A warmongering toxic male, according to his own definition …
My usual perusal of what our propaganda editors of the Westminster MSM deemed note~ and headline~worthy this morning revealed again that ‘sex sells’. No, they’ve not plastered page-3 models across their front pages. ‘News’ this morning are … well, go and check them out for yourselves at the usual place (link) – I’m not reporting them here. There’s bigger fish to fry.
Firstly, I’ll give you an instance of the intellectual calibre of our PM whose brains and education is said to be so very superior to ours. Put your cup, mug or glass down before reading this:
“Boris Johnson has said Vladimir Putin was an example of “toxic masculinity” and would not have invaded Ukraine if he was a woman. […] “If Putin were a woman, which he obviously isn’t, but if he were, I really don’t think he would have embarked on a crazy macho war of invasion of violence in the way that he has,” Mr Johnson said in an interview with ZDF, a German broadcaster. “If you want a perfect example of toxic masculinity it’s what he is doing in Ukraine.” (paywalled link)
Oh dear. Oh dearie me. Does this mean BJ’s latest ‘friend’, Mr ‘e, isn’t toxic? Does BJ really believe that a Ms Zakharova would have rolled over under the pressure from those toxic males Biden, Macron, Trudeau and the other EU males? Are female hand puppets like the ‘leaders’ of Finland and Sweden, for example, not ‘toxic’? After all, they got their countries into NATO without asking their people, as they ought to have done.
Btw: Turkey has given up her resistance to those two countries joining NATO, after prolonged ‘negotiations’ where the Sultan of Ankara received all he asked for: all support by Sweden for Kurdish political organisations inimical to Erdogan to be lifted as well as Sweden’s arms embargo. The Times reports:
“Stoltenberg said that […] Finland and Sweden were ready to work with Turkey on the extradition of individuals within the rule of law […]. Finland and Sweden will now lift their arms embargoes, he added. The announcement comes after weeks of diplomatic talks, including a visit to Turkey by Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, last week.” (link, paywalled).
Isn’t Mr Wallace a busy man! I wonder what other, secret ’goodies’ he promised the Sultan in Ankara for giving up his objections to those two new NATO countries – goodies we’ll have to pay for. Will they come out of his budget?
Perhaps not – see the ‘row’ reported in the broadsheets about BJ ‘refusing’ to increase the budget for the Armed Forces which is already 2.3% of GDP. In a click-baity headline the DT shouts that BJ ‘faces Cabinet Battle’ on this issue, only to modify it in the article. This is rather delicious:
“Boris Johnson is resisting public pressure from his own Defence Secretary and the head of the Army to increase military spending amid a Cabinet split over future funding. […] But his rallying call [at the NATO summit, for other NATO members to increase their spending] threatens to be undermined by the opposition of two senior Cabinet ministers over his refusal to increase Britain’s own budget, as well as concern that he is planning to breach a manifesto commitment to link military spending to inflation. The Telegraph can reveal that Downing Street intervened to water down calls for higher defence expenditure from Ben Wallace in a speech delivered on Tuesday.” (paywalled link)
Note that it’s perfectly fine not to link state pensions to inflation, but ‘defence spending’ must be … Is this perhaps an attempt by BJ to undermine Mr Wallace because he’s more ‘popular’ than the PM? After all, both BJ and Ben Wallace as well as Ms Truss have been warmongering and giving away our own weapons for months. Surely “we” need more money, at least to replace those donations?
Now relish the look of the fine hands of Treasury mandarins and of ‘friends of the Big Dog’ at work. This is how the fate of our country is being ‘decided’ (my emphasis):
“Mr Wallace, the Defence Secretary, was due to argue [in his speech yesterday] that spending just two per cent of GDP on defence was outdated. However, the line was removed at Number 10’s request. Downing Street was said to have been left “furious” by what was seen as an attempt to bounce Mr Johnson into announcing a major defence spending increase while at the Nato summit this week. The Treasury had not approved any rise in spending. Both Mr Johnson and Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, have argued in recent weeks for the need for spending restraint as inflation surges.” (paywalled link)
Well, at least someone in Whitehall has noticed that it’s a very bad ‘look’ to demand more money ‘for war’ when people are bracing themselves for more inflation and a cold winter with fuel rationing! We are, after all, not – yet – at war with Russia, and BJ told SKY news that we aren’t, according to this report by TASS:
“I don’t think it will come to [war with Russia] and clearly we’re working very hard to make sure that we confine this to Ukraine,” Johnson said when asked if the kingdom was preparing for war with Russia. At the same time, he said, the United Kingdom must increase defense spending when threats change.” (link)
Does the PM really, truly believe that “we” have the power to ‘confine’ war with Russia to the Ukraine? How presumptuous! Note that he’s leaving open a door to increase spending on the Armed Forces. General Sir Patrick Sanders was also slyly preparing the ground for such spending increase in his speech yesterday, saying that:
“[…] Russia’s resilience meant it could suffer the loss of any number of campaigns, battles and engagements but then “regenerate and still ultimately prevail”. He said that given President Putin’s ambition to restore the lands of “historic Russia”, any respite would be “temporary and the threat would become even more acute” after Russia replenishes its capabilities after defeats in Ukraine.” (link, paywalled)
Crikey – so “we” must become ‘capable’ of doing what Russia with all her resources can do effortlessly, sanctions or not? I’m not happy to see that our Army is led by someone living nicely in cloud-cuckoo-land, demanding ‘moar money’ from us taxpayers.
I wasn’t going to mention yon ‘missile attack on 1,000 shoppers’, that ‘war crime’ and ‘act of terrorism’. It was resoundingly debunked yesterday in various blogs. You can also read the relevant statement of the Russian Ministry of Defence (link). However, The Times has now an ‘eyewitness’ account of someone (a male) who said he’d just entered that ‘shopping mall’ when he saw the missile hit … here (paywalled), ‘for the record’ and to demonstrate that, in order to keep warmongering, the MSM are printing fantasy stories.
Furthermore, the editors and opinion piece writers of The Times are now advocating acts of terrorism “because: Russia!”: “It’s time we took the war into Russia – Cross-border raids by special forces and smarter sanctions are critical to resisting Putin” (link, paywalled). “We”, Mr Boyes? Are “we” now all Ukrainians? Does’t he realise that his argument means any other terrorist organisation can now justify their acts against us? After all, they only ‘resist’ the UK’s suppression of islamic rights …
I leave you with a warning by China which gives us a hint of the further plans NATO envisages, referring to a report in Bloomberg that “China would be called a “systemic challenge” in NATO’s new strategic concept.” (link). Since when is the Pacific the North Atlantic …
I am utterly appalled by the hybris displayed by the PM and his Defence Secretary, never mind NATO. “We” are supposed to be happy to budget for a ‘forever war’. Does anyone believe those expenditures demanded by the ‘cabinet warriors’ won’t be met? There’s no opposition – not in the MSM and certainly not in the HoC.
Oh btw – isn’t warmonger Johnson also a ‘toxic male’ and ought to be got rid off? Perhaps by the warmonger La Truss who can’t be ‘toxic’ because she’s female? God help us!