We've Got the Power (Cut)!

Last week the National Grid lost power to a large swathe of the country. It seems a very large part of the UK from the North East to the South West was affected, bringing trains to a halt and in one case endangering a Hospital. (The backup generator failed to kick in when the mains power failed: most reprehensible and a further vindication of my belief that our "Managers" no longer have the ability to manage things).

Well, my first reaction is how could it happen? Then, having familiarised myself with the reason, the second reaction is: get used to it.

I confidently predict this will not be the last instance of large scale unplanned power outages in the UK.

Of course National Grid have issued platitudes like "lessons will be learned", but the bald fact is that with good strategic management, problems like this are eliminated, because they are foreseen. After all, electricity is a strategic resource: the UK relies on a continuous supply of electricity for safety and security.

It should be run with all the positive security and redundancy of a military asset, not some sticking-plaster/cross your fingers and hope for it back street electricity supplier.

The independent reports that two generating assets went off-line, tripping the grid into it's massive shut-down. If you believe the Indy story, a gas generator in Little Barford and a wind farm off Hornsea went offline simultaneously. Now note these are on the East of the country.

Why then were supplies affected in Bristol, hundreds of miles away across the other side of the country, with a number of power generators in between the failed ones and Bristol? This story and excuse for the outage doesn't ring true and also doesn't square with what I've heard from other sources. My source says the issue was an inability to source capacity from a couple of offshore connectors from the European mainland. One especially from the Netherlands, which would normally be used to pick up missing capacity on the East Coast. Which dovetails with the loss of capacity on the East side of the country. There's also a connector from France to the South East of England, which I believe also failed to supply enough capacity to prevent the cascade of shut-downs we saw on Friday.

Which then meant the generators on the West coast were having to come on stream to supply the other half of the country. I assume especially in the South West the National Grid gets a bit sparse which would explain the outages in Bristol as capacity was sucked to the East.
Normally the grid should cope with this scenario and I would hope that National Grid have procedures and tests in place to prove that capacity can be moved around the grid like this on a regular basis. Stress-tests are the lifeblood of a strategic resource and to me it would be imperative that (a) any power plant supplying maximum output has a local grid robust enough to supply that capacity to the main grid without any failures and (b) once supplied to the grid that capacity can be routed successfully to anywhere in the country.

As an example the generators on one side of the country can supply full network capacity to the other side of the country without cascade failures of the network.

But with the calibre of shallow-thinking manager we have in this country, I suspect that these provisions have not been met.

Belt 'n' braces has been replaced with "that'll do" and an effort to maximise profits at the expense of security of supply.

I get it: companies have to make a profit, but the privatisation of electricity generation and the national grid should have had some minimum standards for security of supply. It is after all a strategic resource.

But these days, nothing surprises me...

Money, Money, Money..... The Root of All Evil.

Whether it's climate change, mass immigration or the inability to deal with Muslim Rape Gangs, what links all of these is MONEY.

You can spout all you want about ideology and religion and politics, but the pressures from above all that transcend everything. It's money, old money and big corporations, the people that have the ear of politicians and policy-makers that control things. Their only ideology is making more money. These are people that will sell their granny for a profit. They have no principles, no morals. Their goal is to amass ever more wealth.

The monied elite benefit from climate change taxes and rebates when they stick wind turbines on their land. Even if the turbines go out to sea, Queenie gets a bung in the form of a tariff paid to the crown. Also the monied elite will have shares in the big conglomerates building and installing the turbines, so it win-win for them.

If they have interests in the stock market, then most likely they are benefitting from carbon trading. You know the scheme where everyone - including the poor pay a premium on their energy bills as some sort of penance for existing and wanting to be warm in winter which then gets traded on the stock market through huge trading firms which extract a huge premium and share it amongst their elite shareholder friends.

Climate Warming is just a money-making scam with no scientific basis. The only "Science" involved in the Climate change argument are statistics. Scientists can see an increasing level of CO2 in historic warm periods without being able to scientifically prove that CO2 is causing the warming. They cannot pin down the mechanism, the smoking gun. All they can see is the smoke from the barrel and assume that there was a gun.

From seeing an increase in CO2, some bright spark then creates a computer model that assumes that CO2 is the causal factor. With no provable basis. The computer model then spews out a random range of outcomes (the so-called hockey-stick graph) that shows a wide range of "what-if" possibilities if CO2 were the causal factor. From the climate staying the same, to scorched earth, the range goes. Just like the predictions of the track of a hurricane, scientists can only predict a range of tracks the further out you get from where the hurricane is at this precise moment. What Hurricane track modelers do is to use available data an re-input it to make the predictions more accurate.

Climate warming modelers have not done this. The warming of the globe has stayed steady for a decade and has not followed the doomsday scenario predicted by the worst excesses of the hockey-stick graph. But climate modelers have not used this decade of data to find out why their models were so far off. They have not tried to produce more accurate predictions. Only the doomsday predictions get publicity and only they will suffice to get the public to meekly cough up Trillions in penance for using energy.

If climate warming were not a scam, then there would have been far more severe measures taken to reduce CO2, or the money would go directly towards offsetting the affects of global warming. But instead we tax CO2 and it ends up in the pockets of the top 1%. The monied elite, who do not spend it reducing CO2: they use it to buy luxury cars, or private jets or generally produce excessive CO2 emissions. That to me, is the classic indicator of a scam.

It's all about the money...

When it comes to mass immigration, there is a reason and it not about changing Western culture, multiculturalism or any of that ideological claptrap.

We all know that modern Western countries have a more enlightened view on birth control than the religious fanatics. So over the years, Western populations have been declining. With a declining population big corporations lose consumers. But this conflicts with shareholders who demand bigger profits and dividends year on year.

Ah, you say: why don't the corporations set up shop in those countries where the immigrants are before they come here and sell stuff to them there? That's a nice idea, but corporations would be setting up shop on bare earth: they would have to set up infrastructure (most of these countries don't even have roads) and building all of that infrastructure affects profits. Just import the population to the West where there is an already established infrastructure. Plus there's big money top be made trafficking people which is a net profit, as opposed to the losses to be made trying to build up from the arid dust of Africa.

As a quick aside, to indicate the difference between the Western elite's short-term money-grabbing and Eastern long-term thinking is the "Belt and Road" philosophy of the Chinese, where they are investing their profits in creating that very infrastructure in Africa. Winning hearts and minds and political influence, thereby controlling the supply of raw materials from African mines. I predict a clash between the West and the East over African influence in the distant future. Once the Chinese have built the infrastructure, the Western conglomerates will try and move in to make an easy buck. I doubt the Chinese will allow the West to exploit their hard work and money spent without a fight.

Corporations look at the declining Western population and understand that means reduced profits.
So what do they do? Create an atmosphere that permits mass immigration, especially of high-birthrate communities. As long as the immigrants buy products, that’s all good, the balance is restored and profits can continue to rise. They’re not illegals, they’re not Muslims, they’re not extremists…. they’re consumers.

In fact if you change "consumers" for the word "human", then that's almost word for word what the left are saying, or the people in the refugee camps or the jungle in France. Oh, these people are not  illegals, they’re not Muslims, they’re not extremists…. they’re humans.

I love that the far-left (Corbynites in the UK and the squad in the USA) think that they’re so anti-capitalist and leftist, when actually by pushing mass immigration and open borders they’re working for the big corporations.

I used to wonder how governments could continue to import a community and ideology that would effectively wipe them out. Then I came to realise, it’s not governments: it’s those that control and influence governments; the monied elite that are pushing this strategy.

They need an increasing population in order to increase corporate profits and dividends.

It's all about the money...

Now on to grooming gangs and the apparent protection that is afforded the Muslim faith. No other faith gets the same level of protection from policy-makers and Government.

Calling out a faith or religion for evil doings is not racist. But if you criticise the Muslim faith you are instantly branded racist. So why is that? And why is it that Muslim countries can build Mosques here and import their abhorrent extremist brand of Islam into our country unopposed? Why is it the Muslim faith above all has so much protection?

Money. The Gulf States have a pretty large percentage of their oil wealth invested in Western countries. Whether it' in the stock market, ownership of our container ports, investment in our universities or arms sales, some 20% of our economy is Gulf State Oil money.

If that money were to disappear we would be plunged into an overnight recession.

The price we pay for not being plunged into recession is subservience to Islam in our own Christian country. This is where the multicultural ideology has grown, where minority religious and ethnic groups have been given equal or even preferred status in a majority Christian country.

We have a financial gun to our head.

In fact even if you don't believe me, there is more evidence. Traditionally the Jewish community have been the money-lenders and money-makers of the world. They used to get the same protected treatment. But have you noticed how over the past decade the Jewish community and Israel in particular have not got the special status they once had? That's because Muslim money has overtaken Jewish money in the war for control. In Europe certainly, in America not quite as much. Yet. Hence the exodus of Jews from European countries that have a significant minority Muslim population to Israel.

It's all about the money... over and over.

I've just highlighted these three areas where money is talking and having a direct effect on political policy and Western society. Where the monied elites are taking Western Society to the detriment of that very society.

Back in Victorian times there was a more beneficial mindset amongst the elite. They worked to bolster Western society and our religious and societal values. But that has changed dramatically as money and therefore influence has moved away from Western control..

I’m still trying to understand where the new "war on plastic" fits into the money-making strategy. I suspect it’s to do with third-world countries refusing to deal with our trash for peanuts and affecting the bottom line… So back to recyclables. Useless paper straws, stinky terry nappies and mooncups.

The war on plastic has the look and smell of another elitist scam to grab even more money.

Then maybe in 30 year’s time when we have plastic-less solutions there will be a whole new set of consumables to make money off.

But I'm sure there is an elitist money-scam in the offing. It just has that vibe.

I'm not religious, but I know there are quite a few people in the USA that read this blog and there are a lot of religious people in the US. In a Christian context, Jesus warned about the money men in the temple. We still have to be wary of them. The bible does say money is the root of all evil...

So it seems, 2000 years later.

Get Woke, Go Broke? Not If you're the one Promoting it.

There is a continuing agenda called "Wokeness" that is being talked about on the internet.

Basically Wokeness is an agenda the promotes certain leftist agendas. Agendas the population at large don't generally care about.

To explain, you'll see more LGBTQ+ characters in films, more strong female characters and a deliberate attempt to subsume typical male roles.

Previously, the entertainment industry has relied on stereotypes: it's a shorthand to allow viewers of films and television to instantly get into a film or programme. You broke those stereotypes at your peril, lest the viewers become confused as to the intentions of the writers. There are several stereotypes, but the most basic and early stereotype was the "White hat good, Black hat bad" stereotype of early westerns.

In fact Black or White hats has become a spoken and written stereotype too, meaning good and bad, as in "Black Hat Hacker".

Anyway, several of the latest TV and movie franchises have moved to this woke narrative, the most disastrous being the last series of Doctor Who, where the franchise breaks the narrative of over half a century and makes the Dr a female character. A female character with as much gravitas as a pop tart.
Viewing figures have steadily declined through previous episodes as the episodes started to push a politically correct and woke narrative to viewers. The last season's viewing figures have almost spelled the end of the series, but the BBC are making another push at ramming their agenda down licence-payer's throats and are making series 13.

Then Star Wars got the woke bug, emasculating the previously heroic character Luke Skywalker. Casting him in the latest films as some bumbling couldn't-car-less coward. Nope: strong female characters are the new Star Wars agenda under Disney.

And so it goes on through several franchises that just have to have a strong female lead and when they are around make the male leads into bumbling fools in order to enhance the female character. As if a female can't share the screen with a male without chopping his knackers off metaphorically.

Or just the basic premise of remaking a film with female leads where the previous film had all-male leads (aka the dismal Ghostbusters remake).

Such is wokeness.

The phrase "Get woke, go broke" has been created by film franchise fans to describe the falling viewing figures created by these agenda-ridden films.

But the penny hasn't dropped amongst film-makers.... yet. And you have to wonder why. I mean, one film or TV series that has dropped a huge slice of fans should be a warning sign to production companies, but instead they continue to churn out politically correct claptrap with nonsensical plotlines that jar with previous narratives.

So, if these agendas, these messages are still being promoted despite the financial losses... why?

Because those a t the top of the tree, the monied elite who bankroll Hollywood and these various film projects want this agenda. They want the emasculation of males, so no strong male leader rises to the fore. They want to create an atmosphere, asocial agenda where being a strong male leader is as toxic to driving without a seatbelt, or smoking in a Restaurant.

They want to curb dissent, they want to disenfranchise leaders, they want homogeneity they want drones, they want sheep they can manipulate.

And all the while this PC crap is being fed to us, they are succeeding in changing public one turkey of a film at a time. The problem is I don't think the money will run out any time soon.

It's unlike me to miss a Star Wars or a Marvel film… I love Sci Fi and fantasy. But they have moved so far away from my life experience, my personal truth that I haven't watched the last half-dozen blockbuster films. They do not interest me. Nor did I watch Dr Who or any BBC drama in the last 5 years or so.