme caution needs to be exercised in that context.

[Callafangers]

I believe the jury is still somewhat out on Nick but this immediately puts him on "thin ice", in my view.

Oh he's on "thin ice" with you, huh? I'm sure he'll be devastated to hear that. I've disliked him for quite a while yet I'm still waiting for this to have an effect on him. Any day now I'm sure.

Not trying to cause any offense here, but that just gave me a good laugh. I'm sure you didn't even intend to make it sound like you had a big effect on him, but it kind of amusingly came across that way.

No offense taken, it felt like a strange way to phrase it but I went with it anyway.

On interventionism, I'll quote Hitler from Mein Kampf here.

In this world, human culture and civilization are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, then the dark shroud of a barbarian era will again envelop the Earth.
In the eyes of a folkish worldview, to undermine the existence of human culture by destroying its carriers would be a deplorable crime. Anyone who dares to raise a hand against that highest image of God sins against the bountiful creator of this miracle, and collaborates in the expulsion from Paradise.
Hence the folkish worldview corresponds to the innermost will of Nature. It restores the free play of forces that will lead to a continuous higher breeding, until at last the best of humanity, through possession of the Earth, will be free to act in every domain in and above it.
We all feel that, in the distant future, we will be faced with problems that can only be solved by a highest race of master human beings–those who have at their disposal the means and resources of the whole world.

I pretty much agree entirely with the sentiment here. I am not a non-interventionist. That said, modern interventionism is done on behalf of Jews a lot, so extreme caution needs to be exercised in that context.

Yeah, I can't say I follow you, here. I cannot recall if I read it in Mein Kampf or elsewhere but much of Hitler's racial ideology was in recognition of the racial efficacy of Jews, their survival over time. Hence, in seeking to elevate his own race, some of the tenets/framework would be structured to reflect that. Indeed, Jewish vision of a global future entirely in their own hands predates that of NS Germany by thousands of years, taken to much greater and far more perverse heights with the transcription and expansion of the Talmud circa/post ~200 AD.

Even if Hitler believed in this world vision in the early 1920s, it did not seem to drive his policy in foreign relations, especially in peacetime. The only credible instances we find in claims of conversations around blatant conquest come from those of Russian/Soviet territory which was regarded as illegitimate under a hostile Jewish-Bolshevik regime. Many claims were made of Germany's supposed 'conquest' initiatives during the war (such as attempts to conquer the Americas) which were proven false.

What's proven true even today, on the other hand, is Jewish ambitions to subvert Western nations (correction: all nations they can get their hands on), shift demographics in ways that corrode and overrun these nations, crashing economies, gaslighting populations via mass media, etc.; actions which cost lives and have real consequences, real victims.

Much due criticism can be levied against Germany however I think it's an uphill battle to claim they did not have at least some guiding principles about respect for other nations' borders.

[fireofice]

Even if Hitler believed in this world vision in the early 1920s, it did not seem to drive his policy in foreign relations, especially in peacetime. The only credible instances we find in claims of conversations around blatant conquest come from those of Russian/Soviet territory which was regarded as illegitimate under a hostile Jewish-Bolshevik regime. Many claims were made of Germany's supposed 'conquest' initiatives during the war (such as attempts to conquer the Americas) which were proven false.

A distinction needs to be made here between the foreign policy of Germany as a country, and the foreign policy of the white race as a whole. The passage in question would include not just Germany, but Britian and all the other white countries as well. So this isn't him claiming he specifically wants Germany to rule the world, but Aryans. This would not tell us anything about his foreign policy as it relates to other white countries. He continued to hold this view of white domination over non-white countries throughout his life. For example, he lamented when Japan retook British colonies. That and more similar pieces of evidence can be found in this video: