Jew-hatin’ Duke arrested in Prague

9 Responses to Jew-hatin’ Duke arrested in Prague

1. Whitemore says:

   April 26, 2009 at 5:45 pm

   How can this be justified, a man with a rather controversial opinion has an arrest-warrant. Certainly this is a violation of personal freedom – why are we prohibited from speaking out?

   “Leading anti-Semite, Stormfront ideologue, and former Grand Poobah of the KKK David Duke has undergone a re-awakening in the Czech Republic. Invited to talk shit by local nutzis belonging to ‘National Resistance’ (Narodni Odpor), The Duke got himself arrest by Czech police.”

   …that’s a fairly brash comment, considering you have never proved Duke incorrect regarding his theories – nor quoted any passages from his publications that suggests antisemitism. Have you ever taken the time to read his books?

   “The nutzi Resistance, along with other far right groupings such as the Workers Party and Free Youth Brno, is also planning on holding a rally and march on May Day in the Moravian capital of Brno. In the meantime, Czech Antifascist Action (AFA) are busy preparing for a May Day Festival Against Racism.”

   My main concern with this comment is, how is anti-racism important in a workers movement? Working interests are solely about conditions, pay, and keeping the bosses honest. You may refer to Nazis as trash, but you seem to forget neo-Nazis [are] predominately raised in a lower, working-class background – and mostly – are profound supporters of such.
2. @ndy says:

   April 26, 2009 at 9:26 pm

   It can be justified in a number of different ways — whether or not you think the justification is sufficient is another question.

   Duke was not arrested for being ‘controversial’ — he has been accused of the ‘promotion of movements suppressing human rights’. This crime apparently is committed by him in his book, My Awakening; he is in Prague (or was?) at the invitation of local neo-Nazis and was scheduled to speak there and in Brno, mostly in order to promote his book and, presumably, cultivate links with fellow anti-Semites.

   Dukes denies denying the Holocaust or of “denying or approving of the Nazi genocide and other Nazi crimes”; instead, he claims to “support a free and open discussion of the Holocaust to get to the truth”.

   Upon his release by Czech authorities (he appears to have been detained for less than 24 hours) Duke released the following statement:

   The charges, of course, from the beginning are specious. I was invited to the Czech Rep. originally to speak at one of the oldest and most famous universities in Europe, Charles University in Prague. It is also famous for being founded by heroic Czechs like Jan Hus who stood up and told the truth and believed that truth and its pursuit is the most important thing a man can do in his life, even if costs him his life and freedom. This is the man who is the national hero of the Czech people.

   As those who read my material know, I do not seek the suppression of any people, race or religion, but simply believe that Europeans have the human right to preserve our homelands and that our governments should be in the service of our own people and not the International Zionist Global matrix of financial and political power. I am not a man who denies that atrocities took place against Jews in the Second World War, but I argue forcefully that freedom of speech on this or any other is issue is a basic human right of all people.

   My lectures in the Czech republic were not on the subject of the Holocaust at all, in fact why all the constant attention on this subject by the media, when one considers the fact that Bolshevism killed, tortured and harmed tens of millions of more people. I never speak about the Holocaust in Europe other than to say that it is a human rights outrage that people are imprisoned for simply having a differing opinion about an historical event.

   I was going to lecture about the Israeli influence over American and European foreign policy and the International Zionist Banking firms that are leading America and the world to financial oblivion, globalist hegemony and unending war.

   Now they seek a terrible, catastrophic war with Iran.

   That is why extremist Jewish organizations worked to keep my message and ideas from the Czech people and the world.

   I am doing tremendous numbers of interviews because of this false imprisonment, so we are reaching literally millions of people here in the Czech Rep. and around the world that I would not have reached otherwise.

   I was lucky to have excellent legal representation, but although I am free we must be prepared for any legal challenge against my freedom and the right of Europeans to hear the legitimate ideas that I offer. I certainly am not guilty of any violation of Czech law either in its letter or spirit.

   Russell Eisenman, Eddie J. Girdner, Robert G. Burroughs, Mark Routman, ‘Attitudes of Mississippi college students toward David Duke before and after seeing the film ‘Who Is David Duke?”, Adolescence, Fall, 1993:

   Duke’s appeal would seem to reflect a new kind of prejudice, different from the overt racism of the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) but having much in common with it. Duke and his followers can deny being overtly prejudiced, yet maintain views critical of marginalized groups in the United States. Duke’s campaign statements have attacked and scapegoated these groups, appealing to those who feel threatened by bad economic times and perceive that blacks get special treatment from the government, such as affirmative action hiring (“Many turning to Duke,” 1991). In addition, anti-black attitudes may coincide with support for conservative candidates (Eisenman & Sirgo, 1992).

   Q. Why is anti-racism important to workers’ movements?
   A.
3. Whitemore says:

   April 26, 2009 at 10:28 pm

   “It can be justified in a number of different ways — whether or not you think the justification is sufficient is another question.”

   Removing a man’s freedom because of what he perceives as the truth is never justified.
4. Liam says:

   April 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm

   “Removing a man’s freedom because of what he perceives as the truth is never justified.”

   Man i just love hearing shit like that from nazi sympathisers.
5. Tony Whitemore says:

   May 2, 2009 at 12:43 am

   Liam, you must be an authoritarian who believes people shouldn’t have a right.
6. Tony Whitemore says:

   May 2, 2009 at 1:15 am

   Andy, you could apply the same situation in that Matewan scene dealing with neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis can be seen as a fellow man being screwed over by the powers in every way similar to other workers.
7. @ndy says:

   May 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm

   Neo-Nazis are human beings, yes.

   And?

   Neo-Nazis can certainly be regarded merely as fellow (male) workers.

   That’s a choice.

   On the other hand, it’s possible to pay more attention to their politics, which are antithetical to the interests of the working class. As one of its principal enemies, the Nazis launched an all-out assault on the labour movement. Contemporary neo-Nazis follow the same policies.

   Based on the fact that you’ve been trolling my blog for almost three years, and learned nothing, the distinction between black workers’ participation in unions and zero tolerance for all forms of fascism will escape you.
8. Tony Whitemore says:

   May 2, 2009 at 8:50 pm

   “As one of its principal enemies, the Nazis launched an all-out assault on the labour movement.”

   Any proof to back this up? National Socialism was based upon a workers’ movement to counteract the growing pain of capitalism in Germany after the war.

   “Few would have thought that the Nazi Party, starting as a gang of unemployed soldiers in 1919, would become the legal government of Germany by 1933. In fourteen years, a once obscure corporal, Adolf Hitler, would become the Chancellor of Germany.”

   http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/TIMELINE/nazirise.HTM
9. @ndy says:

   May 2, 2009 at 9:04 pm

   No, I pulled it outta my arsehole.

   Wtf do you think?

   The Nazi conspiracy, as we shall show, always contemplated not merely overcoming current opposition but exterminating elements which could not be reconciled with its philosophy of the state. It not only sought to establish the Nazi “new order” but to secure its sway, as Hitler predicted, “for a thousand years.” Nazis were never in doubt or disagreement as to what these dissident elements were. They were concisely described by one of them, Col. General von Fritsch, on December 11, 1938, in these words:

   “Shortly after the first war I came to the conclusion that we should have to be victorious in three battles if Germany were to become powerful again: 1. The battle against the working class[.] Hitler has won this. 2. Against the Catholic Church, perhaps better expressed against Ultramontanism. 3. Against the Jews.” (1947-PS).

   [Page 129]

   The warfare against these elements was continuous. The battle in Germany was but a practice skirmish for the worldwide drive against them. We have in point of geography and of time two groups of crimes against humanity — one within Germany before and during the war, the other in occupied territory during the war. But the two are not separated in Nazi planning. They are a continuous unfolding of the Nazi plan to exterminate peoples and institutions which might serve as a focus or instrument for overturning their “new world order” at any time. We consider these Crimes against Humanity in this address as manifestations of the one Nazi plan and discuss them according to General von Fritch’s classification.

   1. The Battle Against the Working Class

   When Hitler came to power, there were in Germany three groups of trade unions. The General German Trade Union Confederation (ADGB) with twenty-eight affiliated unions, and the General Independent Employees Confederation (AFA) with thirteen federated unions together numbered more than 4,500,000 members. The Christian Trade Union had over 1,250,000 members.

   The working people of Germany, like the working people of other nations, had little to gain personally by war. While labor is usually brought around to the support of the nation at war, labor by and large is a pacific, though by no means a pacifist force in the world. The working people of Germany had not forgotten in 1933 how heavy the yoke of the war lord can be. It was the workingmen who had joined the sailors and soldiers in the revolt of 1918 to end the First World War. The Nazis had neither forgiven nor forgotten. The Nazi program required that this part of the German population not only be stripped of power to resist diversion of its scanty comforts to armament, but also be wheedled or whipped into new and unheard of sacrifices as part of the Nazi war preparation. Labor must be cowed, and that meant its organizations and means of cohesion and defense must be destroyed.

   The purpose to regiment labor for the Nazi Party was avowed by Ley in a speech to workers on 2 May 1933, as follows:

   “You may say what else do you want, you have the absolute power. True we have the power, but we do not have the whole people, we do not have you workers 100%, and it is

   [Page 130]

   you whom we want; we will not let you be until you stand with us in complete, genuine acknowledgment.” (614-PS).

   The first Nazi attack was upon the two larger unions. On April 21, 1933 an order not even in the name of the Government, but of the Nazi Party was issued by the conspirator Robert Ley as “Chief of Staff of the political organization of the NSDAP,” applicable to the Trade Union Confederation and the Independent Employees Confederation. It directed seizure of their properties and arrest of their principal leaders. The party order directed party organs which we here denounce as criminal associations, the SA and SS “to be employed for the occupation of the trade union properties, and for the taking into custody of personalities who come into question.” And it directed the taking into “protective custody” of all chairmen and district secretaries of such unions and branch directors of the labor bank (392-PS).

   These orders were carried out on May 2, 1933. All funds of the labor unions, including pension and benefit funds, were seized. Union leaders were sent to concentration camps. A few days later, on May 10, 1933, Hitler appointed Ley leader of the German Labor Front (DEUTSCHE ARBEITSFRONT), which succeeded to the confiscated union funds. The German Labor Front, a Nazi controlled labor bureau, was set up under Ley to teach the Nazi philosophy to German workers and to weed out from industrial employment all who were backward in their lessons (1940-PS). “Factory Troops” were organized as an “ideological shock squad within the factory” (1817-PS). The Party order provided that “outside of the German Labor Front, no other organization (whether of workers or of employees) is to exist.” On June 24, 1933 the remaining Christian Trade Unions were seized pursuant to an order of the Nazi Party signed by Ley.

   On May 19, 1933, this time by government decree, it was provided that “trustees” of labor, appointed by Hitler, should regulate the conditions of all labor contracts, replacing the former process of collective bargaining (405- PS). On January 20, 1934 a decree “regulating national labor” introduced the fuehrer-principle into industrial relations. It provided that the owners of enterprises should be the “fuehrers” and the workers should be the followers. The enterpriser-fuehrers should “make decisions for employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise” (1861- PS). It was by such bait that the great German industrialists were induced to support the Nazi cause, to their own ultimate ruin.

   [Page 131]

   Not only did the Nazis dominate and regiment German labor, but they forced the youth into the ranks of the laboring people they had thus led into chains. Under a compulsory labor service decree on June 26, 1935, young men and women between the ages of 18 and 25 were conscripted for labor (see 1654-PS). Thus was the purpose to subjugate German labor accomplished. In the words of Ley, this accomplishment consisted “in eliminating the association character of the trade union and employees’ associations, and in its place we have substituted the conception ’soldiers of work’.” The productive manpower of the German nation was in Nazi control. By these steps the defendants won the battle to liquidate labor unions as potential opposition and were enabled to impose upon the working class the burdens of preparing for aggressive warfare.

   Robert Ley, the field marshal of the battle against labor, answered our indictment with suicide. Apparently he knew no better answer.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.