Veronica K. Clark: Jason Colavito Is a "Lying Creep"

4/23/2015

I’ve learned this week why it is that revisionist historian Veronica K. Clark has a reputation as a cyberbully even among Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and esoteric Hitlerists. A few days ago I made an offhand comment that Clark had swiped a large chunk of one of my old blog posts and was using it to try to gin up controversy among racists and Nazi apologists by claiming that I was “flipping out” over her appearances on Red Ice Radio offering revisionist takes on National Socialism. Clark took great offense to my sarcastic characterization of her position as “believ[ing] in a multi-racial Nazi utopia with a Hitler of peace and love, as opposed to a racist Nazi empire of hate.” That was the whole of my comment, but Clark has now devoted a lengthy blog post and a 14-minute YouTube video to attacking me as “a liar and slanderer.” She claimed, based on this single sentence that “the blogger named Jason Colavito has chosen to hone in on me for whatever reason. [… ] You, Sir, are a lying creep. You’re a liar, and you’re speaking for me and putting ideas and words in my mouth […] and I don’t appreciate it!”

Clark went on to quote comments left in response to my blog post and attack Shane Sullivan by name. From this I have drawn several conclusions about Clark that I am not legally allowed to print, but which you, too, might conclude after listening to her intense and angry diatribe.

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. […]

Even the white supremacists at Stormfront are baffled by Clark and consider her a cyber-troll:

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.

Forgive me for not providing links, but I’m trying to limit the amount of links between my website and Nazi and white supremacist sources. You can find the sites by placing any of the quotations into Google if you are so inclined.

93 Comments

Elmo Blatch

4/23/2015 04:26:05 am

>>conflates Freemasons, gypsies, and Jews<<

Leavng Veronica K. Clark aside, French Freemasonry did accept Jews as members, a lot of those involved in the French Revolution were Freemasons, including those who founded the French First Republic, and the ties between the Grand Orient of France and the French Parliament are still as strong as ever today in 2015.

It's easy to understand the mistake that because of its Temple of Jerusalem symbolism that Freemasonry was a gang of Jews trying to take over the world. But the direct tie between Freemasonry and Politics is something completely different. And it's even wearing out in some countries like the UK, where the Monarch is now allowed to marry a Roman Catholic (Freemasonry was part of the Protestant Reformation).

David Bradbury

4/23/2015 05:42:37 am

In UK politics, it seems that Freemasonry is simply being replaced by Oxbridge cronyism. Politicians (and other would-be power-brokers) need to get together and make alliances.

As for Veronica, I see that even Metapedia (to which I was led while attempting to find an explanation of the word "Jewzi") doesn't understand her.
en.metapedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Clark

Scott Hamilton

4/23/2015 05:47:44 am

You did seem to step in it, Jason.

After you mentioned her a couple days ago I went and read some of her stuff, and yeah, it's obvious that she's intellectually incoherent and has some bizarre agenda she'll never quite admit to. The fact that she suggests that a future President of the U.S. writing an racist paragraph in a personal letter when he was a 20-something farmer in Kansas is somehow an equal crime to being the head of a government that systematically tried to wipe out entire ethnicities with concentration camps pretty much tells me everything I need to know about Clark.

Andy White

4/23/2015 07:18:18 am

Wow.

Shane Sullivan

4/23/2015 08:03:03 am

"She accused me of calling her a white supremacist and a Neo-Nazi, neither of which I did."

Well, *I* called her a fascist, because she denied being a multicultiralist, and a lack of sympathy for multiculturalism is considered characteristic of fascism. Of course, she seems to think that fascists (or at least the Nazi party, which was modelled after Italian Fascism) weren't white supremacists, so I don't see how she could interpret this as an insult.

Anyhow, sorry I fanned the flames, Jason. Hopefully her comical reaction to being called a "blogger" makes up for it. =P

Kal

4/23/2015 08:19:18 am

I am not suggesting anyone flag this person as having checked out her web site she is clearly not all there and knows a lot of hate speech mongers. It would be best to block such people from this site though, or if you have channels, block then, as she is clearly working for the imperial fascist state. Does anyone know the number to homeland security? They should be notified.

Nick

4/23/2015 09:40:25 am

Jason,
The pattern with this blog is that you reflexively attack anyone with an opinion or research focus different from mainstream consensus. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, and in fact when done in good faith, its intellectually healthy and necessary. But the tone of your writing tends to be snarky and unprofessional, and the critiques you present here, on multiple topics, show that you lack the analytical background to substantively critique the actual research. I saw this pattern in your attacks on Scott Wolter, whose historical conclusions I don't agree with, but who's strongest arguments and data was continually ignored and misrepresented on your blog. The way you examined his work, and that of others, borders on unethical. I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Clark's work to know if you truly acted like a "lying creep", but I'm not surprised to see accusations like that coming your way.

4/23/2015 09:55:51 am

Because you're so committed to ethics, can you give some specific factual examples of Scott Wolter's "strongest arguments and data" that were "continually ignored and misrepresented"? I'm really, really curious -- especially as my degree is in anthropology, and I've done archeological field work. So I really hope you weren't taken in by Wolter's phony "dating methods."

Jason Colavito link

4/23/2015 10:24:53 am

I invite you to read my book "Jason and the Argonauts through the Ages" (McFarland, 2014), or my work evaluating Jacques Vallee's "Wonders in the Sky," and then tell me that I lack the analytical skills to critique research.

Pacal

4/23/2015 11:06:30 am

Nick your making a whole bunch of assumptions including thinking that Scott Wolter does actual research, when in actuality he is just spinning together a rather ho-hum series of dated alternative history and conspiracy theories woo. My reaction to Scott Wolter is a yawn. He is so predictable and boring.

Then you complain about the tone and allege that Jason lacks the background to properly critique Scott Wolter.

My irony meter just broke.

First Scott Wolter's tone about "orthodox" researchers, scholars is snarky at least when he is not accusing them of conspiring to suppress the "truth" among other things. Scott Wolter critiques voraciously the experts in his dull TV show and yet shows repeatedly a basic ignorance concerning the topics he discusses, for example the archaeology of pre-Columbian North America.

I find Scott Wolter's show America Unearthed to be a thoroughly unethical example of mystery mongering and calculated evasion along with being thoroughly boring. Virtually everything your saying applies in spades to Scott Wolter.

4/23/2015 11:35:52 am

Nick, by saying that Jason had it coming his way for calling out this Nazi apologist, due to instigating the situation by taking his words out of context and lying about it, how is it that he lacks analytical skills? Last time I checked, since I actually bother unlike you to read both sides words from their own mouths (in other words I do my research) you should know that this is a characteristic Scott Wolter and many History Channel hosts are known for. Next time before attacking Jason why don't you look up her site and do your research on the information she writes about. Do that and then tell me if this woman who supports GENOCIDAL FASCISTS deserves any respect for her misinformation, let alone the fact that she herself LIED (Nazis are good at that by the way). So unless you are guinely serious I have one thing to tell you: Go back under your bridge troll.

Platy

4/23/2015 12:57:30 pm

"I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Clark's work to know if you truly acted like a "lying creep", but I'm not surprised to see accusations like that coming your way."
We're talking about a woman who's basically saying that "Hitler wasn't that bad of a guy". Regardless of whether or not Jason came off as snarky, that doesn't change any valid or accurate observations he makes.

Harry

4/25/2015 04:18:31 pm

Nick,

Please give us an example of Scott Wolter's "strongest arguments and data" that Jason misrepresented.

BobM

4/27/2015 04:31:11 pm

It's not just a research focus different from mainstream consensus. The woman has absolutely no qualifications at all to do this research. According to what I could find out she has to "associate" degrees – whatever they are – one of which makes her a mechanic. So while I might take her word for the secrets of the inner workings of a tank engine, not so much on your actual history.

terry the censor

4/27/2015 08:25:34 pm

> you reflexively attack anyone with an opinion or research focus different from mainstream consensus.

Nick, you are saying that no one honestly has differing opinions, that critiques are motivated instead by ideology or character failure.

Are you really arguing that Jason is not genuinely offended by Nazi doctrines, that in truth he is indifferent to them, and this post is merely about protecting some "mainstream concensus"?

4/23/2015 11:05:58 am

Libel is written, and slander is spoken, and accusing someone of being communist or a Nazi would be both, however, if the person is actually a Nazi, it's not. Also since a blog follows under the purview of 'journal or editorial' not under 'journalism' or 'scholarly letter'm it therefore does not need to play by the rules of journalism, and can be as biased as it likes. In turn, the posters in comments are not the responsibility of the mod or administrator of the blog, ie, Jc is not going to get legally in trouble for what we post. Still it is probably not a good idea to feed the flame wars. If the fringe gets bent out of shape, so what? It makes them look bad. Rise above it.

As for creds, it's a blog, and this blog does have some being from an author of fringe leaning stories and reviews. It is not a journalism piece but a journal, like a diary, which just happens to have some facts.

SW should never have taken the bait. He's ion TV and there's no reason he should have been afraid or miffed at this blog. It's not going to damage his creds either. If it did, then his creds are pretty shallow. If you can't take some criticism, why be a critic?

So what if Jason attacks fringe bloggers for their rants and crazy ideas, as long as it's not personal. It's not like they can't do the same, and do. It's when they become nuts and post about how he somehow ruins them that it's a head scratcher. Like how did it ruin them? Were their creds and opinions that weak that they had to chase after some other published person?

It's still probably best not to tick off the truly mental people out there though.

Maybe JC should put up some kind of disclaimer about his not bein responsible for the posts of his blog commenters, again.

Only Me

4/23/2015 11:15:43 am

Honestly, I see this as another example of the typical fringe reaction when someone has a personal opinion not in tune with theirs.
Obviously, Clark's opinion is the one that matters and no one else should think otherwise. She's threatened by and intolerant of everything and everyone that does not mirror her views and values, no matter how ridiculous.

The video is basically, "BECAUSE EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET MUST BE MADE AWARE OF MY OPINION... BECAUSE IT MEANS SOMETHING!"

So, Jason, it looks like you crossed the streams when you were not supposed to. Big deal. She's not even a decent troll. 9 out 10 jimmies were not rustled.

Tara Jordan

4/23/2015 11:17:04 am

Why are you people so afraid of debating with revisionists?.I mean a serious debate on substance (and in context),instead of resorting to Godwin's law,and accusations of racism and Nazi apologism.Most of the people commenting on this blog,are highly educated,by your political correctness and moral high ground positioning,is having a devastating effect on your ability to act as true"critical thinkers".You don't have to be a "Nazi apologist" to accept the fact that,history is written by the victors.If Veronica K. Clark is wrong on a specific issue,prove her wrong.The systematic racist name calling,is utterly unprofessional and infantile.
As to the "empire of hate and racism",I don't think Americans are in the position of lecturing anyone on this issue.Up to the 50`s,America was the country of institutionalized segregation and racism.
I would respectfully suggest you to read what Jesse Owens had to say, when he came back from the 1936 Olympic Games.

4/23/2015 12:49:23 pm

You are mistaking contempt for fear. There is no reason to fear a "debate" with so-called revisionists anymore then there is to fear a debate with a flat-Earther and considering that the viewpoint is just has fact free no reason to do so. Ms. Clack is it is abundantly clear both a revisionist and a Nazi apologist or did you not look at the video?

I note the required "politically correct" denouncing of "political correctness", which is now very tired after 20+ years of use. Ms. Clark makes all sorts of idiotic statements in her video about Jews etc., all of which indicate clearly that calling her views racist is merely accurate and not "unprofessional", "infantile" and "racist".

As for the you too defence. Well Jason has a perfect right to note racism in others. because he is not responsible for US racism etc.

As for Jesse Owen's comments they are well known and have zero bearing on the issue of Hitler's pathological and well documented racism. Do I have to bring up Hitler's hysterical denunciation of the French for employing Black troops in the Rhineland and "corrupting" German "blood". or the fact that the Germans sterilized at least 400 people of mixed Black and Caucasian German ancestry to preserve "blood purity". You might want to try the book Hitler's Black Victims by Clarence Lusane.

4/23/2015 12:55:47 pm

More on Jesse Owens. The story, myth that Hitler walked out when Owens won the race and refused to shake hands with him is just that a myth. Albert Speer does however state that Hitler was not happy that Owens won several races and said that in the future non-whites would be barred from competing because it would be unfair completion. According to Speer Hitler claimed that Owens won because he had superior strength due to being a "primitive"..

4/23/2015 01:21:39 pm

This is precisely the reason I stopped commenting on this blog. This place is turning into an orgiastic playground of mawkishness,sloppiness,and false sentiments".Most of you,have opinions and expertise on everything.
Are you capable of producing one single original idea,that is not attached to your ideological and emotional mindset?.This is not an issue about National Socialism and Hitler racism.I don't have to read the book you mentioned,to comprehend the horrific and predatory nature of the Nazi regime.Labelling someone as racist,fascist,anti-Semitic,Nazi apologist,is a very serious accusation.If you have a specific issue with Veronica Clark, you are more than welcome to rebuke her,but the name calling is plain tartuffery.

In regard to American moral prerogatives,I don't buy it.I have been reading this blog and the comments for a very long time,and seen enough hypocrisy and double standards to make myself cringe to death.As long as you American
crocodile tears attaboys,are perfectly incapable of cleaning your own act,don't pretend you have the right to lecture the rest of us.

4/23/2015 02:17:29 pm

Actually, I did "prove her wrong" on a specific issue yesterday. She denies the racism of the German Nazi party on the grounds that Nazis suffered the presence of ethnic minorities and, at least on occasion, even took advantage of photo ops with them. I pointed out--using America as an example, no less--that a government is capable of doing those things while still engaging in racial bias. The fact that I'm an American doesn't invalidate that point; on the contrary, it gives me insight into the history of racism.

I'm not going to debate Clark directly because the contradiction in her statements is so obvious that if she doesn't see it now, she never will. That, and I gave up arguing over the internet when I was 15.

And once again, given her view of Nazis, I don't think calling her a fascist could be considered an insult, even though the tongue-sticking-out emoticon I provided should have indicated that I wasn't being super serious.

4/23/2015 12:50:42 pm

In regards to that last point, you are correct. However, couldn't you say the same about any nation? As much as I am disgusted by America's treatment of African Americans and Native Americans, not to mention the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war itself, that doesn't change the fact of what Hitler did. Basically, accusing one party of committing the same crime doesn't negate the atrocities of the other party.

4/23/2015 10:21:24 pm

Indeed, two wrongs don't make a right.

4/23/2015 02:24:52 pm

Tara you say:

"This is precisely the reason I stopped commenting on this blog."

Yet here you are commenting.

"This place is turning into an orgiastic playground of mawkishness,sloppiness,and false sentiments".

The above describes so-called revisionists to a tee. There sloppiness, distortions and out and out lies are abundant. It also describes Clark's video accurately and her other effusions.

"Are you capable of producing one single original idea,that is not attached to your ideological and emotional mindset?."

Yawn. Of course it is so-called revisionists, racists and woo merchants who keep recycling the same dull nostrums with absolute predictable regularity with nary a bit of originality. And of course their ideological mindset is abundantly clear and usually involves accusing 'conventional" academics of some sort of conspiracy.

"This is not an issue about National Socialism and Hitler racism.I don't have to read the book you mentioned,to comprehend the horrific and predatory nature of the Nazi regime."

Actually it is about National Socialism given Jason was in fact talking about Ms. Clark's hair brained notions about same. Oh and I was mentioning the book to make clear that Ms. Clark's revisionists views about Blacks in Nazi Germany were to but it politely overdrawn.

"Labelling someone as racist,fascist,anti-Semitic,Nazi apologist,is a very serious accusation.If you have a specific issue with Veronica Clark, you are more than welcome to rebuke her,but the name calling is plain tartuffery."

I watched the video and frankly it is merely accurate to label her opinions has those of a Nazi apologist etc. These "serious accusations" are merely true as indicated by Veronica Clark's own words.

"In regard to American moral prerogatives,I don't buy it.I have been reading this blog and the comments for a very long time,and seen enough hypocrisy and double standards to make myself cringe to death.As long as you American
crocodile tears attaboys,are perfectly incapable of cleaning your own act,don't pretend you have the right to lecture the rest of us."

Thank you for the whine. Of course given that every country on the planet has bad things in its past; do you have the "right" given your own logic to lecture Jason or anyone about double standards etc? I note that you cringe at Jason's and the tone of some of the commentators and yet let past Veronica Clark's tone. The bottom line is that Jason has a perfect right to denounce the racism etc., of others including his fellow Americans and the racism of fellow Americans does not in the slightest have any standing to stop him from denouncing other peoples racism etc.

Oh and I am a Canadian.

4/23/2015 03:01:45 pm

Yes indeed,I am commenting in reaction the usual professional holier than thou aficionados.
Do you know the etymology of "revisionism"?.There is no historiography without revisionism.
I am not interested in a debate over Nazi Germany and the true nature of National Socialism.I am not a world war 2 fetishist.If you know anything about history and politics,you should stay away from the moralistic approach,because it is a double edged sword.
The accusation of racism,anti-Semitism,Nazi apologism,is a canard but you are more than welcome to stick by it.

4/23/2015 03:35:36 pm

Tara says:

"Yes indeed,I am commenting in reaction the usual professional holier than thou aficionados."

Yawn and irony all rolled up together.

"Do you know the etymology of "revisionism"?.There is no historiography without revisionism."

Yes I do and do you know how what I called "so-called revisionists" hijacked the word and used it to help along their lies and hate?

"I am not interested in a debate over Nazi Germany and the true nature of National Socialism.I am not a world war 2 fetishist"

Interesting choice of words. But of course the actual nature of Nazi Germany and National Socialism is entirely relevant to the evaluation of Veronica Clack's various works. And if you are not interested why are you commenting?

"If you know anything about history and politics,you should stay away from the moralistic approach,because it is a double edged sword."

If you mean in evaluating historical events , weighing sources etc., that is simply the way History should be done. I have no trouble with anyone judging historical events. As for being a double edged sword; so what. Bad behavior is bad behavior.

"The accusation of racism,anti-Semitism,Nazi apologism,is a canard but you are more than welcome to stick by it."

In this case, Veronica Clack, the accusation of being a Nazi apologist etc., is merely right and not a canard.

4/23/2015 10:00:23 pm

"Yawn and irony all rolled up together."

Probably more like sarcasm and cynicism,but feel free to interpret what I am trying to say.This is a court of public opinion.Readers are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.You are a lucky man,you live in the beautiful and comfortable world of moral superiority and absolute certainty.You don't have anything to learn,and complexity doesn't seem to be a concern,since you already know everything.I am almost envious,almost,because on second thought,you world must be so boring

4/23/2015 02:43:50 pm

Shane Sullivan.

Lets take a rational non emotional approach.
"Clark denies the racism of the German Nazi party on the grounds that Nazis suffered the presence of ethnic minorities...".

fair enough,but does that systematically imply that she is racist?.She may be wrong,but this is not a justification for labeling her as racist,especially when she denies it.I have met and debated a fair share of Nazi apologists,holocaust deniers and racist ideologists.Most of them have no problem whatsoever,at wearing their racism and prejudices as a badge of Honor.We don't have to agree with Clark to give her the benefit of the doubt.I despise totalitarianism in any shape or form,this is precisely why I am vigorously opposed to the "thought crime" gymnastics.

4/23/2015 03:47:03 pm

I can't deny any of that. Believing that Hitler thought highly of non-Germans is extremely weird and contrary to his own words, but it doesn't automatically make one a racist. Of course, I didn't call her one; I (jokingly) called her a fascist, and she's made it quite clear that she feels you can be the latter without being the former.

So the question becomes, how strongly does she believe her own words? If she really disapproves of multiculturalism as she says she does, then I'll point out once again that that's widely considered to be characteristic of fascism. And if she doesn't believe that fascists/Nazis were racist, then I didn't call her a racist, even in exaggerated joke form.

4/23/2015 10:18:22 pm

Shane.

Thanks for the feedback.Let me get this straight,I am not defending Clark`s opinions,but I don't feel we have the right to question her motivations.We may question her tacky Nazi imagery,her use of semantics,her morbid fascination for Hitler and the ambiguous romanticism attached to it,but I consider that it is not enough to label her as racist.Clark is entitled to reveal the complexity of this particular episode of world war 2,but she should never forget that,The third Reich was a shameful and disgraceful chapter in Germany history

4/24/2015 01:44:44 am

"If Veronica K. Clark is wrong on a specific issue,prove her wrong"

Unfortunately, fringe theorists in history tend to take advantage of the basic fact that, on any reasonably large scale, the past is very complex. It is perfectly possible, at the ends of the probability bell-curve, to find evidence which appears to contradict the general understanding- but it is essential to see that evidence in the wider context, and judge its significance within that context.

4/24/2015 02:59:23 am

I wouldn't put revisionist historians and fringe theorists (the new age,ancient aliens,paranormal "researchers,loonies and charlatans) in the same bag.Some revisionist historians are neck deep into this ridiculous subculture,but not all of them.So what are you proposing?.Should we use the same line of "argumentation" used by wackos on the fringe?.They call us "haters" because we dare to question and debunk their lunacies.In return should we take the lazy approach,and resort to petty name calling?. I don't think we should apply to the same standards,unless we are eager to define ourselves as psychological hazards

Rick

4/23/2015 02:05:02 pm

Where is EP at?

4/23/2015 03:54:09 pm

I know, I was thinking that same thing! This thread would be at the 70, 80 post mark if he were around. =P

mhe

4/23/2015 04:10:49 pm

I was wondering the same thing, it's been a while since he has commented on anything.

Mark L

4/23/2015 08:22:30 pm

Man, that is one angry blogger!

Hypatia

4/24/2015 02:21:52 am

Wow is right. Doesn't juxtaposing cute pictures of dogs next to Hitler make him look sooo cute! I only had patience to transcribe her slowly enunciated emphasized sentence that says it all:
"My thesis has always been that the ever racism of Hitler and national-socialism has been so grossly over-exaggerated as to be comical."
Very funny indeed, for someone who claims not to deny the Holocaust and claims to have a masters in history. It was not about race, it was not about religion, it was not about ethnicity, it was not about ideology, it was not about stealing and looting, so what was it about? Were those millions of people systematically exterminated by the state because they did not share his artistic taste?
This woman is unhinged nazi apologist, but aren't they all.

4/24/2015 02:43:01 am

I listened to the Red Ice radio program with Veronica Clark.
While she claims to present and reveal the complexity of the Nazi regime,she is guilty of reaching extremely simplistic conclusions about the very nature of National Socialism.Of course,alliances were made between the third Reich and "non Aryan" minorities,such as Indian independentists, Africans,Asians and the like,but these were strategic and geopolitical collaborations,that had no influence whatsoever on the larger doctrine of Aryan superiority and racial purity.

At this point,it is irrelevant to define if Veronica Clark is racist or not (personally I don't think she is racist,she seems to be honest,she truly believes her own hyperbole),she is a third grade armchair historian,who is drinking her own kool aid.

Veronica Clark,if you are reading this,you can put the multi cultural- ethnic minorities compatible lipstick on the Nazi pig.In the end,it doesn't change anything to the doctrine of Aryan superiority and racial purity.There is nothing "good" about a regime that implemented a program of euthanasia,leading to the systematic killing of mentally and physically disabled patients,living in institutions in Germany and German-annexed territories.Nazi Germany as the epitome of social harmony and altruistic governmental principles,you need to try harder....

As to your statement about " Fascism is the nemesis of the Jews...",I don't think you are aware that prominent Pro Zionist Jewish leaders,such as
Ze'ev Jabotinsky (among others) were supportive of Italian Fascism,and enjoyed extremely positive relations with Benito Mussolini,and leaders-members of the Fascist intelligentsia across Europe.

4/24/2015 03:16:10 am

So, Tara, if I read you correctly and understand your obvious omission among the victims of the Nazi regime: are the murders, executions and incarcerations of millions of Jewish Europeans not worth mentioning because some Italian Jewish zionists supposedly had 'positive relations' with Mussolini?

4/24/2015 06:28:48 am

I read Tara's statement as merely a suggestion that Fascism, per se, was not the nemesis of the Jews. Not only did anti-Semitism spread far beyond Fascism, within Fascism the most vicious expressions of anti-Semitism were not at all universal.

4/24/2015 08:25:21 am

Feel free to put words into my mouth,I couldn't care less.I Intentionally "omitted" to talk about the Jewish victims,as I did for any other victims,except for my reference to the euthanasia program.I have no intention on talking about the Nazi atrocities on the larger scale,this was not the central point in my comment.I was merely addressing some of Clark`s statements.

4/24/2015 10:16:41 am

"...she seems to be honest..." Are you kidding me?
Perhaps you should put your comments on her site.

4/24/2015 01:22:20 pm

May I recommend: 'Survival at Auschwitz,' by Primo Levi, 1958.
"In 1943, Primo Levi, a twenty-five-year-old chemist and a Jewish Italian citizen, was arrested by Italian fascists and deported from his native Turin to Auschwitz. 'Survival in Auschwitz' is Levi's classic account of his ten months in the German death camp."

4/24/2015 06:55:32 am

"While she claims to present and reveal the complexity of the Nazi regime, she is guilty of reaching extremely simplistic conclusions about the very nature of National Socialism."

And that for me illustrates the distinction between revisionism (attempting to reinterpret the evidence in a way which seems more accurate) and fringe research, a subset of revisionism characterised by MISinterpretation of the evidence.

4/25/2015 12:03:09 am

Personally,what I found absolutely astonishing,is the level of hysteria
in dealing with revisionists,holocaust deniers and the like.Most of you are perfectly incapable to accept the very principle of freedom of expression.Nazi apologists are intellectually and ideologically perverted,but that doesn't mean we have to send them behind bars,or prevent them for expressing themselves.

When you denounce the oppressive and criminal nature of Fascist - Nazi ideologies,but react and behave in such tyrannical manner,you expose the pernicious essence of political correctness.
Ideologically,you are as dangerous and hypocritical as the individuals on the other side.

4/25/2015 02:56:08 am

The last I noticed, you are perfectly free to blab apologies for nazi apologists. If you do not want people to contradict you and express their dislike and disgust of nazi, fascist and totalitarian ideologies under whose regime freedom of speech would not exist, I recommend you publish on the Stormfront sites.

4/25/2015 03:12:38 am

Hypatia.

The only argument left for you,is to call me a "Nazi sympathizer" or a "Nazi apologists" apologist. Frat boy,you are hilarious.Do you honestly expect me to get traumatized over your childish "rhetorical argumentation"?.I am sorry to say,but your hyper sensibility offends me as much as the Nazi apologists lunacy.

4/25/2015 08:39:24 am

Glad you think I'm showing very good sense. It's more than I would expect from a dissembling half-faced swashty cack.

4/25/2015 09:20:35 am

Hypathia.

Frat boy,You don't have the intellectual bandwidth to spank the " half-faced swashty cack".Now get back,in the corner and keep whining.You may come back later,and do my nails.

4/25/2015 12:01:11 pm

Sorry, Swashty Cack, I'm not into spanking, but your friend Veronica-the-Erotonaziac can help you with those urges. She has a few Gestapo-uniformed friends to do your nails too, in case I don't show up.

Colin Hunt

4/24/2015 06:16:07 am

I did listen to Clark's unstructured rambling (please, somebody, buy her a course on presentation techniques!), To me, it only made one point, and that is she is confused and lacks historical knowledge and research. She should accept well established history before making inflammatory accusations against others who are doing nothing more than relating proven history. As is often said, you cannot rewrite proven, established, history, but she seems to want to try. good luck! Better than decades of the Worlds historians and established evidence. Go for it, put your credibility out there for discussion, that's what you are challenging, and stop the childish acrimonious attack on those who may offer real evidence against your ideas/theories/beliefs in a raciest regime, because, not matter what you say, that is what it itself declared.

4/25/2015 03:38:23 am

I can't really listen to any more of this, but Clark has a new video attacking me, and in it she is left speechless by the idea that the Holocaust involved industrialized extermination, and she asserts that the Jews instigated Poland into starting World War II, absolving Hitler from blame. She has difficulty distinguishing long term and structural causes from proximate causes, and I think it's not productive to deal with her any longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx0W3KSbmWg

4/25/2015 06:50:14 am

Oh, my! I go away for a few days, and this happens... :)

4/25/2015 10:33:36 am

Without you around, we had to keep up the post count up somehow! =P

Seeing Eye

4/26/2015 03:42:37 am

Looks like this article and the comments have missed the obvious about Hitler and the Nazis. It took Billions of dollars in 1930-1945 dollars to build up the military might of the Nazis. Thousands of tanks, planes, bombs, rockets, artillery, guns, ammunition, millions of soldiers who had to be paid, etc. Where did all that money come from? Certainly not from small nickel and dime mom and pop contributions and the selling of Nazis pamphlets at rallies. Always follow the money trail. At the end of the trail, you will find out what groups and banks were behind the Nazis rise to power. Without the money, the war machine would come to a screeching halt! No money, no war. Open your eyes. Look behind the curtain. The real power is being hidden from you. Do your own research. Follow the money trail. Don’t get trapped in small meaningless issues. Think Big!

Jamie Eckles link

4/26/2015 07:37:15 am

How can one NOT be snarky with the passionately credulous? I love a good debate with revisionists, they always end up attempting to make their point from emotion, instead of facts.

Steve Winnicki

4/27/2015 04:49:50 am

Information is subject to interpretation by the intelligence of the individual. What you believe is determined by how you perceive....

4/28/2015 07:31:06 am

Wow, that's deep. I bet you're really smart.

4/27/2015 04:24:22 pm

God help us, the places you have to visit Jason. I had to Google this woman. She has a blog which seems to be nothing much but pictures of some German singer. But according to Wikipedia she has two associate degrees – not being American I wouldn't have a clue what an associate degree is but neither of them is in history. So it's possibly a mistake to call her a historian, revisionist or otherwise. Revisionist whack job might be a better, if meaner label.

Joe Scales

4/28/2015 04:34:17 am

One common thread I see with Holocaust deniers/minimizers... is that they all want it to happen again.

4/28/2015 07:34:04 am

That's not quite true. Quite a few of them actually start with the conviction that the Holocaust is too much (even against the Jews!) and proceed to reason that Hitler and the Nazis (whom, of course, they consider to be wise and benevolent) couldn't possibly have done anything like that.

Jamie Eckles

4/28/2015 04:52:48 pm

Most deniers go quiet when you ask them about the Porajmos. They don't have a clue about it. I fully expect that in 30 years people will deny that the genocide in Rwanda happened.

4/28/2015 11:07:18 pm

More small minds trapped in small meaningless issues. Follow the money trail and find out who was funding the Nazis. The Military machine of the Nazis cost $272 Billion in 1945 dollars. That's equivalent to over $4 Trillion in 2015 dollars. Find out where the money came from and you will find out who was behind the Holocaust. The trail will lead you to some surprising places.

4/29/2015 06:25:42 am

@Seeing Eye

> The Military machine of the Nazis cost $272 Billion in 1945 dollars.

What is your source for this information? I can find nothing but blog posts that themselves give no source.

> Find out where the money came from and you will find out who was behind the Holocaust.

According to those blogs that post this figure, the United States spent $341 billion on WW II -- way more than Germany spent. According to your all-seeingness, does that mean there was a more powerful puppet master behind the US involvement in WW II?

4/29/2015 08:16:55 am

Yes that is the source I found. http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.com/2005/04/financial-cost-of-world-war-ii1u.html
Maybe it was something more or less. WIKI says During World War II, a total of about 15 million soldiers served in the German Army, of whom about seven million became casualties. Plus those in the Air Force and Navy, probably gets close to 20 million Germans in the war.

So we are talking about hundreds of Billions of dollars in 1940-1945 dollars which comes to at least $4 to $5 Trillion in 2015 dollars. You don't get that kind of money from selling copies of Mein Kampf at Nazi rallies.

There is only one source of that kind of money. International Banks. International Bankers always profit from wars. Mom and Pop buying a few war bonds, does not get you that kind of money.

4/29/2015 08:35:57 am

@Seeing Eye

You still give no source for your figures, you merely repeat them as true. Are facts not important to your theory?

> International Bankers always profit from wars.

Are you suggesting the Nazis didn't want war, didn't set up work camps on their own initiative, didn't think up genocide themselves, didn't instigate any of that? Was it all the idea of International Bankers?

State your thesis clearly.

> Mom and Pop buying a few war bonds does not get you that kind of money.

And who buys up the trillions of government debt today? Mom and Pop? Of course not. It's bought up by institutional investors such as banks, insurance companies, investment syndicates, pension funds, other governments...all of which wer active before the war.

4/29/2015 09:41:40 am

Terry
You want to argue trivial numbers. Maybe the war cost Germany $200 Billion or $250 Billion or $300 Billion. Why don’t you cite a source and we will work with that number? Any way you cut it, it amounts to $Trillions in today’s dollars.

So the question is who provided that kind of money? You don’t get that kind of money from nickel and dime donations from Grandma and Grandpa. That kind of money has to be raised from large International banks.

Of course the Military-Industrial-Banking complex profits from wars. It has been that way for a very long time. Eisenhower warned of that in his farewell speech. It’s still that way today. You would have to have your eyes wide shut not to see that. For sure 4 Star General Eisenhower saw it and warned about it.

The point is that war is a business as Major General Smedley Butler, two time Medal of Honor recipient, described in his 1935 book War Is A Racket.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

That sums up my point very well.

MartyR

4/29/2015 12:22:25 pm

Seeing Eye, I think you've gone off point. The conversation was about cuddly Nazis, not economics.

4/29/2015 12:41:08 pm

Marty, The Nazis could not have come to power without the people who were backing Hitler with Money. It's always about the Money. No Money, No Power. Hitler was a Front Man. People with a lot of Money funded Hitler and the Nazis Party. In 1940 dollars we are talking $Billions. In 2015 dollars, we are talking $Trillions. Follow the Money Trail and you will find out who was controlling the Monster in power. Peel the layers of the Onion. Look behind the Curtain. You will find Money Monsters who control the Power Monster they put into Power.

4/29/2015 03:43:16 pm

@Seeing Eye

You just repeat your non-facts and ignore criticisms of your logic. I conclude your point is not made -- not even close.

But I note you imply Hitler was not the agent of Nazi atrocities. You explicitly say he was a front man. This gets back to the post's point, as MartyR says, that Nazis aren't really bad guys.

Tell us, Seeing Eye, when Hitler was a young nobody, writing Mein Kampf in JAIL, putting down all those terrible thoughts about the so-called Jewish Problem, stating the weak and sick should be exterminated, and on and on, even THEN he was a mouthpiece for hidden powers? In jail???

Is that really your thesis?

4/29/2015 11:41:29 pm

You offer NO FACTS. So how much did it cost Germany to put 20 million men under arms (Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.) and build the biggest war machine Europe had ever seen. Obviously Billions in 1940 dollars or Trillions in 2015 dollars. How did the Nazis do that without access to tremendous amounts of money?

Of course Hitler was the Agent of Atrocities. Of course Nazis were bad guys. They were immoral bastards. That’s self-evident. I never said they were not. You are putting words in my mouth I never said.

Once Hitler was rising in power there came a point where he could not go farther and build a huge Military Machine without vast sums of money. At that point large sums of money came his way. My point is that the only logical source of that kind of money is the International Banks. You can’t raise that kind of money selling copies of Mein Kampf on street corners.

4/30/2015 05:23:33 am

@Seeing Eye

You are making claims, you need facts. You have none. It is a classic fringe evasion to demand fact-checkers do your research for you.

Your innuendo -- and that's all you have -- echoed anti-semitic propaganda. Since you state you are not going down that road, I am satisfied.

4/30/2015 05:55:33 am

You say there are no facts that Banks funded the Nazis. Here are some facts. This is just the tip of the Iceberg.

American Banks Funded the Nazis

http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-banks-funded-the-nazis/31983

One of Britain’s main newspapers – the Guardian – reported in 2004:

George Bush’s grandfather [and George H.W. Bush's father, and George W. Bush's grandfather], the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings … continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act

***

The documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

***

Bush was a founding member of the bank [UBC] … The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.

***

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

***

UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.

Indeed, banks often finance both sides of wars.

4/30/2015 06:19:40 am

More Facts

http://www.businesspundit.com/10-global-businesses-that-worked-with-the-nazis/

Chase Bank
On reflection, the collusion of Chase Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase), with the Nazis isn’t so surprising. One of its major shareholders, J.D. Rockefeller, had directly funded Nazi eugenics experiments before the war. Between 1936 and 1941, Chase and other US banks helped the Germans raise over $20 million in dollar exchange, netting over $1.2 million in commission — of which Chase pocketed a cool $500,000. That was a lot of money at the time. The fact that the German marks used to fund the operation came from Jews who had fled Nazi Germany didn’t seem to bother Chase — in fact they upped their business after Kristallnacht (the night Jews throughout Nazi Germany and Austria were systematically attacked by mobs in 1938). Chase also froze the accounts of French Jews in occupied France before the Nazis had even gotten around to asking them to.
Ford
Henry Ford himself was a notorious anti-Semite, publishing a collection of articles under the charming title, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Ford even sponsored his own newspaper which he used as a propaganda piece, blaming the Jews for World War I, and in 1938 he received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal Nazi Germany awarded to foreign citizens.

Ford’s German operation produced one third of the militarized trucks used by the German army during the war, with much of the labor done by prisoners. What’s even more shocking is that Ford may have used forced labor as early as 1940 — when the American arm of the company still had complete control.

Other sources
Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power, 1919-1933 Paperback – October 1, 1997 by James Pool

Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler Paperback – June, 1976 by Antony C. Sutton

4/29/2015 04:30:34 pm

When I see phrases like "international bankers" or the like I just know it's a dog whistle for "Jews".

4/29/2015 11:51:40 pm

Jamie, The majority of International Bankers are NOT Jewish. A minority are Jewish. Don’t race bait me. Don’t put your words in my mouth. And don’t go the next step and say I’m a holocaust denier. I’m NOT! And don’t go the next step and say I hate Israel. I don’t! I have many friends I work with who are Jewish and I like them and they like me.

Now, if the International Banks did not finance Hitler, then who do you say did? Let’s hear your facts.

4/30/2015 06:33:03 am

@Seeing Eye
> You say there are no facts that Banks funded the Nazis.

*sigh*

I did not say that. I said YOU had no facts. You were making assertions without evidence. We had to prod you into backing up your statements. And you've been condescending the whole time.

Please desist. You have hijacked this comments section with an off-topic digression that seems to have no point but to exercise your curiously irritable egoism. It's embarrassing.

4/30/2015 07:03:07 am

Terry the censor
I have presented just a few of the facts on how International Banks helped to fund the Nazis rise to power. You ignored all of those facts and offered no facts in return on how you believe the Nazis were funded. And I'm not off topic. The issue was the Nazis and how they came to power and funding was a critical part of their rise to power. And who elected you Censor of this Forum? Free speech still stands, at least for now.

4/30/2015 07:05:16 am

Free Speech has to do with governmental censorship, not what is allowed on a private blog dude. You have no rights here in that regard. We post at Jason's pleasure.

4/30/2015 07:12:04 am

@Seeing Eye

A censor is a Roman judge.

I find you in contempt of rational discussion.

4/30/2015 07:51:33 am

More like Terry the Terror,

Who elected you the Judge? Take your seat in the Court Room like everyone else.

4/30/2015 08:10:22 am

@Seeing Eye
> Who elected you the Judge?

I was acclaimed.

4/30/2015 11:18:05 am

It was by royal proclamation, by me, I also just proclaimed myself Lord God Emperor of this thread, but only for the purposes of proclaiming Terry as Royal Censor Extraordinair!

4/30/2015 12:03:43 pm

It is an honour to serve.

4/30/2015 12:04:03 pm

Jamie Eckles, "It was by royal proclamation, by me, I also just proclaimed myself Lord God Emperor of this thread, but only for the purposes of proclaiming Terry as Royal Censor Extraordinair!"

Sounds a lot like you have put yourself in the same category as a "Little Hitler."

4/30/2015 03:22:23 pm

Only to the sarcasm challenged.

4/30/2015 10:08:33 am

The ballot box must have been stuffed with phony ballots. There needs to be a recall election so that justice is righted.

4/30/2015 10:54:34 am

@Seeing Eye
SE: Who elected you the Judge?
TTC: I was acclaimed.
SE: The ballot box must have been stuffed with phony ballots.

*sigh*

"An acclamation, in its most common sense, is a form of election that does not use a ballot."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acclamation

Eye, come on, dude, this is sad! You can't apply snark to words whose meaning you don't even know!

Please stop -- I'm starting to feel guilty about besting you.

4/30/2015 12:00:20 pm

Terry The Terror, You are a Legend only in your own mind.

4/30/2015 07:01:56 am

I'm just saying it's a common dog whistle. Do you even know what Mefo bills were? You might want to read up some more on the economies all over the world of the 1930s.. It was that, and other forms of fiscal stimulous along with a huge military buildup (they were built there, not elsewhere, indicating what an industrial power Germany still was) that gaven them such an economic boost. Lets face it, Fascism and big business love each other. The same thing happened in Japan during that time.

Dan Hall

11/11/2019 08:35:51 pm

You look like a communist am I right Im not taking sides unless your a communist in which case I feel sorry for you .

11/11/2019 10:18:35 pm

It took you 4 years to come up with that? Hell, I had forgotten that I had subscribed to this thread. The two of us are the only people reading it now!

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.