U.S. to Instigate Regime Change ..... in the UK?

I'm very serious on this. This is a warning. 

Plans are being drawn up in the Pentagon to invade the UK and instigate proper democratic elections and sort out the political mess instigated by the Blair government.

Such is the strength of feeling in the U.S. military over the Chagos Islands debacle and the uncertainty caused by the UK government, that there is a very real risk that the U.S. will carry out it's plans.

It's helped by the fact that the UK air, sea and land forces couldn't protect a paper bag. 

But there may come a day when several dozen C-17 transports fly into bases in the UK and start stockpiling Armour, eventually flying in the manpower to work those weapons. 

Just keep an eye out for the U.S. saying they are conducting a rapid response exercise, or the supply of weapons to Ukraine, but stopping in the UK to refuel rather than Frankfurt. 

The UK government is really, really, clueless. They have made an enemy of a massively armed ally. The U.S. regime consider the UK government inept corrupt and ideologically aligned to the Communists. Starmer is a serious Marxist, as are most of the cabinet. 

I'm reminded of the Communist and Marxist Governments of Italy in the 70s. Ideologically captured and unable to work outside that ideology to do what is necessary to save the country.

The U.S. needs a strong UK. It needs a Christian UK. 

The other thing that is concerning the U.S. regime is the rise of Muslim ideology, in a country that has a serious nuclear arsenal. 

An invasion and regime change now would save a lot of problems later on. There's no way a Christian government would resist like a Muslim one. In fact there's a chance a Muslim country could instigate a nuclear exchange.

Better to get in early and sort shit out before it gets messy. It also sends a message to European countries led by spineless governments that don't care if they go Muslim: this is what will happen to you. France, being a nuclear power is the prime example.

Anyway, I will be at the gates of any US air base offering my services to any invasion force. I know what's good for my country. The ideology in government in the UK at the moment is not it.

I'm Not a Conspiracy Theorist, But I have Questions For the Climate Lobby.

More and more, I wonder what the actual goal of the Net Zero climate bollocks is. Because if the aim was actually net zero, then we would be investing heavily in carbon free power generation that could actually match the requirements of the country. 

The few nuclear power stations we have in the country are consistently producing baseband power for the country, consistently producing between 10-20% of total energy demand.

Strangely, Biomass has taken the place of coal and is producing just a bit less than nuclear. Of course we can't have coal anymore, we now have to burn the wood before it becomes coal, by clearing massive areas of forest to supply the demand. Yes they get replanted, but it can take decades to regrow. What happens to the wildlife in those areas of forest that is stripped of trees to fuel the Biomass plants?

You see the question I have, is if the environmentalists don't like nuclear because of the waste issue, then why not have tidal power? If their objection to tidal power is the devastation of habitat for wading birds, then why don't they have the same objection to the devastation of wildlife caused by hacking down forests?

Why don't they have an objection to wind turbines that hack birds out of the air? Or the issues around disposal of wind turbine blades? 

To me, there is the whiff of hypocrisy around the whole climate cause. IF the objective was the reduction of CO2, we wouldn't be burning billions of tons of natural gas every year. IF the reduction of CO2 was so essential and so desperate, then there would be a worldwide efforts to eliminate CO2 production TODAY. The United Nations would be putting huge pressure on countries like China to close their coal fired power plants.

IF the reduction was so essential and so desperate, we would be offered carrots to convert. There would be subsidies at the point of use to modify houses so that they were suitable for heat pumps. There would be huge subsidies for people to buy and run electric cars. There would be a huge nationally owned company upgrading the electricity grid and installing a substantial charging network.

Instead the subsidies go to the electricity generators. We are paying extra on top of the price of the energy in green levies. But hang on, that was only supposed to kick-start the green industry because 15 YEARS AGO WHEN THE GREEN LEVIES WERE INTROCUCED, the technology was expensive and not mature enough to produce energy cheap enough.

Back in the Blair and Brown days, over 14 years ago, the green tariffs were introduced to help the fledgling renewable energy production industry. That's a long time ago.

But now, 15 years later, haven't enough renewable wind turbines been installed to provide reductions thanks to economies of scale? Surely after 15 years of continuous energy generation the technology must be cheap enough to be able to be profitable without subsidies?

Surely, after 15 years, if the technology isn't mature enough, or cheap enough to stand on it's own feet and not require subsidies, then it's not a suitable technology? How much longer must we keep paying extra for our energy? If it doesn't need subsidies any more, why are we still paying them and who is the money going to?

If we are still paying subsidies, if the climate lobby are picking and choosing which environments they are happy to destroy, if certain technologies are favoured as opposed to other similar technologies, if governments are happy for us to continue producing CO2 but pay a fine, if Western governments are happy for China to keep building coal-fired power stations, that to me smells of political ideology , political activism, instead of actual environmental concerns.

Bye Bye Nissan

It's being reported that the merger between Nissan and Honda is now off the cards, after negotiations broke down.

It was reported at the time that Nissan had about 6 weeks at most of time to negotiate a rescue package, otherwise it would go to the wall.

So it seems Nissan have taken the decision to fold instead of continue as part of a group of companies. 

I've never owned a Nissan, so I don't have first hand experience of their vehicles, but they made some cool vehicles. The Skyline/GT-R for starters, plus the Z-cars and other sport coupes like the 200SX and even the lardy 300ZX.

Some funky vehicles like the cube and Figaro.

20 years ago they made worthy and reliable cars that quickly became pensioner favourites. People of a certain age will remember people of a certain age driving the Bluebird and the Primera.

But things went awry. The relationship with Renault soured a pristine company. Their cars seemingly no longer built for reliability. You don't put up with cheap plastics and hideous designs like the later blobby Micra models if the thing is unreliable. 

Design went down the toilet. Not only with technical reliability, but with design disasters like the Juke.

The Qashqai was at one time the best selling car in the UK, but oh my god, it's a bland piece of design. The only things that made the Qashqai the sales giant it was, were the finance and leasing deals Nisan used to shift the things. That's the French influence right there: concentrate on the finance and not the cars. The cars are a means to a finance deal.

Nisan had other fundamental disasters like the chassis rust  and folding chassis issues with the Navara and Pathfinder thanks to using cheap steel for fabrication.

Issues with the Diesel engines also plagued certain models, but to be honest, that's the same for other manufacturers that have tried to keep up with impossibly strict emissions regulations.

Even when Nissan embraced the new electric car revolution, they stumbled. The Leaf was one of the early electric models from any manufacturer, but it was built down to a price. The lack of heat management of the battery meant the battery failed earlier than those that did have thermal management. 

Under the leadership of Carlos Gohsn, (the CEO who eventually got smuggled out of Japan in a music case) which started in 2001, Nissan went from worthy to washout. The GT-R was the last technical tour-de-force, but as the noughties progressed, the projects that were started before Gohsn came and went. What followed were pretty poor shadows of the reliable models that went before.

Nissan as a company stared to slide. 

The tale is the same as with other Japanese car manufacturers that found themselves with issues in the early 2000s. They allowed the Western car manufacturers to buy stakes in the company, usually just under majority shares. The Western companies gave the Japanese companies "advice" on how to build cars cheaper and maximise profits. 

In almost all cases that ended up with the Japanese companies making an inferior product when it came to quality and longevity. 

20 years later, we are here. At the end, almost. Sad.