Repost From June 21st, 2010 — By Maria Mathews – Times Blog analyst.
“Since his political race for the U.S. Senate in the 90s, I have noted the controversial politics of David Duke, a former member of the House of Representatives in Louisiana. He is a man the media chronically labels a “white supremacist.” (He vehemently denies rejects that label). I also used that label in an article I wrote about him 15 years ago.
Though a fascinating personality, he is not a man I am inclined to invite for tea. But, I read his website originally for a diversion much like one would go to a horror movie, yet I have been shocked not by his radicalism, but as a result of looking at his writings and speeches retrospectively. For good or ill, Duke has been a sort of unwashed prophet on some of the biggest issues of the day.
Take for instance:
Duke politically coined the term “Workfare instead of Welfare,” a term that describes a requirement requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to do work for their welfare checks.
Bill Clinton later copied Duke’s phrase to bridge the gap between Liberal Democrats and enough conservative Republican voters and gain the U.S. Presidency.
Duke argued as long ago as the early seventies, (long before the immigration tsunami) that massive, unrestrictived immigration into America and Europe would inevitably lead to societal unrest, riots and increased racism and ethnic hatreds, and threats to internal security.
Witness the horrendous riots in East London and Paris. Witness the purveyors of 911. Witness the recent airline bombing plot by the radical spawns of immigration.
But even more interesting have been his pronouncements on Israel and U.S. Policy.
An opponent of U.S. support for Israel, he argued long before 911 that unconditional support for Israel and the Israeli agenda would lead to hatred and horrendous terrorist attacks against the United States.
Does anyone really believe Bush when he said Al Qaeda attacked America because they hate Democracy?
Before the Iraq War Duke pronounced repeatedly in the world’s media, including a stint on Al Jazeera (which according to Newsweek Periscope Section) the U.S. State Department tried to prevent, that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, no nuclear weapons program. He predicted the war would not be a “cakewalk,” cost many times more than Neocon predictions, and do nothing but fuel hatred and terrorism around the world. Far from fighting terrorism, the war would only foment it, said Duke.
His crystal ball worked on that one.
A recent American poll now says that only 30 percent of Americans support the war and most Americans think the war in Iraq will only increase terrorism around the world.
Perhaps no American politician has spoken so forcefully and for so long against the power of the American Israeli Lobby.
He said long before almost anyone else on the political scene that the Iraq War was “a war for Israel” and not in the interests of the United States.” Because Americans wouldn’t pay the horrendous cost of blood and money in a war for Israel, he argued that the lie of “weapons of mass destruction” was necessary to convince Americans that they were in danger from Iraq.
Just recently, a dean at the most prestigious school of government in the United States, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, issued a paper titled “Israel and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In it they say what David Duke has been saying for years: that the Israeli lobby controls American foreign policy to the detriment of the United States and that it orchestrated the Iraq War.
As pro-Israel critics of the paper have correctly pointed out, every essential argument of the paper and many of the paper’s sources and citations have been made by David Duke long prior to Walt and Mearsheimer. However, to argue against the paper by pointing out that David Duke has said the same things as Walt and Mearsheimer is, of course, an ad hominem argument that in no way refutes the paper’s thesis. Should we toss out our toilet paper because David Duke recommends it?
In effect, the pro-Israeli critics have not dimmed the academic stars of the Harvard researchers by pointing out that David Duke was way ahead of the curve on the issue. All they have done is to make David Duke’s dubious star shine more brightly, and that is a dangerous achievement. How many fringe political personages can claim to be ahead of the curve of America’s most prestigious university?
Duke, who is now a Phd who lectures on international relations at some prominent Eastern European universities, must relish this recent development. Professor Alan Dershowitz and other Jewish critics of Walt and Mearsheimer have only made Duke’s leadership on the issue known to millions around the world. It has certainly caused thousands of academics to go to his controversial website, davidduke.com.
Now, Professor Duke, former XX, the unwashed (he is always introduced with a former something or other), is talking about a Neocon ramp up of an Israeli sponsored war with Iran that he says will have a catastrophic impact on the world in terms of both terrorism and economy the world over.
Once again, as before the Iraq War, a man we claim to be a man of intolerance, preaches a policy of peace. On this issue, perhaps the most important issue before Europe and world since World War II, where are the men and women who claim to be morally superior to him? Have they raised their voices as he has done?
The fact that almost all of our liberal and conservative politicians have been so mute on this issue is an indictment of us, not him.
The fact that a man labelled “former Klansman” and every other expletive imaginable — speaks out for peace and reconciliation while so many of us do not — must be a matter of eternal shame to those of us who remain silent.
