SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (37759)7/1/2004 9:54:56 AM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 39621
 
Jesus and the Talmud
A Rejoinder by Michael A. Hoffman II

Author's Note: Here is part one of my rejoinder to a ridiculous pamphlet published last February by the giant Zionist thought control organization, "ADL." The ADL pamphlet is a farrago of misdirection, fallacy and disinformation. It is demolished with ease and I confess to being somewhat surprised that the ADL's tissue of hilarity, masquerading as scholarly rebuttal, was the best the ADL could conjure in reply to my book, Judaism's Strange Gods. I advise wealthy Zionists to withhold their donations to the ADL until such time as it offers at least a half-way credible riposte, in place of the pile of laughable linguistic pirouettes which it has proffered thus far in the debate concerning the pornographic contents of this rabbinic hate literature; a debate the ADL and any other rabbinic apologist, can only lose.

The ADL, headed by Abraham Foxman, is based in New York and has a multi-million dollar budget, a large staff of spies and researchers and automatic entry to the national and international establishment media. The ADL stated in a nationwide press release issued Feb. 20, 2003 that "the foremost distorters of Talmudic texts include...Michael A. Hoffman II."

The ADL has written a shoddy and poorly researched pamphlet, "The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics" to a sorry attempt to refute my book Judaism's Strange Gods. In its section entitled "Jesus and Balaam," the ADL asserts, "...anti-Talmud writers often attempt to portray the Talmud as demeaning the figure of Jesus. In the opinion of most scholars the Talmud only refers to Jesus in a handful of places and though these references may not reflect the courteous ecumenicism of the modern world, neither are they particularly inflammatory."

Sanhedrin 107B of the Babylonian Talmud: "Jesus... stood up a brick to symbolize an idol and bowed down to it. Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray."

Source: The Babylonian Talmud, volume 21, Tractate Sanhedrin, Part VII, translated into English by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, copyright 1999 by the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications; published by Random House in New York.

Quoting now from another Talmud passage about Jesus, Sanhedrin 43A: "On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. He practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray...Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an enticer and the Torah says, 'You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him!"

The Talmud in this passage decrees that Jesus got what he deserved when he was executed on Passover Eve. The Talmud says that he did not have any mercy shown him --"You shall not spare him" the rabbis are quoted by the Talmud as having decreed.

There is another interesting aspect to Sanhedrin 43a. Nowadays, in deference to "Judaic sensibilities," movies, TV and literature are compelled to put the onus of blame for the execution of Jesus on the Romans. But the Talmud in Sanhedrin 43a makes no mention of any Roman guilt for the execution of Christ. The rabbinic commentary in Sanhedrin 43a states that out of deference to the Romans' concern for Jesus' welfare, a pretense of an argument on Christ's behalf had to be mounted by the Sanhedrin because Jesus had "close connections with the non-Jewish authorities who were interested in his acquittal."

The ADL must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the average American. Let us recall that the Talmud, in Tractate Baba Kamma 113a, decrees that a Jew may lie to a gentile. The ADL uses the unique and intimidating position it occupies as America's national thought cop and adjunct of the corporate media, to lie about what the Talmud actually says about Jesus. The ADL is too dishonest to quote directly from the Talmudic passages about Jesus.

The quotes I present are taken directly from the writings about Jesus in the Talmud. I freely quote these passages because I have nothing to hide or fear from them, since they offer documentary evidence which upholds my contention concerning the bigoted, anti-Christ contents of the Talmud.

The ADL knows that if their staff "experts" publicly quoted the actual Talmudic statements about Christ, they would instantly reveal the institutionalized hatred and blasphemy of Jesus Christ that is formally enshrined within the religion of Judaism. Hence, the ADL dares not actually quote the Talmudic writings about Jesus.

Instead, the ADL merely talks about what it claims is and is not in the Talmud. Why doesn't the ADL quote the passages in Talmud Tractates Sanhedrin and Gittin? Because they cannot. If they should do so, their staple fictions would fall by the wayside. Failing to quote directly from what the Talmud says about Jesus Christ is a glaring omission which eloquently testifies to the bankruptcy of the ADL's Talmudic whitewash, and the shoddiness of their pseudo-scholarly "refutation" of Judaism's Strange Gods. The ADL is just too cowardly and intellectually dishonest to quote the Talmud passages about Jesus which it seeks to deny or falsify.

I have quoted from Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 107b, which declares that Jesus bowed down to a brick and worshipped it and that he practiced magic, and from Sanhedrin 43a, which says that it was right to kill Jesus and that he got what he deserved. According to the ADL these consummate examples of rabbinic hatred and contempt for Christ, are "not particularly inflammatory."

The source of Judaic bigotry and hatred for Christ and His Church is in the Talmud. I should like to add that nowhere in the religion of Islam is Christ defamed. In fact, Jesus Christ is upheld as a prophet by the Muslims and His Name is reverenced, as is His Mother, Mary.

To highlight the absurdity of the ADL's response, let us consider the horrible malice found in the anti-Christ Talmud Tractate Gittin 57a. In some censored versions of Gittin 57a, the name of Jesus is rendered as "sinner (or 'sinners') of Israel." The Talmud in Gittin 57a contains a filthy and unbelievably scurrilous attack on Jesus Christ pertaining to a punishment Jesus supposedly underwent after his death. As is its custom, the ADL shies away from actually quoting Gittin 57a. It falls to us to reveal the contents of this ugly and psychotic Talmud section:

"He (the rabbi) then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel. He asked them...What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling (in) hot excrement."

The Talmud decrees that Jesus is in hell, being boiled in feces, because he opposed the rabbis. That's what this sick, pornographic, "holy book" of Judaism says about the Christian Savior in Tractate Gittin 57a.

Without daring to cite or refer to Gittin 57a directly, the ADL's convoluted defense of this passage is as follows: "...the Talmud bears much harsher animus toward the Biblical figure of Balaam, the pagan magician who sought to curse the Jews...Rabbinic tradition...describes some of the punishments he (Balaam) may have suffered after his death...a small group of Jewish scholars suggested that in some cases the term Balaam in the Talmud may be a codeword for Jesus...later scholars showed that this suggestion could not be true...anti-Semites have ever since claimed that the true hatred that Judaism possesses for Christianity is expressed in these coded expressions against Balaam found in the Talmud."

But Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition of the Talmud, which the ADL cites as a reputable source (see p. 13 of the ADL pamphlet), refers not to Balaam in this bigoted and hateful passage, but to the "sinners of Israel." It looks as though the comedians in the ADL's vaunted "research department" neglected to concoct a tall-tale explanation for how the coded "sinners of Israel" term is not a reference to Christ. They blustered about "Balaam" at length but forgot to offer any similar exegesis of "sinners of Israel." What a joke!

Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition, with its reference to "sinners of Israel" being "boiled in hot excrement," contains a footnote for the passage, labeled footnote #4. Located at the bottom of the page of Gittin 57a, footnote #4 makes reference to the fact that "sinners of Israel" is indeed a coded reference to Jesus!

The only way the ADL can extricate itself from this sinkhole of its own making, is to posit the notion that the Soncino edition Talmud, edited by Rabbi Isidore Epstein, PhD. and recommended by the ADL itself, is "anti-Semitic." Otherwise, they have contradicted themselves and failed miserably in endeavoring to show that the Talmud does not contain psychotic and despicable insults and attacks on Jesus Christ.

Contrary to the ADL line, it is not an act of prejudice to tell the truth about the contents of the Talmud. Such truth-telling in Judaism's Strange Gods is a legitimate and salutary function of historical and exegetical inquiry and is equally liberating to "frum Yiddin" (Judaics who are enslaved by rigorous observance of rabbinic dictates and traditions), as well as to goyim who are held in thrall to the rabbis by Zionist politicians, media moguls and the hirelings of Judeo-Churchianity.

This ends Part I of Hoffman's Rejoinder to the ADL's pamphlet "The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics."

Caveat: There is the possibility that the ADL may modify or otherwise alter its thoroughly bogus pamphlet as a covert response to the demolition of it herein. Therefore, it should be noted that the preceding part one rejoinder is to the original ADL pamphlet published in February of 2003, and not to any subsequent version they may quietly choose to alter and substitute for it, in order to attempt to salvage whatever may be left of their seriously diminished credibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (37759)7/1/2004 11:32:44 AM
From: rrufff  Respond to of 39621
 
You continue to post blood libels based on your commentaries of ancient commentaries. The Talmud is considered nothing more than an ancient internet chat board, Rabbis or teachers sitting around or putting down a wide variety of views.

Your judgments are nothing more than hate filled diatribes attempting to libel an entire nation, an entire religion and 99% of readers will realize that.

Let's make this very clear. I do not consider Christians pedophiles or a religion that condones pedophilia. However, given the articles I will post, a stronger argument could be made by someone with as much hatred as you have that, if you are looking for a religion that seems to condone, cover-up or implicitly condone pedophilia, it is your very own. Again, this is not my opinion but merely being posted to show how illogical your posts are, merely driven by hatred, a hatred by the way, which has refused to condemn Nazi atrocities and Hitler.

Sex Crimes Cover-Up By Vatican?
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 6, 2003

For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.

The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.

The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication."

Larry Drivon, a lawyer who represents alleged victims, said, “This document is significant because it's a blueprint for deception.”

Drivon said this proves what he has alleged on behalf of victims in priest-abuse lawsuits: that the church engaged in a crime – racketeering.

“It's an instruction manual on how to deceive and how to protect pedophiles,” Drivon said. "And exactly how to avoid the truth coming out."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document is being taken out of context, that it's a church law that deals only with religious crimes and sins. And that the secrecy is meant to protect the faithful from scandal.

“The idea that this is some sort of blueprint to keep this secret is simply wrong,” said Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the Conference.

“This is a system of law which is complete in itself and is not telling the bishops in any way about how to handle these crimes when they are considered as civil crimes,” Maniscalco said.

But Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written about sex abuse and secrecy in the church, said the document sends a chilling message.

“This is the code for how you must deal with sex by priests. You keep it secret at all costs,” Sipe said. “And that's what's happened. It's happened in every diocese in this country.”

According to church records, the document was a bedrock of Catholic sex abuse policy until America's bishops met last summer and drafted new policies to address the crisis in the church.

cbsnews.com



To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (37759)7/1/2004 11:35:01 AM
From: rrufff  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
Since you wish to focus on pedophilia and religion, perhaps you should look inward. Are you aware of the scopee of the problem?

Catholic Pedophile Priests:
The Effect on US Society

The many flaws and omissions in the official report
still cannot hide that this is a crisis of historical proportions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People established by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has not had an easy time of determining the extent of the sexual abuse of minors within the American Roman Catholic Church. Not surprisingly, there has been considerable internal opposition. This resistance was so bad that long before its work was finished, its chairman, Frank Keating, was forced to resign after he compared the Church's actions to the Cosa Nostra, which rather proved his point.

Certainly the fact that the report was reluctantly commissioned by the bishops who have been responsible for the crisis does not reflect well on its credibility. Nor does the fact that they only reason they ever did so was due to the constant and unrelenting pressure since the early 1990s by victims and advocacy groups, and later, the news media — not to mention the drain on their treasuries from huge settlements and dwindling contributions.

Many dioceses with much to hide did not want to co-operate. The results are still missing from some, and the rest are spinning their denials and minimalizations as fast at their highly paid PR firms can turn.

The focus was criticized as too narrow, being concerned solely with child sexual abuse. Other situations where clerics have sexually acted out with adult women and men, nuns and seminarians, have not been looked at; nor the effect on any offspring they may have sired in the process. For that matter, the personal cost to victims and their families remains uncounted. How many lives destroyed through alcohol, drugs, unsafe sex or violence have there been? How much abuse has been repeated by its victims? How many suicides and ruined families? How can the total cost ever be calculated?

There has been much complaining by victims, also, that only a handful were asked to testify, that there was too little time and too many restrictions. Many, too, point out that not all victims have yet come forward by any means. Indeed, even if there are no new cases, just the repressed memories alone of the still-unrecognized victims will guarantee that these numbers will only increase over the next twenty years.

And nothing has been said about multiple abusers and rings who swapped victims around like trading cards...

Nonetheless, A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States has generated a fog of figures, which cannot obscure the extent of this massive failure of institutional religion. It is indeed a crisis. Though this is a step forward, it is not the solution by any means, but a half-hearted admission that there is a problem.

Here are a few of the highlights.

US clerics accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.
Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female
Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.
Victims per priest: 55.7% with one victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).
Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8% elsewhere.
Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04)
It should be noted that 30% of all accusations were not investigated as they were deemed unsubstantiated or because the accused priest is dead.

Unfortunately, however, these initial numbers are likely to be the only official accounting ever done by the Roman Catholic Church. As soon as the report was published, the UCCB acted swiftly to cut the National Review Board's feet out from under it. For this was to be the preliminary report; the audits were to be completed and a larger report issued. Furthermore, the Board had planned further follow-up reports to follow the implementation of their proposals.

That will not happen now. And so the Church has lost its last, best chance of ever coming clean.

In any case, these figures are widely suspected to be grossly underestimated. For example, the late Fr. Tom Economus, former President of the Linkup, a national survivors' advocacy group, said back in the mid-90s that he knew of "1,400 insurance claims on the books and that the Church has paid out over $1 billion in liability with an estimated $500 million pending." (Emphasis added.)

He also said that over 800 priests had been removed from ministry and that there might be as many as 5,000 with allegations against them, which is not that far off. He often claimed that by far the most calls he received from all victims of any kind of clergy abuse were those from males who suffered abuse in their youth in the Catholic Church. Certainly these figures, which show that the highest number of victims were 12 year old boys and that 80% of the abuse was homosexual in nature, validate that anecodotal evidence, too.

Also, Fr. Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer with more experience than any in these cases, has raised many questions over the validity and methodology of the study. He has said that he thought many cases were still hidden, pointing out the low numbers for the 1950s.

'"It's not over with," Doyle said. "The heart of the matter is: Why was there this massive betrayal? Why did they move [abusers] around for years, when they knew what they were doing? Why have they continued to re-victimize the victims by stonewalling, and why they have never turned in any of these known pedophiles?"'(Hartford Courant, 2/26/04)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Information from other sources
Four in 10 US Catholic nuns report having experienced sexual abuse, (a rate equivalent to that reported by American women in general), a study by Catholic researchers supported by major religious orders, has found. The study found that sisters have known sexual abuse less in childhood, dispelling what the authors call an "anti-Catholic" canard that girls fled to convents to escape sexual advances. During religious life, close to 30% of the nation's 85,000 nuns experienced "sexual trauma," ranging from rape to exploitation to harassment. A total of 40% reported a least one experience of that kind. NCR, 1/15/99 See The Nuns' Stories for details.
The Wisconsin Psychological Association's survey found offenders distributed among the following professions: Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.
The Center for Domestic Violence found that 12.6% of clergy said they had sex with church members. 47% of clergy women were harassed by clergy colleagues.
The Presbyterian Church stated that 10-23% of clergy have "inappropriate sexual behavior or contact" with clergy and employees.
The United Methodist research (1990) showed 38.6% of Ministers had sexual contact with church members and that 77% of church workers experienced some type of sexual harassment.
The United Church of Christ found that 48% of the women in the work place have been sexually harassed by male clergy.
The Southern Baptists claim 14.1% of their clergy have sexually abused members.
At least the Roman Catholic Bishops can take heart: they're not alone...

theharrowing.com



To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (37759)7/1/2004 11:41:02 AM
From: rrufff  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
Just in case there are new readers here, it makes sense to expose your history of hatred. I have yet to see you repudiate your racial hatred. Do you still feel there are "too many blacks in City Hall?" Do you still support David Duke and the KKK?

Thanks to Tastes Like Chicken on SI for this gem disclosing your bigotry.

Message 16531020

Too Many Blacks at City Hall!

LOL! Emile, you RASCAL! Who could have guessed you worked for David Duke and ran for office on the famous and popular "Too Many Blacks" agenda?
LOL!

The Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.)
September 23, 1995 Saturday METRO EDITION

Vidrine: Too many blacks at city hall
BYLINE: BRUCE SCHULTZ, ACADIANA BUREAU

LAFAYETTE - Emile Vidrine, candidate for city-parish president, told realtors Friday that too many black people are working in city hall, depriving Caucasians off those jobs.

He said 31 percent of the employees in city hall are black, compared to the minority population in the city which is less than 20 percent.

"Folks, that's un-Christian and unjust," he told the Lafayette Board of Realtors. Vidrine, a Republican, ran for mayor in 1992 and he came in last with 603 votes, less than 2 percent of the total.

He said an affirmative action program at city hall gives an advantage to black people, and that keeps white people out of those jobs.

"We are discriminating against white people, and it has to stop," he said.

But officials in city hall deny any affirmative action quotas are used in hiring.

Vidrine also spoke out against the "moral crisis" facing the U.S. He said the nation must return to Christianity.
"The impasse between the mayor and City Council is an impasse of pirituality and morality," Vidrine said. "They could not forgive one and another for the good of Lafayette.

Parish President Walter Comeaux said unrest in city government has stalled progress in the city.
"Nothing's moving because of dissension, because of bickering," he said.

Comeaux said he favors the Camellia Boulevard bridge, Louisiana Avenue extension and a South College Road bridge over Bayou Vermilion.

Comeaux said parish government has reduced its workforce by 41 percent through layoffs, reflecting the economy of the mid-1980s.

"We all took a beating and we all suffered," he said.
But parish government has increased its productivity.

"We took the high road and we didn't fight," he said.
Parish Councilman Ed Roy said Lafayette government will change in June with the new city-parish government.

"If we don't change the politics, we haven't changed anything," he said.

Roy said a high-capacity water system is needed for all of
Lafayette Parish to attract new businesses. And he said the parish needs a comprehensive development plan to decide issues related to future growth.

Government should help businesses, he said.
City Councilman Elmo Laborde said he's the youngest of the
candidates, at age 35, but his background as an accountant and lawyer enables him to understand fiscal and legal issues.

He said as a city councilman he has become familiar with problems facing the city that are out of the realm of parish government.

Laborde said his even temper allows him to deal with controversy.

"Throughout it all, I've kept my focus on why I was elected," he said.

Laborde said he's disagreed and agreed with others based on principles, not personalities.

City Councilman F.V. "Pappy" Landry said he's not accepting any campaign contributions, freeing him for political obligations.

"My goal is to bring about efficiency and effectiveness of
government," he said.

He said he would only eliminate civil service jobs through
attrition, and he would require city police to cooperate with the sheriff's office.

Chris Kole Obafunwa was not at the meeting.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal ruled Thursday that he cannot run for the office because he lacks U.S. citizenship



To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (37759)7/1/2004 11:43:28 AM
From: rrufff  Respond to of 39621
 
Emile have you been in the news? Your followers would love to know your response to the following, which appears to mention you. YOUR FOLLOWERS AND JESUS WILL KNOW THAT YOU HATE NOT ONLY JEWS BUT AFRICAN AMERICANS AS WELL!!! Thanks again to investigative work and postings on SI by TLC.

Ex-Klansman Puts New Racial Politics to Test

The New York Times

June 18, 1990, Monday, Late Edition - Final

Ex-Klansman Puts New Racial Politics to Test

BYLINE: By PETER APPLEBOME, Special to The New York Times

DATELINE: FRANKLIN, La.

BODY:
It's racial politics for the 90's - not Old South race baiting, but a post-civil-rights-era assault on welfare
abuse and programs like affirmative action that his audience sees as helping blacks while hurting
whites.

''I'm not a racist like Jesse Jackson,'' David Duke said recently, peering into the Cajun country
blue-collar crowd of perhaps 200 people at the American Legion hall here. ''I'm proud of my heritage
like Jesse Jackson is proud of his. But I believe the time has come for equal rights for everyone in this
country, even for white people.''

Many in the crowd wear blue and white David Duke T-shirts or baseball caps, and they give their
approval in a low rumble of ''Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke,'' a response that has made the roadshow of the
former Ku Klux Klan leader the talk of Louisiana. A year after his surprise election to the Louisiana
House of Representatives, Mr. Duke has made himself a potent force in state politics, polarizing the
Legislature along racial lines, gathering a fervent statewide following and mounting an unexpectedly
strong bid for the United States Senate seat held by J. Bennett Johnston.

Despite the enthusiastic crowds, analysts say there is little chance he can win the Senate race this fall.
But Mr. Duke, a Republican, is threatening to elbow the party's nominee, State Senator Ben Bagert, out
of the race, and he is angling to force Mr. Johnston, an 18-year incumbent, into an embarrassing runoff.
If he does, some critics say, he will achieve his goal of helping to build a national white supremacist
movement.

''This is not really about Bennett Johnston or Ben Bagert,'' said Dr. Lawrence Powell, a Tulane
University historian. ''It's about politics for the next 10 years.''

Mr. Duke's campaign, which was helped in May when the Louisiana House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved his bill opposing affirmative action, is partly a product of the frustrations
generated by Louisiana's depressed economy and partly in keeping with the state's tradition of eccentric
politicians, from Huey and Earl Long to Edwin Edwards.

It is aided by the state's unusual system in which all candidates from all parties, whether party nominees
or not, run in the Oct. 6 primary. If no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, the two top finishers face
each other on Election Day. If one gets 50 percent, there is no general election. So far, Mr. Johnston,
Mr. Bagert and Mr. Duke are the only contenders, although a black state legislator, Willie Singleton,
says he might enter the race.

'A Mouth That's Different'

But Mr. Duke's campaign, with its focus on issues like affirmative action, government programs that set
aside a certain number of contracts for minority businesses and what he calls ''the rising welfare
underclass,'' is speaking to white resentments and explosive racial issues that resonate far beyond the
state's borders. He is most popular with younger voters.

''Wherever I go, I find almost universal dislike for set-asides,'' said Gov. Buddy Roemer, a Democrat. ''I
don't share that. But you can't come down here and say that Louisiana has a problem that's different
than anyone else's. We have a mouth that's different, but not a problem.''

Mr. Duke's notoriety stems, for the most part, from his tenure as national grand wizard of the Knights
of the Ku Klux Klan, and he has longstanding ties to far right and racist groups. He had little impact on
the Legislature before the vote on his bill on affirmative action. But his views on race have brought him
extraordinary visibility around the state. Some analysts say the vote was a sign that legislators believe
he speaks for a powerful constituency.


Duke's Campaign

At the heart of the Duke campaign are gatherings like the one in this town of almost 10,000 people,
with its white-columned, 19th century Main Street homes. Here people work in the oil industry, at local
sugar-processing and carbon-black plants and in agriculture and fishing.

The fare at this gathering was Budweiser, Coke and potato chips; the contributions were stuffed in a
plastic cup or exchanged for $10 Duke T-shirts or $3 Duke earrings, and the oratory was intensely
personal and suffused with primal racial images.

When Mr. Duke talked about the death penalty, he placed it in the context of someone murdering his
two daughters. When he talked about economic hardship, he spoke of those in the all-white crowd who
cannot afford to rear children.

On the other hand, the abuses of welfare were summed up by women who receive benefits and have
''one, two, three, four, ten, fifteen, twenty'' children. Minority contracting requirements were symbolized
by a black state legislator's driving a Mercedes and allegedly getting contracts while a white person in a
pickup truck was frozen out.

Even the furor over his affirmative action bill had an oversized target.

''Ladies and gentlemen,'' said Mr. Duke, who has the lanky good looks of a former athlete, ''the only
reason why we have problems is because the black caucus didn't get their way like they usually do. It's
about time they weren't given their way.''

Where Frustrations Blend

In southern Louisiana, where the economy has been depressed since the oil industry doldrums began in
the mid-1980's, economic and racial frustration tend to blend.

''He's against welfare,'' said Pierre Dupuis, a retiree who speaks in the melodic Cajun accent of the
bayou country here. Using a racial slur, Mr. Dupuis complained that tax money goes to black people,
''with their big radios on the street, and they're laughing at us.''

But more common than slurs against blacks is a sense that white people are being victimized by
affirmative action and the minority contracting programs. It is the centerpiece of Mr. Duke's speech and
perhaps his most effective issue with voters.

''We don't have the same rights as black people,'' said Jay Louviere, a 29-year-old lumberyard worker.
''Duke's the only one standing up for white people.''

But critics say that the issue has more basis in emotion than economics, that programs like affirmative
action evoke particular resentment from white people facing their own economic problems.

Furor Over Affirmative Action

''I don't think there are 500 people in Louisiana that have either been adversely affected or benefited by
affirmative action,'' said Mr. Edwards, the former Governor. ''But everyone who doesn't have a job or
whose son cannot get into law school believes it's because of affirmative action.''

Real or not, it taps into a powerful vein of anger that can seem the ultimate extension of the politics of
sex and ethnicity.

''I believe there's a climate in this country that has become anti-Euro-American,'' said Emile Vidrine, a
campus minister at the University of Southwestern Louisiana who is spending his summer working as a
volunteer for the Duke campaign. ''I'm not putting anyone else down, but we have to put a stop to this
idea that we can't stand up tall and say the European white man is one of the great races in the world.''

Mr. Duke's campaign exists in a complex relationship with his nearly lifelong involvement with white
supremacist issues and groups. In an interview, he skirted issues he has espoused in the past, like genetic
differences between white people and black people, and said his campaign was simply about equal
rights for all.

''There are many liberals today who were radical leftists in their younger days,'' he said. ''I'm a
conservative who might have been considered a radical rightist in my younger days.''

Links to Extremists

But Mr. Duke, who now heads a group called the National Association for the Advancement of White
People, has maintained many links to other extremist groups. He used the subscriber list of the far-right
publication The Spotlight for fund-raising, ran for President in 1988 as the candidate of the far-right
Populist Party and as recently as a year ago sold Nazi and extremist books out of a building that
includes his legislative office.

The Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism, a bitter critic of Mr. Duke, characterizes him as
''an extremist ideologue who uses the pool of new followers as a recruiting ground for a white
supremacist and anti-Semitic movement.''

Much of his campaign depends on his ability to persuade voters that he is not a dangerous extremist,
and critics say his campaign could falter if a fuller picture of his activities reaches voters.

At the same time, many supporters say his past ignites his campaign and separates him from other
conservatives.

''His background is what gives the added emphasis to what he says,'' said Jim McPherson, a New
Orleans lawyer and Duke supporter. ''It says he means business.''

Few Expect Him to Win

Experts say Mr. Duke must get 65 percent of whites' votes to win a race in a state in which black people
make up 27 percent of the electorate. Few think he can do it.

But recent polls show him running second to Mr. Johnston, with the Senator by no means guaranteed
the 50 percent he needs to avoid a runoff. Many analysts think Mr. Duke could get at least 30 percent of
the statewide vote. Most see an extremely fluid race, saying Mr. Johnston's support is relatively soft, Mr.
Duke has fervent supporters but unfavorable ratings from about half the electorate and Mr. Bagert is
little-known and underfinanced. Mr. Johnston says Mr. Bagert should quit the race to reduce the
chances of Mr. Duke's making a runoff. Mr. Bagert replied that as the only unknown quantity in the
race, he is the only candidate with much potential to pick up more support.

To some observers, what is most disturbing about Mr. Duke's campaign is that frustrated and angry
white people seem willing to forget his extremism while embracing his more mainstream views on racial
issues.

''I think a lot of people are enchanted by the message and are disregarding the messenger,'' said State
Representative Odon Bacque Jr., an independent. ''To me it's frightening. I believe if no one takes him
seriously, he can end up winning.''

GRAPHIC: Photo: State Representative David Duke, a Republican who is campaigning for J. Bennett
Johnston's Senate seat in Louisiana, signing a picture after a rally at an American Legion hall recently
in Franklin. (Matt Anderson for The New York Times) (pg. A18) for The New York Times) (pg. A18)