December 12, 2006
Iran, David Duke and me
The news that David Duke has turned up in Tehran to speak at the Holocaust denial conference, brings back fond(ish) memories of interviewing the former KKK leader, when his political career was really on a tear in Louisiana in 1990. It is startling to remember that – in that year – Duke got 43 per cent of the vote in the Senatorial race.
I did a formal interview with a rather evasive Duke in the garden of his house in New Orleans. My main memory of this was his rather peculiar appearance: following recent plastic surgery – he had very tight skin, highlighted hair and a very prominent chin. (He had recently had chin implants).
I then had a much more interesting conversation with Duke’s campaign manager, who gave me a lift to a campaign rally – somewhere out in the state’s backwoods. It was a long drive and the manager (I’ve forgotten his name) had a large gun on the floor of his pick-up truck, which kept sliding around beneath my feet.
He told me that the problem with Duke as a Senatorial candidate was his obsessive anti-semitism: “The Jews just aren’t a big issue in Louisiana. We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There’s no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway.” But Duke could not keep off the subject, much to the exasperation of his campaign team. For Duke was not just a standard red-neck white supremacist. He was a real theoretical racist, who had been fascinated by Nazism since high school.
Since then I’ve always followed Duke’s career with a certain fascination. Anyone wanting to catch up on his recent activities should check out his web-site – which lovingly details recent speeches in Flanders and television appearances in Syria. Duke has long ago left the US behind him. In 2000 he published a book called “Jewish Supremacism”, which sold well in Russia – and indeed was briefly on sale in the Duma. And last year he was awarded a PhD from a university in Ukraine for his doctorate on “Zionism as a form of ethnic supremacism”. He is clearly rather proud of this last achievement, since his web-site refers to him as David Duke PhD.
The fact that this is the kind of company that the president of Iran chooses to keep, shows either that Mr Ahmadinejad is a rather sinister figure. Or a complete clown. Or possibly both.
Mr. Rachman, one personal question: why does the photo illustrating your blog show your face smiling, while the photo illustrating your column show you with a straight, slightly saddish face? Does it mean you enjoy writing the blog more than your columns?
Posted by: Manfredi | December 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentI must say I quite enjoy reading both.
Dear Mr Rachman,
it is always interesting to see other people’s views along with those of the author of the article.
how about giving a weekly column to Iranian writers. think tanks, students… who live in Iran and who have difficulties in publishing their views there. it would add more to the debate by bringing in voices that are otherwise unheard in the West.It is a vibrant, articulate and argumentative society - unfortunatly the internal debate is conducted in Persian.
Posted by: afsaneh Khalatbari-wogan | December 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentincidently, what use does the FT make of the comments you receive ?
yours sincerely
Afsaneh Khalatbari - Wogan
Dear Manfredi,
Thank you for raising the question of my photo. As you might imagine this is a subject that has long fascinated me, so I’m delighted to find somebody else who takes an interest.
I have looked at both photos again - closely. To be honest I’m not sure they differ that much. Perhaps there is a slightly jauntier angle to the head in the blog photo? But I wouldn’t infer anything too much from that. I think I probably “enjoy” doing the column a bit more - in the sense that I put more effort into it, worry about the argument more, check facts more obsessively etc etc…All of which might make the end product less enjoyable. The blog I regard as a bit of fun on the side - which is probably a huge misreading of the future of the media, but there you go.
But back to the really important subject - my photo. The original photo for my column and blog was withdrawn on the grounds that it was too severe and - when set against a bakcground of missiles, as was done on one occasion - made me look deranged. My original intention was not to seem severe, but instead to look piercingly intelligent. But apparently there is a fine line between “intelligent” and “deranged”. I believe the harsh photo does still survive in a half-light on the website. True devotees are advised to go to the world page, where it is used to illustrate the blog.
And finally - mR Khalatbari-Wogan’s comment. I agree the internal debate in Iran is fascinating. And it would be great if the FT could reflect that more regularly. In the meantime Iranians are welcome to post comments on my blog, although preferably not in Persian.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | December 12th, 2006 at 7:54 pm | Report this commentI lived in New Orleans in the 1970s and witnessed the early days of Duke’s career — back when he wore a sheet. Even went to one of his Klan rallies (I’m the right color.) A late friend of mine devised a popular bumper sticker against the Republican Duke in his 1990 Senate campaign — summing up why one should vote for the much-indicted (and since convicted) Democrat, Edwin Edwards: “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.” Thank god, that was one moral distinction that a majority of voters in Louisiana were well able to make.
Posted by: Jim Stodder | December 12th, 2006 at 10:24 pm | Report this comment“Ahmadinejad is a rather sinister figure. Or a complete clown.”
Posted by: David Seaton | December 13th, 2006 at 7:44 am | Report this commentSinister he may be, but crazy he isn’t. What Ahmadinejad is doing by publicity stunts like the “conference”, with its endless headlines and photo-ops with rabbis included, is to get lots of media exposure for the central idea he is peddling, which is the question: “Why should the Palestinians pay the price for Europe’s persecution of the Jews?” That the Holocaust is merely being used to justify the suppression of the Palestinians. This is an idea that has quite a lot of resonance in the 3rd world and even among westerners who don’t question in any way the tragic reality of the Holocaust itself. Ahmadinejad is successfully using the headline hungry western media as a sounding box to propagate and repeat that powerful idea, central to Israeli hasbara, over and over again.
Charlies Show Prep #213
David Dukes trek to Iran for a Holocaust summit gives the Financial Times Gideon Rachman a chance to reminisce.
Posted by: The American Mind | December 13th, 2006 at 8:55 am | Report this commentMichael McGee/Jackson, Jr.s answer to questions about having Leon Todd hung was unrolling a Hugo Chavez …
I hope this conference turns out to be nothing more sinister than an attempt by Iran to bolster the price of oil. After all, as a member of OPEC it has to play by OPEC’s rules. Outside of OPEC it can talk up the price of oil at no cost to itself. I would venture that a stable Middle East is an anathema to Mr Ahmadinejad.
I expected things to turn out badly when his election campaign advertisements showed him dressed as Rambo, but this is even more laughable. I think we are expending too much energy on this clown, and indulging him at the same time.
Posted by: Raymond Ellis | December 13th, 2006 at 2:02 pm | Report this commentAs an Iranian, I would say that Ahmadinejad is a sinister clown so Mr. Rachman’s “guilt by association” effort is otiose, but can somebody please explain to me why in so much of the “free democratic West”, it is a criminal offence to question the extent or nature of what was done to the Jews in the 1930’s and 1940’s?
Even in the parts when it isn’t a statutory offence, we are told to be ashamed of such a thought crime.
It is possible to question Darwin’s theories about Evolution, the identity of who shot JFK or who was responsible for 9/11 or Princess Diana’s death. It is possible to wonder whether Jesus historically existed or whether there is a God at all. There is even a flat earth society.
So why oh why can’t people ask whether the Holocaust took place and whether it was as extensive as the received wisdom claims.
Why did Austria imprison a scientist who pointed out the walls of the gas chambers did not contain the expected chemicals?
Why are scientific and historic research circumscribed in this one case and this one case alone? Something to hide, perchance?
Thanks,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2006 at 2:16 pm | Report this commentMr. Duke - or should I say “Dr.” Duke? - is not missed here in the US, his tripe would not be welcome even in the most radicalized departments of any US university that I’m aware of.
As for Pacifist: Where to begin? An epic tragedy such as the Holocaust, involving millions of people, whose fate is testified to by Holocaust survivors - many still alive today - and by former camp guards - again, many still alive - and Allied military in World War II who uncovered the evidence (physical remains, documents, etc.) of the atrocities, if all the foregoing doesn’t persuade a person that the Holocaust was a real world event, then that doubter is living in a parallel universe and discussion/debate is futile. Clownishness is not the sole province of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: James Lawson | December 13th, 2006 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentDAVID DUKE JEWS: WHAT PROBLEM?
Gideon Rachman tells in his blog of an interviewed he conducted in 1990, with our favorite former KKK member. Mr. Rachman isnt writing of the senescent senator from West Virginny, Bob Byrd, but David Duke, who ran for the US Senate, in the hope…
Posted by: BLINKERED THINKER | December 13th, 2006 at 5:47 pm | Report this commentDear James Lawson,
I think you missed the point of my question. My reference to flat-earth society was meant to deal with the contention that doubting the received wisdom on the purported Holocaust is stupid.
Let’s say that it is stupid and clownish to have such doubts, so what? There are millions of people who believe in UFO’s and all manners of conspiracy theories, some of which I enumerated in my previous message, that might seem ridiculous to you or I.
Why should there be laws (in much of continental Europe) and a certain amount of censorship elsewhere in this one respect? Why shouldn’t this particular “truth” be challenged like your fellow countrymen challenge Darwin’s Evolutionary theories? If the Holocaust-deniers are “clownish”, then let them out themselves as clowns. Why do their opponents try to terminate all discussion and close the subject?
If the trouble is that the feelings of the world’s Jewry are hurt, then since when have people’s feeling been taken into account in this way, when we see the West beats its chest to defend Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists who offended the world’s Muslims.?
In the marketplace of ideas, everyone ought to be allowed to present their opinions, however stupid or unpalatable, and leave it to the judgements of other “market participants” to adopt or reject those ideas, based on open and reasoned discussion. This is not happening on the issue of the Holocaust and one wonders why.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2006 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentI think Ahmadinejad is a very sinister figure. It really worries me that he wants to destroy Israel. As someone who is related to Holocaust victims, I find his views very, very shocking
Posted by: Robert Gallagher | December 14th, 2006 at 7:38 pm | Report this commentIt is now generally acknowledged that Ahmadinejad made no threats against Israel. He simply said Israel will vanish from the pages of history. In his speech more recently he clarified further by comparing it to the disappearance of the Soviet Union.
For those who believe Palestine should be governed democratically, on a multi-ethnic basis, including Jew, Muslim and Christian, the disappearance of a religious state is a desirable outcome.
The “threats” are basically a product of the Zionist domination of the Western media.
Posted by: Pacifist | December 15th, 2006 at 11:28 am | Report this commentPacifist:
I can’t say why specific countries and specific lawmakers have made Holocaust denial a crime. But I think I understand the general thinking. The people of Europe, Germany especially, are afraid that eliminationist entisemitism could again rise as a political movement. Therefore, to remind people of the inherent horror of such ideas, the feeling is that people should always be reminded of the Holocaust and never allowed to deny it happened. I think they worry that the deliberate execution of six million Jews in specially designed factories might be forgoteen or considered a debatable myth.
This is not to say that I agree with censorship or think the strategy is correct. But I understand the impulse. Today you have Turkish writers prosecuted for suggesting that Armenians were deliberately slaughtered, and you have Russians nostalgic for Stalin who dismiss the notion that he deliberately starved three million Ukranians, among other crimes. Americans rarely ask where all the Native Americans went. In the future, there will no doubt be politically motivated attempts to suppress or forget the slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda and the genocide in Darfur. Given this almost inevitable political amnesia about genocides and great crimes, one can see why it seemed so important to European governments that the Holocaust not be forgotten or questioned.
Posted by: RWB | December 16th, 2006 at 9:28 pm | Report this commentAs a 76 year-old survivor of tne Nazi era and a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany whose aunt and cousin perished at Riga, let me advise you that a conference on the question of whether the Holocaust occurred is no more legitimate than a conference on the question of whether the American Civil War occurred, perhaps less so since no survivors of the Civil War are still living. The eleven European countries that ban public denial of the Holocaust do so because it is widely understood that the debate over this non-issue is a thinly disguised rationale for anti-Semitism. European historians are free to conduct legitimate research into the realities of the Holocaust, but the conception of free speech in these countries does not include lying to the public for the purpose of inciting ethnic hatred. This is what the Nazis did and it resulted in the death of four million Germans. Perhaps we should also hold a conference on whether this really occurred.
Posted by: Stanley Wertheim | December 26th, 2006 at 6:24 pm | Report this comment