Who Is Gordon Duff?

[vanlose kid]

something about AtK's main source in the Wikileaks Question. hmmm.

Gordon Duff, Friend or Foe?
This post is dedicated to the discussion of an issue raised in the comments of Wikileaks, Israel, and Iran.

Who is Gordon Duff? Are he and the network of friends and colleagues who interact closely with him what they appear to be? What do they appear to be? Are they potential allies of White ethnonationalism, or enemies?

Readers are invited to provide evidence and arguments. Comments already made on the subject are reproduced here (clickable links and blockquoting added):
fellist said...

I don't have the time these days to really read deeply on these stories and come to an educated view of my own but I have been impressed lately by the Veterans Today guys, Gordon Duff and Jeff Gates. They have a few analyses up already and I'd be inclined to give them more credence than most:

WIKILEAKS, READING ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI’S TAKE

12/04/2010 05:11:00 AM
fellist said...

Peter B. Collins interview of Gordon Duff here from August:

The World According to Gordon Duff

In the first few minutes Duff goes into his and Gates's background and talks about the backgrounds of the writers and sources for his site. It looks like something of a fight-back by patriotic elements within the intelligence services of various countries run by Jews for Jews.

12/09/2010 07:29:00 AM
Tanstaafl said...

I'm not sure about the fighting-back part. Duff states, right off the bat, that before 1993 he "was working for a nasty, unnamed government agency, writing the same kind of deceptive things I do today, apparently." He then shares his suspicion that many of the VT writers and editors are on the payroll of intelligence agencies. Later he says half the staff are muslims and "the rest are jews". He says he gets phone calls from Mossad people. He claims high level US military contacts and has tea regularly with the Pakistani/ISI elite.

Are these things true? If they are, how does this reconcile with the heretical things he says concerning jews and Israel? Why do these other people (except maybe the Pakis) not run away from him shrieking about his "hate"? He says Wikileaks is disinformation. I wonder if he and VT are disinformation.

And what to make of this: The Heretics’ Hour: Gordon Duff, Prescott Bush and the interview that wasn’t : Voice of Reason Broadcast Network?

How familiar are you with Duff's work? Does he propound, as Yeager puts it at the end of her podcast, that "the nazis are now the zionists, the zionists are the nazis, there's no difference between them, then they have the whole theory that the nazis and the zionists were conspiring back then, and they're conspiring now, and that we can blame it all in the end on the nazis after all"?

12/10/2010 09:25:00 PM
fellist said...

It’s clear form the lists of editors and contributors posted at VT that nothing like half of the staff are Muslims or Jews, so I have to assume he’s talking figuratively there: VT has a lot of Muslim and Jewish input alongside Christian/regular American input. As to why a self-identifying Jew such as Alan Sabrosky would be involved with VT, well he has heretical views on Israel too (laying 9/11 at her feet), and presumably that’s true of the other Jews there. It’s not unprecedented, many writers at antiwar.com are Jewish and are content with or even add to its generally hostile view of Israel. And while VT writers are unusually critical of Israel I don’t think they really discuss the JQ in its essence a la MacDonald, say, who posts at Vdare and Alt.Right alongside ‘tolerant’ Jewish writers, despite his going deeper into forbidden territory than even Jeff Gates does.

What makes you think disinfo? What do you believe the aim of that disinfo may be? It seems to me the most likely effect of VT on its readers would be to undermine the imperial program, promote an America First foreign policy, and bring into light and focus criticism on the Israel lobby / War Party. If it’s disinfo rather than solid info it still would appear to be a project of rogue patriotic elements within the security services of the US and would-be allies.

I haven’t listened yet to Carolyn Yeager’s latest. Personality /style clash? Doesn’t Carolyn state on which of his comments or articles she bases her characterisation of Duff’s views?

I haven't read anything by Duff suggesting that the Nazis are around today and running things in concert with the Zionists. (obviously )

12/11/2010 06:47:00 AM
Anonymous said...

This is Duff's main tactic; make White America the real guilty party in this chess game.

12/11/2010 04:09:00 PM
fellist said...

That last show of Yeager’s didn’t discuss Duff or his views much, focusing more on a representative article about the alleged connections between US bankers including Prescott Bush and the TR. She’ll tackle Duff next week she says. I like them both so I’m inclined to think it was more a misunderstanding than anything else, Duff too quick to dismiss her when Yeager, perhaps in retrospect ill advised, pretended never to have heard the stories Duff had every right to expect she’d be familiar with. As Yeager says, those stories are pretty hard to avoid.

***

Anonymous on Duff ... bullshit! Duff hosts only one writer, Michael Leon, with any pronounced tendency to talk about race in a standard thus anti-White way. And comments are not censored -- you're free to disagree.

And I seem to recall Duff posting a video that showed David Duke to be a much more reasonable man than the celebrated liberal interviewing him on some TV show. Duff's aim, stated quite plainly if I recall correctly, was to encourage his readers to question their training and consider whether Duke was really the bad guy of the pair.

12/13/2010 02:35:00 AM
Anonymous said...

Bullshit? I'll prove it with a simple link. This is simply a small sampling of the "bullshit" this Duff character engages in.

GORDON DUFF: IN MOTION: THE PLOT TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES : Veterans Today
Anyone who doesn’t think the real heart of American politics has always been racism is a liar. Family values means “white” family values. African Americans know shame at the relief they have felt seeing Muslims targeted for persecution. Every political position in today’s America is derived from institutionalized racism, be it immigration, health care or “constitution.”

When a return to the “constitution” is brought up, by people who wouldn’t know the document from a Croatian take-out menu, the reality is always race, fear, hate and envy, the glue that holds American society prisoner.

Decades ago, and even more recently during our last presidential election, African Americans were represented as animals, “goyim” to the Jews. Now we play “Kill the camel jockey.” Is this why the Christianized army we sent to Afghanistan murders innocent civilians for sport?
You see where this guy is coming from. He attacks White Americans as stupid morons who are persecuters of blacks and other races. He speaks this way constantly. He hates "White America." All this bile he spews against "Israel" always really comes back as White America's fault. Germany is another one of his little attack subjects.

Yeager was right to call Duff out on his BS. Good for her. She smelled a rat. It is called good discernment.

12/13/2010 10:58:00 PM
Anonymous said...

Yeager posted this over at VOR:

The Heretics’ Hour: Gordon Duff, Prescott Bush and the interview that wasn’t
I was glad shortly afterward and I get more glad all the time because it would never have come off. I’ve been reading some of his older articles and listening to some past interviews; it’s now quite clear to me he’s working for somebody. His zingers are usually directed at Hitler/Nazis/Third Reich and Fox New/Rupert Murdoch. Those are Alan Hart’s favorite bad boys too, and a few others I could name. Just coincidence?
Exactly right.

12/13/2010 11:29:00 PM
Until recently I had not heard of Gordon Duff, the details of Prescott Bush's links to German National Socialism, and have not delved into heterodox theories about 9/11. I have however already started to form a negative impression about Duff.

In her podcast Yeager mentions two recent holocaust-related articles by Duff. She may be referring to Who Speaks Up For Holocaust Survivors, dated 13 Nov 2010, and Israel Opens Door For New Look At Holocaust, dated 7 Jun 2010. The first is a condemnation of fraudulent holocaust survivors. Duff describes the problem in a section titled "Stolen Valor":
There are concentration camp survivors living in America, people who suffered incomprehensibly at the hands of the Nazis. However, there are also, in America we now know, tens of thousands or more who claim falsely to be of the heroic numbers from that period and numbers inside Israel that are unimaginable. Why are these people not punished?
Why indeed. Is it because jews won't defend their valor, or because there is no valor to defend? The fraudsters are mostly jews after all, and clearly don't need any help helping themselves. Duff's moralizing most likely comes across to them as an unwelcome and sneaky kind of attack. The sin is "holocaust denial", not to mention his calling attention to specifically jewish fraud.

The basis for Duff's moralizing is what I find notable. Duff could no doubt sincerely claim that he's defending the "real" "heroes". In Duff's view "the nazis" and "racism" are the epitome of evil. His second holocaust article makes this even clearer:
Continual and unending references to the holocaust as a rationale for resettlement of “impure racial stock” deeply parallels the themes of “Jewish-Marxist” betrayal of the Kaiser’s Germany bringing about defeat in World War I. Hitler contended that the Rothschild’s used their financial control over Britain and France to manipulate the Treaty of Versailles to the extent where the Jewish banking house would be able to loot Germany of its assets and put a communist government in place there as it had in Russia. These theories were quickly translated into racial policies based on eugenics, a bizarre pseudo-science developed in the United States by the Bush and Harriman families.
Duff provides his metric of immorality, the "Hitler Scale":
Ask any German, “What year did Hitler go crazy” and you will get an answer. Many despise this political views but many alsoadmire his accomplishments, often settling on 1938 as the watershed. Today, every nation can have the “Hitler scale” placed against it. In America, 9/11 brought on 1934 withPatriot Acts taking us to 1937 and the invasion of Iraq moving us to 1939. Israel hit 1939 with the Six Day War, but internally operated in pre-1935 areas until the murder of Prime Minister Rabin. Recent events would put Israel at 1941.
So zionists are wrong to the extent that they emulate "the nazis", Duff's gold standard of evil. He dates the wrongness back to 1934, apparently seeing a Germany run by Germans, for Germans, and not jews, as bad. After 60 years of post-war pro-jewish education and propaganda such a mindset is common enough. But how is it possible that an outspoken, well-informed critic such as Duff, someone who clearly sees and opposes the manipulative, corrosive, criminal behavior of zionists, cannot simultaneously see the similar behavior of non-zionist jews? How is it possible for someone who sees the US as controlled by zionists and blames 9/11 on zionists accepts the conventional wisdom on "racism" and "the nazis" as promulgated by self-interested diaspora jews?

Could it be that Duff only attacks what he does, they way he does, because, in the end, he's most concerned about what's good for jews? Does he make attacks he thinks someone, somewhere will make anyway, but in a way that pulls the punch, obscuring the full nature of the problem, and reserving the ultimate condemnation for "nazis" who would venture deeper?

I'm curious.
Labels: gordon duff

from "http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/"

the blog's burb says:

WTF

A pro-White perspective on jewish influence, globalism, the immigration invasion and islamic jihad - and the tendency toward treason they inspire.

Stop immigration. Eject the invaders. Hang the traitors.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

Live not by lies. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

*

source link, this post *//http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2010/12/gordon-duff-friend-or-foe.html

*

[AlicetheKurious]

Question to mods: what do you think of vanlose kid's source?

[AlicetheKurious]

Here's another gem from the same blog, from the "editor":

Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites

In Moving Forward Prozium cites me favorably as one of the handful of people who write about White Nationalism in the blogosphere on a semi-regular basis. I'm nonplussed and will respond by expressing some recent thoughts.

Late last week I met Prozium and a few other pro-Whites I have until now known only online. I'm neither a leader nor a joiner, and have for a variety of other reasons so far been disinclined to engage openly. I'm having a change of heart lately and like Prozium I am becoming more interested in activity and collaboration offline.

Before anyone else bothers I'll point out myself that the focus of my writing here hasn't been on White nationalism per se, but mainly on jewish influence and the White/jew faultline, the purpose being to educate myself and my few visitors to various double standards and acts of jewish malfeasance. I'm growing tired of this, disgusted might be a better word, but it's something I felt a need to do. I had climbed similar learning curves on islam and immigration in the years before, and my more recent focus has been a logical continuation of that self-education. It has also been a response to various anti-anti-semites who have since my awakening come with nothing but disinformation and dementia (see Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin and White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism).

I am prepared now not only to join Prozium and state openly that my ultimate goal is a jew-free, White ethnostate in North America, but also to say that I've come to this position after deep consideration, having gathered substantial information and arguments in support. I understand that racialism and separatism are among the most frowned upon concepts in today's public discourse, never mind criticizing jews. What I can also see clearly however is that the same rotten thoroughly judaized regime that makes this true also advances and celebrates anti-Whitism and the slow genocide of my kind, which has only accelerated as we've become more deracinated and obsequious. Now that the regime's nature is obvious to me I cannot do anything but oppose it and share what I've learned with others.

What Whites need to survive is at least one place where we are not guilt-tripped, harrassed, mugged, raped, murdered and ultimately bred out of existence by shitheads who hate us. We have never had a problem dealing with our own shitheads. It's with the non-White shitheads, and only in the last few generations, that we get all tangled up. What I know now is that it started with jewish emancipation. What Whites need to thrive is a culture composed and controlled by our own kind, exhibiting a confident and positive self-image. This has been less and less the case as jewish ownership and influence in our media, art, and entertainment has increased.

Whether we remove ourselves, or those who hate us, or some combination of both is not as important to me as the recognition that the status quo cannot endure. If we do nothing we will surely disappear, so why not resist? It is already open season on Whites, despite our disproportionate representation in the police and military. As we lose control of these institutions and our political and financial influence wanes we will see the hostility and violence against us increase dramatically.

A cold Winter comes. We must make preparations in order to see Spring.

Labels: white nationalism

Sorry, I won't link. It's not hard to find at vanlose kid's source, for those who are so inclined.

[barracuda]

Question to mods: what do you think of vanlose kid's source?

I think it can be considered as a hate site, and I would advise against using information aquired there to buttress arguments via some "guilt by association" tactic. If that's the best you can do regarding Gordon Duff, I'd say it falls rather short of convincing. White nationalists on the web can be found supporting all manner of individuals who might never reciprocate with their interest or support, so locating such a discussion hardly augments the charges of disinformation or anti-semitism against Duff in a productive way. Any information from sites like this should be clearly labeled as POISON, imho.

However, that being said, a closer look at the site that Gordon Duff uses as his primary outlet for publishing seems more fruitful. Peapolz Media, the umbrella company and owner of the Veterans Today site looks suspicious as hell, as do the various job boards and mortagage companies which form the bulk of the revenue sources for the sites.

[AlicetheKurious]

...a closer look at the site that Gordon Duff uses as his primary outlet for publishing seems more fruitful. Peapolz Media, the umbrella company and owner of the Veterans Today site looks suspicious as hell, as do the various job boards and mortagage companies which form the bulk of the revenue sources for the sites.

Yeah? Sibel Edmonds recently joined the staff of Veterans Today. Does that mean she's caca now, too?

[barracuda]

I wouldn't say that it adds some luster or caché to her resume, no. But then, I've never been much of a fan in the first place.

[justdrew]

Question to mods: what do you think of vanlose kid's source?

I think it can be considered as a hate site, and I would advise against using information aquired there to buttress arguments via some "guilt by association" tactic. If that's the best you can do regarding Gordon Duff, I'd say it falls rather short of convincing. White nationalists on the web can be found supporting all manner of individuals who might never reciprocate with their interest or support, so locating such a discussion hardly augments the charges of disinformation or anti-semitism against Duff in a productive way. Any information from sites like this should be clearly labeled as POISON, imho.

However, that being said, a closer look at the site that Gordon Duff uses as his primary outlet for publishing seems more fruitful. Peapolz Media, the umbrella company and owner of the Veterans Today site looks suspicious as hell, as do the various job boards and mortagage companies which form the bulk of the revenue sources for the sites.

it is an interesting enterprise they've got going. Could mostly be a small business, could be something spookier. The Edmonds thing looks like she's decided to syndicate her content through VT, I doubt much money is changing hands or pay checks are getting cut. The business empire behind VT and peapolzmedia might be a good thing, but I'm (too?) suspicious these days of most opinion influencing operations.

While I gather that I disagree with their take on WL, I'm not sure I saw much else too objectionable, but I only spent a little while looking, so far.

[AlicetheKurious]

Question to mods: what do you think of vanlose kid's source?

I think it can be considered as a hate site, and I would advise against using information aquired there to buttress arguments via some "guilt by association" tactic. If that's the best you can do regarding Gordon Duff, I'd say it falls rather short of convincing. ... Any information from sites like this should be clearly labeled as POISON, imho.

I expected a much stronger reaction to a website run by a guy who writes:

I am prepared now [to] state openly that my ultimate goal is a jew-free, White ethnostate in North America...

Such equivocation is unbecoming, especially to a mod. Paradoxically, your description of the owner of the Veterans' Today site as "suspicious as hell", because they help veterans access news, and employment, financial and legal services seems unduly harsh. I haven't seen anything there to justify it, except prejudice against Gordon Duff for daring to disagree with the choir about Wikileaks.

By the way, I don't think vanlose kid was trying to use "guilt by association" -- the opinions about Duff tended to be very negative on this White Supremacist site, and specifically targeted his anti-racist and anti-imperialist writings. Based on how incredibly dumb vanlose kid is, and these White Supremacists' hostility towards Duff, whom he is trying to discredit, it is my opinion that he posted the link approvingly. Although when dealing with someone of vanlose kid's intellectual caliber, who can say for sure?

[barracuda]

Alice, here is the relevant proscription from the posting guidelines:

"Propagation of fascist, neo-Nazi and "white pride" causes, including sympathetically linking to sites which advocate such, will not be permitted. This includes revisionist histories of the Holocaust."

In my judgement, vanlose did not "sympathetically" link to the site. If you want a response from Jeff, ask away, but til then, what I'm saying is that it can be considered a hate site. This is not equivocal. Veterans Today is suspicious. Age of Treason is a hate site. Is that clear?

[Searcher08]

I saw that Gilad Atzmon has very recently joined Veterans Today as a contributor; I would be very doubtful if he would associate with something dodgy BTH.

[compared2what?]

it is an interesting enterprise they've got going. Could mostly be a small business, could be something spookier. The Edmonds thing looks like she's decided to syndicate her content through VT, I doubt much money is changing hands or pay checks are getting cut. The business empire behind VT and peapolzmedia might be a good thing, but I'm (too?) suspicious these days of most opinion influencing operations.

While I gather that I disagree with their take on WL, I'm not sure I saw much else too objectionable, but I only spent a little while looking, so far.

Sorry to interrupt, but I actually have pertinent and potentially illuminating info on this subject, having posed the question in the thread title to myself and then attempted to answer it some time ago. So:

I have no idea who Gordon Duff is and couldn't find a trace of him anywhere, even with the aid of his (presumably) self-supplied bio:

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic officer of UN humanitarian groups. Gordon Duff's articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest.

However.

On a prima facie basis, I'd say that while it's quite plainly a propaganda site, that's actually probably not primarily what it is. In fact, I very much doubt that whoever runs it cares at all who the people in the part of their readership that comes to them from boards like this one are, what their politics are, or that they're really making much of an effort to influence the minds or views of those readers.

And....Hmm. I don't want to launch into a lengthy dissertation about the use of keywords and search engine optimization from a commercial and/or editorial perspective here. Because it's very fucking dull and -- while not at all complicated -- inherently incompatible with concise exegesis, since all the meaning is in the monotonous details, pretty much by definition.

But seriously. Just try looking at it from that perspective yourselves. Or, alternately, try searching a representative selection of the terms that are always, almost always, or very frequently prominently featured on both the home page and the tabbed pages.

Because the most immediately striking thing about that site -- to me, anyway -- was the manifest and ginormous disparity between how very impressively professionally put together it is as a commercial enterprise and how very emphatically (one could even say "ostentatiously") unprofessional (or "authentic," or "grassroots," or "genuine, folksy and populist," as you prefer) it is as an editorial or journalistic product.

Anyway. Just to skip right over the intermediary who-seems-to-own-what-and-why stuff, which wasn't really all that illuminating in any event:

It looks to me like the primary purpose of that site is to attract recently discharged, unemployed and/or chronically under-employed, emotionally vulnerable and anger-prone rank-and-file military veterans and then keep them there for however long it takes for their financial and/or personal distress to overwhelm whatever reservations they might have initially had about (a) taking out a mortgage; (b) taking out a personal loan; or (c) re-upping-without-re-upping by signing on with a Blackwater-esque mercenary outfit.

Because, just at the plainest common-sense level, it is, after all, a for-profit site that does, after all, have two (and only two) readily apparent major sources of advertising revenues. Both of which I'd imagine really are major, in the sense of "highly lucrative." And they are:

(1) Pioneer Financial Services, which has proudly been dedicating itself to one client, the Department of Defense, for twenty years; and

(2) The companies that buy one of the various wanted-ad packages offered by the Veterans Today Network.

Although based on their complete list of sites page:

Complete List of Sites

The following is the complete list of web sites that comprise our network;

1. Veterans Today Network
2. Veterans Today
3. Hire Veterans
4. Hire Veterans News Blog
5. The Veterans Business Directory
6. Defense Supply Store
7. Veterans Match
8. Rx 4 Veteran
9. VT @ MySpace
10. Legal Help 4 Veterans

Our VA Mortgage Loan Sites

1. VA Home Loans Today
2. Equity VA Loan
3. VA Home Loan News Blog
4. Alabama
5. Alaska
6. Arizona
7. Arkansas
8. California
9. Colorado
10. Connecticut
11. Delaware
12. Florida
13. Georgia
14. Hawaii
15. Idaho
16. Illinois
17. Indiana
18. Iowa
19. Kansas
20. Kentucky
21. Louisiana
22. Maine
23. Maryland
24. Massachusetts
25. Michigan
26. Minnesota
27. Mississippi
28. Missouri
29. Montana
30. Nebraska
31. Nevada
32. New Hampshire
33. New Jersey
34. New Mexico
35. New York
36. North Carolina
37. North Dakota
38. Ohio
39. Oklahoma
40. Oregon
41. Pennsylvania
42. Rhode Island
43. South Carolina
44. South Dakota
45. Tennessee
46. Texas
47. Utah
48. Vermont
49. Virginia
50. Washington
51. West Virginia
52. Wisconsin
53. Wyoming

...I'd say that one of those revenue streams is probably a higher priority than the other one. (Although that doesn't mean the job boards are just window dressing, by any means. There are tax incentives for hiring veterans, among other potentially monetarily maximizable things.) But, you know. It does kind of go without saying that they certainly appear to have gotten the VA loans-and-mortgages part of the operation up and running at a greater capacity than they have the jobs-for-veterans part.***

PLEASE NOTE WELL:

All of the forgoing is just conjecture based on the information available to me, obviously. There could well be any number of out-of-sight factors that would cause me to do a complete overhaul on my current impressions wrt the fundamentally promotional (rather than editorial) nature of the Veterans Today news pages.

However, as far as it goes, I'd say that it was a fair and reasonable conjecture by my standards.

And although I would never have thought of it at all if I hadn't been trying to resolve a question that was initially framed in completely different terms, I've got to say that the moment that I did think of it, I could definitely and absolutely see how there'd be quite a bit of business logic to it.

I mean, objectively speaking, there's a sizable, growing and easily identifiable target demo that's uniquely eligible for a very specific kind of mortgage, the members of which are increasingly likely to be in need of one. And at the same time, there's an overall decrease on the demand side of the mortgage market among the general, ineligible-for-DoD-subsidies-and-guarantees population.

Both of those conditions could have reasonably been anticipated by interested parties in the finance sector by 2004, when Veterans Today started up. As well as approximated in advance in straight-up balance-sheet terms well enough for it to be clear that the returns from such an endeavor would justify the investment in it.

So from that perspective, afaic, the only reason that it wouldn't have been more surprising to discover that that base had been left uncovered than to discover that it hadn't is that you can't really detect the surprising absence of something in a field that you're not on familiar terms with. Or at least I can't.

Speaking of which:

As a matter of fact, I feel reasonably confident about assuming both that Veteran's Today is not the sole channel through which those revenues flow and that the demo targeted by Veterans Today is, to some extent, a niche demo. Because it would be very unlike the finance sector to limit itself strictly to what I imagine focus groups have informed them are the large-ish number of veterans in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona (and so on, who are emotionally and politically predisposed to respond to what Veteran's Today is pitching after having discovered it while looking for jobs online.

So it would stand to reason that baited lines of some sort have been cast into other psychographic waters as well. I just don't know enough about that industry to conjure up the list of good possibilities I'd need to have in hand before I went looking for the forms in which they might have been realized. If anybody else does, though, I'd be very curious to learn more.


Anyhow. That's my two cents. It's more than possible that I'm overlooking something. However, fwiw, that's what I see.
________________

*** Although --fwiw, since this was a while ago -- IIRC, almost all the job listings that they do have are for either IT or mercenary positions. And it's just an undeniable function of reality that there are bound to be many, many more qualified candidates for the latter than there are for the former.

So who knows what's going on there along those lines, really? Not me. For one. And nor do I much care to, really. I can see way more than enough to know that I don't like what I see without it.

[vanlose kid]

Question to mods: what do you think of vanlose kid's source?

I think it can be considered as a hate site, and I would advise against using information aquired there to buttress arguments via some "guilt by association" tactic. If that's the best you can do regarding Gordon Duff, I'd say it falls rather short of convincing. White nationalists on the web can be found supporting all manner of individuals who might never reciprocate with their interest or support, so locating such a discussion hardly augments the charges of disinformation or anti-semitism against Duff in a productive way. Any information from sites like this should be clearly labeled as POISON, imho.

However, that being said, a closer look at the site that Gordon Duff uses as his primary outlet for publishing seems more fruitful. Peapolz Media, the umbrella company and owner of the Veterans Today site looks suspicious as hell, as do the various job boards and mortagage companies which form the bulk of the revenue sources for the sites.

right my last words on this (this time around?).

i did not link to the "age of treason piece" in order to guilt by association. what i did do is try to show that G Duff has an audience with certain views that 'cuda rightly calls poison. i agree with that. what the linked piece does show is that

1) Duff expresses views shared by some pretty uncouth people (unless you want to say that they just have skin problems and are otherwise allowed to express their views).

2) the views Duff and the "age of treason" folk (and st-rmfr-nters) share is the view that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering".

3) AtK has a history on this forum of citing other "writers" who have an audience at sites "age of treason" such as Chris Bollyn, Israel Shamir (until wikileaks), etc. this has happened time and time again.

4) AtK acknowledges that these "writers" that she cites "express her views" and that she cites them in full so as "not to steal their work and to give credit where due".

5) her views are that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering" the only difference being that she prefers the terms "ZOG, zionists, zionazis, etc."

6) as far as i can tell she is spouting the same poison, candied up, foxed, and mainstreamed, but still, the exact same poison and she gets away with it (is it because she a "gurl" or cute, i don't know).

7) in every thread that takes her interest and if she can find a wedge in all of what she says is geared toward peddling the idea that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering". – take the Wikileaks threads. in the end it won't matter to her who or what individuals involved with this are as long as she can "prove" that they work for israel.

8) and she's allowed to go on and on and on and on.

my question(s) is what is the difference between AtK's views and the views of the people she cites and their audience? i can't see it. Duff for instance, his pieces are devoid of argument, formed completely out of thin air, and serve one purpose, i.e. to show that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering". – if their screed, and i include Duff (if i'm wrong there we'll se but so far from what's been posted here by him i doubt it), is poison, then how come AtK's screed is cute and entirely ok? is it because she presents, as she herself claims, not merely hate but also "proof"? i haven't seen it. has anyone else here on this board seen or been convinced by her "proof". is it just because she's "edgy" and avantgarde"?

to be honest i just tired of reading the same fascist screeds posted here on an anti-fascist forum by the same person over and over and over and over again – it's not even about wikileaks or any other topic on any other thread that the screed gets placed in. its the screed itself, ad nauseam.

why is this poison ok? is it the person spouting it that makes the difference?

*

bonus question re AtK, am i alone in thinking this?

*

[Simulist]

4) AtK acknowledges that these "writers" that she cites "express her views" and that she cites them in full so as "not to steal their work and to give credit where due".

5) her views are that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering" the only difference being that she prefers the terms "ZOG, zionists, zionazis, etc."

That's a damned lie. Alice does not hold the view that "Jews are evil…"

Knock it the hell off, Vanlose.

[The Hacktivist]

Question to mods: what do you think of vanlose kid's source?

I think it can be considered as a hate site, and I would advise against using information aquired there to buttress arguments via some "guilt by association" tactic. If that's the best you can do regarding Gordon Duff, I'd say it falls rather short of convincing. White nationalists on the web can be found supporting all manner of individuals who might never reciprocate with their interest or support, so locating such a discussion hardly augments the charges of disinformation or anti-semitism against Duff in a productive way. Any information from sites like this should be clearly labeled as POISON, imho.

However, that being said, a closer look at the site that Gordon Duff uses as his primary outlet for publishing seems more fruitful. Peapolz Media, the umbrella company and owner of the Veterans Today site looks suspicious as hell, as do the various job boards and mortagage companies which form the bulk of the revenue sources for the sites.

right my last words on this (this time around?).

i did not link to the "age of treason piece" in order to guilt by association. what i did do is try to show that G Duff has an audience with certain views that 'cuda rightly calls poison. i agree with that. what the linked piece does show is that

1) Duff expresses views shared by some pretty uncouth people (unless you want to say that they just have skin problems and are otherwise allowed to express their views).

2) the views Duff and the "age of treason" folk (and st-rmfr-nters) share is the view that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering".

3) AtK has a history on this forum of citing other "writers" who have an audience at sites "age of treason" such as Chris Bollyn, Israel Shamir (until wikileaks), etc. this has happened time and time again.

4) AtK acknowledges that these "writers" that she cites "express her views" and that she cites them in full so as "not to steal their work and to give credit where due".

5) her views are that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering" the only difference being that she prefers the terms "ZOG, zionists, zionazis, etc."

6) as far as i can tell she is spouting the same poison, candied up, foxed, and mainstreamed, but still, the exact same poison and she gets away with it (is it because she a "gurl" or cute, i don't know).

7) in every thread that takes her interest and if she can find a wedge in all of what she says is geared toward peddling the idea that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering". – take the Wikileaks threads. in the end it won't matter to her who or what individuals involved with this are as long as she can "prove" that they work for israel.

and she's allowed to go on and on and on and on.

my question(s) is what is the difference between AtK's views and the views of the people she cites and their audience? i can't see it. Duff for instance, his pieces are devoid of argument, formed completely out of thin air, and serve one purpose, i.e. to show that "j-ws are evil, control everything and are the cause all suffering". – if their screed, and i include Duff (if i'm wrong there we'll se but so far from what's been posted here by him i doubt it), is poison, then how come AtK's screed is cute and entirely ok? is it because she presents, as she herself claims, not merely hate but also "proof"? i haven't seen it. has anyone else here on this board seen or been convinced by her "proof". is it just because she's "edgy" and avantgarde"?

to be honest i just tired of reading the same fascist screeds posted here on an anti-fascist forum by the same person over and over and over and over again – it's not even about wikileaks or any other topic on any other thread that the screed gets placed in. its the screed itself, ad nauseam.

why is this poison ok? is it the person spouting it that makes the difference?

*

bonus question re AtK, am i alone in thinking this?

*

Nope, you are not alone. I am new here and already shocked at some of the anti-Jew/Israel stuff tolerated here.

Usually I do something about it in short order but I made promises that I intend to keep, early on etc etc.

Back to my corner...

[Belligerent Savant]

Nope, you are not alone. I am new here and already shocked at some of the anti-Jew/Israel stuff tolerated here.

Usually I do something about it in short order but I made promises that I intend to keep, early on etc etc.

Back to my corner...

Lots of hubris here of late.

And I second Simulist's comments above.