David Duke: Internationalist

The Nation reports that America's preeminent racist is out after a year in federal prison, and ready to reinvent the white supremacist movement as a global alliance. He's even apparenly hoping to build a kind of rainbow coalition of anti-Semites: Duke is reportedly gleefully awaiting the translation of his Jewish Supremacism into Arabic.

Comments

[Large Marge]

NPR had this a while back about skinheads adopting the Palestinian cause. Seems to be a trend.

[Gary Gunnels]

Let's not get into some guilt by association fallacy here.

[dhex]

why not? it's an election year!!!

[Gary Gunnels]

dhex,

Speaking of elections, when the hell is the Illinois Republican party going to nominate someone to replace Ryan?

[J]

Gary,

Didn't you hear the big news? The 732nd person to be offered the job is Alan Keyes, who I'm sure we all remember for his riveting runs at the presidency. Now, if your question is when will they find someone who actually wants the job....

[Gary Gunnels]

Alan Keyes? Cripes. His abortion views won't go over well with a majority of Illinois' population. Didn't he get creamed in a couple of Senate elections in Maryland?

[Dan]

Let's not get into some guilt by association fallacy here

"Guilt by association"?

I can see it now:

"Well, I used to support the Palestinian movement back when it was only associated with mass-murdering terrorist organizations. But when I found out that it was associated with David Duke too, well, that was just too much to handle!".

[J]

"Didn't he get creamed in a couple of Senate elections in Maryland?"

He did indeed. No luck in Maryland, so he tried for the presidency. No luck there, so now he's considering going for Illinois. Of course he has absolutely no connection to Illinois (as far as I know), but that didn't stop Clinton in New York so what the hell.
Personally, I'm still hoping Ditka will change his mind. I live in St. Louis so I hear a lot of the Illinois election news/propaganda in addition to Missouri's, and he would make the election season much more interesting.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

I myself think that the Israelis act cruelly and inhumanely towards the Palestinians (and vice versa); that David Duke or Islamicist terrorists appear to share this view is no reflection on me or my view.

[brooklyn dave]

David Duke...that idiot is still floating around? Jeez, it shows that old idiots never die, they just stick around forever to annoy the rest of us. It figures that the Nation would run an article on him. I guess that there aren't any up and coming bigots that they can haul out to give their base the heebie-jeebies. So, they have to delve into the trash heap and dig out David Duke.

[got_eugenics?]

Brooklyn Dave,

Check this one:

Republican candidate for eugenics.

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/news/stories/20040802/localnews/961223.html

[Mo]

Was it here that I read about some group of skinheads joining the side of the Israeli cause because of hatred of Arabs?

Will this turn into a major schism in the white supremacist movement? Will there be white supremacist turf wars as a proxy for the Israel-Palestine conflict domestically.

Nothing hones your sense of irony like racists.

[bendover]

"...America's preeminent racist is out after a year in federal prison..."

Shoot I didn't even know that Reverend Al was in jail. 😉

[notrickbarton]

David Duke's return and alliance with Islamic wackos is proof of the post-9/11 maximum coined by (I think) Tim Blair: All the world's idiocies are combining into a giant, useless force.

Other examples of this phenomenon include Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson agreeing with Osama that our vulgar culture makes God mad; Pat Robertson and Ralph Nader making kissy faces at each other; and hippie kids protesting the WTO next to "theytookourjarbs" rednecks.

[not Rick Barton]

oops, I meant "Pat BUCHANAN and Ralph Nader making kissy faces at each other,"

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Jeez, it shows that old idiots never die,..."

Well the problem with this as it applies to Duke is that he isn't old.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

It figures that the Nation would run an article on him. I guess that there aren't any up and coming bigots that they can haul out to give their base the heebie-jeebies. So, they have to delve into the trash heap and dig out David Duke.

That's the real problem here, not that Duke is out and about and starting a new movement.

Note that in addition to the Nation, the SPLC is forced to do the same thing. The KKK has about 1% of the membership it used to have, so to rake in the dough they need to print movie reviews and go after David Horowitz. One of their anti-immigration-reform smears has even been cited by a (IMHO) sleazy Republican congressman from Utah, Chris Cannon.

Chris Cannon also received an endorsement from the Wall Street Journal and an award from MALDEF, which was created by the Ford Foundation.

That's an example of a coalition that has much more power, much more money, and is much more worthy of scrutiny. But, if I want to read about that I guess I'll have to go over to frontpagemag.com

[Rick Barton]

Lenard Zeskind inThe Nation:

No fake conservative running for Governor here. That was yesterday.

But it was back then that lefty journals tried to smear conservatives and libertarians by association with that racist. They pointed out that; after all conservatives and libertarians are against affirmative action the same as David Duke.

Even the "polished" racist David Duke has the narrow little mind so characteristic of the racist mentality. So he sees Russia as becoming anti Zionist? Hey, that's good enough to make them the "salvation of the white race." What in the world is Duke going to do with the fact that Jews are now, on net, migrating back to Russia from Israel? Would it be hoping for too much that it makes his head explode?

[Rick Barton]

Dan,

Facts are facts and, as other posters have pointed out, your insults do not constitute a refutation, or even an attempted one.

Look at the number of innocent Palestinian children murdreed by the Israeli military...a greater number than the total of all innocent Israelis murdered by Palestinians.

Mass killings, arbitrary detentions, (many lasting for years) mass theft of property (a huge increase with the wall). Sharon IS a terrorist. Also, why do you never comment on his manifest racism?

[Rick Barton]

Speaking of the intellectual poverty of The New Republic, check out the piece cited for the "Taxes Are Good for You" thread at August 5, 03:09 PM
Incredible!

[Rick Barton]

joe,

Most conservative Republican leaders in Louisiana disavowed the creep. Also, note that he got the nomination in an open primary in which Dems could vote. In the general election, he won the majority of all White voters in a losing effort. I think the vast majority of white voters in Louisiana in 1990 were Dems.

When you are doing a caricature of something that I wrote, could you please be so kind as to refrain from using the word "cabal"? 😉

[planethoth]

Rick Barton likes to pretend Middle East history is in a vacuum, like it started in 1967 and only exists as a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Then he likes to talk about 'racist' policies of the Israelis vis-a-vis Arabs.

Of course, he never can quite explain why there got to be 'occupation' in the first place, what this 'occupation' is 'occupying', or who keeps the flames of war going. It is amusing that Rick Barton apparently sees in Israel some opitome of racist-statist hell, though Israel is freer in law and fact than any single Arab country and every single Muslim one.

If Rick Barton wants to enforce the property rights of Palestinians, then he should advocate that the Arabs stop their war of international terrorism and anti-semitic incitement so that we may cease hostilities. And oh yeah, give 'Jordan' back to the Palestinians.

[joe]

I wish I'd been the Dem nominee when Duke ran as an independent for LA governor. Picture the debates...

"So, Mr. Republican nominee, how DOES your position on (affirmative action, racial profiling, welfare reform) differ from what Mr. Duke just said?"

[Rick Barton]

planethoth,
I'm trying not to let your ridiculous defenses of the Israeli government diminish my affection for The Empire Strikes Back

The occupation is occupying Palestinian land. Duh! This land is Mandatory Palestine via the British Mandate creating the state of Israel. The withdrawal of Israel from these lands would be a subset of the 67' boundaries, whose total reinstatement would not be necessary to end this theft. Which, of course is accelerating with the wall. And, lets not forget the brutal forced exodus of 750,000 Palestinians at the founding of Israel. see: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein

planethoth seems to be offering security as a pretext for the occupation. This ridiculous excuse is belied by, among other things, the fact that the civilians have been put into the occupied territories. The reason for the occupation is the "Greater Israel" nonsense. Again; see: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein

It's the occupation that keeps the conflict going, and our government's support of it is one of the most shameful things that they do with our money, and the evidence from the 9/11 commission is that it caused the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

That Sharon supports racist housing laws against Israel's own Arab citizens is a matter of record. (See the links I provided). What do you suppose Palestinians in the occupied lands think when Israeli citizens of Arab ethnicity are subjected to this racist treatment?

It's true that Arab citizens of Israel have liberties that are generally missing in Arab regimes. Another of the tragedies of the occupation is that the Arab world has much to learn from the relative freedom of Israel but the occupation blinds them. Some of those thug Arab regimes such as Egypt and Jordan get US tax dollars, a situation that should end just as our government's support of the Israeli government should end. (Israel is easily the #1 recipient of US tax dollars.)

As to economic freedom, Israel has a severe dearth of it which is why they are such an economic basket case. And, our government's "aid" is part of the problem. Dubai of the UAE, has economic liberties that Israel and the whole region would do well to emulate.

The Israeli government drastically limits free enterprise in the occupied lands and works with the corrupt PA to force the Palestinians to pay exorbitant prices so that politically well connected firms and the PA may profit. The result is malnutrition for the Palestinian people.
It is terrible that our tax dollars support this tragedy.

Offering "international terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement" as an excuse for the occupation is manifestly ridiculous.

planethoth, lets say that you, as Sharon seems to, care nothing for the suffering of the Palestinians. Let's also assume that you care greatly for the Israeli people, or even only the Jews of Israel. Then, you should still oppose the occupation. The price that it's extracting from them in terms of blood, standard of living and their character if hideous. see: How Israel Lost by Richard Ben Cramer
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2004/07/19/cramer/index_np.html

planethoth, perhaps you have a special place in your heart for Israel. I know that Richard Cramer does. Please look into this book.

[joe]

"But it was back then that lefty journals tried to smear conservatives and libertarians by association with that racist."

What I'm especially proud of is the way we got a state's Republican party to nominate him for the United States Senate. My wicked, leftist cabal had carried out a lot of actions, but hoo boy, hypnotizing a majority of Louisiana's conservatives was no day at the beach!

[Rick Barton]

Dan:

"...the Palestinian movement back when it was only associated with mass-murdering terrorist organizations."

The Israeli military that prosecutes the occupation IS a mass-murdering terrorist organization.

Also, Sharon should be condemned for being a racist just the same as Duke since he has made political league with fundamentalist religious nut balls in Israel who believe that the lives of Jews are more valuable than those of Gentiles. And, the racist actually supported "Jews Only" housing area laws on government land, in open discrimination against Israel's own 15% to 20% Arab citizen population:

http://www.eto.home.att.net/jewsonly.html

http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1779

Sharon can be thought of as an Israeli version of David Duke. Both are jingoistic racists. The difference is that we are forced to subsidize Sharon's wrong doing.

(Please note that above, I said "fundamentalist religious nut balls" and not "Orthodox". There is plenty of Orthodox opposition in Israel to Sharon and the occupation from both the political left and right, albeit a much more pro-free market right than Sharon.

[J]

From early in this thread...
It's official! Alan Keyes will be moving to Illinois at some point in the next few months so that he can get his ass kicked by Barack Obama in what will be the first Senate race between two black candidates in US history. David Duke reportedly had a stroke trying to figure out who to endorse.
Someone on NPR this morning claimed Keyes was a vocal critic of Clinton's moving to NY to run for Senate. And this is different because....

[Rick Barton]

not Rick Barton,

Your confused posts make me glad that you've chosen the negation of my name for your handle, and I'm quite sure that if I wrote pretty lies about the Israeli government you would not use that handle. But, hasn't anyone told you that Pat Robertson is slavishly devoted to the Israeli government?

Lastly, it doesn't make sense that your handle links to that fine libertarian site, antiwar.com
You really could stand to actually read it! It would make more sense if "not Rick Barton" linked to, perhaps, The New Republic.

[Dan]

"...the Palestinian movement back when it was only associated with mass-murdering terrorist organizations."

The Israeli military that prosecutes the occupation IS a mass-murdering terrorist organization

Thanks, Rick. I was wondering when you were planning to swing by and same something insane and/or strupid. Congrats on the two-fer.

[Rick Barton]

Should have been: "The price that it's extracting from them in terms of blood, standard of living and their character IS hideous."

(note to self...the preview button is your friend)

[Rick Barton]

Alan,

Sharon seems much more culpable for 1982 massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon than Reagan does for his support of Saddam when Saddam was gassing Kurds.

Here's to a non-interventionist foreign policy so that we aren't forced to any of the worlds thugs.

[Rick Barton]

Sorry; make that: "aren't forced to support any of the worlds thugs."

[Alan]

Rick,

The Reagan adminsitration was supplying Saddam with poison gas which he used on both Iranians and Kurds. So how is Reagan less culpapble than Sharon, who stood by while Lebanese falangists butchered Palestinians? What do you suppose Reagan thought Saddam would do with the poison gas? Are Palestinian lives more valuable than Kurdish lives? Why should Sharon be held to a higher standard than Reagan?

[Rick Barton]

Alan,

I think that Sharon had far greater PERSONAL input into the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps than Reagan did with the US funds that bought the gas. I don't even know if there is evidence that indicates that our government knew about the gassing of the Kurds. BTW, I think that there might be a controversy over the reality of the event. There was a lot of war propaganda that was less than truthful.

The weaponry that Iraq bought with US funds was intended to fight our government's great enemy du jour, Iran. I think that our government also gave Saddam targeting assistance against the Iranians leading to greater carnage.

[Alan]

Israel's ongoing occupation and confiscation of Palestinian land is indefensible. Sharon is bad, but at least an Israeli court did find him indirectly responsible for the slaughter of Palestinians in Lebanon. Reagan was never held to account for his support of Saddam when the latter was gassing Kurds.

[Alan]

Rick,

If you are opposed to an interventionist foreign policy, then I can't see how you can be a great admirer of Reagan, even if you think he wasn't a dolt. In fact, believing he was a dolt would be more exculpatory. Whether the Iraqis gassed the Kurds or not, Saddam received aid from the Reagan administration to maintain a totalitarian state and conduct a brutal war. How does Reagan, who was commander-in-chief, come off as a hero, but Sharon is a thug? Unless, of course, Reagan was a dolt. Reagan's statist policies generated many more victims--including Palestinians, by the way--than Sharon's miltary exploits.

[Alan]

Rick,

Sharon was merely a general at the time. Reagan was President. Admitedly, Reagan wasn't terribly bright, but I think one has to assume that he had some input into foreign policy.
Reagan supported the sale of weapons and intelligence to Saddam for use against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. In 1988 after Suddam gassed some 5,000 civilian Kurds, Reagan opposed sanctions against Iraq, and legislation to obtain them never passed congress. I don't know of any controversy around these facts.

Even as the US "condemned" the use of chemical weapons, Rumsfeld wnet to Iraq to support the Bechtel Corporation's bid to build an oil pipeline to Jordan. In 1988 after the gassing of the Kurds, the Bechtel Corporation signed several contracts with Saddam, including one to build a massive dual-use chemical plant outside of Baghdad. Saddam Hussein named Bechtel as one of his sources for chemical weapons information in reports submitted to the UN.

Maybe being the leader of a super power inevitably involves getting into all sorts of nasty stuff, but it seems a bit odd to focus on Sharon's sins--which are also funded by the U.S.--and give a much bigger player like Reagan a pass. Unless you think he was much stupider that even I do.

[Alan]

Rick,

Check this out: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html

Reagan talked a good talk about shrinking the government, cutting taxes and spending. He gave sermons against Communism. He spoke well of liberty, individualism, and limited state power.

He condemned conscription. He brandished the Constitution. He espoused capitalism.

But what did he do?

As governor of California and president of the United States, he enacted policies that, in the main, greatly expanded the role and size of government.

As governor, he oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office.

As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%.

Ah, but this was for defense, one might protest. And defense spending, according to the conventional wisdom, doesn?t count for some reason. In fact, defense spending is good for a "capitalist" economy, even though it was supposedly defense spending that brought down the Soviet economy. (I wonder if Reagan?s increases in California?s spending when he was governor can be attributed to a good-faith effort on his part to beat Oregon and Nevada in an arms race.)

All in all, Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode, causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress. Reagan?s tax cuts notwithstanding (some of which he reversed), the state grew fat and its growth will inevitably be financed through inflation or tax increases (unless the state defaults).

Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people.

That he did all these things in the name of "freedom," "capitalism," "small government," and "liberty" renders his legacy, in my opinion, all the more insidious. If bad Reaganesque policies continue to have a pass because of their superficial rhetorical selling points, American liberty will have suffered, not strengthened, because of him.

[Rick Barton]

We are talking personal responsibility here and it doesn't exculpate Sharon that he was a "only" a General. I don't share your assessment of Reagan's lack of mental acuity.

The controversy around the gassing of the Kurds is exampled here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm

A CIA report said it was the Iranians who committed the gassing. The historical uncertainty of the tragic episode certainly doesn't lend itself to absolving Sharon by saying "yeah but what about Reagan's role in Saddam's Kurd crimes"

Reagan presided over an interventionist foreign policy that included giving money to the Israeli government and Saddam. The policy wasn't as interventionist as it is now (how could it be?) but we continue to reap the "blow back" consequences. The approach was clearly wrong, but to compare a thug like Sharon to Reagan is to give him a pass that is unwarranted.

The lesson here is that our government needs to cease its hyper-interventionist approach.

[Rick Barton]

Alan,

Reagan vs Sharon:

Sharon has directed the theft, murder and capricious detention of the Palestinian people. He has supported racist "Jews Only" housing laws on government land in open discrimination against Israel's Arab population.

Whatever Reagan's sins, and he was certainly no libertarian, they cannot begin to approximate Sharon's.

Reagan vs Reagan:

Reagan's record was not nearly as good as his rhetoric. But there was some progress made. On foreign matters, his policies were too interventionist (but if only Bush was as restrained) although his foreign policy helped bring down the Soviet communist dictatorship with minimal bloodshed.

I liked how he called communism what it was and gave moral leadership toward the goal of its destruction. Remember when he told Gorby to tear down the wall; many in the west, especially in the mainstream left, called the statement "provocative" and said his hopes for communism's demise were "naive".

I also like how he conspired with the Pope to weaken the grip of the Polish government and other Eastern block regimes. (see: Reagan's War by Peter Switzer for this and a whole account of his long struggle and victory over communism)

On domestic matters progress was made in some areas. Total government spending increased, but at a slower rate than under Carter and Nixon/Ford. Discretionary spending actually fell by 3 or 4% during both Reagan terms. (Under Bush, it has increased by 27%! There was a thread on this blog about Reagan vs Bush) There were a number (about 9 to 12) departments that were cut under each Reagan term. (Under Clinton, there were also government departments that were cut, though not as many as under Reagan. This was in part due to a GOP congress that was much more frugal with Clinton than they have been with the big spender, Bush, whose regime has cut zero departments.)

The Federal Register, the record of all regulatory activity, actually shrank by a quarter or a third under Reagan! The tax rate cuts were substantial and coupled with the de-regulation launched a record economic expansion.

There were also huge disappointments with Reagan. In addition to the ones you listed, the departments of Education and Energy were not abolished. (Bush is bragging about how much more he's spending on education than Clinton!)

It could be said that for the US, in some matters, liberty suffered under Reagan. And, it could also be said that progress was made in some areas. Both are true. But, there is no good side of the ledger for Bush.

[Alan]

Rick:

You should apply the same balance to Sharon that you apply to Reagan. On balance both are bad, but Reahgan is much worse because he directed statist (I borrow your terminology) policies that victimized many more people than little Israel could dream of victimizing. In fact Israel relied on American money during Reagan's time as it does now. If it weren't for Reagan et al., Israel would have been forced to come to terms with the Palestinians long ago. I don't see how you can be an anti-statist and make a hero of a statist.

[Alan]

Rick,

Inasmuch as Israel is a client state of the U.S. and inasmuch as you are an anti-statist, I fail to see how you can condemn Israel while aproving so highly of an American leader (Reagan) who no less than other American leaders facilitated and aided Israel in its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Reagan was opposed to Palestinian self-determination and to any withdrawal of Israel to the 1967 borders. How was he not complicitous in the oppression of the Palestinians?