You could be right about that. I'm not really here to defend Alex Jones' position. I honestly don't know enough about the dude and what he wants. However I will defend his right to a platform as long as he is operating within legal bounds.
Right now we are having a national conversation about the right of an ISP to hold a monopoly over its customers. We don't think it's fair that the only worthwhile ISP in an area can charge tiered amounts for different levels of internet access.
The same conversation is just beginning with regard to platform rights. It's one thing to secure your right to connect to the internet. But we need to secure the right for people to connect to you.
"Right to a platform". What does that mean? Can you generate an answer that isn't morally equivalent to a demand for FRAND terms for Alex Jones? Remember, FRAND is an exceptional case in commerce; it's (for instance) what you do to get your patented IPR into a global standard. It's not the expected default.
It seems to me like you're ignoring the plain definitions of simple words in constructing this statement. Wanting to preserve a dominant position in society (which is what it sounds like Jones' concern is) makes one a supremacist. Wanting to eliminate other groups makes one something else, perhaps an "eliminationist" or "exterminationist". They are distinct. You can be both, but you can also be the former without being the latter. Assuming Jones is not an exterminationist, that is entirely consistent with him being a supremacist who either has scruples or doesn't feel the situation is desperate enough yet.
People who feel threatened may reasonably speculate he (or others who are sympathetic to supremacist views) might become an exterminationist if the situation appeared more desperate. That's neither a "true" nor "false" narrative, but a plausible yet uncertain prediction.