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


"Life is but a dream"

"As sunlight obscures the stars by day so does wakefullness blind us to the fact that we are still dreaming."

- Liber Kaos, Peter J Carroll.

Everything you have ever experienced had to pass from the outside world to your internal one. The body acts as an instrument through which reality must pass if it is to become part of someone's life experience. The brain is the final part of the filtration process and more than anything else it ignores information sent to it. Right now, in order to focus, you will be excluding more than you are taking in and if this blog entry has your full attention it will necessarily be at the expense of other things. Just as you hear someone speaking in a pub by ignoring background noise, reality can only be ordered from the chaos of the universe if your mind can negate what it believes is irrelevant.

Dreams are just a combination of your memory and imagination. While sleeping your brain has a chance to invent fantastic narratives by ignoring almost all sense data and letting both memory and imagination run wild. However, while awake, you still need both facilities to decode the world around you. On the one hand your comprehension of these words is built upon the memory of their previous meanings. On the other, that which is either lost by my poor communication skills or your lack of understanding or attention will be necessarily explained by an imagination. The combination of both factors allows these words to fit into and become part of a personal mythology which only you can really control.

This blog entry now rests inside your mind where everything you've ever known has been, part of a waking dream in a mind which is not my own.

Personally speaking I find it useful to sometimes consider that I do not in fact "know" anything at all. I simply dream.


Rule by terror, revolution in France and the human rights act.

My fascination with The French Revolution began a few months ago. It's evident in this blog entry here. It's a period of history I know about only thanks to the internet, wikipedia and YouTube. I strongly suggest you look into it.

I'm still digesting the details but it's amazing to me how much of the world we currently live in is unlocked by only a surface knowledge of this historical period. It helps to explain conspiracy theorists and their views about occultism a bit. It reveals what is really going on with this debate between us and Europe regarding the "yuman rights act," which was clearly, in my opinion now, a declaration of revolutionary intent. It helps explain why the media is always at its best when it attacks authority without mercy. It shows you where the internet might lead us, as I wrote about in the linked to blog entry. In fact, there's very little it doesn't throw new light upon. The detail regarding it was mostly new to me but each piece of it set off a new thought process in my mind.

Firstly, here's an excellent introduction, breathlessly told by an exciting sound track and an enthusiastic American voice over:

Secondly, a slightly more analytical walk through made by the BBC. Although that sounds like this is the therefore better of the two I suggest you go with the above first if you're like me and knew nothing about this era of history.

What's wrong with Global Warming?

Although it might sound otherwise I don't disbelieve in man made global warming. However, I don't believe in it either. On this one I'm prepared to admit my ignorance. One thing which does make me a little inclined to think that the case for it might be flawed is the fact that the noxious stench of politicians has become inextricably woven into the mix. Their odd solution to the problem seems to be something of an empty meal, with "more taxes" and crappy lightbulbs being top of the menu. Another thing which makes me doubt the scientific consensus is the fact it's a menu that seems to chiefly consist of porkie pies. The latest is detailed in The Guardian here.

The outline of the story is approximately this, The Times Atlas recently launched in a blaze of publicity claiming to show proof of the evil influence of humans on Greenland. 15% of the ice cover has been destroyed since 1999! How terrifying. Better get those carbon taxes sorted before the next election. Then, oops a daisy, pesky facts go and trip the bandwagon up a bit. Turns out glaciologists say that although the ice cover is melting it's nowhere near the 'misleading' 15% rate represented by the Times Atlas cartographers. And so there we are, yet another bandwagon thunders off course with EVEN the Guardian being forced to cover the embarrasing story.

Science is supposed to be about facts. This thing surely either is or is not happening. Not so. Welcome the the world of "post normal science". There is a branch of science where it is argued that scientists can and should go where the data does not. From wikipedia:

Detractors of post-normal science, conversely, see it as a method of trying to argue for a given set of actions despite a lack of evidence for them, and as a method of trying to stifle opposing voices calling for caution by accusing them of hidden biases. Many consider post-normal science an attempt to ignore proper scientific methods in an attempt to substitute inferior methodology in service of political goals.

An article for The Telegraph about it is here.

Makes you wonder eh?

Earlier article on Global War and Global Warming


One of the consequences of going on Facebook quite a lot at the moment is that listeners have been asking me questions. The most common one is about my "religion" Discordianism. I'm a bit confused by this as previously (despite often mentioning it) people didn't seem to be that interested in what is sort of a joke religion. I mention it less on LBC 97.3 but get asked about it more ... there's something about human psychology in that I think.

Anyway, it's a big topic and not all of it makes much sense. This blog entry is for those who are interested. If you post a comment/question at the bottom I'll try and answer it.


Occultism literally means, hidden from view. Ocular, meaning roughly your eyes, as in "binoculars". This means occultism is in fact the study of things which are not currently understood. Conspiracy theorists often think it means the study of things which have been deliberately covered up, I'd argue that was profoundly wrong these days. That's only really a description which applies to occultism as it was during the time when not being a Christian seriously harmed your life prospects. Around the 60's-70's the need for secrecy largely vanished and is, in my opinion, only maintained by some who get a kick out of 'understanding' things that others haven't really thought about. There's also a certain allure to pretending you know a secret which I think some self styled occult gurus clearly indulge in. The truth is this, good occultists don't claim to "know" anything. They're guessing. Furthermore a good Discordian doesn't claim to "believe".

I have written about it numerous times in this blog, here are my more popular articles on the subject:

Aleister Crowley - This article is the biggie. It gets all the readers and is now linked to by various other people.

Blame Alan Moore - This is the better article I think, it gets less attention these days.

My Polytheism Defence
- This is an example of how occultism applies to my day to day life with surprising consequences.

Then this entry provides you with a short conclusion.

Hope that helps.


Staring blankly at my own Facebook

I've done pretty well in resisting Facebook. It's only recently that I've been drawn into its sticky web. I have two accounts, one for people I know in real life and another for my radio show stuff. There's a very blurred line that sepearates the two. I'm not sure how long I'm going to keep either of them going. I don't think it's a website that's good for me.

My life's pretty medicore in terms of socialising and travel. In fact I do very little that could be described as 'cool'. I watch daytime telly, play on my 'puter, read a lot of books and every Thursday I go to a pub quiz. That's it. All my life I've had a weird nagging suspicion that I wasn't normal in this respect and that everyone else is having an amazing time, all the time. Facebook seems to give me photographic proof that this suspicion is not just typical insecure paranoia but is in fact true. Judging by a flick through Facebook it seems most of the people I know spend all their time at parties or on holiday doing amazing things.

I'm not much of a pictures person. Amature photographs generally depress me. They make the world look so ordinary. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that you can't go right with a picture of yourself. It's either going to look good and therefore depress you with the passage of time or it'll look bad and depress you in the here and now. Despite this I got drawn into looking at people's pictures this morning. I had a bit of time to kill in the office. I had no idea what an overall downer the experience would be.

It left me feeling boring, ordinary and nosy. Is that the sort of thing other people feel when they log onto Facebook? Am I doing something wrong? I'm puzzled by the appeal of it. Someone once told me it was "all about the pictures". Maybe that's why I'm just not really "getting it".

I've tried commenting on things as well. I like that a bit more but the site seems to lack the depth of twitter. Most of it seems to be incredibly inconsequential and inane. Pages and pages of "polite chatter". The sort of conversations I loathe in real life.

I must be doing something wrong.

Why do people like that website?

Taxi drivers are ace...

Recently I was sat in a taxi and as usual I got drawn into a conversation. This particular driver had a very strong Indian accent. He was sort of rambling away to himself about the immorality of the city. It was hard to make out what he said but there was one part which I either misheard or was perhaps one of the most poetic turns of phrase I've heard in a while:

"Some of these women, they are there, with their drugs. They speak like no one would ever be speaking to you. Oh! It is awful. They have a debasement of language. They soil the English language. They make it so as after you have heard them you want that no more you will have a conversation again. With anyone. That is how bad they are."

I think he was talking about prostitutes. It was hard to be sure if he meant prostitutes or just some of the tourists you get from abroad in the back of his cab. What struck me was the idea that in his mind it was possible to have a conversation that was so bad it would put you off ever speaking to anyone, ever again! What a fantastic insult!

I've said it before, I'll say it again, no matter where you are in the UK, taxi drivers are ace!


Ask me anything about sharks and Nazis.

I love watching documentaries. Ricky Gervais in his awesome first stand up set practically outlined the life many blokes in the digital TV age have ended up living. Flicking between the different documentary channels:

Ask me anything about sharks and Nazis. Not as bad as a lot of people make out, actually. Sharks I mean, not Nazis. Sharks, brilliant. Nazis, rubbish.

My two favourite series at the moment are "How The Universe Works" and "Elegance and Decadence". Both go well with the sound system pumped up in the background. The former features massive planets colliding with each other alongside an epic sound ambient soundtrack. The latter has a pretty groovy rock soundscape to it.

Anyway, during my time in documentary world I've noticed certain cliches popping up from time to time. Here's some of the ones I've noticed alongside others suggested by the Margerrison twitterarti ...


"They were very much the, ah, Posh and Becks, of the period," person saying it pulls face a bit or rolls their eyes...


"Back then they didn't have 'email' or 'blackberrys'," said with a bit of a sneer.


"And that's right, these lovely creatures are all going to die, because of you and your greed".


"This period was one of dramatic change, it was a little like the 60's, sort of," cue rock music montage.


"In many ways they looked to be on the verge of an artistic comeback".


"Weighs as much as whales" By @MargoJMilne


" as tall as of double decker buses". @KeithTrue


"An area size of Wales deforrested every X weeks." @odaviesnh


"Until one man in [insert place] had an idea" @simmoski

"Who's upset you this time Alan?"

"I don't fink enuff people realise how clever Einstein's ideas are actually, really. I mean it's just so amazing how good his mind was. Like E=MC2 that just changed everything right, see," says the bloke opposite me to a woman who has just been talking about Shakespeare to him. She explained to him that she likes Shakespeare because she's an actress and as part of her job she researches the era in which he lived whenever she does one of his plays. Apparently, much to my irritation, she incorrectly thought he lived in Victorian times. I think they were sort of chatting each other up but her love of Shakespeare has really put his nose out of joint so now he's explaining why he likes Einstien and why that's better than "all that art farty stuff right?".

"The thing is right, it's like, what it means is, it's like, if you were to smoke loads of cigarettes right ...?"

He's revealing to her and everyone else on the train that he knows nothing about Einstein's famous equation. I don't either but I'm confident I know more than him. I'm also one hundred percent sure that it didn't involve an experiement where an aeroplane went at "exactly the speed of light and when the people got off right, they were all older because of that, so it's like time travel is possible but only slightly."

I don't know why his ignorance is annoying me so much. I'm fighting the urge to say "it's got something to do with energy being equal to light and motion, that's what it's about you idiot, it's not a fair comparison with Shakespeare because you've misunderstood the word 'genius'".

"The thing is though, he doesn't really get as much credit for his ideas," he says and she finishes off his sentence with "well, Shakespeare's more relatable I guess".

"And, about time travel, Shakespeare predicted that in one of his plays," she announces. "It's like this quote about how time changes but stays the same".

Fortunately the woman's stop has arrived and she's off.

How old do you imagine these two were?

I'd say they looked like they were touching 40 at least!


Follow by Email