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

117 - Being told to think for yourself is nicely paradoxical

Features conversations with Adam Bloom, Alan Boss, Alan Hatfield, Andre Carmichael, Burt Backwards and Brook Agnew.

Music from @QuislingMeet

Features audio from this news piece:




I tweet here: @nickmargerrison

Do share this lovely podcast around and stuff yeah?

F--k off Beaker


The New Labour Order are a reason for me never to vote again. In a way I'm very grateful to their then supreme leader Tony Blair for snapping me out of the wrong footed belief that voting is ever worthwhile. I explain why in more detail here: #VoteLabour - A warning from history

This blog entry is a short one to explain how you can post words onto pictures.

There's a website here that does it, others are available.

You just post the words into the box and then follow the instructions.

At the moment there is a trend on Twitter to tweet "Fuck off Beaker" whenever David Miliband tweets anything. I think that lacks bite.

Great photo
I've taken to posting replies to tweets by @UKLabour which put this picture underneath the words of the tweet, like so:
It's a still developing response but I think it works quite well.

What do you think?

Pop a post in the comments section.

#VoteLabour : A Warning from History

I voted, once, back in 1997.

I'm working class, I think society does have a certain duty to care for its citizens. I voted Labour. I voted for Tony Blair who, in his time, was very like Obama used to be. He seemed more normal than most politicians, he was supposedly mates with my favourite pop stars Oasis. No worries, "things can only get better". Off I went to vote. I was delighted when Tony, our cool rock and roll left wing Prime Minister, took to office. I switched off politically around that point, the goodies had won and everything was fine.

My childhood was spent living under "The Evil Tories". Thatcher seemed so clearly heartless to me as a kid. Her Spitting Image puppet and objectionable manner on television was enough for me. She always looked like she was facing people down. Most of the kids at school hated her. Done deal. Get them out of office and bring on Labour.

Then a terrible thing happened. September 11th 2001 and America was attacked. We got told, they've planned it from Afghanistan. Fair enough, here we go, lets sort that out. Then Blair tells us Iraq is itching to destroy us. Got "weapons of mass destruction" and they'll use 'em on us with not even a moment's notice. However, by this point I'm into conspiracy theories and I hear loads of people saying online that Blair's lying. I even hear normal people on the mainstream media saying he hasn't got these weapons.

So, loads of us go and protest against The Labour Government. We don't want a war in Iraq. Over a million people. Yet we're totally ignored. They go in anyway. They use our votes and our taxes to bomb a country I can't even place on a map. They send lads I grew up with over and it really messes them up. And for what? Oil, people say. I'm not even sure I believe that to be honest. It just seems like an act of wanton thuggery. Not many people supported it at the time.

Look, I've written this in a particular style. It's aimed at people who don't know how the game works: they get you to vote for these idiots and then, no matter who they are, they go on and do stuff like Iraq. That's why people like Russell Brand say "don't vote". It's a waste of time. It gets you nowhere. It's also why politicians are so keen to speak to "young adults". You don't know how the game works. You're not old enough. They can mislead you like they did me.

Now, here's what you do. Put these thoughts in your own words. Spread these ideas, like a revolutionary from our nation's history. Become an advocate of the revolution of consciousness. Either back this, Referendum before war or go even further and spread this, Referendums on everything always.

Person A makes a trade with Person B both are happy... where's the problem?

Hello - I am Ayn Rand
Person A sells something to person B. Both are happy. Where's the problem? Give it a moments thought and, at the end of this paragraph, I'll give you the answer. This blog entry is an attempt to nail an idea to the post which will help people understand how they're being lied to and controlled by an entity which, even by its best advocates, can best be described as an awful fire breathing dragon[1]. The problem with the trade, from our Government's point of view, is: no one got taxed.

Enter person C. Person C corrects the 'problem' by stealing some of the money from both person A and person B. Person C then goes on to invent a series of excuses as to why that's fair. They usually start by renaming their theft as "tax". Then person C pays some of his ill gotten gains to others and they inevitably tend to line up and add additional excuses as to why theft or "taxation" is fair.

I was discussing this with a friend recently. We were talking about the UK's NHS. "But taxation creates jobs for people" was the direction of the conversation. The NHS is a big employer in the UK. However, go back to persons A, B and C. Imagine if person C was to use this logic as an excuse at the time. When A and B looked on in shock as they were being robbed blind there'd surely be laughs all round if person C tried to argue they were creating a job for themselves.

Generally most people trade their time and labour with each other so we can assume persons A and B are lot busier than person C. This means there's time for person C to establish something called 'Government bureaucracy'. This is basically a whole industry which makes excuses as to why they are entitled to steal from us all.

"The burecracy is expanding to encompass the ever expanding needs of a growing bureacracy"

Now this argument is bluntly stated, and I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but the point of this entry is to remind you that there are two sorts of people in this country. One lot live because they are paid by person C. The other lot are paid because people choose to give them money in proportion to a value which the market decides.

If you're a lefty like I used to be there will now be a thousand internal voices leaping to defend things like the NHS and the welfare system. I have no answer to those problems. It's just worth remembering that Government and the state steal money off you. That's what they do.

Nick Margerrison

[1] The Leviathan is a creature used by a philosopher Hobbes to describe Her Majesty's Government in its most favourable light. Hobbes believed life was at core, "nasty brutish and short". He thought of the Monarchy as being alike to a fire breathing monster called a "Leviathan". This creature was the biggest bully on the pitch and as a result controlled everyone else. Systems of right and wrong, morality, culture and so forth all came from its preferences. Gold, for example, has no intrinsic value but if dragons like it and you're controlled by one you might think it was very precious.

Further reading: Ayn Rand. This piece is inspired by her.

Advocate the irrational

"Every culture in history, in every time and every place, has operated from the assumption that it had it 95% correct and that the other 5% would arrive in five years’ time!
All were wrong! All were wrong, and we gaze back at their naivety with a faint sense of our own superiority. But we are all wrong! We don’t have it either! I mean, if this is a culture approaching the truth, who needs the truth?!"
- Terrence McKenna, Culture and Ideology are Not Your Friends

McKenna often advocated the very Discordian idea that beliefs are alike to computer programs, operating systems, for your brain. Most people use more than one computer program in an average week. People who are particularly good with computers are often aware of the limitations of each operating system. This is why software is constantly being updated and improved. Few programmers would argue there's a one size fits all best-of-the-best and never-to-be-bettered operating system.

This is true of human cultural conditioning. We in the UK are conditioned to think of ours as being pretty good, although our country has free speech and so encourages counter narratives and questioning. It's this process which has allowed us to update our ideas and change our minds collectively on things. Although we're technically a Christian country I think the dominant belief, or operating system here is "rationalism".

Dominant belief systems are important to be aware of and rational thought is worth mastering if you live in Britain. It's incredibly useful anywhere in the world. I'm a big fan of it personally. If something is rational, it can be rationed, it is limited and it is measurable. This appears to apply to a good many things in life and that's why rationalism is so useful.

Our previously dominant program was called Christianity. That sits like an old copy of Word or Netscape in the background now. Some people still use it, it's incredibly useful and was an important part of the process which made our country what it is. Again, I was a big fan in the past. I gave it a go when I was a kid, very useful. However, it's limitations are more immediately apparent when surrounded by people who advocate  its antithesis "rationalism". They constantly highlighted the fact 100% belief in Jesus required a bit of faith to fill in the gaps. This lit up the mouth of the cave a little too brightly for me and my Christian period was very short lived.

Rationalism though, there's no need for faith there, I thought. You're dealing with facts, consensus reality. You can see the object you are rationalising, it is limited, you can see where its limits are, no faith involved in solid matter. Everyone can see the truth of rationalism. It's the final one size fits all operating system!

During my strict rationalist period I would have confidently stated in a matter of fact manner that 'a rational explanation for everything exists... and if it doesn't it's only a matter of time until we find it'. Nowadays though, I question that. I started to worry that I'd filled in the gaps of a belief system with faith. Faith alike to that of someone who expects Jesus to return '... it's only a matter of time'.

Nowadays I've started to advocate "the irrational". Chaos, the thing you can't predict and measure. It's not that I am rejecting rational thought, like I say, it's very useful. I am though trying to become aware of its limitations. I think there are some things which cannot be measured, hung, drawn and quartered. There are some things beyond limit, which cannot be spoken, written down, or even understood. There are some things which cannot be controlled by anything, even the rational world of matter and fact.

I've started to think that you are one of those things. You, we, us and everybody. Human beings are the bit that we cannot measure. We're the irrational piece of the puzzle which makes the jigsaw incomprehensible to strictly rational thought.

What's odd about this understanding, which to be fair I am currently unable to convincingly articulate, is that it's not new. It's not my idea. It's something I've had said to me before by other people. I just couldn't hear them. I was too rational, my faith was too strong.

That's what this old episode of The Cult Of Nick concerns.

It's a gudden: CLICK HERE

116 - Jon Gaunt and Greg Carlwood


Jon Gaunt is the chap I've been working on FUBAR Radio with over the last few months. He tweets here.

 

Greg Carlwood's The Higherside Chats is a great listen. We share a few listeners in common. He tweets here.

During the discussion we mention a chap who has strong views about "New Age" psychedelic thinking. His stuff is here.

 

Then there's Quisling Meet, they are here.

 

NM


Check out this episode!

Who is responsible for terrorism?

Who is responsible for terrorism? Terrorists. Who did you think? What, are you an idiot? It's an obvious trick question. Perhaps I'm being mean, this trick question has stumped many, many "great minds" for many years but the answer really is that simple.

The man in this picture who is about to hack a journalist's head off, he is responsible for what he does. Not society. Not you. Not anyone else.

I remember laughing at the pathetic excuse used by Nazi war criminals when told about it in our history lessons. They were "just following orders". I'd have been in secondary school at this point. It seemed absurd to me that anyone could claim that as a defence. "Why did you steal chocolate from the corner shop?" asked my parents. The bigger boys told me to do it, was a useless excuse. My parents were too clever for it: "if 'the bigger boys' told you to jump off a cliff, would you?". Damn, why were responsible adults so clever?

Personal responsibility is the bedrock of adulthood. If we lived in a society of adults, who were in control of their lives, it would not need explaining.Who is to blame for suicide? The person killing themselves.Who is responsible for crime? Criminals.Who is responsible for you and your life? You are. Currently we do not live in such a society. Instead we live in country where childish lies are pushed to us by sinister people who want to control everyone.

This is because were people to universally understand, admire and practice the concept of personal responsibility we'd be very difficult to control. None of us would be able to look blankly on and shrug as they did the wrong thing on behalf of someone else. Those who want to control you prefer you to just follow orders. A nation with a deep sense of personal responsibility for all they did would be less easily led.

That's why the notion of personal responsibility is so rarely advocated by our so-called leaders. That's also why I think you have a responsibility to preach it.
Previously in the UK our version of the Christian religion carried an version of personal responsibility. It didn't matter what excuses you had up your sleeve, God was going to hold you to account after your life. In practice this would, on occasion, make the population difficult to manage. The pacifists in World War One, largely inspired by Jesus's non-violent example, are a classic example.


The Deserter by Boardman Robinson, 1916

This might explain why the belief system pushed by the establishment these days is "rationalism". Currently we lack a fully developed understanding of human consciousness. Enthusiastic rationalists often ignore this and assume people to be like complex computers, programmed by our past experiences and custom designed by our genetic make up. In this world view our past dictates our future.

"You are not responsible," goes the argument, "your tough upbringing and bad parents are". This is great news for those who wish to lead you. It swiftly abolishes the notion of 'free will' and allows all sorts of people to assume responsibility from others.

However, reality seems to have a different point of view. People are not nearly as rational as our leaders would like us to think. Perhaps this is why collectively we are not easy to control and no matter how many times the notion of individual responsibility is stamped upon it keeps re-emerging in different forms. I think this is because personal responsibility is a universal fact of the human experience. In real life, if the bigger boys tell you to jump off a cliff, reality makes you responsible for that decision.

So too, if you hack a journalist's head off, you're the one who is responsible for that. Not your religion, your mates, your tough upbringing, The West or anything else. You. You did it.

NM

Why I dare question C.N.D


Being outside "the box" is a terrible curse, if you are insecure and anxious to be accepted by a herd. However, in my opinion group-think is a cancer which has rotted the notion of personal responsibility in the minds of many. "The box" is a prison where others do your thinking for you. These days I always feel most comfortable when people are unable to put me in one.

In the 80's I grew up terrified of the possibility of nuclear war. Foolish world leaders driven by childish[1] greed and petty concerns could destroy the world at a moments notice. There were adults around me who thought the same and so C.N.D. signs were common. Life was simple, the dominant narrative suggested, all we had to do was convince "the baddies" to "give peace a chance" by getting rid of the bomb.

Notice the terminology here. Anyone who opposed my 'noble cause' was a baddie. You don't sit and negotiate with Darth Vader, "Han Solo shoots first", to coin the phrase[2]. In fact it's important not to even listen to Darth, who knows what powerful Jedi mind tricks he can pull. Just grab your blaster and destroy. If you disagree with my premise but have gotten to the end of this third paragraph I commend you. Most people in "the box" shout down those who question them and refuse to debate.

Back to the 80's. In my mind back then we lived in a world where either the USSR or the USA might shoot first. As I was sat in my "lefty" box at the time I generally assumed it would be "the stupid Yanks" who would do this. What idiots they were, they thought that nuclear weapons would end the cycle of World Wars we were emerging from. The idea was that nuclear weapons were so terrible no one would use them again. "As if", we shot back dismissively. Clearly, World War Three was round the corner, it was about to happen any minute.

Then, it didn't. There was no World War Three. There were lots of wars, sure, but neither my Dad or I was conscripted like my poor old Grandad had been. My Grandmother remembered a world where our country faced another one which was prepared to flying planes over it and drop bombs on us. That world had gone. It was replaced with one where the wars we fought seemed mainly to be with countries who did not have nuclear weapons or the ability to fight back. Strangely the "superpowers" seemed far more comfortable messing with people who couldn't destroy one of their capital cities at the push of a button.

The C.N.D. argument sort of shrank and was morphed into a convincing suggestion that stopping less responsible "rogue states" getting nukes was the way forward. Whether they like it or not it's this 'common sense' that Bloodthirsty Blair[3], a prominent C.N.D. member, tapped into with his "weapons of mass destruction" nonsense.

I call it nonsense because, if you remember, almost at the same time as Iraq, North Korea happened. One of those nations has nuclear weapons, the other didn't. One was shot first, without mercy, by the likes of Tony "the lefty" Blair and the other was not. One lot now has families who live there and hate this country, because we killed their loved ones, the other doesn't.

In other words, the "M.A.D"[4] idea that no nation would risk war with a nuclear armed country held out. The facts supported the theory. The 90's became a period of relative peace, for people who lived in countries with nukes and did not get seduced into joining the military. It seemed that we'd reached "the end of history". So much so that in 1994 Ukraine actually gave up its 2,000 nuclear weapons as part of a treaty signed by the US and the UK. Everyone promised to respect their territory and so, why did they need nukes? Only people who were mad needed them.

Nick Margerrison

Further reading:

Too Bad Ukraine Didn't Keep Its 2,000 Nuclear Weapons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/too-bad-ukraine-didnt-kee_b_5235374.html

Footnotes:

[1] Bit of fun for podcast listeners. Pesky Law of Projection eh? I was a kid, I thought the people in power were as well. Funny eh?

[2] The 'Solo shoots first' meme is a cracker. In the original versions of Star Wars Han would always shoot first and ask questions later.


CRIMINALLY Lucasfilm has tried to correct this in subsequent edits:



[3] I feel deeply betrayed by Tony Blair. I feel he lied to me and my generation. Perhaps it's unfair to personalise it, he's part of a system and bureaucracy that did that. The New Labour Order's lies predate him and he's not integral to the story. His name "Bloodthirsty Blair" is maybe unfair, who knows what drove him to push the war in Iraq. His membership of "Labour C.N.D." is well documented. I wonder if, when people from that organisation read this, the nickname I've chosen for him will fit as far as they are concerned?

He's been given far more peculiar nicknames. According to this article here, friends of his used to call him "Miranda".

[4] Mutually Assured Destruction, or "M.A.D." as we 80's peacemakers used to delight in abbreviating it to.

Comments encouraged.


Many a true word spoken in jest.

Armies of twenty-somethings have media degrees and no broadcast industry to work in, outside of the BBC. In the long term this will be a good thing because we're in the middle of a communications revolution. The ability to communicate with lots of strangers is likely to be useful. As with the industrial revolution I suspect our nation will ultimately "export" to global markets. We're well placed to do so with media "products". English is a widely spoken language. Once we start understanding the fact that "the world" is our potential audience we'll cut our cloth to suit and be on to a winner. Time will tell, I'm an optimist.

However, in the short term there are lots of kids who think their only real chance of earning a crust is to suckle on the teat of state patronage. The BBC's funding model has proven to be far more robust than anything in the commercial media world. Advertising revenues are more elusive than ever before and commercial media has been hit very hard by this. Local newspapers and radio have been decimated in most markets. National commercial media is struggling, pay has dropped to near zilch and even Murdoch is closing down newspapers.

The irony of this situation is the commercial media has to pretend to have lots of money and project an image of success in order to turn a profit. Advertisers will always pay as little as possible. If your desperate for their money they will realise this and subsequently work out a deal where they pay even less. If you seem to have a huge queue of people anxious to buy air space they will pay a higher price and your outfit is therefore more able to feed and clothe the people who work there.

The BBC is totally different because they are funded by a system that gets money with threats and menaces. In short, if you don't pay their poll tax men with sticks will arrive to harrass and possibly jail you. This produces far more millionaires than commercial media ever can. It is resistent to advertising revenues and the UK's fluctuating economy. In terms of a nice little earner for someone with media skills it's a safe bet.

However, in order to protect this system the BBC has to endorse two key lies. Firstly it has to pretend that commercial media pays over the odds and that the poor little BBC is underfunded by comparison. Secondly it has to pretend it is impartial, which of course no one is, or ever can be.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. The UK should keep its nukes. There's an argument that we should be noble and get rid of them because they're useless. This misunderstands the nature of a threat and deterrent. Click on this tweet to see how CND respond.
Our politicians suck our wages out of our pay packets each week. They lord it up in houses like this. And people wonder why I can't stand them.

Nick Margerrison.

115 Cultural exchange


Music from Quisling Meet, aside from the cracking live version of "Tony Bucking Flair" right at the end from Mirrorkill. The two bands are out gigging in the North at the moment. The crowds are growing with each performance.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQD1dT6b5sQ

The above is the 8 bit theme for Star Wars which I use in the piece at the end of the podcast, where I read this: http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2014/02/13/star-wars-an-open-letter-from-a-death-star-architect

 

The Higherside Chats we get menitoned in is here:

http://thehighersidechats.com/thc-121-adam-gorightly-discordianism-operation-mindfuck-famous-tricksters-of-the-counterculture/

 

The BBC's Kate Adie report on the massacre is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

"Tell the world they said"

 

I also use a clip from this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YAYAUtdod8

 

My contributor's name is deliberately withheld.

 

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

114 Uber brain food downloader


Cat video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ZU04U-xAo

Blossom Goodchild: http://blossomgoodchild.blogspot.co.uk/

Here's an article I wrote about the middle east: http://margerrisons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/wars-not-make-one-great.html

The Little Book of Rare and Unpublished Oddities http://www.foyles.co.uk/witem/humour/the-little-book-of-rare-and,nitz-g-kent-9781436352673

Charlie Uchea: https://twitter.com/1charleyuchea

I assume this is her Twitter. Thought she was always a great guest. Great sense of humour.

This podcast took ages to make. Share it out amongst the great and the good.

23


Check out this episode!

Follow by Email