Netflix continues to act as a propaganda and social engineering outlet for the left to fuel hatred against anybody who might lean towards opinions that might be considered “conservative,” having to do with criticizing feminism, supporting men’s health and men’s issues, criticizing the role of Islam in western countries, and criticizing socialism and cultural Marxism, including all of the associated degeneracy that accompanies it.
Recently, I saw a meme posted online showing a general breakdown of how Netflix is a form of social engineering, as opposed to a mere form of entertainment.
It listed seven various archetypal and stereotypical examples relating to racial biases, homosexuality, the role of mothers and fathers, and children. At least a few of these examples were also recently pointed out in a video on Black Pilled’s YouTube channel, which I found quite accurate and profoundly unsettling.
For about the last few years, I’ve been noticing similar patterns. And there are certain productions in particular that seemed to stand out more than others.
Follow This, Part 1, Episode 4: Men’s Rights
The first production highlighted is an episode of Follow This, the Netflix collaborative series with Buzzfeed. The episode is about men’s rights, and features author Scaachi Koul.
As an obvious propagandistic tool for spreading fear about the group of men known as “incels,” in the first fifteen minutes of the documentary, Koul brings up the van attack that took place earlier this year, on April 23rd.
Of course, she mentioned nothing about how the school where the attacker attended was connected
She also reached out to Paul Elam on Twitter, who apparently replied by commenting, “Eat shit, and die.”
So, she instead interviewed Karen Straughan, and was apparently left with a feeling of dissatisfaction after the interview.
She also interviewed Paige Flink, who works at the Family Place, one of two male domestic violence shelters in the United States. And she interviewed one of the survivors.
She basically concludes that many of the issues MRAs focus on are legitimate, but they “blame women.” Of course, this is clearly not the case, since feminism doesn’t represent all women, and all women are certainly not feminists.
I am not necessarily in agreement with many of the views Straughan and Elam support, and I do not speak for MRAs. But it seems to me that many MRAs don’t outright blame feminists, as much as they criticize feminist ideology, itself. And I would say that is a big difference overlooked (and probably intentionally) by mainstream and corporate media outlets, both in this instance and in many others.
And I think one of the main reasons for this is that if they did not brush it aside they would have to confront the damage caused to men and families as a result of the ideology and the policies stemming from it that their corporate backers also help to legislate.
The attack was carried out by Anders Breivek, who changed his name to Fjotolf Hansen in June, 2017. Breivek was imprisoned immediately after the attack was charged three days later in violation of paragraph 147a of Norway’s criminal code, “destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society,” and “creating serious fear in the population.”
He was officially indicted in March of 2012, sentenced to 21 years, and remains imprisoned today at the Ila Prison, outside Oslo. His political views were emphasized in the film, which include his opposition to Islam, Cultural Marxism and feminism.
He carried out the heinous attack on a summer camp, with children who were from Palestine. There were a total of 77 casualties. The island itself where the attack occurred is also owned by the same group that ran the summer camp, the Workers’ Youth League.
The organization trains members of the younger generation for future leadership positions, and shares affiliations with Norway’s Labor Party, Young European Socialists, and the International Union of Socialist Youth.
At the time of the attack Norway’s Labor Party was led by a man, named Jens Stoltenberg. Then the 27th Prime Minister of Norway and now serving as the 13th Secretary General of NATO, a description on his Wikipedia page describes his religious views as non-denominational, after having been “…portrayed as a staunch atheist for most of his life.”
As former Stratfor chairman George Friedman noted in his book, Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, NATO has the same basic goals of European domination and nationalism the Nazis sought to achieve, but without the violence.
Norway’s Labor Party, in turn, shares affiliations with both the Party of European Socialists and the Progressive Alliance.
So, it’s clear the institutions running the summer camp in Oslo are indeed connected to a larger socialist agenda extending across most European countires. And feminism is indeed also part of that agenda.
Though Breivek’s actions were clearly horrendous, the film did not clearly portray how, for example, the very same conditions that stem from socialist and feminist policy-making may actually lead to the kind of struggles Breivek dealt with throughout his youth that brought him to commit the acts of violence carried out that day.
His early childhood is highlighted in an article published on Norway’s TV 2’s website:
“In 1983 and 1984, some of Norway’s top specialist child psychologists wanted to forcibly remove Anders Behring Breivik from his mother’s care.
A psychologist at the National Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Stations Senter for Barne-og Ungdomspyskiatri (the SSBU), Norway’s leading body for child and adolescent psychiatry who in the 1980s observed the interaction between Anders and his mother, was queried by police in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 22 July 2011.
The psychologist fiercely criticized the Barnevernet, Norway’s state Child Welfare Service, for stopping the care order.”
The article also cites a 1983 report:
“Anders is a victim of his mother’s projections of paranoid-aggressive and sexual fears toward men in general,” and “she projects onto him her own primitive, aggressive and sexual fantasies; all the qualities in men that she regards as dangerous and aggressive.”
These last quotes cited from the report also happen to describe in a nutshell one of the main elements of feminist theory and policies. As an example, patriarchy theory ultimately demonizes oppression which is inherently masculine in nature, while making all women into victims of this oppression, in the form of rape culture.
So, according to feminist theory, all men should be feared as potential rapists. Similarly and eerily this may also encompass those dangerous and and aggressive qualities described in the 1983 report about the projections of Breivik’s mother onto him.
In this sense, Breivik also has much in common with what have come to be known as incels. In fact, some have also brought into question as to whether or not feminism and progressivism actually helped to create incels. I wonder if Netflix would ever produce an honest and unbiassed documentary exploring this whole issue?
Santa Clarita Diet, Season 3, Episode 4: More of a Cat Person
Santa Clarita Diet is a popular zombie-themed comedy-horror series on Netflix, starring Drew Barrymore and Timothy Olyphant. It is centered around the idea of the undead living amongst the population of the largely upscale city of Santa Clarita, in Southern California’s LA County.
Barrymore and Olyphant star as a couple, with Barrymore playing the central role of a the undead wife. There are also a number of sub-plots involving other characters, including their daughter, who is played by Australian actress Live Hewson.
Barrymore’s character experiences moral dilemmas involving who she will choose for a meal, and decides to go after people who committed heinous acts of some kind, including known Nazis living in the area.
In the fourth episode of the third (and thankfully final) season of the series she ends up luring a man who is a men’s rights activist to a fake men’s rights meeting, with the apparent intention of conflating men’s rights supporters with Nazis.
I thought this reddit post on the episode, by u/Omnica articulated the propagandistic elements of the episode very well:
‘This is an awesome, and hilarious show. Just watching the new season, up to episode 4. In the episode one of the “victims” they are going to kill for food, is lured into a kill room, by inviting him to a Men’s Rights Meeting. They make out the group as if it’s full of misogynistic, domestic abusers, that all have restraining orders. This is just a ridiculous example of how mens issues are being portrayed by the main stream. It can be really disappointing that people will actually watch this episode, and believe that is an accurate portrayal of what the Men’s Rights Movement is about and the kind of people that are in this movement.’
The fear-mongering propagandistic elements of Netflix features seem even more blatantly obvious taking into consideration the co-founder and CEO of Netflix, Reed Hastings, also sat on the Facebook’s board of directors until May of 2019. And, despite many of Facebook’s arguable benefits, it still supports a larger technocratic agenda, in part through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. And it supports the initiatives of many organizations that are also clearly at odds with many conservative values.
Furthermore, Reed’s bio on Wikipedia also states that he was a member of the California State Board of Education. So, not only does Hastings own a company that influences the public opinion of hundreds of millions of subscribers worldwide, but he is also one of the people making decisions regarding how the minds of future generations will be shaped.
Netflix tactics aren’t necessarily new and are used by many other and Holllywood-linked media outlets for the purposes of othering those who don’t fit into the narrative they support. And that tactic is based in faulty generalization, and the inductive fallacy.
They will use the example of one or a few individuals who have committed some extreme act(s) of violence or crime against humanity, who also happen to share some similar opinions as a much larger group of people.
And they will do this to associate those actions with the wider group of people in an attempt to demonize that group merely for sharing similar opinions. It is a hugely manipulative and dishonest form of weaponized propaganda that I hope people stop buying into.
The future will indeed be very bleak if people do not grasp logos and learn how to see through this propaganda that seems to be designed in assisting the destruction of traditional religious values on a global scale.
Find more of Isle of Arran’s work, and subscribe to his video streaming platforms at the following links: