No, he's still hedging. All of these questions are posed rhetorically:
- "if the Holocaust is a lie"
- "if the Holocaust didn't happen"
- "if Hitler wasn't just scapegoating them"
- "if maybe the Jews did have a role in destroying Germany"
- "if maybe they did have a role in creating the conditions of Weimar Germany"
Ending with the gentle conclusion of "then maybe there is a parallel today". Note that he doesn't step on the bigger landmines like:
- it wasn't 6 million
- there were no gas chambers
That's because from his position it's unnecessary to say these things and because he doesn't want to give his enemies ammo with something that can be easily taken out of context. As he put it in this clip, he can't be too direct about revisionism because it's too far outside the popular consensus.
https://x.com/SocDoneLeft/status/1597682384207773696
Or in this clip he said "I think there were death camps, I do." even as he calls the story "cartoonish".
https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1596253509837783040
Or in this speech (01:28:40) he said "you'll never believe what never happened."
https://rumble.com/v3143lk-tos-complian ... ition.html
You might find something to disagree with there, but overall I think it's very good, very persuasive rhetoric that doesn't dilute the core arguments.