Waves of Rancor

Tuning into the Radical Right

Robert L. Hilliard, Michael C. Keith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Topic: Law
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315503158
• Subtopic: Public Law
• Index: Law

The airwaves in America are being used by armed militias, conspiracy theorists, survivalists, the religious right, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other radical groups to reach millions with their messages of hate and fear. Waves of Rancor examines the origin, nature, and impact of right-wing electronic media, including radio, television, cable, the internet, and even music CDs.

Chapter 1

The Genesis of Bitter Air

Who stilleth the raging of the sea, and the noise of his waves, and the madness of the people.

—Prayer Book, 1662

Radio and television are the most powerful forces in the world today affecting the minds and emotions of their viewers and listeners. In virtually every country in the world, with the exception of those poverty-stricken nations where television is available only to the rich, and radio sets are in short supply, most people spend more time viewing television or listening to the radio than they devote to any other endeavor except working (if, in fact, they have a job that takes up more than thirty-five hours of their time each week) and sleeping (if, in fact, they sleep more than an average of seven hours per day).

In the United States, for example, the average television set is on twenty-eight hours per week and the average radio is tuned in two and one-half hours a day. It is not surprising, then, that whenever there is a rebellion or revolution in a country, the first thing fought for is not the treasury, not the government buildings, not the universities, not the shops, not even the airports—but the radio and television stations.

For the last decades of the twentieth century, radio has been the most pervasive medium, simply because of its economic and technological availability to more people. In 1975 Julian Hale wrote:

Radio is the only unstoppable medium of mass communication. It is the only medium which reaches across the entire globe instantaneously and can convey a message from any country to any other. Combined, these qualities of radio ensure that it plays an indispensable role in international communications and keeps its place as the most powerful weapon of international propaganda.¹

During the quarter-century since this was written, other media—television, cable, satellite, and the Internet—have become important additional factors.

As cyberspace use expands, the Internet is quickly joining the older media as a controller of people’s hearts and minds. In one sense, the Internet is even more powerful than radio and television insofar as it permits any one individual to reach out to literally millions of other individuals. Even though there may be millions who log on to any single Web site, the process affects participants as if it were one-on-one communication. As this is written, at the end of the second millennium, it is expected that not far into the new millennium the economic and technological availability of computers will spread rapidly to all parts of the world, expanding and strengthening cyberspace’s role as a communicator and persuader.

Dictators, charlatans, and even random opportunists know that whoever controls the media of a country controls its political processes. Even without outright ownership or physical control of a station, any individual or group can influence public beliefs and affect public policy. In the United States, for example, with few exceptions, the candidate who spends the most money on television advertising wins the political race. A television or radio station owner who provides a candidate more free air time on news and public affairs programs than the opponent greatly enhances that candidate’s chances. (The Equal Time provision of the Communications Act of 1934 was vitiated in 1984 during the Reagan era of deregulation, allowing stations to interpret what public affairs programming consists of and permitting stations to air public debates with candidates of their own choosing, excluding those they do not support. Thus, they can strengthen the candidacies of those they support and those who have the most money for television advertising, and effectively cut short the candidacies of those they oppose by removing them from public view.)

With the development and availability of new communications media, the opportunities for influencing the public’s attitudes, feelings, and actions increased. The Internet especially opened the door for interactive influence, providing immediate feedback and follow-up for the few who would control the many.

The United States, arguably the world’s leading democracy, is not immune to favoritism in the media. Michael Parenti writes in Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media that the media in the United States are the “products of many forces, involving the dominant political culture and powerful economic and government institutions—all dedicated to maintaining an ideological monopoly, controlling the flow of information and opinion in ways that best advance their interests.”² According to Parenti, “the CIA runs the biggest news service in the world with a budget larger than those of all the major wire services put together.”³

The most susceptible viewers and listeners are those who (1) are dissatisfied with their life and seek to blame it on an outside party such as a government or a group or a few individuals, or (2) lack sufficient education to judge either the truth or the impact of media materials upon them, succumbing as media illiterates to emotional appeals, or (3) are sufficiently psychologically disturbed to seek support from what they consider alternatives to conventional attitudes, no matter how destructive those alternatives may be.

These viewers/listeners/Internet participants are easy prey for those who believe that their religious beliefs are the only correct ones, that their political attitudes are the only acceptable ones, that their social behavior is the only justifiable one. Those who would create hate and chaos to forward their personal agendas of power and superiority are avid users of the media to achieve their goals.

In his book, Inside Talk Radio, Peter Laufer points out that “groups throughout the spectrum of ideas are fast learning how to manipulate talk radio”⁴ and that “the talk show demagogues are adept at manipulating anger and turning righteous resentment into fearful hatred of the oppressed.”⁵ Laufer agrees on the power the media give the controller and user: “The power is real, not just as a money-making force, but also as a political force.”⁶

Michael Parenti is concerned that the right wing is making such effective use of the media. He writes: “Many call-in shows enable us to hear directly from listeners and provide opportunities for the brief airing of dissident viewpoints. Many of these talk shows, when running at prime time, are dominated by right-wing hosts or mainstream centrists, who show only a limited tolerance for leftist call-ins…. such meager accommodations are designed to create the impression of an open communication between media and public where one does not exist.”⁷

Laufer expresses similar concern: “Talk radio continues to attract real crackpots as hosts, many much further over the edge than the controlled and calculated rants and raves of a Limbaugh or a Stern”;⁸ “Hate, scapegoating and stereotyping fill the airwaves.”⁹

As Frank Rich pointed out in the New York Times, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 didn’t occur in a vacuum: “Timothy McVeigh didn’t come from nowhere but was an exemplar, however extreme, of a diverse, violent right-wing fringe, ranging from neo-Nazis to gun-absolutists to Christian Identity white supremacists.”¹⁰ Rich notes that since the 1995 Oklahoma City terror, bombings have increased throughout the United States, many of them attributed to right-wing militia organizations.

It is not a coincidence that the militias and militia-related or supporting organizations are prolific users of radio, television, and the Internet to convey their messages of hate and violence and to influence and recruit people to implement their goals of terror and chaos and ultimate control of their immediate, then larger societies. Their justification is a defense against a purported Jewish-controlled UN-implemented New World Order that they believe is about to take over the United States. Timothy McVeigh was an avid listener and viewer of right-wing radio and videos.

A look at Web home pages on the Internet, promoted by organizations through newsletters as well as through the media, reveals such sites as “White Nation: Our Salvation,” “The New World Order,” “The Holocaust Never Happened,” “Christian-Race Conscious,” “Ku Klux Klan,” “Aryan Pre-Christian Religion,” “Join the Militia: Prevent Tyranny,” and “Skinheads.”

In fact, what might be termed the “newer” media, such as shortwave radio and the Internet, have become the principal tools for far-right propaganda, replacing what is often thought of as the mainstream dissemination source, traditional radio stations. One specialist in the study of extremist groups stated: “I have mixed emotions about the level of bigotry on talk radio, but I’m more worried about short-wave radio and the Internet. That’s where the fringe groups are the most active, and it’s very frightening.”¹¹

Talk radio in the United States is dominated by those who support the aims of militias, white supremacists, and ethnic purists. Most people think of Rush Limbaugh when they think of right-wing radio. Compared to most right-wing hosts, Limbaugh is hardly radical. Frequently bracketed with talk show hosts such as Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy, Limbaugh does not push, as they sometimes do, to the edge of extremism. And North and Liddy even appear moderate when compared to far-right and extremist-right media personalities such as Pete Peters, Kevin Alfred Strom, David Duke, William Pierce, Chuck Baker, Chuck Harder, Kurt Saxon, Ernst Zundel and a host of others. Limbaugh’s is probably the most widely heard of all radio talk shows in the United States, with an estimated reach of more than 20 million listeners daily on more than 600 stations. His principal influence shows itself through the ballot box, inasmuch as some estimates suggest that over 90 percent of his listeners vote, as compared to a nationwide total of only about half that number.¹² Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh’s listeners “rated themselves as ‘superior’ in their knowledge of history and current events,’ but scored lowest in simple tests in both categories.”¹³

Although some analyses of his programs show he has consistently given false information in order to forward his political agenda, Limbaugh generally remains within the political spectrum that comprises the Republican Party. In fact, some extremist right-wingers have even called for Limbaugh’s execution on the grounds that he is hurting the real right wing by being too moderate. Unlike many right-wing talk show hosts, he does not advocate terror and murder to accomplish his political goals. However, he does not hesitate to use epithets and insult to describe those he disagrees with, in many ways similar to the language used by further-right personalities. Two of Limbaugh’s favorite terms, for example, are “Femi-Nazis” and “Environmentalist-Wackos.”

By contrast, station KVOR in Colorado Springs features Chuck Baker in a three-hour stint following Limbaugh’s daily program. Baker has advocated and endorsed his callers’ advocacy of such actions as bringing in private militia soldiers to kill members of Congress whom Baker and his supporters consider traitors, and to mount an armed revolution against the government.

One of his influenced listeners, Francisco Duran, did what Baker advocated and went to Washington and fired a couple of dozen bullets at the White House. Duran “was a fan of right-wing radio talk shows. He was active in the militia. And he hated Janet Reno and President Clinton…. Duran picked up his semi-automatic rifle and went to Pennsylvania Avenue. He fired about 30 shots … at the White House, trying to kill the president … [H]e reportedly was a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and of a far-right talk show host named Chuck Baker. One day Baker went on the air and talked about the need for an armed revolution to take out the ‘slimeballs’ in Congress.”¹⁴

No one was killed that time. When a caller to Baker’s show suggested that militia members and other “patriots” embark on an armed intervention in Washington, Baker replied: “Am I advocating the overthrow of this government? … I’m advocating the cleansing…. It’s provided for in the Constitution, … it’s well within my right under free speech.”¹⁵ (A couple of years later, in 1998, a deranged gunman from Montana, likewise inspired by hatred of the government, killed two policemen in an assault on the nation’s Capitol. A radio was found in his remote cabin.)

Other far-right and extremist-right radio hosts who have had a marked effect on American politics and who, in the minds of many people, pose increasing threats to public safety are discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters of this book. One of the best known is Mark Koernke, whose program “The Intelligence Report” has been on and off the air, depending on how far the right-wing radio stations that carry him think he has gone in fomenting violence. Researcher and writer on far-right groups Daniel Levitas has said: “Koernke is not a radio personality. What Koernke is is a leader of a paramilitary right wing movement who is using communications technology to advance the militant violent objectives, to recruit and communicate.”¹⁶ Another example is William Cooper, who, after the Oklahoma City federal building disaster, told his radio listeners that he knew who had really been responsible for the bombing: “Who has the expertise and the experience to pull off such a precision bombing? Who has the resources and power to cover it up, and who, in fact, is covering it up? We all know the answers to that and it has nothing to do with the militia. This is the Reichstag all over again.”¹⁷ Another key right-wing user of the airwaves is Kurt Saxon, who not only justifies violence, but informs his listeners how to go about it. On one program he told his audience in detail how to “build a bomb with materials from local stores.” On another program one subject was a call-in inquiry on “what the best weapon was for picking off Martians at 300 feet.” “Martians” is a euphemism used by right-wing militants for minorities.¹⁸

Despite Limbaugh’s distancing himself from such extremist advocacy of violence, he, like all right-wing talk show hosts, bristles when his program is accused of fomenting harmful effects on society. For example, not long after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton said, “We must stand up and speak against reckless speech that can push fragile people over the edge beyond the bounds of civilized conduct and take the country into a dark place. I say no matter where it comes from … If people are encouraging conduct that will undermine the fabric of this country, it should be spoken against whether it comes from the left or the right, whether it comes on radio, television or the movies.” Rush Limbaugh and a number of other conservative—although not necessarily far-right-wing—talk show personalities interpreted those comments as aimed at them and joined the extremist commentators in angry denunciation of Clinton.¹⁹

Authors Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon cite a number of right-wing talk show hosts’ advocacy of violence and even murder. G. Gordon Liddy, whose show is syndicated by one of the country’s largest radio program distributors, Westwood One, “told listeners how to kill Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents … ‘head shots, head shots’ … ‘kill the sons of bitches.’” He also described for his listeners how to construct a bomb using ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, and dynamite, adding “that would do enormous work … take out a wall of a quarry, or take out that building.”²⁰ Note, again, that Liddy is not considered as far radical right as many others on the air. On Phoenix’s KFYI, talk show host “Bob Mohan declared that gun control advocate Sarah Brady ‘ought to be put down.’” On San Francisco’s KSFO, listeners can hear talk show hosts advocate “‘lynching a few liberals’ and encourage listeners to ‘shoot illegal immigrants who come across the border.’”²¹ On radio stations in various parts of the country, including short-wave station WWRC (Worldwide Christian Radio), listeners have heard “Pastor” Pete Peters assure his audience that the Bible sanctions killing gays and lesbians, Kurt Saxon explaining how to kill people with dry ice and hardware parts, and “militia commander” Linda Thompson calling for an armed militia attack on Washington, among other exhortations.²²

These are only a few of the kinds of persuasive rhetoric found on radio in the United States; they are, as will be evident in later chapters in this book, just the smallest tip of the iceberg, just as radio as most people know it is only a small part of the airwaves used by the right. With an estimated over 1,000 right-wing or so-called “patriot” groups in the United States in 1999, including more than 400 known armed militia organizations, and with many state attorneys general reluctant or unable to take any action against these groups, twenty-four hours a day one can hear and see programs on radio, television, and the Internet advocating racial purity (“ethnic cleansing”), ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Epigraph Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 The Genesis of Bitter Air
• Chapter 2 For Which They Stand
• Chapter 3 Lions of the Arena
• Chapter 4 But Carry a Big Stick
• Chapter 5 Gott Mit Uns
• Chapter 6 High-Stepping for Hitler
• Chapter 7 In No One Do We Trust
• Chapter 8 Up Close and Right
• Chapter 9 Armed for the Right
• Notes
• Index
• List of Contributors