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.
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”
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?
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.
“Regular, normal, generally sane, and humane people making excuses for the indiscriminate terrorism of Hamas, or cheering on the Israelis as leading cabinet ministers in that country compare Palestinians to Amalek, the Old Testament tribe whom the Israelites were commanded to wipe out down to the last infant. When these people are confronted about it, supporters of both sides, when they’re not simply lying about what their own side has done, they offer the same excuses. The crimes of the other side are so barbaric that they have forfeited membership in the human race, and so the normal rules don’t apply.
We don’t want to do this, but they give us no choice. And when confronted with atrocities too glaring to talk their way around without putting themselves in an impossible position, they say, Well, of course I don’t like or approve of that kind of thing, but given the situation, how do you expect people to react? And they have a point.
“The Israelis have suffered brutal terrorist attacks since that country was founded. What do you expect? The Palestinians had their country taken from them by force and have been under military occupation for 60 years.
What do you expect? Theodore Kaufman was an American Jew reacting to the openly anti-Semitic regime in Germany. What do you expect?
Red Army soldiers who raped and murdered their way across Eastern and Central Europe had seen their country destroyed by the German invasion. What do you expect? We expect the same thing.”
From The Martyr Made Podcast: #24 Enemy, Prologue: Enemies of All Mankind, 19 Jan 2025 https://podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/24-enemy-prologue-enemies-of-all-mankind/id978322714?i=1000684581479&r=3052
Man kan bringes til at forstå, hvordan store dele af en befolkning kunne lade sig overbevise om rimeligheden i, at forfølge en bestemt gruppe mennesker – erfaringerne herhjemme i forbindelse med virus–virakken og folks reaktioner, tyder ikke på at fænomenet kan isoleres til noget i den tyske folkesjæl.
I Martyr Made episoden om 2. verdenskrig behandles verden som den så ud efter aktive krigshandlinger var afsluttede (1. verdenskrig) og ikke mindst hvordan kimen til 2. verdenskrig var lagt allerede i forbindelse med afslutningen på 1. verdenskrig.
Coopers mission lader til at være at åbne øjnene for en version af historien som ikke blindt følger ‘sejrherrens‘ narrativ, men anerkender at også fjenden har menneskelige karaktertræk (!) En anelse træls, fordi så tvinges man til at se nøgternt på egen intervention – måske er den ikke heit så hvid-sort som man forestillede sig.
Grav i din egen sjæl og overvej, hvad du kunne finde på at gøre ved en person, der havde mishandlet et af dine nærmeste familiemedlemmer. Det er ikke sikkert at dét lever op til glansbilledet mange ønsker at promovere! Og det er måske en af grunde til den voldsomme reaktion på den relativt uskyldige kommentar om Churchill som en af De Onde. (Smith/Rogan her; Cooper/Rogan her; Cooper/Carlson her.)
Men lyt til selv til podcasten – sæt evt hastigheden lidt op – og overvej om vi måske havde været i en mindre skidt situation hvis en mindre agressiv reaktion var blevet foretrukket. ‘Vi’ skulle redde europæiske regimer fra National Zocialismen – og resultatet blev sovietisk dominans gennem adskillige årtier. Tal om asken og ilden!
Hvem trives med krig? Krigen er statens sundhed; læs Rothbard og forstå hvad staten ikke er og hvad staten frygter.
PÅ mange måder er tilværelsen bedre i dag for langt flere mennesker end tidligere i historien. Man kan frygte at den kurve kunne knække og fremtidige generationer kan se tilbage på vor tid (hvis dén mulighed ikke er elimineret) med skuffelsens resignation og i deres stille sind bebrejde nutidens borgere deres føjelighed.
Lew Rockwell begræder den magt The Presidency, aka Staten, efterhånden har tilranet sig. Krige mod andre landes regimer, krige mod egne borgere, krig mod fattigdom, mod ‘urimelig’ rigdom, mod sygdom, mod sundhed, krige mod naturen, krig mod hvad som helst. For krigen befæster statsinstitionernes magt og får folk til at rette ind – eller blive udslettet. Sålænge vi er i krig, må vi tåle nogle begrænsninger i vores frihed og nogle afsavn. Det kan du nok forstå. Er det sært vi er i krig?
The presidency—by which I mean the executive State—is the sum total of American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while it steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, business, charity, and the community. I’ll go further. The US presidency is the world’s leading evil.
Smører han for tykt på? Læs hele indslaget og døm selv!
The presidency is seemingly bound by law, but in practice it can do just about anything it pleases. It can order up troops anywhere in the world, just as Obama, brain-dead Biden, and no Trump have done.It can plow up a religious community in Texas and bury its members because they got on somebody’s nerves at the Justice Department. It can tap our phones, read our mail, watch our bank accounts, and tell us what we can and cannot eat, drink, and smoke.
The presidency can break up businesses, shut down airlines, void drilling leases, bribe foreign heads of state or arrest them and try them in kangaroo courts, nationalize land, engage in germ warfare, firebomb crops in Colombia, overthrow any government anywhere, erect tariffs, round up and discredit any public or private assembly it chooses, grab our guns, tax our incomes and our inheritances, steal our land, centrally plan the national and world economy, and impose embargoes on anything anytime. No prince or pope ever had this ability.
Som Murray Rothbard har påpeget, vores (almindelige menneskers) værste fjende er vores egen regering. Ingen anden organisation formår at udplyndre os i tilnærmelsesvist samme grad. Slavehold var engang en almindelig, integreret del af samfundslivet. Det er nu afskaffet (omend genopstået takket være Nato). Lad statsinstitutionen gå samme vej som slaveriet (ugleset, ikke genopstået), den hører til på møddingen.
Læs også Rothbards lektion i Statens Anatomi – tingene får et andet perspektiv når først man indser hvad staten ikke er, og hvad den faktisk er. Fås her i butikken. 37,50!
Jeg tror at POTUS #47 gerne så sig selv som den, der fiksede freden. Om ikke i verden, så i USAs krig mod Rusland via Ukraine. Det var i hvert fald en væsentlig del af valgkampen og formentlig en af grundene til den utvetydige sejr, modstanderens mangelfulde kvaliteter ufortalt.
Desværre kunne man mistænke at det i mindre grad er en principiel tilgang, for der er store armbevægelser og bombetogter i Yemen på programmet. I sidste øjeblik, inden yemenitterne står til søs, med invasionstropper på vej over Atlanterhavet.
Man kan glæde sig over #47 gode takter og må græmmes over elendighederne, selvom de ikke kommer som en overraskelse. Mange ting er bedre end POTUS #45 – men de krigsliderlige grupper i begge partier derovre (og i store dele af den europæiske politikerbyrde) giver ikke så let op.
Over the weekend President Trump ordered a massive military operation against the small country of Yemen. Was Yemen in the process of attacking the United States? No. Did the President in that case go to Congress and seek a declaration of war against the country? No. The fact is, Yemen hadn’t even threatened the United States before the bombs started falling.
Last year, candidate Trump strongly criticized the Biden Administration’s obsession with foreign interventionism to the detriment of our problems at home. In an interview at the Libertarian National Convention, he criticized Biden’s warmongering to podcaster Tim Pool, saying, “You can solve problems over a telephone. Instead they start dropping bombs. Recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that.”
Som vi nævnte i sidste uge, er det ikke svært at finde noget at kritisere #47 for. Kunne vi (som i den hårdt prøvede amerikanske befolkning og os andre som det amerikanske regimes fejlslag også går ud over) dog bare have fået Ingen af dem (eller Thomas Massie…se også sidste uge).
Ganske som myrderierne af ukrainere og russere østpå var og er aldeles overflødige og stiller os værre end før krigen, så er drabene på yemenitter (og de øvrige steder hvor USAs militære muskler spændes) en øvelse i politisk skuespil. Der er ganske få, koncentrerede interesser der tilgodeses på bekostning af de direkte ofre for krigshandlingerne og os andre som lider indirekte tab via konfiskeret ejendom (‘skat’) og menneskelige og økonomiske omkostninger ved flygtningestrømme og forudsigelige terroraktioner, samt EU-føderale ambitioner og gæld.
Det nuværende regimes gode takter (Russ Ulbricht, afvikling af den føderale propagandastyrelse (‘Dept of ‘Education’’)) er eksempler der bør prises – vi havde ikke set tilsvarende eller afsløringer af misbrug via ‘DOGE’ hvis ikke Trump var blevet genvalgt. Men der er masser af eksempler på, hvorfor statens beføjelser og råderum mht ressourcebrug skal begrænses. Voldsomt begrænses. For magten VIL blive misbrugt og før eller siden kommer der en til fadet som ikke har interesser fælles med dig. De gode ting opvejer ikke de dårlige. Man kan glæde sig over rette tiltag men må kritisere hykleriet. Som Napolitano her og Escobar her.
Glem det ikke; den største trussel mod dit ve og vel, er den stat du lever under:
Man kan kun være enig. Europa har brug for en uafhængig udenrigspolitik, der ikke ligger i slipstrømmen på USA ‘militær-industrielle kompleks’. Selv hvis alternativet er, at petit-Napoléon får mindelser om fransk storhedstid, så er Frankrigs økonomiske formåen ikke i stand til underlægge sig hele Europa. Selv hvis de kan blive ‘enige’ med Tyskland og Polen. Og det er Ruslands heller ikke! Vi hører konstant at Ruslands økonomi er på randen af afgrunden men også at Putin har våde drømme om Rusland til Atlanterhavet. Begge dele kan ikke være sande. Mit bud er at ingen af disse påstande er sande. Russeren kommer ikke. Og Europa har heller ikke råd til at ‘overtage’ USAs hegemoni.
Det vil være en prisværdig bedrift hvis den amerikanske præsident – orange man bad – får standset myrderierne i Ukraine, og det vil være en tragedie, hvis det lykkes for europæiske regimer at holde katastrofen kørende. Det groteske er, at TDS er så udbredt blandt ‘eliten’ at de nægter at anerkende noget Trump gør som værende positivt.
In the background of what President Trump is doing the NATO alliance, CIA and EU global intelligence operators well understand the ramifications. However, to discuss them openly is to expose the reality that US/UK/NATO have been controlling the war in Ukraine against Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an irrelevant puppet to these military decisions, that’s why he can travel around doing his insufferable nonsense while a war is waged on his behalf.
Now, think about this dynamic very carefully because now we know President Trump and President Putin are talking to each other.
We know Vladimir Putin is well aware of how the Western targeting system is being used in Ukraine; he has talked about it openly and publicly. However, the West has never admitted it, because to do so would be to inform the public of the proxy war.
After the Biden/Harris team lost the election, on December 21st, 2024, drone attacks were launched from Ukraine into Kazan Russia {GO Deep}. Those attacks were intended to antagonize Russia and provoke a response.
With the new information we now have confirmation that these drone and missile strikes into Russia were factually attacks supported by U.S. targeting systems. The non-pretending reality = The USA attacked Russia using Ukraine.
Mens vind og sol igen forsømmer at levere kan man få bedre forståelse for baggrunden for kritikken af den enøjede satsning på ustabile, ukoncentrerede, vejr-afhængige energisystemer – her er mere fra Schernikaus blog.
Blandt mange problemer med systemer der skal høste energi fra ustabile, lav-intense kilder som sol og vind, er materialeforbruget. Både til at høste, til at lagre og til at transmittere til slutbrugere. Og ofte er der mangel på vind og sol samtidig i større regioner; dem vi skal låne/købe af mangler samtidig med os.
Et andet element der som regel ignoreres, er energiforbruget til at fremstille alle de komponenter der indgår i høst og lagring samt vedligeholdelse og udskiftning af samme.
5. Summary
We have now established what the primary energy issues are and why it is a mistake to assume that an electric world largely but not only based on wind and solar will globally translate to less primary energy. We have logically, in parallel, also explained why wind and solar actually are the most expensive and least energy and raw material efficient way to generate “useful” electricity.
Remember that this statement is not political and does not preclude us from doing everything in our power to minimize the environmental impact of our energy systems. The statement is simply based in physics and actual fact and is easily illustrated by using Germany as an example. The true financial cost of the so called “Energiewende” far outweighs any prior estimates because of all these ancillary systems required.
Måske er det ved at gå op for byrden, at net-zero ikke kommer til at ske og at det er genvalgstruende at fremture, mens energipriserne bider sig fast på højt niveau. Der er brug for alle energikilder for at skaffe os og andre bedre levestandard; at påtvinge en bestemt (ikke-)løsning er ikke formålstjenligt. Hvis altså formålet er bedre trivsel for mennesker. Man mistænker desværre kraftigt at dette ikke er tilfældet – al snakken er blot varm luft.
Desværre er der også tegn på udtalt fornuft-resistens. Det vigtigste, siger Mette-Mord, er at vi ikke køber ‘Putins gas’. I hvert fald ikke på den billige måde, næh, den skal sendes en tur rundt forskellige steder for at vi kan købe den meget dyrere.
Staten er ikke din ven, dens lakajer har ikke din velfærd på sinde. Har du glemt hvad den er for en størrelse, så læs eller genlæs Rothbards Statens Anatomi. Den kan du få her:
Hver gang Orange Man Bad omtales, er man nødt til sige en besværgelse vedrørende alle de dårlige ting han gør. Så udbredt er TDS!
At det amerikanske regime ikke længere har råd og vilje til at betale for ‘Europas forsvar’ (og resten af verdens) bliver mere og mere klart. ‘Løsningen’ er ikke at verden skal fortsætte som før, bare med et højere bidrag fra sykofanterne, som gerne så Europa med samme magt som USA (tidligere havde). Det er ikke en selvfølge at vi har behov for at spendere 5% af BNP i et af de rigeste områder på kloden for at ‘forsvare os’ mod et tredjerangs diktatur, hvis territorium gang på gang det sidste århundrede er blevet invaderet vestfra. Vi kunne starte med at undlade militaristisk ekspansion op til det russiske regimes grænser. Mon ikke det ville mindske behovet for forsvar?
Måske skulle vi definere forsvarets opgaver, fremfor blot at erklære der skal bruges XX villyarder på Forsvar (køb, køb, køb). Det er en politisk opgave at definere hvad vi ønsker forsvaret skal kunne. Tvangsindføre ‘demokrati’ i Afghanistan for at fremme politikerbyrdes politiske ambitioner? Befrie Iraks befolkning? Libyens? Balkan? Er de bedre stillet efter NATOs aktiviteter eller er en mindre gruppe blevet rigere og mere magtfulde? Måske skulle vi se på, hvordan et forsvar kunne se ud, hvis opgave det var, at gøre ethvert forsøg på overfald udefra, til en uoverstigelig dyr opgave. For overfaldsmanden altså. Det er næppe hangarskibe og F-35 fly med tvungne danske underleverandører, der skal stå øverst.
Putin-regimet har ikke magt, vilje, evne eller egen befolknings opbakning til at invadere Vesteuropa. Det har en legitim bekymring om, endnu engang at blive invaderet fra vest. Den erkendelse er ikke ensbetydende med accept eller støtte til regimets overfald på en nabo, på trods af provokationerne. Det russiske regime står formentlig stærkere nu, end da krigen mellem NATO og Rusland brød ud. Til gengæld er vestens energiforsyning til rotterne og dermed også evnen til at producere varer på konkurrencedygtig vis. Tak venner! Den manglende diskussion, nysgerrighed, ‘transparens’ i forbindelse med angrebet på Europas energi-infrastruktur er…påfaldende. Nordstream og Norge – danske energikunder har interesse i at kende til omfanget af medløberi.
CEPOS er lidt inde på denne problemstilling mht det russiske regimes relative økonomiske styrke i fredagens Bag om Nyhederne. De (russer-regimet, ikke CEPOS) vil ikke kunne invadere vestlige regimer, selvom de ville! Og hvorfor er det så at vi skal beskattes endnu tungere? En enorm stat, som den danske og andre vesteuropæiske ville kunne kanalisere en smule af det, de fratager egne borgere over i forsvar. Hvis det var det, det handlede om. Og nej, det er ikke en ‘økonomisk optimal’ løsning at betale Ukrainere for at fortsætte i kødhakkemaskinen.
Tilsyndeladende har de gode folk i CEPOS (sagt uden ironi) slugt historien om det russiske regimes uprovokerede overfald råt, og er i fuld TDS-denial. Putin startede og han stopper ikke før Lissabon, lader til at være narrativet.
Der er behov for at supplere med vinkler der er underbelyst i det, der går under betegnelsen presse.
Her er Jeffrey Sachs (ikke ligefrem en ‘højreorienteret’) interviewet hos Tucker Carlson (gys!). Samarbejde er vejen frem, ikke destruktion af infrastruktur, eller misbrug af Ukrainere til bekæmpe russeren!
(Min fremhævelse)
“This is absolutely the basis for peace. And they couldn’t tell the truth for three decades. They could not admit what any of us knew, because I’ve been around this region for 36 years in detail.
I sat with Boris Yeltsin. I sat with Mikhail Gorbachev. But the Americans would not tell the truth publicly until yesterday, that this was so provocative, it was a game.
They thought they’d win the game. I don’t know how many people here played, or played in their childhood, the game of risk. The game of risk was a big game for me.
You wanted your piece on every part of the world map. That was the game. When you took over the whole world, world hegemony, we now call it, you won.
They’re playing that game until this administration. So the two most important, three important things have happened, in my view, in this administration so far. First, our new Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the fundamental truth.
We are in a multipolar world. First time the sentence was uttered, he told the truth. What does it mean?
The American mindset for 30 years was we run the show. Marco Rubio said”.
…
“But it’s pretty important that it was said so publicly and so visibly. And of course, Europe is in a tizzy because Europe signed on to the US project, all these politicians in Europe are there where they are because they were part of the US project. And now the US is reversing its project and you didn’t tell us and you didn’t, what are we supposed to do?
We’re way out there. And so they’re completely befuddled. And I have to say, I told them personally, many of these leaders, and I mean personally, one by one, for years, you are going to get trapped this way because this project doesn’t work.
It doesn’t make sense. It’s a game for the Americans, but it’s life and death for the Russians. So it cannot be won by the American side.
It’s impossible. And I tried to tell them. And nobody in Europe either had the clarity or the guts to see it, except the person that preceded me in this seat, Prime Minister Orban, because he was completely clear about this from the first day.
Now others are starting, but even till today, the Europeans can’t get it because they’re so deeply invested in something that makes no sense. They should have said, Russia’s big, it lives near us. Let’s cooperate.
… But that, too, is a misreading of history. The Russian people were also victims who suffered under the Soviet Union. And it was the Russian people, led by Mikhail Gorbachev, who peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union. Successive leaders, from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin, then turned to the West in hopes of an improved relationship and a re-engineered security architecture that transcended the Cold War blocs. It was the American refusal to even consider negotiating that new relationship that locked “the West” into “fac[ing] off against the East again in what was widely called a new cold war.” There is no a priori reason to be treating Russia the way the U.S. treated the Soviet Union, and that regrettable result may have been avoided.
Betydningen af at kunne tale frit med og om sine medmennesker er vanskelig at overvurdere, hvis man ellers bryder sig om menneskelig trivsel. Det sidste er en væsentlig detalje. Finder man for eksempel at det vigtigste i universet er, at jordkloden lades uberørt af menneskehånd, er det vanskeligt at finde fælles fodslag om politiske tiltag.
Demokrati er ikke en af de institutioner der har den højeste stjerne her i butikken. I den generelt uskønne proces med formelt at skifte herskere, og lade som om pøbelen reelt har nogen indflydelse, er der dog kommet nogle interessante ting frem på den anden side af andedammen. Ting, vi næppe var blevet opmærksomme på, hvis ikke netop Ond Orange Mand var blevet valgt af pøbelen – og vigtigere, status quo i den grad blevet fravalgt.
Et morsomt eksempel er den såkaldte nødhjælp, der blot er hvidvaskning af skattedollars der bruges til at bestikke til højre og venstre og hvidvaskning i en anden kategori, end den vi andre bliver mistænkt for, når vi vil hæve nogle af vores egne penge i banken!
Her er et uddrag fra Ron Paul Liberty report
“From those within the empire’s inner core, the full seismic implications of Trump’s aid suspension may not be fully obvious. But here in the Balkans, where USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy has penetrated every sphere of public, political, and even daily life, the impact is absolutely monumental. And here is a headline he shares.
Trump’s suspension of US foreign aid hits hundreds of Balkan projects, hundreds of projects just in the Balkans, determining what information is available and determining what the debate will look like in the public sphere. This is what’s happening. And I go to the next one here.
This is the second one from Kit. He points out, in Bosnia, all basic functions of the state were post-war, forcibly outsourced to USAID, NED, Soros, et cetera. On top of enfeebling the local population, it created enormous opportunities for grift and corruption, which anyone who could took full advantage of.
And you did see media tycoons emerging out of post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, who were able to take advantage of that gravy train. I can say from personal experience, I’ve seen it up close.”
…
“We’ll just finish up with this. In Georgia, the country Georgia, foreign civil society penetration produces significant chilling effect in the local population. People know if they say wrong things, there can be personal and professional consequences.
Now, what does that remind you of? You know that if you say the wrong things in public, politically, you can have personal and professional consequences. Doesn’t that sound like the kind of system that they escaped from in 89, 90 and 91?”
Det er et fantastisk opbrud i et system der er gennemsyret af magtmisbrug – og Ond Orange Mand fortjener ros for et slag i bolledejen. Når det så er sagt, er det rigelig grund til at kritisere hans interventionsiver, hvad enten det nu er en del af deal making eller the real deal. Når han svinger statens kølle for at nedbryde tidligere forhindringer, subsidier og anden skævvridning af ellers frivillig aktivitet der ville forekomme blandt mennesker (markedsbaseret) skal det billiges. Men når han blot svinger køllen for at gennemtrumfe egne interesser skal det kritiseres. Selvom der er en vis befriende ligefremhed forbundet med, at han åbent siger hvad der ellers kun har været en uudtalt regel: Amerikas ret er hvad Amerika har magt til at gennemføre. Og en villig presse, der ikke er andet end propaganda (Mockingbird).
Trump er ikke en Rothbardian – og har næppe læst Statens Anatomi. Du kan sikkert nå det inden ham. Vi har brug for at staten dirigerer en voldsomt meget mindre del af økonomien end nu. Toldmure er heller ikke løsningen – man straffer blot de fleste inden for muren og dem udenfor, mens et fåtal beskyttes og beriges på andres bekostning. De bør ikke bygges op og de eksisterende skal rives ned. Trumps regime bliver næppe det der går den vej, selvom der er gode takter på nogle (andre) områder.
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
