My Conversation on MSNBC

My Conversation With Joe Scarborough on MSNBC:

What I didn’t get to say and my comments

Here is the conversation word for word with Joe Scarborough on the MSNBC program Scarborough Country. I was on satellite hookup in New Orleans and he had the possibility to completely cut me off at will, which he did repeatedly. In contrast, he treated Jewish extremist, Alan Dershowitz with the utmost respect and gave him all the time he wanted. After interviewing me, he repeatedly bemoaned the fact that there should be a debate on the issues, but no one would debate because we knew that we were wrong about our beliefs that the Israel Lobby was a key factor in the Iraq War. He said all this all this while I was still sitting before a camera, miked and ready to debate both Scarborough and Dershowitz. As typically true in the Jewish-dominated media, the program turned to an extremist Jewish partisan to give the final word and tell the American people what all the controversy was about. They left it to a Jewish supremacist to interpret the events for the Boobus Americanus. Dershowitz is by the way a “human rights lawyer” who has come out advocating torture in the United States of America. (And I am called an “extremist!” ) I will also include my comments to the conversation in brackets and bold faced.

Now coming up next, radicalism on college campuses are on the rise. A disturbing report from Harvard University that repeats ugly stereotypes. Oh yeah, David Duke now agreeing with Harvard—or should I say Harvard finally agreeing with David Duke. That’s coming up straight ahead.


SCARBOROUGH: Welcome back. Radicalism on our college campuses. A new report from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government charges that a Jewish conspiracy of sorts has seized control of Washington, DC. It pushed America into the war with Iraq. The Harvard report states the following, quote, were it not for the Israel lobby’s ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today. And that’s not all. The paper goes on to say that the Israel lobby is made up of an insidious network including the “New York Times” and the “Wall Street Journal,” pro-Israel think tanks like the Brookings Institute, top ranking Bush administration officials, neoconservative gentiles like George Will and even Christian evangelicals Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, all part of the conspiracy. The Harvard report has ideological allies on other Ivy League campuses and with the PLO and also with our next guest, David Duke, the former controversial Louisiana state representative who is currently a professor at the largest university in the Ukraine. Thank you for being with us tonight, Mr. Duke. You have been attacked as a former Klansman, an anti-Semite but tonight you’re in league with Harvard University. Do you feel vindicated?

It should be noted that neither I or the writers of the Harvard Report mentioned never use the word “conspiracy” to describe the manipulation of American foreign policy on behalf of Israel and against the best interests of the American power. It is actually not an issue of conspiracy, but simply one of power. Jewish extremists have enormous power in the largest lobby on Capitol Hill, power with campaign financing and last, but not least, incredibly powerful presence in the news and entertainment media of America. Furthermore, the Jewish community is organized to support Israel and whatever they see as the Jewish agenda and interests. They have the right to work for their interests, but Americans must also have the right to defend the interests of the American people. Furthermore, I am not an anti-Semite and it is sickening for the powers in media to continually refer to patriotic Americans as anti-Semites simply for putting the interests of America over that of Israel. The real “hate speech” is calling people anti-Semites and Nazis simply because they dare to openly discuss the elements of Jewish extremism that are harming the United States and increasing hatreds and conflict around the world.

DAVID DUKE, FMR LOUISIANA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I feel that the truth takes sometimes a long time to come out. And for many years davidduke.com, my Web site, has been saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that this was not a war for America. This was a war for Israel. It was orchestrated primarily by Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowitz. That’s admitted by everyone to be the main orchestrators. They’re long time Zionist ideologues. Even Richard Perle wrote a paper for the Israeli government called “A Clean Break, Securing the Realm in which called for war with Iraq.

I was cut off from saying that the realm Perle called for securing was Israel’s realm not America’s

SCARBOROUGH: Now you have been saying this for sometime, Mr. Duke. Again, are you surprised, Mr. Duke, that Harvard, one of the most liberal universities, certainly the most esteemed universities in America is now agreeing with your position?

DUKE: Well, I see many people converging on this. I see conservatives like Patrick Buchanan and myself converging on this one issue. We see—I’m against the Iraq war because I’m a patriotic American. I don’t like the idea of American soldiers being maimed, killed, blinded, crippled, and disfigured, for a lie. And this war was for a lie. It was not about America.

SCARBOROUGH: You say it’s not about America. You say it’s about

Israel. You say it’s –

DUKE: This is the war for Israel.

SCARBOROUGH: You say this Jewish conspiracy led us into war, and I tell you a lot of people in Washington, DC were saying that also.

In the Transcript they leave out me saying: I don’t use the word “conspiracy” at which point I was cut off from saying that neither does the report use the word “conspiracy” and that fact that you use the word conspiracy to describe my position is one more example of your bias.

How do you explain—you have George Bush, a gentile, Dick Cheney a gentile, Condi Rice, a gentile and you got Rumsfeld. I mean, these were the four people that led us into this war. Were they just gentile – Jewish cabal?

DUKE: How do you explain this? I think – in fact Ralph Nader said that once. I think they are puppets. I think that George Bush knows which side of the bread it’s buttered on. I think he knows what the political power in this country is economically in terms of campaign contributions. The “Wall Street Journal” itself talked about 50 percent of the contributions for Republicans and even more for Democrats, come from Jewish sources. We talk about the media, a powerful force. We have AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Now they have top officials in that organization being charged with espionage against the United States of America. We have George Bush—wait, we have George Bush going to speak before—

He cut me off from saying that we have George Bush and American elected officials taking money and speaking before an organization whose officials are at the same time being charged with espionage against the United States of America. Shouldn’t it be a scandal in the media for American politicians to be taking money and supporting an organization that has engaged in espionage against America. And why hasn’ the media exposed this incredible fact!

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second.

DUKE: Can you imagine a Russian group of—can you imagine a Russian group (CROSSTALK)

He cut me off from saying, Can you imagine an American politician who takes money and supports a Russian organizations whose officials are charged with spying against America. Can you imagine the scandal?

SCARBOROUGH: We have a bad delay here, Mr. Duke and I apologize. I’m going to have to keep talking because we have a delay. You talk about the media I’m sure there are a lot of people who support the media that wish there were a conspiracy a Zionist conspiracy, because all the press reports about this war from the day it was launched has been overwhelmingly negative, on almost every network and “The New York Times.”

DUKE: That’s not true. Come on. You know that’s not true. No, “the New York Times”—

SCARBOROUGH: I know it is true (INAUDIBLE). For the past three years.

Scarborough must think the American people have an awful short memory. Certainly everyone remembers the nonstop media promotion of this war as “operation freedom” and continual propaganda that the war was to protect America from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and nonstop completely bogus discoveries of biological and chemical weapons

DUKE: If I can answer you I will sir, if you will give you an opportunity. If people can’t listen to what I say here, they can go to my Web site, davidduke.com and hear my positions elucidated in more depth. But the point is this, “The New York Times,” as you know, in fact supported the war, in fact the apologized for supporting the war. The major networks, this network, Fox Network, they had all kinds of icons like the war for freedom in Iraq. It wasn’t a war for freedom. It’s not a war for democracy. In fact, right now all the neo-cons are saying they want a civil war, just as Israel wanted civil war in Lebanon when they went to Lebanon.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. We’re going to have to leave it there. David Duke, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it. And I want to bring in right now.

DUKE: I’m pro-American not pro-Israel.

At this point they bring on torture advocate, super Zionist, Alan Dershowitz, to explain all this to the American people. I am still in the chair with my microphone on and the camera and lights on me, waiting for a supposed debate with Dershowitz. Then later in the show they both dare to go on and about how our side won’t debate, yet I am sitting right there. It’s okay to have Dershowitz on trashing everything I say, calling people names and making incredible allegations, but they make sure that I am not allowed to challenge ore question Dershowitz about anything he says! I will offer some commentary now!

SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you. I want to bring in Alan Dershowitz. He’s author of “Preemption, a Knife that Cuts Both Ways,” a man who was accused of being an apologist for Israel in the Harvard paper. Professor, we have a long debate on whether to bring David Duke on this show or not. We decided at the end to bring him on and let him air his views because unfortunately too many Americans have been whispering this for years, in emails and letters to their representatives or members of the media, but today the whispers became a roar with this Harvard report. What is going on?

Yes, Mr. Extremist Zionist, you can tell us what this all about!

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first of all, it’s not a Harvard report. It’s a report by one uninformed dean at Harvard who was way out of the loop and his article is full of mistakes. It’s going to be rebutted and responded to, but I never thought I would live to see the day when a Harvard dean would essentially copy from the David Duke Web site. And if you look at the report, it’s 80 pages, there is not a paragraph that is original in it. Every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Duke’s Web site. You see parallel citations, parallel arguments. They come from Web sites such as nukeisrael.com, which is a neo Nazi Web site. It’s shocking that a dean at Harvard Kennedy School would publish something with no originality, which just basically parallels and copies the kind of hate speech that one sees on the Internet.

Dr. Walt is dean of the Kennedy School of Government, most papers of this kind are routinely billed as a Harvard or Kennedy School of Government report. The report is not at all copied from my website, but the report contains much of the information and documentation that I have published since before the Iraq War. Much of my documentation comes from major Jewish sources, are those Jewish sources, “Neo-Nazi websites.” Calling people racists or “Neo-Nazis is not argument at all, it is grade school name calling, and far from my site or this Dr. Walt’s paper being “hate speech” the truth is that unjustifiably calling people Nazis or racists is the real hate speech, and Alan Dershowitz is master of it. Furthermore, attacking someone’s ideas by finding unpopular people who support the same ideas is ridiculous argument. Any nut, any crazy person, any criminal, can be found to endorse a particular point of view. The question is not who agrees with the idea, but what the idea is on its own merits. The argument is so silly is akin to arguing that one shouldn’t use toilet paper because Hitler advocated it’s use. That is the intellectual level of the argument that Dr. Walt’s or my ideas are wrong because you can find some politically or socially incorrect people who agree with them.

SCARBOROUGH: But, professor, I understand it’s one dean at Harvard right now and that dean should be fired. But at the same time, you and I have both seen over the past three years on elite campuses, not only in Europe, but also across America, this growing anti-Semitism. You’ve seen it on colleges, whether it’s an ivy league or whether it’s at Cal-Berkeley. What’s going on there and why does it seem that more and more people are comfortable about not whispering about anti-Semitism but actually professors going in the classrooms and filling our students with this type of hate speech?

Here is Scarborough saying that a prestigious Harvard Dean of the most distinguished school of Government in the United States should be fired simply for saying things that he and Alan Dershowitz disagree with. And the media always tell us how much they believe in FREEDOM. How is it anti-Semitism for both Jews and Gentiles to talk honestly about the realities of organized Jewish and and pro-Israel power in America?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, I just came back from a tour of European campuses. I was at Oxford and London and Lidon and Brussels. And there you see kind of overt anti-Israel, anti-Zionists and even sometimes anti-Semitic speech. In the United States, I think it’s much more much cautious and much more careful. But this kind of bigotry that appears in this Harvard report was more extreme than anything I saw in Europe. For example, this professor says that Israeli citizenship is based on blood. That comes directly from neo-Nazi Web sites. There is of course no truth to it.

The point in the paper, and my point is not that Israeli citizenship is based on blood. Israel is of course a nation based on blood, on the right of people of Jewish descent to have their own nation dedicated exclusively to them. Jewish immigrants do not even have to be of the Jewish religion, they only have to be of Jewish blood! The fact that there are some Palestinians who are citizens of Israel doesn’ t change the fact that Israel has an open policy of preserving the Jewish demographic of Israel. If making the allegation that Israel is based on preserving the heritage of Jews is a Nazi allegation, then by Dershowitz’s definition, Israel itself is a Nazi state! It should also be noted that the Israeli government does not legally allow a marriage between a Jew and non-Jew. It actually even forbids the Jewish priest class the Kohanim, from even marrying a religious Jew who is tainted by any Gentile blood whatsoever (see my article from a Jewish magazine on “Not Jewish enough for a Cohen.” Israel itself is an almost completely segregated nation in schools, apartment buildings, neighborhoods even whole towns. Palestinians and Arabs are not even allowed to live the settlements on the West Bank that Israel stole from them! The fact that Dershowitz can get away with such falsehoods and that the liberal media doesn’t expose and attack Israel for these policies (as the same media did against South Africa) is one more proof of the inordinate influence of extremist Jews in media.

Twenty five percent of Israeli citizens are not even Jewish. Anybody can become an Israeli citizen if you qualify. Religion is not a criterion for citizenship. These ignoramuses who published this piece confuse Israel’s law of return, which is an immigration policy with Israel’s law of citizenship, which is totally not based on religion or race or nationality. It’s based on obviously the same criteria that America bases its citizenship on. But there are more non-Jewish citizens in Israel than there are Jewish citizens, for example for example, of the United States. And Jordan doesn’t have a Jewish citizen by law. And when he was asked why he didn’t mention Jordan, he said, we’re not talking about Jordan, we’re talking about Israel. It’s just bigotry at its worse and then he says that nobody wants to debate the issue. I’ve challenged them to debate this issue at Harvard and they’ve come back with a weasel response, well, under the right circumstances.

No one argues that Jordan or other states may have draconian laws as well.But, Mr. Dershowitz, that doesn’t change the fact that America supports a racist, apartheid state. Not only does America not sanction Israel as it did South Africa, America, through Jewish influence, sends Israel billions of tax dollars and supplies Israel with its weapons of suppression. Furthermore, while America sanctioned South Africa, an Israeli-controlled Congress passes laws to criminalize companies that dare to boycott Israeli firms!

SCARBOROUGH: Well, professor.

DERSHOWITZ: If we got the right moderator. Debate me. Justify your charges. This is a university. I predict they will refuse to debate.

All the while I am sitting right there ready to debate.

SCARBOROUGH: Professor, we asked them to come on this show. We asked them to debate you. We asked them to debate me. We said we would go on with them one-on-one. They refused to come on this show.

They didn’t ask me and I was right there. Why not? Might not it seem that they didn’t do so because they knew that I would expose Dershowitz for the lying fraud that he is?

DERSHOWITZ: Because they know they’re wrong and they know it’s hate speech. They know it’s anti-Semitism and they know that this is going to feed hate Web sites across the world.

SCARBOROUGH: It’s already published and you know what. You love Harvard. But you know the name Harvard is going to be attached to this hate speech for the next 20 to 30 years.


SCARBOROUGH: We are going to be seeing it in papers forever. So what does Harvard do tomorrow to rectify this out rage?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, first of all, no professor should be able to say, I refuse to defend my position. I refuse to debate my position. These are people who have published hate speech, as I say, essentially lifted it from Web sites. They’ve been challenged to debate. They say in their article that pro-Israel advocates refuse to debate. They call me an apologist for Israel, even though I’m critical of any Israeli policies and I’m not part of any lobby. Then when I challenge them to a debate they say maybe. When you challenge them to a debate they say no. They refuse to justify their position. I don’t believe in firing professors. They have academic freedom. They have the right to be wrong and they are just dead wrong. There ought to be a kind of Henry Ford professorship or al-Jazeera professorship and these folks ought to fill that professorship. But nobody should believe what they’re saying because they’re demonstrably wrong and false and they won’t defend their position and that’s the worst academic.

Dershowitz by his own admission should be fired. For he refused to defend his position against a man named David Duke. If he has just made a challenge to debate, I agree to debate. Bring me in from my university and I will debate you before the Harvard audience.

SCARBOROUGH: Because it’s indefensible. Professor, it’s indefensible. You and I know it and they know it. Thank you for being with us. We really appreciate it, thank you.

Once more, they show by their own actions exactly what arguments are indefensible. They must suppress their opponents speech and academic rights. They must put into prison people such as David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Juergen Graf, Ernst Zundel, and try to fire any teacher who diverges from the Dershowitz line. They have no choice because they cannot defend their position if there is really free speech in the United States and Europe.

I am asking all lovers of free speech and free thought to spread this interview and my responses to millions of people all over the world who should have the right to hear a real debate and determine for themselves which side is telling the truth.


Dr. David Duke