The Great Reset in Motion.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but the Great Reset as Defined by Klaus (you will own nothing and be happy) Schwab. but I'm thinking about how you could "own nothing" and be grateful.

Well, it's looking like energy prices will continue to go through the roof and now with rampant inflation, interest rates are certain to go the same way.

At which point, governments will be trying to prop up the system by borrowing billions in order to plug the gap between affordability and actual costs.

You can't normally bankrupt Western economies, but you can make the situation untenable for them. You can make borrowing so expensive that the interest rates on any more loans would be eye-wateringly expensive to service.

At that point the country effectively become bankrupt as it cannot continue to service it's debts.

And then strides onto the landscape, a saviour: what form it will take is currently speculation, but I assume it will be a global mega-corporation.

It will buy up assets that people will willingly give in order to shed their crippling debt burden.

For instance, let's say interest rates go up to 20 or 30%. What dos that do to mortgages? It makes them unaffordable. It's like paying off a half a million pound debt with credit-card-like interest rates. 

As an example lets say a global corporation comes along and says it will buy your house below market value and you can continue to live in it and pay rent. You pay a single easy payment per month and you get your room, board and utilities supplied. If the corporation is cash-rich enough to buy the house outright and then make money in the form of rental, then why wouldn't it? You'd be out of a hole, the corporation gets a perpetual repayment on their investment with hopefully minimal maintenance. You wouldn't own a home but you be grateful to release yourself from the massive debt burden you've been artificially saddled with. 

Global corporations are getting as powerful as medium-sized countries. So why wouldn't they use that financial power and effectively take over massive tracts of land? Buy up farms, control food production. Buy up houses and control the population.

I've already blogged about the lady that was refused a wood-burner installation by her housing association, so what's to stop this global corporation determining what you can and can't do under threat of being homeless? Buy products from these companies, not any competitors. Use this much energy and no more, monitored by the corporate-installed smart meter. Don't own a vehicle, travel by public transport to keep your carbon usage low. Or else eviction. 

I'm not sure I'd be happy in a Schwab-led dystopia. It would be more of a nightmare.

But then I'm sure I'd be classed as one of the deplorable, the undesirables, the people that refuse to comply and live a corporation-led life. I'd be one of the first wave of undesirables cleansed from the planet, on the way to the Post-Reset Utopia. 

Lefty Snowflakes Up in Arms That Italy has Voted a Right-Wing Party into Power.

As we speak Jeremy Vine is prattling on about how bad it is that Italy has voted a supposedly "Far-Right" party into power in Italy.

So what? At a basic level, the BBC have no right to criticise a country that has voted a party into power during democratic elections. 

At a basic level, that is what the people of Italy have declared is their wish. The rest of you can fuck off with your criticism and your baseless smears. Give the party and their female leader (the first female leader in Italy incidentally) a chance. 

Is it because she rejects the current leftist globalist narrative? Is it because she rejects the EU? What is it exactly that makes her democratic election into power so heinous?

Who are you to criticise? 

As it is at the moment anyone slightly to the left of Stalin is considered "Far-Right" by the leftist loonies on the internet, at the BBC and in the Guardian. 

The more you read the various articles, they eventually moderate from "Fascist", "Far-right", to "Hard-Right" or "Right-of-Centre". Indeed "Hard-Right" could describe Margaret Thatcher. Was she a fascist then? 

The nonsense that is peddled about politicians that don't fit the leftist, globalist agenda is close to obscene. In every Western country the agenda is the same: divisive, corrupt, pitting minority groups against each other in order whilst reducing Policing to cause continual chaos so that they can manufacture the legislation to crack down on the population. 

Eventually the population will see through the veil and the lies and as with Italy, start to vote for parties that reject the globalist agenda, reject incessant immigration, reject the capture of the left by huge global corporations. 

They will start to vote for parties other than those supported by the globalist media, corporations and NGOs. 

But, the important thing is they are elected democratically. That is the will of the people. Tough luck if it doesn't align with your values, or political ideology, that's what the majority have voted for. 

Democracy. Live with it. Or are you saying "something should be done" about populations voting "far-right" parties into power just because you don't like them? Because if you are, then what you are advocating is tyranny.

Lockheed C-130 Amphibian: Now What's That For Eh?

 The venerable C-130 transport (Hercules to UK residents) is getting an upgrade.

The Americans are looking to make the aircraft amphibious, by fitting floats to it. The idea of an amphibious C-130 was mooted way back in the 60's when the aircraft started service with Lockheed envisioning a proper amphibious version with a boat hull. 

But the project which is expected to fly next year is a set of field-fit floats to allow the aircraft to land on water.

Now, what would the American armed forces want with an amphibious C-130?

Well, the aircraft is the preferred choice for special forces. Historically it's been used to great effect, apart from the disastrous incursion into Iran during the hostage crisis of the Carter presidency.

Special forces already use the Chinook and the Sea Stallion normally for Special Forces Amphibious incursions. But the problem is range: being helicopters they are limited range-wise and require a ship to operate from. In certain waters, a ship loitering about is a sitting target. 

An amphibious C-130 would give similar amphibious capability but without the requirement to involve a ship to operate from. The C-130 can air refuel so it's range is almost limitless. Certainly longer than either of the aforementioned helicopters. Speed is also another factor, being faster than a helicopter and therefore able to cover those vast distances a heck of a lot quicker.

Vast distances? Well, really the only theatre an amphibious C-130 is designed for is the Pacific. Just like the flying boats of WW2, especially the Martin Mariner and huge Martin Mars. The C-130 would be able to deploy and recover special forces to anywhere in the Pacific within hours. 

I'm thinking possibly a small island? One with a small number of soldiers guarding it? In the South China Sea? Somewhere that would normally threaten the sea lanes around it, ooh, I'm thinking in the vicinity of Taiwan, or the Philippines. The Spratly or the Paracel Islands?

A long-range amphibious transport capability would be an essential part of a Pacific campaign, especially the precursor to one, before the real shooting starts. 

Actually a stealthy amphibious transport aircraft would really be of use in that theatre, now the artificial islands that China have created are starting to arm themselves with anti-ship missiles and air defences.

But maybe that's the point of an amphibious C-130.