Direct link to twitter: www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison
Direct link to podcast: http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/
Or click on the massive iTunes button to subscribe to the podcast...

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes

thecultofnick

How did you lose all that weight?

I used to be five stone heavier than I am right now. Weight was a major issue in my life but for the last two years I've managed to stay on the 13.5 stone mark, which for my height of around 6 foot is about right.

I'd like to lose a couple more pounds but I'm finally happy with the way I look.

I had problems with my body size since the final year of university but really packed it on once I left and started working in commercial radio at the age of 22. Now in my mid thirties I finally feel brave enough to write a blog entry on the topic which is designed as advice for people who were, like me, stuck inside a negative spiral of diets, exercise, the occasional fleeting success and then ultimately 'failure'.

Firstly here are the diets that did not work long term for me:

Slimfast - massive success very early on only to fail when trying to adjust to a normal diet afterwards.

Weight Watchers - I had limited success with it but at £5 a week it ended up being too costly. Also in the long term the old habits were always there in the background and returned once I wasn't doing it any more.

The most effective part was the group aspect because watching others lose weight spurred me on to keep trying. It also gave me a chance to get direct advice from fellow dieters who had no vested interest in trying to sell me something. That's the point of this article, I am not pushing any idea that will cost you money here. Just sharing as honestly as possible what worked for me..

The Atkins diet - I had huge success very early on with this. It was amazing to see the weight come off so rapidly and I think it's worth doing just to psychologically convince you that weight loss is at least possible. I was desperate the first time I tried it after it was suggested to me by a listener, way before it took off in the UK as THE fad diet to go on.

Although it worked and I lost a lot of weight there was no group aspect to it and I also had problems keeping the weight off once I'd hit my goal at the time of 15 stone. It's incredibly hard to keep in the mindset of an Atkins dieter.

My advice later in this entry as to what did work is a modified version of the Atkins diet.

Rosmary Connelly's Gi diet - I read her book and gave it as good a go as I could manage but never had any success with it.

Calorie counting - Never had any real success with this. Weight watchers uses a similar principle though.

Massive amounts of exercise - I have never lost weight because of exercise. All my weight loss has always been down to changing the foods I eat and nothing more. Around the age of about 24 I hit the gym as hard as I knew how and developed awful stretch marks across my stomach because my muscles expanded rapidly underneath my body fat and ruined parts of my skin.

I believe the main reason people think you can lose weight through exercise is because it makes for better television programmes. Reality TV shows seem to thrive on music montages and a fat person being ritualistically humiliated for the benefit of the viewer, who is probably equally fat and just wants to feel better about themselves.

What did work for me:

I am not setting myself up as an expert here. I do not know what will work for you and can only tell you as precisely as possible what it was I did to lose weight. Every body is different.

What worked for my body is this:
  • Decide at the start of each day if you are going to eat EITHER carbohydrates or protein. Across a single week my ratio was 5 protein days to 2 carb days. Eat as much as you want until you feel full. Be careful not to over indulge on carb days but knock yourself out on protein days. Seriously, eat non stop on those protein days if you like, just so long as it's all protein. No more "balanced" or "normal" meals until my weight was more "balanced" and "normal". I stuck rigidly to the selection I'd made each day.
  • No bread, ever. Just cut it out entirely. Even on carbohydrate days I skipped bread. Sorry. If you need to lose weight that's the choice you've got to make.
  • When you have a bad day, resolve not to throw away the week.
The above were my rules. If you stick to them, and you have a human body like mine, you will start to lose weight. You will probably lose quite rapidly in the first month or so and then gradually after that.

The psychological battle is the next part and that's where the "Slimming World" group I joined came into its own. I suspect it's a bit like an alcoholics anonymous meeting in that you sit round with a load of people who are determined to stop being who they've become. You sit there and really consider the fact that you must stay the course and lose weight. This comes after you've been ceremonially weighed. Most people don't hang around for the meeting but I found it the most useful part of the process. I strongly suggest you find a group of some kind to join.

Another thing that helped me psychologically was a picture our group leader used to have of a bunch of 7 flowers. One of the flowers was damaged.

One is ruined, still keep the others innit?
The leader would would always make the point that if you had a vase like this with 7 flowers in and one of them was damaged, would you throw them all away? Nope, you'd just forget about the one that was wrong and keep the other 6.

These flowers were like the days of the week. Failing on one day to keep to your diet does not mean you have to throw away the whole week. For some reason that really made sense to me and helped when I dropped the ball.

Nick Margerrison.

PS - err, I kinda cast a magick spell as well...

Details here: Disinfo.

and here: My blog.

BBC documentary blames "the cuts" for death of Lee Rigby

Do you want some public money? Yes, yes please.
Last night's BBC Panorama documentary on the killers of Lee Rigby in the UK verged on self parody when it blamed public spending cuts for the horrific crime.

My personal opinion on who is to blame is pretty straight forward: I blame the people who ran him over and then tried to hack his head off in the street. I don't blame the "evil Tories", Tony Blair or Islam. I blame the people who actually did the crime.

The BBC's approach though, throughout the documentary, was to wonder aloud if it was perhaps words or a lack of Government funding or radicalism that might be the real cause

I find the argument tedious. All criminals have their excuses and pandering to them with a sympathetic ear seems a bad idea.

Particularly when one of their crimes is to try to cut a dead guy's head off in the middle of the street while shouting about a God.

"This makes me unbelievably uncomfortable"


Comment culture is a large part of the brilliance of the net because it allows counter narratives which were previously suppressed to be given a chance. Many people despise it because of the fact it confuses the message intended by an article's writer, for me it's a great step forward precisely because of that.

Arguments and disagreement remind us there is not one central "truth" available to us and all we can access is our personal perspective. So, if you hear about something but receive multiple points of view relating to it, you're left with a need to think for yourself.

When I first landed on it there was not one positive comment on this odd piece placed on EDF's website:
THE ELECTRONIC TATTOO: A NEW FORM OF MEDICINE
[...]
Name of inventor: Nanshu Lu
Organization: University of Texas at Austin
Year: 2013
Country: USA
Prize/Award: MIT “Innovator” (category: Innovators Under 35) / Netexplo Award (UNESCO headquarters)
[...] Affixed to a patient’s skin, it allows vital data and healthcare information to be monitored remotely, transmitting it directly to the doctor responsible. It is packed with sensors and could prove a flexible, practical and non-invasive solution for post-operation monitoring. The solution offers major potential, and could also be used in areas beyond healthcare, such as measuring sports performance or managing objects remotely. Stuck to someone’s neck, it could analyze the vibrations of their vocal cords and transmit simple orders (left, right, start, stop, etc.) to an object or a video console. Society is only just getting to grips with the Internet of things, and it seems we are already looking to the Internet of the body. Perhaps time to look at the tattoo in an entirely new light.
Pretty standard stuff, I wonder where the inventor got his ideas from? Orwell? Pretty much any dystopian sci-fi fiction? David Icke's website? Infowars? It's not a new idea. What I like is how the comments at the bottom are pointed this out:
"YES, THE NAZIS USED TATTOOS, TOO. DESPICABLE IDEA."
"big brother at work ,funny when i was at school we discussed this as science fiction, looks like being barcoded at birth will be science fact soon ! everything will be logged and tagged to our barcode ! part of the machine"
The term "conspiracy theorist" is not flattering. This is ironic given that it seems to have come into prominence in the wake of the JFK assassination. At the time the establishment divided people into two competing points of view. The official story was provided by The Warren Commission which declared Oswald acted alone, anyone who disagreed with this "lone gunman" theory thought the assassination had been planned by more than one person was therefore a "conspiracy theorist".

My first experience of the genre, which I'm trying to call "counter narratives" instead of "conspiracy theory", was JFK and I'm pleased history is not being kind to the official explanation. That Oswald was shot dead before he could talk suggested to many he wasn't acting alone but nowadays, as more information comes out, few hold to the "lone gunman" theory. After looking into it I think there must have been more people involved and so I guess that makes me a "conspiracy theorist" on this one. I'm not concerned about the company that put me in nowadays though, even US Secretary of State John Kerry begs to differ with the official line. Maybe some people still believe he was just a random with a gun, that's their choice, the difficulty in the past used to be knowing most people simply had not heard the opposing points of view and likely never would.

We now live in an age where comment culture and "counter narratives" are significantly harder to suppress and so people must now decide which version of events makes the most sense to them, as opposed to only encountering one authoritative news report. Long may that continue!

082 Bitcoins John Lennon and the occult


The excerpt I reading from comes from this excellent blog: http://chycho.blogspot.ca/2013/11/the-bitcoin-bubble-or-is-it-two-charts.html

The guests featured are: Bitcoin Trader Buttons, ZeroFriendsRecordings and David Pryke.

I had minor problems compressing this and uploading it. In the event it doesn't sound right, do tell me.

www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison


Check out this episode!

They're going to give themselves a pay rise!


Can the media ever be impartial?

The weirdness of being able to send radio and television signals across vast distances confused the logic of many in the pre-internet world. During the rise of "broadcast media" through the 20th Century the idea that someone could be "impartial" and "objective" was incredibly important and some people even believed it was possible.

The reason the absurd notion that one could detach themselves from a perspective was so important seems mainly to be that it was used to justify the restriction of broadcasting licences by Governments and the use of public money to set up and maintain some radio and television stations.

A human's understanding of the world is dependent upon their perspective. It's incredibly hard to argue otherwise. Any notion of "impartiality" is defined by your particular interpretation of the definition of that word. Broadcast media can only provide a point of view and, in my opinion, is far more honest if it keeps that in mind.

This short debate is cut from my podcast, predated the awful Jimmy Savile revelations and initially appeared on Radio Talk in 2011.


Nick Margerrison

--

Recently I have been contacted by a number of friends/collegues/randoms to appear as a guest on radio programs they are producing. Contact me through Twitter if you're keen for me to debate "impartiality" anytime soon. I suspect there won't be many who want to talk about this one...

Final note, I'm very concerned to hear that one of my favorite podcasts, The Disinfocast, is to be cut back to once a month. There are many highlights in and among the archive. One of them hits the topic of this post pretty well: Episode 038

In it Matt Staggs and Abbey Martin have one of the most honest and informed discussions I've ever heard on the topic. Go have a listen!

#Occupy your own New Year's revolution

Timothy Leary on increasing your intelligence,
all the above points are met by uncensored internet use
I've previously echoed the point that the internet is alike to the printing press. It's an observation which is almost a cliché and it certainly wasn't new when I wrote this article here: The Global Awakening. However, the frustrating thing about the comparison is that it's hard not to be drawn towards the headline grabbing side of what happened next, the printing press was a vital step towards The French Revolution and huge political change throughout the world. This terrified the world's leaders at the time, caused a huge change in some of the power structures which towered above the peasants of the age and still causes concern for our modern day rulers.

For me though what's more important is the spread of radical ideas, known as "The Enlightenment", which preceded and underpinned these events. That process is less spectacular and blood thirsty but far more important and long lasting. The further away an event is in our universe the more our minds give it a false symmetry that it lacks when viewed close up, the moon looks like a perfect round sphere but get close to it and its rough edges and crater marked surface are revealed. This is true for events in our past and there's a danger the most positive consequences of the printing press upon the Western world could be forgotten by overly excited would be authoritarians keen to rouse "the masses" and #occupy positions currently held by "the elite". In my opinion such an exchange of power would not serve us as those who #occupy a seat of power in the future will encounter the same problem as those who currently claim to lead: the entire notion of a hierarchical dictatorship is coming apart

I try to explain why here: Why We're Not Living In 1984 Today: Orwell's Oversight. In short, leaders lead by controlling information and the information superhighway makes this impossible. No matter how hard they try, just like the war on drugs, it's beyond their control and our world's massive financial difficulties limit their ambitions and ability. The fact we've lived in a world where the common narrative implied it was their responsibility to sort things out means some people are focusing upon the likely indirect results which the internet may have upon a small few, the infamous 1%. 

I believe would be "revolutionaries" would do well to concentrate upon the less publicised but far more profound aspect of the internet, its an incredible learning tool! It represents the fact that we can now teach each other how to think.

I'm old enough to remember the pre-internet world. Back then people would often say, "ooh, he's even bought a book on how to do it" when they spoke of a friend or relative on a self improvement trip. This is an echo of the most important revolutionary aspect of the printed page. It allowed people to learn how to improve themselves and change the way they thought about the world. This is the driving force behind any meaningful long term social change ever experienced in any society. A violent revolution where the ruling elites have their heads cut off and they are replaced by equally excitable left wing or right wing  demagogues would mean nothing in the long term other than a depressing game of spot the difference.

I was very disappointed by the #Occupy protests I attended in London. I felt I was watching some of the dull Labour Party activist types who put me off politics during my time at University and ultimately led to a total disenfranchisement for me because Tony Blair. As I chatted to them they seemed hugely in favour of censorship, were quick to anger if I questioned their ideas and seemed wholly focused upon fixing other people rather than themselves. I have had similar encounters with people who adopt the Anonymous pose.

The dangers of censorship are key to my argument here. When one person censors someone else they deny you access to a perspective. Even if they've done this because they've decided it's for the collective good you've lost the chance to learn something. This is why censorship is one of the roots of limited intelligence within a society. I believe my generation, and the ones beneath it, have been badly let down by the education system. It's tempting to think this is because it's not in the immediate interests of our rulers to explain how the game is weighted in their favour but this is only an unfounded and perhaps unfair suspicion. Either way their keen appetite to control the information you're allowed to find should not be supported by anyone without serious consideration and a solid counter argument to this piece you're now reading.

Although I'm suggesting something that I'd like everyone to do I am aware of the fact that collectives tend towards fascism. Any idea that requires other people to do as you say can be a dangerous first step towards an authoritarian mindset. People usually know what's best for them in their life and if they don't it's always better they learn how to spot hazards rather than rely upon others to do it for them. That's partly why my call to action is so vague and subjective; improve yourself.

Any movement which requires you to move in a particular direction someone else has chosen will teach you how to follow. What our nations need now is a people who can think for themselves and choose their own path. An uncensored internet lets us do that and without question Western liberal democracy, for all its faults, has the potential to grow individuals who are capable of unique thought. This must be encouraged, not suppressed.

That's where you come in. The true path for a revolution in my opinion begins with self improvement and learning not what to think but how to think. As we approach the new year there will be a lot of people indulging our culture's practice of making a "New Year's Resolution" or two. I suggest that you use this opportunity to do precisely that, sort yourself out and improve who you are. If you're a political revolutionary do it with the same conviction which you'd use to challenge The Illuminati, or The evil Tories, or The Communist leftards, or The Racist Republicans or The Dozy Democrats, or whoever it is you oppose.

This meme is embedded in most of the decent movements that have sprung up recently, including #Occupy and Anonymous, but it often gets ignored. This blog entry is an attempt to remind you of it. The phrase "be the change you want to see" often comes up. This article is perhaps a bit of meat on that bone. I've made no secret of the fact that I think we may have some quite dicey times ahead of us in the next couple of years but it's not the most important aspect of what is happening to people right now, it's only a distracting headline.

If you look for it there appears to be a self-improvement revolution happening already, although it may just be the company I keep in my Facebook and Twitter feeds. I've seen plenty of people who used to be fat but have now lost weight, I suspect they've used the net to learn about diet and exercise. More subtle though are those people who used to be total idiots at school but are now capable of occasionally admitting they were wrong or behaving more reasonably, I suspect they're on a similar trip. Digital communications technology such as mobile phones and the net force a form of self awareness by recording conversations and activities. Revisiting events at a later date can be incredibly powerful. re-reading a drunken or angry conversation in your Facebook chat box is a very profound change to the way you see yourself. Looking at a picture of the night out you went, on where your clothes were too tight, puts the issue of your weight into sharp relief.

It is these changes, which seem small but are magnified by the volume of people they impact upon, that will lead to a better society as a whole. The biggest most important changes that you can make to your world are the ones you can make right now to yourself and the way you think. The more people who take up this challenge of fixing themselves first the less unlikely the wider changes needed in our society will be. Joining those who are using the net as a tool for self development seems to me like the most useful thing you can do. If we all do that we might well all move in different directions but the definition of the word "revolution" might move away from something which has to involve violence and conflict with others.

Nick Margerrison.

Comments welcome...

081 The Cult Of Nick: Space chips and cheaters


Interviews from the archive:

Joey Greco is surmised by Seth MacFarlane as "the guy who was on Cheaters, and got stabbed on camera". He did the show for 12 seasons and his personal website is here.

*cop starts breakdancing*

Paul Marks used to tolerate my bullshit on the old show frequently. His twitter is here.

The "Jeremy Bile" sketch is old and prolly only makes sense to UK listeners, which narrows it down to about 1/3 of the audience according to the last lot of stats I saw.

The music, which is particularly good in this episode I think, is provided by www.zerofriendsrecordings.co.uk

My Twitter is here: www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison


Check out this episode!

080 Planet Nibiru


I name this YouTube video in and among the chaos of this particular podcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

 

The show is built mainly using my archive. It features excerpts from the music of ZeroFriendsRecordings.co.uk

 

My Twitter is here.

 

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

079 Why they won't admit ETs are real


This episode carries some awesome music from our good friends at Zerofriendsrecordings.co.uk it's got one of my favourite UFO researchers, who I'm amazed I've not already uploaded to the podcast... and... in the event I have, err, sorry, I couldn't find it. His name is Mike Cohen. Also we've got Ben Shelef talking about a Space Elevator.

My twitter address is here: www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison

The bit right at the end of the podcast is from a phone in where we took calls and had people who rang in answering the so-called blasphemy challenge of YouTube fame: THE BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

The end of Great Britain will be met with cheers from the EU







The history of this country, Great Britain, seems to have been forged underneath the constant threat of invasion from mainland Europe. I always understood the union of the two countries, England and Scotland, which grants Britain the title "Great" was by consent, not conquest. I also always thought it was to protect us from the fear of molestation from the mainland and stump their plans for total world domination.

Times have changed nowadays and conquest comes via bureaucracy rather than bullets. I've mixed heritage and Scottish relatives but prefer being British to English. Rightly or wrongly I prefer this because it seems to me that the British Empire, for all its faults, allowed us to forge a national identity that transcended race.

It's an interesting co-incidence to me that in my life I've noticed a rise in English nationalism, our St George's Cross seems to have replaced the Union Jack and our politicians all support being part of the EU. In and among all of this is a little bulldog, who used to protect us, being put down because Braveheart.

NM

Agent Hopkins jumps the shark

Katie Hopkins is a reality TV star who has made her name recently by saying "controversial" things on a TV morning show. Not controversial in the sense that they are a threat to The Authorities or the status quo but more in that they parody attitudes you might expect an upper class person to have, if they'd never met political correctness and Tony Blair in the 90's.

I followed her because so many people thought she was a cow and their responses exposed wider and more interesting problems.

However this morning she kind of jumped the shark, it's been obvious she's running low on material for a while now and sure enough, the stale old poppy debate gets dragged up in my Twitter feed...




Basic Income ... should the Government pay you a wage, no matter what?




I wonder what blog readers think of this? In short it's the idea that the Government pays everyone a flat wage and you can earn money on top, I think. Sounds like a way to put everyone on benefits. However, on the other hand it seems to feed into ideas about freedom and so forth. Not gathered my thoughts on it really, you?

078 David Wilcock features from the archives


Never before put out in this form the interview here with David Wilcock needed to be edited to cut it on the show, which was quite fast paced compared to this podcast. I love the idea that meditating and sending good vibes out would fix stuff. I really do.

The other interview is with Simon LeVay. Again, never aired in this form. I think they sound better longer but it is the nature of radio, you have to cut stuff because that way more people will listen. Narrows your message. With the internet you can speak in multiple formats and only irritate people who can easily ignore you. The conseqeunce of this is you end up projecting a multiple medium message. And stuff...

I'm in a waffling mood.

Hope you dig this podcast.

The music is from here: Zerofriendsrecordings.co.uk

And don't forget, Discordianism is a joke religion!

23


Check out this episode!

The people would be just as noisy...

"The people have spoken, but it will take a while to determine exactly what they said"

- Bill Clinton
Comedian Russell Brand has initiated a debate in the UK about whether it's worth voting. A significant stir was made on Her Majesty's BBC when he called for a revolution and told the interviewer it's not worth voting: "Why pretend? Why be complicit in this ridiculous illusion?".

The Guardian newspaper carries an opinion piece from him which Cult members may like to make an assessment of, in this blog's comments section: RUSSELL BRAND WE DESERVE MORE FROM OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

From my point of view he seems sincere. Perhaps I'm sympathetic because he appears so well versed in the subcultures I've always been fascinated by and have occasionally advocated. Or maybe it's that he's talking in a manner which suggests he's been paying close attention to his influences, the most prominent of which is personal favorite of mine, reptilian conspiracy theory espousing ex-TV presenter David Icke.

However, so off message have Brand's outbursts become that even members of the UK's comedy establishment are taking issue with him. Revolution "ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder" fumes Oxbridge graduate and BBC star, Robert Webb, in a critique posted as an open letter to, The New Statesman, a "left leaning" political magazine Brand guest edited the previous week.

In fact Webb claims he was so horrified by Brand's irresponsible message to 'the kids' that he's joined the UK's Labour party. Webb's concerns, that to deny yourself the vote is to deny yourself a voice, are in my opinion alike to his decision to join the establishment and their political "left wing" The Labour Party: misplaced and out of date. The idea Brand is about to lead a violent revolution in Britain is more than a little absurd, proof that taking a comedian too seriously rarely pays off. However, even if he did, the nightmare scenario Webb describes is informed by the conditions of the past and ignores the new realities of our present and possible future.

Previously revolutions have been co-opted by the following mechanism:
someone with enough thugs on their side and a knack for mass communication steps up onto a soapbox and tells the people what the people want.
Thanks to the internet, this may no longer be possible because "the people" have a voice and so need no one to speak for them. The technology I'm using now is the closest thing we've ever had to a collective voice. The beauty of it is that, unlike any previous manifestation, you can use it to tell me, from your perspective, whether I'm wrong, or right, or almost there. So long as internet articles without comments sections look incomplete and search engines continue to provide a thousand different possible answers to a single question we're on reasonably safe ground. The push for free expression online continues and if we all keep our nerve in the face of The Authorities and their recent desperate attempts to silence us, a new form of democratic engagement starts to look almost inevitable. Brand appears to acknowledge this in his Guardian piece, "I don't need to come with ideas, we can all participate. I'm happy to be a part of the conversation". Perhaps what's starting to look inevitable in our future is what I'd term, for want of a better phrase, a "wiki-revolution".

The fact of the matter is this, had the internet existed during the French Revolution the likes of Robespierre would never have prospered. Powerful counter narratives to his speeches would've appeared the moment his thoughts were impressed upon the world wide web. This is true of all the revolutions that have been betrayed by articulate demagogues and charlatans over the last few hundred years. If you claim your authority as a "voice of the people" you will require a standard of proof not previously available and in the long run I suspect that few will have the audacity to adopt such a pose. Those following developments in Egypt and the so-called Arab Spring are likely to have interesting perspectives on this.

Ironically this democratising force behind the communications era is one of the problems pushing the zeitgeist of which Brand is a symptom. The UK's political establishment has, over the last fifty years or so, been able to pass a number of laws, in accordance with a wider agenda, which had no apparent popular democratic support. For example, the European Union, of which Britain is now part, was never voted for by the general public, the most they signed up for was a trading agreement. The abolition of the death penalty was not supported by a majority of the British public, nor do a majority of Brits believe in man made global warming, have ever articulated support for anti-smoking laws, we were never asked about bank bail outs, the war in Iraq had over a million people on the streets marching against it. The list goes on and on. "The business of Government" in the UK ignores the will of the people as a matter of routine and few believe otherwise.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the agenda they've been following, or like the changes to your life which have been handed down by our political masters, one thing it's hard to pretend is that the will of the people is reflected by these so-called leaders of men. This is because the political elites still live in a world where they think they can stand on a soapbox and tell 'the people' what 'the people' want. That world has vanished now and as a mode of control the technique is as absurd as me telling a grown adult to behave themselves or Santa won't give them any Xmas presents.
If we all collude and collaborate together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete. The reality is there are alternatives. That is the terrifying truth that the media, government and big business work so hard to conceal. Even the outlet that printed this will tomorrow print a couple of columns saying what a naïve wanker I am, or try to find ways that I've fucked up. Well I am naïve and I have fucked up but I tell you something else. I believe in change. I don't mind getting my hands dirty because my hands are dirty already. I don't mind giving my life to this because I'm only alive because of the compassion and love of others. Men and women strong enough to defy this system and live according to higher laws. This is a journey we can all go on together, all of us. We can include everyone and fear no one. A system that serves the planet and the people. I'd vote for that.
LINK TO BRAND'S GUARDIAN ARTICLE HERE
In short it doesn't matter if you agree with Brand's statist orthodox-left tendancies, the sentiment driving him forward is coming from our subculture and as a result it's one I believe the establishment will not be able to control.

077 CATMA: The Law Of Projection


The Law of Projection is a source of amazement to the people who discover it. You're hearing it on a little culty podcast. I wonder if anyone's new to this one and will have the intended "wow" moment when they get into the idea? There's no way of knowing. I've spent the night watching coverage of the Million Mask March. What, what coverage? It was ignored by the media pretty much. Yeah, but it was on twitter and a video link. Doesn't matter if they ignore us now. The mainstream media only ignores such things at the risk of being ignored.

I kind of feel like this podcast should have more of the revolutionary stuff in it but it doesn't. Check out this podcast's timeline if you're looking for that. I notice a few of my pieces were being shared last night as I watched people fan out over London, with their Guy Fawkes masks on. Cult members are realising how well placed they are to handle these debates from the look of my twitter feed at the moment. www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison

Without question the world is changing at a rapid rate.

The UK has an alternative scene. The music you're hearing on this podcast is part of it. www.zerofriendsrecordings.co.uk

All hail Discordia! 23
--
Interviews with Adam Ockelford and Kate Hudson from CND

Check out this episode!

People will talk

The Evening Standard reports upon the latest attempts by Her Majesty's Government to push forward censorship of the printed press:
The head of the inquiry into press regulation piled pressure on David Cameron to implement his findings today, saying they were “not bonkers”.
I'm amazed at how easy a sell this has been to some people. Free speech seems to me to be the most important and obvious way of opposing totalitarianism and the abuse of power. An instinct to communicate discomfort and pain is ignored by our human bodies at considerable risk. Why are some so keen to quell it further in the collective organism represented by the United Kingdom?

In an excellent piece on the subject, Brendan O'Neill argues it is a failure of the left which has brought us to this terrible moment in the history of the UK:
If you get into an argument about press regulation this week, as the Privy Council unilaterally decides on the fate of the British press, I guarantee you this: it will be the Lefties among your acquaintances who will most vociferously champion state intrusion into the press, while the voices criticising such intrusion are far more likely to come from your Right-leaning mates.
[My emphasis]

His central observation is painfully accurate, the so-called "lefties" have been rallied to the cause with startling effectiveness. They hate so passionately it's difficult to get a reasoned response regarding key issues and most have huge difficulties answering direct and simple questions.

Instead you get an emotional reaction which is often almost entirely unrelated to the topic:
The above response is a good example, he decided to take offence at my casual use of the word "mental" to describe a behaviour I thought showed a lack of clear thought. In an attempt to correct the situation he sent a tweet designed to offend me and left it there. If you click on the tweet it will reveal more of the conversation but what's interesting to notice is how often obvious questions are unanswered.
Such as:
How can you 'balance the views' of all 80 million people in the UK?
How and why do you "balance media ownership"?
What experience in the media and regulation of free speech do you have?
When sitting an exam or attending a job interview, failing to respond to a question suggests you are unprepared and lack the information requested. I am convinced people such as the above tweeter are arguing a cause with limited information and without being fully informed by those who they argue on behalf of.

This would make sense given that the cause they advance necessarily comes from people who are keen to limit access to information. Arguments against letting someone speak are always directed at controlling the thoughts of those listening on the basis they cannot be trusted. I strongly suspect the people at the very top of this push to censor the papers think even those who support them are not entitled to a full explanation.
Total visibility implies a level of trust in the people of the world which few would advocate. For example, publishing all your thoughts and personal details online for the world to see would be a firm statement that said you believed no one wanted to do you ill, not now and not ever. Such a person would be hopelessly naïve but likely quite loveable. Their kind's polar opposite, someone who aspires to total invisibility, can be seen as alike to the character of Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings and likely has characteristics similar to his deeply unpleasant psyche.

At the moment politicians, both left and right, now demand the occasional use of a magic ring to protect the privacy of public figures who they're mates with. The consequences will play out over the next decade: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24710506
It's worth noting that the so-called "Porn Filters" which EE insists on putting on my mobile phone have so far only prevented me from reading a left wing feminist blog. They don't care if you're left or right, they just care about their agenda.
NM

Criticism tells you more of the critic than the criticised.

When you express yourself you are highly likely to express your "self". 

Recently I was in a very crowded pub where I watched a woman pushing a man around, she had him by the collar of his shirt and was shouting "you're pushing people you're drunk, you're knocking people over, you're being a dickhead". She appeared very drunk as she pushed him into the crowd of people behind him and started knocking people over as a consequence. Almost to the word, each of her criticisms applied to her as equally as they might have him. His only response was to try and laugh it off but the woman, who I'm not sure he knew, then stormed off furious at the man's response shouting "I fucking hate people like you, you've no consideration for other people, you never listen to what they say!". There, with almost perfect symmetry, was the idea I'm about to try and explain with this blog entry.

The first time I noticed criticism often tells you more about the critic than the criticised I felt like I'd unlocked some kind of weird cheat-code to life. If I can convince you of this truth with this little blog entry and you look out for it over the next few days I believe it's a revelation that genuinely could change your life for the better, forever.

It will be demonstrated over and over again to you once you become aware of it. When people express themselves, about anything, they tend to express their selves in the process. When you speak your words say something about you, each time.

That's what you're looking out for and once you spot it there will be a period where you feel like EVERYONE IS A HYPOCRITE...

Notice, for example, that it's the fat and lazy person in your office who is always the first to complain about someone else being fat and lazy. The friend of yours in your social group who 'hates liars' usually has issues with telling the truth themselves. Ever noticed that homophobic people often seem to have issues with their own sexuality? This is because they are often gay and often hate themselves as a result. The preachers who rant about immorality in society only to be caught hunched over a whore with a bag of cocaine in their hands? Same deal.

More than a few times I've met local 'hardman' who put over their side of the story by saying: "I just hate bullies". Gasps of surprise from victims who see him as a bully but the criticism has revealed the critic. He knows all about bullies and how awful they are because he is one, whether he recognises that quality in himself or not.

Recognition requires previous experience and the more familiar you are with something the more you will recognise it.

It's this mechanic which allows someone who is addicted to drink or drugs to be the first to spot someone else who suffers from the same problem.

So, the first possible use for this little rule is, if someone argues with you and criticises you, try turning their words back on them, you'll be surprised at how useful that can be. Assume their criticism of you might fit them also and work from that hunch.

Secondly though, list all the things you often criticise other people for, handy list of your own faults, right in front of you.

I have been told this idea is part of the 'secret teachings' of 'ancient mystery schools' and that it has been guarded and obscured by occult groups over the ages. That seems a little silly to me. Thoughts?

Nick Margerrison

076 In support of 'Brand' revolution


Russell Brand has made a bit of a name for himself by advocating revolution. Seems like precisely the sort of thing we've been talking about for the last year or so, I'm sure that's just a co-incidence.

The music of Zero Friends Recordings features prominently in this one.

The clip of Pope Bob is here.

The clips of Russell Brand are here.

My Twitter is here.

This podcast has a Facebook page here.

23

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

They're censoring the press, exactly as I told you they would #bbcqt

If you check my Twitter time line you'll notice I tweet a lot during Question Time. These blog entries are composed of the "highlights" or maybe "lowlights". Re-Tweets, responses and favourites feature here. Towards the end of last night there was some very interesting debate about nationalisation versus privatisation and my time line was full of tweets with me saying, "ooh, no idea what I think of this". None of them got favourited or RT'd so this blog entry reads as if I knew exactly where I stood on every issue.

The first question was about this:

Q&A High speed rail 2
The government plans a new high-speed rail network, from London to Birmingham and to Manchester and Leeds, known as HS2.
This high speed rail link will only benefit London in my opinion. I'm happy to be proved wrong on it, don't have a firm opinion there. What I do think is that I've started to toy with the idea of calling politicians "tax collectors". From where I stand that seems to be all they're there to do. They advocate tax increases and then provide a bit of PR for Her Majesty's Government. That seems to be their main role. I doubt there are many ex-builders who are politicians. Builders do things, politicians don't.

Speaking of which, these Unions intimidating families are behaving PRECISELY as I expect. I have seen all that crap close up and it's nasty. Fascists scream about unity and the strength to be found within it. Collective action often falls foul of what can only be described as fascism.

Unite accused of 'intimidation' tactics over Grangemouth
31 October 2013 Last updated at 22:31 GMT
Members of the Unite union involved in the bitter dispute at Grangemouth have been accused of trying to intimidate company bosses and their families.
In one case, Unite members congregated outside the home of a company director with an inflatable rat.
These people have fallen foul of what is sometimes called "noble cause corruption" where they are so convinced what they are doing is right they don't think they personally can ever do wrong.
The left wing are riddled with it. The right wing usually get it in matters related to nationalism. The left become infected with it all the time.
Then the question of privatising the probation service brought up a genuinely interesting debate about what should and should not be the duty of the Government.
How to make recidivism and costs rise? Privatise probation
Four big firms are set to get even richer. We will be paying much more for the service, and failures are inevitable



Then the inevitable Leveson debate popped up:
The Royal Charter on press regulation is expected to be approved later. What are the major questions that have defined the debate?
A Royal Charter? I am stunned people think this is a good idea. I am stunned anyone believes these lying evil politicians and thinks broadcast law should be applied to newspapers. I'm stunned at how fucking thick you have to be to think it's anything other than an attempt to censor you in the near future.

#BBCQT Hitchens matches his brother and I get called "right wing" again...

I refuse to admit that tweeting bile at politicians on a Thursday is the genuine highlight of my week. There's no need for me to admit that, it's obvious.
Nice that there's a slow growing clique of people who're also joining in as well...
My thoughts on Owen Jones are here: "Owen Jones and the folly of criticism"

Owen Jones, one day he will likely be "Lord Jones".

Hitchens is a great debater, just like his brother was. In my opinion he battered Will Self on the subject of drugs last year, despite the fact I support the idea of decriminalisation and he was arguing against it. In other words, he won an argument I wanted him to lose. My thoughts on that here:

Nick Clegg on drugs:
The recent edition of The BBC's 'Question Time' perfectly illustrated two alternative solutions to the so-called war on drugs. On the one hand you had Peter Hitchens. His suggestion is to 'actually make it a war' as, according to him, decriminalisation has happened in all but name. So, he argues, lets try actually locking people up for even the most minor infringements of the narcotics law. In that world even so much as a scratch of cannabis under your fingernails would get you hard jail time.
He's a man who I disagree with on a number of issues but he does the job he's supposed to and he does it well. He clearly articulates his honestly held opinions. Jones however is incredibly tedious, he interrupts people and seems to think it's the 1980's still. They're polar opposites, in almost every respect.
The big debate was energy bills and the price increases. This came up the week before and so to some extent we saw a re-hash of the same debates.
The problem with Owen Jones being the polar opposite of Hitchens is this:
Every now and then an audience member pops up and makes a big impact, "bloke with beard" is a classic example:
I'd side with the Yanks against Europe, just as my Granddad did when they started bombing us in the 40's. I think on reflection the word "inevitable" in this tweet boarders on the ludicrous though.
It doesn't help Owen Jones being the polar opposite of Hitchens, who looks like a bitter old man:
Owen, or "Owrn" as I decided to call him here, represents the kind of youthful fool I was once. Totally believes in the idea of politicians. He's precisely the opposite of Hitchens in this respect. Hitchens acts as if he hates all of them, if you read this blog you'll know it's hard for me not to like that.
The question was, "As politicians and political commentators what would you say to people who feel disillusioned with the current political system?". Owen Jones was the first to answer, he 'magnanimously' sympathised with the "ordinary people" spoke about class a bit, praised Caroline Flint, the Labour party representative on the panel that night and then told the "ordinary people" to sort it out by getting involved.
Then came Hitchens's response. It was note perfect. It was word for word the sentiment I wanted. He spat bile and scorn on the whole lot. His words to people who feel disillusioned with politics, in a nutshell were: "I'd agree with them". As he spoke about the things politicians will not discuss the look on the panel was priceless. Lord Jones (for that is what he will one day become) furiously tried to interrupt and stop him from talking, without any apparent sense of irony.
It's unlikely we'll see a Lord Hitchens.
Jones was then supported by Liz Truss from the Conservative Party who literally told him to "get with the programme".
"It's not Britain I hate, it's the people who run it," returned Hitchens, he then went on to point out these people are all the same and you cannot tell the difference between them.

Just perfect.

The problem agreeing so whole heartedly with someone from the Daily Mail, is:







Follow by Email