Red Ice Radio

[coffin_dodger]

fair enough - its the sort of thing they cover in Searchlight magazine - suck this one and see :

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/arch ... g-networks

Thanks for the link - are you seriously suggesting that these individuals are "the more cerebral end of White Nationalism" and that as individuals, are the masterminds behind the co-opting of conspiracy theory towards the right-wing?

[semper occultus]

....to the extent I have, with an absolute minimum expenditure of time and effort, attempted to suggest examples to back up some assertions made by a couple of other posters then yes I am....

[coffin_dodger]

Well...okey-dokey then, thanks for your honesty.

[jakell]

Jakell said:

I would say that the 'sinister forces' are the more cerebral end of White Nationalism, made more sinister in that, relative to their shallower colleagues, are better read, better writers, better communicators and possessing of a degree of self control and patience.

Thanks for that.

When I say 'who', I mean who in particular, not a generalisation.

Can you point me towards some examples of "the more cerebral end of White Nationalism"?

We would probably differ on what counts as 'cerebral', but would very likely concur on what might constitute more cerebral. these characters tend to cluster together though and are more likely to be found on sites such as Majority Rights and CounterCurrents a few of which also seem to have popped up as interviewees in RIR.

I'm can't really identify many particular characters (off of the top of my head), my eye has been off the ball here for a couple of years (this RIR thing is what has drawn my attention lately), but one name that comes to mind is Kevin MacDonald.

[guruilla]

^^ thanks for that Semper, but I'm not so interested in leaders from the 30's (that's getting on for nearly 100 years ago) - I'm more interested in what's happening now.

I don't think it's necessary, or even desirable, to separate then from now if there's a carry-through of ideas, i.e., if it's all one "psyop."

I wouldn't have recognized Neil Kramer's catering to/pirating this ideology if i weren't familiar with some of the tenets of Neo-Thuleanism.

There's some interesting work being done by Amy Hale on this, eg., John Michell, Radical Traditionalism, And the Emerging Politics of the Pagan New Right: https://www.academia.edu/1558633/John_M ... _New_Right

I haven't read the doc yet, but have listened to a talk she participated in at a conference; I will try and find the audio.

[coffin_dodger]

guruilla said:

I don't think it's necessary, or even desirable, to separate then from now if there's a carry-through of ideas, i.e., if it's all one "psyop."

A psyop perpertrated by whom?

[guruilla]

guruilla said:

I don't think it's necessary, or even desirable, to separate then from now if there's a carry-through of ideas, i.e., if it's all one "psyop."

A psyop perpetrated by whom?

What difference does it make?

I put the word in quotes because while there indubitably are social engineering agendas pushed by specific groups and individuals, it evidently goes a lot deeper & into collective psychology, unconscious human drives, etc, etc. For example, do ideologues create ideologies or does the ideology create the ideologues?

If the latter, as I tend to believe, whence come the ideologies?

[coffin_dodger]

For example, do ideologues create ideologies or does the ideology create the ideologues?

Are you serious? Crikey, I think you are.

Last I heard, ideas were a purely human purview.

Perhaps you could explain how an idea comes to be formed, by any method other than that of a human being thinking it.

[jakell]

For example, do ideologues create ideologies or does the ideology create the ideologues?

Are you serious? Crikey, I think you are.

Last I heard, ideas were a purely human purview.

Perhaps you could explain how an idea comes to be formed, by any method other than that of a human being thinking it.

A far knottier problem that you seem to make out here. I think you are talking of the expression of an idea here, ie the finished product, whereas Guruilla is wondering about the stuff of ideas.
The finished product requires a complete human consciousness and thinking apparatus, but uness you're a proponent of some sort of intelligent design, this never arrived fully formed, but emerged gradually out of animal cognition at some unspecified point(s), so these fully formed ideas would have had proto-forms that are barely accessible to our present level of cognition.

I can't really answer the question though, just rolling it around a bit.

[guruilla]

For example, do ideologues create ideologies or does the ideology create the ideologues?

Are you serious? Crikey, I think you are.

Last I heard, ideas were a purely human purview.

Perhaps you could explain how an idea comes to be formed, by any method other than that of a human being thinking it.

It's a big topic; there's lot of psychological and philosophical work done on how our attitudes, beliefs, etc, come after our behaviors as post-rationalizations disguised as conscious motivations.

Ideas can come through human beings and take form via thinking, but their original source is not in the individual but the unconscious of the group. Think Matrix.

Don't ideologies seem to always entail a form of dehumanization? The point as regards Red Ice - the current ideology includes blaming certain elements of society for the world's problems, scapegoating, in other words; yet this is the very thing those elements are being blamed for doing, so there's a psychopathic drive to eliminate all psychopaths, duh. It's mimetic violence, and the ideologies that spring up to justify and fuel that engine of destruction are probably less causal factors than afterthoughts to make it seem like a rational "policy."

At a "psyops" level, feed an audience cult like Red Ice enough fear & rage-inducing (mis)information, and then supply them with the ideologies to DO something about that heavy emotional burden, and you could feasibly create a "movement."

Who is behind it would seem to be ultimately unknowable, hence not relevant. We might be able to identify the disseminators, but how will we know for sure they aren't just useful idiots?

[Searcher08]

For example, do ideologues create ideologies or does the ideology create the ideologues?

Are you serious? Crikey, I think you are.

Last I heard, ideas were a purely human purview.

Perhaps you could explain how an idea comes to be formed, by any method other than that of a human being thinking it.

By purpose; a focused intention

[BrandonD]

For example, do ideologues create ideologies or does the ideology create the ideologues?

Are you serious? Crikey, I think you are.

Last I heard, ideas were a purely human purview.

Perhaps you could explain how an idea comes to be formed, by any method other than that of a human being thinking it.

Riffing on this subject.

I do get the impression that ideas have an independent reality of their own. They fuse with a person and channel his thinking like a ravine in the ground.

But an independent reality doesn't necessarily mean a physical object, like a tomato. Even a ravine is not necessarily a physical thing. One cannot pick it up, it is negative space, a modification of the environment's geometry. I think that ideas exist in a similar fashion to a ravine, only they are a modification of some sort of cosmic geometry that humans can only dimly perceive.

Just like I only dimly perceive what I'm talking about right now.

[coffin_dodger]

Guruilla said:

Ideas can come through human beings and take form via thinking, but their original source is not in the individual but the unconscious of the group. Think Matrix.

Ah, OK.

So.. no individual is actually responsible for any of their ideas and subsequent actions. It's all 'channeled' from a speculative part of the subconscious. How convenient.

In that case, why is this board constantly and unremittingly filled with critisisms of any individual or individuals? After all, they are not responsible for the idea they had.

I stand in awe of the lengths that human minds can stretch to, in order to conform to the models imposed by others.

[jakell]

..and the focus here moves substantially away from Red Ice Radio, something that, IMO, represents the current activities of WN's and an emergence of such, full of identifiable personalities, ie not only is there a point of focus, but a meta-issue too for those who might get bored.

My recent bumping of this thread might have been a bit rambling, but it at least centred around a current issue

Ok, I give up.

I've been trying very hard to give Henrik a pass by seeing his embracing of this sort of material as consistent with RIR's stated agenda, ie to question those things we are not meant to question, those things that are behind the taboo wall. He's pretty much been on this path for a while now though and I'm not seeing much balance, so it's looking like more than a passing flirtation.

My curiosity has been piqued though; has he gone this way organically, or is he receiving moral, intellectual and possibly material support from the more cerebral end of the 'New Right'?, it's looking a bit like the latter to me, or at the very least a combination of the two.
I know that these guys didn't go away with the failure of British Nationalism, in fact they anticipated it, looking at their sites they simply carried on patiently trucking and searching for vehicles for their stuff, and RIR seems to be one of them. Now that the second hour needs to be paid for, I often wonder what I'm missing

The John Lash stuff above seems a departure though. Even though there are some similar memes involved, he seems to be coming from a different direction, but possibly with a similar destination (like Henrik maybe?).

[coffin_dodger]

Why is anti-semetism on the rise, Jakell?

And why are the corrupt, scheming, manipulative, fascist governments we reside under keen to quell it?