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

149 - The Godfather of British Comics. Pat Mills


Pat Mills is on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Mills

 

He mentions this book, here, The Cosmic Pulse of Life: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Cosmic-Pulse-Life-Revolutionary/dp/1585091154

 

If you're new to Pat Mills's work a great place to start is the relatively recent Slaine - Books Of Invasions: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Slaine-Books-Invasions-Moloch-Golamh/dp/1904265820

 

Here's the video I mention in the little rant at the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraMsuD7Y0c

 

The rant was initially posted on my audioboo here: https://audioboom.com/boos/3095655-my-thoughts-on-eddie-izzard-telling-people-to-vote

 

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: http://www.ironbootscrapers.com/

They're called The Iron Boot Stompers and the track you hear of theirs is lifted (with permission) from this page here: https://theironbootscrapers.bandcamp.com/track/glad-to-start-again

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: http://www.paparty.co.uk/
They tweet here: https://twitter.com/self_rule

37 minutes in - A Libertarian Rebel tweets his world view here: https://twitter.com/A_Liberty_Rebel
The political compass thing he mentions is here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Glynn, our first caller, tweets here: @glynhardy
He mentions The Disclosure project, which is here: http://www.disclosureproject.org/

Jon, our second caller, tweets here: @Dyonn

And mark tweets here: @1CC1_36006

Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!
23

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?

NM

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:

SPIKED ONLINE:
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.



Follow by Email