After quoting my blog post about Red Ice Radio in her video, Clark stated that “the tone of this comment is to ridicule me.” Yes, yes it was. Sorry, there’s no way around that. Clark is a Nazi apologist even if she claims only to be a revisionist, and I’d think that ridicule should be the least damaging reaction a revisionist trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the Nazis might expect. “It is a fact that Freemasons and gypsies have played a major role in world revolutions,” she counters. She then conflates Freemasons, gypsies, and Jews, and demands that I “speak to” the fact that this conflated group supposedly admitted to furthering a multicultural agenda.
Clark tries to straddle a fence where she performs a sort of backdoor Nazi apology by attempting to revise views of the Third Reich to suggest that Nazi Germany was no different from other Western countries. Clark’s books document what she views as the Nazi tolerance of people from non-Aryan races, including what she claims are black African Nazis who fought for the Third Reich. However, despite highlighting in her video what she calls “multiracial, multiethnic, multinational, multireligious collaboration” with the Nazis, she simultaneously blasts me for characterizing her views as suggesting that she had argued Nazism was multiracial!
The trouble is that mainstream historians would not disagree that Nazi Germany built on common threads prevalent across Western civilization at the time, including anti-Semitism and racism. The difference is that Nazi Germany raised the worst elements of Western civilization into not just official doctrine of the state but the motivating force of society and an industrialized process of extermination. The only other societies that have attempted industrial-scale exterminations are also those that the West has condemned. It does not follow that the sins of Britain and America somehow make the Nazis misunderstood, or their policies just.
Clark later reveals that she has grown angry with me because she lacks reading comprehension. She accused me of calling her a white supremacist and a Neo-Nazi, neither of which I did. In fact, I specifically noted that she is opposes white supremacy in her revisionist view of the Third Reich. But, hey, she wants to be upset with me for humorously calling her Hitler a “Hitler of peace and love,” which I would think anyone with high school level reading skills would recognize as facetious, playing on her own statements that “evidence has also shown that Hitler did not view non-Germans as racially ‘inferior’ […] which exonerates him from the […] ‘racist’ stigma.” Besides, Hitler obviously started World War II in Europe, so no shit he wasn’t a peacenik! I’ll just take the win and let her seem to confirm that Hitler was a hate-filled warmonger. It amazes me that someone can recognize ridicule but not understand it.
According to the video, her anger stems from a perception that I am somehow attacking her for not supporting the “multicultural agenda,” which, according to her website, she views as black women performing sexually suggestive dances and a white woman (sorry, “Jewish actress”) urinating in public. (Seriously, don’t click… It’s gross.) This is contrasted with her view of Nazi “multiracial … collaboration” which involves men from many races gathering in uniform to plot the deaths of millions across Europe and Asia. It’s interesting that in discussing multicultralism Clark appropriates Nazi language about Jewish “degeneracy” while denying that she is a Nazi apologist.
She reserves her deepest outrage for Sullivan calling her a “blogger” instead of an “author.” (“Shame on you!” she yells.) That’s rich since she refers to me as a “blogger” despite my many books. She demands respect flow in only one direction.
I’m very sorry that I accidentally waded into this situation. She has made enemies even among those who might be most sympathetic to World War II revisionism. Here’s how an anti-Semitic conspiracy website described Clark’s modus operandi:
Miss Clark has a habit of labeling people as "Cyberbullies" when she is under scrutiny. I'm sure some of her claims are valid but much like the way Jews use the claim of "anti-semitism", much of the intent of such labeling is to get the "bully" to cower from the labeling. […]
She bucks the system, while at the same time embracing it. She's not aware at all that there is a very wide range of opinion among us [i.e., racists] on virtually all subjects. Also, she exploits young people who are trying to find their way, holding their comments against them and all of us. In that way, she is ultimately a liar.
Even her alternative history is misleading, since many nations had "foreign legions." She focuses on the exception, rather than the rule; which isn't exactly the mark of a critical thinker. She's really just another intelligent/immoral person who is depending on her ability to make people take her seriously. Since her program is mixing lies with truth, it's probably best to avoid feeding the troll.