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


162 - Gabriel D Roberts, The Hermit. Plus random thoughts about initiation.

The podcast has moved to ACAST. I'm told it will still be sent out to all the original subscribers. Is that the case or did you lose it? Post a comment if we lost you.

Test Transmission

Dear Cult Member,

All being well "test transmissions" for Talk2MeRadio will occasionally come from this player here.


For now you can hear me being told Dr Who is a bit crap.

Maybe try tuning in next week, see what happens.


5th Pope of the High Church.

161 - Stranger Than We Can Imagine with John Higgs

Music by the legendary @quislingmeet


C.O.N favourite John Higgs goes through his latest work, "Stranger than we can imagine, making sense of the 20th Century".



Check out this episode!

159 - A short introduction to The Archons

The wonderful Runesoup iz here:


Welcome to new listeners, you're late. We've been doing this for ages now. Want to join? You need to listen to every single podcast. You won't get it if you don't do that. It'll just be noise.


The wonderful music in the background is from an excellent pop act:


They are available for live gigs etc. Why not book them to spice up your next corporate event?


Speaking of which, it does appear that this podcast is now on the verge of earning money without "selling out". Cult members will be able to imagine how exciting this is. New listeners will not. But they might get an idea if they download the whole lot and join...



Check out this episode!

158 - Fellow Discordian: The Right Reverend Ryan Richards Redacted

A fun interview with The Right Reverend Ryan Richards [REDACTED]. We wander around the world of Discordia chatting about Pope Bob and the various projects this celebrated Erisian is manifesting. Further information here:


The podcast has almost "pod faded" in recent times. This is ironic because I am working on a project which will be focused on podcasting. Stick with me, cult member, the dawn broke a few months ago and a glorious podcasting sunrise is on its way.


Music from The Decadent Marsupials:

And the legendary Quisling Meet:



Check out this episode!

157 - Andrew Johnson from 'Check the evidence'

Andrew Johnson from


As cult members will be aware - my work levels are through the roof at the moment. The podcast is now one week behind schedule. We shall catch up but the schedule on uploads is going to get a bit freaky for a while I think.

This was uploaded by my mobile phone. The picture we mentioned will follow tomorrow.


Here's a clip of the TV show:



Check out this episode!

154 - Ducks with guns

An archive show featuring interviews with:


Rob Simone's work is here:


Gary Heseltine is here:


Richard Holland: Paranormal Magazine wikipedia here


A debate about evolution featuring religious preacher Kerrigan Skelly ( his YouTube here: ) and physicist Simon Singh ( his website here: )


A random caller from my Hallam FM period pops up. It's from her call that this week's podcast gets its title.


Music from The Quisling Meet and The City of Lancaster's infamous Decedant Marsupials:



Check out this episode!

153 - The Satanic Sluts

I reference this, well worth watching in full, GK Chesterton:


The Satanic Sluts don't seem to update their site anymore:


Commercial music used for review purposes only.


Uncommercial music provided for your entertainment by both The Decadent Marsupials ( their stuff here ) and the wandering genius that is Quisling Meet / Zero Friends Recordings




Onward to the eschaton folks!


Hail Eris!


All Hail Discordia!

Check out this episode!

152 - Expand your mind with Stewart and Janet Swerdlow

Stewart and Janet Swerdlow's awesome all purpose conspiracy website is here:


Russelout Brand speaks tosh here:


The rant I include was posted on this website


The music this week comes from here:


Been a bit late with this podcast, my aim is to release another tomorrow.



Check out this episode!

151 - Chaos Magician Dave Lee and musician Avital Raz



Dave Lee's blog is here:

And his website is here:

And he tweets here:


Avital Raz's website is here:

And the video to her song "Edinburgh Surprise" is here:


Nick Margerrison

Music by Decedent Marsupials -

Check out this episode!

Russell Brand urges fans to vote Labour

Ed's a big fan of The Sun when he needs to be
I hereby withdraw my support for "Brand Revolution".

He is urging people to vote for the evil bloodthirsty cabal that is The New Labour Order.

I wish him well as a human being but think he is deeply mistaken:

The premise of Brand's total change of mind is that his "revolutionaries" will remain totally engaged in politics an' that yeh? That way these lovely Labour politicians will like totes listen to them an' all that.
The reality of the situation, as my podcast listeners know, has been admitted already. They intend to listen to the likes of Lord Heseltine:

This blog's article about the likely Labour/Tory Coalition Government continues to be one of the most read articles this month. What's so compelling about the idea is the fact the two political parties are so deeply similar. That's why thousands of people have been forwarding it to each other. Because we don't believe these politicians. We don't believe a f--king word they say. I respected Brand because he briefly echoed that sentiment.
However, there are no dogmas, only catmas. It's Brand's call. Maybe he really has just changed his mind. The lesser of two evils argument is what he claims tipped the balance, I'm a bit surprised he never considered it before.
The system Brand is supporting is corrupt. I don't see why he thinks it's going to work, what has changed?

150 - Psychic Soldier Exclusive!

A breakthrough podcast featuring Psychic Soldier Sarah Adams, her facebook here:




This is Tabitha-Browne


Here's the Heseltine article:


Music by The Decedant Masupials:


"There is no piece of music that is not slightly elevated by a fart noise as its puncuation point."


The Honest Book of E.Discordia Chapter 23


Hail Eris!

All Hail Discordia!



Check out this episode!

149 - The Godfather of British Comics. Pat Mills

Pat Mills is on Wikipedia here:


He mentions this book, here, The Cosmic Pulse of Life:


If you're new to Pat Mills's work a great place to start is the relatively recent Slaine - Books Of Invasions:


Here's the video I mention in the little rant at the end:


The rant was initially posted on my audioboo here:


Music by The Decedant Marsupials

Check out this episode!

147 - Pastafarianism (vs The Man) Direct Democracy & A Libertarian Rebel

“No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness.” ― Aristotle

4 minutes in -- Ian Harris is the Pastafari who plays in this band here:

They're called The Iron Boot Stompers and the track you hear of theirs is lifted (with permission) from this page here:

As I write his story is going national, The MirrorWalesOnline and The Daily Mail. This is after his picture went viral on Twitter. I cannot fault him. A true Discordian.

18 minutes in -- Alex Romanie is from here:
They tweet here:

37 minutes in - A Libertarian Rebel tweets his world view here:
The political compass thing he mentions is here:

Glynn, our first caller, tweets here: @glynhardy
He mentions The Disclosure project, which is here:

Jon, our second caller, tweets here: @Dyonn

And mark tweets here: @1CC1_36006

Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!

Check out this episode!

Oncoming Labour/Tory coalition spoken about openly in the MSM

Former Home Secretary Kenneth Baker nails the specifics of how the Labour/Tory coalition will work:
What is at risk is the continuing unity of the UK. In order to preserve that unity, another way should be found. This could be a joint government of the Labour and Conservative Parties – quite unthinkable at the moment and, at this time, likely to be rejected by both of them. But this is what has happened in Germany.
The Prime Minister would be the party leader with most seats – at the moment it looks like David Cameron but it could be Ed Milliband – and both parties would have cabinet seats. Such a coalition should only last two years, which means that the fixed five-year term Parliament Act would be repealed, leading to a general election in 2017.
It would be possible for this government to find areas of agreement – defence, counter-terrorism, infrastructure investment in schools, road, rail and in the reform of skills training and energy. The more controversial manifesto promises would have to be foregone but not abandoned; David Cameron may have to wait until 2018 for the European referendum and Ed Milliband for 2018 for the Mansion Tax.
But this government’s main purpose should be to establish a Constitutional Convention – covering not just Scotland but Wales, Northern Ireland and England – with the intention of preserving the United Kingdom and ensuring that devolution, which is the order of the day, is achieved in an orderly, fair, consistent and coherent way. It must not come about through a series of patchwork measures driven by just one part of the UK, the consequences of which have not been thought through.
One would hope that a consensus would emerge but, in any event, each party could set out its own views at the ensuing general election.
Firstly, that he is thinking about it, means he's wrong to describe it as "unthinkable". Podcast listeners know I have been saying this might happen, as have many others. So, "unthinkable" is a factually inaccurate assertion.

I won't say it's a lie, maybe he was unaware that earlier this month Labour MP, Gisela Stuart made headlines with the same idea and turn of phrase. The Birmingham Post: “If on May 8 you had a position where Labour had more seats than the Tories but not enough to form a government — but the Tories had more votes than Labour — I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition.”

Secondly, I'm hard put to think where the two major parties do not agree. If, you judge them by their deeds rather than lies/words. Who deregulated the banks, brought in tuition fees, bailed out the banks, invaded Iraq, put speed cameras on every corner and had a love in with George Bush? Was it the "evil" Tories or "stupid" Labour? Which one wants to ring fence foreign aid and was quoted recently as saying "I believe man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats this country and this world faces"?

Which of them doesn't support expanding the power structure of the EU?

In all seriousness, what are the key differences? The problem we have with these characters is they appear to come to their agreements, with those they represent, in secret. Not you, the people who vote for them, you're not that important. No, they meet their real masters, and what they discuss is always confidential.

I realize I'm in conspiracy territory here but The Bilderberg Group is real and meet in strict confidence. Your Prime Minister's weekly meetings with The Queen are also entirely confidential. Here are but a couple of examples, already I am picturing people's response. If you find this world view hard to accept the problem is you've been conditioned to dismiss these notions. The broadcast media rolls its eyes, plays spooky music and mocks anyone who suggests this kind of thing. Yet it is a clear explanation for the fact our politicians appear powerless and out of touch.

I'm no different, I still find it hard to believe many of the stories which have come out recently strongly suggesting "conspiracy" and not "democracy" is "the order of the day".

Theories differ on the specifics of how that power structure works but it is clearly how these people get told what to do. They don't care what you want. If they did referendums would be common, not controversial.

Nowadays he's called "Lord Baker"
Recognize him?
In this instance Baker thinks devolution is "the order of the day". He's probably right, mostly these orders direct us towards a stronger centralized power base in Europe and an increasingly less powerful United Kingdom. I've argued in the past that this is the real reason behind Scottish Independence.

Either way being part of a United States of Europe is clearly non-negotiable. This is a major stumbling block at the election. I've said previously that, 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.

The most interesting aspect of the above quote from Kenneth Baker is it acknowledges the European referendum will be postponed. That's the reason I'm starting to think the Tory/Labour coalition is something we will see soon.

Maybe I'm just hoping. When I first heard of plans to try to pull off a Tory/Labour coalition, some time back now, I thought the idea was wonderful because surely that would wake people up, snap them out of their stupors? I didn't really take it seriously because I thought "the elite" would never risk it. Too many people, I thought, would finally see what many have been saying for years: this is not a democracy it's an oligarchy.

Time will tell but the fact this country is run by Lords, Ladies, Monarchs and billionaires is becoming harder to ignore. Our ancestors didn't like it. Why should we?


If you think this is an important part of tonight's debates please retweet this tweet here before tonight's Leaders Debates:

Simon Danczuk thinks free speech is a privilage

Privilege, "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group". In other words this assumes not everyone should be allowed to speak freely. The word "unassailable," means something which cannot be "attacked, questioned, or defeated". Simon Danczuk is dictating that the privileged few, who Her Majesty's Government allow to speak, must always do so with an air of deep gratitude because their right to do so can be removed at any time.

In this sense he is very much on message with the rest of his party, the bloodthirsty cabal that is New Labour. He's also pretty much entirely in line with the opposition as well. The principle has been so established in the minds of these characters from Westminster that politicians are not even remotely ashamed to admit they hate speech. Only the mere details are now being decided, what should you lot be allowed to think about on your social media feeds? Which words will you be allowed to say?

In this instance, if you aren't respectful enough toward The New Labour Order's blatant political posturing, you can expect to be silenced:

So what’s it all about? Danczuk had tweeted a photograph of himself posing in front of the Pakistani flag, which had been hoisted in Rochdale specifically for Danczuk’s photo shoot. In the kind of desperate, irony-clad publicity stunt more suited to an episode of satirical comedy The Thick Of It than real political life, the flag was promptly taken down again after half an hour. Danczuk tweeted the photo with a caption that read ‘Pakistani flag raising in Rochdale today. Lovely occasion.’ He even posed with two bewildered-looking Pakistani men. Hopkins responded with: ‘Raising a Pakistani flag in Rochdale is not helping community cohesion, it’s inflammatory. You and your party disgust me.’
Simon Danczuk's side of the story is in The Independent:
Employing her usual hateful and provocative shtick she went on to demand whether the nine men convicted in Rochdale of child grooming and sexual offences in 2012 were “my friends”. More abuse from Katie followed before she finished with a promise to come to Rochdale and “explain why no one messes with our white girls”.
It would be easy to dismiss this as the vacuous posturing of an ill-informed pundit except my timeline suddenly became filled with a deluge of racist bile from Katie’s supporters. Soon I was getting threats from the EDL. A far right group called the North West Infidels suddenly announced they would be marching on our town and the Internet was quickly awash with intolerant abuse directed towards anyone of Pakistani origin in our town.
There are several reasons why I’ve asked Greater Manchester Police to look into whether Katie is guilty of inciting racial hatred, not least because I don’t want the safety of innocent people compromised in our town. But I also don’t want three years of hard work undone after we’ve achieved so much in terms of confronting the heinous crime of child grooming.
Not only would it have been "easy to dismiss" Katie Hopkins's thoughts on the matter, it would have been the sort of thing I'd have expected from a no-nonsense straight talker such as Danczuk previously appeared to be. But instead he has decided to blame Katie Hopkins for the reactions of other people, look at his argument. He is blaming her for the actions of those who listen to her, "Katie's supporters".

Actually, it's worse than that because, it's the additional words of those who follow her, not their actions. As far as we are aware nothing has actually happened as a result of this Twitter spat, aside from Her Majesty's Police suddenly being called in to remove Katie Hopkins's right to speak.

His reasons do not stack up. Firstly if he's sincere in his wish not to have "the safety of innocent people compromised in our town" perhaps he should stop wasting police time with playground arguments. If direct threats of violence have been made, they are not apparent on Katie Hopkins's timeline. How is she responsible for the tweets of others? More importantly, if the safety of innocent people is at the heart of this, lets consider how many emergency calls the Police could they have dealt with while they were instead called upon to f--k about pandering to the bruised ego of one of Her Majesty's Ministers.

More importantly, if a few tweets from a daytime TV star who most people find hard to take seriously can result in "three years of hard work undone", Rochdale really is in a dire situation. Most people don't give a s--t about Twitter. Are tensions in Rochdale really so tenuous that a few tweets can ruin it? If so I'd argue that the three years of hard work he brags about has made little impact. I suspect his constituents might think it's time for a change.

What galls me about this is Danczuk has struck such a heroic figure until now. His stance on organised child sexual abuse within Her Majesty's Government, at "the highest levels", was awe inspiring. For a brief moment I forgot he was a politician. He seemed almost normal. Instead he's the sort of politician who encourages the state to act as censor for you and your social media feed.

146 - Did the BBC cover up 911, were UFOs spotted over Birmingham and what is art?

Matt Campbell tweets here:
The video we discuss is here:

Our UFO witness, Kenny Beardmore, refers to this story here:

This is NOT art boy is here:

The Betta Kultcha website is here:
And Ivor Tymchak tweets here:

All the music is from @QuislingMeet

And our Facebook, which mirrors my Twitter, is here:


Check out this episode!

As the microchip agenda marches on...

For years conspiracy theorists have warned of a secret plan, hatched by our rulers, to embed everyone with their own unique microchip. These chips will then serve as radio frequency identification (R.F.I.D) tags underneath the user's skin, like those currently used in pets or livestock. Some elaborate further and say that these RFID tags will be able to interact with our minds, alter our mood and allow us to access information in some way.

I first heard this idea in the early 1990's. Back then most people dismissed it, they either thought it too absurd to suggest or were, like me, under the impression no one would ever willingly accept such an obviously totalitarian technology. There'd be mass protests were such a plan to be implemented, went my logic.

Since then I've hosted a national radio phone in show on the topic. I've sat in a national radio studio with two members of the public who had RFID tags already embedded in them. Nice couple, they worked in a tattoo shop. I've even presented an hour long national TV show on the ethics of the matter with Professor Kevin Warwick, who develops biotechnology himself. A lovely bloke, once hooked his nervous system up to the internet as an experiment. Always friendly and keen to educate people about technology.

The thing is, despite being better placed than most to point out the reality of this technology, there's still part of me that thinks of it as kooky laugh out loud science fiction stuff. Even when I watch corporate videos like this one here, they seem like some mad attempt to troll the conspiracy subculture rather than a product about to become mainstream:

The issue has always been confused by the fact many claim this technology, and the debate surrounding it, was predicted by biblical prophecy. The best example is in the book of Revelation's infamous warning regarding "the mark of the beast":
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

(Revelation 13:16 & 13:17 my emphasis)
In short this conspiracy theory contains everything needed for most to put it in the "kookie" drawer and forget about it, even if they think there's something in it. Biblical prophecy, religious conviction, a new but vaguely defined technology and the thought of a secretive cabal intent on tricking the entire world into accepting "Satan's mark". Were it not for the fact that there now appears to be a genuine attempt to bring some sort of identification chip technology into the mainstream I suspect that's where I would have left it. But I can't. It seems too important.

Here are some previous blog entries with examples from the last few months:

The response to these developments is interesting, if the roots of the idea really are to be found in the Bible. "Conspiracy theorists", and those sympathetic to the subculture, seem to frame the debate as a simple question of faith. "Would you wear the microchip?" is almost a trick question. Failure to answer "correctly" means you're not one of the faithful. You therefore cannot be saved, only condemned.

The result is that instead of unleashing a devastating series of counter arguments the subculture turns inward as its most important battle emerges on the horizon. Rather than engaging with the debate many of those who feel they were forewarned are instead recoiling at the idea there even is one.

I first noticed this problem around ten years ago when I hosted the aforementioned a phone in show for Kerrang Radio. The piece is mostly repeated for my podcast audience here:

On the podcast I've been trying to focus a discussion on the reasons why even "non-believers" should avoid embedding microchips under their skin. It's a tricky task. Lots of people think they sound like a great idea. Pull your mind out of this internet enhanced reality tunnel you're using right now and ask them for yourself.

Last Thursday morning, after finishing your podcast on my way to work, I bumped into a colleague. After the pleasantries, I delivered my proposition. He's a very technically minded and intelligent bloke, who works on the IT side of things. He's also a cynical chap and generally critical of our employer. Perhaps the kind of person who would be on "our" side on this one. 

I came straight out with it:
"Ey, mate, I was listening to this mad podcast on the way in. The bloke was banging on about having microchips in yer 'ed. Would you have one?"

I was careful not to load the question or make my opinion overtly clear. Straightaway, my colleague replied:
"Oh yeah, imagine not having to fumble around for your pass in the morning. And you could reply to your emails as you're driving in. It'd be great".

I was shocked, but nodded in passive, dumbstruck agreement. Later, I had the same conversation with the office cleaner, a lady in her fifties. Her response:
"Ooh, it'd make things a lot easier though, wouldn't it? And I'd get to see what my granddaughter was up to, I don't hear from her as much as I'd like". 


A third colleague, a mother of one, and 4 months pregnant with her second. I told her about the article I'd seen in "chat" magazine (or similar), suggesting it might not be such a bad idea to give newborns a chip, so we'd never lose them. She thought about it for a moment, and then talked about how terrible it would be to lose a child, and how she'd do anything to keep her new baby safe. Including inserting a chip.

Now, I realise a straw poll of three colleagues doesn't count for scientific analysis, but it does give me enough information to suggest my views are out of step with many of my colleagues, and that, when it comes to chip insertion, I might just be in the minority.

Consider the very real possibility that the MAJORITY of the population would willingly queue up to have a chip inserted. Then consider that this makes you, or "us", the minority, and if we're not careful, the "tin foil hatters", who the majority would look upon as the lunatic fringe.

Can't you just imagine hearing this:

"Oooor maayyte, what's wrong wiv ya, not 'avin yer chip in. Can't you see how GREAT they are"

My analysis of my colleagues responses suggests that they are motivated by fear, and, for want of a better term "ease". Firstly, the idea of losing a loved one, no matter how statistically small, is enough for people to cosy up to the reassuring teat of the state, in this manifestation, the chip. Plumb one in and you'll never lose your kids. The other factor, "ease", is that - get this bad boy in and my life will be so much easier. All those things I'll never have to think about. The third motivation is perhaps the thrill of information - having all that knowledge and data not at your fingertips, but literally inside your head at your command. For me the latter argument is the by far the most persuasive.

I think it's these three concepts that we need to develop strong arguments against.

So, Mr Nicoli, that's as far as I have manged to take my thoughts on the situation. Chips are bad, I don't want one, but most people seemingly do, and they don't necessarily want them for what I would call the "right" reasons, but of course that's a massive moral projection on my part.

My feeling is that we as a group need to develop a rational and coherent argument against the chip. And it's far, far, easier said than done. But to realise we are in a small minority by doing so is an important first step.

The best argument I can think of is that, once it's in there, there's no going back. Who controls the chip, and who are you giving that little bit more of your "self" to. I suppose those might be the first questions to ask of those willing for insertion.

Perhaps the other argument is to say - look at our fucking government. Rotten to the core, seemingly full of either bankers, crooks or pedophiles. You want them to get direct control of your consciousness? What about those corporations? All they want to do is make MONEY, and as the old saying goes - if you're not paying for it, YOU are the product. A chip is a data miner's dream.

The problem with taking this tact is that one tends to end up ranting like a mad man in the night and further alienating those who were already willing to be chipped.

It's so difficult to argue against the chip without sounding suspicious and judgmental of authority - and alienating the many who see governments as their protectors. However, as I'm sure you'll agree, I think it's absolutely essential for a healthy society that there is a significant voice which *is* suspicious and judgmental of authority.

Further, I'm troubled by the obvious comparison to the Levelers, who, according to my school history lessons, were portrayed as a bunch of semi-neanderthal thick heads who went around smashing up all the wondrous new machinery being rolled out around the dawn of the industrial revolution. Of course, they were presumably acting in self interest, but nonetheless, the comparison is a troubling one: Are *we* the Luddites resisting the step forward to a greater human consciousness? I suppose the question here is, who is controlling it? Shouldn't a greater consciousness lack central control?

So, over to you and your listeners. How do we develop a sound, solid argument?

Let's work on this together. I believe this is one of the most important debates for the immediate future of our species.

Let's not let this one slip through our fingers without a fight. I don't have an answer right now, but I promise you I'm ruminating on it.


The debate on my podcast continues. This blog post is intended to get you to add to it.

And also because I wanted to post yet another recent news story on the topic:

Customers at Halifax bank could soon be able to prove their identities online using their heartbeat, rather than a password.

A bracelet called a Nymi Band may be trialled which measures cardiac rhythms unique to each person to keep them logged in online - without having to remember passwords, codes and PIN numbers.

It can authenticate a user when they place their finger on a tiny metal plate fitted to the band, creating a circuit which can be used to check the user's electrocardiogram  or "cardiac signature" against a stored one.

The user has access to a service for as long as they wear the band. If the band is removed, the electrocardiogram is re-read once the device is placed around the wrist again. 

Other banks are experimenting with digital payment technologies. Barclays has released a band called bPay, which is worn around the wrist and can be used to make payments of up to £20.

Thoughts in the comments section, they will be used in the next episode of the podcast.


144 - Robbie Graham and the UFO myth

Robbie Graham features on this week's offering to the cult. His excellent website is here:


The Adam Curtis piece referenced is here:


Our caller tweets here and his band (who tweet here ) put their music here:


Last week's podcast had over 40 something downloads in the Birmingham UK area. If that can translate into one person going to a gig of theirs and making pleasant conversation that seems like a bit of a win for our small community. So, maybe, if you can go to one of their gigs, you should.


For what it's worth I think that single is a cracking tune.


Electric Toast has a great website here: They mention it in their comment. Further detail available there.


I tweet here:


The background music on this podcast comes from these guys: @QuislingMeet


Nick Margerrison

Check out this episode!

You are a work of art.

"Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn't grow out of either of our species' two basic instincts: survival and reproduction".

- Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud

The masterpiece that is "Understanding Comics" had a huge effect on me when I read it as an undergraduate. Over the years I've revised Scott McCloud's definition of art to mean, that which has been created with no purpose other than to exist.

If you make a distinction between "art" and "craft" this definition becomes clearer. A craft is an activity directed toward a definite purpose. Unlike 'pure art' it is functional. For example, a great painter who has mastered his craft may manage to paint stunningly accurate pictures of the world. Yet, the more concerned the painter is with accuracy and documenting the image, the more they will find they are drawn toward purpose and function. They are involved in a more mechanistic activity.

This is why modern art exploded into action once the ultimate realism of the camera emerged onto the scene. Painters were forced to explore the less obviously practical side of their talents. They were inspired by an urge to communicate something else, other than raw practical information. They had to look within themselves for unique ideas. To give birth to something new rather than making a copy of the old.

This is why adverts are not art. They are too functional. They have a stated aim and are inspired by a desire to make money. An artist engaged in making an advert may add a level of art to what they are doing, random elements of fun that do not serve the overall message, but it is not the same thing. Art desires to be born for its own sake, not because it is required to sell something. Only once the passage of time has rendered an advert impractical can it start to be considered as art. Even then it's a stretch.

Almost art?
The less obvious meaning the above picture has the more it might be considered a work of art. It's dangerous to speak of the "true meaning" of a work of art. In doing so you reduce it into a work of propaganda, with a "message". A tawdry advert, but worse than that, an advert for politics. The meaning of a great work of art must be the work of art itself. It's absurd to abstract your interpretation of it and then act as if the artist simply couldn't think of the right words, like you just have with your "explanation". To give it meaning is to give it purpose and transmute it from golden art into leaden craft.

Machines will always out do a good craftsman, in terms of both quality and quantity. That's why handmade products are less common these days but also, I believe, one of the reasons people still buy them. A handmade table has a level of art to it, even if it's not covered in elaborate and ornate decorations. Its "imperfections" compared to a machine made product give it an ineffable quality that goes beyond a unique look. People who like that kind of thing are likely to like art*.

Recently on my podcast I have been musing about the above serving as an answer to the age old question, "why are we here?" . If you were created for a purpose you are going to feel like a machine. If you were just created, you might already have noticed. Whoever you are, as a fellow human, I greet you as what you are, you are a work of art.

As a great work is spontaneously inspired**, so are we thrown into the world after an equally irrational sexual impulse has had its way. From the chaos of conception we arrive, without clear meaning, purely for the sake of existence. Live your life like it were a work of art, is I guess one way you could go with this idea. Not sure, still working on it.

Thoughts in the comments section...

Nick Margerrison

* And they've probably written better versions of this little article themselves. They are people with a remaining sense of the ineffable about them. Those who recall the fact that we do not understand the world and cannot measure some things in life. The ones who think that purpose and function are only part of the riddle of human existence. Who remember dreams and wonder.

Reality is optional to these people. They use "artistic license" to bend the rules of their lives. They occasionally ignore reality. However, the best of them never ever waver from the truth. They are artists. Discordians, Erisians.

** Inspired effectively means, inhaled. It used to be thought that God's essence was in the air and you drew it in with a deep breath.

142 - Contains the answer

Dwarf planet Ceres:


Pastor Jimmy Glover appears to have passed away:


Martin Creed is here:


The Flying Spagetti Monster:


Todd Robbins is here:


Follow me on Twitter, I'm planning to do another "phone in" section soon:


Or you can go on the Facebook page: which is an automated service that repreats the tweets.




Check out this episode!

Don't watch the BBC? Pay up anyway.

BBC bias explained in a single image
The linked to article at the bottom of this entry explains how there are plans for the BBC to charge every household in the UK for their services, regardless of whether you watch live TV or not.

As someone who has worked all their adult life in media I find this very disturbing. I've stuck mainly to commercial radio work but there are many great broadcasters at the BBC. It has bigger budget than any commercial media in the UK and pays the highest salaries by a significant margin so it can attract some of the best. I often wonder if those broadcasters are happy that their paymasters seem unconvinced there is another way of funding them? A subscription fee, voluntary donations, pay per view? The list is endless.

The current situation seems unfair. Poll taxes hit the poorest hardest. If you are fortunate financially £145 might not seem like a lot but don't fall into the trap of thinking your sense of the value of money is the same as those with less than you. Glib responses such as, "oh it's only the price of a loaf of bread each week" only serve to further highlight your ignorance.

An honest debate about the BBC is difficult within a circle of broadcasters and media types. Those who want to work there will accuse me of being bitter that I don't. Just as those who don't work there can assume those who do are only doing so to make easy money off a Government subsidy. As a result there's a veil of secrecy surrounding it. A sort of gentleman's agreement not to discuss it. 'Don't talk about that, it's my pension plan!'. Anyone working in the media knows the lion's share of the market is in the hands of the BBC and I used to avoid the topic for precisely that reason. Then the ghost of Jimmy Savile emerged and it became clear that money for silence over moral wrongs could have terrible consequences.

That's why these days I think the current arrangement has got to stop. Only poor people go to jail for not paying up. Surely only people who rely on that arrangement for an easy financial life think that's fair.

I found my very brief stint at the BBC to be the most morally confusing period in my career. I did a few cover shifts in local radio and could not escape a profound sense of shame throughout it. I'd failed and Her Majesty's socialist Government had won, went my thought patterns. What gave me the right to steal money off the public like that?

I've always thought that was why the organization as a whole has a "left wing" bias. A profound sense of guilt must pervade the buildings. Knowing that others have been FORCED to pay for their media lifestyles must grind, at least on a subconscious level. Surely no one thinks it's right that we're pumping money, that could be used to feed people's children, into the pockets of media "celebrities"?

How can anyone seriously defend the organization given the extent to which it covered for Jimmy Savile? Quick reminder, they wanted to SPIKE the story about him being a pedophile. Not, knock it back and leave it until later but squash it entirely.

For that alone the BBC's funding model should be forgotten. It does not provide what it is supposed to, an independent media. In truth we have an organisation which calls Her Majesty The Queen "famously frugal". It serves those in power and punishes the powerless for the crime of not having a spare £145. Sell most of it off to the private sector. Use the advertising generated to stimulate the economy. If we have to pay for a state broadcaster it should focus only on honest factual programming. This could include news journalism.

Comedy, soap operas and game shows are already provided by commercial companies. In our culture such things are practically ubiquitous. There's no need to fund more with a poll tax. The party is over.

Nick Margerrison

Related tweets from media people on my twitter feed:

BBC licence fee alternative should be paid by everyone – even if you don't watch TV

Would you let someone microchip your kid?

Years ago conspiracy theorists warned that there was a secret plan underway to microchip the earth's population. I first heard this in the late 1980's, when it sounded like pure science fiction. Now, as I've documented in this blog[1], the idea is being pushed to the public through the mainstream media.

This week's issue of "That's Life!" magazine has the idea as a fun little talk topic:

They prepared the way for this, and presumably sourced their contributors, with a piece on their Facebook page:

Some of the comments there are fascinating. This is a debate which will come to you in your lifetime. These are the sorts of things people will say. What do you think? When the time comes, will you microchip your kids? How will you deal with the social stigma of not doing so?

As the first national UK radio show host to have put this topic on air for debate, many years ago now, I think it's frustratingly difficult to mount a counter argument to the microchip agenda. There are lots of reasons why it would be practical. However, I will never willingly accept a microchip. Never. I don't trust them. Not one bit.

Remember, this idea is not new. It's fairly reasonable to think it has been in the works for some time. However, if that's true, the only people really powerful enough to have planned and executed this sort of thing are not likely to be what I'd call 'nice'. You don't generally become powerful in The West by just being nice. Most of our elites think invading countries and killing people is a good idea, cover for the likes of Jimmy Savile and think it's a good idea to protect and bail out banks[2]. This is the mindset which came up with the suggestion we should chip kids like cattle. The same mode of thought that can think drones flying around killing kids is ok.

In short: the West's most powerful people are precisely the last ones on this earth I'd trust to put anything at all into a child.

Nick Margerrison

[1] Barclay's payment gloves: The Microchip Agenda

[2] What's wrong with bailing out banks? Banks take money from those who need it to give to those who have it. They are the precise opposite of Robin Hood. To think our taxes should have been given to them so we could borrow our own money back with interest is only nice if you work for a bank.

141 The real matrix and the Illuminati's secret rituals

Anthony Peak can be found here:


Josef Wages' interview is 1hour 14 minutes in.

The book he's talking about, "The Secret School of Wisdom" is available here:


NikiTruedawn is the tweeter who has launched a blog explaining how their conversion to Discordianism is going:


The video clip I go to is here:


The music is from @QuislingMeet

I tweet here:

And you can find our Facebook page here:


Don't forget to subscribe!


Nick Margerrison.


Hail Eris!

All Hail Discordia!

Check out this episode!

140 Runesoup's Gordon White and John O'Sullivan

Gordon White regularly writes here:

John O'Sullivan is here in his guise as Newsagent Provocateur:


Here's Peter Obourn's resignation letter:


And here he is being interviewed:


The music comes from Decadent Marsupials, their soundcloud here:


They also feature the talents of @QuislingMeet


My Twitter is here: @nickmargerrison

Check out this episode!

Follow by Email