Comparing the Holocaust to the Crucifixion

Piers Morgan took criticism for interviewing Nick Fuentes, and discusses:

regardless his argument was it all happened so long ago 54:06 why did Jews continue talking about the Holocaust?

we've all moved on they use it all the time as a political weapon and 54:13 so And of course, I suppose the obvious question for him, I went and checked afterwards how many times he's talked 54:19 about, for example, on his show the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which was over 2,000 years ago, right? He does it 54:25 all the time.

So, you know, if I'd been smart in the moment as a fellow Christian, I would say, "Well, hang on. 54:30 But isn't that exactly what Christians do all the time about the crucifixion? What's the difference?"

What is the difference? Christians like to talk about the Crucifixion of Jesus, and Jews like to talk about the Nazi-Jew Holocaust.

I can think of a few differences. One is well-documented in the last century, and for the other we only have ancient second-hand accounts.

One is central for Jewish cohesion, and one for Christian cohesion.

One is illegal to question on most of Europe, and one is openly doubted by lots of respectable scholars.

Jews demand that people like Fuentes endorse the Jewish stories. No one demands that Jews endorse the Christian stories.

In the interview, Morgan seemed to think he scored when he called Fuentes, and Fuentes accepted the label. Fuentes just shrugged it off, saying everyone is racist.

Fuentes is correct, as the term is used today. The anti-racists say so, and they especially attack those who claim to ignore race. They say it is racist to not notice racial differences. But of course people like Fuentes are called racist mainly because he notices racial differences.