64 minutes/6,319 words
Audio Version: To listen in a player, click here.
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Greg Johnson reads “Reflections on Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political” (15:00 minutes)
Music Break One
Johann Sebastian Bach, Little Fugue in G-Minor, orchestrated by Leopold Stokowski, from Stokowski: Bach Transcriptions, played by the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, José Serebrier, conductor (3:35)
Leo Yankevich reads four poems from Tikkun Olam and Other Poems (4:00 minutes)
After Peter Huchel
How resounding is the winter squall.
Hole-riddled the loam walls of Bethlehem’s stall.
That’s Mary murdered at the entrance gate,
Hair frozen to the bloody stones and grate.
Masked in rags, three soldiers limping by
Cannot burn from her ear the infant’s cry.
The last canteen sunflower won’t get them far.
They seek the way and cannot see the star.
Aurum, thus, myrrham offerunt . . .
Crow and cur come to a manger ruined.
. . . quia natus est nobis Dominus.
On a bleached skeleton gleam soot and ooze.
The way to Stalingrad’s a smouldering glow.
And it leads to a charnel house of snow.
I fingered the bone, and traced
where the axe had landed,
imagining the face
of the girl, her life abandoned
by the midnight sky.
So I placed an aster
in her tiny skull
where a glimmering eye
had been, and then I asked her
to please forgive us all.
No Flowers, No Doves
When we entered the burning city
charred corpses greeted us.
A child’s hand dangled from a scorched tree
and the twisted wreckage of a bus
mocked the stillness of the sky.
Gunner gagged, Ski scratched his head,
neither understanding why
he had to liberate the dead.
Although the end seems near
(your neighbourhood and race
gone to the dogs), my dear,
dear reader—do not cower
in fear; stand up and face
the dogs! In you the power
remains to save the West.
Put down your childless Spengler
who spawned two books at best.
Better to heed the deeds
of a forsaken prisoner
like Hess, or charge on steeds
like John Sobieski, steady
in soul; to follow Lee’s
Rebs into battle, ready
for a certain death,
than to live on with fleas
upon your blood and breath.
Musical Break Two
David Bowie, “Loving the Alien,” from A Reality Tour CD and DVD (5:18)
Watching them come and go
The Templars and the Saracens
They’re travelling the holy land
Torture comes and torture goes
Knights who’d give you anything
They bear the cross of Coeur de Leon
Salvation for the mirror blind
But if you pray
all your sins are hooked upon the sky
Pray and the heathen lie will disappear
Prayers they hide
the saddest view
(Believing the strangest things,
loving the alien)
And your prayers they break the sky in two
(Believing the strangest things, loving the alien)
You pray til the break of dawn
(Believing the strangest things, loving the alien)
And you’ll believe you’re loving the alien
(Believing the strangest things, loving the alien)
Thinking of a different time
Palestine a modern problem
Bounty and your wealth in land
Terror in a best laid plan
Watching them come and go
Tomorrows and the yesterdays
Christians and the unbelievers
Hanging by the cross and nail
Craig Bodeker on filmmaking (33 minutes, transcript follows)
Note: We apologize for the occasional distortion on Craig’s phone, but we could not eliminate it.
Greg: Well, Craig, I really liked your film, A Conversation About Race, which you brought out in 2008. I think it’s a great way of getting people started in thinking about race and in thinking about racial issues in America. But what have you done for us lately?
Craig: [laughs] That’s a very valid question. What I did actually is, as you know, I put up a new non-profit organization called the National Citizens’ League. And the idea behind that is to raise funds, tax-deductible funds so that we can make more films like A Conversation About Race, films that challenge the conventional wisdom and the way we’re all programed to think today.
I filmed a couple of promotional videos to get people to take a look at the website, nclnow.org. And so up to the last few months I’ve been working on that. It looks like we just got all our ducks in a row on the website.
Thank you, by the way, to my first contributor, who contributed to the National Citizen’s League. That really helps us as far as expenses like editing, equipment rental, and things like that. Thank you for the contributions that we’ve gotten so far. And I’m asking for more contributors!
But to answer your question, that’s what I’ve done lately.
Greg: So my next question is, what are the topics of films you’re thinking of working on? What’s next?
Craig: Well, a friend that was introduced to me – she happens to be a film producer – she said that I should try to leave race alone for a while, just because I kind of nailed it. There’s no sense kind of going back, she said, if you got the point right the first time. And I kind of agree with her.
But yet race does hit home with me. It’s an issue that is kind of part of being, it may have something to do with the way I traveled or grew up or something like that, but it just leads to difficulty. When I blog,I talk about race as a constant issue. But as far as other issues, I talk about this constitutionality, this Ron Paul stuff, as you know. Not so much as a fan of this 76 year old medical doctor, but rather [I focus on] the fact that our government is going out of control. So that’s why we set up the National Citizens’ League once again, as a response to that.
Greg: May I make a suggestion, since I got you on the line here? I would love to see you do a film about diversity. Because that is one of the dogmas of our time. People endlessly repeat that diversity is a strength and so forth. And I think that diversity is as big a target as racial egalitarianism. You could do something with the exact same format or formula as A Conversation About Race: just get a bunch of people to come to you through Craigslist ads, sit down, give them enough rope, and they’ll hang themselves. I think it’d be terrific, and there’s so many great talking points. Just one essay by Jared Taylor, “The Myth of Diversity,” which I believe is reprinted is his latest book, White Identity, that would give you all the talking points you need to really demolish this idea. So anyway I’d like to put that out there as a suggestion. I think that would be an enormously effective teaching tool, A Conversation About Diversity.
Craig: I couldn’t agree more. I think you’re right that as far as a formula. It certainly would lend itself to inviting people to come and give us all their hopes and dreams about diversity, and then start asking them some probing questions. And yes it would work the same way, they would end up getting convoluted, tripping over their previous statements.
I guess the reason I would hesitate to do it is it would kind of typecast me, it would kind of put me in the race basket. But I may end up doing that anyway. To tell you the truth, it’s such a great idea. And yes, it would be so easy. The thing is, it’s such an important issue in America, that we all expect it, even though from a legal standpoint, our legislators, have all agreed that we’ve got this goal: to achieve diversity. Yet, I don’t remember ever having a vote or even a public discussion about it. We’ve got this huge policy issue where we’ve got to become a racially diverse nation, and yet at the same time I don’t remember the meeting where anyone brought that up.
Craig: As a matter of fact, I am. I have to say that I was quite impressed with it. He’s a really bold filmmaker who really took some risks, some personal risks and career risks, to make a really bold statement, a statement that’s not a popular statement but I think one that is time it be made. And I think he handled it in a tasteful way. My hat’s off to the guy. I’d love to meet him someday.
Mike: Watching him create this film I kind of thought in my head, “wow, this guy’s kind of like the Israeli Craig Bodeker.” I can’t help but think I would love to see the two of you team up and do A Conversation About Anti-Semitism.
Greg: Well, that’d be an amazing project, wouldn’t it?
You know, Craig, you said something about not wanting to be typecast as somebody who does something on race issues, and I can understand that, I mean typecasting is something that people in the “industry” always worry about. I’m constantly saying, for instance, that Morgan Freeman has been typecast as God, which really limits the roles he can take now.
But seriously, there are so few people that are willing to touch these taboo topics, that being typecast as one of the few people who are willing to take these things on, well that would be a very good kind of typecasting indeed. I think the mainstream can take care of itself, the Ron Paul people can take care of themselves, but when it comes to dealing with these super taboo issues, since you already set foot out on that quaky ground, you might as well just continue, because I think you could really make a huge difference. And other people will start following you, which I think would be really nice.
Craig: Well, thank you for the vote of confidence. And I do appreciate that. I don’t mean to sound like an actor, where I have to show you my wide range. That’s not the point I want to make, either. It’s just that I didn’t want to be thought of as necessarily a one trick pony. I’d like to think that my youthful goal of being a filmmaker hasn’t been totally sidetracked into this one particular issue. Because there’s other issues that fascinate me too. And I love color and music and things that we don’t really deal with too much on a day-to-day basis in our movement. And I don’t like to totally get away from that, I’d like to utilize music and color and fun and positive things in a project, as opposed to the day-to-day grind that we go through.
Greg: That’s a really important point. I can’t stress that enough myself. I think American Renaissance does great work, but honestly I don’t go to their site every day or every week, because honestly I get depressed by the long litany of horrors that they have on their front page. And I think that facts can depress just as much as they can energize. So just getting the facts out there is not necessarily enough to really change the world. We really have to get down and work on people’s motivations, their self image, their idealism, and negative, bad news doesn’t necessarily engage those things. It drives a lot of people to despair, to drink, and to passivity. So if you’re thinking in terms of the positive, that’s enormously important.
What are some film topics that you would love to do if you had pretty much an unlimited budget? If you won the lottery, what kind of films would you be doing?
Craig: I’d love to do features, dramas, with actors, as opposed to documentaries. I’ve always been a fan of science fiction, I’d love to do a science fiction film with our message. As a matter of fact, I just finished reading Hold Back This Day, by Ward Kendall. You guys published that, and thank you, by the way, for doing that. It’s a fabulous work and we don’t have enough—now, that’s not positive by any means, that’s brutally depressing.
But yes, the fact that you can find this sort of thing. The last time I saw this book available they were almost like $100 on Amazon, they were harder to find. So now, I just finished reading it as a matter of fact. So as far as the type of film, I’d love to make an adventure story or something of that nature, and at the same time drive the message home.
Mike: One thing that really makes A Conversation About Race stand apart is its professionalism and its quality.
Craig: As far as trying to make films just a little more entertaining and more watchable, because as I mentioned before, I think I may have mentioned in a talk someplace, we are conditioned. When we watch television, or even online, we watch the best editors in the world practice their trade. And we’re not even aware that we’re used to seeing really, really first-rate editing any time we watch just about any video we see today. And so we don’t have much patience for subpar editing.
To some degree, shame on us. We shouldn’t have to be so thoroughly reprobate that we can’t watch something shot for more than ten seconds. Oh no, you’ve got to change the angle, and shoot it over again.
So definitely as far as just videos for our movement, political things like that. We can certainly use some improvement, no question about it. That’s one reason, as well, that we decided to form the National Citizen’s League, is to help people in situations like this make videos. Find inexpensive, maybe guerrilla techniques, so they get the message out there in a video format without spending the tens of thousands of dollars usually required to produce a 30 second spot.
Mike: My understanding is the dollar goes much further now than it used to. Much, much further.
Craig: As far as video editing, yes. It’s just amazing what can be done today. If you go buy a new Mac computer – you can pick up an iMac for under $2,000 – I think if you pay another $300 on top of that you’ll get a new copy of Final Cut Pro, which includes everything that you’ll see in a Hollywood movie. Any editing feature, including sound, that you’ll see in a Hollywood movie. And you’ve seen lots of Hollywood movies that have been made in this exact same editing format. So for $2,300 you’ve got a Mac and you’ve got an editing system that you could edit a Hollywood movie in.
Greg: That’s amazing.
One thing, Craig, I think that happens is that people out there, laymen — especially people in the movement – think that video is relatively easy. Right? You just point the camera, you turn it on, you sit down in front of it, and you talk, and how difficult can that be? I know it’s not that easy. Your documentary, A Conversation About Race, makes it look very easy. It makes it looks like something a single guy can do with a handheld camera, some music, and a little bit of time and imagination. But can you tell me a little bit about how much money and how much time it took you to actually create A Conversation About Race, and then could you tell us about your two video clips that you have on your new website. Because I think that would go a long way to dispelling the idea that a lot of people have out there that this is a really simple and easy thing. And it’s a good idea to dispel, for the simple reason that once we get past this notion, it will allow people to start really getting serious about making quality products. And that requires putting a lot of time and a lot more money into it than people otherwise might be willing to do.
Craig: Well, yeah. If you want to talk about A Conversation About Race, that was one of actually one of the goals was to project the image that yeah, you can go out and you can get a camera and you can do this sort of thing. We don’t have to rely on big budgets and Hollywood and permits and all this other stuff. If we have the will, we can find a way.
So that was kind the route we wanted to take in A Conversation About Race with the black and white and things like that. But as far as the actual production is concerned, yeah, it’s always harder than it looks if you do it right. Luckily I hired some really good help, and that’s really the key to A Conversation About Race. I’ll give myself credit for conducting the interviews, but I needed help to do the rest of it, to turn it into a documentary film. So I think all told, as far as from when I went from the day I decided I was going to make this documentary until the day they delivered a pallet full of DVDs to my house, I was in to it for about $20,000. Which isn’t even a budget—that’s a lunch budget, in today’s Hollywood movies. But for my first venture into professional filmmaking it was my life savings. And so it’s quite a gamble, to spend that money. And the look on my wife’s face, when the truck pulled up with ten cases of DVDs, was like “what have you done?” Luckily, for me it panned out.
So, to answer the question, I spent one full day shooting the interviews in a hotel in downtown Denver, it was like 15 hours of filming, shooting, not to mention driving, setting up and breaking down. It was quite a long day, but when we started looking at the dailies from that we realized that we had something. We realized that we were definitely on to something, but we needed more. So we needed to schedule some time to go and shoot some more interviews, some lighter, funnier interviews that we could sync with the heavy, serious ones we shot indoors. We actually spent two more shooting days shooting the outdoor interviews, again, because it gave a break from the heaviness of that dark black screen all the time.
And so when we finally had the interviews all set up where we felt we really had to figure out a way to tie them all together. And animation work was the first option, we thought we could animate some sort of a character, a likable character that could say “Gee, look at all these disconnects on this matter of race and racism.” But the animation was terribly expensive, we ended up that just shooting myself as the narrator and as the spokesperson was the most economical way to tie it all together. But then we had to go and get cameras and rent the equipment again and schedule time to shoot my monologue, based on the interviews, and then tie it all together. So there was a fourth production day of shooting in A Conversation About Race and then a hundred hours of editing, trying to put it all together and make it work. And I used two different editors, two different camera people as well. So you make a good point, Greg, about hiring professionals, about letting people know that if you set a camera on your desk and ask the best speaker in the world to give me his speech, it’s still going to be very difficult to watch.
Greg: How many months did it take between the first conception of the idea of A Conversation About Race and when that pallet of DVDs first showed up at your front door?
Craig: Nearly seven months.
Greg: Seven months. That’s a lot of time to put into a project.
Craig: It could have been sooner, but it hadn’t been really visualized yet. I worked with one cameraman that I hired, and we realized halfway through that we didn’t share the same vision. And so I had to bring on somebody else. And this other person said, “here’s what we gotta do. You gotta be the guy in it, you have to be the guy to tie it together.” This other guy really kind of saved my biscuits, so to speak.
Greg: I think it was a great choice to have you as the narrator, the spokesman, to have your face on the film. You seem like a real person, a likeable person, you have a good voice. Your appearance and your persona sort of short-circuit a lot of the prejudices that people have about what kind of person is going to entertain heretical ideas about race and racial diversity, so I thought that was a really good choice.
Tell me more about the two spots you did for the National Citizen’s League.
Craig: We shot two promotional spots to get people to go to the website and, hopefully, send donations. We shot one that was a stand-up monologue we shot that was basically two minutes of me standing, addressing the camera. The other was a montage, where we used several clips that were taken from the internet, assembled, and set to a musical track to create an emotional effect. So as far as the first one is concerned, the monologue, actually it was three shoots involved. This was a two minute video and it took us three days of shooting just because of some bad luck, and it’s the kind of stuff that happens when you’re shooting video.
The first problem, believe it or not, was with my hair, which is really silly, but we also used a non-HD camera, a standard resolution camera, so the quality wasn’t as good as we would have liked and the hair was blowing around creating quite a distraction as well. So we decided to shoot it again. When we shot it again we had glare and wind issues that were so bad they made the video that we shot completely unusable. I was crying. I was squinting, to grotesque proportions. And so we finally had to shoot it again. We were going to shoot it in the morning. A week later we came out and it had snowed the night before, and so it was so blindingly bright that we wound up having to shoot the piece wearing sunglasses. So for our two minute piece we now have three different shoots involved and then we’re still breaking a real cardinal rule: if you’re going to look into a camera lens you probably shouldn’t use reflective sunglasses. But in any case, we were able to edit that together, and it came out to be a very watchable piece in my opinion. Where the transitions are very smooth, going from a wide shot to a medium shot to a close up and back to a medium—it just went back and forth pretty hard to notice, and that’s the idea, it should be hard to notice.
And then the other piece is what’s called a montage piece, and that was to affect people emotionally involved or attached to the National Citizen’s League. And so we used probably 100 half-second clips of characters from the media, from the internet, even some politicians and these are kind of the people that you hear talking about things all the time, talking about issues and talking about this and that but no real conversation–and that’s kind of the buzzword that we use: real conversations about real issues.
And so we incorporated some fast graphics and titles with a great motivational piece set up with these floating clips of politicians and media figures, and it ends up being a really compelling piece, where you end up saying “wow!” And the neat part about it is, it ends up costing about $1,000 for a very compelling piece.
Mike: Yeah, that’s pretty amazing. I think that the music as well as the female voiceover really contributed, because it kind of dispels the stereotype of the angry white male, disaffected, and what not.
Craig: And that’s the same point that Greg had too that we’ve got to find positive role-models and positive spokesmen. And you know the gloom and doom, there’s always a place for that. But yet the main point as far as video is concerned, is that the gloom and doom just doesn’t sell. In video we’re trained to recognize uplifting, positive images. And the depressing stuff, people just don’t tune into it.
Greg: I think that’s a really good point.
Craig, you did three different shots: a close-up, a medium, and a wide shot in the monologue video. Did you have to repeat the monologue each time you did one of those shots and then edit those things together?
Craig: That’s a good question, Greg. That’s a technical question about the real craft involved, and that’s the subject of the talk I give from time to time. The real lesson for us to bear in mind if we want to improve the videos that we produce is that video production is the result of a craft. It’s not a matter of a bunch of people who really believe in what they’re saying, and then that’s why it winds up making such a coherent, wonderful statement.
The idea behind video being a craft is that one of the aspects of giving a monologue is acting. You’re delivering a speech that you may have given 100 times before, but yet it sounds fresh like it’s the first time you thought of it and the first time you said it. And that’s what acting is all about.
And the truth is, when you see people giving monologues on TV, they’re trained actors. Some of them believe what they’re saying, but most of them don’t. It’s just a matter of practicing and rehearsing until you get the lines comfortable enough where you can say them with some degree of credibility. It’s very similar to the process of reading a teleprompter. In other words you’re giving a canned message that you’re going to make appear not canned. And so that’s the key.
To answer your question, yes. That monologue – if you want to shoot that right and you only have one camera – that’s going to take three full reads. And that means you have to deal with it each time you’ve got to get it perfectly right—you can fudge it a little bit if you’re friends with your editor and you edit the video a little bit.
So, you have to film that wide shot, and you’ve got to read that dialog like you mean it, and then you’re going to be finished and you’re going to reset the camera, move it to a different place or you may just change the composition a little bit, but then yeah, you’re going to start at the beginning and you’re going to read it all the way through again. And then, you composition it again for your close up and do it all through again.
And that’s the secret of how videos are made. The only difference is, the bigger the budget, sometimes you can afford multiple cameras. If you’re paying an actor, you get them to repeat. That’s what acting is about. Especially in movies, where you might do the same take 20 or 30 times. And you might not be aware of any differences at all, let me tell you. But that’s what they’re paying for and that’s what they’re going to get from you.
Greg: So you have to work really, really hard to make it look that easy.
Craig: Yeah, I hate to say it but that’s the truth. In other words, when I’m talking in A Conversation About Race I got to the point where I don’t even hear the words coming out of my mouth. To be honest, that’s because I practiced it so much, because I’m renting this equipment and I’ve got professional people around me. The last thing I want to do is not bring my “A” game. You start stepping on lines and if you start screwing things up like that. So it’s important. You got to bring your “A” game and that’s why a lot of times I think it’s better to farm these kinds of jobs out. And I know it’s hard to find people, skilled, technical people that will run our message, but again I think that’s really the key: to find positive people and to make positive messages.
Mike: So how much training did you receive, both in acting as well as filmmaking? And how long do you think it would take young adults who want to be activists and contribute to our cause to learn the tools of the trade?
Craig: Well I think it’s really a matter of motivation today, because I know that every day there’s another genius born. And I don’t mean to include myself in that one when I say “another,” I’m just thinking about these really creative people. And the fact that we talked about before about how filmmaking has gotten a lot easier . . . I remember 20 years ago when you had to spend 50 to 60 thousand dollars just to have any kind of basic editing capability at all, and then the graphics were horrible & cheesy looking. So if the right person is motivated enough he could become quite skilled at this operation in a year or two.
Mike: So Craig, are there any other projects on the horizon for you?
Craig: I thought about this idea, of maybe an NCL news. I’ve got my music already picked out — and it goes to parody right away – but then I’m right where the Onion is.
Greg: I think that’s a terrific idea. There’s a poll that I saw that shocked me tremendously, that most college-age White people get their news from the Daily Show.
Craig: Right, right.
Greg: I think that’s extraordinary, and I’ve been talking with friends, including mutual friends, about how wonderful it would be if talented White Nationalists had their own version of a Daily Show, even if we just did it weekly: but some kind of satirical news program that would get our message out there. I think that has tremendous potential.
Mike: I think that’s an excellent idea too.
Craig: Well what I would really need, and if you’re talking about the caliber of the Daily Show or something like that, what makes those shows good is not only the editing – all the craft – but also the writing. These guys have teams of writers and even if you want do do one once a week, that would still require a pretty good commitment from a decent number of writers. And I would say you guys would be a couple of great writers.
I’m still having trouble deciding if I want this thing to be straight, or parody, because like you say people get their news from this comedian. And so he kind of plays it both sides of the coin.
Greg: Well you know, Jon Stewart is not that funny in my opinion. He basically just raises and lowers his voice a bit. I think he’s extremely irritating. I think you would be a far more effective host of something like that than he is already.
Craig: Well, you may be a little biased, but . . .
Greg: Well no, seriously, I really find him intensely irritating and boring actually.
Craig: As far as hard ideas for next projects, that’s probably the hardest thing I’ve got in mind, the thing that’s got me tingling a bit, right now. So that’s some room to work there. But once again, the last time I tried it, I mean guys, took about four hours writing one gag, and the next day I read it and it sucked.
So in comedy writing is important. He makes it look easy, just because he has a whole team of writers. It’s like Obama and his teleprompter and all that stuff. I’ve probably got the comedic timing, I think I’ve got those chops. I’ll have to look at it, but I could probably put on an anchor man wig and really make it funny.
Greg: Oh yeah, I think that would be great.
Craig: Well that might be another way, so we ought to figure this out. Maybe this is the time to bring in a new talent and find a guy who’s good to do this.
Mike: I see the success of somebody like Ramzpaul, and just the popularity of his YouTubes.
Craig: Right, and all he does is look at the camera.
Greg: Yeah, he’s a counter-example to the idea. What’s great about him is that the material is so solid. And they’re also fairly short, so he can just look at the camera and he can crack you up.
Greg: Have you looked at James O’Keeffe’s videos, the guy who basically destroyed ACORN? What do you think of his guerrilla video work?
Craig: I have nothing but respect for the guy, to tell you the truth. Some of that he’s done, I haven’t really gotten into the details required to really conceptualize the level of the corruption and the graft that he’s exposing. Some of the subject matter has been a little drier than I can find time for.
Greg: I think the guy’s got a great sense of humor, too. The whole pimp get-up cracked me up.
Another thing that would be good is this. If there’s a video outlet for this besides YouTube – an actual show – that will attract material. There are a lot of people making videos – some of them of very good quality – that go up on YouTube. I see them on other websites. It’s sort of like what Counter-Currents is doing with writing. There are a lot of people that have tiny little blogs out there that are putting up good material that almost nobody reads. If they send it in to Counter-Currents, or if I find something by them on their blog that I like, and then I put it up at Counter-Currents, then suddenly they get a lot bigger readership, because there’s one site that people go to where a lot of this material comes in. And I think that if there were a video equivalent of that, you would find that there are already a lot of people out there making interesting videos that would just love to find a place to send them to because they know that a lot of eyes will be seeing them, whereas currently they are just hoping that someone is going to stumble across them on YouTube, or on some other website.
It’s just important to have a place that people can send things to. And suddenly, if it’s an attractive site, if you’ve got some good material, good video material already there, I think it will generate material. People will come out of the woodwork; we’ll discover that there are a lot more people out there than any of us individually know about.
So I think it has a great potential to focus and draw in a lot of energies that are being diffused out there. And that’s important. We need to find ways of taking existing energy – it’s sort of like sunlight going into a magnifying glass: if you can focus it, you can start fires that way. If you can draw it in and bring it to a point you can really create something.
Mike: Yeah, eventually our aim, our vision should be having our own network, our own equivalent of mainstream FOX or any of these organizations. Of course we wouldn’t have the capital that they do, but if we were able to just get the talent, and just be able to use the fact that the technology costs so much less than it used to; also to be able to bring in and pay for and acquire the talent to produce videos and products that are just as high quality as what can be produced by the mainstream, but have a totally radical message, I think will really generate a lot of energy and enthusiasm.
Craig: Yeah, I think it will be a synergistic thing like you were saying, if it becomes more known it will attract more and more. If you build it, they will come.
Mike: Right, exactly.
Craig: So that’s definitely food for thought there.
Greg: Well thank you so much, Craig. We really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us.
Craig: No, I appreciate that you guys kind of carry my flag, so to speak. I really do, I’m grateful for it. I think you may be on to something here, I mean we’re talking about professionals getting together and doing this thing. I think I can handle the hardware end and the production end, but the hardest part is just getting the jokes written. But you guys, you guys have the sense of humor and the brains. So maybe, there’s more people in your community.
Greg: I’m already jotting down names. There’s a lot of talent out there, and one of the things we can do is bring people together, so we’re definitely going to work in that direction.
Craig: Let’s continue this discussion.
Greg: All right, will do.
Mike: Sounds good.
Greg: All right, stay warm and have a good afternoon.
Craig: You too, see ya.