Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What exact words has Nicholas J. Fuentes used about the Holocaust in public broadcasts?
Executive Summary
Nicholas J. Fuentes has repeatedly used Holocaust-denying, minimizing, and antisemitic language in public broadcasts, including calling the Holocaust “exaggerated,” making crude analogies likening victims to “cookies in an oven,” and invoking conspiratorial tropes about “organized Jewry” and Jewish “oligarchy.” Reporting across outlets from 2019 through 2025 documents a pattern of denial, admiration for Adolf Hitler, and rhetorical attacks on Jews that prompted institutional condemnations and political backlash [1] [2] [3].
1. How Fuentes framed the Holocaust on his livestreams — blunt denials and crude mockery
Reporting indicates Fuentes used explicit Holocaust-minimizing language on his livestreams, including calling the Holocaust “exaggerated” during a March 2023 episode and making a vulgar analogy comparing victims to “cookies being baked in an oven,” a phrase that various watchdogs and news outlets recorded and criticized. These statements amount to overt Holocaust denial and grotesque mockery rather than abstract skepticism, reflecting a rhetorical pattern that targets the factual scale and human reality of Nazi crimes. Coverage that details the March 2023 language and other similar broadcasts underscores that Fuentes’ public comments are not isolated rhetorical slips but recurring, purposeful rhetorical attacks against Holocaust history and memory [1] [2] [4].
2. Broader antisemitic repertoire — from “organized Jewry” to calls for “holy war”
Fuentes’ rhetoric extends beyond Holocaust minimization into classic antisemitic tropes and conspiratorial themes: he has spoken of the threat posed by “organized Jewry,” denounced Jewish religious texts in sectarian terms, and used phrases like “our Jewish oligarchy” when confronting Jewish political figures. Reports document instances where he advocated confrontation framed in religious or civilizational terms, including language described as calling for a “holy war” against Jews. These broader elements contextualize Holocaust-related comments as part of an ideological package—white nationalism and antisemitic conspiracy—that informs and amplifies his Holocaust-denying remarks [5] [4].
3. Public reactions and consequences — why multiple institutions labeled him a denier
Mainstream outlets, civil-society groups, and political figures responded to Fuentes by labeling him a Holocaust denier and antisemitic provocateur; platforms, commentators, and organizations documented his statements and publicly condemned them. That reaction follows documentation of repeated Holocaust-minimizing and denialist remarks spanning years. Coverage from fact-checking compilations and watchdogs highlights how such labeling is grounded in specific quoted language and recurring behavior rather than interpretive disagreement. The sustained institutional response—de-platforming moves, public denunciations, and media scrutiny—reflects how multiple actors treat his Holocaust comments as factual denial and morally unacceptable speech [3] [6].
4. Disputes over exact phrasing and sourcing — what journalists agree and where gaps remain
While reporting converges on the conclusion that Fuentes denied or minimized the Holocaust and deployed dehumanizing analogies, some pieces differ in the degree of verbatim quotation and the dates attached to specific remarks. Multiple analyses cite the March 2023 livestream allegation and a memorable “cookies in an oven” comparison, but not every account reproduces identical verbatim text or timestamps for each claim. Fact-checking summaries compiled between 2022 and 2025 consolidate varied episodes of denial and antisemitism, yet they also note gaps in publicly available, time-stamped transcripts for every contested line. This difference in documentary granularity explains why outlets vary in how they quote Fuentes while agreeing on the overarching assessment [1] [7] [8].
5. Two perspectives: watchdogs and Fuentes’ defenders — motives and framing
Advocates and watchdogs frame the quoted statements as straightforward Holocaust denial and evidence of organized antisemitism; this stance informed condemnations and platform actions and is supported by repeated, documented instances spanning years. By contrast, defenders who engaged with Fuentes or framed his appearances as free-speech controversies often argued for debate or contextualized remarks within broader political discourse, occasionally downplaying explicit wording or suggesting misinterpretation. Coverage shows the watchdog framing relies on documented phrases and patterns, while defense narratives emphasize interpretation and platforming debates. Both perspectives appear across the record, but the factual record cited by multiple outlets centers on explicit Holocaust-minimizing language and dehumanizing analogies attributed to Fuentes [9] [5] [4].