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

Left wing or Right wing, Hitler wouldn't hesitate to tell you what is.

"Angel left wing right wing broken wing"
A debate is rumbling at The Telegraph as to whether or not Nazism is a socialist ideology. The mistake both sides are making hangs upon the misleading word "is".

On the one hand, Daniel Hannan MEP writes:
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Hitler's national socialists, or The NAZI party, didn't hide their "left wing" rhetoric. It appears to have been a key part of their ideology and understanding this partly contributed to my breaking free of the left right paradigm. Hanna's full article shows how modern politics is populated by people who may have been seduced by his words but, by categorising him as "right wing", avoid self criticism. Instead they ironically use him as an example of the "right wing" and: "assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet 'Right-wing' to mean 'something undesirable'".

On the other side of the debate is the historian Tim Stanley who writes:
Hitler wasn't a socialist. Stop saying he was
My colleague Dan Hannan argues that Hitler was a socialist. It's a popular idea among libertarians, often used to shame the opposition – after all the Nazis did call themselves National Socialists. But, then again, Tony Blair once said he was a socialist, too. So labels can be misleading. 
That Hitler wasn't a socialist became apparent within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists. He did this, claim some, because they were competing brands of socialism. But that doesn't explain why Hitler defined his politics so absolutely as a war on Bolshevism – a pledge that won him the support of the middle-classes, industrialists and many foreign conservatives.
Liberty or authority?
Stanley argues Hitler's actions do not fit a strict Marxist definition of socialism. He goes on to boil the argument down to one concerning authoritarianism. This cuts to the nub of the issue for most libertarians who oppose the Government getting too involved in people's lives. This is why they are often placed alongside people who are seen as "right wing", as most "left wing" thinkers have ideas which involve increasing the state's excuses to interfere, whether it be through political correctness, global warming, positive discrimination or the anti-smoking laws. This is why a lot of libertarians add a new axis to the "left right paradigm" which includes two additional directions: towards Government control or away from it.

Stanley is correct to identify the misunderstanding some on that side of the debate fall into when embracing opposition to "the left" as a viable ally: "Right-wing authoritarianism most certainly exists. Fascism is the violent use of the state to achieve Right-wing objectives".

The Daily Mail's hatred for free speech is a good example, as is the quick-to-anger-and-insults nature of people who proudly wave their "right wing" flags on Twitter.

My contribution to this debate is likely to confuse even further. Firstly, Pope Bob wrote:
“Is," "is," "is"—the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.”
- Robert Anton Wilson, "Nature's God"
It's important to remember that it's impossible to say what socialism "is", you can only say what it appears to be, to you. For many these days it represents another form of authoritarianism, for others it represents the triumph of good over "evil capitalism". However, no one has the authority to say what it "is".

Secondly, for me this debate goes deeper. I believe all the "isms" of political ideology should be questioned because they all incorporate the folly of "is". Capitalism, communism, socialism, rationalism, all these "isms" are misleading if you allow them to trick you into thinking they describe groups who will all act and think in the same way.

Just as a bad workman blames his tools, so too does a bad idea blame those who implement it. People who aspire to define an ideology so precisely it excludes those who advocate it allow ideas to escape criticism by arguing that it is people, rather than their ideas, who are at fault. This is common in politics, communism isn't flawed 'as an idea' because those who have tried it and failed simply weren't "real" communists.

Pope Bob again:
"I have never experienced another human being. I have experienced my impressions of them."
Robert Anton Wilson.
The above observation works equally well for ideas. You don't know "socialism" you only know what it means to you. Those who have joined your "struggle" may well have a very different understanding of the collective's aims once power comes their way. Make no mistake, the type of person Hitler was still exists, he was a politician and his kind use the word "is" to try to control you and tell you what to do. To me his authoritarian leanings appear to be still present in the minds of many who call themselves "the left". What's worrying is the apparent lack of self awareness coming from those who call others a fascists or "right wing" or "Hitler". It appears to prevent them noticing they are advocating authoritarian Government power, The Law Of Projection should give them cause for thought.


Nick Margerrison

--

Further reading:

Towards the end of his life Pope Bob wrote in a language called E-prime.

Politics and religion share many attributes, I wrote a similar essay regarding religious idealism called Essays For The Discordian Occultist Part 5 which will be the concluding chapter of my forthcoming book. This article here illustrates my point further: Muslim, queer, feminist: it’s as complicated as it sounds where Aaminah Khan writes: "There are as many interpretations of the Qur’an as there are readers of the text". Those who disagree with her can only do so if they claim to know what Islam "is".

092 Gunnar Hansen


I record these things in a rather odd way. I imagine no one reads these little blog bits. I never do with the podcasts I listen to. Anyway, this interview was a career highlight for me. I'm a huge fan of Texas Chainsaw Massace and yet I managed not to go too geeky with the guy.

Music is from www.zerofriendsrecordings.co.uk

My Twitter is www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison

If you do upload a soundcloud/YouTube comment aim it at my Twitter.

Hope all is well in your Discordian universe, or whatever it "is".

NM


Check out this episode!

091 David Icke


I've just finished writing my chapter on David Icke for the book I'm doing. My "conclusion" is that I like him because I don't fully agree with him, a very Discordian idea.

There's an interview with me here: NEON NETTLE

The music on this podcast comes from www.zerofriendsrecordings.co.uk

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

Nick M

 


Check out this episode!

How I emerged from the world of left and right

My old paradigm or, way of thinking, was the standard "lefty" one. I used read The Guardian, despise The Daily Mail and occasionally go on peace marches. Partly this is because I'm from a working class family and when I was introduced to the concept of "left wing" and "right wing" politics it was described in childish, simplistic terms. The "right wing" represented the upper class, who were greedy and wanted everything for themselves and by contrast "the left" were "goodies" who wanted to share everything out equally. The grand narrative to all this was essentially that greed had rotted the hearts of the upper classes and their representatives "The Evil Tories". Throughout the 80's Thatcher's posh voice and Iron Lady image seemed to confirm this world view.

Thatcher's funeral
So, with the endorsement of my favourite pop group Oasis ringing in my ears, I once voted. In 1997, after years of living under "The Evil Tories", I opted for "New Labour". Fortunately for my intellectual development, alongside the above dynamic, I also understood two other core concepts: democracy and free speech. This post describes how those ideas cracked my "Left vs Right Paradigm".

Firstly, thanks to my belief in democracy, I experienced confusion when the "goodies" of my youthful perspective were replaced by Bloodthirsty Blair and Brown. When advocating Her Majesty's military tear Iraq to bits they had no clear connection between terrorism in the West and the regime in Iraq. Unlike the previous war in Afganistan, which I'd supported, this one did not seem justified. Reportedly around a million people marched against their warmongering and were reduced to begging on the streets of London for a chance to have their say, none of us were listened to. I recall from conversations at the time that I wasn't the only one who couldn't understand how "the goodies" could behave in such a fashion, towards the very people who'd voted for them. Nor was I the only one who felt betrayed by the fact my vote and its power was now going to be used to kill people with against my will.

Then, thanks to my love of free speech, I was horrified to see how "the goodies" reacted to these criticisms. A final result of this was a dead Dr David Kelly and a pacified BBC.

Over the last decade or so there was a notable rise in "conspiracy theory". Partly this is down to the internet and the free movement of information but also it seemed to walk hand in hand with The New Labour's order and their wars of terror. I strongly suspect I am not alone in my experience of politics in the UK, I'm almost certain there's a generation who feels we are constantly misled by these people. If I'm right about this Her Majesty's Government will soon find themselves surrounded on-line by articulate dissenting voices, thanks to free speech. Ultimately they will find themselves dispatched from power, thanks to democracy.

However what I hope will exist in their place is a populace who are not fooled by binary thought patterns and the aforementioned "Left / Right" way of thinking. The first thing most people notice when left wing and right wing ideas are explained to them is that few of us are one or the other. Bit left wing on some things, bit right wing on others, is the usual response. Intelligent humans tend to deal with issues on a case by case basis. I doubt very much that there are many, even among those who still use this belief system, who can honestly say they are are 100% either left wing or right wing.

The left vs right idea emerged during the French Revolution. Back then it related to a single issue, the left thought The Monarchy had too much power and the right disagreed. This is why the "left wing" had to sit to the side of the King Of France which could most easily feel his blade were an argument to kick off. They challenged the concentration of power in the hands of the establishment, I like the sound of them.

To cut a long story short that debate has changed over time. The first big change seems to have come when it was agreed that the left were not about usurping the establishment's power but instead there to beg for their money. Like all effective distractions this one is very subtle, money is a metaphor for power, it's not power itself. Even today there are many who do not understand this. So, in a classic example of what the occultist Peter J Carroll calls "slight of mind", the focus of people's attention was successfully moved away from the necks of the ruling elite and instead toward "the movements of small green pieces of paper"[1]. I imagine everyone in power breathed a sigh of relief at that one.

Some argue this switch, from concern about excessive power to begging for money and handouts, is the moment the left changed forever and lost their way. The theory goes that the moment they came to rely on 'bribes' from those whom they opposed, they soon found it difficult to bite the hand which fed. Instead the money they received from the establishment was used to further "the cause". This, in real terms, meant a lot of "left wing" politicians, and the pet projects they patronised, became rich. However, the chess game was not over, the left had not yet been tamed. For a while they were an occasional thorn in its side with demands for worker's rights and so forth.

By the time this story reaches Blair and his mates their role was not to challenge the power of Her Majesty's Government but instead to increase it. By the modern era the left appear to have learned to do the job of a farmer's dog and they seem to think it their role to help herd us, the sheep. This is where we see the current alliance between the state and "the modern left", now so far removed from their original anti-Monarchy rhetoric they're almost unrecognisable. Note how far "modern left wing thinking" has allowed itself to move with the following unfocused collection of ideas: global warming, immigration, The EU, killing people in Syria, censoring the internet, anti-racism. Non of these have anything to do with the initial issue of excessive power in the hands of a Monarch. Finally, it's worth considering the fact you do not find many "left wing" people these days who think our Queen shouldn't be our Head Of State[2].

The "left vs right" way of thinking is a metaphor for something called binary thought: "0 vs 1". Humans can think like that if they choose, and when they do they live life in reaction to the outside world. Binary thought is good for things like driving or, I'm told, boxing. Reactions are the key in those contexts. In deeper more complex thought though you are often best served by using what Pope Bob termed "maybe logic". Here you refuse to be forced to answer yes or no to any question. Instead you use the word "maybe" and carry on your calculations from there. In the new world I can see emerging all around us it is binary thinkers who will find themselves enslaved by technology and "maybe logic" which will always prove more effective.

FURTHER READING:
Ten Right Wing Myths about the floods
What's the left's obsession with banning things?
THE ECO-HYSTERIA OF BLAMING MANKIND FOR THE FLOODS
[1] Douglas Adams reference. Can't go wrong with one of those can you?

[2] Lemme guess, you reacted to this with the following: "who do you want to do it then, ho ho, the likes of Tony Blair?". My response, "yes". Why? Because we could vote him out once we realised we'd been misled. Not so for our current Royal Family.

My #BBCQT Twitter absence explained...

My reviews of Question Time have been put on hold while I write the book. Early versions of it have been shown to some people now and I honestly think people who dig the blog and the podcast will genuinely love it. Time will tell. There's a much stronger focus on "the occult" than politics though so the #BBCQT crowd might not be fans of it.


This is my favourite moment over the last year or so of Question Time, it's unlikely to be as good tonight, maybe it will be. I'm glad there are a number of tweeters who keep pushing some of my lines into the widely attended debate that occurs during the programme. If you're one of them, keep up the good work!

I reviewed the above moment here at the time: http://margerrisons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/bbcqt-hitchens-matches-his-brother-and.html

I love that someone has posted it up, aside from the emigrate bit I agree with almost every word he says
here.
--

Three quick points:

  • It's often hard for some people to understand that this does not mean I agree with everything he's ever said or done ever.
  • It's also tricky for some people to get beyond the social pressure to HATE the Daily Mail, a paper which Hitchens is a columnist in.
  • It's a barrier for others to get beyond the posh accent, social class is becoming more and more important to people these days but I personally see it only as a tool of oppression and have decided to ignore it.

--

What I love is the words he's using, he calls out the observable fact that we are run by a political class.

What's great is that the internet is exposing this reality more and more nowadays, it's a cushy arrangement that simply won't be able to carry on in the long run.

Democracy is rising!

Nick Margerrison

THE CULT OF NICK: will be out on the 8th Feb

The podcast is late!

Delays to the uploading process this time round. It's made, it's done, it's finished, it's ace as usual. It's just not going to appear online until the 8th of Feb.

I've been uploading some whoppers recently and my allocated server space is limited. Broken that limit innit?

So, talk among yourselves for now...

Feel free to click on that giant grey button and you can uncover them all. I bet you've not heard them all yet. You're probably one of the new listeners we got in recently. I care about you, slightly less than I do the others. Yeah, that's right, suck it up. The hardcore who dived straight in there, that's who this podcast is for. You need to earn your stripes.

I'll like you in a year or so, yeah?

NM

Follow by Email