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


122 - Climate crisis and UFO truth

We feature two great guests this week.


Piers Corbyn's website is here:


Richard Dolan features on the podcast, his website is here:


I continue my pagan mumblings, as this was recorded during my pagan week. That's over now. For those not following this thread I'm currently trying out new beliefs and this week I've realised the truth is in The Lord Jesus Christ, in a Gnostic context. It's much trickier to pull off monotheism. It's so antithetical to me. Or it was. Managed to say my prayers a bit last night. Do Gnostic Christians do that? My only real guide to their beliefs is a book by Philip K Dick.


Here's the famous Independent story about how there's going to be no more snow thanks to 'global warming'.


I tweet here:

The music on the podcast comes from here:

Richard Dolan tweets here:

Piers Corbyn tweets here:


Check out this episode!

121 - The McClue Interview

Scottie McClue, the man, the myth, the legend. Scottie's work was early inspiration for me. He seems explicitly Discordian, although this thought only occured as I began to write this little piece for the podcast.


Scottie's world record breaking tip top website is here


I wonder how his particular brand of broadcasting will be recieved by The CON's U.S. listeners? Comments and time will tell.


By the Gods, for I am a Pagan this week, the music is supplied by @QuislingMeet


And I tweet here: @nickmargerrison


And Scottie McClue continues his one man mission to educate the world on twitter, here: @ScottieMcClue

Check out this episode!

120 Is Kevin Hurley a fan of free speech?

This week's show features the PCC of Surrey Police, Kevin Hurley. He tweets here.


We also see the return of Ross Patel of Afentis Forensics to discuss the latest IS video.


Also, from the archive, we feature an incredible story from Patrick Hutchinson


And John Rhodes, famous for being a pioneer in the UFO field of Reptioids.


I tweet here: @nickmargerrison


Quisling Meet tweet here: @quislingmeet


Comments welcome.

Check out this episode!

How would ASDA compete with a taxpayer funded "free" supermarket?

A fiefdom is a territory or sphere of operation controlled by a particular person or group. For American readers, the BBC is funded by a mandatory tax, flat rate, £145.50p (approx $235). This obviously hits the poorest hardest. Less money you have, less you can afford to pay. Reason VAT is such an awful idea. Still amazes me that our last "left wing" Government thoughts speeding fines and other so called "sin-taxes" were a good idea. Again, hits the poorest, hardest.

The soundcloud clip I link to here has featured on this blog before. It's me, debating with someone from the BBC, about impartiality.

These tweets are in approximate chronological order. Don't forget, they are active script, so to speak. You can click on them and engage. The chap I'm debating here seemed nice. He sent me a pleasant tweet to thank me for the debate, said it had given him food for thought.

I don't really think the BBC question is an either/or debate. The Government needs some form of news source to push out its message. I'm not firmly anti-Government. I think it's a good thing, so long as it's democratic. There's a few on Twitter, and particularly people who listen to the podcast, that would say the whole institution is a terrible thing. I'm less sure than that. I think there's no doubt its power needs to be constantly kept in check.

See, I quite like American radio and television. I love Howard Stern, there's nothing like him in the UK at all. Mancow, he's great. Michael Savage, controversial but good. Alex Jones, also great. There's loads of really good American talk radio. Then when it comes to their telly, Curb Your Enthusiasm, South Park (only TV show with total moral integrity), Game of Thrones, etc, etc, etc. That's the free market for you.

In the UK good media gets made in spite of, not because of, the BBC guidelines. The BBC employs loads of talented people. Full disclosure, I've even done a bit of work for them. Were their operation to be cut back. Radio 1-3 and Radio 5, all privatized, for example. I think you'd immediately start hearing better radio. You'd have more competition. And the license fee could be cut to bits if you followed that up with BBC 1-3. Keep the news operations and two TV channels, based around radio 4 and BBC 4.

Can't pretend a blog entry like this isn't cheating but, it seemed like an interesting conversation. Comments welcome.

UK is being divided to suit the EU's agenda

The above verse was cut from an otherwise excellent BBC adaption of Henry V. First broadcast towards the end of 2012, The Hollow Crown's production team must have debated the decision. I'd love to have heard that. They will have been conscious of the forthcoming referendum regarding Scottish "independence". Would leaving the potentially offensive lines in have caused problems north of the border? Is it really an important part of the play? Why would Shakespeare say such mean and un-politically correct things about our friends the Scottish? And so on.

The answer to all these questions lies in the fact it was written a long time ago. England in 1599 was a different place, back then these words were likely to strike a familiar chord. The full quote establishes context:

But there's a saying very old and true,
'If that you will France win,
Then with Scotland first begin:'
For once the eagle England being in prey,
To her unguarded nest the weasel Scot
Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,
Playing the mouse in absence of the cat,
To tear and havoc more than she can eat. 

The scene takes place as Henry plans to attack France. The threat of invasion from the Scottish was historically something to be considered during negotiations with Europe. It appears this concern helped forge the union in the first place. Not by conquest did the two join together, it was debated for some time. The fear of troops coming from what we now call the EU was always part of that discussion.

Once the United Kingdom was sorted those invasions become more difficult and "Great" Britain was born. Britain, meaning the Islands themselves and its prefix "Great" being a descriptive term alike to "Greater Manchester". Once united the nations within were responsible for the world's first industrial revolution and one of its largest Empires. The natural barrier of the sea stabilized the arrangement and the tiny but united Island became a force to be reckoned with.

Understanding this back drop to the British Empire helps give an insight into a famous part of it's military tactics and conquests.

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.

Fast forward to modern times and the fallen British Empire of our age. There are two possible narratives as to how we get into the current situation where Scotland is voting to go it alone. The official one is that 'the time has come' at last for the Scottish to escape the 'tyranny of the Tories', a British political party. Nationalistic films made by Hollywood such as Braveheart are often cited to help tell the tale of an oppressed nation subdued by the evil English.

Then there is a second narrative, which I have favored for many years. Only now, in the eleventh hour of the debate, does it really seem to be gaining traction. Aside from the 'tyranny of the Tories' some believe the UK has had to face a secretly united political class who refuse to debate certain issues, one of them is the EU.
This alternative point of view is tricky for some because it involves an industrial level of cynicism toward our elected representatives. Mainly it assumes they ultimately work not as independent political parties but instead as a single entity "Her Majesty's Government". To believe this alternative perspective you have to allow for the possibility that devious career politicians are trying to improve the size and scale of what they do and their chances of a promotion within "the business of Government". This might offer an insight into why these characters have quelled or ignored sensible discussion regarding the merits of the UK handing power over to mainland Europe. It also helps explain why they trivialised the debate and seem to have hypnotised themselves and others into thinking it's off limits because "racism" and "right wing"[1].
In this worldview I'm putting forward politicians are literally "all in it together" and they are not above deliberately making major and obvious mistakes if it furthers the overall agenda.

They are doing this because the EU offers genuine benefits, to them. I presume this is the case because the advantages of supporting the EU appear to be explained in private, as bribes often are. I never hear the positive arguments behind it made publicly. I just see politicians who vacuously declare "it's good for Britain" and "good for jobs" before they line their pockets with multimillion pound careers in international diplomacy: would-be "President of The United States of Europe" Mr Tony Blair is a good example, as are Lord and Lady Kinnock and John Major.
Many believe Her Majesty's Government intend only to call a referendum on the issue once we've been seen to be marinated in EU propaganda over the next few years. I think it more likely we will see anti-UK propaganda, as they don't seem to have a positive message in their EU-agenda toolbox. Keep in mind the fact that the main argument the pan-European political classes make in favor of their EU is that without it we'd have another one of their world wars to contend with.
The above tweet contains a link to a brilliant Peter Hitchens blog which makes the case I'm arguing brilliantly, I strongly suggest you read it. Scottish independence appears to be part of a process that has been ongoing since the EU project first begun. The map you can see in that tweet was issued by The EU, it is missing only one nation, England. There was a huge controversy at the time but it speaks to the mindset of those behind the EU takeover.

When they go independent, which I think they will, the Scottish will have to face a number of issues but the first will be EU membership. I suspect their negotiating position will be made to look poor and the EU will aim to get them in under the worst possible terms. England's most valuable ally will be defeated psychologically by mainland Europe and then, for want of a better term, reduced to nothing more than a vassal state before the next stage can begin. Who knows what that might be.
Nick Margerrison

[1] As I will never tired of pointing out: there's no clear racial division between mainland Europe and the UK, or any obvious link between the centralisation of Government and being either "right" or "left" wing.


The Hitchens Blog:


"Their current plan is to join the EU, keep the pound and keep the Queen. Why move out of a shitty apartment and deliberately take the bed bugs with you?
  •     Not having control of your own currency means you’ll end up just like Spain, with no ability to value or devalue it in response to macroeconomic headwinds, meaning your only choice is internal devaluation… and that’s how you get a youth unemployment rate of 50%.
  •     The EU has repeatedly said that Scotland would not get automatic entry and would never get entry at all without a central bank. See above about the Basques and the Catalans.
  •     Britain won’t consent to a currency union. Ever. So Scotland will run on GBP the way Guam runs on US dollars. Really, really badly.
Let me be clear. If actual independence, rather than rejoining the same supranational control mechanisms on much weaker terms, was on the table, I would not only be pro-independence, I would move to Scotland.

Read more:

Why do UK Labour love war and Monarchy?

For me The Labour party destroyed not just their own credibility but the whole notion of a political party. They did this with their invasion of Iraq. It was nowhere in their manifesto and over a million marched against it. I was one of them. I felt bitterly betrayed, I'd voted for Labour because I had characters like Keir Hardie in mind. An ardent pacifist he stuck to his guns on the issue and was sidelined, partly as a result. I'd voted for change and got more of the same. There are likely Tory voters and certainly Liberal Democrat voters who can tell the same story. Political parties don't work because once elected politicians ignore you.

The above Keir Hardie quote (of which more here) shows you how passionately anti-Monarchist he was. The famous line, "'he hates the Palace because he remembers the Pit" could find no equal for the likes of Milliband or Blair[1]. What jobs have they ever done like that? They aren't workers, they're managers, middle managers.

Comedy icon with a number of Blair character traits
Think of them as David Brent types. With their management speak and awful attempts at humor the similarities are striking. Both Blair and Brent liked a pint, played the guitar and tried to let their workers know they were "cool", as well as being the boss. Ironically David Cameron, highlighted the similarity between the Blair and Brent while in opposition. People in glass houses are ill advised to throw stones, Cameron is little more than Blair's carbon copy.

It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic. It still amazes me these middle managers were able to ignore their workers and invade Iraq. That war links directly into the formation of ISIS. There are now people who live there who lost family members and friends because of the misguided adventures of Her Majesty's Government. All justified by claims regarding "weapons of mass destruction" which promptly fell to bits:
"I have to accept: as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy"
- Mr Blair 14/07/04
Put the above in perspective. Keir Hardie, Labour's first MP, hated the Monarchy and wars. Blair, their longest serving Prime Minister, invaded nations around the world with gay abandon and never once challenged our hereditary monarchy. In other words they betrayed their principles and fulfilled the assumptions of conspiracy theorists, which can be summarised thus:
People often debate my stance on voting. My answer is simple, why participate in an obvious farce?

Nick Margerrison

[1] The idea another man of his like will ever challenge the status quo was last year derided by "left wing" blog LEFT FOOT FORWARD: When the royal baby is born will any politician dare to be a modern Keir Hardie? The obvious answer, no.

119 - Chaos Magick conversation with Gordon White

Gordon White from Rune Soup features.

Music from The Quisling Meet

I tweet here




Check out this episode!

Feel free to make your own...

Orwell's Oversight in action

Fiction - first published in 1949
Orwell's Oversight

Any instance where the establishment's official line is contradicted by the communications revolution. Orwell suggested a society where citizens were constantly watched and controlled by surveillance technology. Instead we live in a world where everyone is watched by everyone else and "the rulers of the world" are no exception.

Orwell's Oversight is a turn of phrase invented a few years ago to describe one of the forces behind the current "Global Awakening". The term reminds you that Orwell's masterpiece "1984" was a great work of fiction, not prophecy.

Penned as a warning of the dangers of Government the story of Winston Smith is one of a hopeless struggle against unaccountable state bureaucracy. The work is so successful as a prophetic vision that it manages to anticipate a form of the internet. With webcams fitted on most computers as standard these days his futuristic telescreens are no longer a leap for the imagination.

However, Orwell's understandings are filtered through the lens of his time. He's describing hyper surveillance through the broadcast media of his time. The net is a fundamentally different mode of mass communication to either the television or the radio. The information superhighway is a two way street. It's this oversight which now wrecks havoc on a daily basis for those who claim to rule us. It makes maintaining the fa├žade of democracy in the UK even more challenging than was the case during the 20th Century when an easily tamed mass media called all the shots.

I'm from the UK, I was raised on Western science fiction and superhero stories. A familiar plot to anyone who has enjoyed that genre involves an evil character managing to take control of a TV station.

The above video shows you a gripping scene from Batman (1989) where The Joker manages to do just that, he gets his own advert on television. In a modern context the scene is rendered absurd. A contemporary audience would expect The Joker to have his own YouTube channel, easy access to Twitter, Facebook and all the similar sites which are less controlled but deliver the same service.

The point of this article is to alert you to the above dynamic. There are two news stories which emphasize "Orwell's Oversight" to my mind at the moment. There are likely to be others you can add to the mix. Understanding how dramatic the shift in power we're witnessing appears to be is essential because the more its exploited and protected the less likely we are to find ourselves living in 1984.

Firstly, the tragic story of Ashya King. Initially the media reported a version of events mainly from establishment bodies such as the police and the NHS. It was implied that religious nutters had absconded with a child to prove some damn fool point on behalf of their God:

Jehovah's witnesses eh, they're a nightmare aren't they?

His parents Brett and Naghemeh King took the "missing boy" from Southampton General Hospital on 28 August. It took less than 24 hours for the focus to be upon their 'odd' religion and by extension their credibility as parents. Hampshire Police warned if the boy was not found, his health would "rapidly deteriorate". The above freeze frame is taken from a website called "The Wayback Machine" as the article in question has been edited a little now sympathy has shifted towards the parents.

The hunt was on. 'How could the parents be so selfish and stupid,' ran the intended narrative. Then a wonderful thing happened. Orwell's Oversight kicked in and an apparently sensible, eloquent man, popped up on YouTube putting his side of the story over. The father revealed a very different narrative, one with which the public was familiar, and opinion shot dramatically towards the parent's favor.
The story continues and the tragic parents have yet to get through their ordeal. What's positive though is that from the moment the father took charge of the narrative and used his right to reply a more complex and believable narrative has emerged. It involves authoritarian bureaucrats and an NHS service which treats its patients like cattle. To many the "Nazi Health Service" has started to look like another arm of Big Brother clutching the scruff of our necks from cradle to grave, rather than a helping hand.

From the moment the father's video was up as far as the papers were concerned the establishment had lost the story. The editors changed direction and widespread mockery kicked in soon after. Her Majesty's Government has had to go into damage limitation ever since. This article in the Telegraph is symptomatic of how contrite those involved have had to become: Ashya King's doctors signal U-turn over proton therapy, as The Mayor of London asks prosecutors to drop the case.
Having worked in the media all my adult life I cannot emphasize enough how upset the establishment will be about all this. Previously misunderstandings like that were swept under the carpet. Victims of state power like the King family were only ever granted a voice to respond if they were lucky enough to be picked up by a campaigning journalist.

Multiculturalism's counter narrative
The flip side of this is that videos of humans being tortured and killed are also part of Orwell's Oversight. In a sense these are problematic because they allow precisely the kind of attacks outlined in the stories of my youth. "I’m back, Obama, and I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State," harangues 'Jihad John', likely aware that he seems like a villain in a superhero film. However that these people upload their voice patterns and other identifying information to the internet could be seen as a good thing, our world is worse when people like that operate in secrecy.

The stated intent of the message was to inspire Obama to stop bombing them. I suspect in that sense it has already failed.

It's interesting to wonder which establishment narrative is being questioned by "Jihad John" and his mates. I can think of three:

Multiculturalism? The idea that people can ignore the main culture of their home nation and create their own has taken a savage beating over the last twenty years. His London accent further challenges the wisdom of it. This is unfortunate for multicultural apologists in the wake of the Rotherham scandal which has also poured scorn on the idea of disintegrated communities.

The "mission accomplished" version of the Iraq war? Unfortunately for Blair's apologists and The Labour Party, ISIS's origin story is inextricably intertwined with the failure of their adventures in Iraq.

The attempts made by our Government to intervene in Syria alongside ISIS? Those who advocated  yet more "liberal interventionism" in Syria now have the difficult task of explaining how exactly they were NOT going to be on the same side as the likes of 'Jihad John'.

If you notice other examples of "Orwell's oversight" do post them in the comments section of this blog.

Nick Margerrison

Follow by Email