Tag Archives: henrik palmgren

Red Ice and the Alt Right

Red Ice Creations was probably the best alternative media site on the internet a few years back, and I was subscribed to them for several years. However, the website’s quality has been gradually going downhill since they joined the Alt Right, maybe six months to a year ago. Don’t get me wrong, I think most of the guests on Red Ice still these days have been pretty decent, but I just see Red Ice slowly heading toward its doom.

One reason for this is that Red Ice has gotten as famous as it is now. There are all sorts of people who see something nice that others have created and assimilate it into their own network. The Alt Right assimilation is just the latest example of this, but in my opinion it has happened before, but Red Ice managed to evade subversion before. In 2014, Henrik Palmgren, the voice of Red Ice Creations, was asked to host the Secret Space Program conference, and he interviewed many, if not all, of the participants. The idea of a Breakaway Civilization of humans out there in space being funded by governmental Black Projects sounds fascinating alright, but I’ve come to regard it as far-fetched and hypothetical at best. I’m suspicious of some people promoting that stuff, while I’m not saying that every presenter in the conference were a disinformant.

I think the Secret Space Program people dragged Henrik Palmgren into their conference both as a way of promoting the conference, but also as a way of subverting Red Ice from objective research into promoting certain narratives.

In recent years Red Ice has shifted their focus from esoteric conspiracy theories to more practical matters. I agree with this, since the problem with conspiracy theories is not the word conspiracy but theory. It’s something theoretical, hypothetical and conspiracy theorists tend to merely discuss issues, instead of doing something about it (myself included). So when I first discovered the Alt Right I was pleased, since they seemed like they were more practically minded traditional and conservative people who get things done. I’ve since come to the understanding that they’re not.

It has been said before by several people, but the inescapable conclusion is that the Alt Right are the other side of the Cultural Marxists. Both groups have a simplified, digital view of the world and they care more about their virtue signalling, edginess and posturing than actually fixing things. The difference is that Cultural Marxists are effeminate and only see the worst parts of Western culture, and the Alt Right are masculine (often their hypermasculinity extends into homosexuality) and see only the best parts of Western culture. There is big difference between promoting European culture and history, and Alt Right’s cookie cutter notion of Whiteness. For this reason I wish that Red Ice renounced their Alt Right associations.

While so far I do despite their Alt Right associates Henrik has been doing a decent job, and making worthwhile interviews, I fear his Alt Right company will drag him down with them. I am more concerned about some of the things his wife, Lana Lokteff of Radio 3Fourteen, has been saying, though.

In her interview with Sencha MacRae, Sencha was going to say something about Donald Trump being controlled opposition, but Lana turned it around and started saying something like Trump is the manifestation of the desire of White people, or something to that effect, I forget the details. I agree with Lana that people are burning to find a leader, but she should realize that Trump ain’t it. He is practically an actor there to misguide you. Being the wife of the head of Red Ice, Lana should be able to recognize this simple conspiracy fact.

Then at the end of her inteview with Walter T. Richmond she was saying something like Americans should return to their homeland of Europe. That just pissed me off. I’m against mass-immigration. I do not want troves of immigrants from any country into Europe, not from Africa or the Middle-East, not even from East-Asia (which I am fond of), and not from America. You created the problems that you face in America, you fix them. Don’t bring them here.

And last, and certainly not least, is Lana Lokteff’s interview with Greg Johnson on gayness and Alt Right. I already made a post pointing out the dishonesty of Greg Johnson in the way he promotes homosexuality. In the interview with Lana he was explaining his views on homosexuality, and they seem reasonable enough, such as the fact that some people simply seem to be born homosexual, and this has been going on since time immemorial so there’s no need to fuss over it. I agree, however this isn’t what Greg Johnson was doing in his article “Gay Panic on the Alt Right”. Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrott were excluded from an Alt Right conference, because of anti-homosexual views, and Johnson was pretending this wasn’t the case. If he wants to have a discussion about the role of homosexuality in the Alt Right, I’d be happy with it, but the Alt Right does not do so, instead they outright censor people who speak out against homosexuality, and then pretend like they didn’t. Moreover, they are blatantly anti-Christianity. For a movement that’s supposedly revolutionary and politically correct, they do seem to agree a lot with Obama’s policies of promoting homosexuality and oppressing Christians. I wouldn’t be surprised if some members Alt Right started supporting Satanism a few months from now.

Had the two Matts said something like gays should be sent into concentration camps or drowned in a bog, I’d understand if the Alt Right wanted to exlude them. But I haven’t seen any evidence that they were advocating any crazy, extremist views such as these. Therefore, I can only conclude that the Alt Right wants to promote homosexuality and stifle criticism of it.

The worst part of the interview is that Lana Lokteff was agreeing with Greg Johnson and promoting his message. All I can say about Lana is that I don’t trust her judgement. She may have the best of intentions, but you know what the road to hell is paved with.

Unless Red Ice Creations takes a quick U-turn I expect it to lose relevance in a year or two as it’ll degenerate into some sort of in-group circle jerk of Alt Right. I’m sure their new audience is pressuring them into promoting Trump as well (and of course he is a better option than Hillary, Bernie or Cruz, but that isn’t saying much). I’m sure many decent people are drawn into the Alt Right, especially since the main stream offers little solutions nor sanity, but the Alt Right is not a real alternative. It’s a distraction at best.



Sencha MacRae – The Russian Bolshevik Revolution: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2016/R314-160309.php

Walter T. Richmond – “Refugee Crisis” Propaganda: What You’re Not Being Told: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2016/R314-160224.php

Greg Johnson – Straight But Not Narrow Nationalism: Gays, Women & The Manosphere: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2016/R314-160330.php

Alt-Right just seems getting gayer; i.e. Common Filth did nothing wrong: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/alt-right-just-seems-getting-gayer-i-e-common-filth-did-nothing-wrong/

Gay Panic on the Alt Right: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/gay-panic-on-the-alt-right/

We’re Here. We’re Not Queer. Get Used To It.: http://www.tradyouth.org/2016/03/were-here-were-not-queer-get-used-to-it/




Richard C. Hoagland is a fraud

Richard C. Hoagland allegedly worked for NASA decades ago, but then he figured out they were covering something up, and became a whistler-blower of sorts. In the last 10 years he’s been interview in several alternative media programs. He usually makes all sorts of outrageous claims, while saying he speaks based on facts. Unsurprisingly his claims rarely, if ever, come true.

I have the book Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA by Hoagland and Mike Bara. I read it several years ago, and found it interesting, although I had problems believing some of the claims, such as glass structures being on the moon. Nevertheless, back then I respected Hoagland’s opinion, and came up with some excuse why none of his predictions and claims ever came true. Now, years later it’s hard for me to deny the fact that, to put it lightly, Hoagland seems to talking out of his ass.

I just listened Hoagland’s recent interview with Richie Allen, and Hoagland was being a complete ass. Simply spouting how great he is and merely denigrating those with a brain who criticize him. But you could argue that that particular interview only deals with opinions, so I think we should go back in time a bit and take a look at a couple of Hoagland’s predictions that did not come true.


Failed Predictions

In 2010, Hoagland claimed it would be year of disclosure on aliens. He was quite sure about it. According to him the clues from NASA or the elites hinted that would happen. Guess what, still waiting for disclosure.

In 2011, he claimed that asteroid YU55 will hit the moon. It didn’t. The comet Elenin was also supposed to be triangle-shaped and a message from friendly aliens, or something like that.

They’re not minor things. They’re very far out claims and yet nothing of the sort happened. Not only that, Hoagland says he bases everything on facts and science and all that, yet he constantly engages in conjecture and innuendo. He talks about secret priesthoods, special occult dates, and every now and then he throws in his Hyperdimensional Physics Model that makes him sound much smarter than anyone can understand.


The Red Ice interview

For example, in an interview on Red Ice Creations May 30, 2010 hour 2 ( from 18:30 on), Hoagland rambles on about some “ritual calendars” of secret priesthoods, how they are realizing that its their time to reveal free-energy and other secret technologies to the public, he name-drops Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, Hoagland says they need to save the planet. I think he’s simply putting out words and concepts that sound grandiose to impress people, then again I’m not attuned to his hyperdimensional model of thinking. Eventually the interviewer Henrik asks (at 20:22) Hoagland if he thinks they are talking about human beings or they (the priests?) are under the control of something else? I think it’s a decent question. Hoaxland responds: “I try to deal with science. In this political realm it’s impossible to know.” Then he starts to ramble on something about the human proclivities to fragment, the civil rights movement and how it’s difficult to work together without any external threat.

I don’t understand if Hoagland’s answer is in any way related to what Henrik asked. I guess he’s sort of hinting that the “external threat” is aliens, but I don’t know. I don’t think he knows either. I think he’s an actor playing a scientist. He rambles on more and then throws in “Yuga cycles of the ancient Vedas”. I think he’s saying that just to sound smart and mystical. It makes no sense. Let’s move on.

About 5 minutes after Hoagland said it’s difficult to know about the political realm, and that he deals with science, then he goes on to conjecture something about the Norway Spiral of 2009 suggesting there is conflict within the secret priesthood. What priesthood? Like the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Adeptus Mechanicus? The spiral supposedly suggests that there are two factions, one of them wants disclosure and the other doesn’t. I guess the non-disclosure faction won, although Obama was a leader on the disclosure side…

Later on in the interview Henrik asks Hoagland about the moon. Hoagland rambles on and eventually he mentions the “Data’s head” on the moon depicted below.

It does look like a robot’s head, or C-3PO from Star Wars, but it does not mean it is. The picture isn’t very clear. But if I was feeling generous I might agree it looks artificial. That’s all.

Yet Hoagland is not content with merely promoting the idea that it is a robot’s head, but he suggests the astronauts that allegedly went on the moon might have been able to talk to it, and even extract ancient videos from it. Sounds like a decent scifi-movie, but Hoagland only deals with science as he constantly points out in his interviews. However, this is hardly only dealing with the facts and science.



I have little doubt that Richard C. Hoagland is a fraud. I cannot say what motivates him. Whether he’s actually controlled opposition paid by “the secret priesthood”, or if he wants to be genuine but he’s just bit crazy and convinces himself that what he says makes sense, I don’t know. He’s clearly just not an actual scientist that has uncovered something significant about the moon, NASA or space.

The funny thing is, I believed him for many years mainly because I wanted to. The things he says sound cool and exciting, and you want to root for him, but that can only happen when you suppress your critical thinking, your reason. Just a year and a-half ago I wrote:

“Hoagland has said a lot of things that aren’t true. Yet I don’t think he’s disinfo or anything. I think he has done a lot of good research, and brought out useful information, but he’s sometimes like an excited school boy with an overactive imagination, saying things that seem true in his mind, but that’s as far as it goes.”

I wanted to believe his claims. I don’t anymore.

If you think I am slandering Hoagland or criticizing him merely out of spite, then I suggest go back and listen to a few of his older interviews with a critical mind. He tends to say a lot of things that are not true, and make predictions that never come true. He keeps on talking about stuff that sounds smart but ultimately does not make sense, shifting from topic to topic so your mind cannot keep up. In his interview with Richie Allen he just kept talking to avoid addressing the criticism Richie mentioned. Basically he’s using the Emperor’s New Clothes -method of talking. You’re confused and dumbfounded by what he says, but he seems smart so you play along because you don’t want to feel stupid.

I have no doubt that NASA has been lying about a lot of stuff, and there’s certainly something suspicious about the moon we should know about, but I’m fairly certain Mr. Hoagland won’t be the one to enlighten us. For example, Youtuber Crrow777 seems much more scientific and genuine to mention one.

The glass structures on the moon mentioned in Dark Mission is just a silly idea. Jay Weidner’s Kubrick’s Odyssey points that out too.



Richard C. Hoagland Talks About his Lifes Work With Richie Allen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL-vagQWe84&hd=1

HOT BREAKING NEWS RICHARD C HOAGLAND ON ET DISCLOSURE 2010 YouTube UFO News 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoxNIctjaiY&hd=1

MAJOR NEWS from Richard C. Hoagland – ASTEROID YU-55 TO HIT THE MOON on NOV 9th!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmVLYaxHnPA&hd=1

Richard C. Hoagland – Phobos, Mars, NASA, Space Rituals & Disclosure: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/05may/RIR-100530.php

Norway Spiral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80__LLZK4zg&hd=1

Adeptus Mechanicus: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Adeptus_Mechanicus

What Ever Happened to Comet Elenin?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/what-ever-happened-to-comet-elenin/

Crrow777: https://www.youtube.com/user/Crrow777

Freedom, discrimination, rights and liberalism

Freedom is a concept I’ve struggled with since I was a teenager. Even back then I understood freedom is not something given to you by legal document, a government or really even another person. They make take it away, or prevent others from taking it away from you, but you have to discover freedom yourself.

The best definition for freedom I can offer is: following your nature. For that to be possible, you have to know yourself. Rabbits, I imagine, are free when they can run around in the wild, eat grass and copulate with other bunnies. Birds are free living like birds, dogs are free living like dogs, you get the picture. There’s little any animal rights organization can do to make animals free by giving them imaginary rights. They can, however, reduce the amount of harm people do to their freedom via pollution and others unnatural activities.

Human beings are more complex. While no two dogs are the same, I guess they’d still be more similar compared to the potential of humans to differ from each other. There’s just so much variety to what human beings are passionate about, be it the countless different sciences and arts, sports, religious and spiritual ideas, conspiracies and mysteries. For example, I’m going to assume part of Wayne Gretzky’s nature was to play ice hockey. He was very good at it, and probably liked it. Even though he’s retired he’s probably fond the sport. I think part of what makes David Icke happy is to lecture about conspiracies. Of course, few people are happy doing just one thing. Part of what is inherent to most men is to need to have a woman, and most women want  a man.

For a human being to be free, you have to discover what makes you happy, and then fulfill those conditions. Unfortunately there are nasty forces afoot that want to inhibit people from being free, and that has to be fought against in order to be free, but that’s another story.



Yesterday, I listened to Alexander Dugin’s interview on Red Ice Creations. He understands quite well that modern liberalism isn’t about freedom. It’s about oppression wearing the mask of freedom. The ultra-leftist nuts who have infiltrated the higher levels of society in most Western countries don’t care at all about what makes you happy and free. They have a pre-determined formula, which doesn’t really function in the first place, that they want to impose on everyone. Usually it means imposing something on everyone that most people are not natural doing, such as homosexuality.

I don’t think homosexuality is particularly sinful or wrong, but there is the simple fact that the vast majority of human beings are not homosexual. Therefore, I would say, most people have a natural aversion to it. Only in the last few decades due to the constant propaganda has there been drastic change in the attitudes of people on homosexuality. I’m not saying the change in attitudes is entirely negative, I don’t think homosexuals should be treated like criminals or mental patients, but pro-LGBT propaganda has been excessive to say the least. In some cases it has been to harmful extents, since I do think many people inherently find homosexuality distasteful, but due to social norms are not in touch with their true sentiment. Then there are bound to be many heterosexuals who do find homosexuality intriguing, because it is different. There’s nothing wrong with those who like gays, or those who dislike them (as long as they don’t do anything excessive based on their feelings). Different people are naturally drawn to certain things, while others retract from them. Tastes differ as in music and food, also in more controversial matters like this.

The problem with liberalism is it imposes one view on others. Alexander Dugin said it’s like imperialism. European imperialists thought they knew what is good for the other races, and imposed their ideas onto them without asking. Many imperialists probably believed they were doing the right thing. Now the British empire does not rule half the world openly, but the neo-liberal capitalist system that believes that everyone should be bound to each other like an old-fashioned chain gang. They are all somewhat equal in their bondage. Liberalism is about equality, not freedom.



Another disturbing thing regarding liberalism is that it confuses freedom with defiance and rebellion. Sometimes you have to defy others and rebel against oppressors to find freedom, but it can work the other way around too. People who are spiritually enslaved, or B, want to rebel against people who are free, A, since to these rebels the fact that A is free is oppressive, although B’s enslavement is not the fault of A. This behaviour is obvious in the most common cultural marxist ideas of today where everyone who is not a black transsexual lesbian woman is an oppressor, and believes in social constructs such as race, sex and so on. Why these people feel enslaved is because of the social constructs in their heads, not because of other people’s attitudes.

Liberalism is the political progression from the most vulgar practices of the Marquis de Sade and Aleister Crowley. They were all about defying anything and everything the general public finds disgusting, such a sodomy, corpophagia and blasphemy. I do find both these men somewhat fascinating, although I don’t want engage in many of their activities, so I’m not claiming they were utterly evil. Rather from the viewpoint of the average person, what Sade and Crowley stood for was utterly reprehensible. Various kinds of aberrant behaviour do have their place in this world, but they are not to be brought to the dinner table. Liberalism in effect views freedom as making everyone view the world as Sade and Crowley did.



Just few days ago there was this media hullabaloo in Indiana where a pizzeria refused to cater a gay wedding, because they’re Christian. I haven’t followed the story in depth, so I don’t know all of the developments, but sounds rather stupid. Of course Christians should be free to refuse to promote gay marriage. Others are free to think this bit of Christian dogma is stupid. But it’s borderline insane to make big deal about it. If they don’t wanna serve your wedding, give your money to someone else.

Somebody called FaithGardner commented on the pizzeria’s refusal on Daily Kos website: “You’re hateful. And guess what happens when you take to the media to trumpet your right to discriminate?” Apparently the place is closing down after the people said they have some principles.

Anyways FaithGardner used two keywords: hate and discrimination. First of all, what is so horrible about hate? Hate is a normal human emotion. It is something everyone should feel every now and then. That’s why we have various different emotions. Some of them “positive” and others “negative”. Excessive hate can be destructive, but so can excessive love be. Liberals ironically hate hate. They have laws against hate speech, and I guess soon against feeling the emotion too. It only serves to render people into robots, or pod-people from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. (On a side note, I must recommend Simon Pegg’s interpretation on the theme, The World’s End.)

Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Creations has said on a couple of occasions how we practice discrimination every day. We discriminate what shirt or shoes we wear. I sometimes have to discriminate between the kind of milk I have in my fridge, if it’s been there several days. I have to make the distinction if the milk has gone bad or is still drinkable. If I don’t discriminate, I might get sick.

Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the following definitions on “discrimination”:

“: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing”

I guess I have to concede to the liberals that there are harmful forms of discrimination, however, I would say the original meaning of the word is reflected in the two bottom definitions. Online Etymology Dictionary defines discrimination as: “the making of distinctions”. Also it has the sentence: “It especially annoys me when racists are accused of ‘discrimination.’ The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one ‘race’ to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination. [Christopher Hitchens]”

So I cannot say that it is in any way hateful or reprehensible if a Christian does not want serve at a gay wedding, a woman is attracted to men instead of other women, or even if a black man prefers to marry a black woman, a white woman or a blue woman. You might argue that it is acceptable to discriminate between shoes and food products, but not when it comes to people. That can be answered simply by noting that we discriminate between people all the time. I only invite friends or relatives to my apartment (or somebody who has been hired to fix something). I don’t invite random strangers or Jehova’s witnesses to my place. Most men discriminate between women by only having sex with their girlfriend/wife. We either recognize the difference between things of good quality from bad ones and accurately distinguish one thing from another. We discriminate all the time, and so we should. It is not hateful to make the distinction between apples and oranges. I don’t like tomatoes, and my sentiment toward them may be hateful, yet I’m not gonna apologize for it either.



Alexandr Dugin – Hour 1 – The Fourth Political Theory & Blind Western Liberalism: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150327.php

Indiana pizzeria that said they’d discriminate against gays now closing due to backlash: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/02/1375078/-Indiana-pizzeria-that-said-they-d-discriminate-against-gays-now-closing-due-to-backlash

Discrimination: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Discrimination: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=discrimination&searchmode=none