David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean

NY Sun ^ | 3-20-06 | ELI LAKE

[veronica]

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

[igottabenutz]

Geez. I just wore out my scroll wheel.

[wideawake]

Motives and interpretations could be imputed [like they used to be in the cases of "anti-soviet propaganda"], and it is not a route any self-respecting human ought to take.

LOL!

I suppose that when you get an email from Nigeria, you simply take it at face value, becuase questioning motives is not something "any self-respecting human" should do.

Would you be interested in purchasing a bridge?

The only way to consider it is on merits, aside of what one could think of "motivations" etc.

When someone characterizes the founding of the state of Israel in passing as "myths" how do we assess the "merits" of that rhetoric?

We acknowledge it for what it is: hostile propaganda.

This is an opinion piece - it would never have been written if its writer was not motivated by an agenda.

[GSlob]

Absolutely true. I take Nigerian e-mails on their merits: as I haven't had any dealings with anything even remotely connected with Nigeria [and do not want to], I see that there are no merits to any "contract payments" etc. from that quarter. And no, I am not buying bridges, either, and for the same reason.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Ivy League always anti-Semitic?

If so, wouldn't this be the reemergence of anti-Semitism, not its emergence?

[wideawake]

The University of Chicago is not an Ivy League school, although it is nearly as prestigious and far more academically rigorous than an Ivy.

There was never any tradition of anti-Semitism at the University of Chicago - Jews were admitted to the University upon its founding without any quotas and it had notable Jewish graduates and faculty members within a decade or so of its founding.

One can make that argument about Harvard - but Chicago is a different matter entirely.

[wideawake]

I see that there are no merits to any "contract payments" etc. from that quarter.

And I see there are no merits to anti-Semitic propaganda, ahem . . . "policy recommendations" from people who refer to Americans who support Israel as "the Lobby" that has the goal of "stifling debate on university campuses."

Scams are scams.

[GSlob]

Good for you. And I'd rather read it.

[wideawake]

And I'd rather read it.

That's why I personally posted it in its entirety - so people could read it.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant for this garbage.

[LexBaird]

Motives and interpretations could be imputed [like they used to be in the cases of "anti-soviet propaganda"], and it is not a route any self-respecting human ought to take. The only way to consider it is on merits, aside of what one could think of "motivations" etc.

If one does not take into account another's motives in evaluating their writings, he runs the grave risk of being used as a tool. A person can always manipulate the information and the most effective way of lying is to publish only the favorable truths to support his position.

Critical thinking should always examine the motives. It is the only defense against spin.

[GSlob]

The paper is supposedly 83 pages long. What you posted is significantly shorter, probably an excerpt or a summary.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.

..................

[GSlob]

Works both ways, doesn't it?

[R.W.Ratikal]

David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (like Robert Byrd of West Virginia) and of the National Association for the Advancement of White People,described himself as a "radicalist." In the late 80s duke was a force that could not be ignored.

Duke was no crackpot. At his peak he was an attractive figure and was one of the more effective spokesman for the radical right with a skill unmatched by any other extremeist of the right or left.

Duke was opposed to affirmative action, busing, and set-asides for hires and promotion, he was opposed to open borders, he was opposed to the welfare-state, defended traditional values, higher taxes, deficit spending, and he was opposed to big government getting bigger. He also advocated the advancement of the white race, his downfall.

Duke was no Aryan Nazi but he once wore a Nazi-style uniform to protest the speaking at Louisiana State University by the late William Kuntzler, a radical far left attorney who supported the communist line in America. Duke's father was fighting in Vietnam at the time and Duke protested Kuntzlers being able to speak in defense of the communist position and against the war in Vietnam.

Duke's greatest sin was that he openly favored the white race just like Jesse Jackson openly favored the black race.
Duke declared that he "Wanted to protect white Christian values in a non-violent way."

Ironically when Duke was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature in 1989 he did nothing to introduce legislation that would favor whites. On the contrary he used his term in office as a platform to run for the U. S. Senate.

He came close. The highest officials of both parties from President Bush and former President Reagan put their prestige on the line to oppose Duke. Opposition was all based on the claim that Duke was a racist. This accusation was even made by some of the most prominent black racists in and out of government. Of course many black racists' were elected to office that same year.

Duke will, rightly or wrongly, probably never outlive the racist taint attached to him. However it was noteworthy at the time that few of his opponents ever debated the issues with him. He was a suave and articulate debater and would have ate their lunch.

It is probably unnecessary to point out that most of Duke's political positions are now the stated positions of most Americans.

[righthand man]

David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean

saw the head line thought it said "HOWARD DEAN"

[eeevil conservative]

oh, so he is a brilliant racist?

I don't give this man any more legitimacy than I do Puff Daddy...

after all- Hitler liked dogs, so do I...doesn't make me say...hmmmm maybe Hitler wasn't so bad....

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

My mistake.

I thought it had been published by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

The University of Chicago?

I'm surprised.

Wasn't that a relatively sane college until recently?

Core curriculum in the Western canon, Alan Bloom, Hayekian economics, etc...?

[sitetest]

Well, that's a pretty reasonable-looking alliance - Harvard and David Duke.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

What do you mean the "accusation" that he's a racist?

He is a racist, point-blank.

That's like referring to the "accusation" that George Habash is a terrorist.

He is one.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[wideawake]

The paper is supposedly 83 pages long.

The working papaer submitted to the Kennedy School is 83 pages. I posted the text Mearsheimer-Walt Published the London Review of Books.

What you posted is significantly shorter, probably an excerpt or a summary.

What I posted is neither an excerpt nor a summary - it is the entire unannotated text. Only the accompanying endnotes are omitted, just as Mearsheimer-Walt omitted them in their LRB publication.

[eeevil conservative]

LOL! Kinda like saying the great downfall of Tookie was that pesky little blurb about "gang activity"

other than that........