The announcement on Stormfront of the campaign of Frazier Glenn Miller for a Missouri U.S. Senate seat was expected to trigger discussion and even some criticism. Initially, a number of trolls operating under anonymous nicknames inundated the thread, smearing and defaming Glenn Miller. However, joining the naysayers later on were a couple of more responsible critics, both of whom have engaged in sustained public activism under their real names. Longtime White activist April Gaede expressed some reservations of her own, based primarily on Miller's "earthy" syntax, but considering her sustained activism under her own name at personal risk, I am willing to concede that she's earned the privilege of being a bit "crotchety" from time to time, although in response to her statement "Choosing to stand by men like this is going to leave you out in the cold one day, and, if White Nationalists ever do have any sort of power, I can assure you that swift justice will be dealt to them both", I would say that "swift justice would also be dealt to ladies who ride on horseback down Main Street clad in only their birthday suits". 'Nuff said about that; none of us are perfect.
The other responsible critic is Stormfront webmaster Don Black himself. The crux of Don Black's objection to Miller's campaign is that the individuals who Miller testified against in the late '80s, none of who went to jail solely because of Miller's testimony, were personal friends of Black, so I believe Don Black might consider it a betrayal of those friends to support Miller's candidacy. Here's what Don Black posted about the issue.
First, a specific response to Ron Doggett:
I guess I'm allowed to respond, since I and my family use our real names, and since I was definitely alive when all this sordid mess was playing out in the mid-eighties, and I've read both sides.
I suppose defending a friend despite everything is admirable. But I guess those Glenn testified against, and whom he now defames, were not your friends.
They were mine, and they've all unanimously condemned Glenn, regardless of whether or not they ended up serving long prison terms as a result of his testimony.
And, as I'm sure you know, I could have been one of them, had Glenn actually done what the Order intended. I figure I would have gotten 20 years for "receiving stolen money" and "conspiracy," since I wouldn't have testified against anybody else then, either, though I would have felt I'd been set up.
I had just come out of a previous learning experience in which I faced fifty years imprisonment, and my lawyer thought I'd get a big chunk of that if we went to trial. But I was offered a deal, if I'd just testify against a couple other friends of mine (and yours). I never considered it.
Three of us went to trial and, amazingly, were acquitted by a jury of the worst charges, with one of us (my closest friend at the time, who'd only gone to trial because the government had insisted he testify against me if he plea bargained) acquitted on all counts. Mike's dead now, having later served five years for "accessory after the fact" for helping Richard Scutari unload some furniture from a truck.
I can imagine what he'd think about those now promoting Glenn Miller. Same with my other now deceased friends -- Bob Miles and Richard Butler, and, not exactly a personal friend though I knew him for decades, William Pierce.
I understand fully most who get themselves into legal trouble will turn informant when faced with the prospect of long prison terms, despite how tough they may have talked. Happened in my Dominica case. Happened with most members of the Order. But I will not allow those who had the courage to stand tall, despite the consequences, to now be defamed by someone who didn't.
Fair enough; this is a legitimate explanation. But first, what about disparity of resources? Don Black may have had more resources at his disposal to wage a prolonged legal fight than Glenn Miller. Second, Glenn Miller had a wife and school-age kids economically dependent upon him; how would they have been impacted if Glenn Miller had waged a last-ditch fight, lost, and got Zogged for 40 years? And that brings up the third point. The deals offered by the Feds aren't a choice between two years and five years, but a choice between two years and 40 years (Matt Hale). We do strive to support our POWs if they get Zogged, but we can't get them out of jail. The Order members were grossly overcharged and oversentenced; David Lane died in prison. I would like to think I, personally, would never accept a deal, but then again I don't have school-age kids depending upon me for survival.
Don Black then moves on to more practical considerations, questioning the cost-effectiveness of Miller's campaign strategy (although he also offers to run Miller's campaign ads for a fair price):
We spend $2000/month for airtime for the Derek Black Show, and we'll probably be spending more for syndication and expanding to five days a week. And we and our guests, like David Duke, Jim Traficant, and Texe Marrs, talk about Jews all the time (though we don't call our audience "yellow" if they don't agree). We'll even sell you ads for $20 per 60-second spot, which is the going rate for our station, and you won't even need to file for political candidacy in Florida.
You're over-estimating the audience for broadcast radio, though. Stations charge what the market will bear, and you get what you pay for...maybe.
I've also run campaign ads, back in 79 when I ran for mayor of Birmingham, spending many thousands in 1970s dollars when everybody listened to AM radio in their cars. Even then, the audience was limited. Then later I was around for the David Duke campaigns. Nowadays, most people listen to their own recorded music, to satellite radio, or to Internet radio. If I thought it worth the price, we could easily do it here, since we obviously don't mind the attention, even here in the "fastest growing Jewish population center in the world" (which means this is probably the most "anti-Semitic" place in the world).
However, I don't think it's worth the money unless you're running in a campaign you've got a shot of winning. Then you'll be taken seriously.
It's true that more people are migrating from AM/FM radio to alternative radio. But there are still many who listen to traditional AM/FM radio, particularly when commuting. In Anchorage, Alaska, commercials aired during "drive time" command a higher price than those airing at other times; I'm certain it works that way elsewhere.
Regarding the "shot at winning", Don Black is undoubtedly referring to the fact that Miller is running a "write-in" campaign instead of a conventional full-dress campaign. But how many pro-White candidates actually have a shot at winning anywhere in the United States? John Ubele ran a conventional full-dress campaign for Florida House District 46 in 2008, and he still only got about four percent of the vote. So by running a write-in campaign, Glenn Miller is saving himself the money and the hassle of campaign reporting attendant to a more conventional campaign. But Black is right in the sense that only conventional full-dress campaigns get media respect; in Anchorage, municipal candidates who take the municipal exemption get lesser media coverage than those who run normal campaigns.
There's also another issue which I addressed on this other VNN Forum thread. What is necessary to understand here is that Glenn Miller and Don Black are appealing to different constituencies. People like Don Black, Derek Black, Jared Taylor, and Hunter Wallace are trying to appeal to the "VIP" constituency (Valuable Intellectual Properties). They desire to sanitize White Nationalism to make it more palatable to the elite. Some will even go so far as to deny that they're "racist", rather than consider embracing racism, re-defining it, and de-stigmatizing it. While these are actually commendable goals, they have unfortunately left behind the "rednecks", without whose help we cannot succeed.
In contrast, Miller directs his campaign primarily at the rednecks. Because of his experience, he not only knows how to talk their language, but is willing to do so. While others say "Zionist", he says "Jew". This is important, because the rednecks have been co-opted by consumerism and niggerball. Turn on your typical NFL game, and the commercial message you get is that the definition of a man is merely one who drinks Miller MGD and drives a big black Dodge Ram pickup truck. Meanwhile, while they're preoccupied with watching niggerball, their daughters are dating blacks, and their sons are dating mestizos. Or worse yet, they're being taught in our schools to turn queer.
The rednecks need someone to blast them out of their complacency. The VIPs no longer talk directly to the rednecks. Miller's campaign can go a long way towards doing that (as Tom Metzger's campaign will also do in Indiana).
Nevertheless, both Don Black and April Gaede have at least criticized Glenn Miller without disrespecting his activism. This constructive approach is worthy of emulation and will go a long way towards mitigating divisions within the White Nationalist community.