Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke watched the violence unfold Saturday and declared that the white supremacy movement — which is what he represents — was at “a turning point.” Added Duke, “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
The debate started with Duke being called a snake, and ended with him shouting, “Are you going to silence me?
David Duke, the former KKK Imperial Wizard running for a U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana, let out a string of bigoted and violent statements during a debate Wednesday night.
The debate started on a heated note when Democratic candidate Caroline Fayard referred to Duke as a “snake that slithered out of the swamp.” Duke responded by defending his white supremacist views, sarcastically commenting, “Yeah, I’m the bad guy because I defend the people of this country that made our country great.”
Duke was alluding to Donald Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.” The white supremacist repeatedly characterized himself as a staunch Donald Trump supporter, even referring to himself at one point as “Donald Trump’s most loyal advocate.”
Then, Duke echoed a claim made by Trump on Monday suggesting that Hillary Clinton be executed.
“The lady should be getting the electric chair, being charged with treason,” Duke proclaimed regarding Clinton’s email scandals.
To be fair, Duke’s incendiary remarks weren’t limited to Clinton. When moderator John Snell asked him to defend a reference on his website to “CNN Jews,” Duke argued that he isn’t actually anti-Semitic because he only dislikes the Jews he believes aren’t sufficiently loyal to America.
“I’m not opposed to all Jews,” he insisted. “I’m against Jews or anybody else that puts the interests of some other place over our own country.”
Duke also had harsh words for the student activists who assembled to protest his appearance on the debate stage (many of whom were pepper sprayed by law enforcement). After referring to them as Black Lives Matter “radicals,” Duke proclaimed ominously to his white racist supporters that “It is time we stand up now. We’re getting outnumbered and outvoted in our own nation.”
The debate ended with Duke ranting and raving at the moderator and other candidates (now departing) because Snell clarified that Duke had not been targeted by the government for his white supremacist ideology, but because he had stolen money from his supporters to fund his gambling addiction.
“Let me rebut! Let me rebut! See you’re not a moderator. You’re a typical media hack! Are you going to silence me?” Duke screamed. “I have a right to respond! That’s the problem with this. The federal government targeted me. I have a right to respond!”
Seems that white supremacists are coming out of the Trump woodwork… There is no evidence that Trump’s campaign is actually considering former KKK Leader David Duke, but Duke feels Trump is in alignment with the KKK Goals.
They’re using robocalls and volunteers to drum up support.
As the Republican presidential primary moves into the American south, white supremacist groups are working to mobilize racists to get out the vote for Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, David Duke, the white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, encouraged his radio show listeners to volunteer for Trump’s campaign. “Call Donald Trump’s headquarters [and] volunteer,” he said on the “David Duke Radio Program.” At Trump campaign offices, he said, “you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mindset that you have.”
In Minnesota and Vermont, a white supremacist super PAC called the American National Super PAC has begun circulating a robocall in support of Trump.
“The white race is dying out in America and Europe because we are afraid to be called ‘racist,’ says William Johnson, the leader of the white nationalist American Freedom Party. He goes on to bemoan “gradual genocide against the white race,” and how few “schools anymore have beautiful white children as the majority.” He signs off by telling recipients, “Don’t vote for a Cuban. Vote for Donald Trump.”
Johnson is not affiliated in any way with the Trump campaign, and Trump has distanced himself from Johnson’s views. Trump also promised to return a $250 contribution Johnson made to his campaign.
But Trump’s response to the white supremacists backing him is hardly enough to put them off, said Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that monitors hate groups.
“Trump has ‘quote unquote’ repudiated these groups, but only in the most milquetoast way imaginable,” Potok said in an interview. “The fact is that white nationalists are mobilizing for Trump whether he likes it or not.”
Like Johnson, Duke framed the GOP primary as a contest between Trump and two people of color, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas). “Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said Wednesday. And while he doesn’t agree with everything Trump says, he told listeners, “I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”
Potok said Duke’s backing carries a lot of weight in white supremacist circles. “David Duke is the most important self described white nationalist intellectual out there today, and what he says is still very influential.”
The Huffington Post reached out to Trump’s campaign for a response to the David Duke comments, and will update this post if they provide one.
On white nationalist websites, analysts are portraying Trump’s candidacy as a rebellion by white supremacists against the mainstream conservative movement. As a writer calling himself Gregory Hood recently wrote in the national Raddix Journal, “the conservative movement is trying to keep its White serfs trapped on the conservative planation. They know if Trumpian nationalism triumphs, a more authentic form of White Identity politics can’t be far behind.”
This isn’t the first time white supremacists have seized on Trump’s candidacy. In December, Rachel Pendergraft, the national organizer for the Knights Party, a Ku Klux Klan affiliate, said Trump’s bid for the White House had opened up new ways for her group to recruit like-minded people.
“One of the things that our organization really stresses with our membership is we want them to educate themselves on issues, but we also want them to be able to learn how to open up a conversation with other people,” Pendergraft told The Washington Post. Trump, she said, was a perfect conversation starter for people to begin talking about issues like immigration and demographic changes underway in America.
But as the Republican race moves into states where Jim Crow segregation was the law of the land for more than a century, the influence of overt racism and the white nationalist movement, combined with some of Trump’s rhetoric, could have the more subtle effect of making it seem more acceptable to hold aggressively anti-immigrant and xenophobic views.
“With Trump, white supremacists understand that he’s not exactly a white nationalist, like them, but they applaud his hard right positions on matters that are important to them,” said Potok. “From their point of view, it’s almost better that he’s not a full on white nationalist, because now he has a better chance at winning a major office.”
To many voters, the GOP nominating contest increasingly looks like a three-way race between two Hispanic men and a white man, leaving little doubt as to which candidate is most likely to win the pro-white vote.
“White supremacists are beside themselves with joy,” Potok added.
Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain, a black scholar who is known for her conservative positions on race and immigration, has been accused by the Southern Poverty Law Center of being an apologist for white supremacists and posted a blog commentary critiquing the documentary, “A Conversation About Race,” which stated that the complimentary comments made by Swain lent the film some credence. Swain, a professor of law and political science, responded by posting a blog commentary on the Huffington Post and told the Tennessean in an interview that she feels she is being attacked by the SPLC.
Carol got sucked in to supporting white nationalists – but that isn’t the entire issue I wanted to address today. So – this Blog wasn’t initially going to bash Carol as an official card carrying member of the black conservative “Tom Squad”, because she wasn’t – at least to the dozen or so articles I’ve read that she has written up until her defense posted at HuffPo. I’m not terribly sure how the Carol Swain who wrote this –
In addition, there is a pressing need for a national conversation about the continued job discrimination that many black men and women experience despite the existence of civil rights laws and statutes. Some of this discrimination occurs in low wage, low skill jobs where blacks find themselves at a disadvantage when competing with whites and immigrants. Racial preferences in employment and college admissions do almost nothing to address larger problems of societal discrimination that might be amenable to more creative solutions.
Got flipped into full Uncle Ruckus caricature. And – don’t get this wrong, Carol is arguing against “Affirmative Action” – but, what separates her from the Tom Squad so far in my view is recognition of the continuing discrimination issue, and the proposition of solutions. She unfortunately, like every other black conservative can’t define or elucidate those solutions, but like the X Files – “they are someplace out there”…
I’m sure many of the SPLC staff endorsed some aspects of the Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine film. In doing so, they are likely comfortable separating their endorsement of a particular feature of that film from the unconditional endorsement of its maker. In their case, Bowling for Columbine could be valuable in a classroom setting, even if Michael Moore isn’t beyond reproach. Similarly, they probably appreciate the artistic value of some Roman Polanski films even though Polanski is a convicted child rapist. Yet, they seem to conflate my endorsement of A Conversation about Race with a comprehensive endorsement of Mr. Bodeker, and his newly exposed familiarity with racist thought.
The first thing the Tom Squad conservative learn suckling between their Massa’s knees is the false equivalencies defense. Polanski fully deserves to spend the rest of his days behind iron bars for his reprehensible actions as part of his personal life. But even his most severe critics balk at any claim that his films promoted and defended pedophilia. As to Moore, she would have to let us in on the secret. However, a better choice might be Moore being a fat guy, making a movie about the excesses of fast Food in “Super Size Me”. That is about as close as it gets, which is still different from Bodeker where we have the accusation of a racist, making a movie promoting racism.
So Swain isn’t defending the film’s content, she is criticizing her detractors – which is wholly counterfeit. She’s de facto admitting Bodeker is a racist, without offering up a mea culpa for not examining Bodeker’s background before endorsing his film. She is now denying that a racist making a film on race might not be intellectually “honest”…
And denying culpability for that through false equivalencies.
Notice, not one word defending the actual content of the film.
So to cover that accusation that Mr. Bodeker is a racist – Who is Mr. Bodeker – and does he have a “message” he wants to get across here beyond a rather superficial examination of race and racism?
“…The only way an advanced culture can PROOVE [sic] it’s not ‘racist,’ is for it to elect MONKEYS as public servants…”
On Van Jones –
This is a TYPICAL BLACK MAN speaking!
He has a limited intelligence, but is CERTAIN of his Intellectual Superiority over us common-folk!
He’s been privileged all his life, yet he believes he’s PERSECUTED!
He HATES white men, but we don’t call it hate!
Wake-up America! Because these EVIL monkeys are DESTROYING the greatest nation ever built!”
What is wrong with the film?
It starts with the hypothesis expressed at the 2:40 mark –
“Who are the ‘select few’ racists”? White people like me.”
At 3:20 Bodeker sets the bait with his plan to “Interview some of racism’s believers”. Any of you who have ever watched the old Jay Leno Tonight Show routine – “The Jaywalk All-Stars” should recognize the set up. You can construct a group of people, seemingly at random to pretty much believe anything you want. You want 6 people who believe Christopher Columbus is President of the United States – it’s all in the numbers.
As such, there is no validation of whether the folks selected represent the “Conventional Wisdom” claimed by Bodeker. Especially in light that he skillfully avoids asking anyone who might have expertise in the matter. Bodeker admits interviewing 50 people, but we only see a very small slice of the responses, only those which justify Bodeker’s racism.
At the 30:20 mark, Bodeker proposes a question “If any of the interviewees could come up with a name of a public figure who was racist.” He claims that none of the 50 or so interviewees could. A staggering claim 2 years into first the campaign, and second the election and office of President Obama, with charges and counter-charges of racism flying, and not ONE of 50 interviewees had any idea?
That is a setup for the next question – “Is Jesse Jackson a racist?“, for which we only see two responses – the second of which, a white lady who believes Jesse Jackson represents black people (he doesn’t, he’s an anti-racism activist who has been roundly, and righteously accused of racism because of his “Hymietown” comments), who when asked, “Can you name an advocate for white people“… Draws a blank.
To which Bodeker concludes –
“Get that, being an advocate for one’s racial group is a good thing, as long as the group is not white people.”
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white.”
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Read the piece above from David Duke – after watching the film. You will understand where the argument came from – and who (and what) Mr. Bodeker is.
Which puts Carol firmly in the Tom Squad.
So the question becomes, how did the erstwhile Professor Swain get suckered into giving (talking) head to a white supremacist espousing the doctrine of David Duke’s KKK? The answer to that is even uglier. Much of the KKK Doctrine as defined by David Duke and other white nationalist organizations has become part an parcel of conservatism as practiced by the Republican Party. The Republican Party under the leadership of the Bushit was the “White People’s Party”. The fable of the white victim became so ingrained in conservative thought the Bushit DOJ spent 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars searching for examples of reverse racism…
With not much better success than finding WMD in Iraq.
Black conservative reflex is to defend their fellow white conservatives – no matter how egregious their behavior.Swain probably couldn’t tell the difference between KKK Bodeker and your average white conservative southerner...