Hello Mr Bryant,

Plump Jack again. In view of our last exchange a few weeks back I thought I'd update you on a most curious response to a post of mine on Stormfront last week-end.

In the Sustaining Members section they maintain an article penned last Spring by Don Black. It purports to expose the campaign of dirty tricks which resulted in David Duke's prison sentence, and which continues amid a welter of lies and innuendo even after his release. The article, though several months old, is prominently displayed, presumably to act as a warning to others, rather as the rotting corpses of London criminals were gibbeted not that long ago, and has attracted several responses, as one might expect.

The tone, again not unexpectedly, is one of undiluted praise for the courage and tenacity of Duke, interspersed with bitter invective directed at his persecutors. I wasn't altogether happy however, and proceeded to ask a few questions. Intended as an antidote to all the the sycophancy and shrill denunciation that usually accompanies this sort of thing my post was nevertheless summarily 'pulled' within half an hour of going up on the boards and 'reputation' points deducted, presumably for this unforgiveable transgression.

All I'd done, in fact, and as I later made clear, was raise questions relating to your important article about National Vanguard, which queried Dr Pierce's activities in later years, exposed Kevin Alfred Strom as unaccountably anxious not to have his treatment of 9/11 probed too deeply or too publically, and asked why we should trust Duke after he had supposedly gambled away $175,000 of supporters' money (the one allegation, incidentally, other contributors were quick to dismiss as malicious, having been made without a shred of supporting evidence, they said). I also mentioned our correspondence. Urging members always to bear in mind that you were on our side, and asking specifically for intelligent reaction, I even aired the possibility - no more - that Black's impassioned defence of his friend, as you would have it, could have something to do with being married to Duke's former wife. My tone throughout was measured, my wording cautious, and my perspective inclined to giving all the concerned parties the benefit of the doubt.

It wasn't enough. Although I had simply quoted others and used sources all ready in the public domain to ask questions I believe needed to be dealt with honestly by those who take our money and in whom we are asked to place our trust I later received a private message from a moderator, who claimed he had pulled the message because 'unsubstantiated slander' (is there another kind?) was not allowed on SF. He then warned me off your site by calling you (non-slanderously, presumably) a 'race-mixing freak'. I asked him to point to where I had defamed anyone, offering to apologize immediately if he could prove his allegation. He failed to respond.

Because of this high-handedness I sent a message to Don Black, giving the background to what had happened and asking, in view of his recent promise to deal swiftly with maverick moderators who think the only opinions which matter are their own, for an apology. Otherwise, and while I wasn't asking for a refund and was quite happy for SF to keep what I'd donated, I would begin to suspect a cult of leadership which would make it impossible for me to sustain my membership any longer. Black never replied. Three days ago I contacted one of the more sensible mods, who proved quite friendly, wished me well and promised to get Black to delete my account details as soon as possible. This has now been done and I am not a member of SF any more.

I'd appreciate your opinion on all this if you wouldn't mind Mr Bryant (at your own convenience; I know you're busy). Internal conflict is always damaging, and leaders of the requisite quality are proving desperately hard to come by, but I wonder if craving the appearance of unity isn't leading to a degree of over-compensation at SF, encouraging some sort of Great Leader thing, by means of which they hope to stifle unwanted investigations? I pointed out that name-calling and censorship - tactics of the kind we complain about when our enemies use them - will never allay suspicion, only arouse more of it, but no-one takes any notice.

Kind Regards

Plump Jack

P.S. I must sign up for that newsletter of yours!

P.P.S. I find this saga very depressing you know. I suppose it didn't help when I suggested we might get farther as a movement were the more intellectually challenged moderators to spend more time on reading and comprehension and less on practising their Nazi salutes in front of the bedroom mirror. Even so why is it every WN of significance turns out to have feet of clay? I'll never be a 'joiner'. I ask too many questions (as you know!)