Saturday, August 22, 2015

Charlatans, Operatives and Disinformation Agents - Episode II: Karen Hudes

Not exactly a household name among 'truther' circles, but with a growing following and bringing forth claims of a particularly scandalous nature, Karen Hudes is the subject of my second edition of 'Charlatans, Operatives and Disinformation Agents.' Karen is a bit of an aberration in terms personalities making up the 'alternative' or 'fringe' information network. Without question, she occupies a space all her own in that regard. When one imagines the prototypical "tinfoil hat-wearing, nutty conspiracy theorist" that's so often the subject of ridicule by arrogant, brainwashed subjects of the establishment, Hudes would probably be the best representation you could find. The best disinformation agents offer up a heavy portion of truth with just enough horse shit mixed in to cook up the perfect recipe of mind-fuckery to be digested by those of us who have wandered off the beaten path. Alas, in the case of Karen Hudes, this particular pattern isn't really replicated. From what I have personally gathered, there isn't much in the way of hard truths being told outside of the obvious. Rather, there is an element of shock value and a tactically over-the-top style, which would explain the lack of acclaim and recognition she has thus far achieved. That being said, each operative and agent has their own particular role, and speculation relating to her popularity and recognition is rather inconsequential for the purpose of this piece. So, who is Karen Hudes?

Karen Hudes is best known as the World Bank "whistle-blower"who "revealed" the corruption within the institution (Because previously we all assumed the WB was nothing but honest, noble and responsible) and was subsequently sent on her way after 20+ years in her high-ranking position. She now has apparently made it her life's mission to expose not only the unscrupulousness of the World Bank, but also a variety of other "secrets" that pose grave threats to humanity. Among those secrets are cone-headed aliens occupying the Catholic priesthood, multiple alien species living on Earth, and Vatican influence and control over literally every single event taking place in the world. If the heavy-set teenage girl at the KFC drive-thru fucked up your order, you can be sure the Vatican was responsible in some way. She has also made dubious claims such as 40% and 60% of US tax dollars go to the United Kingdom and the Vatican, respectively. Predictably, in all her alleged "revelations" and commentary on world affairs, what's missing is any mention of Israel and Zionism. Even her take on the JFK assassination makes no mention of the Mossad and/or Israel. Is it any surprise, therefore, that Hudes and her husband are both Ashkenazi Jews? Speaking of her husband...

Her husband, Barry Spergel, also spent time working for the Rothschild-controlled World Bank. In addition, he has worked with the UN and Rockefeller-funded WWF on numerous "environmental sustainability" projects that, for what it's worth, coincide with the aims and provisions of the infamous Agenda 21. Through his extensive work with the WWF, which receives a large percentage of its funding from the World Bank itself, he has developed ties to the Rockefeller dynasty, the Walton family, USAID, the British monarchy and other unwholesome characters and entities. The couple currently resides in Washington.

Another important part of this story is close colleague of Hudes and fellow anti-Vatican crusader, Eric Jon Phelps. Phelps is an Israeli diamond merchant, virulently anti-Catholic Zionist who, like Hudes, implicates the Vatican and the Jesuits as the root cause of every manifestation of evil imaginable. The targets of Phelps' attacks and "Jesuit agent" accusations are too many to list, with members of the 9/11 truth movement -- and the movement itself -- being part of the equation. Without going to great lengths in summarizing Phelps, he could best be described as a raving lunatic, overt provocateur and brazen trickster. You can read much more about Eric Jon Phelps and his dirty deeds here and here.

But let us return to the subject of this piece, Karen Hudes herself. The first, most obvious question that must be asked is: What sort of evidence does she offer to back her claims of Vatican and Jesuit culpability in the voluminous array of crimes and malicious activities she attributes to them? The answer to that question is none. Zero. What evidence does she offer to support the claim of cone-headed aliens masquerading as Catholic clergymen? Again, evidence of any kind is completely absent. Certainly, in the case of the latter, one should not expect otherwise. The claim itself is absurd and doesn't warrant much of a discussion in the first place. The next observation that must be made and borne in mind is, with connections to the types of groups and people Hudes has (of which I have barely even elaborated on here), suspension of disbelief on an enormous scale is required to accept at face value her status as legitimate whistle-blower. No less important -- and perhaps even more so -- is the presence of the limited hangout/disinformation agent common denominator: The complete omission of Israel/Zionism from the "revelations" and discourse. Most reading this need no further explanation as to the pertinence of this factor.

Assessing the veracity of the whistle-blower claim from another angle, I am compelled to invoke one aspect of the Eddie Snowden Rule. If this international cabal of Jesuits and Jesuit agents is as all-powerful and omnipresent as Hudes would lead you to believe, would she be afforded the opportunity to continue "exposing" them as she does? If her claims held a degree of validity, would those "revelations" ever even see the light of day? When she "blew the whistle" on the World Bank, would that not precipitate a series of measures to limit what additional "revelations" would be aired out to the public? Where was the damage control? Any kind of damage control. Not only is she alive and well, she hasn't even gotten the Dominique Strauss-Kahn treatment. She's been given free reign to run around "blowing the whistle" on this or that, and making heavy-handed accusations that, if true, would shake the foundations of modern civilization. As in the case of Fast Eddie Snowden, it is preposterous to believe the deep-state, or in Hudes' world of alien Jesuit boogeymen, the "Order," would not make quick work of these "whistle-blowers" and say nighty-night. Michael Hastings comes to mind, and Hastings wasn't touching on anything even remotely consequential in comparison to claims being made by Hudes. All things considered, the narrative being disseminated by this individual has gone beyond far-fetched and frankly has entered the realm of lunacy.

What we have witnessed time and again, with each so-called dissident, whistle-blower, truther, and any other form of opposition or resistance, are patterns of inconsistency, obfuscation and deception by omission. Any analysis of world power structures, crime syndicates, financial treachery, terror networks, etc, that absolves or outright excludes the Jewish and/or Zionist component is misleading and deceitful. Whether that omission is derived from fear of being shamed or is the product of a willing participant in the establishment's protection of Israel/Zionism does not alter its dishonest character one iota. When our so-called whistle-blower or dissident goes to extreme lengths to keep Israel and/or Zionism out of the equation, it becomes plainly evident we're dealing with an operative whose job is to propagate false and misleading information, manufacture the suitable red-herring and sow confusion among the 'unplugged' segments of society.

This is merely a personal assessment, not a biography of the individual. To cover in totality or in large part the ins and outs of Karen Hudes would require more time to articulate in writing than I have, or that I am willing to put forth. That said, taking into account her background, connections, the nature of her claims, the freedom she enjoys to make those claims, and what is conspicuously absent from them, to make a case for her being a Zionist operative wouldn't prove to be a difficult task. While it is conceivable yet near-impossible to prove that is indeed what she is, what is unmistakable is that she is not a genuine "whistle-blower," and is in fact engaged in some sort of contrivance and diversion. Just another psychological warfare operation.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Putin’s Holocaust Denial Law: The ‘People’s Champion’ President That Never Was?

In the spring of last year, with scarce media attention, Vladimir Putin instituted new “anti-revisionist” legislation in Russia, which included “holocaust denial,” punishable by up to five years in prison. These new laws were given such little attention – both in Russia itself and abroad – that was only brought to the attention of myself and many others I’ve spoken to very recently. This was a shocking revelation to me and undoubtedly many others as well. To the multitudes of anti-imperialism and American hegemony in the West, Putin has become a somewhat heroic figure, standing virtually alone among heads of state in prominent nations in steadfast opposition to the ever-expanding world dominion of the US and NATO. After the US-backed coup that took place in February of 2014 in the Ukraine, and the ensuing demonization of Putin that has become a virtually daily occurrence in the Western media, this admiration for Putin has only grown stronger and more widespread. Seemingly, Putin represented the antithesis of the arrogance and aggression which characterizes the US and its NATO puppet states. A powerful, influential head of state who stood for virtue, self-determination, justice and the will of the people above all else. What then do we make of this “holocaust denial” law that Putin very quietly enacted? Certainly, this revelation raises some very important questions and perhaps shatters many of the illusions his admirers outside Russia may have had about the President.

As is known, many countries throughout Europe have long had holocaust denial laws on the books, with a few (namely Germany) known to be rather aggressive in utilizing them. On the surface it would be reasonable to surmise that these various European countries employing these thought-crime laws have different motives behind them than Putin’s Russia, but one could also speculate that the underlying cause does indeed parallel that of Russia’s, at least to a degree (As I will touch on later). Against the backdrop of the Ukrainian coup and the various fascist elements now playing a significant role in that country in the aftermath, this new legislation would appear to be in the interest of counter-acting what is admittedly a dangerous trend developing right on Russia’s border. But is it deeper than that? In a country where the President enjoys support that is in all likelihood unmatched in the entire world, one wonders what benefit such thought-crime laws could really produce. After all, potential targets of these laws surely represent such a small fraction of Russian society that a real threat to any aspect of Russian life posed by them must be non-existent. It is therefore, in my humble opinion, evident that president Putin has obtained the positive image he has from the people abroad more so due to the present conditions in which US-NATO aggression and fear-mongering abound – and NOT because of anything Putin has stood for outside the context of the current “new Cold War” scenario. Indeed, enacting thought-crime laws such as these is indicative of a regressive and authoritarian atmosphere. It has come time to call into question the true nature of this “man of the people.”

An oft-repeated yet (to my knowledge) wholly unverifiable claim is that “Putin kicked out all the Jewish oligarchs” after coming to power; that Russian foreign debt and obligations to the international Jewish banking cartel had ceased to be. Is this true? While not inseparably bound up with having such laws on the books, it is worth more than a passing thought. While undoubtedly not beholden to international Zionism in the fashion of many other European countries – Germany and France being at the forefront – it is nonetheless apparent that Russia has not fully untangled itself from this power structure that still operates on a global scale and with very little opposition to its practices and aims. It’s an unfortunate development on multiple fronts, only a few of which can be covered in this piece. What is for certain is, along with the praise Putin has received for his leadership in de-escalating (or at least attempting to) conflicts and spearheading various geopolitical initiatives of a positive nature, there must be critical analysis undertaken and questions posed as to what prompted this assault on freedom of speech, expression and thought – Especially coming from a country which prides itself on the notion of defeating fascism once and for all. A president who presents himself as anti-fascist and a defender of freedom and democratic rights can hardly be taken seriously in that regard while presiding over a government that has outlawed what boils down to asking questions.

The broader implications of legally enforced anti-revisionism

The overall theme of the legislation is, of course, centered around WWII revisionism and the Soviet Union’s predominant role in defeating Nazi Germany -- and bringing an end to (THAT particular episode of) fascism. One need not be an expert on foreign affairs or world history to know that this subject and chapter in Russian history remains of particular cultural importance, and an immense source of pride, to the people of Russia. This fact would offer somewhat of an explanation as to why there was no real objection of this legislation to be found. Russians, like Americans (although perhaps not to the same mind-numbing degree), exist in a world of propaganda that forms the basis for most of what they believe. On the same note, again like Americans, nationalist sentiment is woven into the very fabric of society. For what it’s worth, in Russians’ case, the source of this nationalism holds roots and causes offering much greater legitimacy than that of the nationalist sentiment within the United States. Nevertheless, I suspect this strong nationalist sentiment all but nullifies the losses of freedom of expression that come with legislation outlawing thought-crimes. Without giving the appearance of an anti-Russian sentiment here – as that is absolutely not what I am conveying – it would be prudent to bear in mind that where fervent nationalism is found, national chauvinism is not far behind it. By enacting laws forbidding revisionist ideas, Putin would be doing three things, none of which are positive:

1)      Mimicking the various neo-fascist European client states of Washington and Tel Aviv, of whom none should be setting an example for any major power seeking to establish itself as a legitimate alternative to the current world order of chaos.

2)      Adopting a legal construct that is as fine an example of fascism as there is to be found; thereby taking Russian society backwards at a time it seeks more than ever to emerge as a nation which leads example towards developing a more just and peaceful world.

3)      Delivering a self-inflicted blow to its credibility in respect to its alleged position at the forefront of fighting and defeating fascism, both in the past and in the present.



Next door in the Ukraine, where lawlessness abounds and literal neo-Nazis have obtained a tremendous position in the ongoing affairs of the soon-to-be failed state, the sitting fascist “government” has banned all Communist symbols, banned Communist and pro-Russian parties, and for all intents and purposes has criminalized ideologies. By enacting anti-revisionist laws, and more specifically holocaust denial laws, Putin has acted in a way virtually indistinguishable from what is unfolding in the Ukraine. It is unnecessary to delve into the facts and fictions of the so-called Holocaust at this time, because questioning and studying official narratives of historical events – regardless of who bore the brunt of the tragedy or who is primarily responsible for initiating and ending such an historical episode – can only be considered a crime in the most totalitarian and Orwellian society. And in fact, there isn’t another period of history or specific element within that period, which has prompted such limitations on discourse as the so-called Holocaust of WWII has.

 I am compelled to admit that I do not know precisely how this legislation reads in terms of holocaust denial, or what its criteria are. That being said, it’s difficult or even impossible to imagine such criteria have the potential to vary from previous laws in such a way that it’s rendered a formality. If such was the case, this legislation, at this time in history would not have come about in the first place. In any event, such speculation is all but irrelevant. Laws against thought-crimes are laws against thought-crimes. Though the so-called Holocaust occupies a place of its own in terms of outlawing critical or contrary ideas, it is no more or no less worthy than any other event or scenario of being criminalized on the basis of critical analysis alone. Historical revisionism of any kind is not a criminal act, and anti-revisionism as a tenet of the law is the most egregious offense against a free society; indeed, it is the highest form of fascism. It must be posited then, what exactly is Putin trying to hide, and why? If, at the very least, Putin’s only objective is to preserve the official narrative of the Soviets’ supreme role in WWII, and the holocaust denial aspect is by default part of the glue that holds the entire thing together, this is bad enough. Should that be the case, and the details of the holocaust aspect of the bigger story is of little or no importance to him and the legacy he seeks to reinforce, he has nonetheless done the people of Russia (and to a different degree the entire world) an enormous disservice. This is two-fold: First, the criminalization of thought-crimes in general, no matter how true or false they are, or how important his country’s legacy and heritage are; and second, by perpetuating a clear differentiation and privilege afforded to a specific group of people and their entire basis for maintaining their monopoly on suffering. This perpetuation of the special privileges to displace, kill, control entire nations and peoples, and break any international law they so choose, while being completely immune from consequences for their actions, is made possible in no small part by criminalizing the re-visiting and critical analysis of the so-called Holocaust.


In summary, it must be repeated that anti-revisionism as law is fascism; a symptom of an emerging dystopian, totalitarian state – or world. It is a crime of the state against its citizens, regardless of what the subject is. It just so happens that the holocaust story is the most rigorously guarded, academically forbidden event we’ve ever known. Putin’s legislation last spring just further illustrates the obvious fact that the establishment has a hell of a lot they’re desperate to keep hidden. And to the extent they cannot keep it hidden, they will resort to extreme forms of persecution on those who have dared uncover parts of the truth. Vladimir Putin for some time now has been a source of hope for many people even outside of Russia. He has become a symbol of strength, of resistance, and of potential to change the trajectory of humanity for the better. Knowing what is now known about his anti-revisionism laws, that must all be called into serious question by those who possess that admiration. There are many questions that demand answers, only very few of which I have raised here.   

Monday, August 10, 2015

The Three-Ring Circus of American Politricks Laid Bare, Courtesy of Donald Trump

It is no secret, nor is it news, that the American political system is pure theater, on par with “reality television” in terms of its legitimacy and real world implications for the vast majority of the American public. Therefore, under normal circumstances, it typically doesn’t warrant even a passing thought for anyone with a shred of common sense and reasonably good grasp on reality. This time around, however, we have ourselves somewhat of an exception. How does a pompous, narcissistic, unabashed racist and overall bastard of the highest order become the most favorable – or at least the most tolerable – candidate in the field? That is exactly what we’re witnessing in the case of Donald Trump. An out-of-touch- megalomaniac who once took out a front page ad in one of the country’s largest newspapers to call for executing a group of children accused (and later exonerated) of rape, has taken on an almost endearing persona in the eyes of many Americans; a true testament to the sheer absurdity and fictional nature of American politics. Trump’s antics have inadvertently laid bare what should have been obvious long ago, and the flagrant dishonesty and disingenuous character of each and every one of his opponents – both Republican and Democrat alike – has been magnified in a way not seen before. In contrast to the array of paid stooges of special interest groups, especially of the military-industrial-complex and the Israeli lobby, what you see is what you get with Trump. As grandiose and obnoxious as the man is, this lack of shameless pandering and calculation has in some measurable form resonated with the public. Does Trump stand a chance of winning the general election or even the Republican primary? Of course not, this is a rigged game, and he showed as much given just a handful of minutes to speak at the “debate.”

The media attack dogs have been unleashed on Trump, and their useful idiots have followed suit. The people in whom Trump’s honesty has not resonated are aghast at the idea of a Trump presidency, as if it could possibly be any worse than what we’ve had at any point since 1963. The controlled media and its faithful patrons alike are in full panic-mode, scrambling to preserve the fantasy world they’ve foisted upon the public at large. Those of us with more than a couple functioning brain cells of course understand that the criticism leveled at Trump holds only superficial significance, as it’s not so much his views and hypothetical policies that disturb people, but his willingness to be straight-forward about them. Proudly proclaiming how he’s bought politicians on both sides of the paradigm, including ones he stood on stage “debating,” is the articulation of the elephant in the room no one within the spectacle or in the media has thus far been willing to acknowledge. Nor will they ever dare to do so. Against this backdrop, and considering the rest of the candidates undoubtedly share most of the same ignorant views and lack of actual credentials to occupy the position of the president of the United States, Trump’s time in the political spotlight has been a sight to behold. You don’t have to like the man or agree with even a single word that comes out of his mouth to appreciate what he has done here. In making a public mockery of the system and the people who are insane and detached enough to still march in lockstep with it, he has also brought full-circle the fraudulent nature of money-politics, using the system against itself. Is it any wonder he has the establishment and its mouthpieces in a frenzy?


If nothing else, we should enjoy this while it lasts. What we’re witnessing may not happen again for a very long time – if at all. Once the dust settles and Trump has finally been removed from the picture, the embarrassment inflicted by him will not be forgotten. The political establishment and its media mouthpieces will regroup and take the necessary steps to try and prevent such an episode from repeating itself. In the meantime, it would be beneficial to recognize the unprecedented way in which the bankruptcy of American politics has been exposed from inside, in the public forum and on a national – and even international – scale. Donald Trump is no worse of a human being than any other marionette who has thrown his or her hat into the race, and it appears, for now, that a sizeable portion of the public would rather have an honest piece of shit than a deceptive one. As for the remaining portion, for the time being we can sit back and watch them expose themselves by crying foul at every little move Trump makes. Savor the opportunity, because it won’t last. In no time, even those whose eyes have been somewhat opened by this segment of American political theater will likely be lulled back to sleep. Even so, I think we all owe Mr. Trump – the asshole that he is – a thank you.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Charlatans, Operatives & Disinformation Agents - Episode I: Gordon Duff

It has been close to a decade since I unplugged from the current of mainstream news story-telling, unrelenting propaganda and the entirely manufactured state of things most have been brainwashed into perceiving as reality. In that time I’ve developed a pretty robust level of discernment when it comes to wading through the oceans of disinformation and spotting the characters who peddle it. Senior editor of the alternative news website ‘Veterans Today’ Gordon Duff is an individual who has always aroused a great deal of suspicion in me. Though I could never really put my finger on what exactly it was that made me uneasy, I nevertheless always knew something was “off.” Without question, his publication has offered a great deal of extremely valuable information. His contributions, however, have always stood out to me as something out of the ordinary from not only the other contributors to his site, but in contrast to all other respectable and well-informed independent researchers and journalists I’ve become familiar with. For starters, his writing has a rather hyperbolic and sensationalist tone to it, somewhat along the lines of what is displayed by notorious Zionist shill and agent provocateur Alex ‘Stratfor’ Jones. Duff is more eloquent and composed in his delivery, while at the same time he is also inexplicably vague and ambiguous in much of what he puts forward. His writing can be qualified more as semi-coherent rambling than investigation. I’m inclined to believe this is not by chance, but rather because Mr. Duff (almost certainly not his real name) is not who he says he is.

Before citing some examples of Duff’s questionable background and dubious claims, I want to call attention to an article of his published in the online publication New Eastern Outlook, of which his VT is a partner. I would like to go through and highlight the many excerpts which reinforce my suspicion about this man, and why they do so. The aforementioned article is titled ‘Understanding Manufactured Dissent In America.’ The title in itself – a very common theme in Duff’s pieces – made putting this post together a no-brainer. Duff begins by throwing out a few recent economic developments in the US, resulting in – as he makes no attempt to clarify just how – “rising wages,” with absolutely no context given for this “rise,” or who exactly this has affected. It matters none, however, since this opening tidbit has very little, if anything, to do with the theme of his article. He proceeds, in typical fashion, to jump around in his subject matter and create a convoluted collection of apologetics for the Democratic party, references to martial law and gun control, and projection in regards to controlled opposition. A few curious statements he makes are:

“So, let’s talk about martial law. For those who really know American politics, the idea of a Democratic president being authoritarian is funny. There is nothing totalitarian about Democrats, in fact there is nothing even “organized” about the Democrats. They fight among each other so much, no two have ever agreed on anything.”

First, to make a distinction between the Republican and Democratic parties in such a way as to suggest the latter being authoritarian in nature is “funny,” whether in contrast to their Republican counterparts or at all, is bizarre to say the absolute least. It’d be difficult to make a case that the entire American political establishment itself is anything but authoritarian, among other reasons such an assertion is head-scratching. That aside, what it comes off as in this context is a subtle endorsement of the Democratic party, and /or an attempt to de-legitimize entirely people’s concern over an increasingly militarized society and ever-more-persistent calls for gun confiscation. Both of which, by the way, are anything but unfounded when you consider the false flag terror attacks and outright fake mass shootings that have grown increasingly more frequent. It’s worth noting, Duff himself has called many of these hoaxes and psychological operations for exactly what they are. So what gives?

He goes on:

“You see, the funny thing is the Democratic Party tends to stand for reform, civil rights, due process, free elections, environmental protections, quality education, health care and limitations on the privilege and power of those who have looted America.”

They do? This is news to me.

Perhaps puffing his chest, he states:

"As to the mechanisms of control in the US, few remotely understand any of it…"

I’m beginning to wonder if he knows a whole lot more than he’s willing to admit, and this statement is his way of rubbing in the faces of his readers what team he is actually playing for, without actually saying as much.

This is immediately followed by:

"America is highly decentralized as to political control."

This can be interpreted any number of ways. It’s a vague statement with context that doesn’t bring any real clarification to the claim. What’s interesting, though, is one way in which government authority has certainly been “decentralized” is through the infiltration and occupation by agents of Israel and the Mossad. And by decentralized, of course, we mean usurped and rendered completely opaque. For someone who continuously rails about Zionists, it’s odd to find no mention of Israel in this context.

The remainder of the “article” persists in its apologetics and borderline praise of president Obama, portraying him as merely a victim of Bush’s precedents and absolving him of any responsibility for the reign of terror he has overseen and even intensified, both overseas and domestically. For reasons unclear, he feels compelled to bring the subject of FEMA into the foray, stating:

"…thus the lunatic fringe talking about FEMA camps, which do not exist. However, they could exist but if they did, they would have been put there by Bush, not Obama…"

Every evil that currently exists in the US is a creation of right-wing entities, with Obama and his Democratic constituents merely standing helplessly on the sidelines. (And for the record, FEMA camps absolutely do exist, though they aren’t termed as such.)

One last excerpt I find very peculiar, before I touch on Duff’s shady background, is this:

"However, the Democratic Party is guilty of pandering to certain “urban elites” who advocate gun control. Their position is a rational one, people probably shouldn’t be able to own better weapons than the military but it is too late to do anything about it."

It is perplexing to me how someone like Duff can consider pandering to urban elites who want to disarm the public as a rational position. Who is this man, really? What is his real agenda? Furthermore, it is evident he harbors not only an unhealthy sympathy with a military industrial complex responsible for the mass murder of millions and millions of people (he was a marine, after all, though the veracity of "combat" veteran claim has not been without scrutiny), but also a certain level of contempt for the public at large. This is a revealing statement on his part which should call into question his true motives.


Duff's interesting background

Duff once admitted that as much as 40% of the information he writes is false, using as justification the notion that he'd be killed by TPTB if he simply told the whole truth. This open admission is absolutely astonishing coming from someone who writes about the subject matter he does and someone who has amassed the following he has among the 'truth-seeking' crowd. Taken at face value, it is nothing less than an admission to being a purveyor of disinformation; an acknowledgement that he possesses information he cannot or will not disclose. But it must be asked, why make such an admission in the first place? Is the notion that he'd be murdered if this were not the case a poorly-formulated tactic of building credibility, or is there a much more calculated reason? Perhaps this admission is in fact 100% true, only his perceived "fear" and "speculation" are in reality part of his job description as dictated by his handlers. If the latter is the case, it certainly doesn't pose any kind of risk to him or any entity Duff seemingly targets. The incident is a bizarre spectacle that only adds to the confusion and mystery surrounding this figure.

Something very few, if any of Duff's readers are aware of (or care to think twice about) is he belongs to an organization called Adamus Defense Group (ADG), based in Switzerland. Duff himself describes this organization as such:

Adamus, among other things, manages a series of organizations that oversee high security databases for national intelligence agencies, law enforcement groups and financial institutions. Several Adamus group companies work in the area we broadly refer to as “disclosure,” managing the integration of “after next-gen” technologies.  Among those are energy sectors including a variety of fusion systems, advanced energy weapons and unconventional flight systems. Adamus is privately held, quasi-governmental and operates under the authorities of several treaties and conventions.

Additionally, it has been noted, "Adamus boasts about owning and operating Pentagon flying defense surveillance platforms, (allegedly to watch wildlife in Africa and elsewhere) with USAID, US gov and UN contracts." Duff apparently makes no secret of this information. To call this peculiar would be an understatement of incredible proportions. In my opinion, with connections like this, only two conclusions can be drawn. The first being, he is an intelligence asset embedded in the opposition; a mole whose job it is to market one particular "brand" of "resistance." The other, far less likely conclusion, would be he is walking the fence between "tolerated" opposition -- which has thus far not crossed any boundaries worthy of elimination -- and slipping up and finding himself on the receiving end of a "freak accident." Based on his '40%' declaration and his hyperbolic, sensationalist brand of "opposition," it's difficult to imagine he's hanging by a thread and selflessly putting his life on the line. In fact, there is even more reason to believe he himself is a direct link in the stream of information and to what extent it is controlled, twisted, cherry-picked or censored. 

Recently, Veterans Today saw a sort of mass exodus of their writers. Jade Helm has made headlines and grabbed attention in a way few events in recent memory have. Duff is clear on his assessment of this massive military exercise among the civilian population of the Southwestern United States. It's nothing. Innocuous. The military would never, ever be a party to betraying the citizens of the United States, let alone knowingly involve themselves in a conspiracy that entails practicing scenarios in which US citizens are enemy combatants. He has little more to say outside of this, despite the fact that Jade Helm's true purpose could certainly lie outside this 'good guy-bad guy,' martial law takeover plan narrative many have seemed to adhered to. It could be multi-faceted and more than anything psychological in nature, a study on the perceptions and mind state of the American public. It could have a variety of possible explanations. Nevertheless, Duff did not take kindly to a few of his colleagues' thoughts on this operation. Five VT contributors were unexpectedly fired after Duff took extreme issue with, and actually deleted, articles by them about Jade Helm and the Boston Marathon bombing hoax. From the site fellowshipoftheminds.com:

"Stew Webb, Jim Fetzer, Dean Henderson, Gene Tatum, and Bruce Campbell come together in a 3 hour special to give the proof that Gordon Duff is a lying fraud that only wants to try to control the alternative media so he can put out his known lies. Gordon Duff has put out lies such as vaccines are good for you, Jade Helm is no big deal, Jesus never existed, he protects Lee Wanta, he runs security for Africa and that he would never censor his writers!"

One of the fired contributors, Jim Fetzer, goes on to say:

"....I had noticed almost immediately that two of my other articles were missing, having “disappeared” over night after Gordon took me out of Veterans Today. One of them was on the Boston bombing,entitled “Faking the Boston bombing: How it was done”, which followed up on Nathan Folks’ observation that it had been done using (what is known as) “hyper-realistic” filming. So I embedded a sensational two-and-a-half hour program aired on Caravan to Midnight, which John B. Wells has regarded as important enough to make public as a YouTube [….] I was therefore astonished to discover that not just one but my four most recent and important articles about the Boston bombing–none of which has anything remotely to do with JADE HELM–had also been “disappeared”. So I have written to John Allen, the General Manager of Veterans Today, the following email explaining that, if this is not a crime in itself, it at least appears to involved Veterans Today in covering up a crime [….] Since I have now asked Gordon Duff a half-dozen times about “Faking the Boston bombing: How it was done”, and had no reply, I am convinced he is responsible, which means he is not only covering for JADE HELM but also for the Boston bombing. This man appears to me to embody corruption. The day before he sacked me from Veterans Today, by coincidence, I did a “False Flag Weekly News” about JADE HELM, which includes around 20 reference[s] that anyone can verify for themselves [….] That the situation has come to this grieves me. I began writing for Veterans Today when Gordon invited me to join in 2011. I have believed in Gordon and thought he was a serious and professional journalist. I am dismayed at the turn of events, but […] As the evidence I have presented explains, I no longer believe in Gordon Duff."

To make matters worse, there is suspicion that Duff went even farther, actually attempting to have two men killed in the aftermath of this mass defection. Fetzer was scheduled to do interviews with alternative news radio hosts Stew Webb and Jeff Rense, discussing what had transpired at Veterans Today and why he believes Duff is not who he says he is. Fetzer's account of the two car accidents that took place before he could speak with Webb and Rense is as follows:


"I was scheduled to appear with Jeff Rense on Friday to discuss JADE HELM. When I linked with the station, the producer explained that he was having trouble getting in touch with Jeff. I hung around for 45 minutes in the hope that he might make contact and, when I reluctantly concluded it wasn’t going to happen, I sent an email saying that I hoped he was OK. The next morning I received a reply from his girlfriend, telling me that he had been in a serious automobile accident and giving me the number of the hospital treating him. […]
I called later that morning and was informed that he was resting comfortably in ICU. On Monday I learned that he was home with a broken wrist–and he called me that afternoon to invite me on his show (again) to talk about JADE HELM. He told me he had been hit with some kind of psychotronic weapon that rendered him complete unconscious and his car went off the road into a rather substantial ditch. It was totaled–actually, a complete wreck–and the police described it as “an unsurvivable accident”. It looks like no accident to me."

All things considered, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch that Duff has the motivation and the means to arrange such "incidents." 

This is just the tip of the iceberg, or course. Information suggesting Duff is a disinformation agent and possible intelligence asset on the feds' payroll seems to be growing. With this borne in mind, his writing begins to develop a new character that perhaps wasn't so evident taken at face value. What was originally and persistently general suspicion of the man on my part, has ultimately been confirmed to me. Enough of the tell-tale signs and red flags of an operative/disinformation agent are present, and I suggest everyone who has followed this man's work tread very carefully and with their guard up. 

To return briefly to the matter of what originally made me suspicious of him -- his bizarre and seemingly intentionally disorienting writing style and themes -- I would like to call attention to another recent piece written by Duff, published again in New Eastern Outlook. The piece, titled "Will the Gay Mafia Take Over America Again?" epitomizes the bombastic, provocateur-ish character of Duff's writing. Without going into great detail or analysis, this article is an exercise in amateurish, hyperbolic partisanship which serves no real purpose and offers no real educational value. While the theme (ostensibly) of sexual abuse and pedophilia within the ranks of high-profile politicians is certainly a subject that deserves as much attention as can be had, the elements of 'good guy-bad guy' dynamics favoring the Democratic party, subtle homophobia and directionless diatribe are what best define this "article."

Read it for yourself here: Gordon's "Gay Mafia" rant

In closing, there are three more interesting points I feel need to be considered. 

The first being, Duff's unwavering pro-vaccine stance. Coming from an alternative media personality or independent journalist, this is a huge red flag from my point of view. The reasons for which need not be elaborated on in this post. 

The second point of interest, which smacks of asset/paid agent, is Duff's take on Libya and its late leader Muammar Gaddafi. Not only did Duff make a point of smearing Gaddafi pre-NATO bombing and coup when he made the unfounded claim that the latter worked directly with the Mossad, but even after they had savagely murdered the man in the street and laid to ruins what was a vibrant and prosperous nation, Duff could be found peddling disinformation about the Libyan state and conditions prior to the bombing and destruction. A quick search for me turned up VT articles "de-bunking myths" about the Libyan state under Gaddafi, emphasizing his status as a "brutal dictator" and downplaying the numerous achievements made under his rule. To be honest, it seemed fitting, all things considered, that Duff would land in that camp. Gaddafi, while not perfect, and towards the end maneuvering himself more towards Western capital, represented a threat to the status quo that very few leaders have, especially in the last half century. Is this lost on Duff? I seriously doubt it.  

Lastly, it's worth mentioning that a good buddy of mine on Twitter who has read VT for a long time, and who I've regularly thrown thoughts around with on Duff, was actually randomly emailed by Duff at one point. I have no idea how many subscribers VT has, but I imagine it's many thousands. Getting a random email from Duff doesn't in itself imply much of anything, of course. However, this buddy of mine is on a level few are in terms of knowledge and discernment, and his comments on VT would certainly reflect that. Taken in context with what I have learned about Duff and what I have tried to convey here, it does raise an eyebrow. At this time he is unable to retrieve the conversation, but one thing that stood out to him was Duff's claim that approximately 50% of the TV show 'The X Files' episodes were based on true facts of some sort. Take that for what it's worth, but I'd add it to the list of puzzling and outright bizarre statements Duff has made.