I don't think Alex has a problem with Duke.

The issue is, why did Glenn Miller advertise DavidDuke.com and NOT GOVNN.COM on his campaign radio ads, paid for by VNN members?

Duke wants to distance himself from organizations like VNN and, say the NSM. I agree with his stance. I don't think Glenn Miller should advertise David Duke's site on his radio ads because David Duke wants nothing to do with it.

David Duke has spent decades crafting his message and speech pattern for the masses.

Does his name need to be muddied by a campaign ad written in five minutes by someone he wants nothing to do with?

It's tremendously unfortunate that David Duke and Alex Linder are at odds. I think Duke wants to promote a more mainstream style than Alex believes is necessary. Nevertheless, David Duke has been and continues to be -- partly because of his more mainstream approach -- a powerful White force for our people. He deserves our support -- VNN'ers' support.

Yeah, I think unfortunate too, Devere. In fact, I'd like to see more unity in WN overall.

I agree that Duke and Linder are both for the same end game results, but differ on the methodology. It reminds me of two people speaking the same language, but with different accents. Or, maybe its more like different denominations of the same faith. Different denominations of christianity have laid the sword to each other, and yet worship the same three headed god.

Think of the potential of a Duke/Linder unified front! These two very talented men, each in their own way, but working together could make quite a difference.

Kith, kin, and kind. First, last, and always.

 

It's tremendously unfortunate that David Duke and Alex Linder are at odds. I think Duke wants to promote a more mainstream style than Alex believes is necessary. Nevertheless, David Duke has been and continues to be -- partly because of his more mainstream approach -- a powerful White force for our people. He deserves our support -- VNN'ers' support.

Here's an interesting mainstream article about David Duke, posted on National Vanguard:

------------------------------------------

Once Again David Duke is Ahead of the Curve
News/Comment] http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10097 [/url]

David Duke's Klan past makes his new "mainstream" approach look like a fraud to most people. Alex Linder isn't tainted by that kind of baggage and thus he doesn't look like he's running some scam on the public.

Besides that, Duke is just way too close to Don Black.

I don't think Alex has a problem with Duke.

The issue is, why did Glenn Miller advertise DavidDuke.com and NOT GOVNN.COM oh his campaign radio ads, paid for by VNN members?

Did you give money to the campaign?

It's tremendously unfortunate that David Duke and Alex Linder are at odds. I think Duke wants to promote a more mainstream style than Alex believes is necessary. Nevertheless, David Duke has been and continues to be -- partly because of his more mainstream approach -- a powerful White force for our people. He deserves our support -- VNN'ers' support.

Duke has done good things and is a positive force, but I cannot support sending donations to a person who has squandered donations on casino gambling, and who has claimed (in a private letter that ended up being printed on VNN) he was experimenting with a "system" to beat the house.

What I can support is that everyone buy his books. The books, especially My Awakening, are excellent and should be bought and distributed to friends and family. Duke deserves an income like any other author. He writes a book, we buy it, and he earns an income which he actually deserves, and which he can rightfully do whatever he pleases with (without the pretense of the money going to the "Cause"). But as for sending free donations, no way.

Here's an interesting mainstream article about David Duke, posted on National Vanguard:

------------------------------------------

Once Again David Duke is Ahead of the Curve
News/Comment]
Thanks for reminding me. That article was posted here two weeks ago:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=37762

Nobody could seem to find this article anywhere else but on Duke's
own site, nor could they identify who this woman writes for. Has this
changed? I had completely forgotten about it.

[color="White"].-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A careful study of anti-semitism prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many jews,
who do not adequately realize the irritations they inflict." - H.G. Wells (November 11, 1933)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's tremendously unfortunate that David Duke and Alex Linder are at odds. I think Duke wants to promote a more mainstream style than Alex believes is necessary. Nevertheless, David Duke has been and continues to be -- partly because of his more mainstream approach -- a powerful White force for our people. He deserves our support -- VNN'ers' support.

Here's an interesting mainstream article about David Duke, posted on National Vanguard:

------------------------------------------

Once Again David Duke is Ahead of the Curve
News/Comment] http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10097 [/url]

Has anyone ever figured out the exact origin of this article? I cannot even find a journalist named Maria Mathews, let alone the paper she allegedly works for.

Don't get me wrong, I love Duke and think it's a wonderful commentary, I'm just curious about where it originally came from.

Thanks for reminding me. That article was posted here two weeks ago:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=37762

Nobody could seem to find this article anywhere else but on Duke's
own site, nor could they identify who this woman writes for. Has this
changed? I had completely forgotten about it.

Ahh, I see I'm not alone. Note to self: read all posts before commenting.

Has anyone ever figured out the exact origin of this article? I cannot even find a journalist named Maria Mathews, let alone the paper she allegedly works for.

Don't get me wrong, I love Duke and think it's a wonderful commentary, I'm just curious about where it originally came from.

I like Duke, as well, and his personal flaws don't bother me overly. However, I had the same experience searching for this article and the "journalist," Maria Mathews. I used a commercial tool called DevonAgent to do the search. It uses all normal and a few less-well-known search engines, plus some proprietary methods to crawl through the web. A deep search can take hours. The only traces of this article were direct links to Duke's web page. It found more than a thousand links to "Maria Mathews". I scanned them all, and read through many of them. Apparently there is no one in the world named Maria Mathews who has ever written for any paper or magazine. Oddly, I found several doctors in different countries with this name and at least one had published medical papers.

Enkidu

Yeah I searched all over and couldn't find anything on this "Maria Mathews – Times analyst". Either Duke&his website made up the story, or else someone else made up the story and sent it to them and they posted the story without checking up on it. It's possible she writes for some small-town paper that isn't on the internet, but I doubt it.

I like Duke, as well, and his personal flaws don't bother me overly. However, I had the same experience searching for this article and the "journalist," Maria Mathews. I used a commercial tool called DevonAgent to do the search. It uses all normal and a few less-well-known search engines, plus some proprietary methods to crawl through the web. A deep search can take hours. The only traces of this article were direct links to Duke's web page. It found more than a thousand links to "Maria Mathews". I scanned them all, and read through many of them. Apparently there is no one in the world named Maria Mathews who has ever written for any paper or magazine. Oddly, I found several doctors in different countries with this name and at least one had published medical papers.

Enkidu

Dude, I too used several search engines (Google is usually my third or fourth choice). Also, I am a full time student with full access to Lexis-Nexis, which is unquestionably the largest newspaper article database on earth (to give you an idea of how powerful Lexis-Nexis is, last semester I was researching the Iran-Contra scandal, and with one click I had literally thousands of full articles from the 1980s).

Anyway, even using Lexis-Nexis, I could find nothing matching "Maria Mathews" from any newspaper, let alone one who works for a paper named "Times" or "The Times." The closest thing I could find that happened 15 years ago was an 11 year old girl named Maria Mathew who placed 2nd in the 64th National Spelling Bee.

This woman claims to be a veteran writer with at least 15 years experience, so she should be all over the net. Lexis-Nexis shouldn't even be necessary.

I am starting to fear that someone just made this shit up, eMailed it to Duke, and Duke posted it to his site without verifying it.

I hope I am wrong, but what other explanation could there be?

I am starting to fear that someone just made this shit up, eMailed it to Duke, and Duke posted it to his site without verifying it.

I hope I am wrong, but what other explanation could there be?

I thought that maybe Maria Mathews might be a nom de plume,
but why then would she include a headshot? Maybe she writes
for a Ukranian paper and english-based search engines don't cover
it? Or, maybe Duke really did get hoodwinked.

Well, I see it like this. Duke has a vacuum of supporters he likes to keep who never question his means or methods. He likes to keep himself esteemed above many of the other activists in the white struggle. This is fine as long as he doesn't consider himself a leader and sticks to educating. He should also refrain from attacking other activists whom are not part of his stormfront clique. A leader must work with all other white leaders who are working to secure white living space. I think it's ironic that he stays away from many other WN leaders because he doesn't want to be typecasted as a pro-white nut by the mainstream, yet his very name evokes the typecasting he is trying to avoid By his example, maybe other WN should avoid association with him

BTW, I've read both of his books and they are excellent. As a writer and educator he is talented but leadership, in my opinion, should not be considered an option. He does not provide any foundation upon which struggling whites can get a foothold, leading to the creation of white living space which is the ultimate goal.

Well, I see it like this. Duke has a vacuum of supporters he likes to keep who never question his means or methods. He likes to keep himself esteemed above many of the other activists in the white struggle. This is fine as long as he doesn't consider himself a leader and sticks to educating. He should also refrain from attacking other activists whom are not part of his stormfront clique. A leader must work with all other white leaders who are working to secure white living space. I think it's ironic that he stays away from many other WN leaders because he doesn't want to be typecasted as a pro-white nut by the mainstream, yet his very name evokes the typecasting he is trying to avoid By his example, maybe other WN should avoid association with him ]An interesting distinction. Yes, Duke is an educator and awakener -- with his books and speeches and radio talks and debates and articles and website -- one of our best educators, if not the best -- probably the one most able to awaken and bring into the fold the more mainstream Whites.

He, however, has worked also -- almost uniquely -- to build and unify the movement worldwide and to, especially, bring Russia, Central White Asia, and Eastern Europe into growing awareness and world White unity. I think he has been striving, quite effectively, to establish ORION as a fact -- even though he has focussed on the more mainstream White leaders and educators. Is this not leadership, world leadership? It would seem he has clearly not "stuck to educating." He may not be trying to bring all leaders and organizations into this unity, but he is working toward White world unity. I suspect you are making a distinction for David Duke where none in fact exists -- or, at least, there may be a distinction to make along these lines, but it is not quite the distinction you make.

You and I may be, in our small ways (speaking at least for myself on the small part), educators. David Duke is clearly more -- not merely by degree but by kind.

On the other hand, although I think Duke is a leader, he is not a leader as, say, Hitler was. A leader and creator of a political organization that could and did take national power.

Alex Linder is also principally an awakener, an educator -- but a more localized one -- or at least an awakener on a much smaller (if freer) scale -- as yet. With his current emphasis on creating a physical White community, he may be transforming himself into an organizational/community (if not national and international) leader. It's a long difficult road, however. We'll have to see how it works out.

Both leaders (and others), in my opinion, deserve our support -- both moral and monetary.