Behind these doors a Court resides …


It’s the Summer Solstice today. I hope that all the ‘druids’ congregating at Stonehenge – they are, aren’t they? – have come on their bikes because cars are so un-green and un-druidy. Of course, today is the first day of the rail strike, so how would they get back after their celebrations? Anyway, if you guessed that this strike would be the main topic in this morning’s MSM print editions, you guessed right. You can check it out at the usual place (link).

While our MSM are filling their spaces with reports on that strike there’s of course no place on the front pages or indeed inside on other, more worrying incidents, such as the ‘Lithuania Issue’, their blockade of the enclave of Kaliningrad. Is it because most of our oh so well educated MSM ‘journalists’ can’t find Kaliningrad on a map – or is it because they’ve not yet had their marching orders, ahem: guidance from their overlords in Whitehall?

To briefly recap, here are reports from Reuters which isn’t a ‘Russian State Propaganda Outlet’, so we can trust them. On Saturday, Lithuania stopped the transit of certain goods from Russia to the Kaliningrad enclave – on the orders of the EU, according to the Lithuanian PM (link). There seems to be a bit of blame-shifting going on though:

“European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said he had spoken to Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda who said that Vilnius was applying EU sanctions. “Clearly we really need to gather all facts and implications, but as President Nauseda outlined, what Lithuania is doing they are applying EU sanctions,” Dombrovskis said. “So in this case, indeed, if it is application of the EU sanctions, it’s clear that we need to be with our member states applying the sanctions.” (link)

Today, the EU ambassador to Russia will have to explain himself – the ambassador of Lithuania, like so many others, have of course left Moscow:

“June 21 (Reuters) – The Russian foreign ministry will summon on Tuesday European Union ambassador to Moscow Markus Ederer over Lithuania’s ban of the transit of goods under EU sanctions through Kaliningrad, the governor of Kaliningrad said on Monday.” (link)

Russia is again being patient, unlike our MSM who see Moscow already threatening ‘moar war’.  International Law permits unhindered transit for everything to an enclave such as Kaliningrad but the EU apparently believes their sanctions supersede International Law. The question is: has the EU, supporting USA’s demands, used Lithuania as proxy to poke Mr Putin into military retaliation, attacking a NATO country? Earlier this morning Curtis Yarvin published a long essay where he ponders this question. You can read it here – it’s well worthwhile.

And so to  ‘Carriegate’, the removal of a report in The Times this weekend. One of our comment posters linked to this astonishing event in yesterday’s comment posts, eliciting a few replies (scroll down here). To me, this isn’t just a ‘shock-horror’ incident of Carrie or the MSM misbehaving. It goes much deeper because it has thrown a glaring light on the demise of the MSM and their sanctimonious attitude of ‘speaking truth to power’.

It demonstrates that unelected ‘helpers’, if not ‘herself upstairs’, are abusing their power to ‘guide’ what we, the paying public, can read. They don’t even notice any longer that this interference shows once and for all that we’re correct if we don’t trust what government and MSM tell us. Yesterday I linked to this report  in the comments where you can read the scan of the original, ‘offending’  report which The Times subsequently removed. Debbie has pointed out that The Times would have fact-checked this report until the pips squeaked before publication.

I wasn’t aware that The Guardian had waded in on Sunday evening (link), pointing out that actually this bit of news had already been reported in Lord Ashcroft’s unauthorised biography of Mrs C. Johnson. No demands for retraction were made to him, as far as I can see. We read further that Carrie’s spokesperson (why does a PM’s wife need a ‘spokesperson’?) said this story was ‘totally untrue’, and that a No 10 ‘source’ told the Guardian that:

“[…] the story was untrue – and suggested it was sexist. This is a grubby, discredited story turned down by most reputable media outlets because it isn’t true. The facts speak for themselves.” (link)

Nice, isn’t it: just say that a factual report is ‘grubby and sexist’ and it goes away – literally. I assume we can now call The Times a disreputable media outlet because they published yon story first. There’s more. In the report I linked to above, the one giving the scan of said ‘sexist, grubby’ article, we’re told that staff at the Foreign Office turned down this proposal to ‘protect Johnson’.

What sort of PM have we elected who needs to be protected from his follies by his staff? Doesn’t this mean that he’s a hand puppet for his ‘staff’, not elected by us, so that he can produce ‘good PR’ while getting through scandal after scandal, apparently unscathed? It certainly means that we do have a court at No 10, reigned by Carrie Antoinette whose hubby obeys her every wish, stomping on our ‘free press’ while doing so but not dealing with the issues, national and international, we elected him to do. See this:

“Johnson was in Kyiv when he heard that the story was about to break and quickly forgot all about his friend Volodymyr Zelensky’s problems. He got his staff on the case and the story was dropped from later editions of today’s Times and the story promptly disappeared, too, from MailOnline.” (link)

The Speccie had a piece by Steerpike yesterday with an update which I find quite significant:

“Update: No. 10 has now admitted that members of Boris Johnson’s team intervened following the publication of the story, but deny that the Prime Minister himself contacted the paper to complain.” (link)

Of course, those ‘members of the team’ are faceless and nameless. Of course they can deny that the PM contacted ‘the paper’ – he was in Kiev and contacted ‘his No 10 staff’, as we saw in the other quote above. It’s called ‘plausible deniability’: he dindu nuthin’ … he only protected his wifey by setting his No 10 dogs on the papers. We are paying for these No 10 dogs, btw, so shouldn’t we be told how many of them are tasked with keeping anything to do with Herself out of the MSM?

It is a grubby tale – but not in the way Carrie and friends say. Its’ grubby because it destroys the last vestiges of trust anyone might still have had – in the MSM and in this PM. How can we trust a PM who drops everything in order to make sure wifey isn’t ‘hurt’ by the nasty hacks writing ‘grubby stories’ in the papers even though these stories are true? How can we trust a PM whose staff spend time getting rid of ‘bad Carrie Press’ while there are rather more important issues facing the nation? Like that rail strike? Like inflation? Like, God forbid, a war with Russia?

Frankly, in order to get rid of ‘her upstairs’, we have to get rid of ‘him downstairs’, the one who is doing nothing but produce photo ops when not protecting his spouse while both are being ‘protected’ by their staff. Who will protect us against them when even The Times caves in to Mrs J.’s demand? What else have they and the rest of the MSM not even published because Carrie doesn’t like it? Stuff about Covid and Lockdown, perhaps? Green stuff certainly. What about that war in the Ukraine? Will “we” be dragged into this because Madame C.J. dislikes Mr Putin? 

We’re not only ‘governed’ by the fools we elected but also by unelected ‘helpers’, a ‘BJ and CJ protection squad’: faceless except for Mrs C. J. who most certainly isn’t faceless or indeed voiceless …

Print Friendly, PDF & Email