Nr 47 administrationen har begået endnu et selvmål med frigivelsen af (en del af) Epstein-dokumentation. Efter at have ført kampagne på at frigive alt…
Man kan konstatere (igen-igen) at den såkaldte elite føler sig hævet over pøbelen og på ingen måde bundet af moral eller nogen anden restriktion – det er der for så vidt intet nyt i. Hvis afsløringen af den åbenlyse foragt for ‘folket’, kan få folket til føle passende afsky for samme elite er der da kommet lidt ud af miseren.
“I can’t believe the content I’m seeing on Twitter, just in terms of the videos, the emails, just Twitter is the absolute perfect medium for this sort of stuff, where it’s just the mockery of the powerful, is so delightful to see. And it’s just, and a lot of it’s just people have hated, of course, for years, right? Like Bill Gates, and lots of people who are functioning in the, right, the expert intellectual class. All these people, it turns out, were complete sickos and monsters. And at the very least, they’re hanging out with a sicko and a monster, and don’t seem to see any problem with it at all, just illustrating how these people are so motivated by greed, avarice, a thirst for feeling important, and all that stuff. All you got to do is be a billionaire, waive some money around, and suddenly these people don’t care if you’re having sex with teenagers and that sort of thing. So I think this is a nice insight into how the real ruling class functions and the sorts of people that circulate in those circles. So that’s just kind of my initial impression.”
Du kan også læse James Corbetts post her (der er et enkelt ikke-inkriminerende hit på ‘Fogh’; intet på Jeppe… men de har ikke frigivet det hele;)
Mens vi fejrer at dagene bliver længere kan vi også konstatere at det amerikanske regime ikke har fundet anledning til at reagere på det russiske regimes forslag fra september 2025 om at forlænge START-aftalen med et år, mens en ny aftale kan forhandles. Aftalen udløb 5. februar.
Grok
Man mener tilsyneladende at der er brug for flere atomvåben i verden som den ser ud nu.
“But the Chinese have also said, as Trump is saying, we have to get the Chinese to the table. And the Chinese are saying, hey, don’t talk to us about coming to the table. We had 200, you had 1,550. If you want us to come to the table, why don’t you drop your numbers first? Get your numbers down to where we are. We don’t want to bring our numbers up to you. Get your numbers down. The Chinese in their white paper said, it’s important for Russia and the United States to get their collective act together, to re-engage on arms control so that the nations that have the largest nuclear weapons arsenals in the world stabilize their situation. Well, get your act together, stabilize your situation, and then invite us to the table. But don’t sit here and try and bully us into coming to this table with some stupidity about, you’re afraid of our nuclear weapons, our 200, and then you threaten us with the preemptive nuclear strike, so we go to 600, and now we’re the problem? No, America, you’re the problem.”
From Judging Freedom: Scott Ritter : Trump Ignites a New Nuclear Arms Race, 3 Feb 2026 tuben
Nogle ord og vendinger har en tendens til at blive slynget omkring, som kasteskyts og mister deres egentlige betydning. Kapitalisme er et af de ord. Her er for eksempel Max Blumenthal, som i øvrigt har fat i den lange ende i mange henseender:
“…
“And Larry Ellison is, as I said, an ideological Zionist who is going to benefit and profit from the so-called master plan put forward by Jared Kushner at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where if you look at the map of the master plan, there are entire sectors of Gaza, which is transformed into a biometrically enforced concentration camp where data centers will be built. And that’s a model going forward for any conflict zone in which the Board of Peace manages the conflict resolution and Larry Ellison has paid into it through his man, Tony Blair. Tony Blair, I should mention, how does he control Tony Blair? The Tony Blair Institute is an influence peddling racket and Larry Ellison is the largest donor. So that’s how, I’m just giving you an example of one figure on the Board of Peace to help everyone understand how the Board of Peace works. And it will essentially replace the UN with this oligarchic hypercapitalist pay for play model in which the most powerful get a say and everyone else is a target….”
From Judging Freedom: Max Blumenthal : Venezuela at a Crossroads, 28 Jan 2026
Koncentrationslejren er en forsmag på, hvad man gerne vil bygge op, andre steder – det er slemt nok, med den testkørsel og tak for at gøre opmærksom på det! Men ‘Hypercapitalist’ – det er ikke nok med capitalist. Hypercapitalist. Så hvad betyder ordet? Det er degenereret til at betyde ‘noget som vi alle ved er dååårligt’.
Privat ejendomsret – herunder til produktionsmidlerne, er altafgørende for den velstandsfremgang som kommer også de svageste til gode.
Det, der beskrives som den mest korrupte amerikanske regering nogensinde (det er muligt det er sandt – og i sig selv en præstation at overgå tidligere korrupte regimer), har intet at gøre med respekt for privat ejendomsret. Det er blot særinteresser der via Statens magtmonopolplyndrer andre mennesker, både indenlands og udenlands.
Lad os ikke tage fejl af, at det er Staten der er den største trussel mod vores velfærd. Ikke ‘russeren’, ‘muslimen’, ‘jøden’, ‘kapitalisten’, ‘den kristne’ eller nogen anden af de grupper, der omhyggeligt bringes til at strides indbyrdes.
Tusinde tak til Trump for, i utvetydige vendinger, uden blusel, at sige højt, det, vi godt vidste i forvejen. Den der har magt, har ret. Der er intet ideologisk eller moralsk fundament, blot rå magt og vi syntes det var fint så længe vi var blandt dem der uddelte bøllebank.
På en eller anden pervers måde forekommer det befriende at nr 47 fuldstændig uden blusel hævder kun at være bundet af sin egen moral. Ingen hykleri om at amerikansk, eller al mulig anden for den sags skyld, udenrigspolitik (og indenrigs) er for demokratiet, for retfærdighed, for de svage, for de fattige, for at beskytte dig. Nix, jeg ser noget, nogen har noget, jeg vil have noget, jeg tager noget fordi jeg kan.
Men også den fem-årige skal lære at hen ikke er den eneste aktør i verden, at andre har legitime interesser og at konflikt kan undgås og oven i købet derved stille alle parter bedre, på længere sigt.
Forestillingen om at lov er noget der gives af en magthaver, hvad enten denne er ‘valgt’ eller er solkonge, og at alle, undtagen lov’giveren’ er bundet af lovens bogstav florerer. Men der er en højere lov, som skal afdækkes, og som kan debatteres. Fraværet af en magtfuld håndhæver af lov, betyder ikke at love ikke findes. Det er forkert at slå andre folk ihjel (jaja, selvforsvar osv osv), hvis en ‘lov’ udstedes ved dekret, for eksempel du må ikke fornærme majestaten (sic) eller statsmedisteren, og det straffes med bøde, pisk eller døden, så er det ikke en lov der er i overensstemmelse med naturlov. Når majestaten (sic) eller statsmedisteren myrder folk, er det stadig ulovligt – selvom denne lov lige nu ikke kan håndhæves.
Frédéric Bastiat skrev om Loven i 1849 – dén gælder stadig. Få den her:
Human Action podcast diskuterede for nylig (Murphy og Klein) international lov og om Might makes Right. Lyt her:
“They don’t realize that even if it were in the interest of the US., of Venezuelans, of the rest of Central and South America, of the whole world, for the US to act as the world’s policemen doing this and that, even if that were of short-term benefit, and by the way, I’m not convinced that it is, but even if it were, it’s likely to be against the long-term interest of everyone, including Americans and Venezuelans, to have a world in which you can have these sort of, you know, arbitrary actions that are done willy-nilly, right, where authorities are kind of going with, you know, as the wind blows, the more powerful actors will do what in that moment they think is in their best interest. That might be a worse world than one in which we all agree implicitly to abide by a set of rules that constrain even our own actions in the short run.”
På judging freedom m Napolitano kan du også få et andet og mere nuanceret perspektiv, end det vi præsenteres for, de fleste steder. Hvad enten du nu er enig eller ej, i vurderingen af nr 47 som en rational aktør.
… bør også nedlægges. Med ‘kongens’ uelegante oplæsning af statsmedisterens nytårstale om de tapre ukrainere (enig) og deres kamp for demonkrati (ha!) mod det uprovokerede (Herre Jemini) overfald fra det russiske regime, turde det være overflødigt at argumentere yderligere for ‘kongens’ overflødighed. Abdicér!
Censuren bliver mere og mere skinger og Orwellsk. Er man på den gale side af narrativet kan man forvente forfølgelse, der er helt absurd. Ytringsfrihed er en saga blot.
“So they manufactured a conflict in Ukraine with Russia to justify their continuing existence. But now they’ve put this, they’ve literally gotten all in on a losing hand. They’re not going to win this.
And when Ukraine collapses, that’s literally the end of NATO. It will not survive the collapse of Ukraine.
I’m intrigued by the EU silencing this retired Swiss military intelligence officer, Colonel Jacques Baud. What can you tell us about this? Yes, they silenced him, meaning he’s not allowed to speak out, he can’t travel, they have seized his assets and his bank accounts, and we are told he has no judicial recourse to the seizure.
How can that possibly be?
Well, because Europe is a dictatorship. I mean, it’s a police state in every way, shape and form. You know, first of all, that’s what they have accused him of, of being a Russian asset, of, you know, parroting Russian positions.
It’s just an outright lie. You know, one of the things that made Jacques Baud what he was, was the fact that he used Western research to make the points that he made. It’s just that the conclusions he’s reached were uncomfortable[…]”
Er det en sammensværgelse? En konspiration? Tjah, den er ikke særlig hemmeligholdt. Kan du huske PANDA fra de glade virus-virak dage? En oase af fornuft – her finder du Hudsons tale fra November om State of the World, nok værd at bruge 10 minutter på:
Hvis nogen skulle lide under den vrangforestilling (og man aner nogle stykker; alternativt kan de gemme sig bag de ofre vi ‘alle’ må bære under en (i øvrigt unødvendig) krig, så kan Robert Higgs korrigere:
Den åbenlyst partipolitiske komite, der i sin tid valgte at tildele O’Bomber fredsprisen, endnu inden han havde demonstreret sin præference med illegale drab på civile, tildelte tidligere i år prisen til en person med offentligt udtalte præferencer for krig og overgreb. I modstrid med komiteens regne principper, hævder Mzx Blumenthal fra The Grey Zone.
Som det nævnes i interviewet er der en rigtig journalist der har været på arbejde.
Niels Westy har en mindre kritisk tilgang til prismodtageren – du kan se hvad han skrev her.
Det bliver sværere og sværere at opretholde illusionen om en ‘rules-based’ samfundsorden, med et amerikansk regime der tilsidesætter moral og international lov og europæiske regimer der perseverer i krigslysten. Hvad enten det bliver med midler stjålet fra russiske eller ‘egne’ borgere.
Jeg ser ikke Frederiksen-regimet – eller dets efterfølger – kritisere vennerne i Warshington – tværtimod, er EU på vej til yderligere at begrænse det højt besungne demokrati, med flere tiltag til at kontrollere folks ytringer.
In the words of Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish Minister of Justice: “Every year, millions of files are shared that depict the sexual abuse of children. And behind every single image and video, there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse. This is completely unacceptable.”No one disputes the gravity or turpitude of the problem. And yet, under this narrative, the telecommunications industry and European citizens are expected to absorb dangerous risk-mitigation measures that are likely to involve lost privacy for citizens and widespread monitoring powers for the state.
The cost, we are told, is nothing compared to the benefit.
After all, who wouldn’t want to fight child sexual abuse? It’s high time to take a deep breath. Child abusers should be punished severely. This does not dispense a free society from respecting other core values.
But, wait. There’s more…
Widespread Monitoring? Well, Not Completely Widespread
Despite the moral imperative of protecting children — a moral imperative so compelling that the EU is willing to violate other core values to advance it — the proposed CSA act introduces a convenient exception. Anything falling under national security, and any electronic communication service that is not publicly available (i.e. available only to elected officials and bureaucrats) would remain entirely untouched. Private chats among citizens require scrutiny — but the conversations of those who claim to protect us are off limits.
As the good minister said, “behind every single image and video there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse.” If that is indeed true of every “single image and video,” why would it not also be true of the messages shielded by the CSA’s national security and non-public exceptions? Does the horror somehow dissipate when the users are politicians or bureaucrats? Is the unacceptable suddenly made acceptable when it concerns those who write the rules?
In the EU’s hierarchy of rights, protecting children trumps privacy. But protecting Eurocrats trumps protecting children.In the end, modern technology gives politicians unprecedented opportunities to monitor citizens, while exempting themselves from scrutiny.
Man kan hævde at grunden til at nogen ønskede fortsat besættelse af amerikanske tropper i Europa efter den 2. Verdenskrig, mere var at forhindre europæerne i at slås indbyrdes end at holde Sovietunionen væk. ‘Formålet’ med at bekæmpe National Socialisterne var angiveligt at redde Østeuropa – det lykkedes ikke, i betydningen den del blev domineret af et af de mest morderiske regimer vi kender til de næste 40-45 år, International Socialisterne.
NATO’s officielle eksistensberettigelse ophørte med at eksistere med opløsningen af Sovietunionen. Ved samme lejlighed, burde Nato have været nedlagt og ressourcerne brugt på noget fornuftigt. Det skete ikke, og siden har den bredt sig og udgør en trussel mod os alle sammen.
Måske den amerikanske præsident fastholder at regimet skal fokusere sine kræfter – der ikke er uendelige – på at myrde og dominere på sin egen side af atlanten og overlader europæisk sikkerhed til de europæiske regimer, der er lige så meget på fallitens rand, økonomisk og moralsk. Måske ikke.
“But again, if you’re going to have NATO as the dominant security architecture, you do need that common enemy and that common enemy is Russia. The problem is, well, this is why I think many people see this war as a war about world order because if we could defeat the Russians, this would revive the purpose and mission of NATO. We would build a powerful Ukrainian army to check the Russians in the foreseeable future, or US will be anchored in Europe.
On the contrary, if we lose the war, which we are, well, I think we already lost it, there’s going to be very different consequences. The US will then seek to pivot a bit away from Europe, focus more on the Western Hemisphere and Asia. The Europeans, of course, can’t deny a role for Russia in Europe anymore, and Europeans themselves will begin to fragment.
So the whole idea of NATO keeping the United States in, the Russians out, then this will be, to some extent, put on its head. So there’s a lot at stake here, and the Europeans essentially see the entire European post-World War II model falling apart.
Ingen amerikansk deltagelse i krigen, kortere krig, langt færre døde, ikke sammenbrud af Rusland med årtiers kommunisme og ledsagende elendighed, ikke sammenbrud af Osmannerriget, Tyskland, ikke absurd grænsetrækning i Mellemøsten og Afrika. Og kimen til 2. verdenskrig ikke lagt. Ingen amerikansk imperiedannelse efter 2. verdenskrig. Ingen kold krig. En perlerække af katastrofer indtræffer ikke.
Til gengæld har vi nu centralbanker der faciliterer regeringers overforbrug uden ‘demokratisk’ kontrol. Der kan spenderes, tilsyneladende(!) uden at man plyndrer egen befolkning, fordi den ‘uafhængige’ centralbank agerer bagstopper.
Udannelsessystemet skoler befolkningen i rettænkning og ikke meget dannelse om rigtige penge doceres. Selv på trods heraf, kræves der massiv propaganda for at få folk til gå med på at russeren kommer, og derfor skal vi overlade endnu mere mønt og magt til politikerbyrden.
Der er sprækker i muren, selv om der tales om at at myndighederne må kontrollere hvilken ‘malinformation’ der præsenteres på internettet.
Præmissen for, hvornår ‘det offentlige’ skal levere en service angives at være når der er en ‘markedsfejl’. Altså når nogen ikke leverer noget eller tilstrækkeligt af noget som nogen andre synes skal leveres, men uden at dem der synes der skal leveres mere, selv vil forsøge at levere det. I stedet tvinges andre til at betale for det. Antagelsen er så, at ‘det offentlige’ dermed fjerner ‘markedsfejlen’ – uden at indføre politikfejl. Den sidste krølle er Brøns-Petersen heldigvis som regel omhyggelig med at påpege.
Misèren er, at politiske indgreb altid medfører politikfejl. Disse fører så til nye indgreb – med tilhørende politikfejl og reguleringsrouletten kører rundt og rundt og udspyer regler, love, forordninger i et omfang så ingen længere har skyggen af et overblik.
Konsekvensen af politikerindgreb er mere tvang, mindre frihed.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
Sean Gabb giver et bud på hvordan magtfulde personers fejlslagne forsøg på at sikre global enevælde, formentlig vil medføre en ændring i taktikken men ikke i den overordnede strategi.
Saifedean Ammous om problemerne i Mellemøsten. Tilbage til Rothbard – ejendomsret er grundlaget for fredelig sameksistens. Når ejendomsretten ikke respekteres følger konflikter.
…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.
