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


138 - My first holiday since the podcast started

I've decided to take a fortnight off after this one.


This show is composed of archive stuff, including:


Douglas Rushkoff is here:

Doug Yurchey's website doesn't seem to work these days..

Dr Laurie Nadel:

Francis Burns gets a mention here:


Be good - see you in a few weeks!





Check out this episode!

137 - David Shayler and Tony Topping

I mention this video here:


David Shayler tweets here:

His Scribd site is here:


Our caller:

Ssent these links:

Not had much of a look through these:

If they're good leave a comment and I'll:

Read it out on next week's podcast.


Tony Topping tweets here:

His website is here:


The direct democracy article I cite is here:


Nick Margerrison - I tweet here:

The music is from:

Who feature the excellent talents of

And Quisling Meet:

Check out this episode!

Right Said Fred's Twitter Account!

Look at some of these tweets.
In the UK these guys are household names. They're wonderfully off message. Although I may not agree with them, it's great to see.

The sheer volume of negative press that has been accrued by The Establishment over the last two or three years is taking its toll.

That said the drummer from The Corrs has lived on planet conspiracy for ages now. His views are significantly more extreme than our deeply dippy hit-makers:

From Wikipedia:
Corr is a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement and operates a website where he writes about the New World Order, including the notion that 11 September, 2001, was an inside job. Following the death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, Corr maintained that bin Laden had actually died 10 years earlier in 2001.

Unfortunately his website is currently down. Maybe the Illuminati have got him?


Free speech is an absolute, selective enforcement is an early sign of tyranny.

The free speech debate begins to really kick off. If there is to be an all powerful global Government, perhaps it will have to contend with global journalism.

 "A stage of global progress" - the article argues. Alike to the global awakening that many people are describing. An article about which I wrote for Disinfo a few years ago: here.

Speaking of which, Disinfo recently carried an excellent piece: "Benign Intent: Tools of Corporate Media Propaganda"

Benign Intent: Tools of Corporate Media Propaganda
Benign Intent: Tools of Corporate Media Propaganda

The fuller version of the piece is here:



Who is responsible for terrorism?

Who is responsible for terrorism? Terrorists. What, are you an idiot? It's an obvious trick question. Perhaps I'm being mean, this trick question has stumped media pundits and opinionators 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 some cartoons. Not Fox News. Not The Daily Mail. Not even Tony Blair and his war in Iraq or a magic book from the middle ages. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else. Him. He's responsible.

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: "if 'the bigger boys' told you to jump off a cliff, would you?". Uh, I guess not.

Personal responsibility is the bedrock of adulthood. If we lived in a society of adults, 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 look blankly on and shrug while doing the wrong thing on behalf of someone else. Those who want to control you prefer you to be just following orders. A nation with a deep sense of personal responsibility would be less easily led.

That's why the notion of personal responsibility is so rarely advocated by your 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 a 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 teachings, 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, or shoot a bunch of cartoonists, 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.


I wrote a virtually identical article last year. I am going to keep writing it until everyone in the world has read it. Please help me by sharing it as far and wide as you can...

What are multiculturalism, racism and free speech?

The idea of multiculturalism is that anyone, from anywhere in the world, can come and live in Britain without having to alter their way of life. A family from Israel can snuggle up next door to another from Palestine and there will be no problem, both will respect the other's cultural heritage and practises. Such diversity, argue its advocates, will enrich all who enter the grand "multicultural experiment".
However, the title "experiment" is misleading. Humanity has already tried this idea, planet earth is multicultural. Different cultures have lived here alongside each other since the dawn of time. The result is a history blighted by hundreds, if not thousands, of disastrous wars and impenetrable grudges. All because people refused to adapt their behaviour. Only by co-operation, trade and integration have we managed to survive.

Years ago a radio show I was presenting where I tried to explain the problems with "multi-culturalism" got interrupted by a young producer, concerned I was being racist and broadcasting "hate speech". The topic is a tricky one to handle but my line was simple, it's a disaster for the reasons I've just given. Importing all the problems and arguments of the world and expecting everyone to get on fine without adapting their behaviour is absurd.

As the above tweet neatly explains, this is not the same as thinking a multi-racial or multi-religious society is unworkable. Even so our lying political classes have conditioned enough of the population to think any opposition to multiculturalism must be because of racism. So, sensible discussion of the absurd idea is interrupted by people keen to tell everyone how not-racist they are. This is how the advocates won the debate. They won it by not having one.

During the post-war period calling someone a racist became alike to demanding their excommunication in the dark ages of the Holy Roman Empire. This is largely because Europe was so blighted by the Second World War, caused by a massive racist. Hitler was racist because he believed that the different racial groups of the world were innately good or bad. Racism allows you to dismiss people on the basis of different genetics as non-human animals. That's why it's bad. The damage this idea caused in the 1940s has made it social suicide to advocate in modern times.

Unfortunately this fact has been used to protect various ideas from criticism by denouncing it as racist. Such an accusation in my profession could easily spell the end. Even if it isn't true, once the anti-racist inquisition is upon you, anything is possible.

So there I am, with thoughts of getting the radio station fined, or maybe personally receiving a visit from the police the next day, or perhaps ultimately spending some time in jail. All these possibilities are on the table if you broadcast anything deemed to be "hate speech". This young lad, brought up to think that's how things should be, fresh out of a good University, was telling me that we can't debate multiculturalism. He was my producer, legally I was supposed to heed his advice. I didn't and there were no legal consequences.

The reason I ignored him is because I believe in the idea of "free speech". I think people have a right to express their opinions, even if they are seen as offensive. Now, opinions and facts are two different things. If I say I support free speech that does not mean I think I should be allowed to publish your home address and tell everyone you are a pedosadist who needs to be killed. That's making a specific threat. It deals with facts, not opinions. It's not covered by free speech.

However if I said "I think gays are disgusting", that would be an opinion. People who support free speech think such things are best dealt with in debate. People could speak to me about my problem. I could learn about it more. In the end it'd probably turn out that I was gay, if we're honest, homophobes usually are.

Others think the best way to deal with it is to criminalise such thoughts. Although I may not like homophobes it's a mistake to let the Government punish them for their words and opinions. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The idea you can be punished for thinking the wrong thing is slowly creeping into the public consciousness and our Government is enjoying its new powers to chastise anyone they think is "offensive".

I recently had a brief discussion with someone who claims to work for the Police on Twitter. She was responding to a brilliant smack down to a homophobe from Derren Brown. The story had a lot of media attention but basically it amounted to a heckler talking crap and being made to look like an idiot.

For me Derren's tweet effectively solved the issue. For someone who uses Twitter to tell people they are a policewoman, this was a job for the law. She encouraged poor victim Derren to report the hate crime and get help from The Government.

What's interesting to me about this is where the conversation went next. "PC Lawrence", in quotes because I have no way of knowing that's who she is, claims that the key issue here is whether or not the comments were "hate instigated". To put it another way, what was the intention or thought which lies behind those words? Now, we can't read people's minds, we can only guess at what another thinks. I assume that's why my question, re-printed below, got me blocked by the twitter user in question[1].
Fortunately I have not yet been arrested.

So, as you watch people debate the Paris shootings, those are your terms. Free Speech, the right to have any opinion you like. Threatening to murder someone though, is a statement of fact, not an opinion. Racism, the idea that genetically, racial characteristics make some people worth more than others. Race and culture are different. Anyone can join and adopt a culture, unless that culture is itself racist. And finally, multiculturalism, the idea that all the world's countries can live together in harmony without adapting at all.

Nick Margerrison.

[1] Which is her right. Freedom of speech does not include the right of other people not to listen. If you're a boring sod, I'll block you on Twitter as well. Deal with it.

The Paris Shootings

The so-called left wing in this country have pandered to the dogma of political correctness for so long there is now a generation who have been taught it's more important to hate speech than allow it to be free. This has been backed up by Her Majesty's Government who have pushed the idea that if someone offends you they ought to be to punished. I've been ranting and raving about what a huge mistake that is for the best part of the last decade. Watching the response of the 'robot radicals' was terrifying[1].

It's not often I'm personally abusive on Twitter and, in the event Lord Jones happens across my blog again (his last visit inspired him to block me, after he read this here) I apologise for my turn of phrase. In a sense I sympathise with Jones because he works as a prominent figure in the media so is likely to often be in newsrooms and other media "soft target" zones. Tweeting this kind of thing may be a result of the fear that causes.

Even the local radio station I work at has implemented additional security measures recently. There's a sense something big might happen in the UK soon. Hopefully not.
For those not yet aware, Police Scotland are the ones responsible for this sinister tweet:
I find it impossible to contend that these debates are not linked.

So far none of the above have answered my question. Some tweeters tried: "because people are real and Allah is not" was one and "just shoot this idiot" was another. How is Allah more or less real than the sense of being "offended" by something? Both exist as powerfully as the other, in the mind of the believer. Also, how does killing someone for saying something avenge the deaths of people who died trying to preserve the notion of free speech?

The hashtag #KillAllMuslims was trending. It got deleted. Presumably because we live in a society that hates speech rather than frees it.
The hash tag in question was likely trending because so many people were contributing to it to denounce it.

[1] A very old school Icke term, 'robot radicals'. Sums the likes of Lord Owen Jones up perfectly.

136 - Ian McFadyen and Futurist Christopher Barnatt

Ian MacFadyen tweets here:

Christopher Barnatt's website is here:

Alan Watts teaches meditation:

Think outside the box:

Good article about free speech:

Dr Jill Bolte Taylor:

Her BEAUTIFUL speech in full here:

The music is a combination of a few personal remixes to @QuislingMeet and

If you go to that last link there are a few where I'm playing bass. All rather jolly.

Nick Margerrison

PS - don't forget I do a podcast with my mate, TV's Tom Binns. That's a comedy podcast, because he's a comedian. My role is to add comments "like a wise old owl".

Check out this episode!

Follow by Email