Direct link to twitter:
Direct link to podcast:
Or click on the massive iTunes button to subscribe to the podcast...

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes


037 David Icke interview "What do you mean Lizards rule the world?"

Recently David Icke was "confronted" by Jessie Ventura on his TV show. The two men left each other with a bitter taste in their mouths and it makes for irritating viewing. This is the conversation Ventura could have had with Icke about The Lizards if he'd been genuinely interested.

I've mentioned previously that opponents of "The New World Order" are frequently mystically inspired. Icke is no different to Alex Jones in this respect.

Check out this episode!

036 The Sheldrake Sessions includes Sense of Being Stared At & Morphic Resonance

The implications of Rupert Sheldrake's work for occultists are obvious. The implications his ideas might have on science in the long term are huge. That he's not currently accepted as the orthodoxy is an irrelevance. The older you get the more you notice that science shifts in its opinions just as people do. This is partly why I drop in my little essay at the end. Paradigms and ways of thinking are not written onto stone tablets anymore.

If you enjoy the end bit of the podcast you might like an earlier episode called "The Awakening". Have a little look back, it comes just after the Alan Moore interview.


The music you can hear in the background on some of this podcast is from

Liam Keery - Eclipse

Have a look, it's good stuff.

Check out this episode!

Relax with cats?

Relax with Cats
Recently I was in the sort of shop you might go to if you're a woman who has a remarkable number of cats in your house. 

I love New Age shops, they're mental but great at the same time. I try not to spend money in them too much and strangely managed to stop short of a purchase when I encountered "Relax With Cats". 

From the sounds of things they should pipe this in on the hospital radio stations of the UK because it fixes BROKEN BONES and is recommended by SCIENTISTS amongst other things. 

Yes, that's right, it fixes broken bones, unbelievable eh?

My cats loved it
Various incredible quotes on the back made me want to buy it: "Most amazing relaxation CD I have ever heard", "Zonked me out completely", "My cats loved it" and "Calmed the kids down".

Furthermore, check out the academic qualifications on Jeff Moron and Jack Stewart[1]: an MA and an MSc between them! They must really know their stuff if they've got a qualification or two.

Look as well, it says "scientifically proven". Scientists know everything, they're ace. This is a done deal...

It's ten quid?
Then the cynicism set in a bit. One of those quotes stuck out as a slight contradiction to the relaxation vibe: "It's as if a cat was sat on my lap". That's not relaxing to me at all, if interpreted literally and on a "scientific level" that's stressful for a number of reasons.

Firstly, cats scratch you and stick their claws in for no reason. I can never relax with one on my lap.

Secondly, I think it'd freak me out to imagine one was actually scientifically there, only to discover I'd been conned by a CD into thinking that. In other words, to take these claims seriously we're describing borderline mental illness here. 

Remember, this stuff is "scientifically proven".

Scientifically proven magickal qualities
Then there's the price as well: ten quid. I'm a jobbing commercial radio cover presenter and part time writer these days. I don't have ten quid to buy things like this, even if it is pink.

Still, "This Amazing CD will enable you to: 

#Fully Relax 
#Boost your immune system
#Improve your health"

That's some pretty incredible claims there. They are backed by people with qualifications and it is "scientifically proven". Furthermore the research "confirms that cats purring: #Lowers stress levels & blood pressure #Creates frequencies that help muscle tissue and bones repair". 

I really honestly wanted this CD.

What put me off was the matter of fact tone implied by the use of words which appeal to scientific authority. This makes it harder to purchase. In that sense I can't make the purchase, the advertising put me off: I just don't buy it.

Nick Margerrison

[1] Both very easy to find online. Almost posted their pictures but I'm starting to get a strange sense of responsibility as this blog begins to get readers and didn't want them unnecessarily hassled. They're scientists after all, they don't know any better.

The death of the left right paradigm

In short, most people see the UK’s left wing as kind, caring, interested in changing things and a little bit anti-establishment, unlike the right wing who are seen as their polar opposite. The further left or right you are the more extreme these positions are supposed to become. The theory is that this line, from left to right, is supposed to encapsulate all the different points of view which can be held by subjects of Her Majesty the Queen in the year 2013AD, hence the term “political spectrum”. To think people in years to come won’t find this a little absurd is, to me, incredible.

A paradigm is a way of thinking and, like fashions, they come and go. Recently I witnessed possibly one of the most interesting exchanges I’ve ever seen on the BBC’s Question Time programme. Big Issue founder John Bird had been advocating investment in Northern mining communities when he was questioned about his political leanings by a perplexed Johnathan Dimbleby. Bird’s answer was interrupted by the irrepressible responses it provoked and he stuttered a little under the pressure. Even so, he reminded me of a woman nervously going out on the town in a daring new dress provoking both laughter and wolf-whistles. I describe it as fully as possible here but it’s worth locating it on iPlayer and watching it in full if you can (10th Jan, 11 minutes in):
“I thought, I thought, you once said you were a Tory?” asks Dimbleby.

“I am, uh, this is so interesting, um, you get, you get, somebody quotes a little bit. I am a working class Marxist, uh, Tory with socialist,” here Bird was interrupted by titters from Dimbleby, “- uh, socialist, liberal leanings which means to say -” laughter rippled out from Dimbleby to the rest of the panel and parts of the audience but as reaction set in suddenly supportive whoops and cheers echoed back from the public audience, “I find it incredibly difficult to fit into left or right, because, like most people, they’re left on some things and right on others”.

There in its most favoured context, a broadcast studio, the left-right paradigm entered its death throes. I suspect it will continue to exist in a media context for some years hence but make no mistake few people in the real world believe it anymore. Part of me wonders if they ever did.

One way you can tell a paradigm is on its way out is when they can be apparently demolished in someone else’s mind with only a few words. Our society is evolving and this process has been dramatically speeded up by the multiple perspectives offered to people by the internet. I went online and began to tweet:

I don’t know the tweeter in question but his open mindedness is to be applauded. He now fits into the growing number of people who reject such labels, are prepared to think for themselves and will consider issues on their own merit. Furthermore, it’s not just obscure internet bloggers and tweeters who make up our number, the comedian Chris Rock puts it well:
“We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are f—ing idiots. Democrats are f—ing idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots. Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a f—ing fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I’m a conservative! I’m a liberal! I’m a conservative! It’s bull—t! Be a f—ing person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal decent person is one thing.”
– Chris Rock, 'Never Scared'
Twitter again:

That these labels have survived at all is a testament to how incredibly useful they are to people who want to herd the human cattle. Firstly, dogmatic left wing and right wing “leaders” use these terms to rally the troops without tackling the detail of an idea. As I mentioned before, those on the left identify as being more ‘caring’, this usually equates to them considering themselves to be more morally good than their enemies on the right. So, if you’re on the left, you can easily frame a debate in a moral context whereby it’s a straight fight between the goodies and baddies of your mythological childhood. In my experience the right wing are most usually pleased if you can frame the debate as being one of intelligence versus stupidity or ignorance [1]. Leaders also find the terms useful when accounting for failure, ‘the Government isn’t right wing (or left wing) enough’.

Secondly, these terms have risen to prominence, since their inception during the French revolution, in the context of the mass media. I think it’s no co-incidence that they incubated into an established paradigm alongside the notion that the media can send out messages to people which are “impartial”. What most people mean by the word “impartial” is that there is a level of balance to any particular debate and that all reasonable perspectives are represented equally. This is easily done if there are only two points of view and they are both in opposition to each other. This is a lot trickier if you reject the notion of left vs right. I suspect that’s why Dimbleby tittered, to him these ideas are probably unfamiliar and likely very threatening to his way of thinking.

On the back of my old BBC pass it says this:


TRUST is the foundation of the BBC, we are independent, impartial and honest”

I suspect that in the future our publicly funded broadcaster will have to admit that the only aspect of their promise on trust that can realistically be maintained is honesty. No one is independent of their own perspective and as a result the opinions to which they are partial will always become apparent in the things they do. It’s a significant challenge for intellects paid far more money that I ever have been but, as you will have realised, it’s only one of the immediate consequences we face as we watch the inevitable death of the left right paradigm.

Nick Margerrison.

How does the British Monarchy get away with it?

“Power does what it wants. [...] Forget the politicians, they’re an irrelevancy [...] put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything.[...] they own this f--king place. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in “the big club”‘
- George Carlin
Slightly innapropriate but very funny gif:
The absurd suggestion that the UK’s un-democratically selected Royal Family are nothing more than decoration has come crashing down as a court order forced the establishment to reveal how things really work behind the scenes. Despite Royalists constantly pushing the myth their monarch performs a ‘ceremonial role’, the truth is very different. Infact the approval of Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Charles, has been required for at least 39 different bills suggested by elected members of Britain’s Houses of Parliament.
The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles’s secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.
Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals’ little-known power to consent to or block new laws.
There is a curious level of Orwellian doublethink in the UK when it comes to the Royal Family, I try to explain this further at the end of the article. Anti-monarchists often feel those who disagree with them are apparently hypnotised into ignoring the reality of their situation. I remember being dumb-struck by someone I was debating the issue with on a London radio station who, with apparent sincerity, announced that the Royals were “just a symbol, it doesn’t mean anything”. It was incredible to me then and it still is now: this person actually believed in, and was prepared to defend the concept of, a symbol that does not symbolise or mean anything.
Legal scholar John Kirkhope, who fought to access the papers following a freedom of information case, said the document revealed senior royals have “real influence and real power”.
“There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable,” he said.
Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, said the findings showed the Royals “are playing an active role in the democratic process”.
He called for greater transparency in order to evaluate whether the powers were “appropriate.”
“This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role,” he said.
“It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was.”
[My emphasis]

Currently the UK Government is pursuing a policy of cutting back state welfare benefits. I suggest they start with those given to the monarchy through another rarely discussed, and constantly downplayed, aspect of the monarchy: the civil list.

The frustrating thing about this debate though (from the perspective of someone who believes the monarchy is an un-democratic, un-fair, outdated, bulls–t embarrassment) is the fact that vested interests in the world of both the media (who want a Knighthood or MBE) and politics (same problem) work furiously behind the scenes to keep the truth about the UK’s entirely unaccountable heads of state secret:
The revelation comes after parliamentary lawyers were forced to release a document the government had fought to keep secret in an unsuccessful freedom of information battle.
 That it is even allowed to be freely reported to Her Majesty’s subjects is unusual.
The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.
It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
An American friend of mine once asked: “but how do they get away with it?”.

Currently my podcast and blog get more attention from America than they do Britain. Approximately 600 or so people will read this entry, most of them from the US where they have a vote to decide their head of state, who even once elected is pointedly referred to as MR President. If you're a fellow Brit I'd be particularly interested in your explanation as to why you're ok with having no say whatsoever in who represents you as Head Of State and why you think The Queen is better.

I suspect the key reasons are:

1, The power of association: “Queen and country”.

The power of association is widely known in advertising. Brands which have no direct link to something positive can benefit from an association to something the consumer loves or respects. The easiest way to do this is by simple repetition. The alliterative mantra “Queen and Country” makes people believe there is something intrinsically patriotic about blindly supporting them, rather than daring to imagine a nation which stand on its own two feet and looks after itself.

2, The science of behaviourism, “Come on stop being such a stick in the mud lets have a party!”

Behaviourism suggests that if you do something, no matter what your conscious mind believes, subconsciously you will agree with the ideas the action suggests. For example, people who spend time smiling for no reason tend to feel happier. The recent Royal jubilee and Royal wedding celebrations are good examples of this in action on a nationwide scale. Despite a great number of people not affirming a belief in the idea of a hereditary monarchy there were still a large number of well attended state sponsored parties to celebrate the Royals. Lots of friends of mine went along despite not being monarchists. Nationwide, inevitably approval ratings soared, and continue to rise. On a smaller scale, more than ever before these days, my anti-monarchist sentiments are being challenged and debated by people who previously might have agreed.

3, The power of a promise, “I promise to serve Her Majesty The Queen”

All of the top members of the establishment in the UK, sitting members of Parliament, Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers, Clergy, and the military, have to swear allegiance to the monarch in order to do their duties. These oaths are common in other parts of the UK as well. In a sense this is an extension of behaviourism and the affirmation is a form of mild self hypnosis. Primates tend to copy the alpha males in their social groups, if you know your superior has sworn allegiance to the crown you're likely to think it was for a good reason.

4, They have the power to patronise you with an MBE, OBE or simply their association: “I could make things good for you and your family”.

 I remember once being in the office of a major media organisation, framed above the desk of the boss was a letter from a senior member of The Royal Family thanking them for their help with some charity work. Then and there it dawned on me why criticism of The Royals is so rare in the “mainstream media”.

5, The power of celebrity: “Oh, it’s not fair is it, those horrible paparazi”

To think that the Royals do not make arrangements with the press is as absurd as the now defunct notion that their role in law making is purely for fun and games. The level of access some photographers, even apparently rogue ones, get is staggering. This is one of the richest families in the world with one of the world’s biggest powers protecting them. Being famous celebrities brings a form of power that is easy to underestimate until you see it close up.

There must be other reasons, I look forward to reading the comments section.

If you are from the UK and you’ve gotten all the way down to the bottom of this article without screaming “traitor” you might like to consider following this link and re-tweeting a tweet of mine which reads: “RT if you agree “benefit cuts” should start with The Royal Family“.

Nick Margerrison.

Is this an interview that will end Tarantino's relationship with The BBC?

An extraordinary interview with the public service broadcaster Channel 4 surfaced a few days ago. 

Reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy holds Tarantino to account on the content of his films and faces a bold explanation regarding how the world famous director sees such interviews: "you're making a commercial for my movie!"

My provocative headline cuts to the fact that now any BBC journalist who decides to try attempt an interview with Tarantino must face the fact that they might have fundamentally misunderstood the relationship. Regardless of the skills of you and your production team, Hollywood's most famous director believes he is in fact making "a commercial for my movie". He states this a number of times, like a mantra: "I'm here to sell my movie. This is a commercial for the movie -- make no mistake."

What's important to understand here is that Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster but it is allowed to run adverts, unlike The BBC. I wonder if this exchange has given those at Broadcasting House more than a little cause for thought as regards giving Tarantino airtime on the publicly funded airwaves? His apparent meltdown and misunderstanding regarding the UK's media should by rights have cost him a very valuable market.


035 Top five small scale religious movements or ... cults

This week's podcast features a full unedited inteview from the archives with Glen Carter, the UK President of The Raelian movement. It begins with a quick rundown of my top five small scale religious movements, or "cults".

For me the distinction between a cult and a religion is nothing more than a numbers game. Furthermore I think there's a sense of perspective you can get on religion by looking at the activities of smaller groups who have a much harder time maintaining their reality tunnels in the face of a society which is, in the main, indifferent to their existence.

The clips of Peter H Gilmour are on a previous episode of this podcast.

Say hello to me on if you enjoyed the podcast.

I really will get an email address sorted by the end of next week. Been busy earning money in the real world of commercial radio most of this week.


Check out this episode!

Article for Sabotage Times

First article for any site other than Disinfo, feels a little like cheating on a favourite girlfriend. See what you think: Top 5 Cults

Understanding Alex Jones

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson, US Founding Father.
Alex Jones is trending on twitter thanks to his confrontation with Piers Morgan on the issue of gun control, which Morgan has a history of calling for in very un-English, rude and insulting terms. Piers' timid demeanor is in this interview either an act or the genuine fear of a bully being confronted. He fails to control the interview and makes few substantial responses to Jones's points. In the media of the old world, where Morgan learned his trade, that would have been ok but in the era of the internet there is an additional dynamic to proceedings. People have clearly gone online and googled 'the crazy American'. Long term this means the ideas they advocate will sink or swim based on their validity, not the apparent sanity of their two supporters.

At the bottom of this blog entry I have posted three pieces, the two halves of the complete interview with Jones vs Morgan and a repost of my interview from a few years back with Jones, widely seen as a classic in alternative circles (forums etc) and initially broadcast, in an edited form[1], on Kerrang Radio.

A bit of background to these pieces is useful along with a few key points you can look into for yourself. Do not misunderstand this entry, or my interview with Jones. I am not advocating his point of view, much of it I'm fairly ambivalent on, but I do believe an informed debate about the actual issues is always more interesting than the narrow point of view provided by just the Morgan piece alone.

Firstly Alex Jones is religious. This is a very important aspect of the subculture he represents. Conspiracy theorists are often driven by the belief that there is 'something more' to people than just the input-response model of a human animal wihch modern rationalism presents us with. At first I didn't really understand how crucial this aspect of the belief system was but over time it has started to make sense. It's one of the reasons people like him have fundemental faith in people: because God made them. It's also why they reject apparently rational ideas such as ID cards, CCTV cameras, the database state and so on.

Secondly the gun debate, just like the UK's recent free speech debate, is about faith. In a nutshell the dynamic is this:

The US trusts its people to own guns and be responsible, the UK's does not.

Furthermore I think it was Jones who once explained it to me in the following terms; "having a gun is a sign that the Government trusts the people to behave as citizens rather than slaves. A nobleman carried a sword. A peasant was not allowed one. The peasants might revolt, a nobleman will only do so if his cause is just. In short, an armed populace provides a final defence against tyranny."

Now, that's a slightly more complex framing of the issue than I'd previously been provided with. Prior to that little logical bombshell I'd bought into the prevailing UK orthodoxy that Americans love guns simply because they're thickos.

Once you gather that, for Jones this issue is one of trust, you can start to understand parody videos of the "demand a plan" YouTube campaign featuring celebritites who all plead for President Obama to alter the US's gun laws. In the parody video which recently featured on called "Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves" the spotlight is turned upon why these celebrities are seen as being trustworthy, often because they've been promoted with gun violence. Further to that advocates of gun ownership often ask why Governments should be trusted with guns? Particualrly given the fact that Government armies tend to kill far more people than civilians ever do.

In fact, the initial idea of gun laws in the US was to cut out the need for a standing army and give the population the right to defend themselves from British tyranny. This is the context for Jones's 1776 tirade. This again cuts right to the heart of the issue as the idea was that citizens of the US were all in favour of the constitution and the freedoms it awarded them, so much so they'd defend it to the death. They opposed hereditary monarchy and that's why the needed guns.

It's incredibly easy to mock Jones from the perspective of a subject of Her Majesty living in the UK but if you listen to the key points he raises there's a chance you might feel less smug:
He mentions free speech laws in the UK. You do not have a right to speak freely in UK broadcast media. That's a fact of life in our country, not so in theirs. One of our politicians, and now media 'professional' herself, Jackie Smith, actually banned a US talkshow host from setting foot in this country because she was so upset by how rude he was with his words! Michael Savage was put on a list of other undesirables, the majority of which were there for violent crimes. His only crime was speaking freely. 
He mentions the right to defend your property. It's widely known that people in the UK have faced jail time for daring to fight back against an intruder. 
He mentions Pier Morgan's body guards. The highest levels of society have the protection of men with guns. They have these armed guards because they in practice agree with the NRA's assesment that the only solution to the problem presented by a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. So would you if you lived in Cumbria in Whitehaven, UK. They wanted an armed response. So would I if some idiot was marauding the streets with a shooter. 
In a nutshell Alex Jones has chosen to trust people and not Governments. Some say he doesn't have that right, I respect his decision and in a sense we agree to disagree. It's nice though that we live in a society where people like him can exist, I'd worry if they didn't.

A final note of caution, Alex Jones was the first person I heard talking about the now acknowledged Bilderberg group. In other words, he's been relelvant to me as a journalist. On the other hand Piers Morgan has deliberately duped me, and the rest of the UK, with a fake story about our military urinating on Iraqis. I took that story as legitimate and opinionated on it, on the air, during my time on Hallam FM. Jones is often accused of exaggeration but there's no record of him simply inventing a story to fit his agenda, as Piers did here in the UK during war-time! Morgan's background is one of celebrity, Jones's is one of conspiracy. I'm not sure who I agree with but I know who I prefer.

Here is my original interview:

Here are the two parts of the Piers Morgan interview:

Nick Margerrison

[1] It's obvious which bits we had to cut due to UK law. The Diana stuff needed a cut, other bits as well. We were always on thin ice on Kerrang.

034 Robot Sex Dolls

David Levy talks about his book Sex With Robots on this podcast. It's a compilation of two of his interviews alongside a couple of others from a similar area including Professor Chris Melhuish from the Bristol Robotics Laboratory and Matt, from Real All these interviews are taken from the archives.

Thanks for downloading. We're getting more interviews lined up for us by a strange process of osmosis where old contacts are bleeding through the podcast and into my line of sight. If you're able to help set one up contact me through twitter:

Even if not, click follow and say how are we and I'll be sure to retweet you if you say you're a new listener.


Check out this episode!

033 Satanism, Survival, Smoking and poetry

On this week's podcast we have four pieces all in one. Firstly there's an interview with, The Head Of The Church Of Satan, Peter H Gilmore*. Secondly there's a chat with one of my favourite living poets Will Stopha. Then there's, Edward Muesch, a guy who survived a tsunami. And finally there's the secret to stopping smoking. Seriously, it worked for me, you read a book and then you will stop. It doesn't scare you, it just convinces you to stop. Listen to the end of the podcast to hear more.

Happy New Year &c

*In the event I find the un-edited version of this I'll whack it up straight away. Little annoying that this has a few early edits on it.

Check out this episode!

Follow by Email