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).


Understanding and Overcoming the Psychological Effects of Trauma (video)

This video compares the psychological effects produced by witnessing two very different traumatising and shocking events.

  • a TV prank show in which a woman arrives home to discover a shocking scenario: a large meteorite which has landed in her back garden.
  • a large terrorist attack (9/11 and 7/7)

The fact that the TV show is a light entertainment program is not meant to make light of, or mock, the horrific events of 9/11 or 7/7 or the subsequent wars of ‘terror’ and occupation.

Although terrorism and TV prank shows are (obviously!) very different, they can produce many of the same psychological effects, as this video clearly demonstrates.

Unless we understand the psychological aspects of terrorism we won’t ever be able to make any sense of these events (which can actually add to their traumatic effect).

In other words, to understand the psychology of events like 9/11 is to understand the events themselves.

To watch the complete video of psychologists discussing 9/11 and trauma click here.

The official story of 9/11 (in under 5 minutes) is explained here.

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

In this talk Chameli Ardagh speaks on how to allow for a natural response towards injustice, without creating more hurt, how to embody the power and beauty of feminine rage, why we are called to step up and give voice to the power of the fierce feminine, and how anger is not intrinsically negative.

Chameli also shows how an ancient goddess archetype of the fierce aspects of the feminine are highly relevant and illuminating for women and girls today.

After watching Chameli’s take on femininity and its potential, consider how femininity is promoted to girls and young women by the entertainment industry through its (largely manufactured) female icons. Pictured below are Rihanna, Beyonce, Lady GaGa, Fergie and Christina Aguilera.

And while you look at the following images, think how would you describe the type of femininity depicted by these female role models?

Is it even female?

Is it even human?

(the inclusion of images of hyenas will make more sense once you’ve watched the video above)



We know that in terms of content and symbolism, nothing in gets into modern big name music videos and stage shows by accident. In this respect music videos are no different to TV commercials. Everything is put there deliberately to promote some kind of message, behaviour, attitude, brand, product or mindset.

These heavily marketed (and thus heavily idolized) young women are being used to sell more than just ‘music’ and ‘fashion’. They are selling complex (although often nonsensical and contradictory) social, spiritual, philosophical and political ideas.


There was a time not long ago when women were not allowed to vote, discouraged from thinking about world affairs and trained to serve men.

As women have gained more rights in society and become more free to express themselves and have a voice in public, one might reasonably expect their natural (and naturally fierce) mother instincts to have had more of an effect on the previously male dominated world. Yet here we still are in a predatory/ parasitic world ruled by violence, surrounded by ‘never ending wars’ and with poor, starving and dying children the world over.

How ‘fortunate’ it is then for those war mongering (mass murdering) men in power, that stretching as far back as Marilyn Monroe, every popular female role model marketed to young girls has helped to steer women in a direction completely detached from – and even in opposition to – mother instincts, feminine power and even nature itself.

Coincidence? …… What do you think?

Now that this information age is enabling women (and men) to educate themselves about some of the true horrors going on in this world, we see any expressions of fierce femininity – even the very idea of it – now mocked and subverted into a tangled mass of non-sense by the ‘culture creators’ of the corporate mass entertainment industry.

In these times of perpetual war (of both terror and occupation) and of rampant corporatism (corporate fascism) a fierce woman is defined for us as a woman in stilettos and a bikini holding a gun. A crazy (but still sexy) bitch – still objectified, but perhaps a little more ‘ironically’ – and now toting a gun, riding a tank or getting sexually aroused in a war zone.

This is because if girls can be brought up to accept this ‘crazy bitch’ programming – and embrace it themselves – then they will more readily accept and embrace the ‘insane corporate fascist’ world around them too. The two complement each other very well. Do you see how it works?

See if you can spot the following in this video:

  • subliminal messages
  • not so subliminal messages
  • cognitive dissonance (mixed and contradictory messages)
  • war and police state  glorification and ‘sexification’
  • occult symbolism
  • the final gesture made by all the women to the men

While young girls learn how to ’empower’ themselves by idolising acts like Beyonce (who’s now even been given an ‘alter ego’ called ‘Sasha Fierce‘), Beyonce herself is shuffled around the globe by her handlers to entertain anyone willing to cough up a couple of million.

Without doubt women do have a louder voice in society today….

… but is it their own?!

For more information on predictive programming and desensitisation

via popular entertainments watch the video series

 Entertainment Does Not Exist

For more images of all your favourite pop and fashion icons check out the


9/11 – A New Concise Video Record of the Key 9/11 Events of the Last Decade Has Been Unveiled Today

Created by:

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.