Interview with David Duke on Israel and Jewish arrogance

No hate. No violence. Races? Only one Human race.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall.
Know Your enemy. Act Now! Tomorrow it will be too late.

David Duke

Who is David Duke?
David Duke is one of the most controversial political leaders in the world. His compelling story takes us from his early life and love of the wetlands and forests of south Louisiana to his activism for the rights and heritage of European Americans. It recounts his political victory in the House of Representatives from Louisiana, and his subsequent amazing races for the U.S. Senate and Governorship that won him a landslide of White voters (over 60%) even though he was vastly out spent and attacked relentlessly by a hostile jewish media.

Received his BA in History in 1974 from LSU.

Won the ROTC Outstanding Basic Cadet Award at LSU out of a field of 3,000. Achieved highest rank possible for any basic cadet.

Worked for the U.S. State Department in Laos during the Vietnam War where he instructed anticommunist Laotian military officers. He won the "Most Respected Instructor Award." Also volunteered on missions with Air America to supply the anticommunist forces.

Awarded a scholarship for studies at the Goethe Institute in Salzburg, Austria.

Appointed by Gov. George Wallace as an Honorary Colonel in his state militia. He has been the recipient of over 35 patriotic awards, including the Patrick Henry Award from the World anticommunist Federation.

Has lectured at Universities in the U.S. and abroad, including Oxford and Cambridge in England, Harvard, USC, Vanderbilt and many others.

Founder and former National President of the NAAWP, a civil rights organization dedicated to the preservation of our heritage and equal opportunity for all Americans, including white Americans.

He has been interviewed (or debated) by such personalities as Jesse Jackson, Carl Rowan, Larry King, Ben Bradlee, Pat Buchanan, Barbara Walters, Candace Bergen, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, Ted Koppel, Jerry Springer and been a guest on such programs as the Today Show, Nightline, Good Morning America, CBS Morning News, Prime Time Live, BBC Tonight Program, Crossfire, Donahue, and many more.

David Duke was elected in 1989 and served as a member of the House of Representatives and was a full participating member of the Republican Legislative Delegation. He served on Committees: Health and Welfare, and Judiciary.

Authored landmark conservative legislation, including House Bill 1013 (1990), the first anti&endash;affirmative action challange passed by a legislative body in America.

Currently a publicly-elected Republican official. He was recently elected to Chairmanship of the Republican Parish Executive Committee of the largest Republican parish (county) in Louisiana. (St. Tammany RPEC, At-Large Representative, term 1996-2000)

Excerpts
from
an interview with
David Duke

Recently, David Duke spoke by telephone from his home office in Louisiana to Richard Martin. Excerpts from the interview follow:

[Presentation by Richard Martin:
David Duke has been many things in his life: Louisiana state legislator, candidate for the U.S. Senate, Republican Party head in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. David Duke operates even from his Web site, the David Duke Online Report.]

Martin: How did you get on the Internet? What led you to take your program online?

Duke: I'm always looking for a new medium to express and spread [the] scientific information that I have to the general public. I was doing my radio show but only reaching the radio public in New Orleans. It's a limited audience. I've done talk shows and radio around the U.S., but I'm usually given very little time, and there's always heated opposition. It's hard to really intelligently discuss, to thoroughly develop your ideas.

The Internet gives you the opportunity to fully express your ideas, on equal terms to other ideas. People have the opportunity to judge the idea on its face, next to other ideas opposing it. That's what's got people like the [Anti-Defamation League] so worried: for the first time the scientific evidence of racial differences, historical evidence of the Zionist occupation of Palestine, can be fully explored and effectively argued.

Martin: Many people think that's just the problem. That on the Internet bogus ideas like Holocaust revisionism look just as authentic as real, serious history.

Duke: Well, hey, these are serious ideas. You can call them what you want. We're just putting them out there. The Internet is simply a means of communication. A highly developed, technological, complex way to express ideas and share ideas around the world with people who are interested in these issue[...] These ideas have been suppressed; the facts have been suppressed. I'm not saying that a book like that can't make it out, but lot of it is quietly suppressed. I'm not saying that the control is total, but I'm talking about the thrust of the media.

Martin: But what about the problem of context? How can a young person distinguish between pseudo-science and reliable information on a Web site?

David Duke with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran

Duke: There's always a way to judge. Now they have the opportunity to get every point of view.[...]

People should weigh the arguments; if we're citing a study that is untrue, check out the sources. They have a right to monitor that, print that, and correct it.

Hey, if you don't believe in freedom of speech then let's shut down the Internet, make sure nobody has a fax machine, computer, or copier, and throw out the First Amendment.

Well, you can say that free speech didn't exist under Nazi Germany, or under communism. But in some ways it doesn't exist here. Even in Germany, people always had the right to talk among themselves, but I can show you a lot of things going on today that are very dangerous for freedom of speech. Just the other day, [French far-right politician] Jean-Marie Le Pen was fined one million francs for making a comment during an interview that he felt that the Holocaust was a footnote to World War II. [...]

Martin: It seems to me you want it both ways. You want absolute freedom of speech, but you castigate the government and the media that promote free speech for being controlled by liberals and lackeys and Jews. You want the freedoms of a liberal society but you advocate what's basically a fascist state.

Duke: It's not just the government. There are specific instances where freedom of speech has been suppressed not so much by government as by other forces. There's tremendous censoring going on in college textbooks, in our universities. I don't know, I'm obviously not a fascist, I served in state legislature, people in this state know that I believe in less government, and more freedom. When people point fingers at Germany, and communism, they should know that a lot of that same kind of thing goes on here, it's just more subtile. It's behind the scenes, where they suppress the knowledge of a certain book, the publication of some books.

If we can't discuss the Holocaust, if we think that certain historical ideas are not allowed to be freely analyzed, then we're in trouble. I'd suspect people who try to suppress discussion. What kind of truth needs to suppress its opposition?

[...]

If I were president of the United States, if I had the power, there would be a lot more freedom of speech than there is now. I would work harder for equal time laws, for absolute reform of the political system. I'd make sure there was public financing for campaigns, equal access to the media, a true marketplace of ideas.

Our government is bought and paid for today. People get these contributions because it's basically a bribe. That's what it's all about. The whole system...

Look, I have very strong opinions, I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong. The way to prove me wrong is to reason with facts and data, not to cut me off.

Martin: Well there I agree with you. But this whole thing about the media being controlled by Jews, that you and your associates believe--as a journalist for 15 years I find that not only contemptible but preposterous.

Duke: Am I saying that 15 or 20 Jews sit around a table in New York and decide what gets printed? Of course not. But no people are more organized than the Jews, they have huge lobbying organization and lots of organizations fighting for their interests, organizations that support Israel tremendously...Certainly the Jewish power and ownership in the media has an impact on what Americans see and read.

...What we see in media is what they want us to see. What they're ideologically comfortable with.

Imagine for a moment that Iraqis supporting Saddam Hussein controlled NBC, ABC, and CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, and US News & World Report, and most of the big dailies. Imagine what an outcry there would be. Let me tell you something: that situation exists already, except that the owners are supporters of Zionism. All these outlets, they all have Jewish ownership. The Wall Street Journal for instance.

Martin: But that's a fallacy. No two newspapers could be more opposite in their editorial views than The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Duke: They may be diametrically opposed on economic issues, but on issues that are important to these particular people, there's no divergence there... There's no difference in terms of what the Jewish people view as their interests.

[...]

Martin: How can you condemn Nazism and support Holocaust revisionism? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Duke: World War II is portrayed as the good war according to the liberal media. It involved the deaths of 50 million people, some of them Jewish. We haven't been told the whole truth on a lot of these issues, and people have the right to understand what's really behind all this. . . .

Duke then went on to describe...the "Holocaust hoax," involving war reparations, secret Swiss bank accounts, Jewish-controlled newspapers, and "blackmailing by Edgar Bronfman."

Martin: You're saying that Edgar Bronfman helped bring about the invention of the Holocaust?!

Duke: There's this myth that the Jews had all this money in Swiss accounts, though there's no evidence of that. Bronfman went to the Swiss and said, "We want $7 billion." The Swiss said this is ridiculous, the Swiss said no, and he said, "You'll be sorry."

And they launched the media onslaught against the Swiss. The only way to turn this off is by giving a few billion in gold to the Zionists. It just goes on and on, they work to advance their interests, and they don't mind using their power...

Martin: You sort of lost me there. What you're saying is that the Jewish-controlled media is involved in suppression of legitimate information. Yet to question the actuality of the Holocaust is to ignore or suppress a hell of a lot of verifiable, credible sources, such as eyewitness testimony.

Duke: What we're doing is giving a frame of reference. When NBC does a documentary, or a magazine article, they can frame Holocaust deniers any way they want to. Now for the first time intelligent people, decent-minded people with differing interpretations of that historical period, can actually go to that source, and ask "What do I actually believe?" On the Internet people can see that we're not raving lunatics, we're not spouting hate. We're simply saying that we have differing opinions of some of these things and on those historical events.

Martin: What has the Web site done for your real-world organization?

Duke: Let me put it this way. Maybe five years ago, if someone wanted to find about David Duke they could go to the library, get the periodical guide, go to newspapers, look at TV news shows. Essentially, most of those sources are pretty much opposed to me. As you know it's possible to make saints into sinners when you have the power of the pen. Nowadays you have something entirely different, if a student is doing a report for school, a story on David Duke, well now they can go to the Internet, type in David Duke in a search engine, and get all kinds of sites both for and against me. Now they can go to my page, actually read for themselves what I say for myself in my own words. When I wanted to know about Nazism, I read Mein Kampf. Now for the first time people can get the other side, from the source itself. Then you judge for yourself.

Whether they're right or wrong, they're legitimate opinions. I have a right to express them.

Return to
Table of Contents

Louis Farrakhan Benjamin Franklin Luther

HOME