"Dan Weir" wrote in message
om...

I've got you there...if a 7-mile-wide asteroid hit Earth, certainly 90
percent of the world's population would perish. Ask any scientist
who's studied the so-called "Crater of Doom" that wiped out the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And that's not the fevered (but
brilliant) imagination of Steven Spielberg...that is the collective
conclusion of hundreds of geologists, astronomers, historians, climate
specialists, paleontologists (sp?), and so on, and so forth.


No doubt. An impact from a 7 mile wide asteroid would be very bad news.


I suspect that the "Planet X" you are referring to is indeed an
asteroid (but it just may indeed be a planet - see below).

Planet X is supposedly an Earth sized planet, if I recall correctly. To be
fair to the SW prophets though, Planet X wasn't supposed to actually impact
with Earth, just fly by and spin the poles around enough to make the world
largely inhabitable. The flyby vs. impact distinction isn't one the SW
broadcasters often make.

What is the
boundary between an asteroid and a planet anyway? Asteriods have
gravity, they have moons, and the larger ones have atmospheres. All
characteristics of planets. Remember, the word "asteroid" comes from
the Greek expression for "star-like" because these relatively small
heavenly bodies looked like pinpoints of light compared to the planets
in our Solar System.
Back to Chuck: Before Y2K, he told his audience about a
science-fiction book written in the 1950's called "The Big Red Eye."
This horror tome was about a 4,000-mile-wide planet that had been torn
from its solar system near the center of our galaxy and had travelled
billions of light-years since almost the beginning of the universe
(the "big bang"). Somehow, by an incredibly bad streak of luck, the
planet surfed and coasted on the gravitational pull of various stars,
supernovae, planets, and various and sundry space junk, to land smack
dab in the middle of OUR solar system - and on a collision course with
Earth.

Yes! I suspect all such fantasies were rooted in Percival Lowell's search
for what he called Planet X, before WW2. He was looking for slight
perturbations in the orbits of other planets. No doubt some imaginative
people said "What if something's coming our way?"


At first, of course, the planet (which, like Mars, is red in
appearance) looks like a faint red star. Then it gradually gets
brighter, and eventually it appears as a small red disk visible at
night - the "Big Red Eye" - and by then Earth is racked with mile-high
tidal waves that wipe out New York, Washington, Israel, the west coast
of Africa, and Australia. Of course, there is a complete breakdown of
society and the global economy, and mankind reverts back to the early
Bronze Age.

That's the Planet X Prophesy!

And that's as far as Chuck Harder got with the book. Mind you, I
haven't read it (I'd love to), yet I find Chuck's lurid description at
once repelling and compelling. Remember, Chuck Harder was comparing
"The Big Red Eye" to the Y2K fiasco. That proves that he is NO
MODERATE. He, like the "shortwave prophets" you eloquently describe,
is a lunatic-fringe, end-of-the-world, Armageddonist, survivalist
KOOK!

In comparison to the other SW hosts, Chuck Harder is a moderate
lunatic-fringe, end-of-the-world, Armageddonist, survivalist KOOK. He's
hardly in the big league of false scary predictions with Brother Stair, Alex
Jones, James Lloyd, Texe Marrs or any of a dozen SWers. Chuck Harder's
scary stories are too infrequent, and carry too little impact for him to run
with the big dogs. Chuck Harder is a single shot .22 in a world of .50
caliber machine guns.



That is my opinion. Sorry you don't like it, but life's a bitch - and
then you marry one!

Wait 'till you find out the penalty for bigamy!

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...


In comparison to the other SW hosts, Chuck Harder is a moderate
lunatic-fringe, end-of-the-world, Armageddonist, survivalist KOOK. He's
hardly in the big league of false scary predictions with Brother Stair, Alex
Jones, James Lloyd, Texe Marrs or any of a dozen SWers. Chuck Harder's
scary stories are too infrequent, and carry too little impact for him to run
with the big dogs. Chuck Harder is a single shot .22 in a world of .50
caliber machine guns.


Very well put...which raises a rather scary point about Chuck Harder.
Unlike the "shortwave howlers," Chuck has considerable media
experience, mostly acquired in Tampa, FL - where he was in consumer
advocacy, advertising, local radio, TV, recording, production, sales,
promotion, and public relations - from 1963 to 1991.
His media experience shows up in his daily delivery - smooth,
polished, non-threatening, authoritative.
The bad news? First (apolgies to Mayor Pam Iorio), Tampa is a very
conservative, provincial town whose politics were molded by
anti-Communist Cuban immigrants. Far-Right groups such as the Liberty
Lobby and the John Birch Society have traditionally done well in the
Tampa area; during the (over-hyped) militia craze in the mid-1990's
following the Oklahoma City bombing, it was revealed that dozens,
perhaps hundreds, of such groups existed in the Tampa metro area - a
far greater concentration than other metro areas in the U.S. Upshot?
Unlike other major U.S. cities, there was no moderating factor in
Tampa to shape Chuck's political opinions, and he steadly lurched to
the far Right until he signed on with the Liberty Lobby in the late
1980's.
Yes, Chuck is a moderate compared to the "shorwave howlers," but I
still feel he shares much of their hard-Right, nationalistic,
anti-everything political outlook. In other words, if you were to have
a Bush/Kerry-style debate between Chuck and Texe Marrs, for instance,
concentrating on domestic and foreign policy, the two would agree much
more than disagree.
Remember, Chuck opens his mike to crazies such as Dr. Dennis Cuddy and
Craig Winn, as well as meat-and-potatoes centrists and conservatives
such as Clifford May, Michelle Malkin, and Josh Block of the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth. Again, apologies to the
folks down in Tampa.

Dan Weir

"Dan Weir" wrote in message
om...


Very well put...which raises a rather scary point about Chuck Harder.
Unlike the "shortwave howlers," Chuck has considerable media
experience, mostly acquired in Tampa, FL - where he was in consumer
advocacy, advertising, local radio, TV, recording, production, sales,
promotion, and public relations - from 1963 to 1991.

[snip]

I don't know if broadcasting from the Tampa area has effected Chuck Harder's
political outlook much or not. Rush Limbaugh had his biggest early sucess
in California and he went national from New York City.

I think Chuck's problem in competing in the media is his show's lack of
focus. He oftentimes talks of consumer/business topics, but not like Bruce
Williams. Politics comes up, but not like on the Rush Limbaugh show. Chuck
works around the fringes, but he doesn't do weird science like Art Bell.
It's tough to develop a loyal audience when subject matter shifts around so
much. Some listeners will tune out at the mention of one subject or
another. I think Chuck talks about what he wants to talk about, and doesn't
have a good feel for his intended audience.


Yes, Chuck is a moderate compared to the "shorwave howlers," but I
still feel he shares much of their hard-Right, nationalistic,
anti-everything political outlook. In other words, if you were to have
a Bush/Kerry-style debate between Chuck and Texe Marrs, for instance,
concentrating on domestic and foreign policy, the two would agree much
more than disagree.
Remember, Chuck opens his mike to crazies such as Dr. Dennis Cuddy and
Craig Winn, as well as meat-and-potatoes centrists and conservatives
such as Clifford May, Michelle Malkin, and Josh Block of the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth. Again, apologies to the
folks down in Tampa.

Dan Weir

That's Chuck's problem. His shows are a little bit of this, a little bit of
that. I think much of his audience has found hosts who more consistantly
talk about what they want to hear. Chuck's weird science fans went to Coast
to Coast. His government conspiracy types went to Alex Jones. If Chuck had
a following in the antisemite community, I'm sure they've gone to the likes
of Pastor Peter J. Peters by now. These guys at least know who their
audience is, and what they want to hear.

Ironically, Chuck Harder was hurt by the boom in domestic broadcasting.
There's alot more people out there with radio shows and alot more room for
narrow focus shows. Some of those guys are pretty good. It's like the
famous cartoon in which a father is walking with his distraught, baseball
gloved son, who says "I was throwing a no-hitter, 'till the big kids got out
of school".

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...

I think Chuck's problem in competing in the media is his show's lack of
focus. He oftentimes talks of consumer/business topics, but not like Bruce
Williams. Politics comes up, but not like on the Rush Limbaugh show. Chuck
works around the fringes, but he doesn't do weird science like Art Bell.
It's tough to develop a loyal audience when subject matter shifts around so
much. Some listeners will tune out at the mention of one subject or
another. I think Chuck talks about what he wants to talk about, and doesn't
have a good feel for his intended audience.


Recapping all this, it's obvious to me that Chuck Harder went in way
over his head when he decided to take all his money and start his
nationally syndicated "For The People" show back in March 1987. He
DOES disregard his audience when it comes to "hot" topics, endlessly
repeating his economic-nationalism mantra, often using the exact same
words over and over again ("you can't do business with people who
don't have any money"; "I have seen reality, Doctor, and I don't like
what I see"; "NAFTA and GATT have destroyed this nation"; "when people
have nothing left to lose, they have nothing left to lose"; and so
on).
Chuck has a wonderful radio voice (at least in my opinion), and he's
good at tinkering, but his politics are a mishmash of vague
anti-government hatred, ignorance, trite phrases, misunderstandings,
gaffes, and non-sequiturs.
Chuck would do well to hang up his mike, and go back to commercials,
voice-overs, specials, and what not. And he MUST stay away from ANY
literary venture, because he's an atrocious writer. For proof of that,
just go to his Web site and click on some of the links at the top. For
all you English teachers, copy editors, pundits, authors and anyone
else who makes a living with words, please disregard this advice -
Chuck's literacy deficit will drive you crazy. But if you must go
there, be forewarned!
This may sound odd, but my hat's off to IDT/Liberty for putting up
with this guy, and living under the cloud of a potential ADA-inspired
lawsuit from him. I have a feeling that IDT/Liberty would rather Chuck
not be on their network, since there are thousands and thousands of
much more well-qualified, intelligent, glib talk show hosts out there
who're champing at the bit to take over Chuck's slot. And I venture to
guess that there are many more fed-up listeners like me who are sick
and tired of Chuck's bizarre, never-ending resurrection of Ross Perot.
Probably the best take on Chuck Harder is from another radio talk show
host, "King Daevid" MacKenzie-Aachen (I THINK that's his full name -
I'm terrible with names). KDMA basically says that Chuck is an
incompetent boob who can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. I
tend to agree. And I've never heard KDMA on the radio; I've just
picked up on his comments on the Internet. But I'll bet a dollar to a
doughnut that KDMA is a damn sight better than Chuck Harder. Wonder if
IDT/Liberty is talking to KDMA? Hmmmm...

(Dan Weir) wrote in message

endlessly
repeating his economic-nationalism mantra, often using the exact same
words over and over again

The ugly truth - and the reason I, and most American Jews - despise
Chuck Harder, is that Chuck's brand of economic nationalism is taken
straight out of "Mein Kampf."
I've read this tome, and when it doesn't talk about the world Jewish
conspiracy, it lays the foundation for what we would call "economic
nationalism" today: industrial policy, protectionism, keeping out
foreign goods, equity stripping, and so on.
No one I can think of touts this type of political platform like Chuck
Harder does. No surprise there, since the "buzz" amongst American Jews
is that Chuck's father was a member of the Chicago National Socialist
Party.
So, does this mean that Chuck Harder is a Nazi sympathizer? You be the
judge!

(Dan Weir) wrote in
:

(Dan Weir) wrote in message

endlessly
repeating his economic-nationalism mantra, often using the exact same
words over and over again

The ugly truth - and the reason I, and most American Jews - despise
Chuck Harder, is that Chuck's brand of economic nationalism is taken
straight out of "Mein Kampf."
I've read this tome, and when it doesn't talk about the world Jewish
conspiracy, it lays the foundation for what we would call "economic
nationalism" today: industrial policy, protectionism, keeping out
foreign goods, equity stripping, and so on.
No one I can think of touts this type of political platform like Chuck
Harder does. No surprise there, since the "buzz" amongst American Jews
is that Chuck's father was a member of the Chicago National Socialist
Party.
So, does this mean that Chuck Harder is a Nazi sympathizer? You be the
judge!

I used to listen to Chuck Harder when he was on shortwave. Never thought he
was anti-Jewish and I think he said one of his grandmothers was Jewish. I
haven't heard Chuck in about four years and thought he lost a lot of his
credibility with the enormous amount of time he spent on Y2K. Like I said,
I haven't heard him in a long time and don't know what he is now saying.

"Dan Weir" wrote in message
...
(Dan Weir) wrote in message

endlessly
repeating his economic-nationalism mantra, often using the exact same
words over and over again

The ugly truth - and the reason I, and most American Jews - despise
Chuck Harder, is that Chuck's brand of economic nationalism is taken
straight out of "Mein Kampf."

If that's true, then American Jews are just about the only people paying any
attention to Chuck Harder anymore!


I've read this tome, and when it doesn't talk about the world Jewish
conspiracy, it lays the foundation for what we would call "economic
nationalism" today: industrial policy, protectionism, keeping out
foreign goods, equity stripping, and so on.

I've never read the book. I do know that Nazi Germany was hardly a worker's
paradise. Most of the industry was monopolized and unions were banned.
Germans were putting in alot more hours on the job than other depression era
workers, almost as many hours as slaves.

I do know that Chuck Harder had alot of confidence in central planning, as
long as that central planning was done by the right people or good people or
smart people or people who are right. I didn't make a connection between
Chuck and Nazi economics. I figured he just had a far more common mushy
headed faith in planning by the right people.

http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm


No one I can think of touts this type of political platform like Chuck
Harder does.

It depends how far you stretch the comparison. Lyndon LaRouche doesn't seem
all that different.

No surprise there, since the "buzz" amongst American Jews
is that Chuck's father was a member of the Chicago National Socialist
Party.

Frank Collin's father was a Holocaust survivor! Maybe Chicago Nazis are
even stranger than most.

So, does this mean that Chuck Harder is a Nazi sympathizer? You be the
judge!

I think Chuck Harder's show is a reflection of Chuck Harder. A little
confused and out of focus. I don't think Chuck bothers much with reflecting
on human nature, and doubt he's ever noticed that power goes, not to the
good, but to the strong.

Frank Dresser