Stefan Molyneux on 9/11

I really don’t want to make Stefan Molyneux the star of my blog, but since the last few days I’ve watched several videos on him, and therefore Youtube offers suggestions to other videos that seem interesting, and then I watch it. Then I get some other idea, I google it and then I stumble on his views on 9/11. Before today I somehow, stupidly, just assumed he understands the significance and the Statist lies around it. Apparently he does not. Molyneux is unwilling to call 9/11 an inside job, and actually tries to dissuade people from looking at it.

First I have to get this out the way: Molyneux is a spineless sack of shit. I want to remain restrained and objective, but going through the intellectual anal waste I just went through watching his videos, I cannot help but express my honest feelings toward the guy.

“Stef”‘s Bulletpoints

Now, let’s get down to business. On the Freedomain Radio forum someone called Alex Truberg asks Molyneux what he thinks about 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories. “Stef” offers the short answer of:

“This is my reasoning, for better or worse…

  • If 9/11 was an inside job, it will never be proven. The evidence – and key witnessess – have all been destroyed.
  • If it is proven, it will only engender anger to certain individuals, not the state as a whole. It will actually increase the power of the state.
  • There are an infinity of truths out there, which will help our cause far more – why focus on this impossible one?
  • It’s not rational to focus on 9/11, therefore the motive must arise from childhood.”

How does he know the evidence and witnesses have been destroyed? In some video he stated that the rubble from the buildings has been destroyed. True, but according to Dr Judy Wood, the evidence was destroyed mid-air, before it even hit the ground, which itself is evidence of something quite weird. Assuming Wood is accurate and truthful in her claims, and as far as I know, she is. Moreover people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Larry Silverstein are all alive as far as I know. They might have something to tell, if only someone had the power and authority to take them into custody. But bringing criminals to justice is probably Statism.

It makes no sense at all what that telling the truth about 9/11 would only strengthen the state. At least for me, 9/11 has been one of the biggest evidence in my life that governments generally should not be trusted, and that transparency is necessary. I think if suddenly evidence so blatantly revealing that 9/11 was an inside job was brought to light, and even the main stream media could not cover it up, and everyone from your grandfather to the 5-year old kid understood that 9/11 was an inside job, they would be more skeptical of governments, and basically giving authority to people they know nothing about. I am aware that just in the previous paragraph I hinted that criminals should be brought to justice, and whether its anarchist vigilantes or police force hired by the state, I honestly don’t care as long as justice is served. If the Washington DC police force were to arrest some of the suspected criminals on 9/11, maybe it would prove that perhaps governments aren’t all bad, and discredit Molyneux’s extremist ideas on government.

Moreover, as Molyneux is a “philosopher” I thought truth should be a virtue to him on its own, but apparently not. Truth is only useful when it serves his agenda.

I’ve no idea how Molyneux knows that 9/11 is an “impossible” truth? And the stuff about “infinity of truths” makes no sense. It just sounds like bad poetry.

The last comment is the biggest pile of shit. No, you fuckface! Focusing on 9/11 is rational, since the most powerful political entity in the world, the US government, has participated in a vast crime, lied about it, convinced the majority of the world of its factuality, and has committed more crimes based on the lie, i.e. Patriot Act and Orwellian surveillance, wars in the Middle-East… The majority of the world is still believing a lie and acting schizophrenic because of it. Finding a cure to many of the world’s problems is tied in some way to 9/11, which is the biggest incident of our lives so far.

The comment about focusing on our childhood is disgustingly ridiculous. My parents were not behind the 9/11 attacks, nor was I as a child nor ever. Focusing on my personal life has little to do with the facts of what happened in the United States of America on September 11, 2001. You repulsive pile of Molygeux.

Later in the same forum thread Molyneux expounds on the childhood comment further: “I’ve also gone through what family issues in my view contribute to a preference for theories like this in a recent podcast…”

I don’t want to listen to any more of his podcasts, so I do know what he says in it, rather it appears he does not discuss the facts of 9/11, but the people who are interested in them. Fair enough. I’m sure he argues that people who are interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories are people who were brought up by loving parents who value truth, evidence and justice, and have imparted those properties to their children…

“Stef” says he was “quite swayed” by a piece in Skeptic magazine on 9/11. The article is much more honest, intelligent and objective than “Stef”, so I’ll just leave it at that.

The Three Videos

Another thread on the Freedomain Radio forum asks: “Does Stefan believe the states conspiracy theory on 911 and has he done a show about this?” Molyneux’s response is merely posting links to three of his videos. Lets jump in.

The first video, Statism is Dead – Part 5 – Terrorism, 9/11 and Politics, basically says that the state is a terrorist, and is OK, I guess, but doesn’t really answer the question what “Stef” thinks about the 9/11 conspiracy theory propagated by the state.

The second video, True News 22: 9/11, actually reveals much of what Molyneux thinks about 9/11. He suggests people avoid controversy and radical ideas, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, when promoting anti-statist ideas. I thought Molyneux was supposed to be a controversial and radical anarcho-capitalist, but I guess not. Anyways, he makes an argument that if you’ve apprehended a serial killer who has murdered 300 people, and he’s admitted to it, there’s physical evidence proving it and so on, the prosecutor shouldn’t focus on trying to prove he was the lone gunman on the grassy knoll. Makes sense, although I don’t know if that is really applicable to 9/11. He is merely making up bad pulp fiction instead of focusing on any of the facts of 9/11.

The other evidence on the murderer (i.e. the state) mentioned by Molyneux is stuff like the American war in the Philippines, FDR knowing about Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Good, I agree those are something we should be aware of, but there is one problem with all of them: they happened a long time ago. The war in Philippines happened over 100 years ago. I’m pretty sure all the war criminals are dead already. Probably most of the people involved in Pearl Harbour are dead too. Gulf of Tonkin is more recent, so some of the culprits might be alive. But for 9/11 I think most of the upper-level culprits are still alive and kicking, even though the Bush regime is no longer in government. We could have a trial on these criminals, or suspects. Not so much for the old events. But you know what, somehow I get the idea that Molyneux is not interested in having a trial for the flesh and blood humans who were responsible for 9/11. I think he wants to have a trial for THE STATE! He thinks the state is a murderer. The state killed those Philippinos, and those people during the Second World War and the Vietnam War. Or not.

The state is just a social construct, an abstract political entity, or something like that. I thought Molyneux knew that, being so anti-state as he is. So how are we going to have a trial for something non-existent, and then fry it in the electric chair or send it to prison? I think it was ultimately people who were behind these crimes he’s mentioned, although I agree the apparatus of the state was used by them to commit these crimes, but the state is still just a tool. A tool I am also very critical of, but ultimately it’s people who make the decisions.

Even though the government of the United States of America was complicit in crimes during the Philippine wars (I don’t know much of the details, but my understanding is it was immoral to say the least), and the same government was complicit in 9/11. I do not know if they were complicit in the actual attacks, but they were certainly complicit in the cover-up. Even though the US government was involved in both of these crimes you could easily argue that there is no connection, since none of the people who worked for the government a 100 years ago work for it now (except maybe Henry Kissinger). You can make an academic model based on these historical acts of false flags of government aggression to point out how governments are used by evil people to commit evil acts, but that still does not have any concrete baring on the facts on what happened on 9/11. I think it’s good to have this historical frame of reference as background for 9/11, as Molyneux pointed out, but to understand 9/11, we have to look at 9/11. And this is something Molyneux does not want you to do.

In fact, he says studying the facts of 9/11 is not an attack on the state, and is actually defending the state because it “confuses” and “discredits” those who criticize the US government “with a certain cadre of people who seem to be volatile” (nope “Stef”, we won’t be lumped in with you since you don’t care about 9/11). This is utter bullshit for several reasons. First of all, Molyneux only seems to care about his personal agenda of attacking the state, and frankly I’m growing tired of it. I care more about truth and justice. And if the truth is revealed, and somehow the US government ends up being proven not guilty in 9/11 I’ll be happy to apologize and admit I was wrong.

Secondly, I know that the world we live is fucked up and we often get judged for doing the right thing or acting rationally, and frankly that’s just something we have to deal with.

Thirdly, “Stef” you and your arguments are full of shit and you know it. Countless people all over the world understand that 9/11 appears to have been a false flag, and your hollow arguments aren’t going to dissuade anyone who is serious from looking into 9/11 more deeper.

Yes, he is actually trying to dissuade people from looking at 9/11 truth. He is not merely “expressing his opinion”, he is trying to manipulate the listener to turn away. In the same video Molyneux says something like it’s non-empathetic to care more about the American victims who died on 9/11 than the Iraqis who have died. He’s trying to make you feel like a selfish racist for caring about 9/11. That is fucking low, you maggot piece of Molyshit. Then he adds, if you only care about American lives, think about the Americans who have died in Iraq. What the fuck? So we’re supposed to care about every crime committed by governments ever in history, and all of the acts of terror committed by governments, except what happened on September 11, 2001? Do you understand, Mr Molygeux that the reason why the Iraq invasion was possible is that 9/11 happened, and because it wasn’t exposed as an inside job well enough soon after it occurred? 9/11 is the key to most of the Statist crimes of this Millennium, from government spying and police state to wars in third world countries. But we’re not supposed to look at what caused this catalyst event because it’s racist? Am I right, or am I fucking right saying that you’re a sniveling pile of shit, Mr Molyneux?

I’m almost done. There was a third video in the thread, but I don’t think it said anything at all, but my brain was so numb from the previous video, I cannot really say.

If you think I am being abusive or needlessly disrespectful toward Stefan Molyneux, I can understand your viewpoint. I would therefore direct you to wade through the feces I did, and peruse through the links below and say I am wrong in condeming Molyneux as being utter filth.

9/11 is the litmus test on whether or not you’re genuine. Although of course a fraud can pay lip service to 9/11 truth, but someone who doesn’t even do that is either too stupid, cowardly or dishonest to be worth your time.


Molyneux’s reasoning on 9/11:

Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective by Phil Molé:

The three videos:

Statism is Dead – Part 5 – Terrorism, 9/11 and Politics:

America-Philippine war:

True News 22: 9/11 (the video you should watch):

The third video:

911 False Flag – American Traitors & Mossad – Where are the Oath Keepers? – Ken O’Keefe:


5 thoughts on “Stefan Molyneux on 9/11”

  1. do you know you have not actually made any counter arguments to the points raised?

    1. No, I don’t know. Care to enlighten me? I would like to point out though my intention was not to attempt to prove 9/11 was an inside job, but merely point out the evidence is out there to anyone bothering to look. Whereas Molyneux was arguing it’s not worth your time to look into it. As far as I can tell, the only proper argument Molyneux made is that we should not look into 9/11, since it’s a waste of time or “impossible” to prove, and it would strengthen the state. I think I countered it by saying we should bring criminals to justice, and truth is its own virtue. They may be clichés, but I do find them applicable to 9/11. And moreover quite frankly I find Molyneux’s argument quite nonsensical to begin with, so I don’t have anything insightful to counter it with.

      But if I missed some significant point he made, please tell me.

      EDIT: Sorry, I forgot I also said:
      “Focusing on 9/11 is rational, since the most powerful political entity in the world, the US government, has participated in a vast crime, lied about it, convinced the majority of the world of its factuality, and has committed more crimes based on the lie, i.e. Patriot Act and Orwellian surveillance, wars in the Middle-East… The majority of the world is still believing a lie and acting schizophrenic because of it. Finding a cure to many of the world’s problems is tied in some way to 9/11, which is the biggest incident of our lives so far.”

      I could rephrase it “focusing on 9/11 is relevant…” to broaden the scope.

    2. Do you know you still haven’t pointed out what of his arguments I didn’t counter? I’m all for pointing out any mistakes I may have made and expressing constructive criticism of my writing, but hinting I made a mistake without pointing out what the mistake was, is pointless.

  2. Except justice should be had for the ones who died for nothing due to an evil plot. I’ve looked at the evidence and especially the Pentagon stuff and building 7 had my heart beating in my throat. How could this be? but seems it is so. In a way Mr. Molyneux is correct in saying it will never “get to court in a manneer of speaking” because the powers that be will laugh off the 1 500 scientists that be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s