The Diesel Dilemma

Trump is considering banning export of diesel refined in the U.S. and getting European countries to release their reserves of diesel, to keep the price down.

There's a BIG problem with that. 

Currently, Europe is in a proxy war with Russia. If Europe expends it's diesel reserves, that's reducing it's capability to run military vehicles. If the stocks are drawn down by any significant amount, Russia may consider it's worth a gamble to go the whole hog and go for all-out war with Europe, because Europe's ability to resist will be curtailed by the lack of fuel. 

Military tacticians know that logistics are critical: any shortages, even ever so slight, affect the ability the wage war fully. That hamstrings you and you lose. Napoleon and Hitler tried and failed due to lack of logistics.

Drawing down our reserves of Diesel significantly increases the risk of war with Russia.

Because Putin will seize upon a weakness and exploit it. It's like a new version of Red Storm Rising is being written.

Although, the U.S. supplied weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and there was never talk of war between Russia and the U.S. back then. Mind you, back then, we had strong leadership. They knew how to play the political game.

Nowadays, we have weak leaders, political pygmies who cannot compete with a political operator like Putin. We have leaders that want safe spaces, that cannot stand criticism, that stand almost as tyrants, jailing people for not following their ideological political position.

Basically, we're fucked. 

Europe's leaders will bow to pressure, release Diesel reserves, Putin will see an opportunity and all hell will break loose.

This dear reader, is the problem with globalism. When everything runs right, it's fine. But it doesn't have the redundancy required to work on a national scale. 

Every country needs to define certain industries as strategic assets and of national security importance. 

Steel production, water, power generation, oil refineries, distribution pipelines for gas and aviation fuel, are amongst those industries that absolutely cannot be offshored and offered up to globalist interests. 

The lack of refineries in the UK and of course the cost of the energy to refine crude oil in the UK has completely fucked up the notion of strategic reserves and strategic industries. We are reliant on supplies from other countries, who are in turn influenced by the prices they can get in certain markets.

American diesel is being put in tankers and sold abroad because the petroleum companies can get more money for their diesel outside the U.S. 

It would take an executive order banning the export of diesel to stop them exporting it. And of course it doesn't guarantee that production of diesel will continue. The refineries and companies making the money may just stop, if they're not making enough profit, or stockpile the diesel and not release it, until such time as they are able to maximise profits.

Markets are good when they work fairly. But an out of control, unbalanced global market like we have at the moment that maximises profits above all other considerations is an evil and immoral animal. It will literally condemn us to hell if it is allowed to continue. 

We need political will and power to sort the issues out with globalism. We are moving towards a time when we will need to put limits on globalism. We need to define certain things as off-limits to globalists. That's not to say to socialise things and have governments running industries. But we need certain industries to have certain rules and regulations, not to curtail, but to nudge. To keep them honest and working for everyone.

Fuel production: in-house, in the UK, not reliant on fuel from the other side of the world.

Water, strict regulations on pollution and sewage release and large punitive fines in the form of taxes on dividends. So it pays the companies to re-invest and avoid controversy. Profits and especially Dividends are maximised by being good and keeping clean.

Steel: we need diversified production, plenty of different steels available produced here in the UK.

Aviation: we need diversified production inside the UK and limited reliance on production from outside the UK.

Distribution networks need to be resilient. Power, fuel, water. We need to be able to move either around the country easily and have the ability to divert around breakages in the network.

Critically, we need the political will to go ahead will the above at the expense of global corporate profits.

Channel Migrants: New Update.

Now the boats on the French side have gone dark. 

You could excuse the UK boats, given the political sensitive nature of the migrant crossings. You might want to avoid the public knowing where the boats are landing, or how many times they stop in the channel, so you can't count the dinghies.

But what incentive is there on the French side to go dark? Unless the British side has put pressure on the French to make the crossings harder to track.

Why? 

The Foiled Attack on RAF Fairford USAF Base.

There are pictures circulating the internet showing the alleged terrorists being arrested. Someone seemed to get a drone up pretty quick to document things. That in itself smells fishy.

But I'm wondering about the attack. The men themselves look too well -groomed for your average illegal immigrant. Whether that's deliberate to fit in and cause confusion during the attack, I don't know. 

But it seems strange that what could be an Islamic attack would have purely African origins. Not a single man looked to be Middle-Eastern.

Could this be a false-flag attack? If so, by whom? Who would benefit from the attack? If created by the British, how would a group of African men help their push against the supposed "Far-Right"? 

Or would it help the Communists in power to sever ties with America?

If America, how would they use the attack?

I have a theory about the attack. I'm not going to share just yet. But I have blogged about it already. Fair play Yanks!

UPDATE: 

Unsurprisingly, the bombers have been allowed out of custody on bail. If my suspicions are correct, it'll be the last you'll see or hear of them. Either they will not be in the UK or alive to stand trial. And whoever they use for the bodies had better be a good match: the internet is watching. 

Migrants: The Cost Before They Enter the UK.

I've been looking at FlightRader24 more and more since I learned of the converted Dash-8 airliner that border force are using to overwatch the channel.

It did a 10 hour shift over the channel yesterday. I assume it had maxxed out its crew hours and possibly maintenance as well, because after it landed, a coastguard aircraft flew down from Hull to take over.

See here:

 

Note the time: 22:49. There are still UK assets flying over the channel at that time. 

Now, don't get me wrong, there may have been no dinghies, but it seems more than a little suspicious that the "rescue" vessels in the channel all withdrew. Because the dinghies full of migrants stopped.

Is Thursday night "Drug and Weapons Night". Because it seems a bit sus to just suddenly stop after a number of days sending dinghies across. The sea conditions were the same as before. But is this the night that the proper serious fast boats launch from France and drop their goods?

Are the surveillance aircraft working? Are they spotting migrants on the beaches and stopping them from getting to the water? Or is this an accord with the traffickers?

But if the answer is either of those, at what cost?

We are not only putting large boats out to sea on a regular basis to pick up the migrants, but we're also paying the French several hundred million pounds to stop the dinghies and at the same time we're running something akin to a military operation to surveil the channel and the French coast.  

Before the migrants arrive, before they are processed by Border Force, before they are housed during and after processing, before we go through the machinations of the legal system of claims and counter claims for asylum, before we count the cost of Policing the criminal activity the migrants are bringing to our shores. 

How much is all of this costing?

And if we really, really put an effort in and changed the law so that we just refused ALL asylum claims from ANYONE not using legal routes, how quickly would the dinghies stop and how much money would we save from not having to do all of the surveillance and "rescue" operations?

Conscription: A Flaw in the Plan.

I do wonder if the Government are really serious about conscription and if they have really thought it through.

Let me explain:

The government are going to recruit by force, a cohort of people that for the past 30 years the government have essentially abused. That cohort has been the last in the line for benefits of any kind, social housing, role models in media... you name it, the cohort have been browbeaten for decades.

But the government think it's a good idea to train this cohort up militarily and give them guns. Real guns. 

The government think they can manipulate the cohort into pointing the guns at the government's enemy. 

It's quite possible the cohort won't see the government's enemies as their enemies. As they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

The government may find the guns pointing back at them, much like the elites of Russia did in 1917. 

And as the government is quite obviously shitting it's pants at the recent events around the migrant crisis, especially the mental leaps it's making to jail Tommy Robinson and now Danny Tommo, I think the government are slowly coming to reaslise the reality now.

Luckily, for now, the irregular forces coming back from Ukraine haven't yet transferred their weapons expertise to the common man. But The more come back and share knowledge around cooking up explosives and weaponising commercial drones, you can bet your bottom dollar that issues will start to arise. 

I mean, it doesn't take much for a FPV drone carrying a couple of grenades to fly into the middle of the channel and dispatch a dinghy load of migrants. Or to convert an old jetski into a high sped floating Kamikaze weapon. The technology is readily available and the expertise is in Ukraine learning.

The government really need to start treating their working class better and providing opportunities for enrichment, rather than just a life on benefits. Because all it takes is one tech-savvy squaddie to come home from Ukraine and become disgruntled at their treatment and then you'll quite literally have a war on your hands.

Maybe that's the war the government is expecting and it's not war with Russia after all. 

Migrants: Is the Cost Really the Actual Cost? Is Something Being Hidden?

Yesterday/Last Night's migrant fiasco highlights something I suspect most people hadn't considered. 

The total cost of the operation. Not just the cost of housing the Migrants and feeding them or supplying them with benefits, but the costs incurred before they even set foot on UK soil.

Yes, there are the costs incurred in running the Border Force Boats out into the channel on a daily basis; the staff costs, fuel and the maintenance of these boats is not a cheap exercise. Believe me, I know!

But there are other costs: are the RNLI being reimbursed for their part in the water taxi operation? 

But then what is the cost of landing the migrants? Staffing, security, transport etc.

Well, lats night, we got an insight into the costs involved.

Local Councillor George Magwick posted on X a video of a huge convoy of several emergency vehicles including a large number of Police Vehicles and a few Ambulances escorting three coaches into Gosport for the original intended destination of last night's recovery.

Eventually, due to the large number of crowds turning up at the again, ill-conceived landing on the end of the Gosport peninsula, the boats carrying the migrants headed for the port of Dover, where the landing could be secured and controlled.

Next, as an example of how many of these crossings happen when the weather is right, today there were three obvious simultaneous crossings happening. Again, border force and the RNLI made their way out to the French boats at the halfway point.

However, today I checked an extra resource, Flight Radar 24.

Circling above at least two of the crossings was an aircraft. Not the previous small border force Britten-Norman Islander. Nope, this was a not insubstantial De Haviland Canada Dash-8 300 ISR aircraft.

Now, the operating costs of this regional airliner size aircraft must be huge.

Note that the aircraft information is not complete, I assume in an effort to disguise it's identity. 

The aircraft is on planespotters.net here: www.planespotters.net/photo/1660535/c-gfmx-uk-home-office-bombardier-dhc-8-315-isr

This is not a cheap to run asset. Imagine this aircraft is out circling above every boat passage reported by The French boats shadowing the dinghies. That's a huge additional cost.

This is a military-scale action happening almost on a daily basis. How is this sustainable? 

I'm sure the cost is hidden by spreading it out amongst various government departments, but when you see the figures for housing the migrants, just remember the huge operation that brings them here and processes them and transports them before they claim a penny from the government.

UPDATE:

It's now 20:11 and there is another boat transfer in progress between the Dungeness RNLI lifeboat and a French warship. The This is being circled by a smaller aircraft at the moment. Looks like the Dover lifeboat and fast vessel BSC Enterprise are involved too.

Management Mind Virus and the RNLI

The recent events in Portsmouth have highlighted the issue of the RNLI acting as a taxi service for illegal immigrants, ferrying them from boats that are not sinking to the shores of the UK.

But as you look further, it brings into focus the Management mindset, the corporate claptrap of the executive world.

For instance, the RNLI doesn't just save the lives of mariners around the UK coast. It's involved with international efforts as well. See here: https//:rnli.org/what-we-do/international

Most people I reckon wouldn't realise that an organisation set up primarily to save lives at sea round the UK coast would actually be spending money in Bangladesh and Tanzania, for instance.

Most people also wouldn't be impressed that the head of a charity would demand a six-figure salary. 

This is the corporate bullshit world, not the world of a charity that dotes on a chintzy local vibe, that the RNLI like to promote. 

You know as soon as the see links on a website that say "Sustainability" and "Modern Slavery Statement" that the organisation is captured by corporate bullshittery.

I hate to say that there's more than the whiff of Common Purpose Marxist Ideology about this, but I'm afraid there is. This is an ideology that has captured a huge amount of the corporate world.

I mean, what purpose does a modern slavery statement serve in the modern world where there is no slavery? Modern or Traditional. 

Dig deeper and click on the link, you get the title and opening paragraph quote:

"RNLI statement on the elimination of modern slavery and human trafficking

This statement is for the year ending 31/12/2025. The RNLI has zero-tolerance toward slavery and human trafficking and does not accept modern slavery in any form. In our operations and supply chain, we work with partners and suppliers to ensure compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the Act”) and the updated 2025 statutory guidance."

Rather ironic, given the RNLI are effectively trafficking humans into the UK or at the very least, forming the last link of a human trafficking chain.

And even more ironic that other than the mention in the title and the opening paragraph, human trafficking doesn't get another mention. No details on how they are preventing human trafficking, anywhere.

You'd think that an organisation that "does not accept modern slavery in any form" and has "zero tolerance towards slavery and human trafficking" would avoid transporting people that had been trafficked to the English Channel. It would avoid delivering people that had been trafficked and at risk of being used for human slavery (for instance being locked into Cannabis farms to tend to the plants) would avoid the political minefield of the migrant boats.

You'd think the RNLI would require clear confirmation that lives were at risk and that the migrants being rescued were not part of a human trafficking organisation or subject to modern slavery once in the UK before committing resources to the channel. But no, corporate bullshittery means the statement on the website mans absolutely nothing and is more of a virtue signal than an operational requirement.

The men on the dinghies, shepherded by the French coastguard and attended by Border Force vessels  in a calm sea are not at risk and do not require the attendance of an RNLI lifeboat. 

But the corporate bullshittery around the boats says that the immigrants are in desperate straights (despite already being at sea for a few hours without sinking), are vulnerable (despite two French ships being in attendance), are at risk of drowning (despite the French coastguard giving them lifejackets) and the RNLI must at once be committed to launching and "rescuing" the immigrants. 

On Sunday night both the Bembridge and the Yarmouth long range offshore lifeboats launched along with a number of inshore boats and committed to the operation off Calais. 

That decision left the Solent and a large area of the English channel without inshore and offshore lifeboats. What would have happened if a yacht in that area got into difficulties at the same time the RNLI were attending? 

Thankfully, we didn't have to wonder. But it just shows the priorities in play of the organisations involved. 

To be clear, here's a timeline of Sunday's events via A.I.:

The Sunday Launch Track & Incident Details

Launch Time: The Bembridge all-weather lifeboat launched from its slipway at 10:11 AM on Sunday. It was closely followed by the Yarmouth RNLI lifeboats around 10:26 AM. [1]
The Route: The lifeboats were tasked by HM Coastguard to intercept an exceptionally large migrant vessel carrying roughly 140 to 160 people. The vessel had departed from the Baie de la Seine in France (near Normandy), an unusual starting point roughly 170 miles from the typical Calais route. [1, 2]
The Interception: At approximately 12:34 PM, the UK lifeboats met up with the vessel and two French rescue ships (Amiral de Tourville and Abeille Liberté) about halfway across the Channel. [1]
The Return Track: After taking the individuals aboard, the RNLI lifeboats tracked back toward the UK mainland, arriving at the Langstone Channel near Portsmouth at 5:11 PM to safely bring the passengers ashore. [1]

Straight away the question is, if two French vessels were in attendance, why was there a need for the RNLI to ferry migrants to the UK?

The Admiral De Tourville is an all-weather lifeboat, very much like the Bembridge lifeboat.

The Abeille Liberté is a large high-rise rescue tug. 

Now, for me, the tug is big enough to deal with the immigrants on it's own. Why were the RNLI called and why did they transport the 100+ immigrants to the UK? Especially with two French vessels in attendance capable of dealing with any rescue required. 

Considering that the operation was in international waters outside of the 12 mile limit of UK territorial waters, why ferry the migrants to this side of the channel?

I think we all know the reason.

And it has to stop. 

Postscript: Part of the A.I. mentions an "exceptionally large migrant vessel". I assume that's taken from an official statement somewhere. If so, what does that say about the reduction in small boat crossings being crowed about in the media?

Do we now have to request how many exceptionally large vessel crossings have been made instead?

Are the number of small boat crossing down because exceptionally large vessel crossing are up?

Portsmouth: NOT a new Route for the Traffickers.

Well, there was a bit of argy-bargy in Portsmouth last night, Eastney to be precise. 

After the French Police had closed down the beaches closest to Britain, the traffickers tried a new route from the Cherbourg peninsula. 

Except this isn't a new route. 

I've documented before that I've personally seen strange small boats arriving in Langstone harbour at night. By strange, I mean not the usual boats you see if you live down at Eastney. And at one point I did virtually live down there as I had a yacht down there on a mud mooring. Anecdotal evidence of what those boats do when they eventually hit land at the top of the harbour is that men are bringing large heavy bags ashore and loading them into vans. Note they land at the top of the harbour, which is not on any of the Islands like Hayling or Portsea (Portsmouth) which have ANPR cameras on the limited routes onto the islands. Make of that what you will. 

Now what's in those bags, one can only speculate, but with crime comes weapons and drugs. Contacting the Police is pointless, because before you even get a response on the phone, the boats and the vans are gone.

So the route picked yesterday is a known route for the traffickers. They know how much extra fuel to carry to cover the extra mileage. This is no desperate slingshot across the channel. It has been done many times before, just not carrying people. 

Now, to the events of last night. 

Eastney lifeboat station is on the end of a peninsula served by just one road. It also has a pontoon for the ferry boat between Eastney and Hayling island on the other side of the harbour entrance. 

So the authorities made a bit of a strategic error getting the Bembridge lifeboat to land there. I see that there was time to get coaches to Eastney to pick up the illegal immigrants before the residents of Pompey closed the road. And set up tents. And supply care packages. Makes you wonder if the authorities already knew this was a trafficking route and had resources in place nearby, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.

Also the authorities underestimated the community spirit here. Plenty of people are motivated enough to turn up and protest, in numbers. And are quite happy to defy dispersal orders too. 

Also it seems that Danny Tommo's balaclava mob got the news via facebook and jumped on trains to Pompey from Dover to add to the crowd. Not that there's a shortage of balaclava-wearing blokes here in Portsmouth anyway. Also the Police had better watch out: Pompey lads are always up for a ruck. Heavy-handed Police tactics might backfire.

A word of warning to the authorities: Portsmouth is not the ideal location for this activity. It's an island city with only 3 roads onto the Island. As Portsmouth residents know all too well, those routes can quite easily be blocked and cause chaos across the city. There's more than one way to block the importation of more immigrants. And to prevent Police reinforcements from dispersing any protest. 

Just saying.

UPDATE:

After reviewing the videos on FaceBook from last night, I'm a bit confused. Basically the people of Portsmouth blocked the single road and the Police threatened to baton the protesters to clear the way. 

As I mentioned, this was an unsuitable place to land the immigrants. It was at the end of a peninsula, served by a single road. It was the first time the immigrants had been landed outside a controlled port area. Literally on the other side of Portsea Island was Portmouth Naval base. Why were the immigrants not landed there?

Considering the speed of the response regarding transport, tents clothing, etc. it has the hallmarks of a planned  exercise. After all, we are hours away from Dover by road, so the resources must have been housed locally. 

If it was a planned exercise, then the use of an unsecured landing area was planned. One thing I have learned since I came to Portsmouth is that it has a very close sense of Community. As soon as one person sees and hears the activity (many listen to Marine VHF as a matter of course, so would have known in advance what was going on) it was sure to start swelling numbers even just to see what was going on. 

I have a niggling feeling that this was orchestrated, to provide the circumstances to create the large protest and difficulties for the authorities, such that there would be a public order issue and therefore the dispersal order. Unfortunately for the authorities the crowd largely complied, avoiding the confrontation they desperately wanted.

Next time is going to be interesting. 

Why Conscription up to 65 Won't Work.

This weekend I turned 64. Rather than the usual trip up North to visit parents, as they have now shuffled off to join the Choir Invisible I decide to celebrate doing something different.

I went camping with the extended family. Kids Grandkids and the single great-grandkid. All in about 6 tents. 

But the weekend just hit home how stupid the recall of ex-military up to the age of 65 is. 

I was crippled. Just by sheer dampness. I mean, modern tents go up in minutes. A 4-berth inflatable tent like ours is up in 10 minutes and completely guyed out in 20.

Setting up inside takes a little longer, but prioritising the kitchen means you can be having a cuppa in half an hour. 

The bed inflates itself from the power pack, as do the chairs. 

Camping is not as hard as I remember it was back when I was a kid. 

But the weather beat me. My joints were racked by the damp. Not the cold. It was far from cold. But it was relentlessly damp.

If I was a 64 year old reservist deployed to some moist part of Europe, there's no way I could defend myself or my colleagues effectively. It would take me a couple of minutes to get up, let along dash to some muster point, or some fire pit ready to repel some foreign army. 

By the time my joints had complied with some semblance of flexibility without pain, we'd be overrun.

An that's the reason why Recall up to the age of 65 won't work, not for the military. There's a reason that you can pension out at an early-ish age. It's because your body can't do the things it did when you were in your twenties. 

I suppose you could be recalled and used here in the UK to fill logistics roles, or maybe some home defence type of role. 

But home defence? Using what exactly? 

It's just pie in teh sky. I don't know what the MOD were thinking, or smoking. But they should lay off it and come back to some for of realism.

TikTok: Why Do All the Crazes End Up Killing People?

Well, the question my Mum used to ask me has been answered: yes, there are a bunch of kids that will jump off a cliff if someone else told them to do it.

We had the Blackout craze, where kids choked themselves to unconsciousness. Kids were dying because they effectively hanged themselves.

One of the latest is the Benadryl challenge. A girl has already died after a fatal overdose of Benadryl.

Now the latest challenge is to drive up motorways or dual carriageways the wrong way. Basically a game of chicken. 

The thing that gets me is these are young adults. To get your licence in the UK you have to be at least 17. Yet you're still doing stupid TikTok fads at that age? <rolls eyes>

It was bad enough when it was the stupid kids offing themselves, but now we have a craze that will potentially kill other people. 

At that point, I think things have gone too far. 

Sadly I can't condone censoring TikTok completely, because it's mostly innocuous. But I do condone parents having the "would you jump off a cliff?" talk to their teenage kids. 

Because as it stands, there are a huge number of kids that would jump off a cliff if dared to. Or even just for likes on social media.

Not that you'd be able to enjoy your minute of social media fame if you are dead.

Pamphlet For Immigrants Released Asking They to Be Less Rapey, Amongst Other Things.

The Home Office has released a pamphlet designed to be handed to every immigrant that lands in the UK, giving them some idea of how we expect them to act once they are receiving our hospitality.

It includes pointers like:

Don't Harrass people.

Be less Rapey.

Be Less Aggressive.

Women are Equals.

You get the idea. Basically telling them they're no longer in Kansas... sorry the third world shithole they came from, and that we have standards they need to adhere to. Let's hope this eradicates the "Sorry, my client didn't know raping a woman was illegal your Honour" defence in rape cases.

<Shakes Head>

A.I. The Future is Terrifying.

First off, let me say that the current batch of Artificial Intelligence models are not that exactly. 

They are a neural network with a large language model that is able to scan the internet at rapid speed and collate the whole of the human experience (on the internet, with all it's flaws).

So you're not getting true intelligence, just through training the model which of it's assumptions are correct you train the neural net to be more correct than not. Eventually.

But it's interesting that such a basic premise: sum up the whole human experience online and offer answers to questions posed based on that gives you such a powerful tool.

However, it's quite clear that where the online information is missing, the various AIs crash and burn.

I'm not telling which area I posed questions to AIs, but I know for a fact that there is scarce information online about it. Every AI failed miserably to respond with any sort of response. 

The fact that people are considering such flawed engines should be involved in informing government how to perform it's task is to me hugely concerning. 

It is in no way equipped to deal with the variations of life, especially the unknowns that require a very alternative thought process to resolve. 

Currently what is known as A.I. relies on the reserve of human knowledge in order to inform any questions put to it. If you start asking about abstract ideas, it gives abstract or vague responses, or almost directly quotes philosophers. It does not decide on it's own what the future may be like, it parrots to majority viewpoint gleaned from the net.

And if this can outthink the thinkers, I hate to think what sort of thinkers we have currently. Pretty shallow ones, it seems.

Disposable Barbeques: COVID Part Deux.

And so it starts. It has been reported that a man in Wales has been fined £200 for using a disposable BBQ. In his own garden. On a table, off the ground. 

He was grassed up by his neighbours. I suspect they are the type of people that gleefully grassed up Anne Frank to the Gestapo.

But here we go again, it's the pandemic part two. More draconian measures. A national message sent to all mobile phones on a system that is designed to inform us of national threats like nuclear attacks. 

A ban on disposable BBQs is overkill. A simple announcement to not use them would be sufficient. 

A ban on using them is just draconian. Especially when you are using them in a manner that isn't a fire risk. Especially when using a different type of BBQ in the same exact circumstances is legal. 

I smell another experiment from the ex-government, now independent Behavioural Insights Team or GCHQ's classified nudge unit the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG). I mean, let's ban an innocuous thing like a BBQ. Yes, there are fires around the country, not all started by disposable BBQs, but ooooh, it's a scary threat we can ramp up and do another one of our experiments on. 

We'll issue fines for people using them even when a normal BBQ used in the same circumstance is not a finable offence. 

I mean, how can a fine be justifiable when the charcoal from a disposable BBQ can be emptied into a non-disposable one and lit and the fine can be avoided. It's the same charcoal, the same location.

But that's the BIT/JTRIG experiment: issue fines for nonsensical scenarios and see if the public comply. Not only that, note how zealous the public are to dob in their neighbours.

And I bet the results will still come back the same as COVID: the working class are less liable to dob in a neighbour, but the middle class will relish the sense of power and pride in a job well done. Especially middle class women.  You know the type, the ones that would have been at the front of the crowds at Nazi rallies shouting "My Honour is Loyalty". 

Anyway, BIT and JTRIG can do one after this week. Thunderstorms and flash floods on the weather menu this week. Should dampen any enthusiasm for using the bloody BBQs anyway. 

Of course the weather would break just before I'm due to go camping with the extended family. 

5 tents including the wife's ex (we hold no grudges). 

Step-daughter gets to try out the canvas mansion I bought her to house her family. Lets hope it's waterproof.

I'm just hoping the weather cools off a bit, and doesn't turn into a humid heatwave.

Is The Disposable Barbeque Really a Desperate Enough Problem to Ban It?

Considering the headlines today, you'd think disposable barbeques are teh spawn of Satan and are quite literally causing hell on Earth.

But are they? Reports say they are the prime reason for wildfires. But I know of at least two major incidents that weren't caused by disposable barbeques (yet the BBC list them on their fire map).

This week's closure of the A31 was due to a fire caused by a van catching alight. 

There A couple of months ago there was a major fire at a festival. Caused not by a BBQ, but by someone lighting a camping cooker in deep brush without tamping down the brush first to create a break. I know, because I know an eyewitness who watched the girl light the cooker and the conflagration start.

But hey, lets blame the disposable BBQ, the devil incarnate. Sadly you won't be able to use one to have a quick BBQ in your garden now. Instead you're going to have to go to the whole rigmarole of buying an actual BBQ, then buying the charcoal, etc.

Of course those of us bemoaning the ban must hush our mouths for the greater good, as with COVID, because the Government has become our parent and tells us not to.

It does make you wonder how many Psychopathic people with Daddy issues there are in the country, that they would allow the Government of all people to become a surrogate parent to them. There must be millions of adults from broken homes just wishing for that parental-style intervention, to set those boundaries for them.

Instead of what they should do and tell the Government to righteously Fuck Off with their Draconian Ban, like we should have during COVID.

How about telling the government to stop borrowing money to pay off it's debts? That's a fucking important message. Nope, BBQs are the most important issue of the moment.

And it's going to rain torrentially within the next 14 days, so brace yourself for flooding. Maybe the government will ban swimming pools and rubber ducks then.

I watched Some Interesting Videos This Week.

I watched a few interesting videos this week. 

The first was on Theo Von's channel and featured John Kiriakou as a guest. He was asked about 911 and if it was preventable and if America had prior knowledge. I have a lot of time for John, I like his analysis and he basically talks the talk. You can't get much more authentic: he was jailed for whistleblowing on illegal CIA activity. So provably CIA ands not some Walter Mitty wannabe.
The link is to a short clip from the video. I might watch the full video this weekend.

His answer ties in very nicely with my analysis. He mentioned the al-Saud connection and the funding of terror plots by high-level individual in Saudi Arabia. He did say that the CIA never got to interrogate the individuals, they all mysteriously died days after America flagged them up to the Saudi Government as persons of interest. So they couldn't be interrogated and implicate the Saudi Government?

But this is where it gets murky, because you have private individuals with immense wealth bestowed to them by the state, funding (supposedly privately) terrorist organisations that support the extremist Wahabbi sect of Islam (that is the Islam of Saudi Arabia). In John's words, there was no smoking gun. But you know that it's just a set-up to avoid a direct link between the Saudi government and international terrorism. That money won't be moving without approval from someone.

And that's where the link is with my story about the assault on the compound in Afghanistan that went a bit pear-shaped on the night of Operation Rhino, the parachute drop into Afghanistan.  I'm convinced the senior Taliban and al-Qaida figures that were at that compound were meeting with individuals from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and possibly one other Gulf state to discuss matters of funding and the impending political situation regarding America and the imminent arrival of ground troops in strength (special forces had been in Afghanistan for weeks prior).

I believe that's why the (normally lightly armed) compound was so well armed that and why the defence of that compound was so fierce. As the West train the Saudi army amongst others, I would love to talk to someone that was at the compound that night and hear if they got "Western vibes" from the fighters inside the compound.
It's still coming to light the number of casualties from that particular operation that night. Initially The Yanks said one person injured, the tally has now risen to half a dozen injured as the truth slowly came out. But the real figures on casualties have yet to be made public. 

But, it's nice to see correlation kind of leaching into the public domain. 

The second video was on Chris Williamson's channel, he interviewed Ex_seal DJ Shipley. DJ has some unorthodox ideas about the war with Iran and how to solve the Iran problem. It involves nukes. 

Which is my take on things. If I was PM, I'd be ruthless. The advantage of being a sociopath. 

Iran is a problem because the leadership is dispersed and hard to hit with conventional weapons. The only solution is to eradicate the leadership by eradicating whole cities. Do you want to win the war or not? War is fought using any means necessary to win. There is no second place, no compromise.

If I was fighting the war, I'd be dropping tactical nukes along the Iranian and Yemeni coast to eliminate the missile and drone launch sites. I'd drop a nuke on each launch site after they had launched. It removes the launch site and any supporting infrastructure and personnel around the site. 

If I'd been PM during the time of 911 and I'd found out that Saudi individuals flew the planes into the Twin towers and that Saudi individuals were financing the Taliban and al-Qaida? I'd be having a serious talk with the Saudi government on how it would be a pity if Mecca disappeared in a mushroom cloud. And that I would lose zero sleep over it's loss. 

I might not need to do it, but I'd make damn sure the person I was talking to believe I would do it.

Which make you think that's the game Trump is playing. Except I don't think the death cultists in Iran believe him, or are that bothered. They're continuously push the boundaries, as they always do. 

If I were Trump, I'd target something far enough away from civilians, something important to the regime. possibly one of their facilities to make nukes, or ballistic missiles. And I would nuke it. A small tactical nuke. Just enough to make the place unusable for a couple of decades. 

On Ann Widdecombe And The Leftist Hate

Ann Widdecombe's killing has opened a debate on the Right about online Lefist hatred.

Guido Fawkes Reported that Hope Not Hate have deleted a web page attacking her.

There are other very hateful pages still available to view in the online leftiverse. And I genuinely mean quite hateful of her opinions. That's the stuff posted before she was murdered. The stuff after is hideous.

It's this sort of article that eggs on the weak of mind to commit hateful acts. The articles are borderline incitement, calling her views monstrous, calling her a bigot, transphobe, homophobe, etc.

She was opinionated, sure. Her religious beliefs guided her opinions and she was quite firm on them. But although she didn't agree with Gay Marriage, she still interacted and worked with Gay people. She didn't exclude them because their opinions differed from hers.

But that's where sane people leave opinions and beliefs. They are just that. It doesn't stop them being friends with people that have differing opinions.

However, it's the insane left that want everyone to have exactly the same opinions and beliefs they have and want to eradicate everyone who doesn't. 

And it's that sort of worldview, where people with different opinions should be silenced, or cancelled, or worse that is becoming increasingly dangerous.

And you have to ask yourself: what motivates a man to get in his car, drive 300 miles to the house of an elderly woman he doesn't know, who's personal circumstances he doesn't know, and batter her to death.  Given that it takes several hours to complete the journey, where he must have had many opportunities to recant, turn back, calm down and understand the lunacy of his anger, what gets that anger stoked up to the level that a 4 hour drive isn't enough to calm you down?

The only answer is the toxic ideology of the online leftiverse. Some might argue the ideas on the right are toxic, but the left major in personal attacks rather than attacks on ideas or ideology. 

The right do not attack people individually. The left do, with such venom that people are now dying because of it.

Finally, because I don't think it's sane to infer that a man can be enraged for a full four hour drive and not go through the various scenarios outlined above, lets add a little conspiracy theory. There must have been a third party supplying intelligence on Ann's circumstances to the murderer. He must have known she would be alone, unprotected. He must have been given that information in advance. As an example, I live a lot closer to Ann's house than the murderer, but I couldn't tell you where she lived even though it's now been widely reported.

In special ops and intelligence, you go into an operation with as much intel as you can as up to date as you can get it. Even to the point of scrubbing if anything changes on the journey to the delivery point. 

Ann's murder is the same. All other concerns must have been taken care of, so the murderer could concentrate on the task at hand. So that rage could be focused over that car journey. 

So along with who stoked up the guy to a point he wanted to murder the target, who exactly was supplying that on-site information to the murderer? 

And as I type this, it's reported that Zak Polanski has been reported by Nigel Farage to the Police for incitement. Good. Leftist hateful incitement needs calling out and stopping.

Burnham...

I've just come back from a week in the Welsh Mountains. A house full of Kids and grandkids.

Enjoyed myself so thoroughly and was distracted enough not to worry about the King of the North becoming PM. 

The first impression I get is he's a phenomenal talker. He can charm the birds out of the trees. How else can you explain the financial drain of the Northern Number 10 being pitched as a positive?

I man, how much is it going to cost to move the Prime Ministerial entourage up there once a week? Is that a justifiable cost in the current economic climate? Is that something a prudent Prime Minister would set up when the country is on it's knees and borrowing hand over fist? 

Of course not.

The financial stability of the country isn't something the Socialist elites worry themselves about. 

Burnham's plans involve more spending, more borrowing and divvying out backhanders to the mates that helped him into Downing Street. Not much different than a Tory to be honest.

I have provisionally named him Burnham the money-burner.

The Big Sugar Tax/Sweetener Scandal.

Did you know that most "regular" soft drinks not only have sugar in them, but that the sugar content is increasingly being reduced in favour of (I assume cheaper to buy) sweeteners. So you may think you are drinking a soft drink sweetened "just" by sugar, but you're actually drinking a drink with some sugar and then sweeteners and in some cases the "sugar" version doesn't even have any sugar in it and instead has a sweetener like Sucralose.

Read on..

I have a big issue with sweeteners. Not a mental issue, but a real, physical issue in that if I have a drink with sweeteners, all sorts of bad things happen with my body's glucose response. Basically I taste a sweet product and my body releases insulin to combat it, but there is no sugar for the insulin to process. 

And that's just on the "good" sweeteners, like sucralose and Stevia. The bad ones like Aspartamine are a big no-no.

Obviously during this long hot spell, I've been turning to my usual summer drink: Lager Shandy. 

I always ask for the full-fat version of lemonade when ordering in a pub, although that option seems to be increasingly impossible to get.

But now at home, I can't avoid the damn sweeteners.

If you look at any full -fat includes sugar soft drink, you'll find that someone has surreptitiously included sweeteners in the mix. 

So why am I paying sugar tax (because I have to) on a product where the sugar is being cut with sweeteners? Either I pay sugar tax (because it contains sugar and by contains sugar, I mean NO SWEETENERS), or if I'm being forced to take sweeteners, I shouldn't be paying sugar tax.

This led me down a huge rabbit hole last night, whilst trying to find a non-sweetener soft drink in Tesco.

Those of us that are sensitive to sweeteners have found out ALL the soft drinks in the supermarket (apart from the organic ones) have been adulterated with sweeteners. And don't think the posh soft drinks in glass bottles are immune. Sucralose and Stevia present in the ingredients.

Call me a cynic, but it seems like a surefire way to make your body insulin resistant, by ramping up the amount in your body with nothing for it to do. Because your body tastes the sweetener and releases insulin to combat it. Do that several times over a lifetime....

Luckily for now, I've found a supplier of sweetener-free lemonade, albeit limited to 1 litre bottles. At least I should get a couple of pints of Shandy out of each bottle. 

I've yet to go back and do a thorough deep-dive. For instance are supermarkets charging more, or including sugar tax on non-diet soft drinks? Because of the sugar tax is required on products that supposedly contain no sugar. 

As an example, last night I found at least one lemonade that was labelled as non-diet or non-sweetener, that just had sucralose in it and no sugar. It was dearer then the diet option. So is this another case of supermarkets charging more for something that is basically the same product?

It bears some further scrutiny. Especially for parents of kids that are susceptible to issues caused by sweeteners. 

I'm not even going to go into the conspiracy that there's a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer. 

As I found out, finding a true sweetener-free option is now a huge mission.

Civil War: When the Cold War goes Hot.

I've posted the odd blog for a couple of years about civil war. Even before David Betz was plastered all over social media. 

The thing is, although we are in a de-facto civil war at the moment, we are now at a point where a faction is trying to gain political supremacy through effective blasphemy laws that would go even further than "just" blasphemy.

A law forbidding the criticism of Islam gives Muslims carte blanche to do whatever they like, because to criticise a Muslim is to criticise Islam. The two are indivisible. 

We're now only a few steps away from a hot war. 

How will you know when a hot war has started?

It kind of already has. 

You'll know when agents of the state are openly attacked. Or to put it another way, the representatives of the state.

We've already had MPs killed and that wasn't warning enough, the government machine has continued on unabashed with it's anti-British, anti-working class, anti-freedom agenda.

The second stage will be the agencies of the state being openly attacked. For instance the Police. 

I'm not talking about people defending themselves against Police brutality. I'm talking about people openly seeking members of the Police and attacking them. Of setting traps for Police to attend and then attacking them. 

It's a widely held belief that the Police no longer exist to help. The modern Police are more like an occupying Army that a Police force. 

We've already had a couple of instances around the country of Police officers being attacked, but I predict over the next couple of years, that number will increase. The intelligence I'm getting points in that direction. Especially as the government seek to crack down on our freedoms.

The Police are more than likely to be the first in a series of state agents that are attacked. After the Police it'll be tax offices, job centres and the like. Local agencies of the state. Saves all that travel. 

Local means you can avoid being picked up easily on ANPR cameras. Like how the killer of Anne Widdecombe was found. Anne was another victim of the civil war. 

One thing I would say to anyone that starts a civil war: make sure you can end it. You need overwhelming force and capacity at your disposal. You don't go into a war for a draw. You go into it to win.

I would expect anyone that is contemplating such activity to have the numbers. You're up against not just the government, but their imported proxies. And the problem with numbers is security. The larger a force becomes, the harder it is not for someone to let slip what's gong on. Security, loyalty, they are absolutes and should be a primary focus. 

70,00 armed forces members is a easy figure to overwhelm. But the government proxies, the immigrants? They measure in the millions. That's a harder number to clash heads with. 

Force multipliers are the answer. Superior weapons are one such item. Like drones, of any type. When the government ban drone flying, or any radio controlled aerial activity, you'll know they have credible evidence a threat is imminent. 

What's that? They've done it in various areas already? Without any obvious or publicly stated reason? 

<Raises eyebrow>

Not hot yet, maybe warm then....

More on the Psychopathic Woman.

The link to Female Psychopathy and woke was a kind of revelation. It answered quite a lot of basic questions. 

Questions that didn't have answers in a sane world. But to add Psychopathy into the mix and then it becomes clear.

As I've said, Female Psychopathy has a major influence on Woke. The Psychopathic female uses fake empathy for a cause to hide her own lack of empathy and signal her virtue and status to others. Factors she covets above all others and uses as a screen or shield against criticism from others.

But female Psychopathy also then answers the phenomenon of Trans kids. Children of a very young age being transitioned. BY THEIR PARENTS.

Again, the empathy towards their children is not real, it's manufactured to again gain status and virtue. Things the Psychopathic Woman doesn't possess. 

A normal nurturing woman will most likely take a child that is saying they wany to be the opposite sex, or a cat, or something that is clearly fantasy, and let them play with it. But only in the terms of play, understanding that at some point the child will tire of the notion and revert back to normality.

Not the Psychopathic Woman. She will latch onto that difference and process that the child is unhappy not being a cat and therefore they must be a cat, must actually be a cat, in order to make them happy.

And so the Psychopathic Woman will take the child's fantasy to a point above and beyond a level that any sane person would. I reckon that if there was some way to surgically change the child into an actual cat, then she's force the child through that procedure. Because making the child happy is a mother's job isn't it? Look at how good a mother I am, by surgically altering my child to be the thing they want to be.

As it stands, the only recourse available to the Psychopathic Woman with a cat-child, is to force EVERYONE ELSE to accept that her child is actually a cat. Family, the school, doctors, and other professionals that interact with the child.

Because denying the unreality of the situation would make her child unhappy.

Psychopathy also answers in some way the rise of what is colloquially known as the Karen. Basically a woman who will interfere and claim some fake superiority over their victim.

I'm not yet at a point to understand what has caused the rise of this psychopathy. It's possibly because it has allowed to rise. The freedom of women to express themselves has allowed the number of psychopathic women able to express themselves or be in a position to impose those views and beliefs on the wider world has occurred.

It's possible that in this modern world, the Psychopathic Woman has never been told No, or has had her "stranger" tendencies suppressed in childhood. 

And to be clear, this is not a misogynist rant. I'm quite comfortable with women in general. This is an observation I've made, looking at the modern phenomenon of woke and the conclusions I've made.

I like all women, even the Psychopathic ones, but the observation is there are distinct types of women, as there are distinct types of men. But you never see the nurturing type of woman involved in activism, or the manipulation of society.

I have a feeling the nurturing type of woman would understand that suicidal empathy, of signaling virtue to the detriment of wider society is lunacy. 

Because it is.