Some Thoughts on Remembrance Day

A collection of videos and quotes for Remembrance Sunday,

followed by questions at the end.

Video by Stefan Molyneux

Full text (and leave a comment) here.


“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany.

That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

– Hermann Goering at his Nuremburg trial.

Watch the whole series here.

Question 1

Those who promote war – and those who organise, fund and support the waging of war as a policy – want to achieve what?

A War

B Peace

C It’s not that simple, let me explain….

Question 2a

Imagine the following scenario. A man gets drunk and then recklessly and irresponsibly drives home at high speed. On the way he loses control and crashes his car into an oncoming vehicle. A passer by sees the accident and races to the burning wreckage and risking his life he drags unconscious bodies out of the vehicles and saves three lives out of the five people involved, sustaining severe burns and cuts in the process.

Without doubt the man is a hero. But does such heroic action and bravery in the face of danger mean we should also glorify and celebrate drunk driving?

A Yes we should. That makes perfect sense to me.

B No. Although the passer by is a hero for rescuing three people, we need to maintain a distinction in our minds between his heroic actions at the scene (of a crime) and the actions of the other guy – the reckless idiot who’s drink driving caused the whole tragic situation which killed two people.

Question 2b

In parades and ceremonies of war remembrance are we encouraged to maintain in our minds a clear distinction between:

  • those caught up in war (soldiers or civilians) who exhibit bravery, selflessness and heroism in the face of unbelievable dangers, horror and adversity
  • those who fund, manipulate wars from a safe distance – profiting (politically, financially etc) from the actions brave soldiers, profiting from destruction and profiting from the death and suffering of others be they military or civilian, men women or children?

A Yes this distinction is always heavily emphasised because it is so important

B No this distinction is never made at all

C Not only is this distinction never made, it feels like the distinction is deliberately blurred so that we end up honouring those who are responsible for war and who profit from war in ceremonies that are supposed to be about honouring the victims of war.

Question 3

Currently in our statist system called a ‘democracy ‘, the state funds its wars by extracting money from the public’s earnings by force. In addition, loans are forcibly taken out by the state in our names and in the names of future generations who are as yet unborn in order to pay for the state’s wars. You see, wars are very, very, very expensive indeed (which means some people are making a LOT of money from them).

If YOU wanted to start a war and you went around trying to force everyone else to pay you money so you could buy weapons and train armies and stuff, and if you tried to take out fraudulent loans in their names as well, what do you think would happen?

A People would tell you to shove it up your arse

B People would be absolutely fine about the whole thing

Please answer this question again, only this time imagine that you have control of (or significant influence over) the education system, mass media and mass entertainments.

Question 4

Why do YOU personally fund the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

A I don’t fund wars

B I fund these wars because I believe they will bring peace

C I fund these wars because my contribution to them is taken from my earnings by force.

Question 5

We teach our children not to use force or violence to get what they want and not to steal from others to get what they want. These are examples of what’s known as ‘universal morality’. Please watch this video.

Should universal morality be applied… you know…. universally?

A Yes – unless it is applied universally it counts for nothing!

B No – extreme and systematic violations of universal morality by those in positions of power are perfectly acceptable, and won’t lead to a broken society, a world of perpetual war,a  collapsing economy and high level corruption (despite all the evidence demonstrating that it obviously does lead to all these things).


Will RFID Cater to All Our Needs?

Links to source material and other info on RFID:

Katherine Albrecht, author of ‘Spychips’

Stay strong Katherine, sending you healing vibes! x

Video links:

Katherine Albrecht speaks at Brave New Books

Aaron Russo full interview

The Age of Transitions full documentary

We The People Will Not be Chipped

Michael Tsarion – Age of Manipulation – 1/3


What is Princess / Warrior Programming?

In the following video Freeman and Jamie discuss ‘Princess / Warrior Programming’ during an interview with Wash Your Brain.

Watch the whole discussion here

Related posts….

Surrender! We Have Your Children Surrounded…

Killing Us Softly – The Negitive Effects of Advertising (video) 

The Fierce Face of the Feminine – Chameli Ardagh (video)

Killing Us Softly – The Negitive Effects of Advertising (video)

In this update of her pioneering Killing Us Softly series, Jean Kilbourne takes a fresh look at how advertising traffics in distorted and destructive ideals of femininity. Killing Us Softly 4 stands to challenge a new generation of students to take advertising seriously, and to think critically about popular culture and its relationship to sexism, eating disorders, and gender violence.

Jean Kilbourne, Ed.D. is internationally recognized for her groundbreaking work on the image of women in advertising and for her critical studies of alcohol and tobacco advertising. In the late 1960s she began her exploration of the connection between advertising and several public health issues, including violence against women, eating disorders, and addiction, and launched a movement to promote media literacy as a way to prevent these problems. Kilbourne is the creator of the renowned Killing Us Softly: Advertising’s Image of Women film series and the author of the award-winning book Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel and co-author of So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids.

Part 1 of 2

Part 2 of 2

Are We Leaving The Scientific Age and Returning to a New Dark Age of Ignorance and Superstition?

In this age of rapidly evolving technology, dominated by computers, gadgets and the increasingly sophisticated digital infrastructure which now surrounds us, the idea that we might actually be leaving the scientific age and returning to a new dark age of ignorance and superstition might, at first, seem a bit absurd.

But before you dismiss the idea consider the fact that a true ‘scientific age’ is not actually defined by high technology at all (or even a higher technology relative to the past). What actually defines a true ‘scientific age’ are human skills, human attributes and human achievements. We’re talking about things like an adherence to logic, reason, rational principals and employing the scientific method using available evidence.

We’re talking about good old fashioned common sense and critical thinking!

And these skills can be applied (or not applied) by us in any age, regardless of the level of technology which happens to be in use at that time.

There was a time when all of the important decision making was carried out far away from the masses, behind closed doors by a small handful of wealthy elites and their minions, and we general public had to rely on the local wealthy priests and lords-of-the-manor to tell us what they were up to and what it all meant. Most of us couldn’t read, or even get access to books and we couldn’t afford to take a horse and go and spent a month or a year investigating what was going on in the world for ourselves.

Today, all of the important decision making is still carried out far away and behind closed doors by a small handful of wealthy elites and their minions (in fact power and decision making have become far more centralized). And for those of us who still get our news from the mass media we are still relying on about five sources to tell us what on earth these ‘leaders’ are up to and what their agendas are. ie the five corporations who own about 95% of all mainstream media currently.

And so for those of us who still do use mass media and officially sanctioned ‘experts’ to help us define our world view, or even to define it for us, how is this any different from the past?

How can this be thought of as ‘progress’ at all?

Clearly nothing much has changed. But the reason why it might feel like progress has been made is that this heavily controlled information is now being beamed wirelessly into our ipads, iphones, laptops etc for us to look at while effortlessly sipping a coffee on the train to work, or while out and about being a consumer at the weekend, or just lying in our own beds.

But doesn’t this just mean we are still being potentially misinformed, but now in a stupendously hi tech way!?

The fact that we are the ones pressing the buttons certainly makes us feel that we are the ones accessing information by and for ourselves, but in reality we are still just passive recipients of this mass media information which is being downloaded into the rest of society too. We’re not that unique, special or ‘in control’ at all. But these gadgets sure do flatter us into feeling that way!

In fact, could the truth be that today we’re being more heavily – and more efficiently – programmed with superstitious belief systems than at any other time in human history?!?

While there really is much to celebrate about this information age (obviously there is, it’s just not the subject of this post) and while the internet may indeed ultimately prove to have been the saviour of the human race,  it is also true that the ability for a small group of media corporations to beam compelling video, audio or text directly into the eyeballs of whole populations in real time represents the potential for them to literally create a consensus reality – to ‘cast a spell’, if you like, over a whole population, and in doing so have us create whatever reality they want us to create for them. A reality, the description of which they can now programmed into whole populations instantly, convincingly and at exactly the same time.

Somehow we seem a little reluctant to associate today’s high technology with magical abilities, yet one definition of magic is (and always has been) the use of secret (or misunderstood) high technology by those ‘in the know’ to play tricks on the ignorant masses and in doing so to control their beliefs, their thoughts and their behaviour. In this sense television might arguably be regarded as the most magical device ever created. It literally has the power to put the viewer in a trance and download information and entire belief systems into the conscious and subconscious minds of the viewers. In isolation this might be regarded as casting a spell. When it’s happening to whole populations at once it is more like a mass ritual, a spell so powerful it affects a whole society – or even the entire planet.

This ability – this power – is not just limited to ‘news’ and other current affairs information. It also just as potent when used in entertainments, especially those aimed at children and young people. If this enormous power continues to be misunderstood, or go completely unnoticed, by the majority of the population then it is likely that we will indeed slip into a new dark age of superstition of pure Monty Python proportions (only not as funny).

It might be argued that we are, in fact, already living in just such a world.

A world completely dominated by artificial consensus-based realities created using high technology (technology such as the high definition plasma TV screen in your living room, or the 3G smart phone in your pocket). A world of high definition ‘spells’ being cast over whole populations. A world of spells that are more ‘real’ than the real world itself…

But, in this modern age, can we humans really still be that susceptible to such spells, superstition, subconscious programming and other such ‘hocus pocus’?

Answer: Yes.

And therein lies an alarming (and potentially catastrophic) misunderstanding for all of humanity:

Carrying a laptop, iphone, ipad, smartpen etc around with you at all times and using them to bombarded yourself with vast amounts of information all day long while ‘on the go’ might make you feel like you are some kind of all knowing child of an ultra modern information age – a rational, logical, critically thinking, well informed and intellectually superior person….. but in truth you might actually be doing little more than stuffing your brain full of superstitious belief systems and living you entire life completely under ‘spells’ cast by an all powerful mediacracy.

BBC’s ‘9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip’ – Documentary, Mockumentary or Just Plain Offensive? (Part 2)

In part one of this review I started breaking down some of the BBC’s latest propaganda piece ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip

There was so much about this program that needed pulling apart that I didn’t make much headway in part one my review (hence the need for a part two), although I did manage to show that Andrew Maxwell – the show’s host and ridiculer of anyone who dared to question the official story of 9/11 – was (rather ironically) the biggest ‘conspiracy theorist’ of them all.

In this second part of the review, rather than waste another hour or two picking the rest of this hideous propaganda piece apart, I’m just going to recommend you watch this video which does a first rate job of analyzing the program in its entirety.

Source of video:

See also this blog entry by Emily Church (and others on her blog) where she describes her experience as one of the ‘conspiracy theorists’ who took part in this ‘road trip’.

BBC’s ‘9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip’ – Documentary, Mockumentary or Just Plain Offensive?

From left to right: Shazin, Emily, (the show’s host Andrew Maxwell), Charlie, Charlotte and Rodney.

Part 1:  Spot the Crazy Conspiracy Theorist

On Thursday evening (September 8th) BBC3 aired ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’, a documentary in which a group of ‘young people’ from the UK who each had their own questions regarding 9/11 were taken on a road trip around the U.S. to visit places linked to the events of that day.

At each location the program makers arranged for preselected ‘experts’ to come and talk to them in a pseudo scientific (and often extremely patronizing) manner in awkwardly staged meetings, such as standing about outside on some tarmac, next to an aircraft hanger. If the program makers had wanted to create an atmosphere best described as

“Sorry to trouble you sir but we’ve got these kids who have gotten all confused about 9/11. You’re obviously a busy and important grown up, but I wonder if you wouldn’t mind sparing five minutes to step outside and speak to them and answer their silly questions and put their little minds at rest”

then they couldn’t have done it any better. What came across was that these ‘crazy conspiracy questions’ did not warrant the hiring of a small studio space or cheap conference room, with – you know – chairs and tables and stuff. It apparently didn’t warrant continuous take camera shots without all that blatant editing either…

As if this wasn’t condescending enough, the group were also subjected to a kind of regressive, (re)educational ‘playtime conditioning therapy’ involving water balloons, flour and stones, lego bricks, eggs and toy airplanes. More on this later.

And, yes, to say the program was bizarre would definitely be an understatement.

But most disturbing is the fact that at no point in this one hour program were any of the thousands of experts, eye witnesses, bereft family members or government agency whistleblowers who have serious issues with the official story called upon by the program makers to discuss with these young people their questions and concerns and to share their own extensive knowledge, expertise, evidence, experiences and opinions. Such people would not be hard to find. For example there are at least 1500 experts/ professionals who have publicly questioned the official (non) explanation of the free fall collapse of WTC 7, a 47 story skyscraper not hit by any plane which fell vertically and at free fall speed into its own footprint on the afternoon of on 9/11.

The following two pictures show WTC 7 (the brown and black building) from roughly the same angle (1) as it used to be and (2) after it collapsed into its own footprint on 9/11. Note the lack of damage to surrounding buildings.

(For the record: the ‘9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip’ makes absolutely no mention of this building or its collapse whatsoever, despite it being one of the most blatant and as yet unexplained events of that day. To some it might look as if they couldn’t find anyone capable of explaining its free fall, symmetrical and vertical collapse as being anything other than a controlled demolition (and a damn good one at that). But they could have at least mentioned WTC 7 …. for instance, instead of showing that footage of host Andrew Maxwell doing stand up or swearing in the street).

Inviting experts and eyewitnesses who question and challenge the official story onto the program would also have allowed them to go ‘head to head’ with the other experts who were defending the official story. This would have provided us all with an exciting exchange of information, facts and a lively debate. I dare say it would have made for much better television than shots of them getting on and off the bus, or sleeping on it, or listening to Andrew Maxwell prattle on about the non provability of the non existence of Santa Claus or whatever…

Come to think of it, I don’t think the mainstream media has ever allowed experts on who challenge the official story of 9/11. Perhaps that is why they have to fund their own adverts on local TV just to get a measly 30 seconds of airtime in an attempt to make their presence known to the public.

So anyway, the program makers obviously decided to only let us hear the opinions of supporters of the official story. To be fair I don’t think they ever proclaimed to be making a balanced, fair or indeed useful documentary.

But enough about such trivial matters as ‘fairness’, ‘bias’, misrepresentation’, ‘censorship’ and ‘propaganda’ – and on with the review!

The program began with a statement of intent narrated by Andrew Maxwell, a comedian in real life, who also acted as tour guide and perpetual ridiculer of anyone in the group who continued to question of the official story. This is how he introduced the program.

“I’m Andrew Maxwell and I’m a comedian. But I’m here in New York on a serious mission. 9/11 was the most shocking day in recent American history. 2973 innocent people died.

Unbelievably, there are many people who doubt the conclusions of the official investigation and want to believe the American government are in some way responsible for this tragic event.

I’m taking five of them to America on an extraordinary journey to see if I can change their minds. It’ll be a tough mission. These guys appear to be convinced conspiracy theorists.

Personally, I’m certain as certain can be that the attacks were ordered by Osama Bin Laden. So we’re now going down the East coast of America to see where the attacks happened.”

It is worth taking a moment to analyze this short introduction because it is quite revealing.

To start with, Andrew Maxwell says ‘Unbelievably, there are many people who doubt the conclusions of the official investigation …’ as if it is somehow shocking that the public might question what our governments tell us to believe despite the fact that documented, uncontested history tells us these people lie, cheat and deceive routinely. From Watergate… to Monica Lewinsky …to referendums on Europe …to closing Guantanamo Bay and ending torture …to stopping wiretapping …to pulling the troops out …to WMD’s…… it seems lying to our faces without even batting an eyelid is what these people do best.

Andrew Maxwell surely can’t be completely unaware of the documented history of government deception and lies to the public because that would make him, like, totally ignorant of political history and current affairs and stuff like that!

Maybe he is in fact being sarcastic with his ‘disbelief’? Maybe the entire program is mocking the mainstream media’s blatant policy of dismissing anyone who questions the official story regarding 9/11 and avoiding any mention of the mountain of evidence contradicting the official story?

Could ‘9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip’ actually be a mockumentary cleverly parodying a television propaganda hit piece, while simultaneously posing as one?! An ‘inside job’, as it were!

Andrew Maxwell is, after all, a stand up comedian and the last time I checked a stand up a comedian’s ‘job description’ is to be the voice of the people (not the government/ military industrial complex) and to use humour to (among other things) expose and mock the political establishment whenever they do naughty stuff like illegally claiming expenses or committing horrendous war crimes.

It’s a cheery thought at least. But I don’t really think the program makers are being as subtle or sophisticated as that. I suspect it really is a genuine attempt to impress the public with its nonsense, misdirection, spectacularly manipulative editing, gibberish and double speak. (Ahem… not that they’re desperately trying to defend the indefensible or anything…)

Next Andrew Maxwell states that these people ‘want to believe the American government are in some way responsible for this tragic event’. This is another completely bizarre thing to say. Why on earth would anyone want to believe that (criminal elements within) one’s own government are responsible for/ complicit in the cold blooded mass murder of their own population?!

(Although personally I don’t make much distinction between being capable and willing to murder your ‘own’ citizens and being capable and willing to murder tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children. Murder is murder is it not?).

Surely it’s much more comforting to believe in the official story: that 9/11 was carried out by some rag tag bunch of evil ter’ists headed by super villain Osama Bin Laden hiding in his James Bond style secret cave fortress, with an AK-47 permanently slung around his shoulder (just so we know), and that our trusted leaders are doing all they can to “defeat these evil ter’ists”

(The program also spectacularly fails to point out that Bin Laden’s brother helped GW Bush set up his first oil company and that the Bin Laden family have been business associates with the Bush family for decades and the entire family were in fact flown OUT of the U.S. immediately after 9/11, rather than detained and questioned about Osama’s whereabouts, or their possible involvement in 9/11).

In fact Andrew Maxwell demonstrates perfectly just how comforting this official story of 9/11 is (to him) by doing a stand up show in New York with 9/11 content thrown in. While the body count continues to rise in the middle east and while babies born with deformities caused by U.S. depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction now face growing up (assuming they survive that long) in a devastated, broken and illegally occupied country, all in the name of “freedom and democracy” Andrew tells the audience with a smile that “We’re back on top”.

Watching this part of the program I found it hard to believe that Andrew Maxwell could be that offensive and in such a glib way and once again I really wanted to believe it was his attempt at cutting sarcasm, you know, Bill Hicks style. When he then went on to call President Obama “Captain Groovy” I wanted to believe he was poking fun at Obama’s use of PR and NLP to gain/ maintain popularity while simultaneously doing a 180 degree U-turn on pretty much every single campaign pledge, including getting the troops out of the middle east, stopping the policy of rendition/ tortue and closing down the torture camps and reversing the wiretapping and Orwellian police state agenda introduced by Bush. But I don’t think he was. I am not sure if he really knows what he is talking about. Still if his material amuses drunk people in bars, who am I to judge it so harshly?

Returning to the introduction, Andrew Maxwell goes on to say , “These guys appear to be convinced conspiracy theorists”. This is another completely ridiculous thing to say seeing as how the official story of 9/11 is also BY DEFINITION a conspiracy theory.

Not only is the official story of 9/11 a conspiracy theory, it’s a corker!


He goes on to then say “Personally, I’m certain as certain can be that the attacks were ordered by Osama Bin Laden” indicating that he is totally convinced by the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory of 9/11. This makes Andrew Maxwell – by his own admission – also a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

But it gets even more interesting when you consider that the rest of the group just have questions about the official conspiracy theory, they are aware of evidence which appears to contradict the official conspiracy theory, but they do not pretend to ‘know’ exactly what did happen in the way that Andrew Maxwell does (“I’m as certain as certain can be…”). They just know the official story does not add up. They are not really ‘conspiracy theorists’ in the kooky/ fanatical sense at all. They just know governments routinely lie and deceive even their ‘own’ populations. They know the evidence doesn’t add up. They know that it’s a complex issue.

In short, they are just thinking critically for themselves and like so many people who have torn themselves away from X-factor for half an hour to actually look into 9/11, they have some serious and valid questions that still remain unanswered a decade on.

 Germany 1934

London 2007

By contrast, it is clear that Andrew Maxwell has accepted and adopted the official government/ TV conspiracy theory without any real critical or investigative process whatsoever. His apparent reluctance to even consider its numerous and enormous flaws – or compare it with analogous events throughout history – suggests he has not only accepted it at face value (literally as a story, disconnected from reality) but has also started to identify himself with it, which means he now defends it from a position of emotion and ego, rather than dispassionate reason and evidence. It is interesting to note how he personally provides absolutely no evidence to back up his ardent support for the official story of 9/11, while ridiculing everyone else for daring to stray from the official story and put together their own ideas based on their own research.

All of the rest of the group demonstrate an ability to think critically for themselves, to handle and asses information and to question what other people say and even to question what they themselves think.

In fact, the only closed minded, irrational, superstitious ‘conspiracy theorist’ among them turns out to be, perhaps unsurprisingly, Andrew Maxwell himself.

(In Part 2 I plan to explore each of the ‘conspiracy theories’ addressed by the program)

Edited to add…

The following video steps through some of the highlights of the official story of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory given to us by the government via the corporate mass media. This video explains why we are at war (of terror and occupation) and why freedoms, rights and powers have all been taken away from the people of every developed nations and placed in the hands of their respective governments.

After 10 years this is more than just an official conspiracy theory, it has become consensus reality for much of the world.