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


080 Planet Nibiru

I name this YouTube video in and among the chaos of this particular podcast:


The show is built mainly using my archive. It features excerpts from the music of


My Twitter is here.


Nick Margerrison

Check out this episode!

079 Why they won't admit ETs are real

This episode carries some awesome music from our good friends at it's got one of my favourite UFO researchers, who I'm amazed I've not already uploaded to the podcast... and... in the event I have, err, sorry, I couldn't find it. His name is Mike Cohen. Also we've got Ben Shelef talking about a Space Elevator.

My twitter address is here:

The bit right at the end of the podcast is from a phone in where we took calls and had people who rang in answering the so-called blasphemy challenge of YouTube fame: THE BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE

Nick Margerrison

Check out this episode!

The end of Great Britain will be met with cheers from the EU

The history of this country, Great Britain, seems to have been forged underneath the constant threat of invasion from mainland Europe. I always understood the union of the two countries, England and Scotland, which grants Britain the title "Great" was by consent, not conquest. I also always thought it was to protect us from the fear of molestation from the mainland and stump their plans for total world domination.

Times have changed nowadays and conquest comes via bureaucracy rather than bullets. I've mixed heritage and Scottish relatives but prefer being British to English. Rightly or wrongly I prefer this because it seems to me that the British Empire, for all its faults, allowed us to forge a national identity that transcended race.

It's an interesting co-incidence to me that in my life I've noticed a rise in English nationalism, our St George's Cross seems to have replaced the Union Jack and our politicians all support being part of the EU. In and among all of this is a little bulldog, who used to protect us, being put down because Braveheart.


Agent Hopkins jumps the shark

Katie Hopkins is a reality TV star who has made her name recently by saying "controversial" things on a TV morning show. Not controversial in the sense that they are a threat to The Authorities or the status quo but more in that they parody attitudes you might expect an upper class person to have, if they'd never met political correctness and Tony Blair in the 90's.

I followed her because so many people thought she was a cow and their responses exposed wider and more interesting problems.

However this morning she kind of jumped the shark, it's been obvious she's running low on material for a while now and sure enough, the stale old poppy debate gets dragged up in my Twitter feed...

Basic Income ... should the Government pay you a wage, no matter what?

I wonder what blog readers think of this? In short it's the idea that the Government pays everyone a flat wage and you can earn money on top, I think. Sounds like a way to put everyone on benefits. However, on the other hand it seems to feed into ideas about freedom and so forth. Not gathered my thoughts on it really, you?

078 David Wilcock features from the archives

Never before put out in this form the interview here with David Wilcock needed to be edited to cut it on the show, which was quite fast paced compared to this podcast. I love the idea that meditating and sending good vibes out would fix stuff. I really do.

The other interview is with Simon LeVay. Again, never aired in this form. I think they sound better longer but it is the nature of radio, you have to cut stuff because that way more people will listen. Narrows your message. With the internet you can speak in multiple formats and only irritate people who can easily ignore you. The conseqeunce of this is you end up projecting a multiple medium message. And stuff...

I'm in a waffling mood.

Hope you dig this podcast.

The music is from here:

And don't forget, Discordianism is a joke religion!


Check out this episode!

The people would be just as noisy...

"The people have spoken, but it will take a while to determine exactly what they said"

- Bill Clinton
Comedian Russell Brand has initiated a debate in the UK about whether it's worth voting. A significant stir was made on Her Majesty's BBC when he called for a revolution and told the interviewer it's not worth voting: "Why pretend? Why be complicit in this ridiculous illusion?".

The Guardian newspaper carries an opinion piece from him which Cult members may like to make an assessment of, in this blog's comments section: RUSSELL BRAND WE DESERVE MORE FROM OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

From my point of view he seems sincere. Perhaps I'm sympathetic because he appears so well versed in the subcultures I've always been fascinated by and have occasionally advocated. Or maybe it's that he's talking in a manner which suggests he's been paying close attention to his influences, the most prominent of which is personal favorite of mine, reptilian conspiracy theory espousing ex-TV presenter David Icke.

However, so off message have Brand's outbursts become that even members of the UK's comedy establishment are taking issue with him. Revolution "ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder" fumes Oxbridge graduate and BBC star, Robert Webb, in a critique posted as an open letter to, The New Statesman, a "left leaning" political magazine Brand guest edited the previous week.

In fact Webb claims he was so horrified by Brand's irresponsible message to 'the kids' that he's joined the UK's Labour party. Webb's concerns, that to deny yourself the vote is to deny yourself a voice, are in my opinion alike to his decision to join the establishment and their political "left wing" The Labour Party: misplaced and out of date. The idea Brand is about to lead a violent revolution in Britain is more than a little absurd, proof that taking a comedian too seriously rarely pays off. However, even if he did, the nightmare scenario Webb describes is informed by the conditions of the past and ignores the new realities of our present and possible future.

Previously revolutions have been co-opted by the following mechanism:
someone with enough thugs on their side and a knack for mass communication steps up onto a soapbox and tells the people what the people want.
Thanks to the internet, this may no longer be possible because "the people" have a voice and so need no one to speak for them. The technology I'm using now is the closest thing we've ever had to a collective voice. The beauty of it is that, unlike any previous manifestation, you can use it to tell me, from your perspective, whether I'm wrong, or right, or almost there. So long as internet articles without comments sections look incomplete and search engines continue to provide a thousand different possible answers to a single question we're on reasonably safe ground. The push for free expression online continues and if we all keep our nerve in the face of The Authorities and their recent desperate attempts to silence us, a new form of democratic engagement starts to look almost inevitable. Brand appears to acknowledge this in his Guardian piece, "I don't need to come with ideas, we can all participate. I'm happy to be a part of the conversation". Perhaps what's starting to look inevitable in our future is what I'd term, for want of a better phrase, a "wiki-revolution".

The fact of the matter is this, had the internet existed during the French Revolution the likes of Robespierre would never have prospered. Powerful counter narratives to his speeches would've appeared the moment his thoughts were impressed upon the world wide web. This is true of all the revolutions that have been betrayed by articulate demagogues and charlatans over the last few hundred years. If you claim your authority as a "voice of the people" you will require a standard of proof not previously available and in the long run I suspect that few will have the audacity to adopt such a pose. Those following developments in Egypt and the so-called Arab Spring are likely to have interesting perspectives on this.

Ironically this democratising force behind the communications era is one of the problems pushing the zeitgeist of which Brand is a symptom. The UK's political establishment has, over the last fifty years or so, been able to pass a number of laws, in accordance with a wider agenda, which had no apparent popular democratic support. For example, the European Union, of which Britain is now part, was never voted for by the general public, the most they signed up for was a trading agreement. The abolition of the death penalty was not supported by a majority of the British public, nor do a majority of Brits believe in man made global warming, have ever articulated support for anti-smoking laws, we were never asked about bank bail outs, the war in Iraq had over a million people on the streets marching against it. The list goes on and on. "The business of Government" in the UK ignores the will of the people as a matter of routine and few believe otherwise.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the agenda they've been following, or like the changes to your life which have been handed down by our political masters, one thing it's hard to pretend is that the will of the people is reflected by these so-called leaders of men. This is because the political elites still live in a world where they think they can stand on a soapbox and tell 'the people' what 'the people' want. That world has vanished now and as a mode of control the technique is as absurd as me telling a grown adult to behave themselves or Santa won't give them any Xmas presents.
If we all collude and collaborate together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete. The reality is there are alternatives. That is the terrifying truth that the media, government and big business work so hard to conceal. Even the outlet that printed this will tomorrow print a couple of columns saying what a naïve wanker I am, or try to find ways that I've fucked up. Well I am naïve and I have fucked up but I tell you something else. I believe in change. I don't mind getting my hands dirty because my hands are dirty already. I don't mind giving my life to this because I'm only alive because of the compassion and love of others. Men and women strong enough to defy this system and live according to higher laws. This is a journey we can all go on together, all of us. We can include everyone and fear no one. A system that serves the planet and the people. I'd vote for that.
In short it doesn't matter if you agree with Brand's statist orthodox-left tendancies, the sentiment driving him forward is coming from our subculture and as a result it's one I believe the establishment will not be able to control.

077 CATMA: The Law Of Projection

The Law of Projection is a source of amazement to the people who discover it. You're hearing it on a little culty podcast. I wonder if anyone's new to this one and will have the intended "wow" moment when they get into the idea? There's no way of knowing. I've spent the night watching coverage of the Million Mask March. What, what coverage? It was ignored by the media pretty much. Yeah, but it was on twitter and a video link. Doesn't matter if they ignore us now. The mainstream media only ignores such things at the risk of being ignored.

I kind of feel like this podcast should have more of the revolutionary stuff in it but it doesn't. Check out this podcast's timeline if you're looking for that. I notice a few of my pieces were being shared last night as I watched people fan out over London, with their Guy Fawkes masks on. Cult members are realising how well placed they are to handle these debates from the look of my twitter feed at the moment.

Without question the world is changing at a rapid rate.

The UK has an alternative scene. The music you're hearing on this podcast is part of it.

All hail Discordia! 23
Interviews with Adam Ockelford and Kate Hudson from CND

Check out this episode!

People will talk

The Evening Standard reports upon the latest attempts by Her Majesty's Government to push forward censorship of the printed press:
The head of the inquiry into press regulation piled pressure on David Cameron to implement his findings today, saying they were “not bonkers”.
I'm amazed at how easy a sell this has been to some people. Free speech seems to me to be the most important and obvious way of opposing totalitarianism and the abuse of power. An instinct to communicate discomfort and pain is ignored by our human bodies at considerable risk. Why are some so keen to quell it further in the collective organism represented by the United Kingdom?

In an excellent piece on the subject, Brendan O'Neill argues it is a failure of the left which has brought us to this terrible moment in the history of the UK:
If you get into an argument about press regulation this week, as the Privy Council unilaterally decides on the fate of the British press, I guarantee you this: it will be the Lefties among your acquaintances who will most vociferously champion state intrusion into the press, while the voices criticising such intrusion are far more likely to come from your Right-leaning mates.
[My emphasis]

His central observation is painfully accurate, the so-called "lefties" have been rallied to the cause with startling effectiveness. They hate so passionately it's difficult to get a reasoned response regarding key issues and most have huge difficulties answering direct and simple questions.

Instead you get an emotional reaction which is often almost entirely unrelated to the topic:
The above response is a good example, he decided to take offence at my casual use of the word "mental" to describe a behaviour I thought showed a lack of clear thought. In an attempt to correct the situation he sent a tweet designed to offend me and left it there. If you click on the tweet it will reveal more of the conversation but what's interesting to notice is how often obvious questions are unanswered.
Such as:
How can you 'balance the views' of all 80 million people in the UK?
How and why do you "balance media ownership"?
What experience in the media and regulation of free speech do you have?
When sitting an exam or attending a job interview, failing to respond to a question suggests you are unprepared and lack the information requested. I am convinced people such as the above tweeter are arguing a cause with limited information and without being fully informed by those who they argue on behalf of.

This would make sense given that the cause they advance necessarily comes from people who are keen to limit access to information. Arguments against letting someone speak are always directed at controlling the thoughts of those listening on the basis they cannot be trusted. I strongly suspect the people at the very top of this push to censor the papers think even those who support them are not entitled to a full explanation.
Total visibility implies a level of trust in the people of the world which few would advocate. For example, publishing all your thoughts and personal details online for the world to see would be a firm statement that said you believed no one wanted to do you ill, not now and not ever. Such a person would be hopelessly naïve but likely quite loveable. Their kind's polar opposite, someone who aspires to total invisibility, can be seen as alike to the character of Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings and likely has characteristics similar to his deeply unpleasant psyche.

At the moment politicians, both left and right, now demand the occasional use of a magic ring to protect the privacy of public figures who they're mates with. The consequences will play out over the next decade:
It's worth noting that the so-called "Porn Filters" which EE insists on putting on my mobile phone have so far only prevented me from reading a left wing feminist blog. They don't care if you're left or right, they just care about their agenda.

Criticism tells you more of the critic than the criticised.

When you express yourself you are highly likely to express your "self". 

Recently I was in a very crowded pub where I watched a woman pushing a man around, she had him by the collar of his shirt and was shouting "you're pushing people you're drunk, you're knocking people over, you're being a dickhead". She appeared very drunk as she pushed him into the crowd of people behind him and started knocking people over as a consequence. Almost to the word, each of her criticisms applied to her as equally as they might have him. His only response was to try and laugh it off but the woman, who I'm not sure he knew, then stormed off furious at the man's response shouting "I fucking hate people like you, you've no consideration for other people, you never listen to what they say!". There, with almost perfect symmetry, was the idea I'm about to try and explain with this blog entry.

The first time I noticed criticism often tells you more about the critic than the criticised I felt like I'd unlocked some kind of weird cheat-code to life. If I can convince you of this truth with this little blog entry and you look out for it over the next few days I believe it's a revelation that genuinely could change your life for the better, forever.

It will be demonstrated over and over again to you once you become aware of it. When people express themselves, about anything, they tend to express their selves in the process. When you speak your words say something about you, each time.

That's what you're looking out for and once you spot it there will be a period where you feel like EVERYONE IS A HYPOCRITE...

Notice, for example, that it's the fat and lazy person in your office who is always the first to complain about someone else being fat and lazy. The friend of yours in your social group who 'hates liars' usually has issues with telling the truth themselves. Ever noticed that homophobic people often seem to have issues with their own sexuality? This is because they are often gay and often hate themselves as a result. The preachers who rant about immorality in society only to be caught hunched over a whore with a bag of cocaine in their hands? Same deal.

More than a few times I've met local 'hardman' who put over their side of the story by saying: "I just hate bullies". Gasps of surprise from victims who see him as a bully but the criticism has revealed the critic. He knows all about bullies and how awful they are because he is one, whether he recognises that quality in himself or not.

Recognition requires previous experience and the more familiar you are with something the more you will recognise it.

It's this mechanic which allows someone who is addicted to drink or drugs to be the first to spot someone else who suffers from the same problem.

So, the first possible use for this little rule is, if someone argues with you and criticises you, try turning their words back on them, you'll be surprised at how useful that can be. Assume their criticism of you might fit them also and work from that hunch.

Secondly though, list all the things you often criticise other people for, handy list of your own faults, right in front of you.

I have been told this idea is part of the 'secret teachings' of 'ancient mystery schools' and that it has been guarded and obscured by occult groups over the ages. That seems a little silly to me. Thoughts?

Nick Margerrison

076 In support of 'Brand' revolution

Russell Brand has made a bit of a name for himself by advocating revolution. Seems like precisely the sort of thing we've been talking about for the last year or so, I'm sure that's just a co-incidence.

The music of Zero Friends Recordings features prominently in this one.

The clip of Pope Bob is here.

The clips of Russell Brand are here.

My Twitter is here.

This podcast has a Facebook page here.


Nick Margerrison

Check out this episode!

They're censoring the press, exactly as I told you they would #bbcqt

If you check my Twitter time line you'll notice I tweet a lot during Question Time. These blog entries are composed of the "highlights" or maybe "lowlights". Re-Tweets, responses and favourites feature here. Towards the end of last night there was some very interesting debate about nationalisation versus privatisation and my time line was full of tweets with me saying, "ooh, no idea what I think of this". None of them got favourited or RT'd so this blog entry reads as if I knew exactly where I stood on every issue.

The first question was about this:

Q&A High speed rail 2
The government plans a new high-speed rail network, from London to Birmingham and to Manchester and Leeds, known as HS2.
This high speed rail link will only benefit London in my opinion. I'm happy to be proved wrong on it, don't have a firm opinion there. What I do think is that I've started to toy with the idea of calling politicians "tax collectors". From where I stand that seems to be all they're there to do. They advocate tax increases and then provide a bit of PR for Her Majesty's Government. That seems to be their main role. I doubt there are many ex-builders who are politicians. Builders do things, politicians don't.

Speaking of which, these Unions intimidating families are behaving PRECISELY as I expect. I have seen all that crap close up and it's nasty. Fascists scream about unity and the strength to be found within it. Collective action often falls foul of what can only be described as fascism.

Unite accused of 'intimidation' tactics over Grangemouth
31 October 2013 Last updated at 22:31 GMT
Members of the Unite union involved in the bitter dispute at Grangemouth have been accused of trying to intimidate company bosses and their families.
In one case, Unite members congregated outside the home of a company director with an inflatable rat.
These people have fallen foul of what is sometimes called "noble cause corruption" where they are so convinced what they are doing is right they don't think they personally can ever do wrong.
The left wing are riddled with it. The right wing usually get it in matters related to nationalism. The left become infected with it all the time.
Then the question of privatising the probation service brought up a genuinely interesting debate about what should and should not be the duty of the Government.
How to make recidivism and costs rise? Privatise probation
Four big firms are set to get even richer. We will be paying much more for the service, and failures are inevitable

Then the inevitable Leveson debate popped up:
The Royal Charter on press regulation is expected to be approved later. What are the major questions that have defined the debate?
A Royal Charter? I am stunned people think this is a good idea. I am stunned anyone believes these lying evil politicians and thinks broadcast law should be applied to newspapers. I'm stunned at how fucking thick you have to be to think it's anything other than an attempt to censor you in the near future.

Follow by Email