America’s Racist: David Duke Exposed

Notorious racist and former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke is back in the news. The one-term Louisiana state representative is now making a bid for the United States Senate as a Republican. After leaving the American Nazi Party in 1975, Mr. Duke was a Democrat for thirteen years, then a member of the Populist Party, followed by a ten-year stint as a Republican before entering the Reform Party. Mr. Duke is perhaps the most prominent face of racist politics in the US today.

Mr. Duke’s support for Republican nominee Donald Trump has also contributed to an increase in media coverage. While many of us at the Review dispute the left’s narrative that Mr. Trump is running on a platform of racism, we believe that Mr. Duke’s abhorrent white nationalism and anti-Semitism should not even be tacitly tolerated by any serious political figure.

Mr. Duke has recently attempted to temper some of his more disgusting comments about Jews and African-Americans and at times has denied past statements outright. Unfortunately for him, The Review actually conducted an interview with Mr. Duke in 1981 (to our liberal friends and critics: don’t get too excited; this interview was no endorsement). We have decided to re-print this interview with the hope that Mr. Duke’s history of hatred is as plain as the absurdity of his fraudulent Ph.D in “Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism.”

This article by Anthony Desir, a founding Editor of The Review, origionally appeared in the Spring  of 1981:

David Duke: A Notorious Racist

David Duke: A Notorious Racist

Former KKK Head Claims Blacks are Biologically Inferior

Anthony Desir interviewed David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, by phone last week. In a strained and contentious discussion, Desir flushed out Duke’s fierce positions on such issues as integration, white supremacy, and alien immigration. Desir describes Duke as “disarmingly elegant” in his rationalization of segregation and white superiority; it is difficult to gauge whether Duke’s arguments represent the nostalgic feelings of a frustrated man, or the deceptive cover for maniacal racism.

The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Could you give us a little background on yourself?

David Duke (DD): I am thirty years old.  I am the national president of the organization.  I was elected to the position last August by the membership.  I am a graduate of LSU, a history major.  I at one time worked overseas, I taught military English to army officers during the Vietnam conflict.  I have travelled the world.  And I was one-time leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

TDR: The organization you referred to.  Which organization is that?


TDR: What?

DD: The National Association for the Advancement of the White People.

TDR: Fine. Could you give us some background on the NAAWP?

DD: In general, we are concerned about the preservation of the white race, and its heritage.  It was felt by the founders of the NAAWP that white people were facing increasing discrimination, deterioration in the quality of education, and disintegration of our society.  A powerful organization is needed, they felt, to stand up for the rights of the majority in this country.

TDR: To what extent?

DD: I believe in the Constitution of the United States.  It is the best document ever created for governing a nation.  We  believe the Constitution has not been followed by many aspects of government today.  The federal government is taking away many powers that should be reserved to the states and the people.

TDR: Let’s talk about such things as welfare, affirmative action, busing, and the preservation of white power.

DD: On the topic of welfare, the NAAWP believes the present welfare system is taking advantage of productive and hard-working Americans; instead of alleviating poverty, it is actually increasing it.  We see two fundamental solutions:

We advocate what we call work-fare instead of welfare— under this proposal able-bodied people would have to work for the community in order to receive welfare benefits.

Second, we believe in a vigorous promotion of family planning.  Individuals will have the incentive to have smaller families; this would be humanitarian because it would bring fewer children into terrible conditions, and it would allow more money to be sloughed into training programs for the poor.  This would also lessen the tax burden incurred by productive Americans.

TDR: What is your perception of the average welfare recipient?

DD: The average recipient is a member of a minority group.  About ten years ago they did a study and they found that about half the welfare recipients in this country were white—about 52 percent—and the rest were either black, nonwhite, and so forth.  But even then they were referring to Mexicans as Caucasians.

Today if you take blacks, Mexicans, Vietnam refugees, Indo-Chinese refugees, and Puerto Ricans, whites are a small percentage of the welfare recipients, even though whites constitute 83-84 percent of the population.  The average welfare recipient is black, and the government studies today show that about half the black children born today are illegitimate.  Most of these go on welfare.

TDR: Do you have statistics for white welfare recipients?

DD: Sure.  White people today constitute around 32-33 percent of the welfare recipients.  Health Education and Welfare figures say that even though whites receive one-third of welfare assistance, about two-thirds of the poor in America are white.  Most of this is caused by affirmative action, which not only discriminates in favor of blacks, but it discriminates against the white poor.  I can’t believe that poor blacks are somehow more significant than poor whites.  That is racist.

TDR: Isn’t it true that most black poor come from urban America, but poor whites come from rural areas?

DD: There is no question that most white poor come from rural areas, but there are many in the cities too.

TDR: Aren’t people in rural areas more self-sufficient than those in urban areas? They grow their own food, they have less energy needs.

DD: I don’t know about that.  They need to heat their homes, they need electricity for their implements.  On the other hand, people in the urban areas are more exposed to business, education, and culture than people in rural areas. Now I do believe that races behave differently under different environments.

TDR: You think educational opportunities are better in urban areas than rural areas?

DD: That is traditionally so.  I believe that the constitution of students in rural areas, often being mostly white, offers an advantage to students.  Many urban schools are largely black.   But in terms of money spent, you will find that urban areas spend more money.  They have more sophisticated programs, access to psychiatrists and departmentalized programs that help people.  Those who have exceptional ability get special study; those who have low ability have remedial programs.

TDR: Is the standard of urban schooling higher, then?

DD: I don’t think it is higher.  It should be higher, because they spend more money.  But I don’t think it is higher, because of the presence of minorities… it becomes too disruptive in these schools, and many of the schools have got to break down.

TDR: Are you saying that minorities deteriorate the urban school system?

DD: Yes, I am.

TDR: Why?

DD: Because the races come from different economic, cultural, and biological backgrounds.  They are different.  And this has an impact.

TDR: Biological differences? What proof do you have that there are biological differences between the races?

DD: There are many differences that can be documented by social scientists, biologists, and so on.  Where do you want me to begin? We can show you all kinds of studies that have been done between blacks and whites, who go to the same school, and the blacks score much lower on IQ than whites.

TDR: You say they have the same background?

DD: They go to the same school, and yes…

TDR: Can you quote some of these studies?

DD: Yes. The only argument today is whether racial difference is environmentally caused, or whether it is biological.  But many IQ tests with people of similar cultural and economic opportunity show a different IQ.

A major study in Florida not long ago compared students of Caucasian and black backgrounds.  What these tests showed is significant: Mexicans have, very often, lower economic background than blacks.  Also, most of them speak a foreign language—English is their second language—and are not as proficient as those who learn English as a first language.

In SAT tests, now the children of Mexican background consistently scored higher than those with black background, in both mechanical and verbal tests.  Now it is true that these tests are preparatory; they don’t measure direct IQ, but there is a correlation.

TDR: You are aware that IQ tests have been severely criticized.  You think they are an absolute indication…

DD: Of course they are not an absolute indication.  But they are the best indication.

TDR: Doesn’t this discriminate against minority students? Many of them come from schools who are not turning out a high quality product.  Their families aren’t as wealthy, and they can’t afford a high-quality school system.

DD: You are talking about a system that is hardly enforced in this country.  In most states, money is allocated to schools systems from the state itself.  There may be variations per school district, but today that variation is insignificant.  Washington DC, for example, spends more per pupil than almost any city in the United States.  Yet, no matter how much money they spend, they have the same problems with discipline, the need for police patrolling the corridors, and the same failure academically.

TDR: But…

DD: I know you can say that the negroes don’t have enough economic opportunity and so forth, but you can’t say we should help them, except on an individual basis.  I don’t think we should put them in college and hurt the whole quality of that college.  Give them special help, and then if they can make it to university fine.  But there is only so much society can do.

TDR: You just used the word Negroes.  Blacks generally refer to themselves as blacks.  Why did you use the word?

DD: I don’t know.  The anthropological word is negroid.  Black magazines and black leaders refer to themselves as negroes.  The black perception has consistently changed over the years—they used to want to be called negroes—and when they arrive at a consistent term, I will be glad to call them that.

TDR: Do you think there is reverse discrimination going on today?

DD: Sure. There are a lot of poor people in this country—white and black—who need help.  People talk about the poor blacks, but they never talk about the poor whites.

TDR: What was your relationship with the Klan?

DD: I was the leader of the Knights of the KKK, one of the different Klan groups.

TDR: You were only 28 then.  How did you rise to the occasion?

DD: I think I did my homework.  I was a good leader.

TDR: The KKK has always been founded on racism—basically supporting violence, cross-burnings, racial hatred.

DD: I didn’t endorse them.  What we are talking about is Hollywood images.  Not only do I not endorse violence but I will condemn it.  When I joined the KKK I saw it as the only organization that worked to preserve white rights and the white heritage. So I worked with the KKK, and I never promoted violence or anything.  I will tell you that the reason I resigned is that I was tired of fighting the image of violence.  I wanted to go with an organization which presented a more positive approach to the American people, and more positive discussion of the issues.

TDR: You are saying the Klan does not endorse violence?

DD: Well there are many different Klan groups.  You cannot speak about the Klan as a monolithic organization.  There may be Klan groups, independent groups, who say outlandish things or do violent things, or advocate violent things. I don’t say this does not exist.  It is one of the Klan’s problems.  It is fractionalized and divided.  There is no unity of command, no unity of purpose, no unity of program.  There are hundreds of Klan groups all over; you may find some that are law abiding, or you may find some that are law abiding, or you may find small ones in Tennessee or Ohio that advocate violence.  Basically, that is why I left the Klan.  I wanted to present ta unified point of view to the American public.  But the public has very little ability to differentiate between Klan groups.

TDR: What is the appeal for someone joining the Klan?

DD: People enjoy the heritage of it, the ritual, and they see the Klan as an uncompromising organization that stands up for things they believe in.

TDR: These things are: heritage, ritual, and white power.

DD: I didn’t say white power.

TDR: Fine. You say the Klan, which is 100 years old, is preserving white rights.  Aren’t they doing this by suppressing other races?

DD: I don’t think so.  The NAACP advocates affirmative action programs, which discriminate in favor of black people.  They often advocate programs that attack the heritage of the white people, the same way that blacks say their own heritage is attacked. White people are often portrayed as vicious exploiters, not only by black leaders, but also by media programming.  So I see the Klan as a defense of the white race.

TDR: Are you a racist?

DD: That depends on how you define racist.

TDR: A racist is one who prefers one race over another.

DD: I give presence to one race, frankly.  I give preference to the white race.  I love my language, my heritage, my culture; all of the history of my people.  I want to preserve that culture and that way of life.  Now if you define racism as a person who gives preference to one race over another, most blacks are racist, because they generally prefer black food, black music, black values, black history.  The NAACP fights for their heritage, black values.  By your definition, we are all racist.  But I am not ashamed to say that I love the white race the most, and I give preference to it.  I want my children to come out looking the way I do… white.

TDR: Don’t you think our society would be better if we could get rid of racism?

DD: Yes.

TDR: Then why not get rid of it?

DD: I am.  I am working to get rid of it.  I am not advocating the suppression of any race.  When I talk about my preference for the white race, I am not talking about making it a government mandate against blacks.  I am talking about my personal preference, and my rights as an individual.  If a black man is capable in any field or any area, he should be allowed to go as far as he can.

TDR: Would you live in a black neighborhood?

DD: No. I would rather not see my neighborhood go black. I know when neighborhoods go black, the drug problem increases, the crime rate increases, the violence increases, it’s just a lot of problems.

TDR: Does all this have to do with race or economics?

DD: I think it has to do with race.  The crime problem does not follow economics lines but racial lines.  Two-thirds of the poor are white, but a majority of serious crimes are committed by blacks.  I think there is a racial connection: a link by race, biologically.  Coming back to neighborhoods, I think the government should not tell a man who he should sell his home to or who he shouldn’t sell it to.