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


EU agenda to forge a military superpower finally admitted

Aljazeera reports on an announcement by Germany's new defence minister:
In the long term European national armies should be merged into a European military because "unified armed forces are a logical consequence of an ever-increasing military cooperation in Europe," said the minister
Finally they are admitting their true agenda. They have denied it, over and over again[1]. There will likely be denials from Her Majesty's Government still to come. But the truth is this, and I warned you of it at the time: Her Majesty's Prime Minister effectively signed up to an EU army last year but the reality hasn't sunk in yet.

What worries me is many people literally do not realise they've been so dramatically misled. Now as the truth is laid bare by Germany's new defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, as she describes an EU army as an obvious "logical consequence" it's going to be played like a done deal. The so-called conspiracy theorists have pushed this counter narrative to the establishment's denials for some time now. I feel personally involved in the deception because against my better judgement I believed the official story for a while after being told such ideas were just "racist conspiracy theories". However the counter narrative is unfolding as the truth before your eyes and the denials are melting away.

The spectacle of a combined European fighting force should strike terror into your heart, if it doesn't you are not paying attention to the lessons of history. Not long ago European federalists, of which Hitler was one, were building and firing rockets at Great Britain as they attempted to grow a sinister "master race" to rule the world with. That's not science fiction, that's actually what was happening. The battle between nations was put on hold only when the combined military might of The USSR, The United States of America and the crumbling British Empire, who fought against this tyranny alone for a while, was brought to bare on the resource rich European New World Order.

One thing people who study these matters tend to notice is history has a habit of repeating itself in spiral like patterns. The same things keep coming up, over and over again. This is because the people playing the individual roles might look different but the same ideas continue to wrestle in the heavens of idea space.[2] The lessons of European history have not been learned and our nations are still stuck with core misunderstandings.

The might is right philosophy of Global Empire have been redesigned and given another name, it is "Liberal Interventionism"[3]. Germany's plans to engage more strongly in Africa in support of French intervention is a good example. They justify it in such stark terms you are made to look bad if you dare raise questions. The Defence Minister says Germany "cannot look the other way when murder and rape are a daily occurrence, if only for humanitarian reasons.". However, we must look the other way when the issue of a command and control centre being re-established in mainland Europe is raised.

Hitler was "left wing", "liberal" and he was "liberating" his people as far as he was concerned. The ideas which drove him though have been over simplified though slogans and mantras as people concluded that "it's just" racism that was the problem. It's not, it's the mindset of someone who thinks they can force others to do, say and think, what they are told all the time. It's the mindset of dogmatic authoritarian "rationalism". All these ideas are outgrowths of the faith based belief that there's a rational explanation for everything somewhere, and if there isn't, it's only that we've not found it yet. The truth though is that people are non-rational, we're not robots. We're not able to understand everything, no one does, we ALWAYS might be wrong.

The dangers of racism are one thing but the core philosophy which drove Hitler on was Fascism, another outgrowth of the unquestioned political ideology of rationalism. Fascism is the idea that one set of ideas and behaviours is the only way in which to behave. In a modern context it's based on a misunderstanding of evolution, as some kind of linear narrative where you start as one thing and "move up" the steps towards perfection. That's not how evolution works, successful species and societies allow for as wide a variety of ideas and lifestyles as possible. The less rules you have the better.

Killing, violence, excessive coercion, these things are wrong because they limit human potential. Hitler understood this not. The Europeans, who speak of imposing their order upon the world, are the same.

It's terrible to think our ancestors, only a few generations ago, fought and died to prevent precisely this world which is now being granted because bureaucracy and ignorance.

It has to be challenged.

They lie, or keep people in the dark, or both. I was told that to speak about the FACT they're planning and building a European Army was a "racist", "conspiracy theory".

There is hope, the net makes fools the establishment on a regular basis and ignorance is becoming harder and harder for them to enforce. Their bureaucratic systems of control are consistently exposed on-line. The Savile stuff was a conspiracy theory, the NSA stuff was a conspiracy theory, the non-existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the list goes on. These things are counter narratives but in the end only those that stand up to criticism and reality are the ones which will win. And that includes the establishment's version of events.

Key question: why are they are lying to you? If the EU is so great, and maybe it has its advantages, why do they lie to you and call people "racists" or "Little Englanders"? I've yet to hear any good reasons why we must be part of the EU, instead I hear constant ad hominem attacks[4] on those who say we should pull out. Why not instead debate the inherent issues regarding centralisation of power and the crushing of other nations and their reality tunnels?

In my opinion UKIP are proving to be a valuable distraction from the core issues. Their half witted MPs who think gays cause weather changes or whatever are great fun to laugh at but notice, it's got nothing to do with the core issue they stand for yet it's the main story our broadcast media goes for. Focus instead upon this: in no uncertain terms the politicians are lying to you about this issue related to European integration, or, they are operating with seriously limited information.
If we ever get the chance to vote on the EU, and I'll believe it when I see it, this confirms that those who are suspicious of what is going on here are telling you things that in the fullness of time are provably the case and those who advocate the EU do so with lies, or limited information and scepticism.

In the next few years you should prepare yourself for a huge stream of unmitigated nonsense on the topic before we get the chance to have a referendum. Key members of all the political parties in Her Majesty's Government have formed a special propaganda task force to push a public relations campaign forward which will prepare us to vote the right way when the time comes. Throughout all of this always ask yourself, why will further centralisation of power help us when throughout history we've always understood the following maxim: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We do not have a functioning democracy as it is and now the management class, this anti-democratic cabal intent on forming the EU, are close to getting an even more complex bureaucracy to occlude their deeds with. Their plan is the same plan they've always had: total world domination. They intend to force those who have a different point of view to comply and will use both insult and injury to achieve their aims. However, if the apparent Global Awakening that we're in now continues they will not win because they are now heading towards something they've never had to Govern before, an educated populace.

Nick Margerrison

[1] The original denial is here: 

It has now been deleted, maybe that's because it reads like a series of deliberate lies. Maybe Jack Straw was confused or working with limited information, who knows, who cares. It wasn't true and it got taken down, even though that was where I was sent when told to "get my facts straight".

Unfortunately for the advocates of the EU in Her Majesty's Government the error is preserved here:

I go into more detail on this topic in a popular article from 2012: 

[2] Idea space. The place where ideas exist. Your mind joined with everyone else's. Mystical concept which therefore works as a metaphor for the human experience. Alan Moore's 'Great Work' Promethea calls it "Immateria". Others call it the collective unconscious:

[3] Wikipedia has a good definition here: Judge them though, not by what they say but what they do and what actually occurs. Iraq is a mess, a total mess, so is Afganistan. More often than not reform comes from within, not without. We'd never have had the enlightenment if it had been forced upon us by another country. Never.

We should be allowed to vote on policies not "agendas"

CORE IDEA: We should be allowed to vote on specific policies rather than political parties.
Owen Jones, lording it up

Allowing the likes of this little bloke, Owen Jones[1] and his mates, with their "agendas" to rule over us for years and only ever ask our opinion on anything once in a blue moon is not a democracy. It has created a tyranny of the political class and whether he likes it or not Jones is one of them.

The people don't need a voice or leaders, they can lead and speak for themselves. They need power and the way things are going, if they don't get it, they'll take it in the end. I want to avoid such a confrontation and so advocate a "revolution in the head" which in short works like this: sort yourself out, take responsibility for your life and the world will follow. As part of this I think we need a system that recognises the general public are in charge here, not the politicians in Her Majesty's Government, their propagandists or even The Queen herself.

So, we should call referendums on key issues frequently. That will change everything forever. Furthermore, don't you think it's an idea which has a ring of the inevitable about it? From my perspective the democratising power of the net almost demands it. I don't think we need "left wing" or "right wing" dogmatists, instead we could do with debates and regular votes on important issues, that'd do just fine.

If you're drawing a sharp intake of breath at this line I'm pushing ask yourself why, is it because you think people are stupid? If so, who told you that? Was it the broadcast media, the newspapers, the television, or is it you? Are you the one who has noticed stupidity everywhere you turn? If so, go read this and then come back later: THE LAW OF PROJECTION.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't wholly disagree with the article which inspired this piece, as featured in The Independent. But neither do I wholly agree with it either. You will likely be the same. No one really wholly agrees or disagrees with anyone ever. That's what's so great about our society's core values of free speech and democracy. They both account for the fact we don't, won't and can't always agree.

This is the bit I agreed with:

"The gentleman’s agreement of British politics, which ensures that our national political debate is kept on the terms of the wealthy and powerful, has to end. But our history shows that change is never given: it has to be demanded. [...] This isn’t about left or right."

Nice to see him catching up on that little thought bomb regarding THE DEATH OF THE LEFT RIGHT PARADIGM.

Here's are a few examples of policies I think we should seriously debate and which would implode any "gentleman's agreement(s) of British politics". Furthermore, they could be questions we can revisit four or five years later, in case people feel they've changed their minds and made a mistake.

After all they are the ones who are in power, not The Queen, not her politicians, not anyone else other than the human collective who live on these Islands we call Britain. Some seem to have forgotten that is the very meaning of the word democracy[2]:


1 - Lending money with interest makes the rich richer and the poor poorer: should we consider a more Islamic approach where we banish this from our society?

The rich are getting richer, it's the one consistent trend in your life aside from death and taxes. Sit around blaming everyone else if you like. Or marvel at how clever the rich are if you're so inclined. The core reason behind it seems to be a simple mathematical problem. On the one hand, if you have money in our society the banking and financial system will give you more. That's why people want to win the lottery, they want to do nothing and live on the interest. On the other hand, if you need money the system lends you some and then charges you an additional fee which goes from your hands through the banks and into the pockets of its richest customers.

It's a pisser but there we are. That's why we're headed for another financial collapse. They'll blame it on the poorest in our society, who've been sucked dry by vampires at the top who want to live off their status forever.

Abolish lending money with interest and reduce the incentive to hoard cash. More here:

2 - In or Out of the EU?

Just that question. Not, aren't UKIP idiots, yuman rights, or anything else to do with the theatre of nonsense they use to distract you with. Just real simple: is concentrated centralised power in Europe a good idea and still something we want to be part of, yes or no?

3 - Legalise recreational drugs, all of them if possible.

Illegal recreational drugs fund organised crime to the tune of billions each year. Law and order is breaking down in this country because we have crime gangs who have better resources than our law enforcement agencies. It's that simple. It's a ticking time bomb. It'll go off in the near future.

4 - Referendum before war.

Governments must require a referendum before we start killing people abroad. In every instance, without exceptions. Turns out the philosopher Immanuel Kant was big on this but despite studying him I seem to have missed that part of his work during my 'Government approved' education.

5 - Abolish the monarchy, no ifs, no buts, game over.

It's against everything I think we need in our society. You should work to earn your position, not inherit it at birth. I'm sick of hearing people who moan about benefits being awarded to those with bugger all who simultaneously have a curious blindness to the fact we dole out a fortune to the Queen and Her "Royal" Family[3].

Don't be fooled into thinking she and her son have no power:

None of these policies would be final, all could be revoked by the only real political power in the land, people power. We could ask the questions again every four or five years. We could add others as well. Taxation seems like a big problem but it's beyond my ability to articulate an alternative. The abolition of capital punishment was not widely agreed with at the time, that would be a debate I'd enjoy trying to tackle, I don't agree with the Government killing it's own people.

My overall point here is this: You might think one, two, three, or four of these policies are nonsense but if you agree with only one, why throw away a possible alliance? Because you think I'm "right wing" because you think I'm "left wing". Because you think I am important in this equation and, I'm not. You are. You're the one who knows what is right for you, at this time. No one else. In a society where we advocate democracy on specific issues the likes of Owen Jones will remain a "Mr" rather than become a "Sir".

All of these ideas are biggies. Even just one of them being seriously debated, let alone even happening, in our lifetime would change this nation forever, and in my opinion, for the better. But as things stand at the moment even the likelihood of a referendum on Europe looks remote to my politically cynical eyes.

The likes of Jones and those who cower under the fear of not being described as "left wing" anymore fear everyone being asked about big questions like this. They lack faith in the goodness of humanity. They describe those featured in the TV show Benefits Street as grotesque propaganda.
You see where, Owen Jones, with his finger pointing and demagoguery, wants to go once the media career runs dry. Him and his mates in The New Labour Order can't wait for another go in the driving seat when they can do fuck all again, other than attack nations we've never heard of and bail out their mates in the banking system, then have people congratulate them only for not being "the evil Tories".

Nick Margerrison.

[1] Mark my words, it'll be Lord Owen Jones in the future, just like Mandelson, Sugar, Prescott and the rest. In my profession I've seen his like a million times before, he's part of the media establishment yet claims to be "one of the people". If you want to read about his agenda it's here:

[2] From Wikipedia: "The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule"".
That's what it means. It means we the people are the ones in power. Doesn't feel like that yet does it?

[3] Sorry, this bit of the blog was illegal for you to read if you live in the UK: "You can STILL be jailed for being a republican, government confirms, and it remains illegal to even 'imagine' overthrowing the Queen" The Independent

Communication, The Goddess Discordia and the belief organised religion is a joke

You only have approximate acts of communication. The people who try to reach others from the depths of their own mind do so as an act of faith. So fire your words out into the void only in the hope they will mean something useful to those who encounter the abstractions and symbols you've used. As no two people are the same their thoughts may only be similar and are doomed to never precisely be replicated again.

In a nutshell that's why any religion which makes the verbal claim that you must adhere to specific beliefs falls short. What, precisely, is it you are supposed to believe and how will you ever know it has been explained properly?

Answers in the comments section. Disagreement is encouraged.

Referendum before war

Before our Government is allowed to commit to the use of military force they must have the backing of a nationwide public referendum

Tony Blair
The brave men and women of our armed forces are told they have signed up to defend us and our way of life. The betrayal of their trust in the state, which instead sends them to foreign lands to fight in wars where they are not clearly supported by a majority at home, has to stop.

We owe a debt of gratitude to them for their commitment and love of the place we call home. That some do not accept this is a symptom of the way Governments consistently ignore the will of the people on the issue of military action. In times of peace it's almost impossible to imagine how badly their bravery will be required if a genuine military threat to our nation emerges. We can repay them by advocating a more common sense approach to their use.

If you understand and agree with this idea, that Governments must require a referendum before we start killing people abroad, what you must do now is popularise it. Re-write this blog post in your own words and on your own social media presence. Allow the thought itself to gather momentum and pass from mind to mind until all are familiar with it. Then, once widely understood but detached from its original source, our establishment will have difficulty discrediting it.

The responses I've encountered when advocating referendum before war are revealing. I do not believe there is one which does not force people to admit they favour our Government murdering people without provocation. Or at least, without provocations widely and easily understood by us, their masters. The taxpayers, who pay their wages while also building and buying their killing machines for them. A further awful irony is that in the main it's "ordinary people" whose sons and daughters will go on to endure the horrors of war. Imagine how it must feel for those who do. Most people convincingly argue you can't. You can only try. In the event they all knew our nation had, by a majority, voted in support of what they did I'm convinced their burden would be eased. Finally, if we committed to a public vote on the issue and then were ever led into military action on false pretences those who did so would have a case to answer which goes far beyond what they currently encounter.

Political power is as nothing more than candlelight to the sunshine of people power. The two are supposed to be the same thing but I believe there's been confusion on this matter in recent times. The internet, a mass communications system like no other before it, is going to highlight and correct this misunderstanding. That you can read this means destiny has made you part of that process. Use the power granted to us by the technology of our age and defend those who agree to defend us. Articulate to your peers this thought and ultimately force Governments to treat our armed forces with the respect they deserve. 

Referendum before war!

Klaus Dona's almost unbelievable artifacts

Too good to be true?
This is a picture of an "ancient artifact" which "researcher" Klaus Dona owns. He claims it was found in Ecuador and is many thousands of years old.

Those initiated in the conspiracy theory subculture will be thrilled to notice it looks exactly like the famous 'eye in the triangle' pyramid and capstone of Freemasonry. The same symbol, which taunts some from its position on the back of a US dollar bill, now pops a cheeky little wink at them from the world of pre-history. The piece is said to be more than 6,000 years old and allegedly has writing on it which pre-dates Sanskrit and reads: "The son of the creator comes". It even has 13 steps, a crucial detail for many. His interview with Project Avalon gives more details, including the fact there's a picture of the Orion star system on the bottom of the piece.

The only thing is, he's the only source of information I can locate on this quite unbelievable find. I'm starting to think it's one of those, too good to be true, "facts" like the old 'pyramid' and 'alien face' on Mars that we had such fun with in the 80's. Does anyone know any more about this, aside from Klaus's testimony?


Thanks to one commentator from Facebook who points out Klaus more recently discovered the bones of a 25 foot giant human! Ace. Case closed? Comments welcome.

Nick Margerrison

087 Fars News Agency's main source for the ET agenda

It appears one of the main sources of this recent news story about the extraterrestrial agenda at the heart of the US Government, which was posted by the semi-official Iranian news agency Fars, happens to be a guy I interviewed quite some time back on my old Kerrang show. His name is Charles Hall and his interview is featured in this exciting installment of your favourite podcast*!

We also have feedback from the listeners regarding the rights and wrongs of advertising and basic income.

And Eris D drops in right at the end to say hello, it's taken from the old TV show and it was voiced by the still very lovely Amy Jones.

Music supplied by

My Twitter is here:

*This podcast. This is your favourite podcast. You love it. You know you do. Well, c'mon, it's pretty good these days isn't it?

Check out this episode!

The Cult Of The NHS

NHS medical records to be sold off
NHS's "supporters" do their cause a disservice if they do not tolerate it being criticised. I've stopped trusting the organisation almost entirely, mainly because the realities I've witnessed during the illnesses of friends and relatives have so often fallen short of the quasi religious status invoked to protect it.

Firstly, it's failings are an area most people are ignorant of because the broadcast media often shields its audiences from horror stories regarding malpractice and its overly high death rates compared to the US precisely because they are so terrifying and upsetting.

Secondly this fact is coupled with the reality that, as with any large employer, you instantly face the wrath of sombunall[1] NHS employees if you're not seen to be "on side". Their anger reaches jaw dropping extremes if one of their cult members defect, apostasy is punished almost without mercy[2]. It therefore often becomes a topic best left alone.

However, in our new age, this tactic falls foul of short term thinking and, like those of the BBC, its "supporters" do damage to the institution they claim to love by managing to extract nuance from the debate. Furthermore, in frequently and childishly assuming all critics must be "evil Tories" who hate everything about the organisation, they alienate potential allies who are merely voicing their genuine concerns. There's something profoundly evil about seeing a sick patient's complaints swept under the carpet of the left right paradigm but it's frequently what happens in the heat of online debate.

The fact this polarisation tactic is so often used by both representatives of Her Majesty's Government (the politicians) and those in its employment (sombunall NHS staff and their unions) starts to make it seem an almost deliberate ploy when you realise that it plays straight into their hands, both feeding a desire for further taxation (when the mask of the "left wing" is worn) and funnelling critics into the privatisation point of view by branding them "right wing".

Perhaps staff who do this have genuinely been misled, or are emotionally confused by the worry they'll lose their jobs and not be able to feed their children if forced to earn a living in the private sector, but politicians I make no excuses for. Unlike a Nurse or a Doctor, they do nothing of value for our society and so in my book must account for their idiocy and lack of character at every turn. Their stock in trade is pernicious excuses and passing the blame. This is why their kind always pretend that criticism of the NHS must be an attack upon all those who work within it:
They know this tactic pushes the focus away from them and onto The Cult Of The NHS's "untouchables", the doctors and nurses.

Nigel Lawson once described our Health Service as "the closest thing the English have to a religion, with those who practise in it regarding themselves as a priesthood". This is how Her Majesty's Government seems to view the situation and the public dance to Her tune each time they agree. The truth is both doctors and nurses are human and sombunall have indeed made terrible mistakes which they must be held accountable for.

Now, those who have trusted their doctors and nurses with private medical information are likely to have a moment where they will question their faith as today's news emerges that medical records, regarding both physical and mental health, are to be sold off to the highest bidder, after they are placed on the oh so private internet, a global communications system. Promises offered by politicians that these details won't get into the wrong hands are alike to a box of tissues offered as a bandage for a burst jugular. Anyone who accepts them does so only because there's nothing else available.

Fingers will be pointed as this story continues to develop but personally speaking I hope its direct and immediate consequence is to get more people to really question Her Majesty's Government and it's God appointed right to rule over us from our cradle to an NHS hospital's grave, early-death, bed.

The reality of these revelations is you now have every right not to trust your doctor with sensitive information. This is a policy I adopted when one of them scribbled down, "ex-smoker" on my notes after what I thought was an informal conversation about how much money cigarettes used to cost. The NHS is and always has been an asset and institution of Her Majesty's Government and it needs to be challenged. As with The BBC these institutions are not distinct from each other, in practice they often bind together and co-operate to protect themselves from the irritating bleating of the human cattle they force to pay their wages.

That they are all part of one single larger organisation explains why none of these bureaucracies will ever seriously hold one another to account. As they keep repeating, "they're all in it together". Never were truer words spoken. However, the flip side of this narrative offers hope, the elephant in the room, the internet, where dissenting voices from within these fortresses of bureaucratic power are able to speak out. As the old world of the broadcast media sinks into the waters of one where all of us have the ability to become mass communicators online, I believe there will finally be change in our society.

Either the light of logic and reason will melt the slogans, mantras and dogma surrounding this issue and the NHS will be forced to become more accountable to its patients, rather than its employees and the state. If not it will crack under the weight of reality as its defenders refuse to debate their absurd positions and so their standing will become untenable.

Thanks to for this link regarding protecting your information

Nick Margerrison

[1] The word "sombunall" is not in wide usage and was a satirical invention of my intellectual hero Pope Bob. It means, "some-but-not-all". It of course should apply to all generalisations in the mind of any intelligent reader who is likely to know the truism that generalisations only ever really work in a general sense.

[2] The cult of the NHS's treatment of whistle blowers is appauling. Here are but two recent cases:
PREVIOUS ENTRY ON THIS TOPIC: Should we be grateful for the NHS?

UKIP: one idea caused this political storm.

Lord Mandleson, EU supporter
UKIP are popular for only one reason: they want out of the EU. Given that idea's popularity you'd think the political class would be anxious to adopt it for themselves and so lance the UKIP boil once and for all. However, that is not the case, and none of the big political names in the UK seriously oppose European integration. In fact you don't have to be overly paranoid to see that there is a deep cross-party organised EU-phile ring operating at the heart of Her Majesty's Government.

In this context the huge media storm surrounding one of UKIP's local councillors, who has peculiar beliefs regarding gay marriage and the weather, is irrelevant because it doesn't alter or challenge the popularity of the idea itself. It's known as an attack ad hominem "in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of, or the person presenting it".

That the political elite, and their favourite commentators, are making so much of Councillor David Silvester from Henley-on-Thames's absurd opinions speaks to the fact they've learned to ignore the EU debate. Some appear to have hypnotised themselves into thinking it's off limits because "racism" and "right wing". This despite the fact 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.

I recently read an article by Will Black which made a brilliant anaology between the sign language dished out at Mandella's funeral and the BBC's news agenda of 2013. In it he describes their coverage of events in the UK as being alike to the signing of troubled schizophrenic, Thamsanqa Jantjie, in that it bore no relation to the reality of what is happening whatsoever.

In my opinion the same is true regarding debate about the EU, much of it is irrelevant. However, although I accept some people are genuinely confused, others, mainly the politicians themselves, I strongly suspect are being deliberately deceitful. They are doing this because the EU offers genuine benefits, to them. Would-be "President of The United States of Europe" Mr Tony Blair is a good example. As is Gordon "bigoted woman" Brown. Their term in Her Majesty's Government did more to cover up the issue than any previously. Now though we have two political parties in power who promised to address the debate while in opposition.

It's a curious version of democracy we have in Merry Old England. Although both Blair and Brown were leaders of the "left wing" Labour Party their attitude to Europe is now precisely mirrored by their two main political rivals. The Tories and their snivelling "cast Iron guarantee" of a referendum on the matter made before they were elected has not transpired. It's not widely known but the Lib Dems also committed to a referendum as well, which has subsequently been forgotten about, like most of their policy pledges. So, there we have it, both sides of our coalition Government who are now technically in power agreed to the idea of a vote and debate on the EU but instead have had second thoughts before forming Her Majesty's Government.

I presume the advantages of supporting the EU were explained to them in private before they were allowed to take office. They might as well have been because I never hear them made publicly. I just see politicians who vacuously declare "it's good for Britain" before they line their pockets with multi-million pound careers in international diplomacy: Lord and Lady Kinnock are good examples of the form

That this issue is not up for debate via the three main political parties is emphasised by the recently announced alliance of Ken Clarke (Tory), Danny Alexander (Lib Dem) and Lord Mandelson (Labour) for an EU PR war fight back. Many believe Her Majesty's Government intend only to call a referendum on the issue once we've been seen to be marinated in pro-EU propaganda over the next few years. I'm just curious to hear exactly what their positive message will be, other than telling us what morons we are for not supporting them.

Nick Margerrison

086 Magnum Opus II

Part two of the summary of 2013's blog entries. I'm genuinely amazed at how consistent my political philosophy appears to be. There's bound to be holes in it somewhere, if you spot any be sure to point them out. It's an ideology that has been forged in the heat of argumentative phone in shows over about a decade.

I kick off with some thoughts about David Icke's TV station, The People's Voice.

Music as always from Zero Friends Recordings.

Back to the archive next week.

My Twitter here:


Check out this episode!

Highlights from my little Twitter spat with Eric Joyce MP

I suspect he will delete the argument when he wakes up in the afternoon, presumably nursing a sore head after the debate.

He blocked me after being unable to explain what would be so wrong with putting bombing another country to a referendum. Thanks to all the Twitter followers who continued to plug the question afterwards.

As I understand it the counter arguments to such an idea are as follows:

1, We couldn't launch a surprise attack.

Anyone making this argument assumes we are happy with being a first strike nation. I assume you see force as a last resort.

2, It might mean we never defend ourselves.

This assumes the Great British people are cowards, I believe the contrary. In the even of a referendum decision to go to war the real fibre of our nation would become apparent as the war effort would be widely supported.

3, We couldn't maintain our international agreements.

This makes plain the fact such agreements are not made with a democratic mandate.

Any additional counter arguments I would be very keen to read in the comments section.

Bit of background on the MP in question:

The left reveal something about themselves with their reaction to Benefits Street

I have long believed that the left right paradigm is used to stifle debate and cut people off from certain perspectives by labeling them and then telling them what they are allowed to think. However I assumed people who were "left wing" were merely misled rather than deliberately misleading. The reaction last week to the TV show "Benefits Street" has been a depressing undoing of that opinion for me.

"[T]he only debate to be opened is why we let our media get away with it" squeals 'left wing' columnist Owen Jones in The Independent. In other words, he believes this particular television programme is so immoral you should not be allowed to see it. How profoundly depressing that someone in his position saw a documentary which fueled a "pervasive sense that people on benefits are feckless scroungers" where I saw one about people living in difficult circumstances. I recognised characters who reminded me of old school mates where he witnessed "unsympathetic examples of unemployed people".

According to him the TV show itself "produced a tidal wave of hate". Just stop and think about that for a minute. He lives in a world where you cannot decide how to react to a television show for yourself, like a grown adult. If you use your social media presence to call for "those who appeared on the show – and people on benefits more broadly – to be shot, hanged or gassed" it's not you that's the irresponsible wanker, it's the people who made a documentary you happened to be watching at the time. I find that point of view profoundly loathsome. Suggesting Twitter users who "pledged to assault the show’s participants if they saw them" had their fingers forced by their televisions is to ignore the fact those people have broken the law by making specific threats against other British citizens. Owen may look like a twelve year old but he really should know better than to excuse such behavior.

Deeper than this though is the fact that I have started to think the reason why the people in this documentary represent a forgotten underclass is because when "the left" get a taste of power they simply do not factor in the needs of these constituents at all. They'd far rather moan about other 'more showbiz topics' such as how evil the rich are and so instead chuck the underclass a little money and hope they'll go away. I assume this is because their world view requires such people to be ignored because they don't neatly fit a "deserving poor" stereotype, such as pensioners or children in poverty. Dealing with people like those in the documentary who are complex, capable and busy frequently making hard choices during their hard lives is not something people like Owen Jones are remotely interested in.

Don't misunderstand me here I have no sympathy with "right wing" ideas either, I just naively assumed, until last week, that their opposite number genuinely cared about the kinds of people I watched struggling to get by on "Benefits Street".

Nick Margerrison

First episode of the "Benefits Street" documentary is here. The documentary itself is not that exciting to be honest. Certainly nowhere near as controversial as you might have been led to believe.

Even Memes Hate Your Google+

Dear Google,

Will you please f--k off with your Google Plus bollocks?

I use social networks and rank them in the following order:

Twitter - a friend I like hanging out with.

Facebook - a friend I am getting a bit bored of because they've become over clingy.

Google Plus - a weird stalker who I have never met and who has a deeply concerning unusual interest in me.

Now, I'm busy at the moment but I fully intend to move to WordPress at the soonest opportunity. The only problem I have is that I've been a faithful user of BLOGGER for many, many, many years and the move will take up a lot of my valuable time. This blog began in 2005, that's a lot of data for me to transfer so ironically the difficulty is down to the fact that I am what most companies would have considered to be a valued customer. I feel that you consider me only as a mark, a bit of data waiting to be categorized, one of the cattle to be herded into your sinister Google + operation which I have absolutely no interest in. The reason I feel this is because I have, numerous times, clicked buttons that make it clear I don't want to be part of your Google +.

I signed up to Blogger before you bought it. At the time you made no indication you were going to use this as a way of FORCING people to sign up to your shitty "social networking" site. Do make sure you include in your market research that one of the main reasons I now despise it is because it is being pushed so hard. Today I couldn't log in without more desperate attempts from you to get me to put my mobile number in or officially sign up for Google Plus, which I suspect you've done on my behalf already anyway.

Social networks can be liberating opportunities to enjoy discussions with friends and family but equally they can become deeply intrusive spy networks which put private and sensitive information onto a GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM for all to see.

Your Google + operation appears to me to be the worst of the lot because it is using coercion to get its way.

Yours Sincerely,

Nick Margerrison

085 Magnum Opus

A review of the year gets a little intense and hardcore...

We nail the story of Robinson Ant, a clear highlight.

Features little clips of George Carlin, The Artist Taxi Driver, Lee Camp, The Dredd film.

Music featured is mainly from

But, there's a nice little piece in there from

Another episode will follow shortly, with an interview from the archives, as this one was late...

My Twitter:

Check out this episode!

The tale of Robinson Ant

Robinson Ant was not impressed
I'm not proud of this story but it seems somehow relevant to our times. In the 1980’s, approximately during my eighth journey round the sun, me and a mate used to play an unusual game which had strange echoes of the culture of “reality television” our generation now both produces and enjoys. During the game we’d put some water in a bucket with a half submerged rock in the middle. The exposed top half would then be decorated with bits of grass, twigs and leaves.

The next stage was to kidnap an ant from my garden and put it on the “island”. All our contestants were named, “Robinson Ant”. The point of the game was to watch and see if Robinson could escape the island without too much help. Potentially this could take all day so we’d put little bits of food on there as well, bit of sherbet dip or some marshmallow out of a wagon wheel usually sufficed.

We devised complex rules for the game. Both of us were allowed three “helps” each. This would usually mean you’d pull Robinson out of the water if he fell in. Or it could be you might pop him on a leaf and see if he could use that as part of a daring getaway. I still have the image of our first winner pedaling towards the bucket’s edge on a “raft” made from a bit of dandelion. Once he touched the plastic of the bucket we scooped him out, cheered, and then went and put him back where we found him. Every care was taken to ensure the safety of our contestants and, as far as I’m aware, Robinson Ant caused only one insect fatality. 

The excitement of our first winner made the next few games a bit boring by comparison. Eventually, to keep things going, we decided to spice things up a bit with a new twist. In the original story Robinson Crusoe meets a companion, “Man Friday”, who helps him to escape the Island. After watching another, by comparison tragically hopeless, ant wander aimlessly around our newly designed island we went to the other side of the garden and selected a “Man Friday” to join him.

“Ooh, they’ve seen each other” said my mate.

This second ant had a lot more energy and marched with purpose towards his new friend Robinson, who seemed a little sleepy. It was almost as if he recognized him.

“What are they doing? They’re not having sex or something are they?”

“No, they’re fighting, look, look, oh. Oh, Robinson’s unconscious, Man Friday’s knocked him out”.

As I leaned in I could see the victorious “Man Friday” walking away with the purposeful swagger of a job well done. Our poor hero though was in pieces, two pieces to be precise. His legs and body lay a few millimeters away from his tiny severed ant head as its little antenna swayed in the summer breeze. Its black eyes glared at me with the sort of accusatory expression only an empty void can manage.

The bucket was kicked over in horror and disgust. We ran and told our parents. Questions were asked, the adults looked worried and we were told in no uncertain terms what a bad, cruel, game that was and never to play it again. Thus ended Robinson Ant.

There are of course a couple of major differences between this game and “reality TV”. Firstly the ants didn’t volunteer or gain from the experience at all. Secondly reality TV and our cruel popular culture is organised not by two eight year old lads but by adults who make a career of it and have no one to tell them to stop.

Nick Margerrison

Follow by Email