David Duke published on friends of Liberty/Sianews.com

[Lazarus]

Thoughts on Christmas and Chanukah


by David Duke
December 25, 2002

The American Jewish Committee, the ADL and other major Jewish supremacist organizations have worked relentlessly to forbid even the singing of Christmas carols in schools and public institutions.

http://www.friendsofliberty.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=494


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
All comments are property of their posters, all the rest copyright 2002, Friends of Liberty.

Web site Engine's code is Copyright © 2002 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.


Well, there are a number of tacks that might be taken here. The first is to argue for or against whateve Mr Duke, the former leader of the KKK has to say. I think that would be a rather trite discussion because Mr. Duke's reputation precedes him. Indeed, that debate might become a flame war.

The second is to ignore it. To say, "Well, even the opinions of extremists should be voiced and vented someplace." Many people would take that approach too easily I think. It is a slippery slope that leads to the acceptance of tawdry behavior in one's own home, backyard or neighborhood. So there throwing trash on the street! It's a public street, and the sanitation department will be along soon enough to clean up whatever was felched (nods to Sky, knowingly).

And then there is my appraoch which is to shine a light upon it and say, THERE IT IS!!!! :o It exists in YOUR home. YOU brought it to light and PUBLISHED it so that all who tripped through your part of the world would VIEW it, perhaps READ it, be PERSUADED by it, and perhaps even become a disciple of David Duke. WHAT ARE YOU DOING SUPPORTING THE PROPAGATION OF A RACIAL SUPREMACIST'S OPINIONS?

So, should freindsof liberty.com have published this material--knowing its author is considered a racist and an extremist? Or must they publish this article in an effort to promote "free speech"?

http://www.friendsofliberty.com/index.php

(BTW, the contents of Duke's article is definitely NOT the intended topic for this thread)


PLEASE:


1. TRY to keep all posts ON TOPIC:

So, should freindsof liberty.com have published this material--knowing its author is considered a racist and an extremist? Or must they publish this article in an effort to promote "free speech"?

2. BE CIVIL. This is NOT the inferno, and I DO NOT WANT THIS TOPIC SENT THERE (unless the Guardian sees no other way)!!!

3. JUSTIFY your opinions (if you can) with facts and links to resources in order to support your point of view.

* * *

My opinion:

If friendsofliberty.com was my site, I would not touch a David Duke article with a ten-foot pole. Why would THEY? ::)

My reason:

I am married to a woman of another race and have multiracial children. My mother is married to a former Jew and has Jewish in-laws. David Duke's current organization offers this information about his autobiography:


http://www.duke.org/editorial/index.html

He offers compelling evidence that belief in racial equality is the modern scientific equivalent of believing that the earth is flat.


Never mind the founding thesis of this country that "all men are created equal"?

And later, Dule's site offers this about Jews in Duke's book:


In a major section of his book, David Duke offers compelling evidence (primarily from Jewish sources) that a prominent segment of Jewry promotes what he calls “Jewish supremacism.”


What all maybe 20 million of them out of a world population of around 6 billion? Come on freindsofliberty.com, is this the best you can find to publish as representative of CONSERVATIVISM?

* * *

Your views?...

[Jethro Tull]

Yes, I think they should have published it, and I, for one, am glad they did.

Not because I agree with any of Duke's vile creed, of course ~ but then, that's not the point, is it?

"Freedom of speech?" We all support that, or most of us, anyway. But FOL didn't publish Duke to protect HIS freedom of speech.

They published it because they agree with him in principle. And, since they do, I am glad they had the guts to publish it. Too many racists hide behind code words and run away from anyone who overtly states what they really believe. It makes them harder to sniff out.

Now, if I owned a site, I would not publish Duke, because I abhor his hateful message. And if I owned a site that was in a "web-ring" with a site that published Duke, I would demand that the ring expel that site, or I would withdraw from the ring.

Immediately. Publicly. Loudly.

But, that's just me.

Because I despise everything David Duke stands for, and since everyone knows what he stands for, if I failed to disassociate myself from his evil garbage, others could fairly draw the conclusion that I at least did not strongly object to his philosophy.

On the other hand, if I really agreed with Duke, but got some bad publicity from being in the partnership with the site that posted his article, I might try a little damage control for PR purposes.

Maybe I would have someone write a critique of his article, even though such an act in and of itself gives it more respect than it deserves. But, if my core audience were rather dull-witted (as we know most of those who accept any part of the Duke credo are), they might accept this as a sufficient repudiation. Especially if they were dim enough not to have noticed the article on their own.

I think it's a good thing to know where people stand, don't you?

[Lazarus]

Yes, I think they should have published it, and I, for one, am glad they did.

Not because I agree with any of Duke's vile creed, of course ~ but then, that's not the point, is it?

"Freedom of speech?" We all support that, or most of us, anyway. But FOL didn't publish Duke to protect HIS freedom of speech.

They published it because they agree with him in principle. And, since they do, I am glad they had the guts to publish it. Too many racists hide behind code words and run away from anyone who overtly states what they really believe. It makes them harder to sniff out.

Now, if I owned a site, I would not publish Duke, because I abhor his hateful message. And if I owned a site that was in a "web-ring" with a site that published Duke, I would demand that the ring expel that site, or I would withdraw from the ring.

Immediately. Publicly. Loudly.

But, that's just me.

Because I despise everything David Duke stands for, and since everyone knows what he stands for, if I failed to disassociate myself from his evil garbage, others could fairly draw the conclusion that I at least did not strongly object to his philosophy.

On the other hand, if I really agreed with Duke, but got some bad publicity from being in the partnership with the site that posted his article, I might try a little damage control for PR purposes.

Maybe I would have someone write a critique of his article, even though such an act in and of itself gives it more respect than it deserves. But, if my core audience were rather dull-witted (as we know most of those who accept any part of the Duke credo are), they might accept this as a sufficient repudiation. Especially if they were dim enough not to have noticed the article on their own.

I think it's a good thing to know where people stand, don't you?


I believe that people have a basic human right to express their stupid and racist beliefs--and Mr Duke punlished the piece at his own website--so you are right, that FOL did indeed go quite far out of their way to bring Mr. Duke's views toward what some might consider a more 'mainstream if right-wing' kind of psuedo-credibility. And your points about the more supposedly reputable associates of FOL not disassociating themselves or even distancing themselves from such vileness is troubling.

I am glad they published the article, too--if only as a "marker" of disrepute. And it has provided the fodder for this discussion. And since we are not children, incapable of reading FOL's front page, we can determine who it is that falls within their philosophical sphere of influence. Again, that is HOMEWORK for anyone interested in following the links provided, and see where they lead if it is desired.

I can only play the devil's advocate here. And that is to ask, well, what if FOL maintains that they simply publish articles from the widest possible spectrum of right-wing and even perhaps libertarian or maybe even left-wing writers, not passing judgment on them but "simply making them available" and permitting the reader to choose freely the ideas with which they may be most comfortable. Given your 'pleasure' in having the article published (in order to identify perhaps an unsavory group), then are you unwilling to listen to the pleadings of that site's management that they are simply providing A PUBLIC SERVICE? (I must confess to a general lack of knowledge of these publishers except that this article by Duke is there). Now that is the crux of it, as I see a claim that they agree with Duke "in principal"--is the evidence of that the article itself was published? If so, then what of the "PUBLIC SERVICE" defense? Does it hold water?

[Jethro Tull]

Laz ~ some sites might attempt to hide behind that sort of blind ~ "we just publish it to bring the widest possible spectrum of views" bullshit. I don't think FOL is that sort of place; they have a history predating the internet as an extreme group with an interest in "preserving white heritage" and that sort of thing . . . more overtly racist and antisemitic than, say, the John Birch Society, but generally cut from the same cloth.

I believe they are sincere in bringing Duke's views to their site, that they endorse and agree with those views. Their "partner" sites may not have had a "heads-up" advance notice that his article would be published, but they (FOL) undoubtably did not feel such was needed, since FOL has never hidden their own agenda.

The electric kool-aid acid test for the "partners," of course, was in how they reacted to the publication of the world's most well-known white supremacist on a site which claims them as its "partner." In that regard, the silence was deafening.

Every person of average (or above) intelligence may draw their own conclusions from these reactions, or lack thereof. (Those of lesser intelligence probably either belong to FOL, or are choking on their own drool).

[arod]

The electric kool-aid acid test for the "partners," of course, was in how they reacted to the publication of the world's most well-known white supremacist on a site which claims them as its "partner." In that regard, the silence was deafening.

There is, of course, no more deafening silence than that which is self-imposed by covering one's ears with one's hands. ;)

[Lazarus]

Laz ~ some sites might attempt to hide behind that sort of blind ~ "we just publish it to bring the widest possible spectrum of views" bullshit. I don't think FOL is that sort of place; they have a history predating the internet as an extreme group with an interest in "preserving white heritage" and that sort of thing . . . more overtly racist and antisemitic than, say, the John Birch Society, but generally cut from the same cloth.

I believe they are sincere in bringing Duke's views to their site, that they endorse and agree with those views. Their "partner" sites may not have had a "heads-up" advance notice that his article would be published, but they (FOL) undoubtably did not feel such was needed, since FOL has never hidden their own agenda.

The electric kool-aid acid test for the "partners," of course, was in how they reacted to the publication of the world's most well-known white supremacist on a site which claims them as its "partner." In that regard, the silence was deafening.

Every person of average (or above) intelligence may draw their own conclusions from these reactions, or lack thereof. (Those of lesser intelligence probably either belong to FOL, or are choking on their own drool).


I appreciate your sentiments, but there is one thing that you posted that seems worth "challanging" (I know I am playing devil's advocate here but it is the lynchpin of the argument):

How do you "know" this~~

"they have a history predating the internet as an extreme group with an interest in "preserving white heritage" and that sort of thing . . ."?

That is, is it just your opinion, or have you found something that supports your opinion that you might post a link to in this thread? It seems to me that if such a history (record) exists, then all who have knowingly "partnered" with them are equally culpable for fomenting racial and ethnic divisiveness, giving it aid and comfort as it exists there. But, if there is no "smoking gun" then doesn't "fair play" require that they are considered not guilty until it is established convincingly otherwise?

[Jethro Tull]

I appreciate your sentiments, but there is one thing that you posted that seems worth "challanging" (I know I am playing devil's advocate here but it is the lynchpin of the argument):

How do you "know" this~~

"they have a history predating the internet as an extreme group with an interest in "preserving white heritage" and that sort of thing . . ."?

That is, is it just your opinion, or have you found something that supports your opinion that you might post a link to in this thread? It seems to me that if such a history (record) exists, then all who have knowingly "partnered" with them are equally culpable for fomenting racial and ethnic divisiveness, giving it aid and comfort as it exists there. But, if there is no "smoking gun" then doesn't "fair play" require that they are considered not guilty until it is established convincingly otherwise?


Actually, Laz, I was mistaken. I thought they were the reformulation of the old "Liberty Lobby," which was the publisher of The Spotlight, and was forced into bankruptcy by lawsuits a couple of years ago.

I was wrong, at least insofar as direct organizational connections go. FOL, it turns out, is just another Todd Brendan Fahey site. While the opinions expressed and the target audience may be almost indistinguishable, I can't find any direct link (of course, if there were any direct link, their assets would probably be subject to the receivership).

My apologies to you and any readers for the error, and to Mr. Fahey for crediting him and his site with more importance in the history of the lunatic fringe right than he actually deserves.

[Lazarus]

I appreciate your sentiments, but there is one thing that you posted that seems worth "challanging" (I know I am playing devil's advocate here but it is the lynchpin of the argument):

How do you "know" this~~

"they have a history predating the internet as an extreme group with an interest in "preserving white heritage" and that sort of thing . . ."?

That is, is it just your opinion, or have you found something that supports your opinion that you might post a link to in this thread? It seems to me that if such a history (record) exists, then all who have knowingly "partnered" with them are equally culpable for fomenting racial and ethnic divisiveness, giving it aid and comfort as it exists there. But, if there is no "smoking gun" then doesn't "fair play" require that they are considered not guilty until it is established convincingly otherwise?


Actually, Laz, I was mistaken. I thought they were the reformulation of the old "Liberty Lobby," which was the publisher of The Spotlight, and was forced into bankruptcy by lawsuits a couple of years ago.

I was wrong, at least insofar as direct organizational connections go. FOL, it turns out, is just another Todd Brendan Fahey site. While the opinions expressed and the target audience may be almost indistinguishable, I can't find any direct link (of course, if there were any direct link, their assets would probably be subject to the receivership).

My apologies to you and any readers for the error, and to Mr. Fahey for crediting him and his site with more importance in the history of the lunatic fringe right than he actually deserves.


No problem. I have also heard from various sources that Todd Brendon Fahey is the publisher of (or controls) FriendsofLiberty.com. Trying to obtain that information--even to verify it--from the friendsofliberty website has been difficult and the only way to do so seems to be to take the word of the webmaster when clicking the image of the book they are trying to sell (it shows up as the "affiliate" value in the link so that the account thereby identified is credited for the referal.

It sees to me that this is precisely the purpose of discussion forums. To voice one's opinions, get challanged, and by that challanged be mature enough to concede a point of fact, law, or reason--or post (put up) the requested information that supports one's view.

By that process, we all learn many things that are of value to ourselves and to society.

Even so, I cannot fathom why TBF would wish to associate himself to David Duke by re-publishing Duke's article. And unless and until I receive a cogent explanation for that action, then I DO consider the EDITORIAL CHOICE to re-publish it in its entirety giving an undeserved platform to a White Supremacist. That the article even appears there stands as tacit agreement or endorsement of the views which the article presents or represents and through that--it tends to try to "legitimize" the author of it--Duke.

What was he thinking? :o

[Jethro Tull]

Fahey? Thinking? Interesting concept.

BUT ~ Insofar as the ownership goes, if you go to friends of liberty.com and click on their link to "Alexa rankings," you don't go to Alexa, but instead to http://www.strike-the-root.com/traffic.html.

(Now, as an aside, looking at the traffic reports, it swiftly becomes clear that Alexa rankings are soled determined by those who have the Alexa toolbar, as the high numbers for nutcase sites versus very low numbers for even extremely popular mainstream conservative sites like NewsMax or NRO reveal).

But scroll down the rankings at bit until you find "Friends of Liberty/Sianews" . . . Hmmm, listed as one site . . . . open a new window of www.friendsofliberty.com, then click that dual listing in the "strike the root" list. It comes up as www.sianews.com, which Fahey bragged of owning on EZ right after the NM closing. Now compare Sianews with FOL . . .

Of course, you may not consider that as "proof" . . . ;)

[Lazarus]

Fahey? Thinking? Interesting concept.

BUT ~ Insofar as the ownership goes, if you go to friends of liberty.com and click on their link to "Alexa rankings," you don't go to Alexa, but instead to http://www.strike-the-root.com/traffic.html.

(Now, as an aside, looking at the traffic reports, it swiftly becomes clear that Alexa rankings are soled determined by those who have the Alexa toolbar, as the high numbers for nutcase sites versus very low numbers for even extremely popular mainstream conservative sites like NewsMax or NRO reveal).

But scroll down the rankings at bit until you find "Friends of Liberty/Sianews" . . . Hmmm, listed as one site . . . . open a new window of www.friendsofliberty.com, then click that dual listing in the "strike the root" list. It comes up as www.sianews.com, which Fahey bragged of owning on EZ right after the NM closing. Now compare Sianews with FOL . . .

Of course, you may not consider that as "proof" . . . ;)


On the FRONT page. Run your mouse over the book they are trying to sell, and look at your status bar (if you use IE6), and the "affiliate" variable is set to Fahey's name. When I view the source code for the web page, I see that it is embedded there...

"<br><center><a href="http://www.cia-drugs.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=CS&Affiliate=to ddbrendanfahey"><img src="images/amazon/trineday.gif" border="0" alt=""><br><br></center>"

Follow the money... ;D

Right now on the archive page, it is hawking one of Fahey's books (vanity published, of course). So, I guess it adds up.

[Flyrod]

Yes, I think they should have published it, and I, for one, am glad they did.

Not because I agree with any of Duke's vile creed, of course ~ but then, that's not the point, is it?

"Freedom of speech?" We all support that, or most of us, anyway. But FOL didn't publish Duke to protect HIS freedom of speech.

They published it because they agree with him in principle. And, since they do, I am glad they had the guts to publish it. Too many racists hide behind code words and run away from anyone who overtly states what they really believe. It makes them harder to sniff out.

Now, if I owned a site, I would not publish Duke, because I abhor his hateful message. And if I owned a site that was in a "web-ring" with a site that published Duke, I would demand that the ring expel that site, or I would withdraw from the ring.

Immediately. Publicly. Loudly.

But, that's just me.

Because I despise everything David Duke stands for, and since everyone knows what he stands for, if I failed to disassociate myself from his evil garbage, others could fairly draw the conclusion that I at least did not strongly object to his philosophy.

On the other hand, if I really agreed with Duke, but got some bad publicity from being in the partnership with the site that posted his article, I might try a little damage control for PR purposes.

Maybe I would have someone write a critique of his article, even though such an act in and of itself gives it more respect than it deserves. But, if my core audience were rather dull-witted (as we know most of those who accept any part of the Duke credo are), they might accept this as a sufficient repudiation. Especially if they were dim enough not to have noticed the article on their own.

I think it's a good thing to know where people stand, don't you?


JT, I agree. I don't agree with most of what David Duke says, but he has the right to say it!! I completely disagree with government mandated PC speech, which these socialist , commies, or whatever think is the best thing since peanut butter, if you know what I mean!! They want to bypass the constitution and everything standing in their way, because they are lazy worthless dangerous SOB's. This is where I stand right now!!

[Lazarus]

David Duke published his article at his own website. These two sites picked it up and ran them.

WHY?
:o

[Jethro Tull]

David Duke published his article at his own website. These two sites picked it up and ran them.

WHY?
:o


Alas, my friend, I am in the same quandry . . . I have no proof, mind you, yet I simply cannot imagine any reason one would reprint Duke other than 1) one agrees with Duke generally, 2) one agrees with Duke's positions in the given article, 3) one considers oneself and/or one's own audience a part of "The Movement" which Duke promises to keep informed, or 4) all of the preceding.

Since we are, according to those Ph.D.s at that other place, merely vulgar twits, perhaps one of their intellectual giants will happen by to enlighten our poor dark corner?

[arod]

David Duke published his article at his own website. These two sites picked it up and ran them.

WHY?
:o


Alas, my friend, I am in the same quandry . . . I have no proof, mind you, yet I simply cannot imagine any reason one would reprint Duke other than 1) one agrees with Duke generally, 2) one agrees with Duke's positions in the given article, 3) one considers oneself and/or one's own audience a part of "The Movement" which Duke promises to keep informed, or 4) all of the preceding.

Since we are, according to those Ph.D.s at that other place, merely vulgar twits, perhaps one of their intellectual giants will happen by to enlighten our poor dark corner?



It appears to me that all the verbiage on this thread has led to the conclusion that Fahey insane enough to think Duke's opinions have merit. I don't know that this was ever at issue, especially considering this (http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=5;action=display;num=1041284584):

From Duke's article:

I am gratified for the almost unanimous support I have received.

NC3 responds at EZ:

All twenty two members of the National Alliance, Sen. Byrd and Todd Fayhe[Fahey]

[Lazarus]

David Duke published his article at his own website. These two sites picked it up and ran them.

WHY?
:o


Alas, my friend, I am in the same quandry . . . I have no proof, mind you, yet I simply cannot imagine any reason one would reprint Duke other than 1) one agrees with Duke generally, 2) one agrees with Duke's positions in the given article, 3) one considers oneself and/or one's own audience a part of "The Movement" which Duke promises to keep informed, or 4) all of the preceding.

Since we are, according to those Ph.D.s at that other place, merely vulgar twits, perhaps one of their intellectual giants will happen by to enlighten our poor dark corner?



It appears to me that all the verbiage on this thread has led to the conclusion that Fahey insane enough to think Duke's opinions have merit. I don't know that this was ever at issue, especially considering this (http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=5;action=display;num=1041284584):

From Duke's article:

I am gratified for the almost unanimous support I have received.

NC3 responds at EZ:

All twenty two members of the National Alliance, Sen. Byrd and Todd Fayhe[Fahey]


So are you saying that Fahey is also a racist?

If so, then what does one fellow's comments on an internet forum really mean?

And the issue then devolves to one of duplicity of action. Perhaps he believes that these two can peacefully co-exist together?

We see the Duke piece:

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=494

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&l _op=viewlink&cid=1


http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&l _op=visit&lid=26
American Patriots For TRUE Equality

Description: The APFTE is an organization that stands beside the American way, not hiding behind it with a contrary agenda; some organizations use America for their own gain and actually help impair freedoms progress. The APFTE welcomes all Americans, and will never divide our Citizens by region, religion, state, race or ethnic origin. We Stand As One! American Patriots for True Equality is dedicated to the equal treatment of ALL races and People of America. Do you ever wonder where our "American Culture" is going? Friends, there is a cultural crisis going on right now...


Or can they? ::)