Direct link to twitter: www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison
Direct link to podcast: http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/
Or click on the massive iTunes button to subscribe to the podcast...

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes

thecultofnick

116 - Jon Gaunt and Greg Carlwood


Jon Gaunt is the chap I've been working on FUBAR Radio with over the last few months. He tweets here.

 

Greg Carlwood's The Higherside Chats is a great listen. We share a few listeners in common. He tweets here.

During the discussion we mention a chap who has strong views about "New Age" psychedelic thinking. His stuff is here.

 

Then there's Quisling Meet, they are here.

 

NM


Check out this episode!

Who is responsible for terrorism?

Who is responsible for terrorism? Terrorists. Who did you think? What, are you an idiot? It's an obvious trick question. Perhaps I'm being mean, this trick question has stumped many, many "great minds" for many years but the answer really is that simple.

The man in this picture who is about to hack a journalist's head off, he is responsible for what he does. Not society. Not you. Not anyone else.

I remember laughing at the pathetic excuse used by Nazi war criminals when told about it in our history lessons. They were "just following orders". I'd have been in secondary school at this point. It seemed absurd to me that anyone could claim that as a defence. "Why did you steal chocolate from the corner shop?" asked my parents. The bigger boys told me to do it, was a useless excuse. My parents were too clever for it: "if 'the bigger boys' told you to jump off a cliff, would you?". Damn, why were responsible adults so clever?

Personal responsibility is the bedrock of adulthood. If we lived in a society of adults, who were in control of their lives, it would not need explaining.Who is to blame for suicide? The person killing themselves.Who is responsible for crime? Criminals.Who is responsible for you and your life? You are. Currently we do not live in such a society. Instead we live in country where childish lies are pushed to us by sinister people who want to control everyone.

This is because were people to universally understand, admire and practice the concept of personal responsibility we'd be very difficult to control. None of us would be able to look blankly on and shrug as they did the wrong thing on behalf of someone else. Those who want to control you prefer you to just follow orders. A nation with a deep sense of personal responsibility for all they did would be less easily led.

That's why the notion of personal responsibility is so rarely advocated by our so-called leaders. That's also why I think you have a responsibility to preach it.
Previously in the UK our version of the Christian religion carried an version of personal responsibility. It didn't matter what excuses you had up your sleeve, God was going to hold you to account after your life. In practice this would, on occasion, make the population difficult to manage. The pacifists in World War One, largely inspired by Jesus's non-violent example, are a classic example.


The Deserter by Boardman Robinson, 1916

This might explain why the belief system pushed by the establishment these days is "rationalism". Currently we lack a fully developed understanding of human consciousness. Enthusiastic rationalists often ignore this and assume people to be like complex computers, programmed by our past experiences and custom designed by our genetic make up. In this world view our past dictates our future.

"You are not responsible," goes the argument, "your tough upbringing and bad parents are". This is great news for those who wish to lead you. It swiftly abolishes the notion of 'free will' and allows all sorts of people to assume responsibility from others.

However, reality seems to have a different point of view. People are not nearly as rational as our leaders would like us to think. Perhaps this is why collectively we are not easy to control and no matter how many times the notion of individual responsibility is stamped upon it keeps re-emerging in different forms. I think this is because personal responsibility is a universal fact of the human experience. In real life, if the bigger boys tell you to jump off a cliff, reality makes you responsible for that decision.

So too, if you hack a journalist's head off, you're the one who is responsible for that. Not your religion, your mates, your tough upbringing, The West or anything else. You. You did it.

NM

Why I dare question C.N.D


Being outside "the box" is a terrible curse, if you are insecure and anxious to be accepted by a herd. However, in my opinion group-think is a cancer which has rotted the notion of personal responsibility in the minds of many. "The box" is a prison where others do your thinking for you. These days I always feel most comfortable when people are unable to put me in one.

In the 80's I grew up terrified of the possibility of nuclear war. Foolish world leaders driven by childish[1] greed and petty concerns could destroy the world at a moments notice. There were adults around me who thought the same and so C.N.D. signs were common. Life was simple, the dominant narrative suggested, all we had to do was convince "the baddies" to "give peace a chance" by getting rid of the bomb.

Notice the terminology here. Anyone who opposed my 'noble cause' was a baddie. You don't sit and negotiate with Darth Vader, "Han Solo shoots first", to coin the phrase[2]. In fact it's important not to even listen to Darth, who knows what powerful Jedi mind tricks he can pull. Just grab your blaster and destroy. If you disagree with my premise but have gotten to the end of this third paragraph I commend you. Most people in "the box" shout down those who question them and refuse to debate.

Back to the 80's. In my mind back then we lived in a world where either the USSR or the USA might shoot first. As I was sat in my "lefty" box at the time I generally assumed it would be "the stupid Yanks" who would do this. What idiots they were, they thought that nuclear weapons would end the cycle of World Wars we were emerging from. The idea was that nuclear weapons were so terrible no one would use them again. "As if", we shot back dismissively. Clearly, World War Three was round the corner, it was about to happen any minute.

Then, it didn't. There was no World War Three. There were lots of wars, sure, but neither my Dad or I was conscripted like my poor old Grandad had been. My Grandmother remembered a world where our country faced another one which was prepared to flying planes over it and drop bombs on us. That world had gone. It was replaced with one where the wars we fought seemed mainly to be with countries who did not have nuclear weapons or the ability to fight back. Strangely the "superpowers" seemed far more comfortable messing with people who couldn't destroy one of their capital cities at the push of a button.

The C.N.D. argument sort of shrank and was morphed into a convincing suggestion that stopping less responsible "rogue states" getting nukes was the way forward. Whether they like it or not it's this 'common sense' that Bloodthirsty Blair[3], a prominent C.N.D. member, tapped into with his "weapons of mass destruction" nonsense.

I call it nonsense because, if you remember, almost at the same time as Iraq, North Korea happened. One of those nations has nuclear weapons, the other didn't. One was shot first, without mercy, by the likes of Tony "the lefty" Blair and the other was not. One lot now has families who live there and hate this country, because we killed their loved ones, the other doesn't.

In other words, the "M.A.D"[4] idea that no nation would risk war with a nuclear armed country held out. The facts supported the theory. The 90's became a period of relative peace, for people who lived in countries with nukes and did not get seduced into joining the military. It seemed that we'd reached "the end of history". So much so that in 1994 Ukraine actually gave up its 2,000 nuclear weapons as part of a treaty signed by the US and the UK. Everyone promised to respect their territory and so, why did they need nukes? Only people who were mad needed them.

Nick Margerrison

Further reading:

Too Bad Ukraine Didn't Keep Its 2,000 Nuclear Weapons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/too-bad-ukraine-didnt-kee_b_5235374.html

Footnotes:

[1] Bit of fun for podcast listeners. Pesky Law of Projection eh? I was a kid, I thought the people in power were as well. Funny eh?

[2] The 'Solo shoots first' meme is a cracker. In the original versions of Star Wars Han would always shoot first and ask questions later.


CRIMINALLY Lucasfilm has tried to correct this in subsequent edits:



[3] I feel deeply betrayed by Tony Blair. I feel he lied to me and my generation. Perhaps it's unfair to personalise it, he's part of a system and bureaucracy that did that. The New Labour Order's lies predate him and he's not integral to the story. His name "Bloodthirsty Blair" is maybe unfair, who knows what drove him to push the war in Iraq. His membership of "Labour C.N.D." is well documented. I wonder if, when people from that organisation read this, the nickname I've chosen for him will fit as far as they are concerned?

He's been given far more peculiar nicknames. According to this article here, friends of his used to call him "Miranda".

[4] Mutually Assured Destruction, or "M.A.D." as we 80's peacemakers used to delight in abbreviating it to.

Comments encouraged.


Many a true word spoken in jest.

Armies of twenty-somethings have media degrees and no broadcast industry to work in, outside of the BBC. In the long term this will be a good thing because we're in the middle of a communications revolution. The ability to communicate with lots of strangers is likely to be useful. As with the industrial revolution I suspect our nation will ultimately "export" to global markets. We're well placed to do so with media "products". English is a widely spoken language. Once we start understanding the fact that "the world" is our potential audience we'll cut our cloth to suit and be on to a winner. Time will tell, I'm an optimist.

However, in the short term there are lots of kids who think their only real chance of earning a crust is to suckle on the teat of state patronage. The BBC's funding model has proven to be far more robust than anything in the commercial media world. Advertising revenues are more elusive than ever before and commercial media has been hit very hard by this. Local newspapers and radio have been decimated in most markets. National commercial media is struggling, pay has dropped to near zilch and even Murdoch is closing down newspapers.

The irony of this situation is the commercial media has to pretend to have lots of money and project an image of success in order to turn a profit. Advertisers will always pay as little as possible. If your desperate for their money they will realise this and subsequently work out a deal where they pay even less. If you seem to have a huge queue of people anxious to buy air space they will pay a higher price and your outfit is therefore more able to feed and clothe the people who work there.

The BBC is totally different because they are funded by a system that gets money with threats and menaces. In short, if you don't pay their poll tax men with sticks will arrive to harrass and possibly jail you. This produces far more millionaires than commercial media ever can. It is resistent to advertising revenues and the UK's fluctuating economy. In terms of a nice little earner for someone with media skills it's a safe bet.

However, in order to protect this system the BBC has to endorse two key lies. Firstly it has to pretend that commercial media pays over the odds and that the poor little BBC is underfunded by comparison. Secondly it has to pretend it is impartial, which of course no one is, or ever can be.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. The UK should keep its nukes. There's an argument that we should be noble and get rid of them because they're useless. This misunderstands the nature of a threat and deterrent. Click on this tweet to see how CND respond.
Our politicians suck our wages out of our pay packets each week. They lord it up in houses like this. And people wonder why I can't stand them.

Nick Margerrison.

115 Cultural exchange


Music from Quisling Meet, aside from the cracking live version of "Tony Bucking Flair" right at the end from Mirrorkill. The two bands are out gigging in the North at the moment. The crowds are growing with each performance.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQD1dT6b5sQ

The above is the 8 bit theme for Star Wars which I use in the piece at the end of the podcast, where I read this: http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2014/02/13/star-wars-an-open-letter-from-a-death-star-architect

 

The Higherside Chats we get menitoned in is here:

http://thehighersidechats.com/thc-121-adam-gorightly-discordianism-operation-mindfuck-famous-tricksters-of-the-counterculture/

 

The BBC's Kate Adie report on the massacre is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

"Tell the world they said"

 

I also use a clip from this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YAYAUtdod8

 

My contributor's name is deliberately withheld.

 

Nick Margerrison


Check out this episode!

Follow by Email