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 TodayAnyone 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.”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.
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?
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...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.
Yeager posted this over at VOR:
The Heretics’ Hour: Gordon Duff, Prescott Bush and the interview that wasn’tI 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
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
posted by Tanstaafl at 12/14/2010 07:39:00 PM
66 Comments:
Tanstaafl wrote:
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?
This is exactly what I think he is doing.
Gordon Duff's ultimate claim is that "Israel" is actually just following in lock step what America already is and what Germany was in the past; evil racist nations.
The biggest chuckle was this piece of shit claiming that America's immigration policy was based on institutionalized racism. Give me a fucking break Mr. Duff.
One hundred million people living among us who are not us and we are practicing racist immigration policies? Yet, Duff sits there and praises Islamic countries as innocent victims, the most non-diverse on the planet.
Duff could well be triangulating against Nazism, which is indeed according to the received 'wisdom' of most the ultimate evil, so that he can criticize Jews without being accused of racism. But what of the accusation of anti-Semitism? Duff could then claim with prima facie plausibility that his criticism of Jews is based on Jewish racism, i.e., Zionism.
Perhaps Duff could be useful as a bridge to a more comprehensive view of the Jewish question for those individuals that get their first introductiocn to the JQ from Duff yet are inquisitive enough to look further into the matter. This is, however, an admittedly dubious proposition as those likely to be attracted to Duff's brand of conspiracism are apt to be the suggestible tinfoil hat variety - not noted for their aptitude in rational parsimony. Duff could well be the final stop on the road to Kooksville for them.
As to the question of Duff's message aiding the cause of WN generally, Duff only reinforces in the minds of the suggestible the idea that "racism" is a great evil. And it is the suggestible who are likely to comprise the majority of Duff's readership. Pierce didn't refer to that ilk as "lemmings" for nothing.
Paul Craig Roberts also likes to triangulate against National Socialism as this has resonance with the lemmings' Jewish brainwashing. And, as I'm sure readers of this blog are well aware, but since it is my hobby horse I'll mention it nonetheless, (the) English at Majority Rights spare no effort in condemning the moral "debasement" "Krauts" allegedly incurred per their embrace of NS. Yet, as the former is most likely a crypto-racialist, and the latter are explicit racialists, non-purists may be inclined to give them a pass.
The most useful advice for Conservatives which I have ever seen is F. Roger Devlin's dictum that we must defend where the left chooses to attack.
If they come at us by land, we cannot attempt to defend by sea.
For example, if they attack us with an ethnic and sexual agenda, we cannot attempt to defend ourselves with an economic and constitutional agenda.
Having established this, we must ask ourselves, who does the modern day left always attack on ethnic grounds? Who do they never attack on ethnic grounds? Who do they attack sometimes, but not attack at other times?
I think the people of the world can be broken down into 4 categories, based on the level of ethnic animosity which the left displays towards them:
1. Germanic Protestants are always attacked.
2. Other people of European ancestry are supported if they conflict with Germanic Protestants, but otherwise always attacked.
3. People of non-European ancestry other than diaspora Jews, a category which includes Israeli Jews. People in this category are always supported if they conflict with people of European ancestry. People in this category are never supported if they conflict with diaspora Jews. When two sub-groups within this category conflict, different left-wing factions disagree about who to support. For instance, liberals and libertarians support the Arabs while "Neoconservatives" support the Israeli Jews.
4. Diaspora Jews are NEVER attacked by the left.
This pecking order is blatantly obvious but, as Steve Sailer says, it takes constant effort to see what is right in front of you.
We live in a global Victimocracy, with diaspora Jews at the very top and Germanic Protestants at the very bottom.
(Israeli Zionists are among the most trenchant critics of the diaspora Jew lifestyle - thus their lower status in the pecking order than diaspora Jews.)
"Rightwing" enemies of Israel such as Roberts, Raimodo and Rothbard are basically supporters of one leftwing faction against another - all the while implicitly accepting the notion that people of European ancestry are fair game for all sorts of slander, while diaspora Jews must never be criticized (other than for their support of Israeli Jews). Duff falls firmly into this group of confused people who refuse to see the world as it is.
My advice to White Nationalists: resist the temptation to use Israel as a whipping boy for the sins of diaspora Jews. Don't let Neoconservatives use you as a pawn for Israel against the Arabs, and likewise don't let liberals and libertarians use you as a pawn for the Arabs against Israel.
Another sample of Duff's bitter take on the Tea Party, AMERICA’S REAL ANTI-GOVERNMENT THREAT, dated 25 Sept 2010 (which I found linked from How Typical Of Gordon Duff, The Anti-Israel Zealot And Conspiracy Theorist… « Zionism's Survival: Surviving Under The Coming Nazi Regime):
The moment Barak Obama was nominated for the presidency, “grass roots” groups sprung up around the country, surprisingly similar in make-up to the current Tea Party, not only in look but rhetoric and demeanor. When Obama easily defeated Senator McCain, those same groups, continual assassination threats, mock lynchings and vicious racial rhetoric changed from “conservatives” to “anti-government” radicals overnight.
But these weren’t “grass roots” organizations at all, but something far more sinister, more threatening and much more dangerous as we were to learn.
Websites sites like www.resistnet.com, oddly close to www.resist.com, the voice of the Aryan Nation, a white nationalist group, were quickly established and emails spread across the country, originating, as we were told, from the poor and downtrodden, the “Patriotic Resistance” that was going to shed its last drop of blood to protect America from wealthy corporations and the financial thieves who were sucking the blood out of the working classes...
It's clear enough that Duff considers White nationalism a threat, and it's potential rise to be worse than the current actual ethnic jewish (zionist or otherwise) domination of Western finance, politics and media. He hyperbolizes just as much or even more about this than he does about jewish/zionist influence.
Duff clearly does not empathize with the mass of Whites expressing displeasure with the anti-White/pro-jew regime, even though many are not "racist" enough to recognize it in such terms. Most of these Whites share Duff's dim views toward "racism", "the nazis", and corporations. But he's busy hyping "racist"/"nazi" influence and painting even the deracinated, incoherent, misinformed, misguided political displeasure of Whites as morally reprehensible.
Duff's views are marxist and anti-White. He idealizes a decorporatized, deracinated utopia in which material interests and squabbling nationalities have no political influence. He characterizes self-determination and government of the people, by the people, for the people as "racist" - at least when the people are White.
Duff's site seems very pro-muslim so maybe that's a clue. Since the Iraq invasion i think a lot of different groups around the world have realized that if they want to influence America they have to try and influence American public opinion.
Gordon Duff also has a love affair with the Islamic peoples.
We see this constantly with the so called anti-Zionists. You see it with Daryl Bradford Smith, Paul Craig Roberts, and many in the HBD and paleo-conservative movements.
The above poster is right in noticing that these people are always attacking Whites and "Israel" while showing absolute support for Islam.
If men like Gordon Duff propose that diversity is the highest moral idea than why do they support Islamic countries with such passion while attacking as evil the one (white) race that unfortunately lives up to their perverse ideas?
I guess their hatred of Whites trumps all other considerations. In this case, these people are not much diffrent than the Jews. Whites as usual are the favorite whipping boy of these tards; especially Whites of the Tea party.
As CC pointed out, even many in our own ranks attack Whites. We need more people in our ranks that unconditionally stand up for Whites with no apologies at all.
Yeager has a good podcast which explains what some in the "anti-Zionist" movement are doing. Yeager points out that many in this movement are actually just providing cover for the Jews while focusing the real blame on America and Germany.
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20101108/the-heretics-hour-elie-wiesel-alan-hart-and-truth-in-history
"Diaspora Jews are NEVER attacked by the left."
That is indeed the case as the true seat of Jewry's power is the gargantuously wealthy, politically active diaspora Jews such as George Soros.
"resist the temptation to use Israel as a whipping boy for the sins of diaspora Jews."
With the uninitiated one must get the thin edge of the wedge in somewhere. Pointing to the hypocrisy of Jewry's support for the racialist state of Israel and on the other hand their relentless pathologization of any last hint of racial consciousness on the part of Whites is just too inviting of a target to pass on. I've tried it, it does indeed work to soften up interlocutors.
Here we go. If you read Yeagers latest comments in the same thread linked above, you can see that it is all starting to come into focus.
She quotes Duffs latest garbage:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/15/charles-e-carlsen/
"Jews should know their enemy. It is AIPAC and the ADL, the shills of banking interests and criminal organizations who have hijacked Jewish organizations through trickery and petty gangsterism. These are the pure anti-Semites and dedicated, perhaps purposefully, perhaps inadvertently, to the destruction of everything worthwhile about Jewish culture and tradition, one of the most vital parts of America’s “melting pot.”
It is starting to appear that it is the ole' "what is best for the jews" that animates Mr. Duff.
ADL is bad because it is bad for Jews. This and that is bad because it is actually bad for Jews. It never fails.
Here is another gem from Duff to show us who he really is:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/14/keith-johnson-newt-gringo-wants-your-brown-babies/
"Just remember–When it comes to immigration reform, Latinos and the GOP want the same thing—but not for the same reasons. For Latinos, the path to citizenship may very well be a ticket to a better life in America. But if the GOP has their way, that citizenship may very well be a ticket out of America—and off to some foreign hell hole—where Latinos and their children just might end up dead."
Basically the guy is our enemy pure plain and simple.
"Just remember–When it comes to immigration reform, Latinos and the GOP want the same thing—but not for the same reasons. For Latinos, the path to citizenship may very well be a ticket to a better life in America. But if the GOP has their way, that citizenship may very well be a ticket out of America—and off to some foreign hell hole—where Latinos and their children just might end up dead."
Basically the guy is our enemy pure plain and simple.
--
Mucho thanks for that highly-illuminating quote!!!
It really serves to seperate the proverbial 'wheat from the chaff' -- and tips us off that this geezer Duff most likely is serving some kind of GATEKEEPER ROLE for his handlers within the Establishment.
"By their fruits ye shall know them"
There is a potentially large rent between something that is intended to be "good for Jews" and that which is actually good for Jews. Does anyone here actually believe that were conditions brought about in the West that toppled the Zionist entity that that would be good for Jews; and, if that Jewish domino were to fall it would be the last Jewish domino to go down? Get real. If Duff, as is alleged, is secretly, and by intent, in actual fact pulling for Jewish interests, then clearly, he is doing a piss poor job of it. We can then conclude, either Duff is a moron, or he is severely deluded unto extreme eccentricity, assuming we stick to the thesis he is intentionally going to bat for Jewish interests. Assuming we do that, and as it is obvious Duff is not stupid, that leaves the latter option. So Duff is a crank, then. But maybe, just maybe, he is doing as I suggested above, and attempting to attack the Jews whilst avoiding the charge of racism.
Captainchaos writes:
Does anyone here actually believe that were conditions brought about in the West that toppled the Zionist entity that that would be good for Jews; and, if that Jewish domino were to fall it would be the last Jewish domino to go down? Get real.
I won't debate whether what Duff thinks or does actually is good for jews. That's a problem for jews to worry about, and as far as I can see they're not having any trouble tending to it. But to address your point, Duff makes clear in that essay that he thinks there's nothing to worry about:
Iran has held conferences, idiotic laws have been passed, Canada, Europe, which restrict debate and the dozens of Zionist groups in the US drumbeat continually about the threat to Israel and Jews worldwide. The threats aren’t real, military reality makes that clear, but the moral high ground has been sacrificed and nothing should be more embarrassing to Israel than this.
Near the end he states:
Israel is in no danger.
Captainchaos writes:
If Duff, as is alleged, is secretly, and by intent, in actual fact pulling for Jewish interests, then clearly, he is doing a piss poor job of it.
It is no secret. Duff's statements, quoted above, make his intents plain.
The confusion here is that people who think as we do - White people who want for our own kind the normal, healthy things other peoples enjoy - are surrounded by ambivalent and antagonistic voices babbling all kinds of nonsense. We are so starved for truth coming from an empathetic voice that we leave behind the mainstream and scour alternative sources. There we find lots of voices speaking half-truths. We desperately hammer the half-truths to fit our minds, not knowing or forgiving the important things left out, or the nonsense that gets mixed in. We are prone to mistake the half-truth-teller's intentions for empathy, often when it doesn't even amount to sympathy.
I say "we" because I've made this mistake, and I see many people I empathize with making the same mistake. To avoid it, decide what is important to you. Know the difference between empathy, sympathy, apathy, and antipathy. Pay close attention to what people actually say to determine what their interests are. Be aware that many pundits deliberately mask their true interests.
CC, Duff is, at root, antipathetic to White people who want for our own kind the normal, healthy things other peoples enjoy. He's antipathetic to what is most important to me. I understand your point about triangulation, but I don't believe that is what Duff is doing. His anti-jew/anti-zionist rhetoric is false, looping back as it always does to his anti-"racist"/anti-"nazi" rhetoric. In his moralizing he doesn't see jews as White, and in the final analysis he consistently excuses jews and blames "racists"/"nazis". He's not an opponent of jews so much as he is a "tough-love" apologist for them. Where there is conflict in interest between them and the people I care about, he sides with them.
"attempting to attack the Jews whilst avoiding the charge of racism."
That would be my take but i'd be looking for Saudi funding rather than pro-white sympathies.
I believe that Duff is a sort of crank, but his credibility keeps growing among people in our circles. They focus on his anti- Zionism while ignoring his anti-White rhetoric. I believe that calling out his anti-White rhetoric is necessary.
As you saw with fellist, when I mentioned Duff's anti-White message he came back that I was full of bullshit. What this shows is that what we may see as clear and obvious is not obvious to others. They are ignoring Duff's anti-White message because his anti-Israel message sounds so pleasing to their ears.
I support what the anti-Zionists are doing. I think it would be in their interests to include Whites and White advocates. I dont see how attacking the Tea Party and Whites in general is going to help the anti-Zionists. Creating kooky half-baked theories about the secret Nazis are certainly not going to help them.
Right now, a lot of them seem to have a real conflict over what to attack more; the State of Israel or White America. I think they need to resolve this conflict to be really effective. Whether they do or not is up to them. I'm a White nationalist, not an anti-Zionist.
Helen Thomas was in the news again recently for saying, "Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the zionists. No question."
If you watch the video you'll hear her revel in her Arab identity and say: "I hate the fact that the Arabs who gave so much to this country are so maligned", and "We had a great civil rights movement, we should have a great Arab rights movement." Near the end she waxes nostalgic about MLK and "the rabbi who had been in a concentration camp for many many years", who told her that, "The greatest sin of all in the nazi era, was silence."
Like Duff, Thomas may have a bone or two to pick with zionists, but that doesn't make her an ally of ours. As with Duff, she thinks the current regime's anti-Whiteness is just splendid, and considers "the nazis" her gold standard of evil.
"I hate the fact that the Arabs who gave so much to this country are so maligned",
Really, Arabs "gave so much" to America???
Helen Thomas: lifelong lefty, American hater and staunch ally of the Jews, finally gets some guts to speak some truth. Now look at her. Armes Kind. I mentally raise my finger as Nelson Muntz, point at her and think, "Ha ha."
Damn fine work, Tan, as usual. You truly clear the fog like a sunny day. Eu Poieis, Dankeschoen, Diolch yn Fawr, et Gratias tibi ago. Merry Christmas.
Tan,
I appreciate your heart-felt reply.
That said, my interest is to see come to fruition a discourse that penetrates beyond the merely topical. Beyond that which is simply "pro-Jew/anti-White". A way of speaking that can bring White people to genuine racial consciousness, a consciousness which can withstand all tides, an appreciation for the intrinsic interests they have in seeing their genetic line endure, whether the Jew presses upon that or not. THAT is truly the holy grail, indeed the "gold standard," of all we wish for.
Perhaps that is beyond the scope of the proper pursuits of this blog, though I don't believe beyond the powers of your own talents. You have the ability to think for yourself, which is something that, with all due respect to them, evades the capacity of most of our people. So you have the ability to do some real thinking, beyond how the Jews fuck our people over, for them. And that is what is needed now more than ever.
I just typed this to post in the earlier thread, but having read a few of Tan's comments here it's quite possible my position will shift after a bit more study:
Anonymous, you say Duff 'attacks White Americans as stupid morons who are persecuters of blacks and other races' and does so constantly. But in your quotes I don't see him attacking White people as such, nor for those reasons, he only appears to mock those White people who get suckered into colour-blind movement conservatism when their real and deep motivation is defending their racial interests. Duff is doing something people on our side do all the time.:
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.
We may prefer that he was a racialist, and he may prefer that race was not eternally the most salient factor in American politics, but that's how it is. If he constantly harps on about racism, as you claim, I have not noticed.
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.
OK ... 'constantly' ... can you provide some quotes from a few of his most recent articles. He writes about Israel a lot, can you provide a few examples of his blaming White America for what goes on there?
I like that you're alert to these kinds of abuses, anon, but I wonder if you're not overstating things with regard to Duff. Certainly if I had noticed these things constantly appearing in Duff's articles I'd have challenged him -- there's a pretty free comments policy in place at VT. Have you pulled him up on this?
Are they potential allies of White ethnonationalism, or enemies?
This was never my interest in Duff and Gates, btw, I like them for their foreign policy independent of the main issue.
There's a comment of mine stuck in the system somewhere, Tan, be great if you could find it.
[Responding to anon in the earlier thread, just questioning whether he wasn't overstating things and expecting too much of someone whose focus in anti-wars-for-Israel and pro-veteran. I admitted I might have to do some further study myself after reading some of uour comments in this thread.]
I imagine Duff's worldview to be something quite similar to that of Alexander Cockburn, who not incidentally publishes Paul Craig Roberts' writing at Counter Punch. For these relatively more intellectually independent iconoclasts of the left there is the willingness to challenge taboos which are quite obviously upon reflection fundamentally at odds with the progressive canon - though they lack the courage to reject said canon and come back to the hearth of their own people. They do indeed have a kind of integrity, according to their own standards, however misbegotten these standards are objectively. Their standard(s) is the freeing of all mankind from material want and an ushering in of the brotherhood of all mankind. Their criticism of Zionism, and Jewish power in diaspora, is rooted in their sense that Jewish ethnocentrism must be broken insofar as said continues to be an obstacle to their millenarian vision. And of course, I'm sure, there is the understanding that Jews were once prodigious authors of and actors within the progressive left they identify with. Their feelings toward the Jews is arguably a sense of gratitude for Jews having contributed so mightily to their belief-system, a longing for the good old days and corresponding desire to see Jews recapitulate their former role, and feeling of betrayal that Jews now clearly strive for ethnically interested hegemony, not "progress". And again, these White leftists lack the courage to reject what is clearly for them a faith for the realization that much of it was only ever a Jewish scam.
Surely what they think is anti-White (for them White racism must remain the deus ex machina of non-White failure otherwise their faith dies), but this is mitigated not in the least by attempting to understand what they think and why they think it. It is not an act of sympathy but description, nor empathy if one does not feel what they feel.
"neither would I consider him a "good" jew if there is such a thing."
If Duff is a Jew, then that is news to me. What makes this an interesting case study would be that he is not. Such as, How is it that Whites come to be, in varying textures and degrees, extended-phenotypes of the Jew? How to cure them of that, in other words bring them to consciousness of the value of their peoplehood and hence a recognition of the interest they have in said's continuity?
The observation that other peoples, including Jews, engage in cynical acts of group self-interest at the expense of Whites could well be met with, "So what? Two wrongs don't make a right." I've seen it before. What else would the default position of the liberal faith be but to reaffirm its belief that one day all tears will be wiped away?
Amplification: The Jews have been expelled from dozens of countries over the millennia, some more than once - and every time they got back in. What would lead us to believe that, were we successful in removing them from our midst yet again, they would not simply insinuate themselves into our affairs at some later date? Of course there are no guarantees without taking the ultimate and decisive solution to the Jewish question which is...well, you know what. That is something no decent man could wish for. Barring that, the solution then lies in finding a way to induce an abiding racial consciousness which obtains once the "anti-White/pro-Jew" menace is out of sight and out of mind, this time, and yet again - until the next time.
"Barring that, the solution then lies in finding a way to induce an abiding racial consciousness which obtains once the "anti-White/pro-Jew" menace is out of sight and out of mind, this time, and yet again - until the next time."
I think the best solution currently available is based on science, EGI, diversity kills etc.
No matter what other considerations the commonweal is best served by tribal homogeneity.
Captain:
Duff is no less than half Jewish. I believe he admitted as much in the comments section of several of his articles. That at least offers an explanation of his fondness for Obama and other leftists and his "beef" with white people.
Carolyn Yeager states:
It’s no secret that Duff is at least 1/4 Jewish, from his mother. That’s what he says.
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?
Uhhhh, actually, that doesn't seem like a real likely explanation.
I've never heard of Gordon Duff before, but looking over his site, he's got some pretty heavy-hitting criticisms of Jews over there. Frankly, it looks pretty obvious that he's just saying that crap about Nazis, White racism, etc. as cover. I don't think many people are going to read material on that site about, e.g., Israeli involvement in 9/11 and wind up saying to themselves, "grrrr, those damn White racist Nazis!" I mean, right? It seems pretty wink wink, nudge nudge to me.
It's not a strategy that I would employ myself, and his site is not really my cup of tea, but if sugar coating some hardcore Judeo-criticism with a bit of bullshit about Nazis makes it easier for some people to swallow, then I say more power to Gordon Duff.
Also, whatever Duff's motives may be, he is clearly right that Wikileaks is promoting disinfo and is not to be trusted.
I don't know about Gordon Duff but he's right about 911, Israel, and Zionists.
I'm wary of a concerted effort to paint 911 Truthers as pro-Muslim, or liberals, which is not the case. But obviously Israel and the US itself were involved in 911.
Assertions made out of the blue without so much as an argument or even a link to an argument aren't very convincing.
Taanstaafl, in case that was directed towards my comments about Israel, the USA, and 911:
If you are not convinced by now you have not been paying attention. The fact that Israelis were caught red handed with bombs and filming the attacks from Liberty State Park in NJ is a prima facie case as far as I'm concerned, and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and similar groups have already made the case. The official conspiracy theory is ridiculous, and even the 911 Commissioners have said it's a cover up.
The Truther have made the case, and those who ignore it are obviously not interested in the truth, full stop. The burden of proof is on those advocating the 911 Commission fiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k&feature=player_embedded
Seeing is believing.
To those who think Gordon Duff is accomplishing something positive, I say: That’s what they’re supposed to think. So they are responding according to plan.
What does Gordon Duff actually stand for? Basically, he’s coming out as anti-Zionist. Why? The whole world has become anti- Zionist, that’s why. It’s why Alan Hart came out as anti-Zionist recently and quickly published a book about it. Not only liberals like Hart, but Jews everywhere have become anti-Zionist. Zionism is the new “World Problem.” There is no way to avoid it, so what to do? Turn it into Nazism! Simple. Brilliant. In the end, the new “manifest obviousness” will be that it’s the Nazis that are the problem, always have been, always will be.
We are seeing the resurrection of the Bush-Hitler Connection, the Hitler-Zionist Connection, the Zionist-Bankers-Bankrolled-Hitler-Connection, and even Israel-was-meant-to-be-a-German-colony-Connection in books and Internet radio programs. Bogus history is brought forward in support of it. The people eat it up; to their acquired taste it is delicious, easy to digest.
Captainchaos falls for it, and even adds to it; fellist is hampered by not actually reading enough of Duff’s blogs to know what he's saying. And so it goes. But if you actually read them, you will find that Duff’s true agenda, as he said in yesterday’s blog, is that Zionism is not Jewish!
“The clear note here, of course, Zionism isn’t Jews and opposing Zionist policies should have nothing to do with labeling anyone, race, religion, ethnicity, not damning them or their children.” [http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/22/gordon-duff-zionisms-anti-semitism-ploy-a-dangerous-game/].
If you like Jews better than Nazis, you might just accept that. Also, if the only thing that matters to you is 9/11 – this is the hook that those like Duff and Hart are using to pull their victims in.
I have not been following arguments about 9/11. I would characterize the arguments I have reviewed as unsatisfactory. They generally puff up inconsistencies and conundrums, usually coupled with an overeagerness to extrapolate and speculate. What I've heard from Gordon Duff confirms this impression.
In the Collins interview, The World According to Gordon Duff, they discuss his article, 9/11 PLANNERS CONFESS ON NETWORK TELEVISION, subtitled "FOR OUR FRIENDS WHO STILL DON’T GET IT".
I presume in both the article and the interview Duff would focus on his very strongest arguments.
The first picture in his article appears to show a hole in the Pentagon that appears too small to have been made by a 757. The first comment points out that it isn't a picture of the entry point on the outside of the building, it's the exit point on the interior. I can't tell. But this would explain why the hole is small and why debris is radiating outward from it. The commenter goes on to state, "PilotsFor911Truth claims to have evidence the 757 flew over the Pentagon". From what I can tell this is typical of 9/11 truth pissing matches. Two truthers, three versions of "truth".
Collins and Duff talk about the picture starting at 58:00. They make no mention that it might be interior, or why it couldn't. Instead Duff asserts that the plane hit the pentagon at 400 knots. Then he asserts that he's talked to experts on physics who have advised him that it is impossible to fly a 757 below 62 feet at 400 knots. Then he mentions knocked down lightposts a mile away.
Duff does not seem to have considered the possibility that a 757 at less than 400 knots might have flown lower than 62 feet, knocked down the lights, and hit the Pentagon. He comes across as a man so convinced that it could not have been a 757 that he is in turn certain that 400 knots and 62 feet are sacrosanct limits imposed by physics.
After Duff's review of what he calls the "forensic impossibilities" at the Pentagon, he pronounces more "truth" as he sees it:
One could very simply state that there is no forensic evidence supporting the cover story for 9/11. Not that there's not a little bit, there is none. All of the evidence, all of it, says that what we say happened couldn't have happened.
. . .
I assure you that every intelligence officer in the world, every senior officer in the United States military knows... Osama bin Laden has been dead since 2001. They all know, as does the FBI that he has never involved in 9/11, that there is no such thing as Al Qaeda, there has never been any such thing as al Qaeda, it has never existed, and it's all a game to fool the people here. A transparent game. None of it is real. There is no worldwide terrorist organization. There are no cells hiding around Dearborn Michigan or San Diego. None of it exists.
. . .
All they feel they have to do is debunk one of the lies they made up and it covers the fact that there is no proof at all that 19 arabs with boxcutters were ever on a plane.
This goes beyond statements such as "Israel and the US itself were involved in 911" or "the official conspiracy theory is ridiculous". Duff makes the extraordinary claims that there is no forensic evidence of any hijacking by arabs with boxcutters, that there is no al Qaeda.
Are these the things you're saying Duff is right about?
Even if you are 100% correct about Duff's motives, he is still 100% correct that al-Qaeda does not exist (among other things). It's not like Duff is the first or the only person to say that.
I really have no clue about Duff, but the fact that he is calling bullshit on 9/11 and Wikileaks certainly makes him more credible to me than certain "white nationalists", "traditionalist conservatives", and HBDers who are always pushing Muslims as the main bad guys. I *know* those people ain't on my side.
"How exactly does someone know as much about Jews as you do and not realize that all the shit about Muslims is just Jewish propaganda?"
I don't think it is all propaganda.
By way of analogy, I've read of jewish intrigue/instigation behind some of the "neo-nazi" activity in Canada decades ago, and that this activity was then used by jews to justify laws against "hate". I accept this as true. But I wouldn't reduce it to "all that shit about neo-nazism is just jewish propaganda."
I would say that alot of that shit about muslims is hyperbolized by those who are ultimately driven to do so by their concern about what's good for jews. Unfortunately for us, the shit about muslims is not entirely fabricated. The muslims colonizing Europe, and to a lesser extent America, are real. Whether or not this is good for jews, it is not good for Europeans.
"he is still 100% correct that al-Qaeda does not exist"
I understand the appeal of clear, simple statements like this. I think much of what the spooks and media attribute to "al Qaeda" is exaggerated or even misattributed. What strikes me as false is the use of absolute terms to express absolute certainty.
Take Duff's statement for instance:
"I assure you that every intelligence officer in the world, every senior officer in the United States military knows... Osama bin Laden has been dead since 2001. They all know, as does the FBI that he has never involved in 9/11, that there is no such thing as Al Qaeda, there has never been any such thing as al Qaeda, it has never existed, and it's all a game to fool the people here. A transparent game. None of it is real. There is no worldwise terrorist organization. There are no cells hiding around Dearborn Michigan or San Diego. None of it exists."
Note how many times he uses "all", "never", and "none". How could he possibly be so sure? Are there officers who back Duff up on these beliefs? Even if there are, how does that entitle him to speak for them all?
"I really have no clue about Duff, but the fact that he is calling bullshit on 9/11 and Wikileaks certainly makes him more credible to me than certain "white nationalists", "traditionalist conservatives", and HBDers who are always pushing Muslims as the main bad guys. I *know* those people ain't on my side."
The definitive issues for you are not racial, and your good guys include those pushing "nazis"/"racists" as the main bad guys. I think you can safely move along then. I'm not on your side.
I was laboring under the assumption that Duff was not a Jew, nor had any Jewish ancestry. From the picture he doesn't look Jewish, and "Duff" is not a Jewish name. I had never heard of the guy before he was brought up at VoR and AofT. And from what I did hear (and read) the guy seemed like a combination of progressive liberalism and David Icke crackpotism. It would have been useful to have been provided with the Jew-ancestry thing at the outset (thanks Tan!). Knowing that, one knows (assuming one gets the JQ) he is just another Jew or part-Jew going to bat for the tribe, although in an exceedingly eccentric way (two Jews, three opinions, not all of them guaranteed to be sane even by Jewish standards) It is not as complex a situation then as an anti-White White.
Note how many times he uses "all", "never", and "none". How could he possibly be so sure?
Well, maybe you should do some research on that then. If you look into it, it is pretty clear that "al-Qaeda" is not and never has been a real organization. There's lots of info out there on that. I could start throwing evidence at you but I wouldn't really know where to start. Bin Laden was never anything more than a businessman and criminal, primarily involved in the opium trade. The idea that there are tens of thousands of young men in some vast organization who want nothing more to blow themselves up because they hate our freedoms and want to get 72 virgins is completely absurd. Also, think about this: if you accept that there are SOME false flag attacks, and that SOME of the things said about "al-Qaeda" are false, you might want to ask yourself why the elites feel the need to perpetuate these lies and false flags in the first place, if there is already a significant amount of actual Islamic terrorism.
The definitive issues for you are not racial, and your good guys include those pushing "nazis"/"racists" as the main bad guys. I think you can safely move along then. I'm not on your side.
Perhaps I should clarify. I used quotes around "white nationalist" to indicate that I don't think the people beating the drum about Muslims are deserving of the title, not that I was disparaging White nationalism generally.
As I see it, we (Whites) need to free ourselves from Jewish control before we can do anything on the racial front. Getting that done, even if it requires some temporary compromising in terms of rhetoric, would obviously be well worth it. By contrast, people who yammer about secession and ethnostates while Jews dominate all of our major institutions are totally worthless. There is no hope that they can possibly achieve anything. And people who fixate on Muslims are worse than worthless, they're counterproductive.
Again, I don't know whether or not Duff is honest, and I have no idea how big his following is (I'd never even heard of the guy before). But in any case what he is saying about 9/11, al-Qaeda, Wikileaks, etc. is valid. Frankly, it looks to me like he's trying to get that stuff out to a wider audience and, knowing that it can be hard for people to take, he's covering it up with some crap about Nazis being behind it, which is so obviously absurd at face value that it's hard to imagine that he's really got the pro-Jewish intentions you say he does.
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=585
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=568
I have a feeling that Kapner's recent writings and videos are why Duff felt so compelled to write about how it isn't really the Jews afterall.
Kapner is a big voice in the anti-Zionist movement. He is out there with sympathy for Hitler and calling for Tea Party Whites to embrace their race and their true calling.
It is obvious that anon is more concerned over 9/11 and wikileaks than anything else.
If someone says anything regarding those issues that he approves of; that is all that matters.
Captainchaos
"I was laboring under the assumption that Duff was not a Jew, nor had any Jewish ancestry. From the picture he doesn't look Jewish, and "Duff" is not a Jewish name"
If Duff is jewish he's what's called a crypto jew and his name has been changed to hide his jewishness. If he's 1/2 or even 1/4 jewish as most cryptos are then he's still jewish and useful to the tribe as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Jeff "game theory" Gates is suspect too in my book.
calling for Tea Party Whites to embrace their race
Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen.
I know about cypto Jews.
It's just that I'm not going to assume everyone who holds anti-White attitudes is a secret Jew. There are tens of millions of White people, with not a hint of Jewish ancestry, who also have those opinions. We typically call them "liberals". Moreover, my skepticism was engaged at the proposition that Duff is trying to "help the Jews" because his tack is so obviously stupid and counterproductive to that end. If Duff honestly believes he is aiding Jews with his antics then he truly is a kook of the first order. In fact, I couldn't imagine otherwise than that he is a net loss to Jewish interests - and it ain't even close. So, if what is "bad for Jews" is "good for Whites" - and I think that is roughly true - then the kook Duff is "good for Whites" in a round about way.
And what is more, if some of Duff's fans become aware of Duff's anti-White rhetoric, blaming them for everything but the extinction of the dinosaurs ("Hey, that's bullshit! I'm White, I'm not responsible for any of that! Why would he say stuff like that?"), then perhaps they can be shifted to racial consciousness and awareness of the Jewish question, Duff already having softened them up to the latter and potentially irking them into considering the former.
If every Jew, or part Jew, was as non-deft as Duff in going to bat for Jews then victory would be well nigh. This one isn't "hunting" it's target practice.
Gordon Duff is duff. Look up the meaning of the word. He's a cocky bullshitter and it's disconcerting for me to see so many commenters here using corkscrew logic to try to give this blowhard a pass. Christian Zionists don't write "G-d." If he's using this spelling than he's either a Jew, a crypto-Jew, or a philo-Semite and no friend of whites. Being flat-out wrong is better than being inscrutable and Duff's mixed messages are inscrutable. When called to account by commenters he's tosses off quick condescending repostes in lieu of explanations, or simply deletes comments as he's done with mine. He's such a poor writer himself I don't how the better writers at Veteran's Today got pulled into his editorial orbit. The good writing there is often from other sites, anyway. Duff's unsubstantiated attacks on Wikileaks are all over the blogosphere. I'm wondering if this isn't his game, to create disinformation and watch it go viral. Header's like "ASSANGE ADMITS WIKILEAKS A FRAUD RUN BY PRESS FOR ISRAEL" should give everyone pause. Stop parsing his obfuscations and deflections and know that he's not using "game theory," or whatever, to wake people up and bring them to the truth. He's compounding their confusion and refusing to explain why.
Teutonsuet: I looked up the word duff - very funny. Incredible really.
This is what Gordon Duff wrote to me in late November. I don't think there is anything confidential here:
Carolyn
Yes, I will be available. I have a typical mongrel family. My Scottish grandfather died in 1915, the kids were raised by their Germany mother.
Other side of the family is Swiss and Polish/Austrian Jew.
Oh my.
All I lack is a good tan and I would be a perfect American.
g
Typical mongrel family. If he had some black in him he would be perfect. So he says. He works for the U.N. you know.
"Being flat-out wrong is better than being inscrutable and Duff's mixed messages are inscrutable."
I don't follow Duff. However I have learned here that his basic message is that the Jews did 9/11 and it is ultimately Whitey's racism that made them do it. Pretty simple, clearly crazy.
"He's compounding their confusion and refusing to explain why."
Well, I'm sure he's not going to come out and say, "Because I"m a Jew, that's why." Making the connection between his actions and his ethnic motivation will fall to various WN websites. What I find puzzling is all the pulling-out-of-hair I've seen here over Duff when it is Duff himself who has done most of the work in turning his listeners against Jews because...HE SAYS THE JEWS DID 9/11. An analogy: Ted Bundy was a serial killer, but his mommy emotionally abused him as a kid and that's why he became a serial killer. Now, let's all feel sorry for Ted. Hmm, doesn't seem like much traction will come out of that, does it?
http://michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com/2010/12/23/the-piper-report-dec-29-2010/
Good program which touches upon this topic.
http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/2010/12/31/the-piper-report-dec-31-2010/
Piper continues...
Good podcasts. I can't say I know much about Michael Collins Piper, but I had a similar reaction to Alex Jones as he had. What Piper has to say about Jones, especially in the 2nd podcast, strikes me as correct. Jones' yip-yap about nazis and anti-semitism as the worse thing possible comes across as a bizarre disconnect from the reality of jewish power. I concur that the purpose of such rhetoric, whether from Jones or anyone else (eg. Duff), is to misdirect attention away from jews.
When someone uses the term "nazi" to mean anti-jew, proclaiming their enemies as "nazis", what they are essentially saying is that they recognize there is a conflict and that they are on the jewish side.
Piper struck a sour note with me when he talked about islam, expressing the view that "pro-Israel + anti-islam = new world order". This may be an accurate characterization of the views of the specifically zionist portion whose ownership/influence over Western media gives them a significant voice. It does not take into account the more prevalent non-jewish and diaspora jewish portion who hold a more expansive view of jewish supremacism, which is to say an Eretz Israel without borders.
If I understand the "new world order" correctly, taking it as roughly synonymous with what I refer to simply as "the regime", it does not constrain its support of jews to Israelis, nor is it on whole anti-islam. Yes the regime wages war on muslim countries, killing many muslims, largely for the benefit of Israel, but it does so with unprecedented sensitivity, hampering and endangering its own soldiers to accomodate muslim sensibilities. At the same time the regime imposes genocidal levels of immigration everywhere in the Eurosphere, which includes bringing in large numbers of muslims. The regime has boycotted and abandoned White minorities in Rhodesia and South Africa, but does nothing of substance to oppose Israel's handling of it's non-jewish population. The regime ruthlessly infiltrates and puts down resistance from White majorities, demonizing and even criminalizing White identity and political activism. Last but not least the regime defends jews, jewish identity, and jewish interests, not only in Israel but everywhere on the planet.
The highest priority of the regime which rules the West is most accurately described in racial terms. It is anti-White/pro-jew. It deliberately harms Whites while helping jews. All other diplomatic/economic aspects of this regime - its import of aliens, its export of jobs, its bankrupting debt, its endless global war, its favored relations with Israel and China, its strained relations with Iran, Syria and Venuzuela - are corollaries of its racial priority. In truth even the anti-White aspect can be seen as a mere corollary of the pro-jew priority.
Public figures who vex jews are censored and censured within hours. What keeps the "nazis" from silencing and bankrupting Jones?
As for Piper, I'm picking up a deracinated ideology-driven vibe, at least from these two podcasts. I'd like any pointers readers might provide to clear that up for me one way or the other.
Michael Collins Piper was brought into the Republic Broadcasting Network to replace Peter Schaenk. The latter was fired in 2006 by RBN's owner. Schaenk was fired for bringing on and interviewing anti-Semitic and racialist guests.
Ironically, Piper is a far more committed personal "anti-Semite" than Schaenk ever was. Schaenk was also a radio professional who put on a quality program, whereas Piper lacks those skills.
Piper is a longtime writer for Willis Carto's nationalist "Spotlight" newspaper and now American Free Press. AFP has degenerated a little into conspiracy stuff, a far cry from the heydey of "Spotlight". The stories that Piper knows, from his decades around Carto et al, make subscribing to RBN well worth it, even if his is the only show one listens to.
You have hit on the central criticism against Piper: that he is blinded by his opposition to Jewish power. He is "Pro Anything anti-Jewish". I have heard him make an off-hand comment that "Maybe Stalin wasn't so bad after all", because he'd read that some Jews had criticized Stalin, or something like that. Stalin.
*** when he talked about islam, expressing the view that "pro-Israel + anti-islam = new world order" / . . . / If I understand the "new world order" correctly, taking it as roughly synonymous with what I refer to simply as "the regime", it does not constrain its support of jews to Israelis, nor is it on whole anti-islam. ***
The Jews are probably not anti-islam, but they create a lot of anti-islam rhetoric. When I see anti-islam propaganda combined with a denunciation of "anti-semitism", I know it comes from Jewish circles. It seems the neocons would like to persuade us that they are anti-muslim.
It isn't clear what they want. A website like Gates of Vienna seems genuinely anti-islam and anti-immigration. But they are friends with Jewish circles who are officially anti-islam but won't say a word against immigration. It creates a lot of confusion.
I think the anti-muslim rhetoric is used to infiltrate and water down the anti-immigration movement, and to encourage Western support for Israel. But they have contradictory goals. On the one hand, they would probably like Whites and Muslims to fight one another. On the other hand, they want us to live together with muslims and eventually miscegenate.
Jewish activists are the leaders both of anti-islamism and of anti-islamophobia. In France, the most violent anti-muslim rhetoric is done by Jews posting anonymous messages on white nationalist internet forums. At the same time, European nationalists who dare criticize the muslims are sent to court by Jewish organizations (not a good way to persuade us that they are anti-islam).
The (Jewish dominated) media are largely responsible for mass immigration. They tell us that we have to accept islam. They like to announce every muslim religious festival, as if it had something to do with us. But they are also the ones warning us against islam, and they create phony polemics about the burka and the islamic veil, as if the real issue was not race-replacement.
Maybe one of the Jewish objectives is also to encourage the creation of a tamed islam, co-opted by Western governments.
Hail: He is "Pro Anything anti-Jewish". I have heard him make an off-hand comment that "Maybe Stalin wasn't so bad after all", because he'd read that some Jews had criticized Stalin, or something like that. Stalin.
Me too, I feel like defending anyone who is attacked by Jewish activists. By demonizing people, they insult our intelligence. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were human beings no matter how many people died because of them. They were not Martians. There are a few million people who could be just as murderous if they were in power. If a dictator lacks any morality and is capable of violent acts without guilt feelings, it means there is something wrong with his brain. Ideally, he should be removed from power. But it is no use repeating that he is an evil man. It won't undo any harm he has done.
Jewish activists are notorious for their continuous defamation campaigns in the media against people who, unlike Stalin, haven't killed anyone. Their favorite targets are white people who have shown concern for the fate of their own race. And we are ordered to take part in the vilification. So, if the same activists start vilifying Stalin, it will raise my suspicion. In fact, their criticism of Stalin is predictable. They will claim that he was an antisemite. They won't care what happened to non-Jews.
The goal is to create conflict and chaos in anyway possible, especially between racial and ethnic groups. They create the reason for the fear, and also instigate the reaction to the fear. Study how they have created this situation in the South between blacks and whites. They created the Black Panthers, and the Ku Klux Klan, and they are still at it. That way they can pick our pockets while we are distracted. It's an old trick.
My impression of Gordon Duff is that he tends to implant the idea that our situation is hopeless. Articles portray our military vets as helpless victims of a system that is so corrupt they might as well just give up. He seems to be saying in everything that he writes, "Give up America, there's no hope, your military is drugged, your system is corrupt, you might as well surrender". Classic propaganda message.
I started to suspect him when I found an article posted by his wife about the joys of drinking the finest wines in Europe, and where to find them, and yet her bio stated that she studied nursing. As much as I love fine wine and traveling through Europe to do so, I know that this is a very, very expensive pastime. The wines she spoke of....well, if she were an heiress perhaps, but I don't know personally of any heiresses who have studied nursing...not that this is proof of anything at all, it was just the little clue that made me wonder.
Eventually I get around to reading everything ...
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?
I do not think that all the race-wise, Jew-wise guys who yet defend the establishment view of 9/11 or Islamic terrorism as serious threat, for example those who contributed to the Rob Lonaker 9/11 thread at TOO, are suspicious because they have freed themselves of one Jew-serving delusion but not the other. They are mistaken and less useful than they could be, but by no means necessarily mendacious or designing. This is true I think also for Michael Leon and Gordon Duff at VT, who both, you have convinced me on Duff, have a pronounced tendency to talk about race in a standard thus anti-White way.
Carolyn Yeager is right, I was hampered by not reading enough of Duff’s own posts to pick up on those elements -- although I think there’s been a recent spike in that sort of thing, which someone here speculates may be motivated by criticisms of VT elsewhere [12/24/2010 02:43:00 AM ]. But still I think VT does sterling work -- much like antiwar.com. Having a Duff or a Raimondo in charge, both openly and bitterly and hysterically ‘antipathetic to White people who want for our own kind the normal, healthy things other peoples enjoy’ does not change the fact that they provide a forum for some very powerful propaganda against the War Party and police state, a twin agenda that normal, healthy people revolt against.
You didn’t expressly direct 12/16/2010 08:58:00 AM at me, Tan, but I don’t believe I ever had any illusions or needed to make any compromises about VT. The original anonymous wrote that we should call out Duff’s anti-White rhetoric, and you’ve certainly shown here how that can and needs be done. I’m rarely online these days for more than about five minutes but I will try to look out for opportunities at VT to do just that, and hope others will, too.
The best brief summary that comes to mind right now of the research undermining the orthodox history of 9/11 is David Ray Griffin’s ‘Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039
The essay is constructed to respond to various statements by celebrity leftist pundits and Popular Mechanics articles but in doing so covers much of the evidence physicists, engineers, architects and other relevant professionals have brought forward. Surprisingly no mention of the miracle that first prompted me to look again at 9/11, that’s the BBC announcing the total ‘collapse’ of WTC7 while the building still stood, despite there being no reasonable grounds to expect that building would fall, much less fall exactly as though by controlled demolition as happened about a half hour later.
I say brief summary … it’s long enough for 183 footnotes but if you only spend a couple of hours looking into 9/11 heresies this essay would be a good use of that time.
Regarding the specific issue of the light poles at the Pentagon, relevant at the very least to the question of whether a false story and planted evidence was already in place immediately the event happened (whatever the event was), you might watch the Citizen Investigation Team’s 'National Security Alert'.
http://vimeo.com/4777716
Apologies if I posted duplicates here, I'm in a library with out of date / gremlin software.
The highest priority of the regime which rules the West is most accurately described in racial terms. It is anti-White/pro-jew ... In truth even the anti-White aspect can be seen as a mere corollary of the pro-jew priority.
Yes, I think the latter. It would be absurd to say that 'all other diplomatic/economic aspects of this regime' including 'its endless global war' are motivated by anti-White animus. Way over a million Muslim civilians have been slaughtered by those wars -- it isn't only us they hate.
I cleared those dupes out fellist. Thanks for coming back to post. I gave Duff the benefit of the doubt because I value your opinion.
Carolyn Yeager's 2nd podcast regarding her views on Duff is up now. The Heretics’ Hour: Nazis in America; Duff on the holocaust : Voice of Reason Broadcast Network. Neither Yeager nor Michael Collins Piper (who I've been listening to since the link to him above was provided) come at their topics from a racial point of view, but I find them much more inquisitive and informative, and they don't direct hostility at Whites. Yeager doesn't address Duff's anti-White attitudes, but instead counters him with plain-spoken fact and opinion about Bush, Thyssen, and (in the 2nd podcast) prison camps which, in comparison to Duff's hysteria and leaps of logic, seriously undermines Duff's self-styled reputation as a truth-seeker.
Although Carolyn Yeager does not put race front and centre in her work, I believe she is a racialist, Tan.
In one of her first broadcasts on VOR, perhaps the very first, she argues that racialists will not be successful in changing the culture in our favour if we do not address the holo question.
If she did not state it outright, she certainly implied that she herself was one of us.
***
Hail is certainly wrong about Schaenk's reasons leaving RBN. Stadtmiller hosted The Political Cesspool guys until they left of their own choice, and Piper and others who are critical of Jewry (although Piper is probably weak beer for most of us).
***
In the broadcast of January 17th, early on and from 1h26m, here:
http://www.alexjonespodcasts.com/January2011/
... Alex Jones gives a rambling, somewhat confused overview of his thinking about race, a topic he generally avoids. He presents himself as being in the centre, really, and I think he's sincere in what he says.
He's not us, but there's overlap on proximate issues, as with VT, and the forums they provide offer us an audience and a very active and young base we can exploit.
Gordon Duff may be clinically narcissistic; not an uncommon disorder among combat veterans.
If so, the Jewish portion of his heritage must, in his mind, in some manner be defended.
I know people like this.
When you decide if I am a cypto jew or nazi..please let me know.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and
at other time..simple a good smoke.
g
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110801/the-heretics-hour-spotlight-on-duffs-disinfo
Gordon Duff is a total and complete fraud who probably works for Larry Silverstein.
Michael J Volz
Reading the solicited bile (one from the other and back again) is like a Zionist picnic of self immolating pathos. It's the Jews, Germans, Nazis or Zionist while all made possible by Masons, Skull and Bones, Rothschild and lazy Americans.
you baaad Mr Duff.
We all read the tea leaves of hatred and it's consequences while having a cup of coffee.
Good one you azzolz
Post a Comment
<< Home