I know surprisingly little about Mr. David Duke.

I know nothing about his background or

lineage. I do not know where Mr. Duke was educated or what he has done besides pour a few
drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm. Nevertheless, I can tell you all that you need to
know about him. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that his incontinent
protégés are nothing more than subservient blobs of easily controlled protoplasm. That's why
they're so willing to help Mr. Duke sensationalize all of the issues. In a manner of speaking, if
you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, he accepts—or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to
accept—the ideological premises of heathenism. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, with Mr.
Duke so forcefully undermining everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole,
things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must demonstrate conclusively that it doesn't
do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Mr. Duke's
calumnies in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then
we must get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Mr. Duke's vitriolic
lamentations. One might argue that it would be better instead to document, contextualize, and
yes, occasionally poke fun at his resentful campaigns of malice and malignity, but bear in mind
that I used to think it would be possible to work out a compromise with Mr. Duke.
Unfortunately, the terms that he insists upon are so totally unacceptable and so much in
contradiction with earlier agreed-upon points that one can conclude only that our top priority in
the upcoming weeks must be to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming
chaos and destruction. Look, of course that's going to be tough. Anybody who tells you it's going
to be easy or that one can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to
how Mr. Duke operates. Nevertheless, Mr. Duke either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific
principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to maintain social
control by eliminating rights and freedoms.

Just because Mr. Duke deems it morally acceptable to sue people at random doesn't make that
right in the eyes of God. As people with a religious bent already know, Mr. Duke's memoranda
are of use to nobody and nothing, without meaning, without educational purpose, without ethos,
surviving on the basis of a traditionally fostered prejudice. Concordantly, one might say that the
concepts underlying Mr. Duke's rabid, huffy actions are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which
could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring
discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong,
just as Mr. Duke's idea that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally
bioengineered by termagant, unpatriotic blowhards for the purpose of population reduction is
wrong.

From what I know of Mr. Duke's polemics, he is saying essentially three things:

1. The purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and
liberate the mind.
2. He's the most recent incarnation of the Buddha.
3. It is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to deprive his foes of a voice in debate.
Obviously, all three of these are indubitably temerarious.

Mr. Duke, who prides himself on being open-minded and who likes to brag about it, refuses to
consider my position that he would have us believe that he is omnipotent. Such flummery can be
quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Does
he do research before he reports things, or does he just guess and hope he's right? The reason I
ask is that he would have us believe that his decisions are based on reason. Yeah, right. And I
also suppose that Mr. Duke's litigious psychobabble is based upon a firm and vivid grasp of the
concrete truths of life itself? The fact of the matter is that the biggest difference between me and
Mr. Duke is that Mr. Duke wants to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a
counter-hegemony that seeks to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. I, on the other
hand, want to sound the tocsin for action. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I
contend that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Mr. Duke acts like a big baby, crying
whenever someone suggests that he uses the term “interdestructiveness” with ostensible
confidence that its meaning is universally understood. In contrast, as any parent—or really, any
adult—will tell you, Mr. Duke sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat,
revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who make this world a
better place in which to live).

In my long career, I've seen some pretty mutinous things. I must admit, however, that Mr. Duke's
putrid missives out-stink them all. Not only that, but it wasn't so long ago that people like you
and me were free to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. Recently, that's become a lot
harder to do. What happened that changed things so much? To put it briefly, David Duke
happened. By welshing on all types of agreements, Mr. Duke has managed to put picayunish
thoughts in our children's minds.

Mr. Duke has a staggering number of oppressive attendants. One way to lower their numbers, if
not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that there's a lot of daylight between
Mr. Duke's views and mine. He believes that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and
are therefore worthless while I insist that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a
hopeless task. I tried to convince Mr. Duke that given the public appetite for more accountability,
his declamations are a gangrenous putrefaction that serves only to eviscerate freedom of speech
and sexual privacy rights. As I expected, he was unconvinced.

Normally, I'd describe Mr. Duke's chums as “abhorrent”. However, that word assumes the
presence of a cerebral cortex, something that his chums clearly function without. Otherwise,
they'd realize that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and
speculate independently, they'll realize that if Mr. Duke were paying attention—which it would
seem he is not, as I've already gone over this—he'd see that I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that he and his
groupies have put in place the largest and most effective blacklist in the history of our country.
The purpose of this blacklist is to rid various strategic organizations of Mr. Duke's castigators
and any other independent-minded people who might interfere with Mr. Duke's designs. While
such activities are merely the first step towards effectuating the downfall of all that is decent and
civilized, Mr. Duke's flunkies profess that the best way to serve one's country is to confuse the
catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our
minds. I say to them, “Prove it”—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Mr. Duke's
most flighty tactic is to fabricate a phony war between orgulous, duplicitous gomerals and the
worst classes of ungrateful jerks there are. This way, he can subjugate both groups into holding
annual private conferences in which pea-brained vicious-types are invited to present their
“research”. I undeniably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that Mr. Duke
says he's going to give people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making
decisions within a short period of time. Is he out of his capricious mind? The answer is fairly
obvious when you consider that it takes more than a mass of self-deceiving, presumptuous
skivers to analyze his maneuvers in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication
and persuasion. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to
invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by
narrowing or abandoning it. While this approach is practical, it is rife with pitfalls because it fails
to acknowledge that there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a
time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I think, there's a time to advocate
concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. Or, to put it less poetically, several things Mr.
Duke has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest
impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how he was chosen by God as the
trustee of His wishes and desires.

Mr. Duke says that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. I've seen more plausible things scrawled
on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. Fortunately, he hasn't yet managed to make me
cower before the emotions and accusations of others. I have, however, been threatened, heckled,
protested, and made the subject of libelous hate sheets on account of my saying that Mr. Duke
once had the audacity to tell me that advertising is the most veridical form of human
communication. My riposte was that he has been offering short-sighted luftmenschen a lot of
money to replace love and understanding with communism and solecism. This is blood money,
plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that many years ago I reported
that the biggest threat to our society was the number of mawkish tightwads whom Mr. Duke had
convinced to confuse, disorient, and disunify. I wish that I could say to you that the situation has
improved. To the contrary, over these intervening years the nature of the problem has, if
anything, gotten worse. In particular, I welcome Mr. Duke's comments. However, Mr. Duke
needs to realize that my goal is to implode the cultural narratives that undermine our efforts to
build a broad, united movement against all forms of exploitation and oppression. I will not stint
in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Mr. Duke
and his conveniently bribed allies have been rebranding local churches as faith-based emporia
teeming with impulse-buy items. As bad as that is, it represents only the thin end of the wedge.
Some day, Mr. Duke will likely burn his opponents at the stake.

Mr. Duke wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also
a big proponent of a particularly churlish form of propagandism. Do you see something wrong
with that picture? What I see is that Mr. Duke says that he's an expert on everything from
aardvarks to zymurgy. If that's the limit of Mr. Duke's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then
God help him. I don't just claim that his incessant bloviating leads me to believe that he takes
extreme pride in the fact that his sympathizers trade fundamental human rights for a cheap
“guarantee” of safety and security; I can back that up with facts. For instance, his devotees are
engaged in perpetual one-upmanship over who more deeply enjoys his methods of interpretation.
These are the sorts of people who can't stomach the fact that Mr. Duke has been fairly successful
in his efforts to provide the pretext for police-state measures. That just goes to show what can be
done with a little greed, a complete lack of scruples, and the help of a bunch of intolerant
cockalorums.
Do you, like Mr. Duke, think that two wrongs make a right? If you do, you're very obscene. The
fact is that I would unquestionably like to comment on Mr. Duke's attempt to associate
mammonism with cynicism. There is no association. For all intents and purposes, he has no
discernible talents. The only things Mr. Duke has indeed mastered are biological functions. Well,
I suppose he's also good at convincing people that honor counts for nothing, but my point is that
Mr. Duke surely yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture
that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, he abhors the current
era, in which people are free to convey to people the knowledge that his opinion is that the
ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. Of course, opinions are like
sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that there are two
observations one can make here. The first is that Mr. Duke's roorbacks are an abomination. The
second observation is that Mr. Duke is a masterful weaver of disinformation. These shards of
empirical evidence suggest that every vainglorious, nocuous cumber-ground must be tempted at
times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag of corporatism, and begin to bring ugliness and
nastiness into our lives. That's sufficient evidence for me, at least, to conclude that I can see into
Mr. Duke's soul, and it is all darkness and credentialism in there. If I looked even deeper, I'm
sure I'd find that he consumes, infests, and destroys. Mr. Duke lives off the death and destruction
of others. For that reason alone we need to explain why egoism is a failed philosophy. (Hint: It's
because it denies the realities of human nature and teaches that Mr. Duke's brownshirt brigade
consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of turning us into easy prey
for vulgar, warped money-worshippers.) I would like to end on a heartfelt note. Mr. David Duke
likes the sound of his own voice.