by Grugyn Silverbristle


How can we resist? Where are the chinks in the dragon's armor? What are the methods that we ought to be using, and the objectives we ought to be pursuing?

Prior to the development of cable and satellite systems, even moderately large metropolitan areas had at first only two, then three (with the addition of ABC in the 1950s), and finally four broadcast networks (after the introduction of PBS in the 1960s). Throughout this time, the broadcasters had extreme market penetration, so that any one of them could create a profound impact on the American psyche. Each one of the networks enjoyed an audience of "critical mass", that is to say, had one of them chosen to expose the Federal Reserve System, or the War Powers instituted by FDR, it might well have precipitated a populist revolution. The near nationwide panic caused by Orson Wells in his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds is a classic example of the potential of the media to create such a phenomenon. That nothing of the sort did occur on television, aside from the subdued (by 1990 standards) coverage of the McCarthy Hearings and the sensationalized (by pre-O.J. Simpson standards) broadcast of the Adolf Eichmann trial, suggests that program directors have been well aware of the power they wield, and that they have chosen to use it with subtle discretion. They obviously chose to avoid taking risks and to stick with safe fare like Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver.

It would be interesting to speculate what might have happened had Henry Ford managed to broadcast the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion simultaneously across the major networks. Father Coughlin had proven to be dangerous enough on radio; imagine if he had a Hollywood studio to glitz up his show for television. My point is this: the fact that such things did not occur is an indication that the media owners were aware of the potential, and that they took steps to insure that ideas contrary to their interests would never gain penetration into their mass audience.

With the advent of cable and satellite TV, we have begun to witness the phenomenon of proliferation of channels, whereby television changes its aspect from being a hard target to a soft one. Today, even the most sensitive and explosive material can be aired and, because market penetration is so thin on any given channel, a "critical mass" can no longer be achieved except by the simultaneous broadcast of the same message all across the system, the cost of which is prohibitive for anything other than a thirty-second sound-byte or an "official" feed like Desert Storm. In other words, the media has become a weapon whose full strength can only be wielded by its masters or their surrogates.

Another "fail-safe" device that has been built into the system controls community cable access, those channels that inherently pose the greatest threat of creating a disturbance. The media-masters have, in effect, compartmentalized cable access so that, should ever a producer succeed in forcing disturbing material onto the system, his audience is limited to a small minority of viewers in a single township, and so the damage is controlled. Enough obstacles exist to prevent him from simultaneously reaching a larger population, for example, that of an entire county. In other words, the Cable Access Law has been carefully devised, breaking down the market into a grid of small "airtight" compartments, sealed in order to prevent individual citizens and small organizations from simultaneously reaching a large enough audience to create significant impact.

Nevertheless, cable access is, or has the potential of becoming, the single greatest weapon in the patriot/populist arsenal for two reasons: first, it represents our only access to this technology and, second, it represents a legal loophole that can be enlarged with concerted action.

Beginning with the second point, the legal argument has been accepted that not only the airwaves but also the media itself (cable, fiber-optic and satellite system franchises) belong to the people by right of eminent domain. We the people, or our representatives, have the power to grant or revoke a license to the media, without which they cannot operate. Even though we have been betrayed by our own representatives, who have negotiated these licensing contracts in the media's best interest, we still retain the power to revise or rescind the same. Currently, the most dangerous threat to our standing is the federalization of communications and broadcast law, in effect removing the negotiations as far as possible from the local level, which is where the people present the greatest threat. Obviously, the higher up the negotiations take place, the more easily we can be betrayed.

The other point is that cable access is the most effective and cost-efficient means by which we can bring the patriot/populist message into the homes of America. We clearly have the right to do this; the only question is whether we have the will. This brings us to the most serious criticism of the "pay-triot" movement. There are literally hundreds of videos that have been produced, containing virtually the whole of the patriot argument, and these are the tools, far more than tabloid newsletters that nobody outside of the movement takes the time to read, that we ought to be using to sway the hearts and minds of the masses. And this is precisely what we have not done.

A friend of mine suggested that maybe this idea just hasn't occurred to anyone. I don't buy it, and I suspect that there is a darker motive at work.

After all, what does it take to accomplish this? All we need are cable-ready broadcast-quality tapes (most cable access systems use Super-VHS format) together with copyright releases so that cable operators are legally authorized to broadcast them. Without the copyright release, the programs cannot be aired. I wonder, how many of our anti-government, anti-FBI "pay-triot" producers insert those FBI warning labels onto their tapes, threatening us with prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, should we dare to distribute unlicensed (i.e. non royalty-paying) copies of their intellectual property?

Having spent years listening to the "pay-triot" programming on short-wave, and having read countless "pay-triot" books, newsletters and tabloids, I have never once heard or seen a video producer make the offer to rent a cable-ready broadcast package, nor have I heard anyone encourage his audience to attempt to air these tapes on public access. Instead, I have observed them marketing their wares at a 300% markup or better (it only costs $4 to $6 a copy, including the cost of cassettes, to have videotapes commercially reproduced), often encouraging their audience to buy two or three copies and give these to their friends. One can only conclude that these "pay-triots" are more concerned with maximizing their profits.

Either that or the patriot leadership is blind to the point of incompetence.

Which brings us to the issue of radio. This has been the mainstay of the patriot/populist movement; in fact, it is fair to say that the patriot movement had been a radio-generated phenomenon. One can hardly say the movement's use of radio has been ineffective, but there have been shortcomings as evidenced by the dramatic decline in program content, especially on short-wave, over the past two years. Doubtless, cost has been a significant factor, leading to vulgar commercialism as producers have been forced to kowtow to the gold & coin dealers. This, in turn, has led to corruption of the patriot message with the myth of the gold standard which has, in fact, become gross propaganda.

I am reminded of the caller to Tom Valentine's show Radio Free America who bluntly asked, "Why can't I buy anything with my gold coins?" As it turned out, the caller had been dutifully purchasing gold coins for several years, believing the bunk about what constitutes "real money" and, when he went to a jeweler to purchase an anniversary ring for his wife with a few of his gold coins, was amazed that the jeweler would not accept the gold, but insisted on "real" cash or credit. Oh my! I will discuss this matter at length later in this paper, because the gold-hype deserves refutation and, having been a stockbroker for fifteen years and somewhat knowledgeable about the financial markets and instruments, it breaks my heart to see these poor patriot hicks buying "non-confiscatable real money" at twice the spot price of bullion. I just hope this scam will not sour them on the patriot movement altogether.

This is one of the dangers of commercialism, that it has engendered a patriot/populist variant of political correctness, no less onerous than the liberal/academic variety. It is not politically correct to challenge the gold-bugs on WWCR (World Wide Christian Radio). Likewise, only William Cooper has had the integrity to challenge the validity of "Christian-Patriot" identity, an issue that I will continue to address throughout this paper. I find myself asking how much money the patriot movement has placed in the pockets of gold dealers and WWCR executives and stockholders. As for WWCR, their "pay-triotism" was clearly demonstrated after the Oklahoma City bombing, when FCC officials threatened to pull their license if they did not censure certain "radical" producers, and the broadcaster caved-in without a word, then or now.

The writing is on the wall, and WWCR is clearly not to be trusted. In a time of crisis, when short-wave may be the only channel of information open to us, WWCR will surely prove to be the proverbial tares in our wheat field.

With this in mind, there is clearly a need to develop an alternative short-wave system that has some degree of reliability in a time of crisis. My own gut feeling is that we should develop unlicensed capability, using transmitters hidden away in the mountains, both the Rockies and the Appalachians. Not being an engineer, I have no idea of how many watts can be transmitted through an antenna strung between two trees, or the range of a short-wave transmitter powered by solar-charged car batteries or a portable generator. But my own experience in the mountains has shown that one can live quite comfortably on ten dollars a week of supplies. All that is required is a cell of two or three people among the local population who will act as liaisons and logistical support for the crew manning the transmitter. The key to success is maintaining good relations with the local mountain people, who already have a very strong anti-government predisposition. They represent a resource that has been untapped by our movement, and they occupy critical terrain.

I suspect that the patriots have already paid to WWCR far more than it would have cost to build and maintain our own network of pirate transmitting stations. Further, if one is looking for grounds to make a confrontational stand against the NWO, or ZOG or whomever, and such is often necessary for propaganda purposes, I can think of no better place from which to make that challenge than a series of short-wave transmitters remotely tucked away in the mountains. Certainly, it is the most favorable defensive terrain for a firefight, and a better, more marketable causus belli hardly exists. It is certainly better than the unintelligible (to the public) gibberish that was emitted by the "extremists" from Waco or Justice-Jordan

To summarize, there are four media-strategies that we ought to be pursuing, and we need to develop the organization and the financing necessary to carry out an effective agenda, or else we are wasting our time. These objectives, in sequence, are:

1. To develop low-power FM broadcasting as a basic tool of local organization and recruitment.

2. Assisting our organizations in political campaigns to secure local control over cable and satellite franchise agreements.

3. Establishing a distribution network to provide quality material to our local cable, satellite and broadcast organizations.

4. Development of emergency unlicensed short-wave radio capability.

Our next subject is the Internet: what are the system's capabilities, its limitations, and what are our objectives in maintaining a presence?

Beginning with limitations, the Internet does not represent a cross-section of American society, but rather a select group of intellectuals, special interests, and professionals. The Internet is not a particularly good tool for making new converts, because the vast majority of white males, who are our target group, have absolutely no desire to buy a computer and get on the net. They are much better reached at gun shows, stock car races and football games. Or by radio and cable-TV. Even leaflets are more likely to catch their attention than a web page.

Our Internet audience can be broken down into three basic groups: the already-converted, the curious, and the enemy. As for the curious, not only are they the smallest component of our home-page visitors; we have no idea of their race, age, gender, background, persuasion or motivation, nor are they likely to develop the convictions that would make them particularly useful to the movement. In fact, we have far better chances of developing new "web-converts" from among the ranks of the enemy on the net, at least among non-Jewish white liberals, as can be readily seen by visiting any number of leftist and socialist sites. The rhetoric of the far-left and the far-right do have a great deal in common.

Thus our fascination with the Internet can easily become a trap, leading us to compete one against another in preaching to the choir, and encouraging the delusion that one is building a movement because he can pull a few e-mail subscribers from the other guy. I have seen too much of this already, mixed with petty bickering, backstabbing, and other behavior that does little to enhance our image. There is also the very real danger that many of us will become lost in cyberspace, mistaking chatter for real action.

It follows that the greatest usefulness of the net to us, at the present time, is simply that it provides a forum, where the "already-converted" can build a dialogue, sharing facts and insight, that hopefully will result in a clearer perspective of who we are and where we are headed. And perhaps it is best that the enemy is looking over our shoulder, because rather than spouting rhetoric, we ought to be engaging the argument. We should bear in mind that the Internet was created by academicians, for the purpose of dialogue and the dissemination of thoughtful treatise, and that the web offers us this opportunity to construct our own university in cyberspace.

As for the Internet's capabilities, allow me to point out that Art Bell, the "National Enquirer" of the Internet and late-night talk radio, is currently getting over twelve million hits a month on his web site. Simply being linked to his home page can result in a hundred thousand hits a day. And we consider ourselves successful if we get a hundred? Clearly, there is something we can learn.

The key to Mr. Bell's success is his multimedia approach. Virtually all his guests maintain their own web sites, and when they appear on Mr. Bell's broadcast, their sites are linked to the Art Bell Homepage. Thus a regular listener only needs to remember a single address, "artbell.com". Contrast this approach with what the patriots used to do on WWCR: night after night in the mountains, I would sit in the cold, running down my batteries and freezing my butt off, while Mark Koernke burned up twenty minutes of air-time on his Intelligence Report program, at three hundred dollars an hour, giving out telephone numbers and directions on how to find a meeting place at Howard Johnsons at the intersection of Rts. 25 & 80 in Ohmygosh, Michigan, as if I, or anyone in his audience, had any intention of driving two thousand miles round trip to listen to some Godawful patriot give a speech. It was absurd. And yet they did it over and over again on one patriot program after another until, one by one, they went off the air because they ran out of money.

A byproduct of Art Bell's approach is this: even those members of his audience who do not have Internet accounts are still being mobilized, because so many of them will go to a friend who does have an account, to use his terminal to access the Art Bell Homepage, thus spreading Art's popularity by word of mouth, and by joint activity.

A third tactic that Art Bell uses to great effect is his concept of "the Quickening", the suggestion that events are interrelated and are progressing towards a global climax of Apocalyptic proportion. In this respect, Art Bell is certainly one of the most skilled purveyors and exploiters of "millennial fever", a phenomenon that is certain to keep growing for at least another three years. The man is a master propagandist. Of course, this didn't happen overnight. He's been in the business for something like thirty years.

Compare this to the National Alliance, which maintains a radio broadcast and a web page, featuring Dr. Pierce, Kevin Strum, Dr. Pierce, Kevin Strum, Dr. Pierce, Kevin Strum, Dr. Pierce, Kevin Strum, Dr. Pierce, Kevin Strum, Dr. Pierce, Kevin Strum, ad nauseam. They both are very fine writers, and make very good points, but one can only go so far blowing his own horn. That is a fact of human psychology.

At this point, let me digress for a moment on the subject of leadership, a subject where we seem to have a number of misconceptions. Adolf Hitler was a genius, in that he wrote a book that crystallized the passion of his race and times, and in his proven ability as a public speaker; but he was not a great leader. The Third Reich only lasted for twelve years. He was defeated by his enemies, and postwar Germany has been reshaped into a paragon of political correctness. He failed miserably, and the net result of his life work was that he played into the hands of his enemies. And the reason why Adolf Hitler was not a great leader can be found in Mein Kampf, where he rails on against "rule by committee" and insists that only the "strong man" can produce results. It is a lively tirade, but dead wrong. We are not living in a medieval world where all one has to do is raise an army and bash the heads of his enemies. Like it or not, we are living in a world of such complexity that no single human being can manage all the variables.

Once again, let us take an example from the Jews. At the turn of the century, this little nation of fifteen million souls had produced scores of leaders, including Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Solomon Schechter, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Jacob Schiff, Theodore Herzl, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, Felix Adler, Louis Marshall, Oscar Straus, Simon Wolf, and I could go on for pages. These men worked together, each one contributing in his own way, and the elevation of their race from the slums of Brooklyn to world dominion represents a collective achievement of awesome proportion. It was only by means of collaborative effort that they could have built so solid a foundation.

Study the history of the Jews, and contrast this with the traditional pettiness and squabbling of us stupid goy, who are forever playing, "This is my sandbox ..." or soapbox, or whatever.

It is a very difficult thing to spend one's lifetime building an organization, only to see someone else standing stage center on the platform that one has built, basking in the attention and accolade of the public. And yet the fact that one is a great salesman does not make him a great speaker, or that one is a great organizer make him a great thinker. We like to pretend that this is the case, but such is not so. One of the reasons why the Jews were so successful was that Baron Rothschild provided the financing, but let Jacob Schiff run his own show. Joseph Seligman gave most generously and worked tirelessly for a multitude of Jewish causes, but he let Stephen Wise and Louis Brandeis do the public speaking. As I said at the outset, among the Jews I find the most extraordinary ability to act simultaneously as leaders and as followers. Contrast this with Ross Perot.

The white race does not need a "great leader" who will throw off the yoke of the Jew and, like Moses, lead us to the Promised Land. What we need are great philanthropists who will finance many little leaders who are capable of working together so that, as a race, we can organize and build our way out from under the Jewish heel.

Returning to Art Bell vs. the National Alliance, and why one has an audience of ten million while the other has less than a thousand, it has less to do with the message and everything to do with technique. As a salesman, I had learned years ago, that one cannot both set the stage and then act upon it. Human psychology does not allow this, and we all have an ingrained resentment against anyone who appears to be blowing his own horn. The most effective presentation can only be made when one is invited to do so, and the most effective appeal is made by one person on behalf of another. It is a very simple protocol, but it is something that, to all outward appearances, we have yet to learn.

Thus the true leader is not the one making the speech; it is the person who sets the stage, invites the audience and introduces the speaker, creating the aura of credibility. It is the impresario who makes things happen, and the problem with us stupid goy is that we all want to be the performers, because we crave the attention, but nobody wants to be the impresario. Perhaps the greatest single failing of the patriot/populist movement is that we have absolutely no understanding of basic stagecraft.

Applying these lessons to the Internet and multimedia presentation, one objective should be the creation of a forum that has the appearance of neutrality. For an hypothetical example, "Morrie Silver's Hatewatch Live" program and home page, which functions as an impresario for patriot web sites and a moderator of discussion between the far left and the far right. Or John Q. Public and the far right. Bear in mind that the left has plenty of media exposure, and granting them equal (or something less than) air-time on our platform gives them nothing that they do not already have, yet their inclusion can give the populist message credibility in the eyes of the public, which is something that we do not have.

There are many variations on the theme. If one wishes to present anti-Semitic material, the presentation must be elicited by a moderator who appears sympathetic to the Jewish point of view. The audience is always very sensitive to fairness, especially on issues where they have been pre-programmed with an opposite point of view, such as the Holocaust myth, and if we appear to be one-sided, we only arouse their indignation. We must learn to observe the protocols of effective theatrical presentation, and this includes the ability to appear neutral while orchestrating both sides of the argument.

Finally, this war between us and the New World Order can only be won through organization, organization and organization. That is our paramount concern, and effective organization requires aristocratic support. The only reason why Lyndon LaRouche has any kind of organization whatsoever is that he managed to snare the patronage of William DuPont Smith, and if he were not such a buffoon, LaRouche might actually be getting somewhere. The only reason why the Jews, negroes, Hispanics, Chinese, gays, environmentalists and feminists have built effective organizations is that they have secured the patronage of persons with very deep pockets. Until we can achieve the same thing, we will get nowhere, because the temptation to play "This is my sandbox" is simply too great.

It follows that our primary objective is to make an appeal to our own "Anglo-Saxon" elite for patronage. Our purpose in organizing is to give credibility to that appeal. Our message and its presentation must be framed accordingly. This means that we must be making our appeal on behalf of others, the sacrificial victims, while observing the protocols of effective theatrical performance.

My own gut feeling is that we should develop unlicensed capability, using transmitters hidden away in the mountains, both the Rockies and the Appalachians. Not being an engineer, I have no idea of how many watts can be transmitted through an antenna strung between two trees, or the range of a short-wave transmitter powered by solar-charged car batteries or a portable generator.

Well, I am not an engineer either, just a ham; however it is not expensive to set up an antenna capable of transmitting several thousand watts. At the same time, it is quite easy to set up a low-power station capable of reaching out thousands of miles.

I have a simple 100' dipole antenna set up outside my house. It is rated for 2000W but is not in an ideal location (I live in a valley), and I am only running 10W (QRP) powered by a 15W solar panel and a 12V car battery. Even so, I have communicated with other hams who were more than 1000 miles distant. On a good day, I can even hear parts of Europe, though they probably can't hear me.

To summarize, there are four media-strategies that we ought to be pursuing, and we need to develop the organization and the financing necessary to carry out an effective agenda, or else we are wasting our time. These objectives, in sequence, are:

1. To develop low-power FM broadcasting as a basic tool of local organization and recruitment.

2. Assisting our organizations in political campaigns to secure local control over cable and satellite franchise agreements.

3. Establishing a distribution network to provide quality material to our local cable, satellite and broadcast organizations.

4. Development of emergency unlicensed short-wave radio capability.

1. Low-power FM is simple and easy to implement, but you will not get much range. The advantage, however, is that MANY more people will potentially tune in to your frequency. I have been considering setting up a LPFM station, but there are strict rules on "legit" stations, if you want to go the unlicensed route, you are limited to about 1/4 watt (250mW). Of course, you probably could get away with a pirate station operating at several times that level. All things considered, FM is a very good idea.
Here is a decent FM transmitter:
http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=FM25B

2. Very difficult in the current political climate. Not that someone shouldn't try.

3,4. Developing a reliable communications network on a large scale is more difficult than just beaming out your signal to whomever. But it is necessary. The Internet has sufficed for now, but we really need to work on redundant networks for exchange and dissemination of information, assuming the Internet will be difficult or impossible to use. The equipment is easy enough to acquire. The hard part is coordinating the human element and not getting infiltrated. It takes effort and training to have a regional or national network operating effectively even 75% of the time.

Anyway, I have spent too much time typing this. :p