Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
guruilla » Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:47 am wrote:I wondered why I didn't get notice that this thread was active again and then realized that I'd subscribed to another Red Ice thread here: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=38057
Which is sort of annoying, but I guess it got bumped by the same bumper so no one's missing out.
Anyway this overlaps with the Miles Matthis thread and the whole question of disinfo in the field which was on my mind last night and this morning (I'll post more at the MM thread). I was thinking, No wonder I am trying to dis-associate myself from the conspiracy culture (this site notwithstanding), because what's happening at Red Ice is just a specific, easy to spot example of what's happening throughout the subculture. & it happens with individuals too: when structures of belief start coming undone (liminality!!), panic hits and there is an overwhelming need, psychological-survival-based, to assemble new structures of belief using the same components that came into awareness & caused the old ones to crumble. The surest way to do this is to find others who believe the same things and huddle together into a defended mass: turn doubt into belief, belief into conviction, and conviction into MOVEMENT. & the moment something becomes a movement, it ceases to move. It becomes all structure, an edifice of defense against the rumblings of the unconscious that threatened to pull out the rug from the false reality to begin with.
Simply put, when people start to feel alienated from and unsafe within consensus, their survival instinct drives them to form new consensuses as a fortress against the old (flat earth society! yay!). & the way to fortify the fortress of the new consensus is a) populate it with an army of agreeing subjects; b) pit themselves collectively against the original, now rejected consensus (Empire), which is now not only useful but essential as an Other to contrast and crystallize one's beliefs in opposition to.
Henrik doesn't want to be powerless ~ who the fuck does? ~ and my guess is, the more he was finding out about how little he knew about WTF to believe, the more powerless he would have been feeling. Add to that the overriding narrative of THE POWERFUL (evil elites) who were stripping him, us, beloved Sweden, of its God-given power, and suddenly the True Mission comes clear: Fight to get your power BACK! All the paralyzing information and mis- and disinformation can then be rejected in favor of exclusively adopting and propagating information/knowledge that can be APPLIED, socially, politically, and personally, to regain that lost power.
It's sad and, to me, sickening but it's also just human nature. Isn't it best just to turn off the radio at that point? We all know how it ends.
Regarding eugenics, which came up here too, Ann Diamond wrote something to me recently that was reason to ponder. We may not agree with eugenics, but we may also be the products of it. So how can we disagree with something that created us and our beliefs to begin with?
BrandonD » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:14 pm wrote:If one finds himself deeply dissatisfied with humanity then I'd imagine that person capable of believing himself to be the product of eugenics, as well as disagreeing with eugenics. But I might not be accurately interpreting your last comment there.
tapitsbo » Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:11 pm wrote:Especially if you consider how ideas might be "bigger" than people themselves or have a life of their own (I think you've explored this somewhat sometimes guruilla).
It's easy to analyze a fringe figure like Palmgren who is unsettling but on exists on the fringes.
Understanding the inner drives and motivations of, say, Guardian writers whose readership is orders of magnitude greater is, uh, a little more complicated.
Lana Lokteff and Guests Dispense Alt-Right Dating Tips
ON APRIL 17, 2017 BY EYES ON THE RIGHT IN ALT-RIGHT, FEMINISM, LANA LOKTEFF, RACISM, RADIO 3FOURTEEN, RED ICE RADIO
Rejected ‘Brady Bunch’ intro.
In an episode of Radio 3Fourteen posted on April 11, 2017, host Lana Lokteff invited Bre Faucheux, Elora, and Rebecca to discuss femininity, traditionalist lifestyles, and — best of all — alt-right dating advice for women who are past their “fertile window.”
CONTINUE READING
Alt-Right YouTube Stars Stop Pretending, Give Full-Throated Endorsements Of Ethno-Nationalism
By Jared Holt | December 8, 2017 4:37 pm
A trio of YouTube personalities beloved by the racist alt-right discarded any attempts to hide their white nationalism, uploading a discussion yesterday in which they explicitly embraced “ethno-nationalism” and fretted that white people, the “founding stock” of America, are becoming a minority in the country.
Faith Goldy, a former Rebel Media reporter who has grown ever closer to the alt-right, joined Red Ice host Lana Lokteff and 4chan YouTube muse Lauren Rose in a video uploaded yesterday to deliver full-throated endorsements of ethno-nationalism, a movement that seeks to promote white supremacy in Western nations.
In the Red Ice video, titled “Dear Cucks, Only One Kind of Nationalism Will Save the West,” Goldy, Rose and Lokteff delivered glowing endorsements of ethno-nationalism and praised the “good trend” among fellow YouTube personalities such as Stefan Molyneux and Rebecca Hargraves (known online as “Blonde in the Belly of the Beast”) of recognizing that “demographics is everything” and for having left behind “civic nationalism” in favor of white supremacist ethno-nationalism.
Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so called "developed" nations'
Janice Fiamengo to White Nationalist Talk Show Host: Men are Living Under a ‘Feminist Version of Sharia Law’
ON MAY 30, 2016
In a May 25, 2016 interview for Radio 3Fourteen, a white nationalist program hosted by Lana Lokteff, University of Ottawa professor Janice Fiamengo blasted women’s studies programs and feminism for supposedly giving women a privileged status and turning men into “second class citizens.” Fiamengo, an outspoken anti-feminist with ties to the men’s rights group C.A.F.E. (the Canadian Association for Equality) seemed unperturbed by the prospect of speaking with Lokteff, a vocal opponent of interracial relationships who once referred to a white couple’s black baby as a “niglet.”
“So what is it that really drives some of these women that are teaching these women’s studies courses? Is it political motivation, or what is it that you found anyway?” asked Lokteff.
Fiamengo replied that she thinks “it’s a combination of things” but that it is “largely” a “Utopian vision of how the world could be transformed” that drives these professors. “I mean most of these people are progressivists [sic], they’re leftists, they believe that a fundamental transformation of our society is necessary, and much to be desired,” she said, further asserting that “they see their role as not teaching students how to think but teaching students what to think, and therefore bringing about the revolution.”
Lokteff asked if they were simply “Marxist in nature,” to which Fiamengo answered in the affirmative, noting that “study after study shows that professors…identify as…liberals or further left” while few identify as conservative. “This is their vision, and they see, I mean, women’s studies programs and many others are really the academic arm of the radical feminist movement,” Fiamengo claimed.
Alt-Right Educator Tiana Dalichov Boasts About Infiltrating Public Schools
On February 26, 2018, a young white supremacist who calls herself Tiana Dalichov interviewed Lana Lokteff on her program, the Unapologetic Podcast. Along with her husband Henrik Palmgren, Lokteff is a host at Red Ice, a far-right, anti-Semitic media outlet recently labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Dalichov and Lokteff spent the majority of the episode criticizing feminism, which they believe is a devious plot to undermine white families. Later on in the program, however, the pair turned their attention to the American educational system.
Dalichov remarked that “things at the college level” are “getting a little bit better” by “shut[ting] down the safe space bullcrap.” Lana responded by calling for other white supremacists infiltrate public schools to push their racist agenda and root out “Marxists.”
Why are Prominent Men’s Rights Activists Appearing on a White Power Radio Show?
ON AUGUST 10, 2016
Paul Elam, Christina Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell, and Suzanne Venker
Not too long ago I reported that prominent men’s rights activist Janice Fiamengo appeared on the white supremacist podcast Radio 3Fourteen hosted by Lana Lokteff.
Radio 3Fourteen (a program that is part of the larger Red Ice Radio network) has hosted notorious Holocaust-deniers, Neo-Nazis, and other fringe figures in the past, and the show’s host is no stranger to making racist and homophobic remarks.
Yet Fiamengo isn’t the only men’s rights leader to appear on the program. In fact, between 2013 and the present, four prominent MRAs have been guests on Radio 3Fourteen: Paul Elam, Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Suzanne Venker.
Paul Elam, the founder and figurehead of A Voice for Men, has had flirtations with white supremacists and anti-Semites in the past, so his appearance on the August 27, 2013 episode of the podcast wasn’t nearly as surprising as the others.
While on the program Elam launched into his usual anti-feminist diatribe, telling Lokteff that feminists demand “everything.” Feminists, he claimed, are “domineering” and seek “complete ownership of the discussion about sex and gender.”
He also floated the idea that feminists are merely seeking a man, mainly a father, in their lives. As Elam said, feminists “want their fathers. They want government to be their father. They want men, generally speaking, to be their father.” They want this so they can have someone “take care of their problems” and “fix things for them.”
Lokteff asked Elam an unusual question about what “elite men” think of feminism. Men from families such as the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Elam replied that “the corporatocracy loves feminism,” and while hesitant to give a full-throated endorsement of what sounded like a bizarre conspiracy theory, he nonetheless said that “anything is possible” and that it is “illogical to assume” such elites “don’t have an inordinate amount of control” in the world.
For roughly two hundred years the Rothschild family has been the subject of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, most notably that Nathan Rothschild exploited the Battle of Waterloo to strike it rich on the Stock Exchange. The source of this rumor — which swept across Europe in the form of a pseudonymously authored pamphlet — was the deeply anti-Semitic Georges Dairnvaell. The smear was eventually turned into a 1940 Nazi propaganda film called The Rothschilds: Shares in Waterloo.
On the July 30, 2014 episode of the podcast, Warren Farrell — widely considered the founder of the men’s rights movement — appeared on the program to discuss the supposed “myth” of male power. In spite of Farrell’s soft and unassuming tone, his ideas on feminism are no less ridiculous than those of overtly misogynist cranks like Paul Elam.
For example, on the subject of patriarchy, Farrell scoffs and claims that if the rules of society were set up in men’s favor then women would be paying for dates and subjected to the draft. (In June of this year the Senate voted to require women to sign up for selective service.)
In a world where men “made the rules to benefit men at the expense of women,” he explained, “men would make sure that every girl and young woman was trained to really desire a lot of sex” with men, especially older men. They would also “reverse the power balance between men and women” so that “women would be paying for men on dates” and women would be giving men engagement rings.
He also claimed that, if you simply redefine power, men really aren’t more powerful than women. According to Farrell, if power is measured by the fact that men, especially white men, are overrepresented in Congress, the court system, and large corporations, then white men certainly have more power relative to their numbers.
However, if you define power as “having control over your own life, being able to make the choices that you want with your life, having the encouragement to go inside of yourself when you’re a child and decide who you are and what you’re motivated by, and then being honored by the rest of society for the choices that you make,” then Voila! Men really don’t have power.
On January 12, 2016, prominent anti-feminist Christina Hoff Sommers appeared on Radio 3Fourteen in an episode titled “Feminism & Its Impact on Society.” In some ways her appearance on the program isn’t surprising. She’s written books like 2000’s The War Against Boys and defended the anti-woman harassment campaign known as Gamergate. On the other hand, Sommers is Jewish and Radio 3Fourteen is often openly hostile to Jews.
Nevertheless, Sommers — who most likely did not research the podcast before appearing on it — came on the program to deny the existence of the gender pay gap. Or, at least, claim any such gap exists because of personal choices and the invisible hand of the free market. Lokteff asked Sommers how feminism went “awry,” to which Sommers responded that while she supports “classical, equality feminism,” another form of feminism “derived from Marxism” took its place.
Sommers mocked the idea that the gender wage gap is a “salient issue,” and asserted that there “really isn’t a wage gap” at all, despite all evidence to the contrary. Instead, any gap between men and women in earnings she attributes to “differences between men and women.” “To me, it’s a sign of freedom and pursuit of happiness,” she remarked.
Sommers also (predictably) blasted feminists for”approach[ing] men in a spirit of hostility.” The “theory of toxic masculinity” is “very destructive,” she said, adding that she “became a feminist in the ’60s and ’70s” because she “didn’t like male chauvinism,” but that she also opposes “female chauvinism and female misandry.”
Finally, Suzanne Venker — niece of anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly — made a guest appearance on Red Ice Radio to speak with Henrik Palmgren. On September 26, 2013, Venker came on the show to talk about the fabricated “war on men.”
She began by laughably claiming that men are somehow excluded from political discussions surrounding gender, sex, and reproductive rights. Venker said it is “unfortunate” that “when men speak out” they are told that they are “not allowed to have that opinion.” Specifically on abortion, Venker said “you don’t hear men on their soapboxes about that issue.”
Between off-the-cuff statements on “legitimate rape,” women who use birth control being “sluts,” women swallowing cameras to do gynecological exams, women having to be “punished” for having abortions, and women being forced to give birth to microcephalic babies, it seems that men are not at all hesitant to make ignorant pronouncements concerning reproductive rights. Especially troubling are lawmakers, often men, who attempt to restrict those rights with TRAP laws, mandatory waiting periods, forced sonograms, transvaginal ultrasounds, and other draconian measures.
Venker considers this irrelevant, as she believes that while abortion is “considered a woman’s issue,” it actually isn’t. Instead, it is a “human issue.”
Like many right-wing anti-feminists (and homophobes), Venker considers feminism an affront to traditional values and the family. Feminism as it stands today is “victim oriented” and “Marxist.” Betty Friedan (author of the seminal book The Feminine Mystique) was herself a “Marxist” after all. And the goal, of course, is to destroy the traditional family.
“Well [feminism is] about undermining the family unit, basically,” said Venker. “That’s really the gist of it. And, again, they don’t come out and say that ’cause who the heck is gonna, you know, jump on board if you say it that way?”
Palmgren asked how feminism was causing the gender roles to become “confused.” Venker responded by saying that feminists have a “need” to “prove themselves” by “being strong and in control and making money” like men. Venker said this would prove disastrous in their home and dating lives, with men and women not knowing “who’s supposed to do what.”
Palmgren said this meant feminism was “turning women into men, and men into women.” Venker agreed, stating that this confusion has led to men complaining to her that “women aren’t women anymore.” And, as Venker said, “men don’t want another man unless they’re gay!”
Now, are all these men’s rights activists racists or anti-Semites? Of course not. But they do owe an explanation to people for why they appeared on a radio program geared toward white supremacists and far-right conspiracy theorists. I’m guessing we won’t get one, however.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests