General Discussion

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)

56. The Dark Side of "Soldier of Fortune" Magazine: Contract Killers and Mercenaries for Hire

Sun Feb 21, 2016, 07:49 AM

Feb 2016

When I was in sixth grade my parents took away my collection of Soldier of Fortune magazines. This was in the mid-1980s, the Rambo-era heyday of the "journal of the professional adventurer." The seizure was preceded by a parent-teacher conference at which exhibit A was a recent two-page essay I'd written about wanting to be a mercenary when I grew up. Or a ninja.

I remember Soldier of Fortune articles in those days being a macho-to-the-max amalgam of firearms reviews, anti-gun control rants, Vietnam POW conspiracy theories and gory first-hand reporting on Cold War proxy wars, military coups and revolutions in Second and Third World nations. But what made Soldier of Fortune so enticing in my 11-year-old mind was less its editorial content than its infamous advertising.

Along with ads for mail-order brides, bounty hunter training manuals, surveillance electronics, Secrets of the Ninja lessons (including "mind clouding" and "sentry removal&quot

, Nazi memorabilia, machine guns, silencers, and sniper rifles, Soldier of Fortune advertised the services of guns for hire.

"It's directed at professional mercenaries -- men who will fight for pay and those who want to hire them," wrote Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko in March 1984. "But since mercenaries represent only a tiny portion of the reading population, the magazine tries to broaden its appeal to include those who might be called war fans, weapon-lovers, fanatic anti-commies and Walter Mitty types who enjoy the vicarious thrill of reading about blood and guts."

http://www.alternet.org/story/152413/the_dark_side_of_%22soldier_of_fortune%22_magazine%3A_contract_killers_and_mercenaries_for_hire

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A question on acceptable sources at DU. Is this source acceptable? [View all] stone space Feb 2016 OP

Odd reading habits you have there... ileus Feb 2016 #1

I don't understand. stone space Feb 2016 #2

Of course you don't, GGJohn Feb 2016 #12

Good thing that you arived here to explain it, then. Please proceed. stone space Feb 2016 #15

Why? GGJohn Feb 2016 #17

So you don't understand, either, huh? stone space Feb 2016 #19

Except I do understand what was said, GGJohn Feb 2016 #20

It depends MohRokTah Feb 2016 #3

This is the use being made at the link. stone space Feb 2016 #4

Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to hide. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #6

Dear God, why? ON EDIT: Never mind, it's the Gungeon. I'm not surprised. Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2016 #5

Your OP was juried, 3-4 Mosby Feb 2016 #7

So when the alert and threadjack in the gungeon failed... Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #8

Feel free to make yourself the very first "yes" vote. stone space Feb 2016 #10

I just did pintobean Feb 2016 #11

Here's a link to the OP in question. stone space Feb 2016 #13

I'm not concerned pintobean Feb 2016 #16

Oh, so it's merely asking the question that has you so concerned. stone space Feb 2016 #21

This thread is nothing more than flamebait, GGJohn Feb 2016 #23

It's a simple question on appropriate sources for DU. stone space Feb 2016 #29

I'm not upset, GGJohn Feb 2016 #34

Again, amused. pintobean Feb 2016 #30

How is "the gun forum" different from other forums here on DU? stone space Feb 2016 #36

Your freakout was your alert and this thread. eom. GGJohn Feb 2016 #18

Everything is acceptable on DU these days. kwassa Feb 2016 #9

I voted yes, GGJohn Feb 2016 #14

What exactly was Soldier of Fortune promoting in the 1980s? stone space Feb 2016 #22

Are you that dense? GGJohn Feb 2016 #24

You specifically cited it as your reason for voting "yes". stone space Feb 2016 #25

Again, as usual, you're wrong. GGJohn Feb 2016 #27

This is the second time that you have referred to "what SOF was promoting in the 80's". stone space Feb 2016 #33

LOL, you really are that dense. GGJohn Feb 2016 #35

Personal insults aside, the phrase "what SOF was promoting in the 80's"... stone space Feb 2016 #38

If you haven't figured it out by now, GGJohn Feb 2016 #41

Aparently, you haven't figured it out, either. stone space Feb 2016 #42

Ok, you go with that. GGJohn Feb 2016 #43

You've given me no other choice. stone space Feb 2016 #46

Soldier of Fortune is a racist rag. EOM Hoyt Feb 2016 #31

Which has nothing to do with the link he cited. GGJohn Feb 2016 #32

Soldier of Fortune definitely is. I suppose The Turner Diaries is also acceptable to most gunners. Hoyt Feb 2016 #39

Thank you Hoyt, GGJohn Feb 2016 #40

How so? What exactly is your point? stone space Feb 2016 #47

I can't figure out if you're really this dense, or are just playing games? GGJohn Feb 2016 #50

OK, to sum your position up: it's OK to link to professional killers about guns muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #55

It has everything to do with the question of acceptable sources on DU. stone space Feb 2016 #45

Well, considering that RT, Sputnik News, GGJohn Feb 2016 #51

I wouldn't use it... SidDithers Feb 2016 #26

I'm sure it is among racist gun fanciers. Hoyt Feb 2016 #28

I think all sources should be accepted bigwillq Feb 2016 #37

If true and factual why not? Chuuku Davis Feb 2016 #54

Eeewwwww.... No. hunter Feb 2016 #44

It's been a bit since you posted and I was wondering... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #48

I don't know about sources sarisataka Feb 2016 #49

2 well earned hides and a time out to boot. GGJohn Feb 2016 #52

Post removed Post removed Feb 2016 #57

Wow, as usual, right over your head "professor". GGJohn Feb 2016 #58

Soldier of Fortune USED to be a lot of fun to read jmowreader Feb 2016 #53

The Dark Side of "Soldier of Fortune" Magazine: Contract Killers and Mercenaries for Hire SecularMotion Feb 2016 #56

Under very few exceptions would I find that to be acceptable. NCTraveler Feb 2016 #59

See you in April pintobean Feb 2016 #60

Well, he did last a couple of days longer than I thought he would. GGJohn Feb 2016 #61