Sunday, October 24, 2010

Do NOT Allow European Free Speech Limitations in USA

Battle of Vienna 1683 - Polish Hussars vs Ottomans sm
John R. Houk
© October 24, 2010

I am a member of a Facebook group called 1683 AD. The year is a reference to the last time Islamic military invasion attempting to enslave Europe to Political Islam. In this case King Jan III Sobieski decisively won the battle that prevented the conquest of Vienna from Ottoman Turks. I am an American; however if anyone spends anytime at Facebook 1683 AD it is apparent most of the members are European. And I am guessing the Europeans in this case are mostly citizens of the United Kingdom (UK) because the predominant language is English.

Since the 1683 AD group members are quite anti-Islamist and has a message to prevent the Islamization of Europe (and/or the UK); I am certain these brave fellows are branded as racists and promulgators of hate-speech. After all Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been under prosecution for hate-speech and incitement to violence with his film Fitna. The film Fitna merely utilizes quotes from the Quran, the words of Muslim Clerics and footage that verifies the blight of Political Islam. The plight of Geert Wilders in Netherlands is the Free Speech limitations imposed by a European culture that is moronically so into Multicultural Diversity they are willing to sacrifice their Western heritage to an immigrant Islamic culture that is increasingly becoming anchored in Europe by a high birthrate and demanding that the practices of Islamic Culture such as Sharia Law become accepted and supersede the Rule of Law. This is the very rule of law that still has some Leftist accepted Freedoms.

Now that I have talked up 1683 AD, I feel constrained to cross post a very lengthy post from the 1683 AD blog version of the Facebook group. The information disseminated is about the difficulty of developing Conservative Talk Radio on the level that exists in America. You see the European governments and the EU have control of the spoken media. Anything of a Conservative nature or anti-Islamist nature has to go through the approval path of government influenced and Leftist controlled media. Without that approval there is no alternative for voters to fully comprehend that Socialist practices are destroying government budgets and that the purist nature of Islam is a threat to the Freedoms still available to Europeans.

Another reason I am cross posting the 1683 AD post is because the American Left wishes to impose European Multicultural Diversity and limits on Free Speech in American Islamism is using First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Religious Freedom to overthrow the Constitution and replace the greatest Document outlining Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness with despot theopolitical Islam and Sharia Law.

My fellow Americans take the time to read the 1683 AD post to understand that which could be instituted in America.

JRH 10/24/10
Challenge Radio

10/23/2010 at 12:36 AM

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be lead, like sheep to the slaughter". - George Washington

The influence of the Leftist dominated media in Europe.

It has been a common theme within many of the posts of 1683 AD that our side has been at a considerable disadvantage in its efforts to warn the general public in Europe, and elsewhere, of the onrushing threat of Islamification. This is  primarily due to Leftists controlling most of the means of mass communication (television, radio, newspapers, magazines). Such control is all encompassing in Europe, whereas in the U.S., talk radio and FOX News are about the only outlets which have escaped their clutches - so far. Some may counter our assertion of complete or considerable Leftist dominance of the media realm in Europe and other non-U.S. areas by pointing to our presence on the internet and the universal accessibility of our websites. Yes,  our side does indeed have many well written and logically presented websites. But the opposition has websites too, and in large numbers. Consequently, our  internet presence is muted and the reality of Leftist  dominance within the conventional media forums still stands.

If the European media were to ever dispense a fair amount of positive mentions of our movement within its opinion / editorial pieces and issue news accounts which are void of a Leftist bias, we are certain that a great affinity with  our cause among Europe's general public would soon arise.  Of course, don't hold your breath expecting any of this to happen soon.

We should point out that the Leftist dominance in European media, depending on the outlet involved, is generally a product of either government restrictions of free speech (through "hate speech" laws), the Leftist indoctrination of journalists and the simple fear among broadcasters of being targeted by the violence-prone Left for any verbal slights they may perceive as coming from them.

The main media outlets in Europe, particularly television and radio news / talk programs, reach far more people than any "needle in a haystack" website could ever hope to reach and have tremendously greater influence. This is due, in part, to the fact that  the average person has only a handful of news-related choices within each respective media outlet (local and national television, radio, etc.) to choose from, meaning that the options are rather concentrated. Furthermore, the media outlets of television and radio are much more "dynamic" and appealing to the average person than a web page. And unlike the internet, where one has to intentionally search for a specific website, all that television and radio  requires of people is the simple changing of a channel.   In view of all of this, it should be apparent that the concentration among these media outlets, their high visibility and easy accessibility equates to considerable political influence. Upon considering these realities,  we have established a goal with this post to break into one of these leading media formats: European talk radio.
The power of Conservative Talk Radio on U.S. politics and the absence of any parallel to this  in Europe.
Any observer of the U.S. political landscape in recent years should readily discern the tremendous impact which Conservative Talk Radio has made in the political arena. It has definitely been a major force in alerting the public to the efforts of the Leftists in power to "fundamentally transform" the nation along  Socialist lines, with corresponding appeasement to the demands of Islamic Supremacists. As a result of the exhortations by Conservative Talk Radio hosts, the public appears to be awakening from its slumber and actively fighting back (as of late 2010, the time of this writing). Without Conservative Talk Radio, we would have already been, as paraphrasing George Washington, lead dumb and silent like sheep to the slaughter.

In view of the tremendous power of Conservative Talk Radio, our desire is to spread the U.S. model for it to other nations, particularly those in Europe. Although our focus here will be with Europe, we would encourage readers in other parts of the world which are threatened by Leftists and Islamic Supremacists to consider how our outline may work for them.

We must state at the outset that internet research on the availability (or lack thereof) of Conservative Talk Radio in Europe was not definitive. But the research we have on hand appears to indicate that Conservative Talk Radio is very rare in Europe. In the cases where it does exist, it comes across as being muzzled by "hate speech' laws. As we are all aware, these laws are rarely, if ever, applied to the hateful language of Leftists or Islamic Supremacists.

We will proceed in this posting with an understanding that our perceptions of current European talk radio are accurate. Should we be in error, we would welcome any input to the contrary.  The end result of this situation is that there is currently no opportunity to use any mass media format to alert the European general public to the true face of the Islamification threat.
The "psychology" of talk radio and how it can confer legitimacy on a concern and inspire action by the public.

We must realize that unless  information relating to opinions, facts, positions, movements or events which support any side in a theoretical argument are steadily put forth in the dominant, non-internet mass communication organs as discussed above, it is almost always an uphill battle in getting the public to even acknowledge its existence. If an account which has an internet origin does reach broad public awareness, it is in most cases due to it having been picked up and promulgated by one of the leading media forums. We also believe that when a person does learn about something concerning the aforementioned areas (opinions, facts, etc.) through the dominant media organs, particularly LIVE radio and television, they do so with the subliminal or even conscious awareness  that thousands or millions of other people are being exposed to such information at the very same time. This sense of a shared experience can be said to remove any feelings within viewing or listening individuals  of isolation concerning their awareness. It follows that repeated exposure bolsters within such individuals this sense of community knowledge concerning the information in question. This, in turn, confers a sense of "legitimacy" on possessing such knowledge. It also serves to "authorize" or sanction individuals to act on such knowledge, often in concert with others of like mind. Basically,  the leading mass media formats shape and form public discussion and, most importantly, action. The Leftists who control these medic outlets know this and do their best to belittle and diminish any voices from the contrary which attempt to broach their ramparts.

1683 AD has already put forth concepts in other posts which have the potential to circumvent the Leftist domination (which favors Islamic Supremacists) by making the Islamic Supremacism issue (or the mouring of their victims) "visible" in various aspects of the non-media, public realm. Our concepts regarding 10:03 AM watch alarms, "crickets" and certain cell phone ringtones, among others, serve as examples of such tactics. Even though such tactics remain a major  emphasis with us, we still recognize the tremendous value there would be in attaining and keeping a dominant position in any of the leading mass media formats.

Talk radio is particularly appealing in that it has considerable power to reach people in their daily lives. It reaches them in their work commutes, where television does not. It reaches them at work, as it does not require any visual attention and can play in the background (as does music). Rarely does one see a television playing in a work environment. And talk radio  reaches people in the home. When we evaluate Conservative Talk Radio, specifically, it is evident that it is fast paced, proactive, hard-hitting and, yes, entertaining. The Conservative hosts base their arguments in logic and reason, making them impervious to the insults and invectives hurled at them by Leftist callers (who, through their own illogical words, come across as buffoons). And the callers provide a sense that all the listeners are not alone in their thoughts regarding the status of things in the political realm. This live interaction with the public  is unique to talk radio; rarely is it encountered in television. All of these qualities  greatly embolden people to take action. Conservative Talk Radio was an invaluable "spiritual" driving force (among others) which led to the rebellion at the U.S. Town Hall meetings of Congressmen and Senators in 2009 and the various Tea Party ventures that have lasted well into  late 2010 (the time of this writing).

We applaud the gradually increasing number of street protests that have taken place against Islamification, such as those produced by the English Defence League and the ones revolving around the Ground Zero Mosque. But please remember that street protests remain entirely dependent on a Leftist media to convey the message we seek to express. If we want  such endeavors to be presented in an unfiltered manner to the general public, we will be waiting a long, long time. When contemplating this depressing reality, we can only conclude that the launch of a vibrant Conservative Talk Radio effort in Europe could help us tremendously in the promulgation of our message. The situation in Europe is dire, as so aptly explained here: We must begin aggressive efforts to turn the tide through any available means, without delay. Conservative Talk Radio has tremendous potential in this regard.

The Plan for Challenge Radio in Europe

In the following discussion we will term our proposal as "Challenge Radio". The name "Challenge" would appear to be appropriate to the situation, as we are fighting an established force. However, this is just a working name; a better option would need to be chosen later.

If Europe can secure Conservative Talk Radio (in the form of Challenge Radio) somewhat on par with what exists in the U.S., our chances for reversing the Islamification threat will substantially increase. Of course, Islamification should not be the sole topic of discussion on Challenge Radio, but its likely mention on a periodic basis would greatly boost our efforts. Any topic, no matter how serious, often needs to be "rotated" with other topics in order to avoid becoming tired or stale from the perspective of the audience. That should be permissible, as many of the other Conservative themed topics could assist in attacking other various elements of the Leftist agenda which have directly or indirectly contributed to Islamification.

We have already alluded to the fact that the Leftists, many who are firmly ensconced in government positions, will not readily loosen their grip on European talk radio broadcasts over the public airways. The primary impediment to removing Leftist control are the "hate speech" laws, and they show no sign of disappearing. However, we have four new tools at our disposal; ones which they cannot touch (at least without blatant dictatorial measures): internet radio,  satellite radio,  long distance broadcasting and audio teleconferencing (ATC). They are all capable of going over and under the walls  which have been built in Europe to limit free speech. Regarding internet radio, our readers are likely aware it exists and that numerous Conservative programs are offered on it. Likewise with satellite radio. Very few people use long distance broadcasting, like shortwave radio,  but that might change. And never before (to our knowledge) has audio teleconferencing been contemplated as an alternative to traditional radio. No one to date has approached any of these options in a manner which would bring them out of obscurity and into broad public awareness, making them  a major driving force in Europe; particularly in light of all the mobile applications which already exist for listening. In view of the possibilities we have discerned, we are setting forth an outline which, if implemented, could bring Challenge Radio into fruition and subsequently both reverse the threat of Islamification and turn the Leftist domination of that continent upside down. It is hoped that we may eventually be able to break down the barriers of conventional broadcast radio in Europe and utilize this specific format to the fullest extent possible, but in the meantime we must move ahead with the four alternatives on hand.

What follows is an outline for steps which can be taken to bring Challenge Radio into existence. As for Leftists copying it, such a prospect is unlikely, since they are the ones who are already in control of European mass media. And if they do, listeners who call in could simply focus in on their lack of logic within their arguments and take them apart. The inability of the Left to present coherent arguments which stand up to logic is a significant factor in their inability to attract listeners in a competitive environment and gain a foothold in the U.S. They only succeed where they are subsidized by their fellow government cronies, as in Europe.

Initial research
  Find an organization which can draw the plan together and sustain it.
The following text reveals a plan which can be utilized to bring Conservative thought, along with warnings against Islamification, to populations throughout the entire world. As stated previously, our initial focus will be with Europe, as it is both a linchpin to Western Civilization and is already facing the initial gales of the impending storm. Since this endeavor will require constant monitoring and maintenance, we feel it is imperative that an organization which has proven to be  both devoted to this cause and likely has the resources to sustain this effort be sought out for participation. Should you, the reader, have any organization in mind which would fit the bill, we would encourage you to initiate contact with them and apprise them of this concept. Regrettably, 1683 AD does not have the contacts and resources to accomplish this task on its own. We are depending on you.
 Study the current and potential outlets for Conservative Talk Radio / Challenge Radio.
Assuming an organization has signed on with the Challenge Radio concept, they will likely begin with some basic research. We would encourage that they start by evaluating the various existing and proposed options for talk radio broadcasts.

Many in the general public will instinctively think of Conservative Talk Radio as existing solely on the public airways and will not be aware of the available internet, satellite, long distance broadcast and audio teleconference options for such programming. It appears that there currently is a considerable cross-fertilization of programs among some of these options and conventional broadcast radio. For example, a program which is on broadcast radio may also appear on the internet and satellite.  However, the internet offers a bounty of programs which do not have broadcast or satellite counterparts. And talk radio is non-existent on long distance broadcasts and audio teleconferencing.

Among three of the four  options for Challenge Radio as they currently exist (excluding audio teleconferencing), internet talk radio offers the greatest freedom of speech. For the most part, no governments censor it. Indirect censorship, through a withdrawal of advertiser support, is not a concern with many of the internet talk show hosts as they do not operate as business enterprises in the first place (as in the commercial satellite and conventional broadcast options). We should point out an exception concerning potential or existing indirect censorship within commercial satellite and conventional radio broadcasting: the providers of religious  broadcasts. Since they lack commercial backing, their respective program hosts  are relatively free to say what they wish. But for full and complete freedom of speech, none of these three options can hold a candle to audio teleconferencing; at least from what our evidence is to date. It can be launched without a pressing need for advertiser support (thus removing one weak point) and there does not seem to be any way in which a government could interfere with it (at least, thus far).

The advantage for listeners of conventional talk radio as it exists over the public airways is that it is free. Commercial satellite radio (currently absent from Europe) requires a paid subscription, whereas religious satellite radio might be  free in some cases, particularly if it falls under the category of "Free to Air" (FTA).  There is no mobile access (such as car radios) for FTA, but there is for U.S. commercial satellite radio and it would likely also exist in European commercial satellite radio. Internet radio is "free", but one needs to have an internet service provider. With that cost aside, home listening via internet radio would appear to be more "free" than listing with mobile internet devices, as later discussion elaborates. And of course, long distance broadcasting is free to the listener. Audio teleconferencing can be completely mobile, as it simply uses telephones.

In this initial stage, we would essentially need to weigh these options in terms of cost and the prospects for reaching large numbers of people. We go into greater detail on all of this in the following:
Detailed research of the available alternative means for radio transmission and listening
 Study the prospects for internet radio broadcasts.

Radio broadcasts on the internet have been established for a number of years. Conservative thought is well represented with a number of programs. Some of these internet broadcasts include simulcasts of conventional broadcasts over the air, whereas others consist of programs which are limited solely to the internet.

Pursuing the growth of internet Conservative Talk Radio broadcasts with Challenge Radio should be the least expensive option of all the ones discussed thus far. The expenses could be considered as almost negligible.

 Study the current and upcoming devices for listening to  radio on the internet.
While at home, internet programs can be heard on standard computers and on wired or wireless "appliances" designed specifically for internet radios which are located in close vicinity to the computer "base". These articles discuss some of them:; Although these devices require one to subscribe to an internet service, the use of these devices could be considered as "free" if one has a flat rate.

Regarding hand-held mobile devices, it would appear that the iPhone and Android could gain access, but these devices are not "radios", per se. One source indicates that the process for listening on these devices are currently bit complicated, but it appears that the eventual adoption of HTML5 will make things much easier. This site discusses e-Mobile Radio, for Android: (  This website briefly addresses the costs to stream radio with an iPhone: This one speaks of Windows Mobile: ( This one concerns Talk Stream Live: This website gives brief instructions on how to bring internet radio to mobile devices: There seems to be some room for improvement with internet radio on such devices, but the current products appear to be capable of meeting the needs of the average person. The main drawback is that per minute charges can build up, making listening an expensive proposition; particularly when compared to commercial satellite radio.

Automotive receivers for internet radio broadcasts are already on the way, as indicated here:;;txt; . As with personal devices (see above), service within an automobile is  not free, for it requires an internet subscription.

The following articles are distinguished by their negative positions on internet radio, in general: :;; Summing them up, it appears that as things currently stand, internet based radio would cost consumers quite a bit more, on a monthly basis, than would mobile satellite radio. But the prospects for mobile internet radio is still enticing.
Study the prospects of  satellite radio services.

Commercial satellite radio currently provides Conservative Talk Radio programs in  the U.S., through Sirius If similar hosting companies were to arise in Europe and have physical European offices, we believe they would likely be very susecptible to Leftist and Islamic Supremacist  pressure, as would any other European commercial sponsors. Particularly if U.S. style Conservative Talk Radio programs, which are hard hitting and explicit about the Islamic Supremacist threat, were to air on them. They would also be susceptible to "hate speech" laws.

The following links provide some insights into the prospects for commercial satellite radio in Europe:;; Despite the possible vulnerability of European based offices,  one would think that at least the hosts would  be immune to "hate speech" laws if they originated their broadcasts from outside of Europe. Although censorship concerns such as these will be examined in more depth later in this posting, we should mention here that there might be ways to legally circumvent some or all them.  The existing hosts on commercial satellite radio in the U.S. touch upon the Islamic Supremacist topic periodically, but we would naturally prefer a broader exposure to the issue than what they currently provide.

With all of this in mind, we might want to consider partnering with non-network satellite radio providers, preferably having non-European offices, who are both aware of the Islamification threat and have a vested interest in reversing it. Such providers would either have their own satellites or the ability to broadcast Free to Air programs ( on a third party's satellite. Of anyone, religious (non-Islamic) broadcasters should be distinctly aware of the threat which Islamic Supremacism holds for the entire world and would therefore appear to be receptive to a partnership. Of course, at this stage we cannot presuppose their cooperation in airing anything of a political nature, even if it has a Conservative emphasis. This would have to be evaluated by our presumed patron of this overall venture.

If a religious satellite radio provider is U.S. based, they would be the most capable of protecting free speech in the broadcasts they may host. However, there may be some income tax implications if a religious-oriented enterprise shares its resources. A possible way around this would be for them to charge a minimal, bare-bones fee for a political organization to rent channel space.

Here is a link for one existing provider of religious satellite radio: Radio Eden ( It is not certain if they own their own satellite.  This link tells how people in the U.K. can get Christian satellite radio through Sky This link shows various Christian satellite radio channels on Sky (in the U.K.)

Should an association with current FTA (Free to Air) religious satellite radio broadcasters not be deemed feasible, then the remaining option would be to develop our own service. Obviously, if anyone who pursues this Challenge Radio opts for this path, they would need the appropriate financial resources.

There is much more which could be said about securing satellite radio access for Challenge Radio, outside of the channels of established commercial satellite radio companies. This would need to be explored in greater depth by any entity which chooses to advance this venture.
Study the current devices for listening to commercial and Free to Air satellite radio

In addition to studying the framework for satellite radio broadcasts, we would also need to take into account the ability of people to listen to them. Of course, a commercial provider would have suitable equipment available for purchase. For example, Sirius has products for home or while mobile (, making it quite attractive. In Europe, such devices are not yet available (as of late 2010), due to the absence of any commercial satellite radio networks (see prior text). A commercial provider also requires a subscription, but the fees are not oppressive. An interesting report on the satellite radio industry can be found here:

There are various websites which explain how to access FTA broadcasts at home.  However, there are no current options which allow for mobile FTA broadcasts. This puts FTA satellite radio at a serious disadvantage when compared to the commercial alternative.

There is nothing to preclude our going ahead with FTA broadcasts. However, it might be more cost effective to help bolster the knowledge base of any talk show hosts who may become established on commercial satellite radio in Europe with respect to Islamic Supremacism. We will touch upon this topic later.
Study the prospects for long distance broadcasting.

Short wave radio (, Digital Radio Mondiale ( International Broadcasting ( and a few other formats revealed in the preceding links could be used to broach international borders and keep the broadcasters (likely U.S. based) immune from censorship by the authorities. This link speaks of such broadcasting being used by dissident groups around the world: These links indicate how shortwave is used by various Christian organizations:;; A detailed discussion of the technical aspects of these options would be too lengthy to put forth here. Suffice it to say that they would require a reasonable amount of financial support to get set up. Some costs could be minimized through simulcasts of shows which exist in other radio formats, but the equipment costs would remain. It is unknown as to whether multiple programs could be broadcasted simulutaneously with any of these arrangements. It may be that only a handful could be broadcasted alongside each other.

These systems have the advantage of being completely free to the listener. However, it would take a lot of public education to draw people to this option. We would say, that overall, these approaches have some potential.
Study the current devices for listening to long distance broadcasting

Information regarding tabletop and portable receivers can be found here:; ; Regarding shortwave radio receivers for cars, a few exist, as indicated in the following:;; and More research is needed in this area.

Although receivers for long distance broadcasting are currently not readily available, this could easily be changed with increased demand. The lack of any monthly fee with such broadcasting should help in securing listeners.
Study the prospects for audio teleconferencing.

There does not seem to be any precedents for the use of audio teleconferencing as a substitute for traditional radio broadcasts. Briefly defined, audio teleconferencing is a system whereby people call a central number on their telephones and are able to hear a speaker, discussion panel or any other presentation. Descriptions can be found here:;; Under this arrangement, people would simply call a designated telephone number and hear a Challenge Radio program in progress.

When evaluating audio teleconferencing, we should also look at the tools used in distance learning (common in universities). There might be various inexpensive tools and strategies in this realm which would be applicable in the establishment of Challenge Radio. See the following for further information:
Study the current devices for listening to audio teleconference broadcasts.

No extensive research is needed in this area. The listening devices would be telephones, and they exist throughout the world in abundance. They only drawback would involve per-minute cellular telephone charges. This would be a factor of each individual's arrangement with his provider.

Research legal issues pertaining to censorship
Susceptibility of each radio format to censorship.
When we speak of censorship, we have to understand that it has three basic forms. The first one is "official" censorship. In Europe, this is what refer to as "direct" censorship and is comprised of the selectively enforced "hate speech" laws. They apply almost exclusively to those who seek to warn others about Islamic Supremacists. The Islamic Supremacists are effectively exempted from such laws. The second form of censorship is "indirect" and would affect any commercial broadcast ventures which rely upon advertisers for revenue. Thus, the formats of conventional broadcast radio and satellite radio. In such situations, "offended" Islamic Supremacists and their Leftist underlings can be expected to exert public pressure (including threats of violence) on the advertisers of Conservative programs which speak honestly of Islamic Supremacism, calling them "racists" and "Islamophobes". The obvious outcome would be that the advertisers would cave in and the programs would disappear. The third form of censorship is "direct" and would consist of the threats of violence, as well as acts of violence, from Islamic Supremacists and Leftists towards hosts and their staff. The hosts and their radio station staff need only to recall Theo Van Gogh ( and the reaction of members of the "religion of peace" to the Cartoon incident ( when evaluating any planned program changes which would discuss in explicit terms the threats of Islamic Supremacism. We anticipate that upon contemplating these possibilities they would decide to remain with the status quo and essentially commit self-censorship. Readers, you must understand that there is a tremendous, unspoken fear pervading Europe which prevents honest speech on  Islamic Supremacism or even the enabling of others to speak honestly. A recent example is shown in the first few paragraphs here, about securing a hotel room:

Let's take a look at the censorship prospects of our different broadcast options.

As alluded to above, any host who broadcasts via satellite from a location in Europe would be subjected to our three types of censorship if they spoke clearly about the Islamic Supremacist threat. As would their radio station staff, if they, too, are located in Europe. Station facilities would also be vulnerable if based in Europe. An example of the reach of government concerning satellite broadcasts is evident here: Of course, if satellite broadcasts originated outside of Europe and involved no European facilities, our censorship concerns would diminish considerably.

As for the programs which are limited strictly to the internet, boycott-style pressures would be of much less a  concern to the program hosts. Furthermore, any program aired on the internet  which is not based in Europe would generally be immune to  any government regulation. The threats of violence would be easier to avoid. None of this means that with internet broadcasts  we are free of censorship concerns in Europe, as  it is theoretically possible for groups to pressure a government or internet service provider (ISP) to block access to an internet radio program. The problem with such an approach is that, unlike a static website, with video links, text and pictures, the content of an internet radio program is literally "here and gone". We have not heard of a website of any type being blocked for "past conduct", nor would there be a logical basis for blocking access for "anticipated conduct".

As for long-distance broadcasts which would be based in the U.S., there would be no fear of European "hate speech" laws. They would also be less vulnerable to threats of violence. Of course, European nations  could jam radio broadcasts, but that behavior would be unprecedented.

In audio teleconferencing, the prospects for government interference within Europe would appear to be minimal, since there is no precedent for it. Of course, this could change. The threats of violence would also be minimal.

If programs in any of the above broadcast options are void of any commercial messages, we will have the automatic elimination of the threat of withdrawing sponsor support.
Contemplate and research the viability of unique strategies to legally circumvent current "hate speech" restrictions in Europe.

Before going full bore with the Challenge Radio concept, it might be worthwhile to explore any creative ways in which the current "hate speech" laws in Europe could be legally circumvented, thereby allowing existing or potential Conservative Talk Radio hosts who reside in Europe and any European-based broadcast enterprises to commence true free speech efforts on the broadcast airways and on any of our alternative options. However, any breakthrough in  bringing free speech broadcasts over the airways would not preclude the development of our plans for Challenge Radio, as we can expect the Leftists to fight back with new tactics.

PLEASE NOTE: What follows are some admittedly "far out" concepts for consideration. Most readers will find them completely unrealistic and unreasonable. They clearly stretch the limits of imagination. But perhaps, just perhaps, some of them might have potential. At the minimum, these ideas may serve as a stimulus for creative thinking by others. Although they have been created with traditional broadcasts over the airways in mind, they might also be applicable for satellite, long distance, internet and audio teleconference broadcasts should a Leftist government seek to interfere in each respective  domain. Assuming we do find a way around existing laws, we would not foresee problems, at least immediately, with European based radio talk show hosts and their supporting business enterprises ( in any format)  spreading the Conservative agenda. However, due to the high population of Islamic Supremacists in Europe, we anticipate that any true speaking about Islamic Supremacism would remain severely constrained and limited (primarily in conventional broadcasts and satellite broadcasts), due to the potential for Islamic Supremacist / Leftist violence against the hosts, their broadcast offices and associated sponsors. Thus, honest, unbridled speaking on Islamic Supremacism would still likely come through Challenge Radio, from non-European locations.

SOUND SECTIONS: In this approach, we have to define what actually comprises a spoken "word". We can all agree that if a word (and a sentence it is in) is heard in normal speech, it will come across smoothly, without interruption in the sound which conveys it. However, would we still call it a "word" if the expressing sound is "chopped" or segmented, similar to what is heard when speaking through a spinning fan? In such a situation, small sections of the expressed word sound are lost to the listener; thus the "word" does not come across smoothly. However, the listener pieces the remaining sound segments together in his mind, and his mind translates the jumbled sound as a "word". We might be able to legally argue that a broadcast comprised of chopped sounds is purely that: chopped sounds. If anyone chooses to interpret these chopped sounds as words, that is their decision. But we cannot be charged with communicating any "hate speech" on our end.

FRONTAL LOBE ATROPHY: Frontal Lobe Atrophy is a condition which can develop with aging. No one can preclude it with 100% confidence from happening at any age. One characteristic of frontal lobe atrophy is that those so afflicted may lose their inhibitions in doing or saying things. What is to keep a physician (likely retired) in our employ from diagnosing our European-based Challenge Radio hosts and callers (while they wait to speak on-air)  with this disorder? If the authorities try to remove such a person from the air, they can be accused of oppressing a disabled person and denying him their rights.

MENTAL ILLNESS: Similar to the preceding approach, a Challenge Radio host could be diagnosed by a physician as having a psychological condition. Likewise, through telemedicine, callers could be similarly diagnosed before being allowed to speak on-air. As a result, any attempts to limit their speech could be viewed as discrimination against the mentally ill.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: A friendly nation (possibly Israel or Serbia) could grant our hosts diplomatic status and dual citizenship. Therefore, they could not be charged with violating any "hate speech" laws. Similarly, they could be allowed to conduct broadcasts from Embassy property, which is considered foreign territory. Or perhaps a talk show host or broadcast facility could be designated as a "diplomatic pouch". The one drawback is that a nation might expel the host, but this would be hard to perceive if they are actually citizens of the nation where the broadcasts are taking place.

GHOST HOST: A talk radio show could have an "official", non-descript host. Everyday, the first "caller" would effectively (though not officially) assume the role of the host throughout the program. And just coincidentally, this "effective host" would be the same person. The radio station management could claim that they have no official policy for putting forth "hate speech" with their official host. But if this daily caller says something offensive, well, that is already done. As for the prospect of future "offensive" statements, the station could claim no predictive abilities and assert that it would be "unfair" to restrict their callers in advance. Of course, there must be no paper trail connected to the "caller", such as paychecks.

WORLD WAR II CEMETERIES: I put forth this concept with great trepidation, the reason for which  will soon be evident. It is proposed that talk show hosts visit U.S. World War II military cemeteries throughout Europe and conduct their shows over the telephone from their cars. They would technically be on U.S. territory and therefore permitted to engage in true free speech. The broadcasting station could not be charged with allowing "hate speech" to originate from their station, as it would actually come from the U.S.. Now to address the controversy. Many would argue that this is clearly being disrespectful to the dead U.S. soldiers. We concede this objection may have validity. On the other hand, some may argue that these talk show hosts are actually honoring their sacrifice by trying to preserve the freedom from tyranny which the soldiers themselves defended with their sacrifices. It may be seen that these soldiers are defending the cause of freedom again, even while in death. We do not have a final answer on whether this approach would be proper or not and we  will leave it to others to hash out.

TIME DELAY BUZZER: A broadcast radio station in Europe coudl simply allow direct transmissions from the U.S. and air them directly. As for using a time delay buzzer in such an arrangement, we could always argue that whenever sentences are voiced in a live broadcast, it is not possible to determine if something going out over the air is "offensive" unless it is heard in its complete context. By the time that is evaluated, it would be too late for a time delay buzzer to block the "offending words". As for banning the speaker from further talk, we would have no guarantee as to whether he would "offend" anymore; therefore, it would be violating his rights to speak.

VOICE OF A CHILD: The official, on-air hosts could be children, just below the age of majority. Therefore, they might be immune to any criminal charges on what they say. A host, perhaps in the U.S., could speak to the child over an earphone and tell him what to say. A bit awkward, but it might work.

ARTWORK: Each program could be designated as a free-flowing  "art form". Therefore, any attempts to interfere with them (hosts and callers) could be viewed as destructive to art, in general.

MECHANICAL VOICES: The voice of the host and the callers could be transformed, through the wonders of technology, into mechanical voices. We could therefore argue that no "persons" are saying anything offensive. As to whether the mechanical voices are saying anything offensive, that would be a matter of coincidence. Where does the law say that a mechanical voice equates to the human voice, or that people can be told that they always understand a mechanical voice? Technically, we would end up with a program of mechanically generated sounds, nothing more.

INTERFERING SOUNDS: Other sounds could play on their concurrent with the spoken voice. Thus, one, seamless "sound". We could argue that the additional sounds actually mask the sound of the human voice and that anyone saying otherwise is incorrect in saying that complete words were said. We would simply ask such a person to replicate with his own mouth everything which was heard, "voice" and accompanying sounds. It can't be done.

DUAL STATIONS: People could have two radios at home, side by side. One station could play the first half second of sound in a sentence, the other station could play the second half and so on. Or, alternating words could be transmitted. The listener would hear complete sentences through two radios, but each station, technically, would only be transmitting gibberish. Special radios with this capability could be marketed. Similarly, the alternating sounds could be played on two separate though immediately adjacent frequencies. For example, 101.2 and 101.3. They would alternate the sounds between each other. The listener's single radio would pick up both transmissions in a near seamless manner.

WHISPERS: Does whispering actually constitute "speech"? See If not, then programs conducted by whispering could be performed.

INTERCEPTION: A station could perhaps broadcast a signal which it has "intercepted" (perhaps on the internet or shortwave), therefore allowing them to claim no official connection to what they air.

DURESS: There might be situations where a talk show host reports that he is being "forced" to say things under duress, but if he reveals the source or cause of the duress, there could be serious consequences. Thus, his "hate speech" is not intentional.

CODE: The radio host could say what he wants to say, but wherever he would say the name of a certain "peaceful" group which he feels is a threat to Western Civilization and should be limited in its influence in Europe, he would cause a sound to emit over the air. Everyone would know who he really means, but without it actually being said, there would be no way to legally charge him. Multiple sounds would be used and would rotate in a random manner. Station crew would act as a back-up, in case the host slips.

THERAPY: Each program could be designated by a physician or other license practitioner as "therapy". Therefore, any interference could be construed as adversely affecting the healthcare of listeners.

MULTICULTURALISM ANGLE: Since Leftist believe that any culture other than what presently dominates in their own respective nations is "superior", and since the current dominating culture has a Leftist tinge, then the case can be made for allowing the introduction of "Conservative Culture".

DISCLAIMER: The programs could be conducted in a normal manner, but the spoken words of the hosts and callers would be accompanied by a low-level, constantly running verbal "disclaimer" in an accelerated voice. The disclaimer would say something like: everything on the show is a parody; the speech  is not meant to reflect the thoughts of the speakers; statements spoken are  absolutely wrong; the content is offensive and the listener should change channels; despite what is said, everyone speaking loves Islamic Supremacists: etc. The possibilities are many. The disclaimer would basically come across as a steady hum, but would technically be a human voice putting forth a protective statement.

EDUCTIONAL: The programs could be touted as educational ventures. Therefore, any attempts to interfere could be pointed to as attempts to stifle the pursuit of knowledge.

CONVERSION: A program could be set up with the premise that the host is an "evil" Conservative and, as a public service, periodic callers would be allowed attempts to "convert" him. Thus, the station would be doing a public service to help Leftists hone their arguing techniques. However, as we know, their arguments would wither away under the force of logic.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES: [SlantRight Editor – Not Amused] The host could proclaim himself as a type of Pentecostal (though not officially connected with any conventional, established Pentecostal group, so as not to make uninvited associations). All of his utterances could be declared as "speaking in tongues", per his own understanding. Quite amazingly, such speech would be perceived by listeners as very close to the common language of the nation. Any attempted interference in his speech would be deemed as being an insult to his religion.

TRANCE: The host could be a self-proclaimed spiritualist, and the voice he always happens to conjure up is that of a specific individual. Therefore, any charges of "hate speech" would need to be placed against a dead person. And any refutation of the claims of communication with the dead would be an assault upon the host's religious beliefs (a form of hate speech in itself).

Research miscellaneous topics prior to the launch of Challenge Radio
Catalog current Conservative Talk Show hosts / programs

Assuming we are in agreement in moving towards a European enterprise, we would suggest that our organizing entity conduct a thorough compilation  of current Conservative Talk Radio hosts / programs within the U.S. and any other non-European nations where political correctness has not yet taken control of the airways, satellite offerings or the internet. The hosts / programs should include those which are found in air broadcasts, satellite and the internet. We anticipate some hosts / shows will have representation in more than one of these available forums. Generally speaking, most of the current Conservative Talk Radio hosts share our views regarding Islamic Supremacists. The organizers should also establish a system for monitoring the comings and goings of hosts / programs.

Next, we can compile a list of  European Conservative Talk Show hosts / programs (if any exist). However, as alluded to above, it is unlikely with the existing threat of imprisonment for honest speech that any will be found who would be willing to buck the system and truly speak their mind regarding Islamic Supremacists. Nevertheless, they can still speak their minds regarding many of the Leftist policies which have caused Europe to lose the stature it once possessed.

Our recommended strategy - an overview

It should be evident from the preceding text that the four available broadcast options for the legal circumvention of broadcast restrictions in Europe (and elsewhere) have their own respective strengths and weaknesses. They revolve around producer costs, listener costs, transmission effectiveness and the accessibility of broadcasts by listeners. After taking these factors into account, we have devised a multi-stage strategy which would appear to be viable. When speaking of "multi-stage", we can have a system which is implemented one stage at a time, or all stages could be implemented simultaneously. This decision will be in the hands of the ultimate organizers. Please be aware that our greatest chance for success with this plan would come with the implementation of a strong promotional and marketing effort, as discussed in later text.

Assuming we have some form of organizational support, it is suggested that we  begin with internet broadcasts. This would  be by far the least expensive operation to get established, with most activities revolving around the establishment of a suitable web page. A sizable portion of the population already has computers which would enable immediate listening. Internet-enabled home internet radios, portable devices and internet car radios would extend the reach of such programming. The main drawback would be the per minute charges of mobile listening.

The next step in line is  our "dark horse" candidate, audio teleconferencing. We would also include with this option the consideration of any feasible long distance education strategies. Although we do not have any available production cost data, we suspect that this option would pose minimal expense. If we have an effective marketing program, this system would provide the greatest accessibility to listeners. All they would need is a telephone.

Should sufficient financial resources be available, we should next move to satellite broadcasts. This approach has two avenues. The first one would be of minimal expense and involves  satellite broadcasts from European commercial satellite networks, should they come into fruition (see prior text). We would simply establish a system whereby any  Conservative Talk Show hosts who are allowed on these networks would receive concise reports on a regular basis regarding the threat of Islamic Supremacism.  This would help to ensure that their listeners will become more aware of the threat. In fact,  this system would also be used with hosts who use the other broadcast options. But there is a special need with commercial satellite broadcasts, since the European companies would pick and choose their own hosts and we would have no input in the matter. This educational service is elaborated upon in later text. It is important that we do this, for it is only the commercial networks which can broadcast via satellite to mobile devices, including cars.

Our second avenue with satellite radio involves our own FTA satellite radio broadcasts, effected by payment to satellite owners for transmission rights. It would be nice if Israel could help out here ( As it stands, these broadcasts can only be received by fixed devices within the  home. The lack of any fees having to be paid by listeners is one benefit of note. If this cannot be effected, we should seek out partners with religious satellites broadcasters who cover Europe, but do not have European offices (if possible).

Finally, we could proceed with long distance broadcasting. This would appear to be the costliest option. Still, reception could be effected within the home and while mobile. The listening appliances may currently be a bit uncommon, but suitable promotion would change this picture. And of course, the free reception has a strong appeal.

The following text elaborates upon the measures required to bring this into fruition.

Organizational stage - technology oriented
Configure the mechanics for  internet broadcasts.

WEBSITE: The central component of an internet broadcast framework would be the website which people would access to locate a program. In designing such a website, we must stress SIMPLICITY. People expect something almost as simple as a conventional radio, particularly those of the older set. What follows are  a few suggestions for consideration. Of course, we acknowledge that others may present better designs. Remember, this is for a website design. We are not certain of the type of arrangement which would be most suitable for a portable, non-computer listening device.

The potential viewer could be first presented with a language option. After a suitable choice is made, a list of countries with programs in the respective language would be presented, along with an option for all countries with the language. Next, a list of all the available host / show names would be presented. The ones currently on the air would be highlighted, with a notation regarding the remaining duration. It could also have a notation indicating the host's five favorite topics, in rank order. One might be Islamic Supremacism. Also, there could be a notation indicating some impartial industry ranking of the popularity of the respective hosts. The next click would take the listener to the program.

We would need to polish up this last step. It appears that as things currently stand, if a listener wishers to hear a particular popular airway broadcasted talk show host on the internet, they need to go to a local radio station's website to listen. Usually, such station pages are cluttered and visually distracting. The basis for such an arrangement is to expose more people to a local station's advertisers. It would be unfair to such stations, which pay the salaries which keep the hosts on the air, to have a service on the internet which bypasses the websites of the carrying stations. In order to provide Challenge Radio listeners with a smooth transition, bypassing the clutter and time consuming efforts to get to the show, we put forth a few things for consideration. First,  the Challenge Radio website could detect the listeners ISP and automatically direct them to the sound (and video) of the nearest local station with the program. Hopefully, an agreement could be reached with the station whereby a user of Challenge Radio could go directly to the station's audio option for the program and bypass their main webpage with the associated clutter. Another option would be to randomly assign listeners to stations, without regard to locale (ad with a direct connection to a program's audio). With regards to European listeners, one would think there would be no objection toward providing them with audio from one source.

An example of a particularly well-organized website for internet radio selections can be found here: Further information about this company and its offerings are here:; However, criticism of it, as well similar websites, can be found in this forum: Other websites of interest are here:;

INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE DEVICES: We must understand that a large number of people who would be interested in European Conservative Talk Radio may be older and not accustomed to the available mobile devices which can be used for listening. Therefore, the website should include sufficient information on the available options, including brand names and models. Links for mail-order purchase should also be included. Basically, the information should be very easy to understand and follow.
Configure the mechanics for audio teleconferencing.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR AUDIO TELECONFERENCE BROADCASTS: The arrangements for setting up these broadcasts would appear to be simple: just have a host speak over a telephone or have his voice transmitted to a phone setup via the internet. However, there are various concerns which must first be addressed. A central concern is the number of listeners which the system could accommodate. It may be that a massive capacity system would require a sizable infusion of money or resources. Perhaps a governmental entity such as Israel could assist in this area, if needed. Another concern is the ability to retain phone lines for people to utilize in order to listen, as we expect that  a government might seek to limit the operation of Challenge Radio. Should government interference be attempted, it would be seen as a matter of getting involved in a private telephone call and such a precedent would not come across well with the general public. This is because the government  would be dictating what could be said in  private conversations, which, technically, is the true nature of these broadcasts. It would be ideal if the call in number were toll-free, but this may entail excessive costs. Non-European telephone numbers would also be appealing, but that would cost listeners quite a bit to call. For the purposes of Challenge Radio, we would not need the option whereby callers could stay on line and submit questions or engage in conversations with the Challenge Radio host. Although we are not certain, we perceive that such an option would increase costs. Instead, a caller would simply disconnect from the program and call in like they would any other radio program. As for the location of the program host, he could actually be outside of the country where the program is being heard.

WEBSITE: A website could be designed for the purpose of promoting Challenge Radio via audio teleconferencing. We would suggest something which falls along the lines of what we have suggested for the internet broadcast website, as described above.

PROTECTING LISTENERS: If there are concerns about governmental entities going after people who call in to listen to Challenge Radio, they could consider using the option which blocks the caller's telephone number from the recipient (Challenge Radio). In the U.S., this is effected by dialing *67 before calling the regular telephone number. We suspect, however, that this might not offer significant protection against governmental authorities. Protective measures should be mentioned on the website.

INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE DEVICES: The available devices would consist of telephones. They are readily available.
Configure the mechanics for satellite broadcasts.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR FTA BROADCASTS: The technological aspects of securing access to satellites for broadcasts is far too complex for discussion here. Suffice it to say that access should be obtainable on a regular basis for a fee. Whether sufficient financial resources can be secured is an unknown at the time of this writing. This concern might be waived if the cooperation of a nation like Israel could be obtained. Should FTA broadcasts  be feasible, we foresee that the programs can be relayed by talk show hosts, no matter where they are located, to the satellite coordinators via internet technology. There would be no need for the coordinators to provide any studio services of its own.

WEBSITE: A website should be established which outlines the schedule for all the relevant broadcasts on both FTA and commercial satellite radio. It should include information pertaining to how people can access appropriate listening devices.

AUGMENTING THE ABILITIES OF CURRENT CONSERVATIVE HOSTS ON EUROPEAN COMMERCIAL SATELLITE NETWORKS: We have noted previously that only commercial satellite networks can be picked up on mobile receivers, including those in cars. The programs which are included in each network's lineup are therefore rather easy for subscribers to access whenever they desire. Obviously, we do not have the ability or authority to add any additional programs to a network's schedule. Therefore, the most we can hope for would be to make certain that the existing Conservative Talk Radio hosts on European satellite radio are  fully versed in the threat of Islamic Supremacism. In order to ensure an accurate portrayal of this cancer on humanity, we suggest that our hypothetical host organization compile a daily list of news report links concerning the cruelties committed by Islamic Supremacists as well as other aspects of their march toward global domination. New editorial commentary should also be included, as should reports of the growing resistance to these efforts. Once compiled, these links should be sent to a select number of Conservative Talk Radio hosts via e-mail. By conducting all of the research for them, we will enable them to devote more time to gaining an understanding of how Islamic Supremacism is a threat to Western Civilization. The end result is that the listeners of Conservative Talk Radio on European satellite networks (whenever they arrive) will themselves gain a greater comprehension of this threat. This is about the only way in which we can ensure any input in European commercial satellite radio.

Despite this tactic for providing concise information having been inspired by the potential for European satellite Conservative Radio programming, we should expand it to also include the hosts on U.S. satellite talk radio as well as the hosts on our other available formats. This will be addressed in later text.
Configure the mechanics for long distance broadcasts.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR LONG DISTANCE BROADCASTS: As with FTA satellite broadcasts (above), the  technological aspects of setting up long distance broadcasts  are far too complex for discussion here. Since it would require the establishment of actual radio stations, it would appear to be the most costly of our alternatives. It is unknown whether multiple programs can be simultaneously aired from one station. If not, then our cost would increase if more variety is sought.

WEBSITE: A website should be established which outlines the schedule for all the long distance broadcasts.  It should include information pertaining to how people can obtain the appropriate listening devices.
Suggestions for actions which can apply to any chosen broadcast option (excluding commercial satellite)
BLOG READING: Challenge Radio could also offer a unique service: simply reading out loud the best blog articles of the day. This would of course require a number of speakers to accomplish. But the task is relatively simple. The spoken translation of such blogs into the various available languages would be frosting on the cake.

PHONING IN: A simple arrangement would also be needed for callers to utilize. One would think that Skype or some other free service would be the best option for Europeans seeking to speak with U.S. based hosts of European broadcasts.

Organizational stage - host oriented
Make arrangements for the participation of Conservative Talk Show hosts in Challenge Radio.
With the list of Conservative Talk Show hosts /programs which had previously been compiled, steps could then be taken to secure their participation in Challenge Radio.  Since many people in Europe already speak English, we can be assured of a reasonable number of potential listeners who would be receptive to the American hosts. We anticipate that these hosts would do quite well with international topics and expressing the Conservative philosophy. However, we also foresee their having a minimal grasp of various national and local concerns (regarding Europe). Furthermore, it is unlikely that they would ever touch upon the various pressing national and local concerns which are on the minds of Europeans.

Of course, we would prefer to have hosts speak from within Europe, but the Thought Police, armed with their "hate crime" laws would prohibit a free flow of information regarding Islamic Supremacists (unless our circumvention strategies, as discussed previously, are effective). Even if the laws can be legally circumvented, we would still have the threat of violence from Islamic Supremacists and Leftists against the hosts and any local broadcast offices. Nevertheless, we should still seek them out for their ability to counter the Leftist philosophy which has paved the way for Europe's destruction. Discussions along those lines, which do not touch on Islamic Supremacist beliefs, would be difficult for the Leftists to "justify" in calling for violence.

Our next step should be to  aggressively recruit European expatriates who live within the U.S. or within any other nation which still allows truly free speech.  In addition, if we come across  any truly talented, retirement age hosts favoring our agenda from within Europe, who  are constrained by their surroundings, we should do our best to facilitate their moving to the U.S.

In order for any expatriate hosts to convey a true understanding of their home nation to its own citizens, they will need to be well versed on the latest happenings there. Many of such insights could be obtained through their reading of local publications over the internet and watching local television newscasts, again, over the internet. To fully round out things, they would do well to have a volunteer ground staff in Europe to provide further insights.
Grade the potential Challenge Radio hosts on their areas of particular interest.

We have suggested in our website design the inclusion of information regarding each host's areas of particular interest and/or expertise. At this stage in the development of Challenge Radio, we would need to make such inquiries of the hosts.
Develop a system for hosts which will steer to them the latest news in a concise format; particularly news regarding Europe

Most hosts have already developed their own systems for securing news reports for their show preparation. However, there might be ways to create a streamlined system which could benefit those who do not have a large research staff. Therefore, as stated in prior text with respect to commercial satellite radio, we should  encourage the provision of supplemental information  regarding Islamic Supremacists to conservative hosts on any broadcast format. Distribution via internet would be the ideal mechanism.

Promotion and launch stage for  Challenge Radio
_____________________A message to be conveyed._____________________
Obviously, it would be far too early to discuss the exact message which we would need to convey in our promotions. However, we see two different options which merit consideration. The first one  would be to make no mention of Challenge Radio. Instead, simply promote a theme such as "Freedom of Speech". Something which conveys the existence of alternative talk radio and how it may be accessed, but does not promote any specific political philosophy. The advantage of this approach is that the violence-prone Leftists would not have a rational basis for interfering with the promotion. After all, their own broadcasts (which could theoretically exist) would be indirect beneficiaries of the promotion. Should they attempt interference anyway, the established elites in the media would be hard pressed to publicly defend their actions. After all, they have always loudly proclaimed themselves to be champions of free speech (what a joke!). Our other option is to simply go with promoting Challenge Radio at the outset. The disadvantage to this approach, alluded to above, is the high potential for Leftist violence and disruption. But it would make the presence of Challenge Radio known immediately to our allies in the general public, the people we need to mobilize to action. 1683 AD prefers this latter approach.
Develop a promotional campaign on the internet.
The most obvious place to begin a promotional campaign is on the internet. Since it is so broad in scope, an awareness of the Challenge Radio endeavor should become common, at least in  Conservative circles, in short order. We can facilitate this awareness by making  a concerted effort to urge all of the Conservative and ant-Islamic Supremacist blogs, as well as allied organizations, to promote Challenge Radio on their websites on a continuous basis. We stress "continuous". This should not be a one-time announcement which is soon forgotten. Consequently, banners and other visual aids which websites could utilize in promotion should be made available for use. Obviously, we should have a heavy European emphasis.
Develop a street-oriented marketing campaign for the concept of free speech internet radio, in general.

One might consider simply promoting Challenge Radio on the internet (as described above), putting the associated Challenge Radio website(s) on-line and just letting the venture take off on its own. That might work, but we have to realize that in today's world, with people encountering  a massive number of attempts by others to get their attention on a daily basis, we  would have an uphill battle if that was all we did.

The Leftist controlled media in Europe will obviously do nothing to publicize the existence of Challenge Radio on the internet. Therefore, depending on media promotion is out of the question. Our only viable alternative is to  move our message out beyond the confines of the internet and into the real world. By this, we mean the use of bumper stickers, pamphlets, protests and other forums which are prevalent in the "street".  Designs for various printed materials could be made available on a separate website from Challenge Radio, so that people could make  their own.

Now for the hard part: getting these materials distributed. The best option would be to secure the participation of any political parties who are allied to our cause, along with any anti-Islamic Supremacist groups which might be in existence. With their manpower, a sufficient amount of promotional materials could be distributed to get the overall effort a jump start. After that point, we anticipate that there would be a considerable spread of awareness via word of mouth.
Launch the website and programs.
The actual launching of websites associated with the various broadcast formats  should commence in a reasonable time period shortly before any of the above mentioned promotional campaigns. From that point on, Europe will have a greatly improved chance of saving itself.

Late entry options for consideration

Just prior to the completion of the preceding text, additional alternative broadcast options for Europe were discovered by 1683 AD. Regarding the first one,  microbroadcasting (, this is essentially local radio broadcasting which is restricted to a relatively small geographic area. Information regarding the approach can be found here: ;;;; and ; Assuming it is legal in a nation where people would like to adopt it, microbroadcasting has considerable advantages. It would allow a clear message to be broadcasted in a defined area. Even if only a few miles, this would expose a lot of people if within the confines of an urban area. We foresee the possibility of such systems being set up with connections to Challenge Radio internet transmissions. We should explore mobile applications with this. In order to get this concept going, we would need to have websites in multiple languages which explain in a "spoon feed" manner how one could set up such a system. Of course, Islamic Supremacists could launch a similar effort with their own microbroadcasts. That would serve our side well, for it would make Europeans even more aware of the Islamic Supremacist intrusion into their lives and the prospects for their eventual rule.

A similar approach is inspired by a product from a few decades back, called Mr. Microphone ( It appears that it would be possible for a device called a "digital audio computer" has the capability of transmitting radio signals a very small distance. If something like this could be adapted for automobiles, then messages could be transmitted anonymously to fellow commuters in their cars, should they have their radios on. This site gives a brief overview: This site discusses how an iPod can be adapted as a short distance radio transmitter: In essence, there are various ways in which someone can transmit radio signals at least a short distance while mobile. We would need someone to research all of the possibilities and present the mechanics on how one can set up their own system, via a website as described above. Of course, legal considerations should be taken into account.

If a mobile option is chosen, the participant should ensure that his vehicle is not affixed with stickers or anything else which would suggest to people nearby that such a car is the transmission source.
 Do NOT Allow European Free Speech Limitations in USA
John R. Houk
© October 24, 2010
Challenge Radio

1683 AD Defender of Western Civilization

1683 ad sees the islamic supremacist agenda and the overall islamification of the western world which is taking place to constitute the greatest threat to the inalienable rights of man which the world has ever faced. We only have a decade or two to reverse thius trend. Otherwise, a curtain of intolerance, subjugation and cruelty will descend across much of the civilized world, particularly europe, israel and africa. even the nations of india, thailand, the phillipines and others are vulnerable. the history of islamic rule gives no reassurance that their new subjects will escape this fate. even the "moderate" muslim nations of turkey and malaysia, at the time of this writing, are already trending towards governance which is tinged with a great disregard to non-muslims. none of this sets well with 1683 ad. therefore, we will strive to do everything possible to promote measures which have the potential to waking up the general population within western society to this onrushing fate.

No comments:

Post a Comment