Category: War

Eyeshadow and gunpowder: the imaginary war on cishet society

By Daviemoo

LGBTQ+ existence has long been pitted as a culture war where the bejewelled combatants assail everyday ways of life, hurling gay grenades down the halls of institutions like American congress or men in leather pants and harnesses are kicking in the doors of middle England to convert your children.
There is no war, and it’s time to quite literally put down your guns.

I had an argument today which I’ve screencapped for your perusal.
As an Englishman I find American obsession around guns and gun laws to be absolutely gauche. But most of all, when men crow about their love of carrying guns I look at people like that with a mix of utter suspicion and- frankly- derision.

I find this type of delusional thinking objectively fascinating. The lack of nuance never fails to amaze me: if I walked into a kitchen and saw a man brandishing a knife I wouldn’t bat an eye- contextually it’s normal even if a knife is a deadly weapon- but if I saw a man brandishing a knife walking down the street I’d be pretty within my rights to think “well… that’s not good”.
Same with a gun. In the right context, guns don’t scare me: I’ve been on shooting ranges and guns in that context are normal- I’ve also walked past the mint in Leeds where money is created, and had police with P90s stand looking at me warily. It’s intimidating, and it’s done for one of two reasons: to avert danger, or to threaten it.

Men with guns aren’t out stretching their firearm’s legs, there is a reason behind why they carry weaponry and walking out of my favourite gay bar after a show to find a line of men dressed up like marines rejects fingering the trigger of an AK47 is, understandably, nerve wracking- and yet honestly mystifying.

To act like fear is not the motivator for carrying guns- why else has anyone ever carried a weapon in history- either to do harm, or protect themselves from it- so which scenario do these anti drag folks envision- protecting themselves from drag queens or wreak harm on them. Ironic too, for people used to carry sidearms back in Shakespeare’s day… when this newfangled “men in dresses” thing started, because there were no women in Shakespeare’s plays, only men in drag.


Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps it’s rage. Either way it’s misplaced. If it’s rage, be reminded that drag queens aren’t trying to convert your children: it’s impossible to do that and a huge swath of the LGBT+ will tell you so. If it was possible to convert, how many of us would have chosen the path of least resistance in our youth to avoid this ridiculous argument we’re forced into. If conversion was possible, conversion therapy would work: it doesn’t, it leaves most of its victims psychologically scarred enough that they don’t act on their urges, but it doesn’t remove them. I’d also hasten to point out that the existence of conversion therapy speaks to who is trying to “groom” whom into being like the other.

If it’s fear that necessitates dragging firearms around, which I suspect, I fail to see what’s so scary about a man in a dress and fake nails, other than the possibility of a catty comment or being accidentally blinded by flying sequins. But can we be surprised that so many are radicalised into thinking LGBT+ people are creating a WAR on normativity? Look at the messages pumped out by conservative media outlets.

Each of these things has been described by Fox News as having a “WAR” against it

If there was a war; we wouldn’t stand a chance.
3.5% of Americans identify as gay or lesbian. 0.3% identify as transgender. If 3.8% of the population waged war it’s not exactly going to go well- is it.
But conservative types are desperate to push this narrative that anyone outside of their normative model is assailing it, coming for your way of life, trying to FORCE you to be like them.

Making small concessions towards a tiny fragment of the population isn’t war. Not asking people personal questions that you don’t want the answer to any more than we want to give it is not war. If you ask if I have a wife and I say no, and you tell me I should be married at my age and I just smile and say nothing you’re being intrusive- why not leave it instead of prying further then being offended when I tell you I’m gay? It’s like purchasing a rod, waiting for it to arrive, taking it out of the box then handing it to someone and asking them to hit you with it.

It may come as a shock: I don’t want there to be more gay people in the world: I want the people who are to be able to come out and be happy if they so wish, I want the people who are trans to get their healthcare and get on with their lives, and especially, I want people so brainwashed by the endless shouts of WAR, WAR, WAR against them to let go of the rhetoric and realise they’re not being threatened by gay people- but by their perception of us: you’re fighting ghosts.
Yes, you might get fired if you call me a slur. I might get fired if I call someone a slur… it’s not a right I have that you don’t, simply that there are no slurs to describe you and even if there were I wouldn’t use them- but of course, normative culture has a morose obsession with trying to make normal words slurs.
TikTokers like Nicholasvanj call heterosexual people “upsetterosexuals” or “straggots” and then face deluges of “HETEROPHOBIA” in their comments. People constantly decry the use of the word cis when it’s literally a descriptor like “tall”, “athletic” or “interesting”. If you don’t want to be called cis I won’t call you cis- but I’m sure going to be confused about how you’ll wring insult out of a factual descriptive word with no negative connotations, and I’ll make extra sure that you don’t use any offensive lingo either- you’d be fascinated by how many people offended by a biological descriptor like cis throw around anti trans or homophobic words with what they believe is impunity.

The saddest part is that most virulently anti LGBT+ people seem miserable, obsessed with something that isn’t their concern. I cannot imagine spending my life wrapped so intimately around something I find disgusting. But they cannot simply disengage because there almost seems to be a need to create a dark shibboleth of the community, to make us the enemy that worsens their lives, poisons their water and steals their precious children into depravity. I don’t just want them to stop because they endanger my life with their increasingly provocative rhetoric: I want them to stop because I don’t like seeing miserable people yelling about my private life 24/7 and I think they must have better things to do with their time: Imagine how much happier you’d be if you stopped worrying about imaginary genitals or whether I’m a top or a bottom. So much free time to knit, to go to the gym, read, drink beer, I don’t care- just stop obsessing over people who, frankly, want nothing to do with you.

Heteronormative men in particular are desperate for there to be some sort of attack against them- constantly pushing the rhetoric that they are having their way of life dismantled, their freedoms taken away, their free speech censored. Unfortunately this is what parity looks like: when you finally get held to the same standards as others it’s not because we’re taking your rights away, it’s that we’re applying societal norms to you that your predecessors did not face.
Let’s imagine there is this fabled war though, and when they win, when they finally take over… then what?
I don’t understand the world that the men who espouse such toxic nonsense actually want, and frankly I don’t think they do either. If you rid the world of the LGBT+ and the feminists and the feminine men, how long do you think it would be until the less masculine men were up next, charged with feminising the real alphas… and which group would you be in? If every man suddenly became a super masculine paragon of manliness it would be a flash before they turned against themselves- they have to have an enemy to survive, because the whole ethos of the “alpha” male is victimhood garbed as strength, and if nobody is there to pick on them.. what then? It’s an ideology that folds in on itself like poorly done origami the moment it’s subjected to critical scrutiny, and one too many men fall into to expunge blame for their own failings when they are often the arbiters of their own misery against each other.

The fallacious thinking of the meninist crowd is made complex by people debating the grossly vapid talking points of empty fools like Andrew Tate, who likes to spend his time failing to antagonise 19 year old women on the internet or by lionising the actions of those cosplaying Navy SEALs outside drag bars when it’s really very simple: Men have spent years being lied to by media, shown movies where masculinity is control, manliness is anger, where if you just keep pestering, eventually she’ll say yes- from James Bond movies to every other action movie dross, negative masculinity is at the forefront of most of our historical media. Men grow up being told if you’re rude and dismissive to women they’ll do what you want because all women secretly want bad men- but wait, no, feminism is ruining it, making women think they have equal status? You have to put effort into dating? To men who think like this, I have to ask: do you even like women? I saw an interview with a meninist recently who argued his girlfriend should not be allowed to go on holiday without him because other men looking at her is disrespectful to him.
Security with a partner comes from trust, and if you cannot trust you are deeply damaged. Forcing someone into fidelity by simply refusing to allow them to go anywhere and do anything is not a paragon of masculinity, it exemplifies true fragility- and if you disagree, reverse the roles and ask yourself how you would feel about a woman averse to allowing her partner to go on holiday without her…? Control freak? Crazy?… Insecure.
It’s no different in the inverse.
A partner is just that: someone on equal standing who supports you as you support them, and if you’re too weak and fragile to be in a relationship with an equal I want to heartily assure you- it’s not women who have the problem in that scenario. Strength seeks strength, so if you hope to find a weak willed woman who will do what you say it’s because of your own inherent weakness, not because of your strength.

Further, LGBT+ people aren’t coming for your way of life. Many LGBT+ people call for integration into cishet society and whilst I understand it, the older I get the more I want some form of base separatism. I want to be left alone to live my gay life in a gay subculture that barely bumps against straight culture. I don’t want to have to mask my irritation at insensitive questions about my sex life, or feign patience when I listen to someone say “I’m fine with it, I just wish they’d leave kids out of it” when I have always known I was gay and was suicidal as a child and into my mid teens because nobody could or would help me understand it, and despite this endless patient explanation still being told “but some people might take advantage”- again, creating imaginary “what if” scenarios proves to me only that you’re more interested in living in an imaginary world than the physical one.
If you want to have a realistic conversation about indoctrination lets talk about forcing children to say the pledge of alliegance, or splashing water on their forehead so they don’t go to purgatory forever or relentlessly pestering your young children about if they have a girlfriend or a boyfriend… or is is that there’s good and bad types of grooming and indoctrination?

Society is crowded with bigots riled up by media pundits whose mission is to make you think everyone who isn’t a carbon copy of you- skin colour, political affiliation, sexual proclivities- is coming to destroy your life. Ironic, then, that they so readily destroy lives that they see as apart from their own.
If your existence is maintained via the dismantlement of other peoples’ normal, perhaps your normal is the aberration.

When it comes to masculinity, the very idea of feeling so threatened by a drag artist that you hover outside their work with a loaded gun is not masculine: The essence of masculinity is security, displayed by being so unbothered by gun toting yahoos that you cooly stroll into work unbothered by the threat of their presence.
If you want to shame people for dressing up to be that which they are not, might I suggest you take off your store bought army garb, holster your unused firearm and realise you’re just as much- if not more than- a cosplayer as those you hope vainly to threaten.

It Is Our Duty To Stand Against Fascism

By Jack Meredith- @politicalwelshy

“We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness – not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world, there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way”

~ Charlie Chaplin, from “The Great Dictator”, 1940.

This was Chaplin’s first speaking role, after years of being a silent movie star. It focuses on the plight of the Jewish people in the face of fascism, with a fascist regime headed up by Hynkel, the leader of the fictional land of Tomainia. The premise for the majority highlights the humanity of the Jewish people, compared to the buffoonery and selfishness of the ruling fascists.

The film’s closing speech, partly quoted above is regarded as one of the best speeches in film history, a call for peace and anti-fascism at a time when fascism was rife across Europe.

It is a shame, then, that this speech is more applicable to the modern-day UK than ever.

SNP MP Mhairi Black recently spoke in parliament, where she stated that we must be aware of the country’s move towards “the f-word” – fascism.

I am inclined to agree:

  • Asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda. The Human Rights Act is set to be scrapped. The rights to freely vote and protest have been infringed. 
  • DWP civil servants have been given police-like powers to deliver fines upon suspected benefit cheats, no matter whether the person in question has been found to break the law. 
  • The electoral commission is no longer independent and will be brought under government control. 
  • Trans people are not protected under the conversion therapy ban. 
  • The Prime Minister, despite having broken the law during the Covid lockdown period, remains in power. 
  • The Culture Secretary is selling-off Channel 4, on the grounds of “being too high a cost for the taxpayer”, despite not knowing that Channel 4 doesn’t receive public funding. 
  • The Home Secretary wants to reform the Official Secrets Act, to imprison journalists for up to 14 years for “embarrassing the government”.

These only cover some of the worrying decisions made by the current Conservative government – this rap sheet can stretch back 12 years.

I would disagree with Mhairi Black on one point though: we are not sleepwalking into fascism. We are welcoming it with open arms.

Whenever we say “never again”, we are supposed to mean it. 

Instead, it’s become a meaningless phrase that we throw about on social media, along with a load of hashtags that are only included to differentiate ourselves as “one of the good ones”.

It is our duty to stand against fascism.

Let’s do it.

How did the UK go from leaders in the world to Putin’s playthings

By Daviemoo

The Russia report, whilst still redacted and once liberally flavoured with context from political experts like Peter Oborne in his book “The Assault On Truth”, gives a damning indictment and insight into the eyes-wide-open approach of the UK government when it comes to Russian meddling in our democracy. Certain factions of the UK government- both within and outside of the tory party were hopeful of a leave result in the Brexit referendum because they felt that the European Union stymied their efforts for their legislative and political overhaul- a statement that could refer to benign protection of UK citizens over state or, as we have now, authoritarian reductions of freedom to protest, enfranchisement of citizenship and the open discussion of the reform of the human rights act. But wider fears were known for a long time about the referendum- potential political interference from those who would wish our democracy, economy and world standing harm. Having read the report, political experts speaking about the referendum and Russia’s wider role in infiltrating our politics, it paints a worrying picture of those who would cry “sovereignty” without understanding the word.

In 2017 the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, a committee designed specifically to investigate probity in parliament along with MI5, MI6 and other designated security bodies, announced an investigation into the Brexit referendum- specifically around Russian interference in the leave campaign & in our democracy as a wider scope, from the suffusion of Russian money into the bedrock of our politics and the rot that dampening of fiduciary enticement would wreak on politics. We saw only last year that politicians were keen to take lobbying money and that this led to literal death during the pandemic, and so with a retrospective glance, one prepares for the worst as they load up the 55 pages the ISC produced.

Due to the enormity and importance of this report along it wasn’t completed until march 2019 and then subsequently went into its final checking stages (ensuring it was factual and redacted to protect British security). It was finally completed in October 2019 at which point the report in its entirety would have been passed to the Prime Minister for review and for publishing. The (redacted, naturally) report is now available for public perusal on the government’s website: unfortunately due to the obfuscation of large sections of information, without a wider understanding of the recent and current political spectrum it is difficult to draw a conclusion from its wording into whether Russia had specific aims in its interference, though there is no doubt that meddling has occurred, both within the leave campaign and in the wider spheres of UK politics.

Two weeks after the report was dropped on Boris Johnson’s no doubt busy desk Michael Gove appeared on the TV twice and was asked where the report was- to which he responded “it’s going through the regular processes and will be published in due course”- a lie.
Gove may be an amateur at exhibiting appropriate behaviours but he is arguably an experienced politician at senior level & would have known that the report lay on the desk of the Prime Minister. Rishi Sunak, at the time an inexperienced but liked politician within the party, appeared on TV a week later and repeated this lie- it’s unknown whether Sunak knew he was spinning a web first cast by Gove and the PM but regardless, he did.

A week after this Johnson appeared on PMQ’s and amongst several open lies, he said that the report was “subject to the usual checks” and he saw “no reason to interfere” with its publication. The report was sat on his desk.

At this time, the conservatives were sinking quite literal millions into digital advertising. An ombudsman at the time condemned around 80% of their advertisements, stating they were “outright false or demonstrably untrue” in their wording. A lot of these adverts were targeted towards swing voters to capture their interest- pulling in undecided voters with untrue statements or, to use common parlance: lies.

When questioned on the veracity of their digital advertisements, Dominic Raab stated “nobody gives a toss about the cut and thrust of online advertisement” which is a truly odd sentiment for a man from a political party investing two million pounds into adverts deemed majority misleading- clearly the tories did and do care about digital advertising and the use of digital spaces to reach people- including deploying their own bot farms to exculpate themselves from accusations of negative press coverage, as demonstrated here:

Bots tweeting disinformation about an incident where a child was filmed on the floor at Leeds General Infirmary because of the government mismanagement of the NHS

Russia had long been known by the time of the referendum to be engaging in unfriendly cyber attacks against the UK, and the UK had begun to name them as digital adversaries- prior to 2010, the ISC was asked not to do so due to the worries around diplomatic relations, but several key cyber events were linked to Russia after this- and yet, we see echoes of this in the Russia report, even redacted as it is: the report itself in clause 10 of the introduction points to the fact that any report would be seen as a diplomatic thorn in the side of Russia, because even the inference of investigation implies distrust- ironically, a distrust well founded in said report. Even with laughably heavy redaction, the lingua franca in the report is indicative of conclusive findings of Russian meddling.

It was also found though, that whilst the government knew this, no findings were given to the committee as they completed their report on Russia’s interference. This doesn’t mean no evidence was found- it means the government either didn’t investigate at all, or did and saw fit not to share their findings. Either of these outcomes is troubling and infers that the government either knew already or was suspicious that the sanctity of electoral processes had been violated.

The why

Russia’s under-arching aims seemed to be geared towards creating a climate of distrust in information surrounding events- which as we can imagine has had demonstrably disastrous influence over how the UK has handled the coronavirus pandemic.

An excerpt from the report which spoke about general aims of the interference found, around both the UK and wider

One of the most frustrating and regularly encountered sentiments around political discourse in the UK now is “they’re all the same”- because it is indicative of the UK’s failure to engage its populace and be trustworthy enough to show benefit in political engagement- the entire ethos behind this blog and my deep obsession with bringing the everyman back into political discourse in the UK.

One would assume that Russia’s overarching aim would be to weaken the UK politically, but has also cheerfully achieved the side effect of creating societal divide so deep that family members refuse to speak over it.

The shift in political discourse was disquieting- suddenly you couldn’t believe what was said because it wasn’t true, or an expert said it and we don’t trust political experts. Even trusted UK assets like Christopher Steele had spoken, though in limited terms, about Brexit and Russia’s wider impact on geopolitical Democratic purity:

“There was some evidence that Russia had funnelled money into the Brexit campaign… it was like a virus that had moved westwards, started off in places like Ukraine and Georgia and so on, had come into Eastern Europe, then Western Europe, and then obviously had made the leap across The Atlantic, to the US in 2016”

Christopher Steele, in an interview with Sky News about Russia’s troubling influence on global democracy and alleged links to Election interference

One could generously supply a list below of general discussions occurring in the public sphere which could ostensibly be linked to Russian ideals flooding the UK beyond the referendum which became a daily wedge issue- the push against “woke” culture is an obvious topic. Any move away from the important implementation of diversity inclusion highlighted in “anti woke” discourse would arguably worsen societal existence for groups already enmired in ensuring their rights, freedoms and protection are not eroded from beneath them- but as the side chases away the sand below our feet, “anti woke” rhetoric has pervaded our society. I hasten those involved in the obsession with ‘the war on woke’ to question what a society without “woke” culture would be like.

Similar with the anti-trans debate. One needs only look at how Putin’s Russia treats minorities to see that Russian society is the ideal- a strange coincidence? I think not.

One of the most troubling parts of the report focuses on who actually implements real checks and security on our democratic processes- from MI5 to Nadine Dorries’ remit of the media office, nobody seemed to want to claim ownership of the safeguarding of democracy. The report suggested that perhaps MI5 should do so- and yet no information could be found online as to whether this was implemented. This, then, indicates that regardless of outcome the government is not interested in preventing further attacks.

From leaders to deceivers

The UK seems to have almost wilfully lost its place in the world as a leader in diplomatic relations. There will of course be some amongst us who laughably argue that we never had a prime place but even as a harsh critic of the Tory Party I would argue that we were always regularly involved in sweeping political events in tandem with the US and EU and even seen as distinct from the EU as our own political force majeure.

Our report makes mention of the sanctions, expulsions and harsh rebukes of Russia that came from the Litvenenko assassination and the poisonings of the Skripals- an event which harmed several British citizens. No longer do we see the UK leading the way on Russian sanctions in the face of the war in Ukraine- arguably the UK has fallen behind of other leaders like the US and the EU who have worked extremely quickly to sanction Kremlin-linked individuals, but to implement harsh domestic and foreign policy on Putin linked allies. The UK’s government is more keen on defending its lacklustre approach to doing so than it is on actually putting action to word- as seen with silly infographics about sanctions for individuals or tweets with demonstrably false statistics from Michael Fabricant.

This alone would be indicative of the UK government’s fall from grace due to brexit and the gleeful instalment of Boris Johnson at its head. But the falsitudes of UK discourse are now so thick and fast that, quite apart from seeing our diminished standing as a loss, it’s being hailed as a win and reframed as good leadership. A Swedish politician on Question Time only last night corrected Nadhim Zahawi on the idea that Russia would see the UK as “leading” when clearly the EU has worked in perfect concert to help refugees and to punish the Putin regime.

Looking at the installation of by-design corrupt political figures like Priti Patel (let’s not forget that Patel was found to have been undertaking unapproved meetings with officials abroad which is close to subterfuge) in key roles like the Home Secretary, in which she has protected a terrible police commissioner, ended free movement, pushed for the removal of arguably human rights like protest, the confusion grows as to why our political prowess has decayed.

Putin’s meddling is not wholly responsible for the decline of UK political discourse but it is a figment, or a fragment of it. The regular lacing of mistruths was always part of politics- from the Lib Dems throwing students under the bus to Blair misleading the public on weapons of mass destruction to enable war. But the appointment of the Johnson cabal to public office was the attempt to checkmate British democracy- as Johnson seeks to remove scrutiny from public justice, as he hides more reports into his deceitful behaviour during covid, as courts find his government guilty of preferential treatment for PPE one must ask…

Can we turn around or is it too late?

The UK has failed everyone: it failed its own populace by allowing its brexit referendum to be hijacked by those who sought to weaken us and as a rejoinder to this, made the populace believe its own severance from the EU was a benefit- whilst it decimated the economy and livelihoods of farmers, fishers, and businesses who imported to the entirety of the Central European bloc.

It failed every single person who died here from Coronavirus- and thought that is arguable, lest we forget that the tories- in the face of science- argued for herd immunity in the pandemic’s initial stages and has continued to throw off restrictions in spite of the science and is still doing so today (cases are again rising and the government does not speak out).

Its failed America, by working fully and openly collaboratively with a man like Donald Trump – another Russia linked pawn who was installed by luck after losing the popular vote, and a man who tried actively to dismantle America’s already tenuous democracy.

Its failed the EU, our neighbours and a bloc we were part of, had huge influence in and worked collaboratively with to the enrichment of our society and our culture- now our relationship lies in ruins because of the pomposity of a PM who blundered us into a disastrous deal and failed to even negotiate as a politician would.

And its failing the people of Ukraine- obfuscating routes to entry, releasing open misinformation through the home secretary’s twitter, lying openly about how refugees can obtain visas- and keeping a visa system which could easily be superseded by a digital entry system akin to the one developed for pre-settled and settled residents from the EU.

One can only infer that the citizens of the UK are being failed systemically by our state- headed up by a government entrenched in ineptitude and scandal one switches from “unfortunate circumstance” to concern about whether this was the grand plan all along.

Through the looking glass of the proletariat to the state’s sweeping machinations one can only assume that the Kremlin’s secretive pushing against our society via subterfuge have led us into a deep and dark pit, dug by the feverish arms of the Tory Party and so many disaffected voters. The question is- do we now start the climb out, or keep digging deeper?

Daviemoo is a 34 year old independent writer, radicalised into blogging about the political state of the world by Brexit and the election of serial failures like Trump and Johnson. Please check out the rest of the blog, check out Politically Enraged, the podcast available on all streaming platforms and share with your like minded friends! Also check him out on ko-fi where you can keep him caffeinated whilst he writes.

Ukraine’s betrayal by the UK and the US goes back further than the front lines

By Daviemoo

As Putin continues his descent into public madness, one must begin to wonder exactly what world leaders intend to do about it beyond having taxpayers flood the internet with images of them stood sombrely before country flags, or lighting up our buildings with colours. Will the countries who foisted nuclear disarmament on Ukraine help them in their hour of need, or are we such that abiding by our very word is something we cannot trust?

When the Soviet Union collapsed on 26th December 1991, Ukraine was in possession of the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world. From 1994 and the start of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty talks, discussions were had with successor states from the Soviet Union and the elected leaders to convince them that nuclear disarmament would mean true security and peace. These talks were spearheaded by Russia, the UK and the US.

Promises were made that if Ukraine surrendered its nuclear armaments, I.E let them be absorbed by Russia, who promised to dismantle them and discard safely the uranium etc that each warhead composed, they would receive protection and financial restitution. The US also helped to ratify the start treaty, and to safely dismantle Ukraine’s nuclear capabilities, all the while promising safety for the country for it’s compliance.

To understand the depths of the betrayal by Russia, one must only google the Budapest Memorandum: the U.S., and the U.K. agreed to respect the “independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine” after the country agreed to give up its nuclear stockpile. Ukraine was also promised that its territorial integrity and political independence will be maintained and that the signatories will not use economic coercion against Ukraine to their own advantage.

Russia has committed unforgivable breaches of the accords and guidance it has signed to respect Ukraine: this is even more serious than a straightforward declaration of war, it is the disrespect of hard-fought legislation that ensured that this situation would never occur. Russia’s Putin has always been the strong-man that idle thumb twiddlers Johnson and Trump want to be, and this is the behaviour of one such as he: breaking accords that were hewn in stone before he ascended to power and crippled Russian freedoms further.

But let’s look to the other two main signatories of the accords, and start breaking down why our response so far has been gallingly lacklustre.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it...The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html Part of Trump’s attempt to extort newly elected Zelenskyy

The US President, Donald Trump, was accused of Economically coercing Ukraine in the encroaching Russian skirmishes on its borders and this led to his first impeachment. President Zelenskyy was the height of polite when dealing with Trump and his “if you do what we want we’ll give you the aid we promised you” – tantamount to extortion. The US president had no right whatsoever to force Zelenskyy’s hand- the US OWED Ukraine those weapons without strings. The dilution of serious political discourse means that, not once during his trial, were these accords, promises or the legislation signed mentioned, legislation that meant that they were bound with no strings whatsoever, no delays, to give Ukraine arms to defend their sovereignty.

The UK’s role in failing Ukraine

When it comes to UK involvement, it should have started in 2014 when Russia originally started to encroach on Ukraine but was the usual copper shilling talk of collaboration and assistance, all wooden words and no substance. As escalation continued to the point that Ukraine were requesting arms and armament to defend their borders they were failed by a UK too wrapped up on claiming it’s own imagined sovereignty from its fellow EU collaborators to assist, the sleeve pulling of your friend trying to attract your attention for something important as you discuss something noncommittal. Our refusal to enmire ourselves in international relations again failed when the UK prime minister never once mentioned the Budapest Memorandum in response to the US president’s deceitful behaviour towards Ukraine.

All of these four disparate strings lead us to now. As Russia’s hand is around the throat of Ukraine and Ukraine fights back relentlessly to loosen it’s fingers, the US and UK can be found offering sanctions to Russia and… what else?

Of course, those quick to temper will ask whether I want us to leap in and begin the world war proper and the answer to that is, obviously not. But let me tell you that the actions taken are nothing- nothing to what was promised to Ukraine if they followed along with nuclear disarmament.

We also seem to be hitting the wrong people in the chest with whatever punches thrown: Anti Russian sentiment has swept the UK, with many people forgetting that some people left Russia to avoid the black cloth of Putin’s ever more sinister regime. Those linked to Putin’s Russia and Russia themselves should of course be sanctioned with the heaviest barriers possible to levy punishment upon the Russian oligarchs powering this war including Putin himself. And when it comes to sanctions, a worrying lackadaisicality seems to permeate the messages from Westminster: had we been in lockstep with the EU it’s possible that we’d have done real, speedy damage to the Putin regime and Russian actions towards Ukraine. Instead we have our foreign secretary desperate to play dress-up at every given opportunity.

Liz Truss has been using the forment of war to sell herself as the next Iron Lady, forgetting perhaps that she’s more akin to a warm slice of processed cheese than any type of metal. Truss’ insistence on being photographed in tanks, with Russian fur hats and stood proudly in front of flags whilst foreign diplomats call her thinks akin to stupid or a warmonger are truly a deep look into a rotten cabinet: filled with the maggots of Johnson’s political punditry and the sycophants working to hold the shaking wood up as it continues it’s slow motion crumble to the floor.

Truss’ desperation to parallel herself with Thatcher is not lost on those of us on the left who were, and still are, hurt by the regressive policies of both politicians

Truss’ stupidity has been aired for the world to see as, due to her idiotic commentary, Russia stepped up it’s readiness to deploy nuclear retaliation: if ever there was a sign that she is out of her depth it is this.

Then we come to Priti Patel, Home Secretary whose current role should solidly revolve around ways to waive visa restrictions on Ukrainian refugees. Patel linked an article recently on her twitter, clearly fervently hoping that the last bastions of conservative supporters wouldn’t read and only mindlessly cheer at her efforts to help Ukranians: the literature linked proved that the UK is doing less than nothing, including (as later defended in a now deleted tweet by Patel’s colleague)… offering fruit picking visas or allowing people with family in the UK to flee.

In all it appears the UK will offer 100,000 Ukrainians the “right” of abode in the uk. Ukraine has a population of 44.13 million people.

Countries like Ireland have thrown open their doors. EU member states are negotiating swift action to allow Ukrainians to enter their countries. The UK is asking, “Well what can you do for us while you’re here”.

And at the head of the rotten snake that is UK government, Boris Johnson.

We’ve seen for ourselves the depths Johnson will go to in his desperation to distance himself from the dirty actions and money that so motivates his party: changing parliamentary rules to allow his fellows to keep their lucrative second jobs recommending companies who were ill equipped to give diagnostics during the pandemic, protecting a health secretary who was sleeping with an appointee to his team and is now on some ill advised sympathy tour. Johnson has utterly besmirched international relations: promising to lay down the worst of sanctions and barely scratching the surface and as always cosplaying the concerned leader as he flits from country to country, dishevelled and heavy breathing down the mic as terrified journalists beg us for help.

I’m not a diplomat, nor am I a politician. But I am an Englishman and I was told from day 1 at my grandfather (a deeply, deeply patriotic man) that we would always do what is right and abide by our words with deeds.
We promised years ago that we would assist Ukraine in maintaining it’s sovereignty: we are failing.
We promised protection for those from Ukraine: we are failing.

Our predecessors would reel in shame

The Brits of the past who are so often dredged up by anti maskers or by those telling us we need to face poverty and hunger with blitz spirit, would be even more ashamed of our shambolic response to the Russian encroachment on Ukrainian territory than they would be of our glib sublimation to a government who, last night, stripped us of the right to “protest loudly”. A peoples who promised to work collaboratively with another nation to keep it safe and prosperous has been too busy negotiating it’s way out of the extrication of the EU bloc at our own cost.

The EU seems united in it’s efforts to defeat the enemy of Putin. The UK’s populace is still reeling from the survival of a PM who couldn’t follow the law, still arguing about whether you can call yourself the best country in the world if 13% of the population is paid below the minimum salary for survival. But as the UK continues it’s now fully wilful descent into the quagmire of plainly Putin enabled corruption pouring sinuously across the floors of Westminster, one must wonder: if we don’t abide by the accords we sign, accords that do not weather or change with time or with EU status- what do we abide by? What are we? And is this- corrupt, lazy and poor- the legacy of Britain under Johnson?

Forget not, of course, that this is the government who can’t even follow its own manifesto promises: “the cost of covid” they say, trusting in a populace too beaten down by years of nationalistic jingoism to realise that all of the covid debt has been repurchased and isn’t actual debt in the pockets of the nation. Johnson can’t be trusted to adhere to the promises that let him ascend to the highest office, nor to the litigation he seconded for our “new relationship” with the EU member states.

Do we truly believe that he can be trusted to lend aid to an ally who we were bound in honour and duty to assist? And if not: how do we ensure we do what is right by our friends and fellows abroad in spite of a man in charge who we as a populace, cannot trust to do the right and honourable thing? If we cannot trust in our government to abide by long agreed promises, how can we trust them to do right by us? The answer, I fear, is that we cannot.

Daviemoo is a 34 year old independent writer, radicalised into blogging about the political state of the world by Brexit and the election of serial failures like Trump and Johnson. Please check out the rest of the blog, check out Politically Enraged, the podcast available on all streaming platforms and share with your like minded friends! Also check him out on ko-fi where you can keep him caffeinated whilst he writes.

Using war to push an anti-woke agenda is Western decadence at it’s finest

By Daviemoo

First and foremost- donate to Rainbow Railroad, a charity that helps LGBTQIA people escape anti rainbow regimes and did amazing work during Afghanistan. Secondly, exactly what and who are these right wing pundits helping or hoping to achieve with their scrivened nonsense about how “woke culture” has led to Putin’s moves in recent months?

Vladimir Putin has arguably been sowing seeds of discord in the west for years- would even decades be a tolerable turn of phrase? As the Berlin Wall crumbled he fled Dresden, Germany after destroying incriminating files, and he saw then that a society of liberty is anathema to his plans. He interfered heavily in the 2016 American election to install the gibbering sycophant Donald Trump and I firmly believe he hoped Trump would win re-election and America would be helping in this conflict. There’s proof to this pudding- remember that Trump was impeached for tacitly threatening not to help Ukraine if they did not toe Trump’s foolish line. Even this failure to manipulate worsened Ukraine’s diplomacy. If President Zelensky had said Trump DID threaten him this could be seen as a superpower threatening a weak nation, and if he denied it, people would assume he was lying to ensure he seemed like a strong leader. Every move came down on Putin’s side.

He interfered in Brexit, hoping that the UK’s departure from the EU would shake the core of the European counsel- not realising that the utter buffoonery that swept over the UK leading up to and after the Brexit campaign meant that we were likely such a hindrance that, save for Euros and some diplomats who were gifted and caring, the EU was likely to be relieved to see us go.

His plans are failing and as it stands he may well have started a war he cannot finish that will destabilise his regime unless he goes home and lays down an iron palm on Russia to crush dissidence.

The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky was originally a gifted satirist who was elected to highest office and has done his absolute best to help his people since that day. He’s on the front line now helping to direct aid and relief and to tell his people what is happening.

Where, then, are our leaders?


Priti Patel and her home office minions are tweeting lassitudinal promises about how Ukranians can apply for seasonal fruit picking visas to escape a War Zone as other countries waive any visa requirements.

Boris Johnson stands in front of a jet, brow furrowed like a trench as he’s briefed by people actually doing their important jobs- and sycophantic counsellors are tweeting this picture, well lit and staged, stating that Johnson is “on the front lines”- I beg these people to look up what the front line actually is.

Liz Truss stands before a Ukrainian and UK flag, heedless of wasting more taxpayer money on vain photoshoots when she should be engaging in real diplomacy and not yet more gesture politics. Her boundless buffoonery has been an embarrassment to the UK for weeks as she’s muddled into this conflict and spouted misinformation glibly to senior diplomats.

And the right arm of the right wing, the British press, is focusing on it’s favourite topic; how the gays and the trans and the people of colour are all responsible for this situation.

Right wing columnist Zoe Strimpel has written what I can only term as the most self indulgent bit of twaffle I have ever come across in my waking life- and unfortunately the sentiments of said diatribe are shared widely amongst the arc of the right with even sentient potatoes like Lawrence “I wear a mask when its convenient to me because I’m just a paid marionette for outrage culture” Fox using their feather weight to push the agenda too. Strimpel writes that it shows decadence that a society is focusing on, and I quote “woke acceptance” instead of war. And yet as someone who follows a huge amount of gay and trans activists on twitter, a giant swath of POC activists all I’ve seen is a coming together of people desperate to help in whatever way they can, and all this as right wing puppets pluck their favourite string – how it’s everyone else’s fault but theirs.

Ukraine is not LGBT+ friendly- and yet they are invaded. NATO is not even closely linked to any LGBT+ issues or affiliations. And yet they stand as one of the key defences against Putin’s totalitarian regime. The sheer decadence, the self involved wankery of the right to start condemning LGBT+ people for having the temerity to ask for simple equal treatment, for people to be polite, would be hilarious were it not for the severity of the situation.

The sheer deluded mindset of right wingers in war…

The idea that someone can, with no irony declared, sit before their laptop and write an excoriating article about how if we were just less accepting of LGBT+ people then we wouldn’t be at war; I cannot imagine the broken psyches that rest heavy upon the frontal lobes of these fools.

One issue is not like the other, but I do have a key question for these anti woke folk; would you, then, prefer to live in a regime like Russia? A poor country ruled over by a kleptocrat, who is on your side of the trans argument? Would you like to see LGBT+ people interred or forced to live miserable lives so you don’t have to think for one second about anyone with any difference to you? And who would you focus your ire on in an angry newspaper column in a country that would think that women should be married and producing children instead of hurling another recycled argument about lefties into the void from the pages of a right wing rag?

The utter dumbfuckery of the right to focus on LGBT+ inclusion at this time and ascribe it blame is hilartious and here is my true retort:

If anything is to blame for an authoritarian man seeking to cannibalise other countries in Europe into his regime, it’s not people fighting for civil liberties, it’s the power drunk flag waving plutocrats, standing under a Union Jack as an umbrella against the blood of everyone they want to throw to the dogs so they don’t have to ask someone’s pronouns when they say hello. It’s the people who gleefully voted to shrink our borders out of spite or some misplaced pride in British hard workingness. It’s the people who spend all their time attacking their fellow countryfolk instead of asking how we can make this place better for all of us.

And above all, it’s those safely over the age limit for national service calling for it’s reinstatement, those amongst us willing, yet again, to cast the young into the fire to maintain their selfish lifestyles. Perhaps we should reinstate national service- and those of you amongst us who voted for Brexit and Boris can go to the front lines for us, you can stand proud for the country you’ve created, use your sovereignty as shields and your reclamation of Britishness as a sword and as the bullets rain down on you, remember this phrase: you, however much you may not realise it, voted for this.

Daviemoo is a 34 year old independent writer, radicalised into blogging about the political state of the world by Brexit and the election of serial failures like Trump and Johnson. Please check out the rest of the blog, check out Politically Enraged, the podcast available on all streaming platforms and share with your like minded friends! Also check him out on ko-fi where you can keep him caffeinated whilst he writes.