The weaponization of Netflix

Netflix continues to act as a propaganda and social engineering outlet for the left to fuel hatred against anybody who leans 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.

Consequently, one of it’s co-founders, Marc Randolph is also member of the Bernays family. For anyone reading who is unfamiliar with that name, its most well-known member, the late Edward Bernays (who is Randolph’s great-granduncle) is known as the “Father of Public Relations” and the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who is in turn known to be the founder of psychoanalysis (Freud is also one of Randolph’s paternal great-granduncles).

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 claim to 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.

July 22

The next highlighted production is the recent Netflix release, 22 July, a portrayal of the terror attack that took place on the Norwegian island of Utøya, on the 22nd of July, 2011.

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 and 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?

Lastly, the film doesn’t seem to reference Breivik’s right-wing, pagan influences anywhere. And this detail is relatively important, considering the many conflicting news reports that surfaced after the attack identifying him with Christianity. Why wasn’t this detail addressed?

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 other 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 to see through this propaganda that seems to be designed in assisting the destruction of traditional religious values on a global scale.

Donate to Isle of Arran Media:

Support my work on SubscribeStar:

Isle of Arran Media on Patreon:


Isle of Arran Media’s Bitcoin: 3LgwRyK4ECcMnBE5XfNZ7jZfyUCG1YvoXH

Isle of Arran Media’s Ethereum: 0x171c3b460e9ca173e06b76c3ffeca30f262b72d7


Isle of Arran on Twitter:

Isle of Arran on Facebook:

Isle of Arran on Minds:

Isle of Arran on Gab:

Isle of Arran on Mastodon:

Isle of Arran’s Pocketnet address: PESRCNciM9mADY5qDgAfwSc2DA6Gic1wQq

Isle of Arran on Fine Art America:

The Cailin Jeffers case and the APA’s guidelines for men and boys

During early April, 2017 a student at the University of Arizona, Cailin Jeffers, was the subject of a number of news stories (including the one here) about her experience with Northern Arizona University English professor, Dr. Anne Scott, who subtracted points from her college paper due to her use of the word “mankind” in reference to human beings.

Jeffers was kind enough to conduct a short text interview with me about her experience, which I hadn’t gotten around to publishing until now.

I also thought it was very relevant in the wake of the recent news about the American Psychological Association’s new guidelines on masculinity, since their guidelines (along with those of the Modern Language Association’s) are also used in writing academic papers.

In Jeffer’s case, her college professor subtracted points from her paper based of the MLA guidelines, which requires students to use gender-neutral language.

As Jeffers pointed out to me in our interview, “If I am required to use MLA format, and the MLA says we have to use gender-neutral language with their format, then that’s what we have to do.”

When she inquired with her English professor as to why she was marked down, her professor told her, “…it was something that both the MLA and the English department enforced.”

Jeffers also added, “the conversation was mainly focused on how ‘mankind’ does not mean ‘all people’ to all people, that words matter, and that this is something that all the other professors enforce.”

Jeffers also expressed that she felt the guidelines needed to be changed and added, “I understand using ‘he/she’ or ‘their’ in certain contexts (for example, ‘A good student should remember to bring his/her book.’). However, ‘mankind’ is gender-neutral. There is no reason to censor it because a FEW people find it offensive.”

Her college professor also received a number of death threats in response to her decision of following MLA guidelines, and Jeffers expressed she never wanted that to happen, and had nothing personal against her professor. Jeffers also emphasized, “she really is a great teacher.”

I was not able to reach Dr. Scott for comments, but Jeffers also let me know, “I don’t think she actually has a problem with the guidelines, based off of what she told me.”

And, speaking of the APS’s new guidelines on men and boys, an essay I found posted on the EU website, Euro-Healthy, describes how it is that postmodernism relates to psychology.

The essay concludes that psychology is inherently postmodern in its rejection of grand-narratives, prioritization of utility, its search for a new legitimizing  principle, its ironic view of truth, and its acknowledgment of language games.

In the context of grand narratives, the essay’s author (whose name is not revealed) also mentions Wilhelm Wunt, who is regarded as the father of experimental psychology, as well as the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud.

Wunt’s laboratory, the author writes, “…was set up to find the objective truth behind human behaviour,” while the truth-seeking theories of Freud “…were thought to free people from their troubles and improve their standards of living.“

Postmodernism also largely helped to shape Fabian Socialism, which in turn was hugely influential in the formation of both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

So, it may come as no surprise to know the Modern Language Association is also affiliated with UNESCO, through its connection with the Oslo-based International Federation for Modern Languages and Literatures.

It could thus be argued that, in addition to pushing anti-Christian, postmodernist and Marxist narratives, the MLA and ALA are both helping to push the agenda of the United Nations through the public academic system in the United States.

It also my come as no surprise as to who some of the members of both organizations are.

Included on the member list of MLA Officers and the Executive Council are:

Members of the American Psychological Association’s Board of Directors include

There are other members listed of both the MLA and the APA, but I thought these individuals were particularly noteworthy, due to their obvious biases towards both Marxism and feminism. And I also found Diana Prescott’s affiliation with the Society of Psychological Hypnosis to be interesting.

I won’t dive off the deep end and imply that the writing guidelines are being used in part for the purposes of mass hypnosis, but…

And, pro-Israel Zionists who I communicated with online understood the implications of third-wave feminist and Boycott and Divestment Sanctions  supporter, Judith Butler being on the MLA’s membership list.

One may be of the opinion that Jeffers’ only had a small number of points subtracted for her use of the word “mankind” in her paper. So, why does it matter? It matters for the same reasons any issue matters relating to the control and manipulation of language and words in society.

Furthermore, I have little doubt the control over usage of language and words is part of a larger plan that involves the weaponization of sex and gender roles to meet the ends of a deeper racist, elitist, and eugenics-based agenda.

In fact, the American Psychological Association is an accredited NGO (Nongovernmental organization) within the United Nations. And the United Nations has a long history of advancing eugenics through its specialized agency, UNESCO, which Julian Huxley was the first director of.  Julian Huxley was also a prominent member and president of the British Eugenics Society.

Rockford University professor Stephen Hicks published an article on the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal’s website expressing his views on postmodernist indoctrination in the modern education system, and describes how indoctrinators think:

“There is the One Truth. I am in possession of it. So important is it that students must believe it. Alternative ideas are a waste of time—and a temptation to unformed minds—and should be shunned. So as a teacher I will use my authority and my power to instill only the correct ideas.”

And the implications surrounding Cailin Jeffers losing points on her English paper very much relate to this kind of indoctrination. It has also been taking many other shapes and forms around the country, in other public universities and keeping students under a kind of a postmodernist spell.

Modern academia in the United States has abandoned the classical education model. The difference between classical education and postmodernism is the difference between learning how to learn and being told what to think.

It would be an understatement in saying it is a massive disservice to both society and humanity when the schooling system is being used for postmodernist indoctrination and as a form of weaponization against natural law, traditional masculine roles, and effectively itself.

With that, here is a quote from the 1972 book, Deschooling Society, by Sephardic Jew and Roman Catholic convert, Ivan Illich:

“The school system today performs the threefold function common to powerful churches throughout history. It is simultaneously the repository of society’s myth, the institutionalization of that myth’s contradictions, and the locus of the ritual which reproduces and veils the disparities between myth and reality. Today the school system, and especially the university, provides ample opportunity for criticism of the myth and for rebellion against its institutional perversions. But the ritual which demands tolerance of the fundamental contradictions between myth and institution still goes largely unchallenged, for neither ideological criticism nor social action can bring about a new society. Only disenchantment with and detachment from the central social ritual and reform of that ritual can bring about radical change.

The American university has become the final stage of the most all encompassing initiation rite the world has ever known. No society in history has been able to survive without ritual or myth, but ours is the first which has needed such a dull, protracted, destructive, and expensive initiation into its myth. The contemporary world civilization is also the first one which has found it necessary to rationalize its fundamental initiation ritual in the name of education. We cannot begin a reform of education unless we first understand that neither individual learning nor social equality can be enhanced by the ritual of schooling. We cannot go beyond the consumer society unless we first understand that obligatory public schools inevitably reproduce such a society, no matter what is taught in them.”