Crossfire Conference Project

[Agis]

We should do a crossfire program rehashing major developments for Aryans on a weekly basis.

Somebody has to be the "Mclaughlin" i.e. feed the group material. Alex could be this person, but his material is too good and the Mclaughlin has to button his lip most of the time and let the others speak.
http://www.mclaughlin.com/moo/

For the first show I'd invite:
Alex
Chain
Tinsoldier (SF)
Whitebear (NNN)
Tyrone N. Butts (NNN)

(The software allows for a maximum of 5 conference callers). We could see how the show works out and rotate the members as need be.

This can be done for free using a new voice over IP program called 'Skype':
http://www.skype.com/

It uses secure end to end connections. All you need is a reliable computer and a microphone.

I imagine it to work like this:
1. Invited panel guests install skype and send their profile name to Stan.
2. At an agreed upon time everyone calls Stan for conferencing
3. Stan records the conference and/or live-feeds the audio for our internet listening audience.

More about this here:
http://support.skype.com/index.php?_...ndetails&_i=92

[Agis]

Format:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue One: Means Justify the End.

SEN. : (From videotape.) The bill, as amended, is passed.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The long-awaited measure to overhaul U.S. bankruptcy laws was passed this week by the Senate, 74-25. Passage of the bill marks another pro-business victory for the Republican-controlled Congress. It reveals how the majority is able to tackle issues that have been lingering for years.
The bankruptcy bill was first introduced in 1997. It makes it more difficult for individuals to avoid their debts by declaring bankruptcy. Bankers have strongly supported the measures. They say that many customers have used bankruptcy as a financial planning tool. Bankers say
that they want to encourage responsible behavior by those who can afford to repay their debts.
Not everyone agrees that this is good legislation. Senator Edward Kennedy was one of the measure's chief opponents. "The bill favors the worst of the credit industry, the interest-rate gougers, the pay-day
lenders, the abusive collection agencies. It hurts real people who lose their jobs because of outsourcing or suffer major loss of income because they were called up for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan or lose their savings because of a medical crisis."
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D-MA): (From videotape.) They get an incidence of cancer. They run up those bills. And what does this bill do? It's going to make them indentured servitude to the credit-card companies. And we call that fairness? Is that fairness?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Is this bill, which is certain to pass the House, constructive public policy? Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: It is necessary legislation, John. There's no doubt about it, some credit-card companies send out these credit cards to everybody. Then when you're late, they charge you 20 or 30 percent interest, which is like loan-sharking.
But the truth of the matter is, there's an awful lot of people, and many of them young people, who take these credit cards, go on vacations, go on buying sprees, and just walk away from the bills. And it's a disaster, and something has to be done to deal with it. This thing
has been in the process for five, six years. And I think it's not a perfect bill, but it is necessary legislation. And I think, all in all, it's going to do some good, and I would have voted for it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor.

MS. CLIFT: Well, the hypocrisy of the Republican Congress, which is running the country into hock, now lowering the hammer on the little guy who maxes out credit cards because he loses a job; maybe there's a divorce, medical bills. There may be a small percentage who are buying trips to Vegas and plasma-screen TVs, but the overwhelming majority are people who run into real problems.
And the bill does nothing to get at the real scofflaws, the Donald Trumps who have declared bankruptcy at least twice; the Ken Lays, the Bernie Ebbers. They can keep all of their assets and go their merry way, and this bill doesn't affect them at all.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think this is compassionate conservatism in process, Tony?

MR. BLANKLEY: I don't know that it's compassionate. I think it is conservative. This is a sad business when people go bankrupt. And agony results when usually relatively small-time people run out of the last bit of credit and they go bankrupt. So it's not a happy thing to have to say that the creditors are entitled to their money.

But I think that our system of economy requires -- (inaudible).

I have to say there's one zone where I was inclined to agree with Ted Kennedy, and that was where he said that this homestead exemption, which some states, like Texas, have, so you can buy a multimillion-dollar home and have that exempt from the creditors who you owe money to.

Now, I don't like the idea of the federal government telling the states what to do, but I think the idea is that if you're, in fact -- we're going to be tough on people who are not paying their creditors, we should include rich people who hide their money in fancy homes.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The heart of this bill is means-testing, as was noted in that clever title that I gave the issue. Right?

MR. O'DONNELL: That's right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Now, means-testing means your personal income. It means whether you have the money or the assets to pay the bill that you are seeking relief for, for the debt of that bill, of those bills, through bankruptcy proceedings. And the means-testing is that you have
to do quite a bit of accounting, and you probably will need legal counsel to do that to fulfill the requirements of establishing that you don't have the means.

MR. O'DONNELL: Right. And the --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But if you have someone who's broke and can't pay his bills, that means-testing that is demanded under the new law is unfair and inequitable. You believe that.

MR. O'DONNELL: There are 50 different means tests in this bill, one for each state, because the level of income they measure is the median income for a particular state.
Now, in a state like New York, that's absurd, because it has rural Appalachian-style poverty pockets in upstate New York, and then it has incomes of a vastly different nature in New York City. And they take the median for the entire state to apply to everybody.

But, look, if you're a Republican --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If you're underneath that median, just to carry this a step further, then you're eligible for bankruptcy proceeding. If you're over the median, then you're ineligible for it.

MR. O'DONNELL: Except that that's not true because of the exemption on housing that Tony mentioned. There's also a Mercedes exemption.

If you are leasing or paying for a Mercedes, a $75,000 or
$80,000 car, in payments that you're obligated to pay, that is exempt from your --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So this is a loophole for whom?

MR. O'DONNELL: If you bought the Mercedes with cash for $75,000, you have to surrender it because you actually acted in a more financially responsible way. Look --

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let him finish.

[Agis]

MR. O'DONNELL: The greatest Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, filed for bankruptcy when there were no real limitations on it at all; the most liberal bankruptcy proceedings you could imagine. It is not a dishonorable outcome for people to file for bankruptcy. And that's
what these Republicans believe. They wouldn't even allow an amendment that would limit interest to 30 percent on credit cards. The religious book that they all follow, the Bible, precludes usury, but they voted for it in the federal government.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, I want -- just for clarification, the loophole that you were describing is a loophole that's fitted out for the fat cats. Correct?

MR. O'DONNELL: Basically anything you are contracted to pay, you are allowed to use in exempting you from the thresholds on what allows you to go bankrupt. It's an absurd bill that is so tilted in favor of the rich that it's just wildly out of proportion.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The principal reason for declaring bankruptcy is what?

MR. BUCHANAN: If you don't have enough money. (Laughs.)

MR. O'DONNELL: Fifty percent of personal bankruptcies come from health --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Medical is second. The first one is job loss and the third is a broken marriage. The first one is job loss, then medical, then a broken marriage. So what does that suggest to you about the people declaring bankruptcy?

MS. CLIFT: That it's justified and that they're being punished because of actually -- particularly with health care, because of flaws in our society.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: There were 1.6 million --

MS. CLIFT: And this bill presumes that everybody is a slacker.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (A fact?) -- there were 1.6 million bankruptcies last year, 1.6 million, up from 200,000 in the late '70s, 27 years ago, I believe.

MR. BUCHANAN: But, John, look --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So that's quite a --

MR. O'DONNELL: Look what the credit-card companies have done.

MR. BUCHANAN: John, come on, we're getting --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We're trying to get at the bottom of -- to what extent the credit cards -- it's owing to the credit cards.

MR. BLANKLEY: Let me make a quick point. If the government of the people want to be sympathetic to people, let's have a federal program that subsidizes them. But to ask creditors who lent them money legally to say that you're going to have to subsidize this generosity of yours,
that's why we need the bankruptcy law.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question. We've got to get out.

MR. BUCHANAN: Okay, go ahead.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The exit question. Is the bankruptcy bill sound public policy, or is it, as Senator Kennedy says, mean-spirited, with the Republicans once again stroking the fat cats? Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: I think it is sound and necessary. In some cases they're not going to be very good. But, John, we have not touched on the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of deadbeats out there who go run up bills and walk away from them and laugh, and the rest of the
middle class and everyone has got to pick up the tab for those people.

There are some hardship cases, I don't deny. There's crooks who buy $25 million homes in Florida, put all their money in it, declare bankruptcy, sell the house and go to the Bahamas.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What you're saying is that the credit-card companies have to jack up the interest rates on the rest of us, who are presumably --
MR. BUCHANAN: Well, they do. And there are --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: However --

MR. BUCHANAN: I agree it's loan-sharking. I mean, this is usury. In the Middle Ages the church --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, what about -- do the credit-card companies really have to jack it that much, or can they eat some of that themselves?

MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)

MS. CLIFT: The credit-card companies are riding high. This is a payoff for the political contributions, not only to Republicans but a whole bunch of Democrats who voted for this bill. It's shameful, this bill.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We're way over.

MR. BLANKLEY: I think it's sound policy, but I would have made it tougher on the rich people's exemptions.

MR. O'DONNELL: Credit-card lobbyists paid $35 million to get this bill passed. It was money well-spent that favors them 100 percent.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You would have voted for it?

MR. BLANKLEY: Yes, but with --

MR. BUCHANAN: They'll get it back in a week. (Laughs.)

MR. BLANKLEY: -- but not giving the exemptions to wealthy people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I concur with Tony. I think he's stumbled onto something that's quite accurate.

Let's talk very briefly about monetary matters, since we're in the general area of finance. Here's a potential hair-raiser. "I believe diversification is necessary." So says the Japanese head of government, Juniko Koizumi this week -- Junichiro. Sorry, Mr. Koizumi. What he is
saying is that the U.S. dollar is so weak that the Japanese should buy something else besides the dollar -- diversify.
Koizumi's statement follows on the heels of South Korea saying the same thing last month -- diversify away from the dollar.
Question: Patrick, how serious is this story?

MR. BUCHANAN: This is very serious. But the Chinese, the
Japanese and the Asians, I think, have something close to $2 trillion in these American dollar-denominated assets. Here is the problem. Koizumi then could say, "We're going to dump the dollars." Okay, you do that, the dollar sinks in value, and the value of their reserves contracts
dramatically. If you try to get -- the first guy out the door wins. But if everybody runs to try to get out the door, it all collapses.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is the whole thing worrisome?

MR. BUCHANAN: Interest rates will go up like a spike.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Could it explode?

MR. BUCHANAN: It could be a financial crisis --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you predicting that?

MR. BUCHANAN: I believe it's coming, and I believe --
(Cross-talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want to hear it again. (Laughs.)

MR. BUCHANAN: I believe a financial crisis is coming, and I don't think the Bush people understand it.

MR. BLANKLEY: The president of Japan had to be corrected by his staff, because he hadn't said what he intended to say. What he said was there should be diversity of assets within American denominations, not as between America and the EU, and that when that happened, everybody calmed down.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know what -- what's the line they're putting out now? It's called backing and filling.

MR. BLANKLEY: No, that's --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And he's doing that because he created a hole and now he realizes how big and embarrassing the hole is. It doesn't mean that he originally intended to say that.

MR. BLANKLEY: The markets believe that backing and filling.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: When we --

MS. CLIFT: The point is still there that the Japanese have a hold on American sovereignty that should make everybody nervous, especially Alan Greenspan.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=457

[Agis]

Perhaps "Keystone" could be our Ms. Clift? We need a "straight man" who - gosh darn it - just doesn't get what the fuss is about... Maybe TG could play the part for a laugh...

[Stan Sikorski]

Great idea! This is the thinking and research we need to produce entertaining and informative content to give the jewworks a run for their money.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

better idea: put Glenn on one side and Metzger on the other. 1 hour video mano a mano. video or dvd to be sold on a neutral website, profits to be split between vnn and war 50-50. purchase would include a license to purchasers to show the video on cable access but not for any commercial purpose. Whatchasay?

[Alex Linder]

I used to watch McL back in the eighties, but as I've matured, I don't like hearing idiots yell across one another. I don't like hearing intelligent people do it either. The only place yelling has is when an abrasive kike tries to steal your space, I will absolutely never allow any kike to top me in anything -- not lung power, not nothing. That is the winning spirit we need to beat the jew. But among ourselves there should be serious discussion. There is an urgency to our cause that should be reflected in our words and demeanor. Humor and buoyant driving spirit are fine, but above all we don't want the bourgeois chortle, the voice thick with ponderous self-importance of a Limbaugh. That's where the masses of asses are - not the type we want. We want the quick and controlled people who can get things done.

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

better idea: put Glenn on one side and Metzger on the other. 1 hour video mano a mano. video or dvd to be sold on a neutral website, profits to be split between vnn and war 50-50. purchase would include a license to purchasers to show the video on cable access but not for any commercial purpose. Whatchasay?

I herewith, present my humble and modest agreement to comply with your idea, A.E. And since it presents a money-making opportunity, Metzger no doubt, will as well.

Mr Agis' suggestion for a McLaughlin styled "crossfire" VNN radio program consisting of 5 WN participants, is an ever better idea, though.

The minor problem I see with implimentation is when several try to speak at the same time, which is especially inevitable on audio vice video. A strong moderator will direct participants when to chime in. This will control the problem to an acceptable level of confusion caused by overlapping voices.

I'd also recommend a "Devil's Advocate", since all participants will be generally of the same opinion about just about everything. I can play "devil's advocate" quite well. (hint hint). I know all the idiotic "liberal" rational/counter-points.

And someone who's good at imitating the typical "negro" vernacular would provide extra entertainment for the listening audience. I'll bet Chain, and White Will can do that well. Other VNN'ers too, perhaps.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Originally Posted by Rounder

I herewith, present my humble and modest agreement to comply with your idea, A.E. And since it presents a money-making opportunity, Metzger no doubt, will as well.

Mr Agis' suggestion for a McLaughlin styled "crossfire" VNN radio program consisting of 5 WN participants, is an ever better idea, though.

The minor problem I see with implimentation is when several try to speak at the same time, which is especially inevitable on audio vice video. A strong moderator will direct participants when to chime in. This will control the problem to an acceptable level of confusion caused by overlapping voices.

I'd also recommend a "Devil's Advocate", since all participants will be generally of the same opinion about just about everything. I can play "devil's advocate" quite well. (hint hint). I know all the idiotic "liberal" rational/counter-points.

And someone who's good at imitating the typical "negro" vernacular would provide extra entertainment for the listening audience. I'll bet Chain, and White Will can do that well. Other VNN'ers too, perhaps.

I doubt Metzger would be up for it. Maybe he could donate his half to an Order relief fund. At least that way he wouldnt have to give Mo his cut eh? LOL

Seriously though, I think it's a good idea and it would be a great recruit item on cable access. there would be a thousand details-- location, moderator, etc. One wonders if there is anybody with the competence to put it on who would also be trusted by both sides...

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

I doubt Metzger would be up for it. Maybe he could donate his half to an Order relief fund. At least that way he wouldnt have to give Mo his cut eh? LOL

Seriously though, I think it's a good idea and it would be a great recruit item on cable access. there would be a thousand details-- location, moderator, etc. One wonders if there is anybody with the competence to put it on who would also be trusted by both sides...

The first question I'd ask Metzger is this: "Tom, do you remember going on national TV on the eve of the Louisianna elections when Duke was leading in the polls in his campaign for governor, and INFORMING the feds and the world that you'd witnessed David Duke taking illegal drugs - And are you not therefore, guilty of RATTING OUT a fellow White Nationalist ??

Lots more juicy questions, I'd love to ask him, as well. Ditto Louis Beam.

[Rounder]

Just kidding. I dispise rehashing dirty movement linen in public, even the dirty linen of the anti-Millerites, because it gives aid and comfort to the kikes, and further demoralizes WNs.

Agis has presented the super great idea. I'm convinced though, that VNN's radio project should be aimed primarily at EXPOSING THE JEWS as persuasively and as extensively as possible. Everything else including our racial problems, are distractions in comparison. In my best judgment, anyhow.

[Steve B]

The typical talk radio show format usually goes like this:

1) A short clip of cool music and then introduction of the show(VNN) and the host(Alex).

2) The host welcomes listeners and thanks his tec guys for the great job they are doing to make the show possible..blaa blaa blaa.

3) Then the host reads and then comments on the days news stories that he feels are important(national, local, etc).

4) The host then introduces his guest(Ed Steele for example) and they discuss topical events relating to Whites.

5) Then the host and guest go to the phones and take calls.

6) Show ends and host again thanks guest and callers, then cracks a beer and winds down.

Simple format but the most effective because it allows for a smooth, structured, flowing show. Having more that one or two guests on the show at a time tends to hinder rather than help for the simple reason people have a tendency to talk over one another and it is difficult for the listener to follow the chain of thought, not to mention the strain it puts on the host trying to give every guest "equal time" to speak.

My two cents.

Also, I'm sure Alex and Stan have already thought of this but I'll throw it out anyway. A good call-screener will be needed cuz you can bet the nutbags and loonies will call in. Whether Stan can handle this himself while he's producing the show at the same time will be difficult. I recommend somebody with a good bullshit detector...AE comes to mind.

Since Alex and Stan plan a live show at some time in the near future at least a 20 second time delay will be needed to keep some idiot WN's or anti posing as one from saying something illegal across the internet and then have the Feds pay a vist to Alex or Stan.

[Agis]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I used to watch McL back in the eighties, but as I've matured, I don't like hearing idiots yell across one another. I don't like hearing intelligent people do it either. The only place yelling has is when an abrasive kike tries to steal your space, I will absolutely never allow any kike to top me in anything -- not lung power, not nothing. That is the winning spirit we need to beat the jew. But among ourselves there should be serious discussion.

I caught McL in the early 90s. He was an old fart then, perhaps tamer. But I'm mixing shows. I suppose "crossfire" was the more gentil of the two. I don't imagine much yelling and if any occurs it can be edited out by Stan before it hits the airwaves. The power of the format is the forum/speaker/participant energy it releases. It's not a one man show, but rather a thinking man's show with a variety of opinions delivered by our more intelligent members. Ms. Clift is a prop. She causes betters to react. Of course we don't have to have a Ms. Clift, maybe just an occasional guest.

There is an urgency to our cause that should be reflected in our words and demeanor. Humor and buoyant driving spirit are fine, but above all we don't want the bourgeois chortle, the voice thick with ponderous self-importance of a Limbaugh. That's where the masses of asses are - not the type we want. We want the quick and controlled people who can get things done.

I agree which is why I view AE's suggestion as unproductive. We don't need to give any airtime to bogus so-called 'personalities' of importance. The forum will serve as the testing grounds for intelligence and the show will be the trial. If you don't make the cut, tough shit.

Limbaugh again is another 'one-man' show. Pierce and Butler were the same in this regard. The "crossfire" system is more generous and therefore more interesting and productive.

[Steve B]

Originally Posted by Agis

I agree which is why I view AE's suggestion as unproductive. We don't need to give any airtime to bogus so-called 'personalities' of importance. The forum will serve as the testing grounds for intelligence and the show will be the trial. If you don't make the cut, tough shit.

I disagree. So-called bogus 'personalities' of importance should be given the utmost importance! For the simple reason they can be brought into disrepute and discredited by Alex.

We are not jews who pack our show with yes men of unquestioning obedience! WE ARE WHITE MEN!!! I capitalize those four words because to turn VNN radio into a Fox news version of White politically correct bullshit that is afraid of anything and everything that isn't prescreened by hacks makes us no better than the god damn jews!

I envision VNN radio that fears no one. We take on all comers! As Alex said..."I will absolutely never allow any kike to top me in anything -- not lung power, not nothing. That is the winning spirit we need to beat the jew"!!

Thats it! A principle..a set of basic truths that cannot be refuted! Bring-em all on and see where the cards lay!

[Agis]

Originally Posted by Steve B

I disagree. So-called bogus 'personalities' of importance should be given the utmost importance! For the simple reason they can be brought into disrepute and discredited by Alex.

We are not jews who pack our show with yes men of unquestioning obedience! WE ARE WHITE MEN!!! I capitalize those four words because to turn VNN radio into a Fox news version of White politically correct bullshit that is afraid of anything and everything that isn't prescreened by hacks makes us no better than the god damn jews!

I envision VNN radio that fears no one. We take on all comers! As Alex said..."I will absolutely never allow any kike to top me in anything -- not lung power, not nothing. That is the winning spirit we need to beat the jew"!!

Thats it! A principle..a set of basic truths that cannot be refuted! Bring-em all on and see where the cards lay!

This is a great idea... for a different project. You could call it the "Barnyard" with Steve B. or Rooster Patrol.

As for the crossfire project, it requires only 1 hr per week.

[Agis]

Doppelhaken and Antiochus Epiphanes send me a PM for more info...

[Agis]

Still working on getting the panel together. So far Alex and Chain are in. I've also invited Tinsoldier from Stormfront and Tyrone N. Butts of New Nation News.

[Frank Toliver]

Great Idea!

Have you considered having just one constant host and a slew of different guests? Also, would you guys consider Hal Turner, Frank Weltner, or James Wickstrom to be part of this? I think having guys who have a strong bias towards Christianity would be a good foil for Alex.

Before I forget, Edgar Steele would be great to have as well, for his legal point of view, and knowledge of law. So many awesome people to choose from.

Thanks

Zeke

[Agis]

BoyHowdy, from Stormfront, has agreed to join the panel..!

[Agis]

Originally Posted by Cowboy Zeke

Great Idea!

Have you considered having just one constant host and a slew of different guests? Also, would you guys consider Hal Turner, Frank Weltner, or James Wickstrom to be part of this? I think having guys who have a strong bias towards Christianity would be a good foil for Alex.

Before I forget, Edgar Steele would be great to have as well, for his legal point of view, and knowledge of law. So many awesome people to choose from.

Thanks

Zeke

I want fewer 'personalities' and more content. I also want to bring in some of 'undiscovered' and/or underappreciated talent; analysts not egos.

I don't know Frank or James, maybe Hal for a guest appearence, maybe not...

Christians ? I respect their desire for morality but I want people who can make 'worldly' points without Jeebus inferences.