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

Why not work for benefits?



WIKIPEDIA DESCRIBES PEASANTS HERE.

In short what I'm suggesting is that our society is regressing back to that era, where people work for a master who allows them to live on the land in return. The masters of our New Age are intended to be Government officials, in the past it was less organised than that.


The establishment no longer need people to work in factories, many people have suggested we will therefore head back to the way things used to be. Such a development was notably predicted by Aldous Huxley and, to a lesser extent, George Orwell.

--













From The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/04/ed-balls-welfare-work-scheme
Labour will move to protect itself from the politically damaging charge that it is soft on welfare claimants, by proposing that every adult aged over 25 and out of work for more than two years should be obliged to take up a government-provided job for six months, or lose benefits.

The "compulsory work or lose benefits" announcement by the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, and the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, comes ahead of what threatens to be a fraught second reading debate on Tuesday over Labour's refusal to back a government bill restricting increases in benefits and tax credits to 1% a year for the next three years – which is likely to represent a 4% cut in real terms.

Can you spot the difference between this and the policy being brought in? The New Labour Order were parroting this nonsense ages ago, as were the Tories.
















This debate is alike to the others we see when a clear part of Her Majesty's Government's agenda is being pushed. In fact it's about extending state power and yet in debate it's supposedly about tackling the problem of lazy people in society. Opposition is then reacted to as you would someone who is putting up a defence of the workshy. This means a sensible response during the debate is hard to reach and in the unsuing melee and meanwhile the Government pushes its proposed expansion through.
    

Nick Margerrison

"Esoteric material"


It has always struck me as odd that "occultism" is so closely protected by the establishment. On the radio we only ever really had problems talking about magick. The most famous example being the censored Alan Moore interview which now features on the podcast, uncut.

Make no mistake, the censorship agenda is not going away without a fight.

Original graphic published at www.reachinglight.com.

Infographic: UK Filter to Block ‘Esoteric Content’ - Worldwide Implications

071 Football is rubbish, keep the lads mags and Nick Pope is ace...


This episode of the podcast features a live interview with Nick Pope who used to work for the ministry of defence. It also features this rant from the blog.

The music from the podcast is here.

My twitter is here.

The show's facebook page is here.

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

Lose the lad's mags - a quick analysis of their ideology.

If you follow this link you'll find a website designed to encourage a ban on some magazines. It prints out an automatic email to send to Tesco:
I agree with the shareholder who asked Tesco during your AGM on 28 June to lose the lads' mags.
Lads' mags like Nuts and Zoo are deeply harmful. By portraying women as dehumanised sex objects they fuel sexist behaviours and attitudes underpinning violence against women. Selling them is in contradiction to Tesco's commitment to being a 'responsible corporate citizen'.
Your Chairman, Sir Richard Broadbent, said at your recent AGM that he was 'startled' by the content of these publications. Indeed, lads' mags are pornographic magazines that portray women as sex objects for the sexual gratification of male readers. Selling lads’ mags contravenes Tesco's own policy of not stocking 'adult' magazines.
Furthermore, exposing staff and customers to these images can constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Pornographic 'girlie calendars' would not be permitted on Tesco's office or shops walls, so sexist, pornographic lads' mags should not be on Tesco's shelves.
Please show leadership on this issue and prove that Tesco's commitment to 'always do the right thing, to inspire and to earn trust and loyalty from all of our stakeholders' isn't just talk.
Please stop selling sexist, harmful lads' mags.
--

Notice first that pressure is being applied here, not by market forces (such as a lack of demand) but by rich shareholders. It is they who are being idealised as our new guardians. Those who have won the money game implicitly know best, and this follows because they are all so very clever and good, right?

If we extract the notion that ideas themselves are dangerous from the equation a magazine is one of the least harmful things I can think of that you can buy in a supermarket. Have a go and see if you can imagine anything less dangerous...

Unless you count paper cuts I'd be very surprised if there were any statistics to support the claim they have ever injured anyone let alone being "deeply harmful".

The reason magazines are seen here as being dangerous is because they might make people think. Some people believe this is incredibly dangerous for someone to do without the supervision and approval of the state.

Others are of the opinion that it is actions that are dangerous, not thoughts. This way of seeing things is common for most of the people who regularly read this blog. They tend to believe people are responsible for their own actions. This is an idea called "personal responsibility" and it does not form part of an authoritarian point of view.

Without question this magazine's readers can be said to be dangerous but, certainly in a legal sense, I think it's very important to blame those individuals for what they decide to do with themselves.

I find the notion of 'passing the buck' when it comes to "violence against women" deeply sickening and profoundly immoral. To say I was annoyed when I wrote this is an understatement because I am convinced there will be a number of people who will attach themselves to this particular cause because they're looking for excuses relating to their evil criminal acts.

However, despite this, I do not think rape apologists should be punished for their words, they instead need to be confronted and debated by those who understand the issues. The world will be a much better place when we, as a society, can eventually stand up to criminals and their excuses instead of supporting them with sympathy. 

The definition of pornography appears to have changed over the years if a lad's mag qualifies. Even in the pre-internet days of my teenage years I'd have been asking for my money back if I'd been given one instead of an actual porn mag.

Finally, the threat of legal action, gives us an insight into the authoritarian nature of this campaign and its real thoughts on state censorship. That they are so anxious, in this time of economic hardship, for Her Majesty's Government to get involved in attacking the business model of a huge employer shows you where they are really coming from.

In summary:

For me this is clearly a free speech issue with the perhaps unintended consequence of attempting to excuse the crime of sexual violence on the basis of provocation. Fortunately, in a legal context, this defence is currently only available when applied to the crime of murder.

Those who understand the issues from the perspective I've just articulated appear to be in the minority. On the other hand there are millions being herded in the opposite direction to us but I think this is an important debate to be counted in, even if it puts you in the losing team.

Please retweet, Facebook and spread this entry as far as you can or, re-write it into your own words on your blog.


Nick Margerrison

070 Starbucks taxation and the apocalypse


I kick off with a rant taken from my Twitter and written up on my blog.

Guests this week include archive interviews with Paul Tait (their website www.soulsmacklive.com appears to be down at the moment) and Richard Wiseman (his excellent blog is here).

The music is from Zero Friends Recordings and our album is available to purchase here. Every time someone buys it a poor musician and broke broadcaster cry tears of joy!

Thanks to everyone who has continued to support The Cult Of Nick!

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

Who benefits?


Starbucks taxation and the apocalypse

What I love about the world we live in is that I can sit in a coffee shop and rant away like this:
I like the iconography of the coffee shop, it recalls the spirit of revolution which energised people in 17th and 18th Century Europe.

In fact I am proud to be a 'Coffee Shop Revolutionary':
An individual [...] who speculates on the utopia that "could be" following radical societal, governmental, and cultural change without actually taking action to do initiate it. These coffee shop revolutionaries are comparable to "Armchair Generals" and "Armchair Politician's".
My surprise at the fact the UK's Labour party were so keen to kneel before our God-appointed Queen is a good example of how a "reality tunnel" works. By necessity you ignore more information than you absorb. Throughout your life your brain learns what information is useful and what is 'irrelevant', this process builds up your unique reality tunnel. Once someone's beliefs are firmly re-enforced it's incredible they can then either notice or ignore. So, for example, if you think there is a God and you've managed to shift your reality tunnel to fit that belief it will start to seem like the evidence is all around you because anything that flatly speaks to the contrary is ignored.

Sure enough, when my younger left-wing self first heard Labour supported the UK's hereditary Monarchy, I was forced to ignore something because it didn't fit my worldview.
My visceral dislike of so-called hate crime caused me to be viewed as "controversial" during my time as a phone in show host in London. I'm still amazed some people think it's less of a big deal to beat up an old lady when compared to attacking someone because you don't like the fact they're gay or the wrong race or whatever. The whole notion of "hate crimes" being seperate and apart from other criminal acts is necessarily divisive on an issue I think our society should be united over.
The satisfying thing about Twitter is rants can soon turn to conversations. Not everyone agrees with you, obviously, so you can test the viability of your reality tunnel as well as re-enforce it. The whole experience of social media is incredibly similar to the process behind a radio phone in show, you fire out thoughts and then suddenly strangers return fire with their point of view.
I can't stress how crucial this idea is becoming to my belief system. A revolution of any kind is useless unless it involves people changing the way in which they think. That's why American foreign policy fails (in terms of its stated aim) to spread democracy and instead end up with their Presidents blabbering on about winning "hearts and minds" as their soldiers drown in the ensuing bloodbath. In a similar vein this is also why violent revolutions tend to leave behind dictators who have the unenviable task of trying to indoctrinate everyone into accepting their particular reality tunnel as the only possible point of view.

This brings us to the cricual difference between education and indocrination. The former teaches you how to think where the latter tells you what to think. Indoctrination is practiced most obviously in mathematics when it comes to learning your times tables for example, you learn by saying them over and over again. You only stop once they are part of your reality tunnel and 6x6 appears to so obviously be 36 that you can stop thinking about it.

It's apt that many people do not appreciate the difference between that and an education which also teaches you how to think and why we believe 6x6 is 36. You can often spot indoctrination in someone if, when you ask them why they think something, they get annoyed or irritated rather than give you a reasoned answer.

Rote learning clearly supports a number of our society's establishment-serving points of view.
As a general rule I find it's often a good idea to stop ranting once you've covered the apocalypse..

In the event anyone reads all the way down to the bottom of this entry please pop a comment into the blog to remind me to write this rant up for the Disinfo website, it's right up their street I think.

Nick Margerrison



069 Tom Montalk on the UFO phenomena


The Cult Of Nick looks at UFOs and ETs today with an interview from the archives featuring Tom Montalk.

Tom's internet home is here.

The music on this podcast is from Zero Friends Recordings, where you can still buy a copy of the first part of album we've been working on.

My Twitter is here.

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

What's going wrong with Her Majesty's police service?

Always ask: education or indoctrination?
On the one hand we have them investigating someone for the crime of saying a naughty thing and on the other we're told 60% of crime is ignored.

Firstly there's a story in The Daily Mail about a "Twitter troll" who said some inane things online and now people want him dead so the police are considering arresting him:
An investigation was launched by Essex Police over tweets relating to the Boston bombing, as well as the Hillsborough disaster and the Bulger murder. Ambridge has since left the company. 
Police said the CPS is considering whether to pursue a case of criminal communication through social media involving a 51-year-old man from Braintree."

And yet we have this recent astonishing admission from Greater Manchester Police:
A police chief has sparked fury by admitting six out of 10 crimes are not investigated by his officers.  
Sir Peter Fahy said the majority of crooks operating on his Greater Manchester patch are simply let off the hook if there are no witnesses or clues that help detectives nail suspects.

Victims are instead given crime numbers for ­insurance claims, but the case is shelved.

Astonishingly, that means more than 106,000 crimes were all but given up as lost causes by the force last year.

Blackley and Broughton Labour MP Graham Stringer spoke of his anger at the admission.

He said: ­“Deprioritising the majority of crime is bound to lead to a loss of confidence in the police.

“Victims have every right to be angry. They have an expectation of a better service from the police force.

"I accept they have to prioritise. I don’t accept they should ignore the majority of crimes.”
On one level this is being put over as a question of evidence. It's easier to nail someone for saying something naughty on the internet than actually catching someone who has done physical damage to someone's body or property.

The truth is, it's a matter of priorities.

Regular readers may remember I posted on this topic some time ago with "Police shouldn't catch criminals?". There I explained why it this is such a worry. That the police are telling people their new focus is 'crime prevention' means they are really interested in the business of 'thought control', whether they know it or not. That's the inevitable destination of a 'crime prevention' policy.

Since that blog entry the houses where I live have been bombarded with 'crime prevention' leaflets. If you live in the UK it's possible you have had them through your door as well, menacing messages from Her Majesty's Police Service telling you your area gets burgled often and victims of crime should always be very afraid.

The state prefers people to be scared, it makes you easier to control because you react to the world, rather than acting upon it.

This continued focus, upon what people think rather than what they actually do, looks unlikely to change soon. It also dovetails rather neatly into the censorship agenda, don't you think?

Nick Margerrison


The EU continues with plans to form its own army

In 2012 I wrote an article for Disinfo warning of the inevitable rise of an EU army:
It’s worth remembering that less than 70 years ago millitary “collaboration” between the European powers had terrible consequences. The last time a command and control centre was established in Europe it took the combined might of the American and Soviet millitary to eventually thwart its aim of world domination.

The article details how moves towards an EU military machine were flatly denied by Jack Straw while he was The British Home Secretary, a denial curiously hard to trace.

REVEALED Brussels plan to control our Army - MEPs call for new EU military HQ

MOVES were made in Brussels today to form an EU-controlled military powerbase that would act as a rival to Nato on strategic defence issues

The European Parliament’s majority group of MEPs called for a new headquarters that would direct major civilian and military crisis operations.

The European People’s Party said governments “have to start building stand-by forces under Union command", a move branded as the latest drift to federalism by the UK Independence Party.

The proposal came in a new report from the EPP which wants Europe to redefine its security interests and to begin achieving these by actual operational deployments.

A new command centre would allow Europe to act more quickly in response to international crises such as in Syria or Libya.  
To think of the EU, without placing it into the context of history, is to misunderstand it entirely. Our nation's relationship with mainland Europe is a 'mixed bag' but it is largely characterised by war. Walk through the streets of Sheffield in the North of England and, if you know where to look, the scars of bombing are still visible.

Thus the European Union's formation is not a 'natural progression of the history of co-operation between nations', as some suggest. Nor is it a 'new leaf' in relations between those countries which it describes as "member states".

It is instead, more likely, the unfolding of a plan designed as a power grab by the power elites who run the most powerful nations inside area it describes.

To those who have not swallowed the myths needed to keep the EU project on course it is self evident that the United Kingdom has its own history and identity. The UK is in fact divided and distinct from Europe in terms of its boarders, language and culture. The only real area which leaves little distinction between us is the racial composition of the areas and this is the least important characteristic of nationhood in my mind.

It is both ironic and depressing that those who advocate the EU often do so from a smug cleverer-than-thou perspective where certain dogmas are repeated over and over without due consideration.

For example:
Off the top of my head I can list about five ideas you have to accept if you are to agree with the European Union. I invite you to add more into the comments section:
I think perhaps I do "get it".

I can't remember exactly where but last year I went to an exhibition of some sort which was part funded by the EU. It had a little potted history of the area in question and it struck me as convinient to their agenda that this history began with Rome's 'civilising' influence. According to this dogma without Europe the UK would be an awful barbaric wasteland but with it our divisions become almost imaginary, we're practically one nation already.
If you believe the ruling elites of the nations in question have connived together in an attempt to make themselves more powerful it is apt that their world wars are invoked as a sober reminder of what might happen if we refuse to belong to the super power they are trying to build. It's worth remembering that the European nations were led into these wars, which inflicted such suffering and murdered people on an industrial scale, by those very same blood-thirsty warmongering elites who now plan upon building up a powerful new army.
Criticism often tells us about the critic just as much as the criticised. I firmly believe the original proponents of the EU were influenced by racist ideology. Certainly the UK's establishment still proudly values hereditary genetic selection when choosing their monarch. This is a caste system in all but name.
Again this speaks to the perspective of the EU's advocates who are mainly politicians or aspiring politicians. Being Prime Minister of England is small beer compared to The President of The United States of Europe. In any profession career progression is important, the job of European politician is to expand the possibilities of a future promotion.

In other words, jealousy across the table of international diplomacy inspired this plan not you and I watching America and wishing we were as powerful as them.

Nick Margerrison

-- Written in a bit of a rush, comments encouraged and corrections likely.

Pornography laws encounter "Orwell's Oversight"

This story, published today by the BBC, tells of Parliament's incredible porn habit:
Parliamentary porn consumption laid bare in official figures

More than 300,000 attempts were made to access pornographic websites at the Houses of Parliament in the past year, official records suggest.
It does rather seem to have been predicted a month ago by my recent piece "Why we're not living in 1984 today: 'Orwell's oversight'".
Good theories are useful because they're capable of prophecy. The web we have spun covers the entire world. Politicians who seek to tighten it do so at their own risk.
 
NM

068 A real life exorcism


Travis Verge caused a major stir with his story of demonic possession. This interview is in two halves, one is the story and the second is the same story but with a few extra questions in the name of my producer's sanity at the time.

There are two monologues on this podcast, both taken from the blog: www.thecultofnick.co.uk

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

This podcast's facebook page is here

The music on this is from ZERO FRIENDS RECORDINGS go there to find part one of the album we've been working on.

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

Perhaps a Guardian journalist reads this blog?


MEDIA GUARDIAN:
The MediaGuardian 100 this year reflects the extent to which the individual had become empowered in the online age. Everyone can be a broadcaster-publisher, as user-generated content is sent around around the world. A consumer can be a critic, a trend setter and – a less welcome consequence
Why we're not living in 1984 today: "Orwell's oversight" is acknowledged in everything but name in a recent poll in The Media Guardian. They've put "YOU" into the top position of their Media Guardian Top 100. The rest of the list features the 'great and the good' of the media industry. The list itself is filler material that the newspaper churns out every year. That it now acknowledges the media's audience is amusing because, as I've said many times over, this has never really been the focus for most of the UK's broadcast media. Particularly in the state funded, market leading, BBC.

The wider picture here is that the broadcast media is being dramatically outflanked by the internet, which represents the uncontrolled voices of "normal people".

They have no idea how to deal with it.

I've deliberately cut the final sentence to make it look as if they hate this change in the power dynamic. It should read: 
"A consumer can can be a critic, a trend setter and – a less welcome consequence of social media – a troll."


Follow by Email