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

125 - Was The Discordian Society a CIA front?


Daisy Eris features. She tweets here: https://twitter.com/DaisyEris

Everything you need to know about her play is here: http://cosmictriggerplay.com/

 

Adam Gorightly makes a welcome return. He tweets here: https://twitter.com/AdamGorightly

His excellent website about Discordianism is here: http://historiadiscordia.com/

 

The music comes from The Decedant Marsupials, a collection of the Discordian members of @QuislingMeet and @Mirrorkill

 

I tweet here: @nickmargerrison

 

All of these messages have been approved by The Discordian High Church, of which I'm the fifth Pope.

 

The Discordian International Council of Knowledge has requested that we make it clear that the answer to this episode's question, in accordance with both the law of fives and the apple of uncertainty, is a firm maybe.

 

Finally, a message from Eris D, transmitted from the very Sirius star. Discordia has insisted we make it clear that religion is a work of fiction. Names, Gods, places, and events are the product of the Goddesses imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, places, or deities are purely coincidental.


Check out this episode!

No need for new laws on trolls

Threatening behavior is already illegal in this country. If someone says they are going to rape you or murder you they are breaking our nation's laws. That's why we don't need new ones to deal with an old problem. Anyone who suggests we do should be treated with extreme suspicion. They're either stupid or they think you are stupid.

Currently in the UK a farcical debate is being orchestrated in the media about internet "trolls". The narrative runs like this, "we need new laws to sort out 'trolls' who are saying awful things to their victims online". It's implied our Police are powerless to intervene as the net is "like the Wild West". All this despite people already having been jailed for online harassment because making threats is already against the law.
The last time I blogged about Agent Hopkins I was under the impression her act had run out of steam. I'm able to admit I'm wrong, that's kind of the point of being a Discordian. Full disclosure: since then I booked her to appear on a radio show I was producing and thought her contributions were excellent. Now though she's suddenly turned into marriage material. Listen to this interview:





I've been a forum user in the past. I don't go on them so much these days, they seem a little outdated by Twitter. On forums I'd tend to use an alias. I mainly went on conspiracy forums. Above Top Secret was one of my favourites. It's there I learned the definition of a troll which I refer to in the above tweet. To "troll" for a response on one of those forums was easy for me, I'm not convinced 9/11 could only have been an inside job or that aliens have had a series of secret meetings with the US president in the mid 1950s. Bingo! I'm a troll.

However, that's not what this debate is about. It's about the UK Government continuing its attempts to censor the internet. Something I have warned about previously. The technique they are using is called "boiling the frog". The idea goes that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

Last year (July 2013) I wrote in "#censorshipagenda":
They will gradually increase the temperature now as other parts of this particular campaign are ramped up, including the Leveson proposals, so-called Hate Crime legislation and banning people from being allowed into the UK because they dare to think or say the "wrong thing".
That's clearly part of this.

There are some things which transcend petty left wing or right wing politics and the "cult of celebrity". Free speech is one of them. Hopkins is bang on the money.

What worries me is that there's a clear tactic at work behind the scenes here. They are announcing "problems" which we already have laws to deal with. They are not enforcing these laws and then demanding news ones. Just as they did with Leveson. I blogged about this also:

"#censorshipagenda follow up article"

Why are MPs encouraging people who appear to have been the victims of crime to campaign for a new laws?

An early example of this is the Leveson Enquiry, about phone hacking, which was already illegal:
 
Leveson Inquiry: Ian Hislop says new press laws not needed
New laws are not needed to govern the press, Private Eye editor Ian Hislop has told an inquiry into media ethics. Practices such as phone hacking, paying police officers and being in contempt of court contravene existing laws, Mr Hislop told the Leveson Inquiry. He said the inquiry should examine why the laws were not rigorously enforced

Full story from The BBC. [my emphasis]

This is an area of concern for me because for most of my adult life I've earned a coin working almost exclusively in commercial radio. Less rigidly controlled than the "impartial" BBC the format I've always thought it does best has to be opinionated talk. Aside from my old employer LBC that's a dead duck these days. The reason for that is simple, Government regulation.
The myth of media impartiality, shamelessly pushed by the BBC, is deeply corrosive. It's a lie repeated so often that otherwise intelligent people have been hypnotised into believing it. All acts of communication have an implied perspective. How you define a term like "troll" is a good example:
To think that the Government is seeking to protect you from people saying mean things on the internet is absurd to me. If you have doubts though, check this article here about the so-called "porn filters":

http://margerrisons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/why-people-dont-like-porn-filters.html

Oh, and by the way, this blog is now classified as "extreme" by a number of institutions according to podcast listeners. Interesting times...

Nick Margerrison.

Angela Eagle #fail

Looking forward to Question Time
I've pretty much given up on Question Time on the BBC and tempted to give up on mainstream news altogether. These people are so full of crap. They pull tricks which may have worked in the 1980's but now look like the machinations of a five year old. Pictured above is Angela Eagle. She was on Question Time last night debating a misjudged comment by another odious twunt called Lord Freud[1].

Watch the exchange here:


It was posted on Guido Fawkes:
Angela Eagle assumed she would automatically carry the Question Time audience with her as they discussed Lord Freud last night. Instead the room turned on Labour, jeering and heckling, coming down on the side of the stitched up welfare minister:
One audience member called Labour’s position “extremely disingenuous”, another was applauded by the whole room for calling out their “hypocritical point-scoring”, describing them as “disgusting”. Another said “the smirk on her face” showed Eagle knew she was telling fibs. If Labour can’t convince even the audience of Question Time, it suggests their attack on Freud may not have cut through as well as they’d hoped…
MORE HERE.

I tuned in right after it had happened, the rest of the programme was dull. I only became aware of the exchange through Twitter. This tweeter sums up the mood perfectly:

Regular readers/listeners will know this is precisely the kind of exchange I have been expecting or hoping for, as the internet works its magick upon people's consciousnesses. They can spot spin. They are not stupid. And they are finding politicians easy to outwit.

After watching the video I was curious to see how Angela Eagle's twitter timeline looked after the embarrassing exchange. During it she looked like a kid being told off after someone caught them with a hand in the sweet jar. Maybe she'd have lots of support which she'd be frantically retweeting, I thought. Not the case.

I decided to tweet her myself.

I imagine, as she read the unsupportive tweet, her face looked something like this:

Why are our Sith Lord powers fading?
Then I got into a conversation with another tweeter who pointed out Angela Eagle could have used the moment as an opportunity to "evangelise" about the advantages of employing disabled people. This was, after all, something she claimed was part of the job of politicians.
When challenged to do this I do hope her face did not look like this:
No, they're not supposed to argue back.
I'm sure there are advantages to certain disabilities in some contexts. Empathy and wisdom can be useful skills. Also, it's such a catch all term. There must be advantages. However, I'm dyslexic, is that a "disability"? If so, what advantages it brings to an employer I'm not really sure.

The awfulness of people like Angela Eagle though is that they are not interested in the answer to the question. They are interested in power. They are interested in making other people feel small because they can't think on the spot what advantages there might be. That's why she f--ked up so badly on Question Time. People could see that.

Then a very interesting thing happened. Angela, rather than answer the question, retweeted part of the conversation without comment.


Generally, if you have a large twitter account retweet a potentially objectionable comment like that you can expect a bit of grief in your timeline. Unfortunately for Angela Eagle no such thing has transpired. It appears her followers were not unlike the Question Time audience. I imagine they saw through her attempts to stoke an overexcited and unthinking hate mob shouting "aarrgh, you hate disabled people". Turns out people aren't as thick as her kind thought.

She's clearly out of touch. She's been caught using disability as a political football. And she's failing to do what she said: explain the benefits of employing a disabled person.

Resign. You and all your "honourable" mates.

Nick Margerrison.

[1] Just let that sink in. We have Lords in this country. He's a "Lord". That's not a democratic term. We don't live in a democracy. Here's the definition of the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lord

Imagine someone telling you they were one of your Lords. You don't need to. That's what these people do all the time. They take your money, taxation, and tell you they are your Lords.

124 - Bit of brain food for you


After recording this I was delighted to discover an article by Russell Brand advocating an end to debt, here: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-exclusive-extract?CMP=twt_gu

The podcast features an interview with Dr Pete Yeandle, speaking about "White Poppies" and pacifism.

There's a rant about cannabis being legalised which features on my blog here: http://margerrisons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/new-research-into-cannabis.html

Bruce Friedrich's wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Friedrich

Tom Binns tweets here: https://twitter.com/tombinns

The music is from The Decadent Marsupials, a collection of all the Discordian members of Mirrorkill and Quisling Meet. It's from the session recorded specially for last week's episode.

Comments encouraged.

Check out this episode!

Question Time Reviewed 10th October

My reviews of Question Time used to regularly climb up the sidebar of my blog: 10 MOST VIEWED POSTS IN LAST MONTH. They were popular. Then, I stopped being able to do them. The reason for that was my absolute horror at the revelations relating to the CSA Inquiry. I always knew I hated politicians but the sheer awfulness of it all meant I couldn't actually watch it without getting very, very annoyed.

I suspect this is the last one I will review. It was pure luck, good or bad, that I ended up watching it. I hadn't planned to. The people on the panel are looking more and more terrible as time passes. I'm starting to wonder if I might become one of those who does not watch TV news anymore. It's a hard habit to break. A lot of my friends don't bother with it. Time will tell.

Eric Pickles was on.





An odd moment during the show came when a UKIP supporter stuck his hand up in what looked like a Nazi salute. He then held it like that during his answer. It seemed unintentional but was noticed by many on Twitter.




I think it was Jeanette Winterson, her wikipedia here, who mentioned the keywords "direct democracy". For reference this woman is an Oxbridge educated O.B.E. Unelected but powerful, thanks to the establishment. Her use of the phrase direct democracy was in reference to the debate about the NHS as I recall.
This in reference to the Lib Dem bloke who was wearing a crap pink shirt.

I could have said thumb head.
Or called him out as a Sontaran off of Dr Who

Writing this summary is worthwhile for me as a reminder, I need to stop watching BBC Question Time. It encourages all my worst character traits. All bets are off for me when it comes to politicians. The only things I don't advocate against them are lies (because the truth about them is bad enough) and violence. Normally I try to avoid being too cruel to people verbally but these characters, who live off stolen money, I feel they need to be reminded that they are held in absolute contempt by most of us

While I was producing Jon Gaunt on FUBAR radio I received an email from Owen Jones declining an interview request. It was clear from the email that he'd heard of me. I strongly suspect this is because of my blog and Twitter account. Politicians will be the same. After an appearance on Question Time there's no doubt in my mind that they will scan the #bbcqt hash tag to see how they did. Then, their egos probably drive them to read blogs like this one.
Well, in the event you do read this, any of you, let me tell you straight. You're on borrowed time. Not because a violent revolution is on the way but because the internet is going to render you obsolete. Your profession is becoming irrelevant. A revolution in the head is coming.

Which brings us to the simply awful Harriet Harmen.
I think the truth is, most people simply don't know what the PIE thing is. Many of my friends have learned, in the words of Orwell, that "ignorance is strength". They ignore the news deliberately because it's so awful.
The standard Labour line now, which all of them parrot off, is that any criticism of the NHS is therefore an attack on the staff. They always try to frame it as an attack on the lowest paid staff. It's pretty much their only response.
Then again, when you hear people who seem to think taxation and Government are not about profits and only evil coporations have greed inherent within them., you kind of feel glad you are watching it. If only to point that out how absurd that idea is.

It can surely only be ignorance that keeps the whole system going. I think that's why I continue to watch Question Time and tweet furiously, then stay up well past my bedtime writing blog posts. I keep hoping that more and more people, en masse, will realise the depths of depravity to which our political system has sunk. Then collectively we can look at why and how that has happened and fix it all. I'm probably being hopelessly naive, like all political idealists.


The picture below both illustrates my above point and acts as a link to a story which could set you on a path of discovery. Ignorance is strength to the individual but collectively it's very dangerous. The net filters information. Some of the revelations now in the public domain are still being sorted out. Harriet Harmen's days in politics though must now surely be numbered. 

Precise 45 degree angle nose.

It's amazing how "generous" these characters are with other people's money.
Cut our taxes? Nah, got to give your money away to people you'll never meet and don't know.
MPs will get 10 per cent pay rise, expenses watchdog says - Telegraph.


So there we are. That's all you need to know about Question Time. They're still awful people.

Follow by Email