…med hårdt prøvet amerikansk skattekvæg? Gang på gang stemmer de for en præsidentkandidat der lover mindre krig, gang på gang lever den valgte ikke op til løfterne. I New York har de valgt en person der må give anledning til bekymring blandt ordentlige mennesker. Her er et citat fra borgmesteren:
We will prove,” he said, “that there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about.”
Holy smokes.
That sentence captures the chilling nature of socialism in a single breath.
The belief that government can (and should) solve everything—and they do mean everything. That no corner of your life is too small for politicians to be aware of, and be involved in.
How many times has this exact language been met with cheering crowds in the beginning and ended with secret police and breadlines? Too many to count.
And once again, the majority of people fell for it. Once again, a million-plus people were willing to trade their liberty for ease of life and freedom from doing hard things.
Politikere der vil blande sig i stort og småt er et velkendt onde – et af de oplysningsresistente af slagsen. Operation Oplysning til medlemmerne af Folketinget har ikke givet et føleligt afkast. Som Hans-Hermann Hoppe skriver:
Med andre ord, de personer der trænger sig på som politikere ER en special type. De er ikke skabt af et andet stof og bør ikke have særlige privilegier(!). Men de (fleste) nærer et brændende ønske om at organisere og dirigere andres tilværelse og ressourcer. Vi kan eventuelt give dem, at det ofte sker i den bedste hensigt og ikke bare for egen vinding (pekuniær, magt og/eller omdømmepleje). Det gør dem stadig ikke i stand til, eller giver dem ret til, at afgøre hvad der er bedst for andre eller hvad der er værre, at påtvinge andre deres præferencer.
Hoppes mentor, Murray Rothbard, har også begået adskillige værker der oser af ekstraordinær indsigt. Meget af bibliografien kan hentes vederlagsfrit her på engelsk – og det korte essay Statens Anatomi fås her i butikken på dansk. 37,50 kr!
En puhlitiker der erklærede sig som ‘liberal’ og havde sit navn på en publikation kaldet Minimalstaten, for derefter at stå i spidsen for en regering der lod staten brede sig yderligere; og som brugte katastrofen i Afghanistan til bringe Danmark ind i ‘krigen mod terror’ og til springbræt for egen katastrofal karriere i Nato – ham skal vi ikke have for meget tillid til, når han buldrer videre på krigstrommerne. Nato har ikke forhindret krig i Europa – tværtimod.
Er der nogen danske politikere der fortjener en skamstøtte er det ham her, en rigtig skidt fyr.
Er russeren på vej? Efter flere års krig har de endnu ikke udraderet Europas største hær (Ukraine), hvad enten det nu er med overlæg eller ej, vi får at vide at det russiske regimes økonomi er på randen af sammenbrud – men alligevel skal vi frygte at de ruller henover kontinentet?! Nej, russeren kommer heller ikke denne gang.
Let’s get one thing straight: nothing is “net-zero”
Not wind turbines, not solar panels, not batteries. And certainly not hydrogen. Every so-called “green technology” relies on fossil fuels at some stage… (or all stages) for either mining, manufacturing, backup, transport, operation, or disposal. The raw material demand alone is staggering and the net energy efficiency or EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is abysmal for most of these “green” energy sources [4]. In essence, everything commonly considered “green” is more expensive (and therefore unjust) and not really “green” then considering system and lifecycle.
We are just moving the “emissions” upstream and blend out environmental burdens other than CO2(i.e. land use, methane, raw material and energy input, etc), pretending they don’t exist. Then the obvious question arises of… are we truly reducing our impact on the environment?
…
The current obsession with wind, solar, hydrogen, and batteries is not a solution but rather a distraction from the energy concerns we are facing.
These intermittent energy sources deliver low energy returns and demand enormous raw material inputs, often sourced and disposed of under poor environmental and human rights conditions. Dare I mention the energy used for the production thereof or the short and often misunderstood lifespan of this equipment…
We should be IN-vesting not DI-vesting from the traditional energy infrastructure that still keeps the world running. Not because coal, oil and gas are perfect, but because we need energy systems that are reliable, affordable, and have the least possible negative impact on the environment without compromising reliability and affordability. In parallel we need to invest in R&D to find a truly long-term energy and environmentally more efficient and energy dense solution and one day wean off conventional fuels.
Energy poverty is definitely not a solution, even if we paint it “green”! We won’t save the planet by starving humans of the energy we need to grow, develop, and innovate.
Med en politikerbyrde der har skabt et voldsomt skævvredent energisystem er det svært at afskrive de enorme ressourcer der er misbrugt og lade markedsvilkår råde. Ingen gode løsninger på kort sigt. Og hvilken regering vil blive genvalgt på løfter om at markedet er bedre til at allokere ressourcer end tilfældige bandemedlemmer, der har egne og lobbyisters interesser at pleje?
Er CO2-afgifter ‘løsningen’? Ingenlunde. Tværtimod, det monomane fokus forhindrer faktiske forbedringer af energiproduktion og tilhørende løft af levestandard – især for de dårligst stillede.
De skal have inddraget muligheden for at tvangsinddrive andre folks ressourcer. Fuldstændig grotesk, vanvittig brug af midler til eskalation af livsfarlig konflikt. Det er slemt nok at ukrainere og russere slår hinanden ihjel, vi skal ikke puste til gløderne og inddrage resten af kontinentet i endnu en altomfattende tragedie.
… “But the really scary thing that we do know, and this comes from the kinds of war games that take place in Washington all the time, is that because we now live in a world with 12,500 nuclear warheads, it doesn’t just end with one nuclear warhead being used on one city.”
…
“And the war games in Washington suggest that 100% of the time, one nuclear weapons explosion, regardless of how it starts, an accident, a miscalculation, a deliberate use, it all ends in the full blown nuclear war.
And part of the reason why it all ends in the full blown nuclear war is that the kinds of structures we’ve built, the kinds of policies that we have on this, are such that you pretty much just follow the protocol, and the protocol is that you attack. If you, the United States has something called Launch Unwarning, and that means that if we think we’re being attacked, even though we haven’t absorbed an attack, even though we haven’t actually seen that a warhead has exploded in one of our cities, we launch an attack. And these decisions are made in a matter of minutes.”
“This is described really kind of with amazing clarity in the book by Annie Jacobs in Nuclear War Scenario, which describes exactly minute by minute how nuclear war starts and can start, and then what happens for the next 72 minutes, and then sort of these long-term consequences of nuclear war. And I can talk about some of them.
So 72 minutes, the entire war, that’s the duration of the war?
That’s the duration of a war between the United States and Russia. In Annie’s book, the scenario is that basically the US gets attacked by a kind of lone warhead coming from North Korea attacking Washington, DC. That’s an intercontinental ballistic missile, which we detect within seconds of the launch.
And then there’s a second, in her scenario, there’s a second warhead being exploded, launched from a submarine in the Pacific and exploding in Diablo Canyon, which is a nuclear power plant in Southern California. And in that scenario, the US then responds to…knows that it’s being attacked by North Korea in a matter of minutes, makes a decision to attack North Korea. I think the response is something like 82 nuclear warheads.
But the route that the warheads take from our ICBM silos in the Midwest, in the Dakotas and so on, the route goes over Russia. And in Annie’s book, the scenario is such that the US can’t communicate fast enough with the Russian leadership. And Russians now think they’re under attack because they’re detecting these warheads coming their way.
And so they launch an attack, a thousand nuclear warheads. And then the US responds in turn and attacks…”
Bedst som man håbede på, tilbage i maj, at et spinkelt håb om fornuft kunne spire frem i vort store naboland, gør Hamborgenserne (en mindre andel af dem) håbet til skamme. I en oplysende illustration af demokratiets fallit har nogle besluttet at gøre livet surt fort mange andre – til ingen verdens nytte.
Måske er det den anti-humanistiske referenceramme der dominerer, forestillingen om Moder Jord som et skrøbeligt væsen, der kun kan leve og ånde hvis mennesket holder op med at eksistere. Eller i hvert fald holder op med at ændre på omgivelserne, hvilket kommer ud på det samme.
The root cause of our leading institutions’ bias against fossil fuels Our leading institutions are operating on an “anti-impact framework” that causes them to view fossil fuels, which are inherently high impact, as intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive….
Selvom Human Action nu har 75 år på bagen, er de lovmæssigheder Mises beskrev stadigt (evigt) gyldige. Privat ejendomsret er udviklet gennem tiden i forsøget på at begrænse konflikt og fremme nogenlunde fredelig sameksistens, der, når den udvikles til samhandel, lægger fundamentet til civilisation. Konsekvent håndhævet vil indehaveren af ejendomsretten til en begrænset ressource have ret til fordelene ved at udnytte ressourcen, men også bære omkostningerne ved udnyttelsen. Også for de ulemper der påføres andre. Forestillingen om at ‘regeringen’ kan og skal ‘gribe ind’, når en ‘markedsfejl’ er identificeret, for eksempel når en omkostning påføres en tredie part (såkaldt negative eksternaliteter), lider under en række misforståelser. (Som omtalt i sidste uge, kan andre også nyde godt af aktiviteter som egentlig er udført i andet øjemed – en positiv eksternalitet eller et sandt gratis gode.) [Ananas i egen juice]
Ruslands enorme landmasser med tilhørende ressourcer har vel været et begæret mål for mange konger, kejsere, kommandusener og andre kleptokrater gennem tiden.
Et af vor tids værre kleptokratier har denne psykopat af en falleret lokalpolitiker på toppen af kransekagen for tiden.
Lyt her, via Napolitanos Judging Freedom, til følgende dybe udsagn:
“We are seeing the biggest surge of defense spending in the history of the Union. Now we need a precise, pan-European plan coordinated very closely with NATO on how to move forward. Tackling Russia’s hybrid war is not only about traditional defense.
It is about software for drones. It is about spare parts for pipelines. It is about rapid cyber response teams.
And it is about public information campaigns to spread awareness. We either can shy away and watch Russian threats escalate or we meet them with unity, deterrence and resolve.”
From Judging Freedom: Prof. Glenn Diesen : Are Ukraine Troops Retreating?, 8 Oct 2025
Takket være ‘hjælpen’ fra Nato og co er ukrainere længere væk fra ‘selvstændighed’ end før og tragisk mange er lemlæstet eller dræbt. De har ikke brug for venner, de har brug for fred – neutralitet er formentlig den mindst ringe løsning.
Og politikerbyrdens løsning er eskalering, I kid you not!
Måske er det hele bare en stor jobansøgning Mette har gang i. Det er i hvert fald ikke danskeres eller europæeres interesser der står øverst på listen når Mette og co fører sig frem. Så hvad mon det handler om?
Hvem startede krigen? Det er bestemt vigtigt, men lige nu er det vigtigste at få stoppet myrderierne og forhindre at hele kontinentet går op i røg endnu en gang. Endnu engang er den ungarske præsident fornuftens stemme – han har nok hånden tættere på kogepladen end mange andre.
Og vores uafhængige presse nævner Rusland. Rusland, Rusland. Det vigtige er at befolkningen skræmmes, og dermed holder hovedet dukket og accepterer regeringens beføjelser, beslaglæggelser, beskatning og almindelige plyndring, under dække af at de ‘passer på’ os. Med den slags venner har vi ikke brug for fjender.
Det er meget muligt at det russiske regime ‘tester’ det danske beredskab. Det forekommer mig mere sandsynligt at Mette, eller hendes venner, har gang i aktiviteter der har til formål at eskalere konflikten med det russiske regime.
Som tidligere anført er det ikke sandsynligt at det russiske regime vil, eller kan, besætte hele Vesteuropa. Man kan frygte at deres tålmodighed er ved at være brugt op. De vedvarende provokationer, falske flag aktioner, giver de mest krigsliderlige blandt nato-regimerne påskud til at udføre et mere dramatisk angreb på russisk territorium og kan få det russiske regime til at svare igen med langt mere destruktiv kraft end hvad vi hidtil har set (andre være ofre for).
Fortvivlende mange i de vesteuropæiske regimer lader til at ville en tredje verdenskrig. Det er sørgeligt at vores bedste håb for at undgå dette, ligger i russernes koldblodighed og uvilje til at hoppe på limpinden.
Hvad vi ved er at regeringer systematisk lyver, fordrejer, fortier i bestræbelserne på at manipulere skatteofrene til at overlade deres ejendom og beslutninger til regimet; et regime der intet middel skyer til at bevare magten. Dét er statens kerneydelse – udplyndring.
Lyt med her hos Napolitano og Diesen:
“That Zelensky tried to pass off Ukrainian interceptor missiles, which ended up on the Polish side of the border, and claimed that they were Russian. And why? Well, if you’re on your last leg, you would like to bring in NATO into the war.
So I’m not really sure, but the rhetoric across Europe is quite concerning, because everyone talked about the drone attack, and no one challenges whether or not this is actually correct. But even the Poles now have come out. Tusk, he confirmed that the so-called attack didn’t actually involve any drones with warheads, so they’re decoy drones.
And so using this war attack is quite extreme.
It’s also incendiary for the European neocons, of which there are plenty in Poland, and which lead Germany, Great Britain and France.
Well, if you look at what preceded this, we recently had this huge scandal. Only, I think, it was the week before, the airplane of Wunderlein, the EU president, was also, well, allegedly then attacked by Russia, by its GPS signals were being jammed. Now, this was proven to be fake.
It was our plane was supposed to be in the air for hours, not able to land. There was no jamming, and it flew in one circle and landed in 10 minutes. And there was no indication that Russia had done anything.
So, this was a propaganda stunt. But what happened, you saw in the media, everyone was super excited. Oh, look, the Russians are evil.
Here’s our smoking gun. And you saw something similar with this, well, what they called the drone attack on Poland, which didn’t have warheads. Immediately, the Europeans were very disappointed that Trump didn’t take a harsher stand against Russia.
I’m sceptical, at least.
Your European colleague who appears on the show all the time, Gilbert Doctorow, says this, you’ll probably agree, says this is right out of the MI6 playbook, that this is exactly what they don’t have much of a military, the British, but their intelligence community is actually more aggressive than the American, according to Gilbert Doctorow, and this is what they do. If he’s right, then CIA knew about this because they share everything, don’t they?
Yeah, no, well, it’s strange that there’s no more demand for accountability or evidence. The same goes with the Russian jets being allegedly over Estonia, these three jets. I would like to see evidence because keep in mind that we’ve gone through the Russia gate years, years and years where every day in the headlines there were claims which has proven to be false.
This was followed up by the Biden laptop scandal, also proven to be false. We had the story of the Russians putting bounties on American soldiers’ head in Afghanistan, also false. So we have all these fake stories, but there’s never any accountability.”
From Judging Freedom: Prof. Glenn Diesen : Zelensky Appeals for Arms to Fight Russia at the UN, 24 Sep 2025 https://podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/judging-freedom/id1591962689?i=1000728400185&r=1000
En flok europæiske puhlitikere er tilsyneladende voldsomt interesseret i at udvide krigen til at omfatte alle (altså ikke at de har tænkt sig selv at gå forrest, andres blod skal udgydes).
‘Droneangrebet’ på Ukraine anføres som beviset på det russiske regimes ultimative mål, russisk besættelse af hele Vesteuropa. Det kommer ikke til at ske, først og fremmest fordi det ikke ligger inden for det russiske regimes evne, men heller ikke regimets hensigt.
Hvad enten det var et false flag eller ej, så er villigheden til eskalering skræmmende – psykopaterne regerer.
Dette præventive system (sic!) er angiveligt klar om fire år – men der taler vi jo alle russisk.
Grok (listen er ikke komplet, vi har for eksempel ikke lige fået Iran og Venezuela med): Defining “invasion” or “military attack” by the United States or NATO since World War II (1945) requires careful consideration, as these terms can encompass a range of actions, from full-scale invasions to airstrikes, covert operations, or support for regime change. Below, I’ll provide a list of countries where the U.S., NATO, or NATO member states (acting under NATO auspices) have engaged in significant military actions, including invasions, airstrikes, or other direct interventions. I’ll focus on verifiable instances of direct military engagement, excluding non-military actions like economic sanctions or diplomatic efforts. The list is organized chronologically and includes brief context for each case, based on historical records and my understanding of international conflicts up to September 2025.
Countries Attacked or Invaded by the U.S. or NATO Since WWII
1. Korea (1950–1953)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S., under a UN mandate but leading a coalition, intervened in the Korean War to repel North Korean forces after their invasion of South Korea. This involved ground troops, airstrikes, and naval support.
• NATO Involvement: No direct NATO role, as the alliance was primarily focused on Europe, but individual NATO members (e.g., UK, Canada) contributed troops under the UN framework.
• Nature: Large-scale military intervention, including ground invasion and bombing campaigns.
2. Cuba (1961)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion, a failed attempt by CIA-trained Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government.
• NATO Involvement: None.
• Nature: Covert invasion attempt with U.S. air and logistical support.
3. Vietnam (1961–1973)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. deployed ground troops, conducted extensive airstrikes (e.g., Operation Rolling Thunder), and engaged in a prolonged war against North Vietnam and Viet Cong forces to prevent communist control of South Vietnam.
• NATO Involvement: None, though some NATO allies (e.g., UK) provided indirect support.
• Nature: Full-scale invasion and bombing campaign.
4. Dominican Republic (1965)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. sent troops to intervene in a civil war, occupying parts of the country to prevent a perceived communist takeover.
• NATO Involvement: None.
• Nature: Military invasion and occupation.
5. Grenada (1983)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. invaded Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) to oust a Marxist government following a coup, deploying ground forces and airstrikes.
• NATO Involvement: None.
• Nature: Invasion and occupation.
6. Panama (1989)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. invaded Panama (Operation Just Cause) to remove Manuel Noriega, involving ground troops and airstrikes.
• NATO Involvement: None.
• Nature: Invasion and regime change.
7. Iraq (1991)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a coalition, including NATO allies (e.g., UK, France), in Operation Desert Storm to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, involving massive airstrikes and a ground offensive.
• NATO Involvement: No formal NATO role, but NATO members participated in the coalition.
• Nature: Invasion of Iraqi-held territory and extensive bombing.
8. Somalia (1992–1993)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a UN-backed intervention (Operation Restore Hope) to address humanitarian crises and conflict, deploying troops and engaging in combat (e.g., Battle of Mogadishu).
• NATO Involvement: None, though NATO allies contributed to the UN mission.
• Nature: Military intervention with ground and air operations.
9. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. conducted airstrikes under NATO’s Operation Deliberate Force to target Bosnian Serb forces during the Yugoslav Wars.
• NATO Involvement: NATO led the airstrike campaign and later deployed peacekeeping forces under the Dayton Agreement.
• Nature: Airstrikes and peacekeeping deployment.
10. Serbia/Kosovo (1999)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led NATO’s Operation Allied Force, conducting airstrikes against Serbian forces to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
• NATO Involvement: NATO’s first major combat operation, involving extensive bombing of Serbian military and infrastructure targets.
• Nature: Airstrike campaign, no ground invasion.
11. Afghanistan (2001–2021)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power following the 9/11 attacks, involving ground troops and airstrikes.
• NATO Involvement: NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 2003 to support stabilization and combat operations.
• Nature: Invasion, occupation, and prolonged counterinsurgency.
12. Iraq (2003–2011)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a coalition (including NATO allies like the UK) in the invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, followed by occupation and counterinsurgency.
• NATO Involvement: No formal NATO invasion role, but NATO provided training support (NATO Training Mission–Iraq) from 2004.
• Nature: Invasion, occupation, and airstrikes.
13. Libya (2011)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. participated in NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, conducting airstrikes to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone and support rebels against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
• NATO Involvement: NATO led the air campaign, with member states (e.g., France, UK) heavily involved.
• Nature: Airstrikes and naval operations, no ground invasion.
14. Syria (2014–present)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a coalition (including NATO allies like the UK and France) in Operation Inherent Resolve, conducting airstrikes and deploying special forces against ISIS and other groups.
• NATO Involvement: No formal NATO role, but NATO members participated in the coalition, and NATO provided AWACS support.
• Nature: Airstrikes, special forces operations, and support for local forces.
15. Yemen (2015–present)
• U.S. Involvement: The U.S. has conducted drone strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and provided logistical support (e.g., refueling, intelligence) to the Saudi-led coalition’s air campaign against Houthi rebels.
• NATO Involvement: None, though NATO allies (e.g., UK) have supported the Saudi coalition.
• Nature: Drone strikes and indirect support for airstrikes.
Notes and Clarifications
• Scope of “Invasion” or “Attack”: The list includes direct military actions like invasions (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq), airstrikes (e.g., Libya, Syria), and covert operations with significant military components (e.g., Cuba). It excludes non-military actions like cyberattacks or funding insurgencies without direct U.S./NATO combat involvement (e.g., Iran 1953 coup).
• NATO’s Role: NATO’s direct involvement is limited to specific cases (e.g., Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya). In other instances, individual NATO members acted under U.S.-led coalitions or unilaterally, not as NATO operations.
• Time Frame: The list covers actions from 1945 to September 2025. No major new U.S. or NATO invasions have been widely reported since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, though ongoing operations (e.g., Syria, Yemen) continue.
• Sources: This is based on historical records, declassified documents, and reports from sources like the Congressional Research Service, UN records, and academic histories of U.S. and NATO interventions. For recent actions, I’ve cross-referenced open-source data, including posts on X, which mention ongoing U.S. drone strikes in Yemen and Syria as of 2025.
Limitations
• The list may omit minor or covert operations with limited documentation (e.g., small-scale special forces raids).
• Some actions (e.g., Yemen) involve indirect support, which may not fit a narrow definition of “attack” but are included due to significant U.S. military involvement.
• If you want a deeper dive into any specific case or additional countries, let me know, and I can analyze further, including checking X posts or web sources for real-time context.
This covers the major instances. If you have a specific definition of “invasion” or “attack” or want me to focus on a particular region or time period, I can refine the list!
Intet under at Mette forslår yderligere begrænsning af folks muligheder for at kommunikere privat! Det er selvfølgelig for at beskytte børnene!!
I stedet burde regeringen, kommissionen, gå af og ophøre med at blande sig i stort og småt. Lov er ikke (burde ikke være) et middel til plyndring. Bastiat beskrev det i 1849 – det gælder stadig!
…den største trussel mod den vestlige borgers velfærd er – som sædvanlig – deres ‘egne’ regimer. Ingen anden kriminel organisation formår at plyndre befolkningen systematisk, årti efter årti. Takket være massiv udannelse i propagandasystemet er mange af ofrene endda taknemmelige.
Læs Stockmans opfølgning på Nobel-til-Trump indslaget her.
En flok psykopatiske ‘ledere’ i Europa er forbenet i trangen til at kaste kontinentet ud i endnu en afsindig krig, nu hvor vi har passeret 100-året for starten på den første.
Her har vi Ursula von der Lying, der gerne kolporterer propaganda for at holde krigstrommerne i gang… slemme russere.
Den danske regering er blandt de mere aggressive- den burde i stedet gå af. Har de mod på det, kan de gerne tage østpå og slås for egne midler.
Pressen, hin bidske vagthund, bjæffer om ‘styrtdyk’ i det de kalder inflation, fordi mafiaen letter trykket en smule på en af de talløse kløer de har i skatteofrene.
Det er dog ikke det offentlige forbrug der er spartansk, det stiger og stiger, og kun hastigheden hvormed det stiger flyttes lidt op og ned.
Eller måske ER det Spartansk – i betydningen alle ressourcer skal forbeholdes krig. En puhlitiker fra LA nævnte en passant i BagOmNyhederne (22. august 2025), at ‘forsvarsudgifterne’ da måske skulle være højere end 5%, f. eks 7%. De er i gang med at massere accept på plads, så endnu flere ressourcer kan bruges til almindelig bestikkelse og myrderier østpå.
Ekstra tragisk er det, at den fuldstændigt undgåelige konflikt, hældes ned i halsen på skatteofrene under dække af, at det onde imperium er ved at genopstå. Sovietunionen var en menneskelig katastrofe; ingen med hjernen i behold ønsker den tilbage. Putin, lettere omskrevet:
Og så lige inflationsbegrebet: Fordi mafiaen opkræver mindre i beskyttelsespenge, ændrer det ikke på pengemængden. Når indekset for generelle priser stiger, er det en konsekvens af inflation. Den østrigske model har betydeligt bedre forklaringsevne end det, der for tiden kolporteres.
Læs mere om hvad staten er for en størrelse i Statens Anatomi (Murray N. Rothbard) – fås her i butikken.
Det burde være på tide at lægge ‘Nobels fredspris’ i graven. Ikke nok med at Barack H O’Bomber fik den for at blive ‘valgt’ til det amerikanske præsidentembede (og derefter starte diverse militære overgreb rundt om verden), nu er DJ Trump ved Gud også i spil. Som David Stockman skriver, er det ikke for overfaldet på Iran, eller militær støtte til Israels ‘løsning’, men den er ham vel undt, hvis myrderierne i Ukraine indstilles.
En del medier svømmer over i russeren kommer til Alaska og skræmmekampagnen om, at han fortsætter til Atlanterhavet når først Ukraine er nedkæmpet. Jeg hælder til analyserne der anser dette for helt og aldeles urealistisk. Reelt er det Natos krig mod Rusland via ukrainske soldater. Erkendelsen af, at Rusland ikke lader sig undertvinge breder sig og POTUS-47 så gerne at europæerne køber amerikanske våben til at fortsætte slagterierne, mens han får ‘æren’ at have afsluttet USAs del af krigen. Våbenproducenterne er glade, for pengene vil fortsat flyde, nu bare fra en anden kilde end den amerikanske centralbank og co.
Lad os understrege at det russiske regimes overfald på det ukrainske regime er forkastelig. Det er ingen hindring for at forstå bevæggrundene eller hvem der ‘startede’.
Nu ville fraværet af hykleri i international politik overraske. Men derfor er kontrasten imellem reaktionerne på det russiske regimes fremfærd og det israelske regimes fremfærd alligevel ‘morsom’ – hvis ikke det havde været for de meningsløse drab der følger med. For ikke at tale om NATO’s overfald på Afghanistan, Irak, Libyen, Libanon, Syrien, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Jugoslavien… og det er bare i nyere tid.
Politikere glimrer ved, under store armbevægelser og forbrug af andre folks penge, ikke at løse problemer de selv har skabt.
Er du interesseret i at høre andet end ensidig propaganda om, hvor farlig russeren er, og at du derfor er nødt til at overlade endnu mere af din ejendom til staten, for at den kan beskytte dig mod en fare, den selv skaber, så læs Pepe Escobar skriv her, om mødet i Alaska:
“This is about an almost overwhelming emotional response from our leadership class to this conflict, to this region.
I think it’s weird. Yeah, yeah. Well, I think also at this point in time, we have convinced ourselves, both the Europeans and the Americans, that Russia is a mortal threat to dominate all of Europe.
This is a ridiculous argument, of course.
Do you think it is ridiculous?
It’s a ridiculous argument. As you have seen, the war started in 2022. We’re well over five years into this war.
And the Russians have had a very difficult time conquering the eastern one-fifth of Ukraine. Just think about that. Over three plus years, they have been unable to conquer all of the territory in those four oblasts that they’ve annexed.
Please tell me how this army is going to overrun all of Ukraine, then overrun Eastern Europe, and then overrun Western Europe. This is a laughable argument. Furthermore, if the Russians are foolish enough to try to occupy Western Ukraine, they’re going to find themselves in a quagmire.
They’re going to find themselves dealing with a huge amount of resistance from all of those ethnic Ukrainians in the western part of Ukraine who hate Russians. This is why I don’t think Putin is going to even try to conquer the western half of Ukraine.
Much less Poland and Romania and the rest.”
From The Tucker Carlson Show: John Mearsheimer: The Palestinian Genocide and How the West Has Been Deceived Into Supporting It, 30 Jul 2025
Forestillingen om at det russiske regime skulle have evnen og viljen til at invadere og besætte hele Vesteuropa er mildest talt absurd. Den er beregnet på indenrigspolitiske kalkyler.
Vi lander tilsyneladende igen og igen i en situation hvor vi (menneskeheden) er helt afhængige af, at Putin holder hovedet koldt. Senest med den amerikanske bekendtgørelse om atombevæbnede ubåde. Fra Napolitanos interview m Scott Ritter (19:07):
“President Putin did release a statement, very brief, to the point, and manifesting what you said, the adult in the room.
All disappointments arise from excessive expectations. In order to have a peaceful resolution, it is necessary to have substantive conversations, and not in public. He gets it.
He gets it that Donald Trump is just bravado on steroids.
Yeah. And well, the other thing is public posturing like this boxes you into a corner. I mean, what is the masculine statement that he’s trying to make by deploying these nuclear submarines?
Because this is alpha dog territory here. So now that you’ve done it, do you back away? Do you back off?
Do you pretend you didn’t do it? Do you admit you were wrong? No.
Once you’ve gone alpha dog mode, you’re sitting there with your chest pumped out, you know, hey, I got it, I’ll take it. You know, so, and then what? Is there going to be an additional escalation on this part?
President Putin is 100% correct. The place for these discussions is behind the scenes. So you don’t box yourself into a corner.
So there’s room to maneuver. You know, it’s diplomacy 101.
“And, you know, even a simple Marine like me knows this, that sometimes it’s best not to go public with things and you handle it behind closed doors.
And then when you finally reach agreement, as difficult as that process might be, you come out and put on a common smiley face, shake hands, and everything’s good. The world doesn’t need to know what your disagreements are. They only need to know that you actually, you know, worked through them and came to, you know, to an conventional agreement that makes the world a safer place to be.”
Spol evt til 19:07
Det er en skidt ide at true det russiske regime med udslettelse hvis de ikke ‘makker ret’. Den kurs nato og psykofanterne har lagt sig på, kan føre til at vi alle taber alt.
For at føje spot til skade har den danske krigsmedister bekendtgjort at det danske regime vil bruge yderligere 580.000.000 tvangsinddrevne kroner ‘i første omgang’, i følge Berlingske.
I følge andre kilder taler vi om 500.000.000 USD fra det danske regime med tilsvarende bidrag til myrderierne fra de norske, svenske og hollandske regimer.
For nuværende er det mest ukrainere og russere der er i kødhakkemaskinen. Desværre ser det ud til at nogle mener at det er helt fint, og hvad der er endnu værre, at flere bør deltage i katastrofen.
Escobar: And It’s One, Two, Three; What Are We Fighting For? NATO’s Wars
All of you Vietnam vets and draft resisters will recognize where this column’s headline is coming from. Oh yes, this ain’t the late 1960s anymore, so it’s time to revamp it – no AI needed – and expand it: from now on, be assured everyone in the wild, wild West will be forced to fight and/or endure three overlapping NATO wars.
War number 1
It’s Europe v. Russia, of course. Not proxy anymore: hot ‘n nasty, direct. Considering the advanced rottenness of the whole Ukrainian front, new fronts are already proliferating: the South Caucasus; clandestine ops in the Baltic Sea; MI6 recruiting frenzy across Central Asia; fresh terrorism ahead in the Black Sea, especially Crimea.
…
Yet this ain’t 1914 or 1935; now nuclear weapons may come into play.
The Kremlin and Russia’s Security Council are very much aware of the high stakes. In his recent interview to Kommersant, Sergei Shoigu even rolled out some key NATO numbers to stress the threat Russia faces: over 50,000 tanks and armored vehicles; over 7,000 combat aircraft; over 750 warships; 350 military and civilian satellites; an immense offense (italics mine) budget.
Well, what sly Shoigu did not say is that when push comes to shove, it only takes Mr. Khinzal, Mr. Sarmat, Mr. Zircon and Mr. Oreshnik to deliver a few strategic business cards to paralyze the whole NATO machinery in a matter of minutes.
War number 2
It’s the Empire of Chaos v. Iran in West Asia, with Eretz Israel as much as proxy as a lead actor.
…
Using the Arabs against BRICS won’t cut it even with MbZ in the UAE and MbS in Saudi Arabia, who have both realized the business scam will only work if there is real peace in Gaza; some sort of humanitarian solution for the Palestinians; and rebuilding the Gaza strip.
The death cult in Tel Aviv will never allow any of the above: their plan is to kill them all, steall all their land, and eradicate their culture. And as the genocide goes on – totally legitimized by the NATO sphere – the death cult keeps bombing anything in sight, perpetrating the balkanization of Syria, and expanding Eretz Israel.
War number 3
It’s NATO against China. Already decided in the latest summit in The Hague, side by side with the continuing war on Russia.
Yet actually the scam is much bigger: it’s NATO’s war on BRICS.
That was announced, casually, by that unspeakable Dutch mediocrity that makes former slab of Norwegian wood Stoltenberg sound like a quantum physics star. NATO’s Secretary-General Rutti Frutti actually threatened India, China and Brazil directly, and ordered them to “call Putin” to prevent “Daddy” Trump from unleashing his next Tariff Temper Tantrum (TTT).
…
Meanwhile, in Europe, Tricontinental analysis has noted how the – warmongering – German BlackRock chancellor has pledged “€650 billion over the next five years toward military spending in order to reach the [NATO] 5% target by 2035”. That means Berlin being forced to raise “about €144 billion per year”, via, what else, austerity and debt, translated into massive extra taxes on German consumers.
That, in a nutshell, is the “program” for the whole, fragmented, collective West in the near future: austerity for everyone (except the 0.01%); and NATO Wars, not Diamonds, Forever.
En katastrofe der var helt og aldeles undgåelig – og jo længere den pågår, desto værre er det for ukrainere der kynisk bruges som kanonfoder af Nato-regimerne i bestræbelserne på at stække det russiske regime. Husk man kan godt have forståelse for, hvorfor det russiske regime reagerede med et overfald på naboen, uden at det indebærer accept eller støtte. Det var ikke uprovokeret. Men Nato-regimernes handlinger op til det russiske regimes overfald bør også fordømmes.
Og, nej en yderligere krigsskat eller 5%-af BNP på ‘forsvar’ er ikke den rigtige vej.
Er organisationen overhovedet værd at bevare, spørger Andrew Napolitano her:
“What do you think the Kremlin thinks when Trump makes these threats? 50 days, 10 days, 6 days or else?
I want to say with others, some of whom I’ve watched on your show, that it washes off their back like water off a duck. But I think I agree with that in the sense of the immediate remarks and the immediate effect. But I think they’re very worried.
I think from Modi to Xi Jinping to almost any leader in the world. And look to Ignacio de Silva Lula in Brazil for the things he’s doing right now. He’s a very astute man and he’s a good leader.
And he’s backing away almost wholesalely now from the United States, which is a monumental move for Brazil to do. But the reason he’s doing it is because like Putin, like Xi Jinping, like Modi, like other leaders in the world, with the possible exception of Europe, where brain dead people rule, they’re afraid because they know we are possessed still of residual power that can do them great harm, both economic and military. And they’re very worried.
And I think Putin and Xi Jinping are worried in that sense too, because they know we have 6,000 nuklear warheads”
Og hvad gør vi ved det, hvad enten det ene eller det andet er tilfældet?
Mange vil være bekendt med Acton-citatet:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
Nogle mener måske, at hvis vi blot fandt den helt rigtige magthaver, lad os kalde ham Mette, eller måske Jesus, ville magten ikke blive misbrugt. Kun de moralsk rene vil udøve magten uden at fordærves. Magten er som ringen i Tolkiens Ringenes Herre. Få har visdom og selvindsigt nok til at afstå fra at bruge den. Selvfølgelig i det tunge, farlige arbejde for det gode. Til at begynde med.
De færreste er opmærksomme på at Acton fortsætter:
Great men are almost always bad men
Det understreger at det snarere er magten der afslører magthaverens sande tilbøjelighed, mere end en fordærvelse af god, sund, moral. Efterhånden som det går op for magthaveren at hen kan ‘slippe afsted’ med mere end den almindelige borger, bliver tilskyndelsen til at give efter for denne impuls støre og større. Når alt kommer til alt, så har man magten, eller man tager den, for at gøre noget med den. I den faste overbevisning at eftersom undersåtterne ikke selv ved, hvad der bedst for dem, må de styres ved hjælp af lovgivning og reglementer. For deres eget bedste, naturligvis. Nudge, nudge.
Hvis mennesker var engle, behøvede vi ingen stat, men eftersom mennesker ikke er engle, er vi værre stedt med en stat end uden. Se Higgs her. Staten hører til på historiens mødding.
Der er ingen løsning, kun alternative til- og fravalg. Ved at begrænse den magt staten og dens lakajer kan udøve over andre ved at tvinge dem til det, som staten finder er ‘det bedste’, kan de værste uhyrligheder undgås. Men nirvana bliver det ikke, der er stadig behov for at beskytte sig mod de mindre systematiske overgreb folk begår mod andre, uden for stemmeboksen.
Måske har du glemt hvad Staten allerede nu er i stand til, og ikke tøver med at føre ud i livet. Eksempler: lastbilchauffører i Canada, J6’ere i USA, minkfarme i Danmark. En centralbankadministreret digital møntfod vil blot gøre den slags overgreb langt nemmere. Og selvom de sværger, sværger, på at den ikke bliver ‘programmerbar’, så bare vent. Hvem definerer hvad der er ‘terrorisme’? Det finder du ud af, når du træder ved siden af.
Ganske som med KYC (Know Your Customer) regler der kan implementeres mere eller mindre aggressivt, så kan disse regler bøjes. Al snik-snakken om den digitale euro dækker over kontrol. Hvis man blot ville facilitere private, peer-to-peer betalinger, så findes der allerede muligheder med for eksempel bitcoin eller monero. Man behøver altså ikke genopfinde den dybe tallerken, medmindre man har andre motiver.
I takt med at den europæiske centralmagt forsøget at rage mere og mere magt til sig, gerne med mulighed for skatteopkrævning à la det amerikanske forbillede, så er en digital møntfod endnu et værktøj i kassen. Det bliver meget lettere at ‘investere’ private pensionsopsparinger i det, som EU-regimet mener der skal investeres i. For eksempel våben til at bekæmpe Rusland, som man har besluttet er Fjenden, der skal få os alle til at rette ind og adlyde. Når altså ikke det er Iran. Hykleriet skriger til himlen (se Frederiksens krav om sanktioner mod Israel).
Penge er måske den vigtigste opfindelse nogensinde; muligheden for at handle med andre mennesker i stedet for at skulle fremstille alting selv, har ført til enorme forbedringer af levestandarden for mange, mange mennesker der tidligere levede en kummerlig tilværelse. Det er alt for vigtigt til at overlade til ‘velmenende’ teknokrater. En grundig beskrivelse af det moralske forfald forbundet med centraliseret kontrol med penge, kan du finde hos Guido Hülzmann, og her, og her.
Det er ellers et yndet argument at de er ganske almindelige og uden specielle færdigheder eller indsigt, der skulle sætte dem i stand til at træffe gode beslutninger på ‘fællesskabets’ vegne.
De er i hvert fald ikke gjort af et finere stof end os andre. Måske snarere tværtimod. Måske er det endda således, at jo mere magtfuld en stat er, desto værre er de personer der søger mod toppen.
Hvis du har nerver til det, så lyt til Darryl Coopers (lange) serie om ekstremt frastødende adfærd med udgangspunkt i ‘sagen’ om Jeffrey Epstein. Men han kommer langt omkring. Historien tyder mest på, at de forfærdeligste personer flyder til tops i magtfulde kredse. Et problem der ikke kan affejes. Men man kan muligvis mindske betydningen ved at begrænse magtbeføjelserne til statens lakajer.
Der vil formentlig altid findes afskyelige, ondskabsfulde personer, men lad os undgå at de kan få afløb for deres tilbøjeligheder med statsmagtens beskyttelse.
Disse ord skrev han for knap 200 år siden – de kunne ligeså godt være skrevet i går!
Tidens vildfarelse er at alle bliver rigere på bekostning af hinanden; at almindelig plyndring udbredes under dække af at ville forhindre det. Legal plyndring kan foregå på uendelig mange måder. Derfra stammer alle de talløse regler og forordninger: Told, konkurrencebeskyttelse, skattefritagelse, frynsegoder, subsidier, progressiv beskatning, ‘gratis’ offentlig uddannelse, ret til arbejde, ret til profit, ret til løn, ret til hjælp, ret til redskaber, ret til kredit osv. osv. Det er alle disse love og forordninger der, samlet set, har den legale plyndring som fællestræk og som betegnes socialisme.
I går fejrede amerikanerne uafhængighed af det britiske imperium. Et storslået eksperiment der i lang tid stod som et lysende forbillede for, hvordan man kunne indrette sig uden at være undersåt. Man kan diskutere hvor folkeligt oprøret mod den britiske kongemagt var, og hvorvidt kimen til borterosion af de individuelle negative rettigheder allerede var indbygget i deklarationen. Forfatningstillæggene illustrerer at nogle var opmærksomme på risikoen for, at man erstatter en tyran fra et andet kontinent med en tyran ganske tæt på.
Is there more freedom when governed by one tyrant 3,000 miles away or by 3,000 tyrants a few miles away?
…
The Declaration of Independence is an indictment of King George III as well as a manifestation of limited government and maximum individual freedom. Though the final version dropped some of Jefferson’s more bellicose language, the document as we know it is largely his – not only his lofty language but also the three principal Jeffersonian values that it manifests.
The first of those values is natural law. The natural law teaches that our rights come from our humanity and our humanity is a gift from God. Jefferson recognized this when he wrote that we are all created equal and endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
…
At the outset of the Declaration, Jefferson appealed to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” He could have appealed to the British tradition of individual rights. He could have appealed to the Magna Carta. He could have appealed to numerous acts of Parliament that stated – but pretended – that all men are equal and their rights are natural. But he didn’t. He appealed to the natural law.
…
The second Jeffersonian value is the consent of the governed…
The third Jeffersonian principle is that the proper role of government is not to give the people whatever they want but to protect their natural rights. Moreover, Jefferson wrote, whenever the government – even one consented to by the governed — is destructive of natural rights, the people may morally alter or abolish it.
That was July 4th 1776. On July 4th 2025, the Jeffersonian principles that animated the just war for secession called the American Revolutionary War have all been discarded. Think about it: Do you know anyone today who has consented to the monster government we have today? A government that claims out of its own belly that it can right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event, steal any property, transfer any wealth, borrow any amount and kill any person — foe, friend or imagined foe?
Den danske regering er ikke helt så farlig (for dem udenfor Danmark!) som den amerikanske. Men det er ikke fordi den er forskellig i sit (u)væsen – kun fordi den ikke kan konfiskere de samme ressourcer som den amerikanske, målt i absolutte tal. Om det danske regime lykkes med at fremme endnu mere centralisering i Europa i forsøget på at rejse et europæisk imperium vil måske afsløre sig under det kommende formandskab.
Den største trussel mod folks ve og vel er som regel deres ‘egen’ regering.
Politikerbyrden mener at dine (og andres) penge i endnu højere grad skal bruges på ‘forsvar’. En række kriminelle organisationer har rottet sig sammen og kalder deres bande for ‘Nato’ – nu har nogle af capo’erne indvilget i at skrue op for beskyttelsespengene. Det ville jo være synd hvis der skete noget med din ejendom. Som i øvrigt ikke er din ejendom. Banden efterlader en smule af det du har produceret, og bruger rovet til at smøre vennerne og levere elendig service til de plyndrede. Vi forventes at være taknemmelige. Krigsskatten kommer nok, selvom ‘råderummet’ endnu engang er opjusteret.
I stedet for at lukke Rusland ind i varmen da soviet-regimet brød sammen, blev landet plyndret, og nogle få blev meget rige.
“And he said to me and to my colleagues, gentlemen, I want to tell you, the Soviet Union is over. I heard it probably first in the world, directly from President Yeltsin in December 1991.”
“And Yeltsin said at the time, I want us to be a normal country. We want a normal economy, Mr. Sachs. We want a normal democratic political system.
We want to be friends with the United States. And I, in my naivete, said to him, President Yeltsin, I can assure you, the American people will want to partner with Russia to have a future of peace and economic cooperation. And I was completely convinced of it.
I thought this is the most historic moment imaginable. I was pinching myself, can you believe you’re sitting in the Kremlin hearing from the president of Russia, the end of the Soviet Union? And I had that blessing.
It was unbelievable. I was wrong because as soon as the Soviet Union ended, what did the deep state say? Well, they said, this is great.
Now we need to dismember Russia too. Just like the Soviet Union broke apart on its ethnic lines, Russia is fragile. Maybe as Big Brzezinski opined, maybe it’ll be three different parts.
Maybe there’ll be a European part, a Siberian part and a Far East part. The arrogance, the hubris is unbelievable on the American side. But the idea was Cold War over.
It’s ridiculous. Now we go on to surround Russia. Now we go on to chip apart Russia.
One of the favorite phrases in Washington used to be to decolonize Russia. It meant that we can break away different regions of Russia, Chechnya or this region or that region. Why?
It’s a big power. We’re the only big power that should be on the planet.”
5% af BNP er monstrøst mange penge der alle kunne gøre mere nytte hvis folk selv fik lov at bruge dem, som de finder bedst. Risikoen for at andre overfalder os ville være mindre hvis vi ikke var med i den bande der har de fleste overfald på samvittigheden i nyere tid.
…That is to say, the War Capital of the World bivouacked on the Potomac has outfitted the Oval Office with a War Machine that is mainly designed for the pursuit of Empire, not the maintenance of Homeland Security. And now the American people have mistakenly elected a brash, ill-informed Caesarist, whose unquenchable ego is bound and determined to use them.
Næh – det var ikke på talepapiret. Heller ikke på G7-mødet. Når man betænker hvad det russiske regimes overfald (ikke uprovokeret) på det ukrainske regime ikke har ført til af sanktioner, så er det et underligt fravær af fordømmelse nu, hvor det israelske regime overfalder det iranske. Hykleriethttps://borsen.dk/nyheder/politik/analyse-mette-f-har-et-projekt-alt-andet-er-sekundaert er himmelråbende.
Frederiksens projekt er at forsvare Europa. Mod hvad, tænker man. Grådige politikere der gerne vil have fælles gæld, fælles hær, direkte skatteopkrævning, så man kan kopiere det amerikanske forbillede? Nej, Frederiksen mener tilsyndeladende i ramme alvor at russeren kommer og tager os.
Grok
Med en parafrasering af Hoppe ser det ud til at dem der vil magten, også er de mest uegnede til at udøve den. Politikere vælges og genvælges ved at love gaver til højre og venstre. I et såkaldt demokrati hvor man har bildt folk ind at de ‘er’ staten, skal folket også forsvare staten mod de regimer staten udpeger som fjender. Dem, der er lige på nippet til at overfalde os, hvis ikke vi kommer først med et præventivt angreb. Igen.
De er så ikke lige ved at overfalde os, og har ikke kapaciteten selvom de måtte have intentionen – om ikke andet som reaktion på Nato’sk indblanding stort set overalt på kloden. Derfor ser vi den mur af propaganda der pålægger os at være frygtsomme, skrækslagne og derfor nødt til at lade vore store ledere kommandere rundt med størsteparten af vore ressourcer.
Jeffrey Sachs er tilbage hos Carlson med et perspektiv der ikke får den store bevågenhed herhjemme. Det er ærgerligt. Skønt en del af klagepunkterne er USA-specifikke, så er der en del der kan appliceres på danske forhold. Det regimet foretager sig, er på ingen måde sanktioneret af ‘folket’. Og selv hvis der var ‘flertal’ for at kaste flere ressourcer i at slå Ukrainere ihjel – så berettiger det ikke staten til at tvangsinddrive mine ressourcer. Lad dem der vil slås gøre det for egne midler
“Our democracy is a democracy in form, but not in substance on many, many points. Obviously our foreign policy is not democratically determined. Most of what the United States does is never explained or justified or voted by the American people.
So there’s nothing democratic about American foreign policy, especially when we go to war. We go to war nonstop, either without saying anything to the American people, or on the basis of outright lies. And so there’s nothing democratic about it at all.”
From The Tucker Carlson Show: Jeffrey Sachs: Ukraine/Russia Dangerous New Escalation, & the Dark Forces Pushing for War With Iran, 11 Jun 2025 link
“President Trump can say, I’m concerned about what our own intelligence agencies may have been doing. How could it be that for 18 months, this was being planned, and they didn’t know? If that’s the truth, that is a level of incompetence beyond imagining, we have to clean up our shop.
Or if they did know and they didn’t tell me, that is a level of recklessness that we have to clean up, because it’s completely unacceptable for the security of the American people. And in the meantime, I and President Putin have some real discussions to do. What they would come up with would be clear demarcations that would keep the two superpowers from each other’s neck, like the Ukrainian attack, which is completely unacceptable, endangers the entire world, and is preventable by the President of the United States.
On that basis, then I would say, after that, if Ukraine wants to continue to fight on without any of our support, any of our weapons, not buying weapons, by the way, not anything, period, okay, they can do so, but we’re done being endangered by this recklessness. I resent completely that Zelensky endangered my family last week.”
From The Tucker Carlson Show: Jeffrey Sachs: Ukraine/Russia Dangerous New Escalation, & the Dark Forces Pushing for War With Iran, 11 Jun 2025 link
Interviewet fandt sted inden det israelske regime sendte destruktion afsted mod Iransk territorium. Er verden blevet et mere sikkert sted som følge af disse handlinger? Snarere tværtimod – mit bud er at det israelske regime er lykkedes med at destruere det meste af den sympati der måtte have været for Israel tidligere. Den største trussel mod folket er deres eget statsapparat – ingen anden organisation plyndrer dem systematisk, og bruger ressourcer på at overfalde andre regimer.
I tilfældet Ukraine gøres fiktionen fra Dr. Strangelove til skamme – virkeligheden er værre. Og Mellemøsten…hvad kan gå galt?
I forlængelse af de sidste ugers kommentarer om Tyskland, kan man konstatere at det ikke kun er i Dybbøl Mølle der er noget galt. Det tyske regime er i fuld gang med, at forsøge at udelukke AfD, ikke bare fra det ‘pæne’ selskab, men fra parlamentet. Demokrati lader til at være når pøbelen affinder sig med afmagten og underkaster sig ‘eliten’. Populisme er skældsordet når nogle politikere rent faktisk forsøger at ‘repræsentere’ dem der har stemt på dem.
Hele miséren kommer sig af, at der er en skræmmende stor del af samfundets ressourcer, der omfordeles via tvang og trusler om vold. Det er fortvivlende svært at lave om på ved stemmeboksen, når først det er alment accepteret at man kan stemme sig til andres ejendom. De fleste vil være enige i, at man ikke kan uddelegere en ret, man ikke selv har. Og de fleste lærer deres børn, at man ikke tager andres ting. Konsistens i tankegangen eksisterer desværre ikke når det gælder politik – så er det pludselig ok at få politikerbyrden til at plyndre naboen!
Torsdag ‘fejrede’ vi grundlovsdag. Paragraf 73 – den med ejendomsrettens ukrænkelighed – er en super beskyttelse. Undtagen når det ifølge politikerbyrden er i almenvællingens interesse. Og efterhånden når vi så til en tilstand i dag, hvor ingen kan overskue lov- og regeljunglen og staten har sat de fleste af os under administration.
Diskussionen om Nytte og Moral tages alt for sjældent – i stedet bliver det et slagsmål om, hvem der har plyndringsmagten.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe slagtede den hellige demokrati-ko grundigt i Democracy – The God That Failed – den burde være pensum i ethvert hjem.
Det tyske regimes begyndende erkendelse af katastrofens (energi-katastrofen, ikke den ikke-eksisterende) omfang gav i sidste uge anledning til et spinkelt, spirende håb. Spiren vokser dog næppe ind i himlen, selvom den skulle slå rod.
Politikerbyrden er en dødsensfarlig gruppe psykopater for resten af os. Vejen fremad er begrænsning af deres ‘råderum’. Fjern opgaver, fjern midler, og for Guds skyld, lad dem ikke bestemme over noget større end end en sandkasse i den lukkede institution, hvortil de bør forvises. Beskyttelse af kritisk infrastruktur har ikke prioritet – de kerer sig ganske enkelt ikke om befolkningens ve og vel.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
