About the blog the author writes:
The text itself one can find here: AN ACCOUNT OF Denmark, AS It was in the Year 1692 or find it on archive, links are here.This website was originally designed to present the results of my research into An Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692. I had discovered that its author Robert Molesworth (1656-1725), was very unlike the myths that have been spread about him. He was a multi-faceted character with an unusual background and many surprising enthusiasms, ideas and interests.
“He had a violent temper, but he had also great charm and few who knew him well failed to respond to it . . . no one who had known him could thereafter ignore politics.”
I can now see more clearly than before how this essentualization and personification of power and the metaphoric descriptions of its character came to suffuse their thinking. In a situation of political conflict with established authority they drew on the legacy of the “Commonwealthmen,” the “real Whigs,” who had struggled in the generation after the Revolution of 1688 to carry forward against the Hanoverian court dominated by Robert Walpole the reform principles of the seventeenth century. The great spokesmen and publicists of that earlier age, the political pamphleteers John
Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, had been eloquent and prolific on the need or reform and the dangers of powerful autocracies. Their two most famous weekly publications were the Independent Whig and Cato’s Letters, which, republished in book form, together constituted 191 essays on “Liberty, Civil and Religious.” These pamphleteers of the 1720s expressed in vivid, challenging, defiant prose the basic themes on the nature and uses of power that the later American Patriots would fervently embrace.
These earlier writings overflowed with examples of the havoc wrought by power—power unfettered, power released, power allowed to tear at the vitals of free institutions and at the liberties of ordinary folk. In a free state power is a trust acquired by consent and used only for the people’s good. When it is acquired by force or deceit by those who use it to enhance their own glory and influence, power, they wrote, is arbitrary, and the people suffer deeply. Unconstrained monopolists of power become monsters, tyrants, savages, and they make the world “a slaughter-house,” a “desart.” They transform “blessings and plenty into curses and misery, great cities into gloomy solitudes, and their rich citizens into beggars and vagabonds.” The
“Daemons” of power become worse the longer they wield their illegal force, until their victims, refusing to “be slaves to their own servants,” find it necessary for their survival to oppose them. And then, they wrote, the great upheavals ensue, as cities and nations are torn apart in the struggle for the uses of power.
These words of the earlier age on the dark progress of power lay deep in the American polemics of the 1760s and 1770s. Active resistance, the American Revolutionaries feared, was required against those who had gained, by brutality or guile or demagoguery, some measure of power’s dark essence.
Some people, they knew, seemed never to have known freedom, having been ruled by powerful despots time out of mind: the Russians, the Turks, and the Ottomans, governed by vicious leaders backed by the power of personal janissary troops. But what interested the Americans more than such legendary despotisms were examples of once-free states whose descent into autocracies of power had happened within living memory and had been recorded in detail by participants or contemporary witnesses.
Poland was a case in point—a nation, they believed, sunk in human misery, its peasant people reduced to barbarism, its social condition “a scene of carnage.” They could trace equally the loss of liberty in France under Louis XIV, the advent of autocracy in Sweden, and the revolts that shook Spain and severed its relation to Portugal. The most recent example of the loss of freedom was that of Denmark, a story that had been recorded in day by- day, at times hour-by-hour detail by Viscount Molesworth, England’s envoy to Copenhagen under William III. In four short days, they learned from Molesworth’s An Account of Denmark, that country had “changed from an estate little different from aristocracy to as absolute a monarchy as any is at present.” Molesworth, an eyewitness, knew exactly what had happened.
At a critical moment, seeking safety from the impositions of the nobles, the two lower orders, the commons and the clergy, fearful and angry, gave the king, their supposed protector, the absolute power of the state, only to discover that “the little finger of an absolute prince can be heavier than the loins of many nobles.”
But the greatest example they knew of the descent from freedom to autocracy was the most distant from them in time but so familiar to them as to be contemporaneous in their thinking. This was the fortunes of ancient Rome.
At the start of the book, I wrote at length of the Americans’ deep immersion in the writings of antiquity. “Knowledge of classical authors,” I wrote, “was universal among colonists with any degree of education,” and I referred to the vast array of classical authors they knew and referred to—not merely the obvious Latin writers like Cicero, Tacitus, Sallust, Livy, Ovid, and Virgil, and not merely, among the Greeks, Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus, Plato, and Plutarch, but also lesser known writers like Strabo, Nepos, Petronius, Lucan, and Marcus Aurelius. There was much misunderstanding in their readings; but still, I wrote, they found in the classics their ideal selves, and to some extent their inner voices. And then I
The classics of the ancient world are everywhere in the literature of the Revolution, but they are everywhere illustrative, not determinative, of thought. They contributed a vivid vocabulary but not the logic or grammar of thought, a universally respected
personification but not the source of political and social beliefs.
The objections to these words by many writers on the classics in America have not subsided in the years since their appearance. It seems that everyone who writes about the subject seems obliged to register, upon reading these words, a sense of violation, of desecration, of lèse-majesté. But for those who knew Molesworth’s Account of Denmark, the dismal fortunes of Poland, and the collapse of good order in Spain and Sweden, the destruction of the ancient Roman republic, the advent of Caesarian power and the resulting dictatorial principate, was one among many illustrations.
The fullest and most famous history of the destruction of Roman freedom and the rise of imperial power that left Rome in ruins was the detailed two volume account by the Abbé René-Aubert Vertot, “one of the most popular writers of the first half of the eighteenth century” (Caroline Robbins). English translations of his Revolutions That Happened in the Government of the Roman Republic (1720) were in almost every library, private or institutional, in British North America. And so too were copies of Vertot’s parallel accounts of the loss of freedom in Spain and Sweden. They were all illustrations of a universal phenomenon. What was unique about the Roman example was the vividness and drama of the personalities involved and the fame and familiarity of some of the major texts of the story.
With Hoadly, among his contemporaries, though below him in importance to the Americans, was the outstanding opponent in Parliament of Walpole’s administration, the leader of a coterie of early eighteenth century freethinking Whigs, Robert Viscount Molesworth. Friend of Trenchard and Gordon, encomiast of Cato’s Letters (they were frequently attributed to him), he was known particularly in the colonies for his Account of Denmark (1694), which detailed the process by which free states succumb to absolutism.21
What made it so, what turned power into a malignant force, was not its own nature so much as the nature of man — his susceptibility to corruption and his lust for self-aggrandizement.5
On this there was absolute agreement. Everyone, of course, knew that if “weak or ignorant men are entrusted with power” there will be “universal confusion,” for “such exaltation will … make them giddy and vain and deprive them of the little understanding they had before.” But it was not simply a question of what the weak and ignorant will do. The problem was more systematic than that; it concerned “mankind in general.” And the point they hammered home time and again, and agreed on — freethinking Anglican literati no less than neo-Calvinist theologians — was the incapacity of the species, of mankind in general, to withstand the
temptations of power. Such is “the depravity of mankind,” Samuel Adams, speaking for the Boston Town Meeting, declared, “that ambition and lust of power above the law are … predominant passions in the breasts of most men.” These are instincts that have “in all nations combined the worst passions of the human heart and the worst projects of the human mind in league against the liberties of mankind.” Power always and everywhere had had a pernicious, corrupting effect upon men. It “converts a good man in private life to a tyrant in office.” It acts upon men like drink: it “is known to be intoxicating in its nature” — “too intoxicating and liable to abuse.” And nothing within man is sufficiently strong to guard against these effects of power — certainly not “the united considerations of reason and religion,” for they have never “been sufficiently powerful to restrain these lusts of men.”6
From these central premises on the nature of power and man’s weakness in face of its temptations, there followed a series of important conclusions. Since power “in proportion to its extent is ever prone to wantonness,” Josiah Quincy wrote, and since in the last analysis “the supreme power is ever possessed by those who have arms in their hands and are disciplined to the use of them,” the absolute danger to liberty lay in the absolute supremacy of “a veteran army” — in making “the civil subordinate to the military,” as Jefferson put it in 1774, “instead of subjecting the military to the civil powers.” Their fear was not simply of armies but of standing armies, a phrase that had distinctive connotations, derived, like so much of their political thought, from the seventeenth century and articulated for them by earlier English writers — in this case most memorably by Trenchard in his famous An Argument, Shewing, that a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government … (1697). With him the colonists universally agreed that “unhappy nations have lost that precious jewel liberty … [because] their necessities or indiscretion have permitted a standing army to be kept amongst them.” There was, they knew, no “worse state of thraldom than a military power in any government, unchecked and uncontrolled by the civil power”; and they had a vivid sense of what such armies were: gangs of restless mercenaries, responsible only to the whims of the rulers who paid them, capable of destroying all right, law, and liberty that stood in their way.7
This fear of standing armies followed directly from the colonists’ understanding of power and of human nature: on purely logical grounds it was a reasonable fear. But it went beyond mere logic. Only too evidently was it justified, as the colonists saw it, by history and by the facts of the contemporary world. Conclusive examples of what happened when standing armies were permitted to dominate communities were constantly before their minds’ eyes. There was, first and foremost, the example of the
Turks, whose rulers — cruel, sensuous “bashaws in their little divans” — were legendary, ideal types of despots who reigned unchecked by right or law or in any sense the consent of the people; their power rested on the swords of their vicious janissaries, the worst of standing armies. So too had the French kings snuffed out the liberties of their subjects “by force” and reduced to nothing the “puny privilege of the French parliaments.” The ranks of “despotic kingdoms” included also Poland, Spain, and Russia; India and Egypt were occasionally mentioned too.8
More interesting than these venerable despotisms, bywords for the rule of force unrestrained by countervailing influences, were a number of despotic states that had within living memory been free and whose enslavement, being recent, had been directly observed, Venice was one: it had once, not so long ago, been a republic, but now it was governed “by one of the worst of despotisms.” Sweden was another; the colonists themselves could remember when the Swedish people had enjoyed liberty
to the full; but now, in the 1760’s, they were known to “rejoice at being subject to the caprice and arbitrary power of a tyrant, and kiss their chains.” But the most vivid of these sad cases, because the most closely studied, was that of Denmark. The destruction of parliamentary liberties in Denmark had in fact taken place a century before, but that event, carefully examined in a treatise famous in opposition circles and in America, was experienced as contemporary by the colonists. Molesworth’s An Account of Denmark (1694) established the general point, implicit in all similar histories but explicit in this one, that the preservation of liberty rested on the ability of the people to maintain effective checks on the wielders of power, and hence in the last analysis rested on the vigilance and moral stamina of the people. Certain forms of
government made particularly heavy demands on the virtue of the people. Everyone knew that democracy — direct rule by all the people — required such spartan, self-denying virtue on the part of all the people that it was likely to survive only where poverty made upright behavior necessary for the perpetuation of the race. Other forms, aristocracies, for example, made less extreme demands; but even in them virtue and sleepless vigilance on the part of at least the ruling class were necessary if privilege was to be kept responsible and the inroads of tyranny perpetually blocked off. It had been the lack of this vigilance that had brought liberty in Denmark to its knees, for there a corrupt nobility, more interested in using its privileges for selfindulgence than for service to the state, had dropped its guard and allowed
in a standing army which quickly destroyed the constitution and the liberties protected by it. the perpetuation of the race. Other forms, aristocracies, for example, made less extreme demands; but even in them virtue and sleepless vigilance on
the part of at least the ruling class were necessary if privilege was to be kept
responsible and the inroads of tyranny perpetually blocked off. It had been the lack of this vigilance that had brought liberty in Denmark to its knees, for there a corrupt nobility, more interested in using its privileges for selfindulgence than for service to the state, had dropped its guard and allowed in a standing army which quickly destroyed the constitution and the liberties protected by it.
The converse of all of this was equally true and more directly relevant. The few peoples that had managed to retain their liberties in the face of all efforts of would-be tyrants propelled by the lust for power had been doughty folk whose vigilance had never relaxed and whose virtue had remained uncontaminated. The Swiss, a rustic people locked in mountain sanctuaries, were ancient members of this heroic group; they had won their liberty long ago and had maintained it stubbornly ever after. The Dutch were more recent members, having overthrown the despotic rule of Spain only a century earlier; they too were industrious people of stubborn, Calvinist virtue, and they were led by an alert aristocracy. More recent in their emergence from darkness were the Corsicans, whose revolt against Genoese overlords backed by French power had begun only in 1729; they were still, at the time of the Stamp Act, struggling under the leadership of Pasquale Paoli to maintain their independence and liberty.9
Above all, however, there were the English themselves. The colonists’ attitude to the whole world of politics and government was fundamentally shaped by the root assumption that they, as Britishers, shared in a unique inheritance of liberty. The English people, they believed, though often threatened by despots who had risen in their midst, had managed to maintain, to a greater degree and for a longer period of time than any other people, a tradition of the successful control of power and of those evil tendencies of human nature that would prevent its proper uses.
Conceiving of liberty, then, as the exercise, within the boundaries of the law, of natural rights whose essences were minimally stated in English law and custom, the colonists saw in the balance of powers of the British constitution “a system of consummate wisdom” that provided an effective “check upon the power to oppress.”24 Yet they were far from optimistic about the future of liberty. They looked ahead with anxiety rather than with confidence, for they knew, from the whole of their received tradition, of the desperate plight of liberty everywhere: “new tyrannies have sprung up, like
so many new plagues, within the memory of man, and … [have] engrossed almost the whole earth,” rendering “the world a slaughterhouse.” Rulers of the East were “almost universally absolute tyrants … The states of Africa are scenes of tyranny, barbarity, confusion, and every form of violence. And even in Europe, where human nature and society are arrived at the highest improvements, where can we find a well constituted government or a well governed people?” France “has an arbitrary authority”; Prussia, “an absolute government”; Sweden and Denmark “have sold or betrayed their liberties”; Rome “groans under a medley of civil and ecclesiastical bondage”; Germany “is a hundred-headed hydra”; and Poland a ruin of “extravagant licentiousness and anarchy … the nobility and gentry arbitrary despotic tyrants, and the populace a race of slaves.” Only in Britain — and her colonies — had liberty emerged from its trials intact; only in Britain had the battle repeatedly been won. Yet even in Britain the margin of victory had been narrow, especially in the last, bitter struggle with would-be despots of the house of Stuart. And the dangers were known to persist.25
The historical phasing of the defense of liberty in England was a matter of great importance to the colonists not merely because it illustrated the characteristic dangers liberty faced but also because it made clear their own special role in history. “Liberty,” James Otis wrote in a sentence that reveals much of the structure of the colonists’ historical thought, “was better understood and more fully enjoyed by our ancestors before the coming in of the first Norman tyrants than ever after, till it was found necessary for the salvation of the kingdom to combat the arbitrary and wicked proceedings of the Stuarts.” The period before the Norman conquest was the greatest age of English history.
But the troops arrived, four regiments in all: in bold, stark actuality a standing army — just such a standing army as had snuffed out freedom in Denmark, classically, and elsewhere throughout the world. True, British regulars had been introduced into the colonies on a permanent basis at the end of the Seven Years’ War; that in itself had been disquieting. But it had then been argued that troops were needed to police the newly acquired territories, and that they were not in any case to be regularly garrisoned in peaceful, populous towns.20 No such defense could be made of the troops sent to Boston in 1768. No simple, ingenuous explanation would suffice.
The true motive was only too apparent for those with eyes to see. One of the classic stages in the process of destroying free constitutions of government had been reached.
To those most sensitive to the ideological currents of the day, the danger could scarcely have been greater. “To have a standing army!” Andrew Eliot wrote from Boston to Thomas Hollis in September, 1768, “Good God! What can be worse to a people who have tasted the sweets of liberty!
Looking at thorbiorn's posts I noticed your post with a familiar name of a sunk ship, "Helge Ingstad". It just happens that I read an article on ZH which gives some additional details that the below seem to lack. From your post,
“If the crew had been better trained, they would have had a better understanding of how to save the ship,” claimed Dag Liseth of the commission’s maritime division. The report itself notes that the Navy did not provide the crew with a “good enough understanding to be able to handle the scenario they found themselves in on the night of the accident.”
The commission has already delivered its first report on the loss of the NOK 5 billion frigate that cited a series of mistakes and misunderstandings on board the frigate before it crashed into a fully-laden oil tanker leaving Equinor’s Sture terminal northwest of Bergen. The first report also found fault, however, with those in charge of maritime traffic in the area at the time and with lighting on board the tanker, which the frigate’s crew mistook to be the refinery itself.
‘Helge Ingstad! Turn!’
The tanker first tried to identify the vessel via maritime traffic radio, without immediate success. It was told by those on duty at the maritime traffic central at Fedje that the unidentified vessel had not reported its presence.
When the frigate Helge Ingstad, returning to home port in Bergen after taking part in NATO’s huge Trident Juncture military exercise off Trondheim, eventually confirmed “yes, it’s us,” the tanker’s radioed warnings directly to the frigate on a collision course went unheeded.
“Turn starboard (right) at once,” an urgent voice from the tanker is heard on audio logs of the radio communication obtained and aired publicly by VG on Saturday evening.
After the frigate confirmed its presence, the tanker issued more warnings: “You have to do something, you’re beginning to really close in (on us).”
There was no response. “Helge Ingstad! Drei (turn)!” demanded a voice from the tanker. No response. “There’s going to be a collision here, then. Turn!”
A voice from the frigate later reports that it had “a situation, we have struck an unknown object” and that it had lost power and steering. The voice later reported it had also grounded and requested “immediate assistance … we need most everything.” Tugboats from the Sture terminal were sent directly to the frigate’s reported position.
He hasn’t resorted to calling them “enemies of the people,” like US President Donald Trump has, but Norwegian Defense Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen has definitely come out swinging against inquisitive reporters. He thinks they’ve been asking far too many questions after a Norwegian frigate collided with a tanker earlier this month.
As women increasingly are hired into traditionally male jobs via affirmative action laws or indirect pressure via media, we see more and more incompetence. This is true whether it is academia, the military or the police. Here's a funny example from Norway a few years ago. The Norwegian navy was recruiting more women and celebrating their great success in their own magazine Forsvarets Forum (Forum of the Defense) in April 2017.
We can read a quote from one female navigator named Emilie Jakobsen Ophus:
She is named a navigator on the KNM Helge Ingstad, which is, well was, a frigate. You can guess where this is going. The article also mentions that 4 out of 5 navigators onboard are female. Fast forward to only the next year and we see this headline:- Det er en fordel å være mange kvinner om bord. Det blir jo med en gang en naturlig greie og et ganske annerledes miljø, som jeg ser på som positivt.
- It is an advantage to be many women onboard. It immediately becomes a natural thing and a quite different environment, which I see as positive.
17 May 2022 • DN.se
Ann Linde has signed NATO application. The Foreign Minister: 'Landed on what we think is best for Sweden'.
- "The next step is to equip our JAS aircraft with nuclear weapons"
And writes further in a second tweet:
- "Dadgostar says that Swedish membership of NATO means that there is a risk that the use of nuclear weapons will increase. Is there a nuclear bombing going on that the rest of us don't know about?"
[ What a dumba** kind of answer - now really ]
A group out of sweden called freepeoplesmovement has made several short YouTube snippets (14 as of now) claiming that sweden/wallenberg/investor is some kind of center in deep state. May be thats why sweden played a spesial role under the cv pandemi?(Joe) Why did Sweden not act in lockstep with pretty much everyone else in terms of lockdown and the fear mongering and controls? Why did they get a pass? Why were they ABLE to not follow the mandate?
A: Just wait!
Q: (Joe) Really?!
The cooperation is about the US more than NATO. The Danish media, Politiken.dk, had an article a few days ago:"building NATO as the institutional link between Europe and North America."
Two people from the small left-wing media Arbejderen.dk wrote a letter about the base negotiations and perceive more problems than the relatively minor of a criminal soldier having to be judged by US law and not Danish.US agreement may be in conflict with the Constitution
A new defense agreement could give the United States full jurisdiction over American soldiers in criminal cases against Danish citizens. Expert is in doubt as to whether this can happen within the Constitution.
Denmark is on its way to granting American soldiers and authorities unusual legal rights on Danish soil to Danish citizens. Rights that may mean that it will be American and not Danish authorities who handle possible crimes such as rape committed by American soldiers against Danes.
The United States wants a defense agreement with Denmark, and Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (S) called in February shortly before Russia's invasion of Ukraine it 'appropriate and necessary to open a new chapter in Danish foreign, security and defense policy' and to get an agreement on stationing of American war materiel and soldiers on Danish soil.
A military regime
It is not NATO with which Denmark signs a base agreement, but the US government, and it is an agreement on US military bases in Denmark, not NATO's; a significant difference and for the information of those who should not be aware of the difference.
In Norway, the Storting (Folketinget) has just approved a base agreement with the United States - with a very narrow majority.
It is a very far-reaching agreement which, in principle, legitimizes 'a state within the state', albeit a definite military regime under American leadership and legislation, but on Norwegian soil. It is then a question of a completely real relinquishment of sovereignty over Norwegian land and law enforcement.
Can a Danish (as well as Norwegian) government in the long run trust the loyalty of the Danish military and security police. We can see a clear conflict of loyalty ahead of us; not least if the countries have social democratic and left-wing supported governments.
In other words, there is sufficient information out there for Danish and Scandinavian citizens to know where this base business can lead.When a foreign state in peacetime is given the right to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over significant land areas, this is manifestly contrary to the Constitution and national sovereignty.
The military entails the possibility of nuclear weapons throughout the Nordic region at every single US base and with an expansion to the national military, including through NATO and the JEB.
Any form of previous peace and relaxation policy and national neutrality has thus been reduced in favor of a nuclear nuclear umbrella over Scandinavia, which has brought the Nordic region from the conflict periphery and right into the bulls eye of war for a nuclear attack from either side.
It's like a dystopian madness taken out of the brains of crazy uniformed people, and it's not a legitimate security policy, it's insane.
We have some experience with American military bases with nuclear weapons via the Commonwealth and the Thule base in Greenland, and how little we ourselves have to say there.
A historic precedent from WWII:[...]
The Norwegian and Danish governments (later both Finland and Sweden) intend to implement a similar base agreement and thus pose a greater security threat to the peoples and civil society in the Nordic region than ever before.
These areas will no longer be accessible to the general public and civil society. It will be a serious criminal offense not to comply with it - under US military jurisdiction and administration of justice.
Soon we can see the US military occupying our country and the land of others through a non-cancellable 10-year cooperation agreement with the government of that country and with an eerily far-reaching content. It is the responsibility of the Danish government.
The forthcoming base agreement will increase the danger of using nuclear weapons and increase military armaments and escalate the Nordic countries and Denmark to high-risk zones.
The agreement is open to American violations of human rights on Danish territory. It will weaken democracy and undermine Danish national sovereignty. As well as being the cause of serious damage to nature, the environment and the climate.
With the base agreement in the future, the USA will have unhindered access to these Danish areas in terms of personnel, weapons and soldiers, while the rest of us no longer have the same right. There are no restrictions on the number of US forces. The United States enforces its own authority on the bases to prosecute non-official acts committed by members of the U.S. force; thus also criminal acts committed by American soldiers outside the base areas.
In principle, the United States can land several battalions of US troops in Denmark with the agreement in hand.
In the April days of 1940, the German army occupied Copenhagen with a few thousand men - and without already having bases in the country.
The danger of a US military occupation of Denmark as part of a preventive war has moved significantly closer.
For years, the military industry was frowned upon by many, but it has changed, and Danish businesses see new opportunities:Kremlin troops are accused of looting the grain and houses of Ukrainians. But the Russians have also targeted another precious prey
A special group of experts has been keeping a close eye on the Russian looting expeditions since the beginning of the war. They have spotted a pattern.
Some papers have a daily update that leave the impression that the readers is kept up to date with the latest developments
The above break of cultural ties has been going on for a long time also in Western Europe. That the performance of singers, actors, painters, and the celebration of literature is to be replaced by destroyed Russian military hardware is quite in tune with much else on the postmodern cultural scene.
Liveblog: The war in Ukraine continues - follow the latest developments
Russia's invasion of Ukraine seems to be stalled, and the Ukrainians return fire - with the help of the West, which is supplying more and more weapons. There are several reports of war crimes against civilians and several cities have been destroyed by bombings. Follow the development in the live blog below.
Here is an example of the political reflections in the EU:Military analyst: Vladimir Putin at the helm has 'been caught in his own narrative'
The war in Ukraine is generally marked by stagnation and deadlocked positions.
On Friday, it is four months since Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, writing another bloody chapter in Europe's history with thousands of dead people, millions on the run and countless Ukrainian cities laid in ruins.
And as the bloodshed has moved away from the big cities like Kyiv, Kharkiv and Mariupol to the kilometer-long trenches in the eastern part of the country, the media's focus - also here at Politiken - has changed, so that in recent weeks more has been written about the big political game in Brussels, Moscow and Washington, D.C., than about the battles that are constantly taking place around cities that few can place on a map.
Frequently one can find a report in a Danish paper from an article in a main stream US or UK paper. The Washington Post, the New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent. In this article, the West, is not viewed as having any fault except not having been aggressive enough against Russia and not doing enough to support Ukraine. It is characteristic that they rely on a person like Mikhail Khodorkovsky.Better peace than justice - Europe is faltering in defense of Ukraine
Europe has wholeheartedly supported the Ukrainians in the fight against the Russians. However, a new study shows that support is declining among Europeans, who predominantly want peace with Russia.
An example of a personal reflection on the war can be found in an opinion blog.Russian rich man: It will lead to Putin's death
Former Russian oligarch warns West against what he claims will be Vladimir Putin's next step. And then he predicts what will lead to the fall of the president.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was formerly one of Russia's richest oligarchs.
Now he predicts what will lead to Vladimir Putin's death.
It happens in an interview with The Financial Times.
'If he (Vladimir Putin, ed.) Now wins in Ukraine, he will start a war against NATO due to domestic problems. And in the end, he will lose that war, 'predicts Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
It will eventually lead to Putin's downfall, the former oligarch predicts:
“Had it not been for the many victims (the war is leading, ed.), I would have said that I am actually quite happy, for he has gone out on a path that is going to lead to his death. But this specific victory in Ukraine depends entirely on the West. '
According to the newspaper, Khodorkovsky criticizes the West for not realizing what is at stake:
'If we fail to deal with this plague in Ukraine, it will spread to other territories.'
This is not the first time Mikhail Khodorkovsky has spoken out critically about Putin and Russia.
As early as 2003, he criticized Russia for corruption and began to mark himself as a critic of the Russian government. It did not happen without consequences. The former oligarch was arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison.
Today he lives in exile in London and is one of the country's most prominent dissidents. He has on several occasions been strongly opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is now warning the West against what he believes is Putin's next move: a war against NATO.
If you think the above coverage left points out of consideration, there may be a reason.Wait a bit before romanticization of the war in Ukraine
Not even the highly acclaimed Danish conversational democracy fell from the sky.
The great publicist and world citizen Per Nyholm has gone to Mykolaiv on the Ukrainian Black Sea coast and has stayed at a hotel.
'Actually, I should spend the night in a shelter,' the globetrotter confides to his readers, without bothering to find out where it's.
Fortunately, we have very good connections: 'In an exterior modest, in its interior astonishingly elegant hotel, I have been given a lodging with my back to the front.' There he then sits and philosophizes: 'I spend my free time reading in Kants 'The eternal peace', brought to the purpose. '
It is, even in the grotesque stream of news, difficult to find a more narcissistic gesture than this, which completely and utterly ignores the fact that it is rather the war that is eternal and the peace that is temporary. A former foreign correspondent should know that.
In his ritual tirades about the war in Ukraine, Per Nyholm also errs in the essence of the current conflict, which is that Ukraine is not a sovereign, independent nation-state built on what the liberal elites tend to call the rule of law and democracy, but rather a mask of cultural and political fragments, oligarchs and militias, a porous, corrupt and unstable entity without a monopoly of violence on a colossal territory.
In May, I met a former journalist; who considered the general discourse on Covid and Ukraine so deficient that the journalists ought to be ashamed of themselves. To me, this means there may be people out there who had sincere intentions, but their contribution did not fit into the intended stories in a way that was politically and economically desirable.The Influence Act - a totalitarian masterpiece
The Danish media's coverage of the crisis in Ukraine is a completely one-sided barrage of American propaganda.
Published February 17, 2022
By Carl Henrik Rørbeck - journalist & fraud specialist
The Danish media's coverage of the crisis in Ukraine is a completely one-sided barrage of American propaganda. Everything the United States says is true, everything Russia says is malicious propaganda. This is how reality has never looked like. As you know, every case has two sides - but we must not know the other. At the same time, the Danes are barred from having an independent opinion on foreign policy under the infamous Influence Act; it is is simply punishable.
108 of the Penal Code reads as follows: “Anyone who otherwise does something whereby foreign intelligence services are enabled or assisted to act immediately or directly within the territory of the Danish state, including co-operation in carrying out advocacy activities with a view to to influence decision-making or the formation of public opinion, is punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 years ”.
The sentence can then increase to 12 years if it happens during a state of war or in connection with an election.
This is the so-called 'law of influence'. The newspaper Arbejderen wrote about the proposal - with reference to the preparatory work:
The bill makes it a criminal offense to share, for example, notices that are to “negatively affect the general perception of NATO co-operation”, if the Danish prosecution can prove that it knows or may know that by sharing a notice it puts a foreign intelligence service in able to influence decision-making or the general opinion formation in Denmark. There must be cooperation with the foreign intelligence service. But the 'cooperation' does not have to be a direct contact with a foreign intelligence service. It can simply be a contact to a foreign foreign authority, embassy, media or company that cooperates with a foreign intelligence service. If the Danish authorities believe that there is in fact aid to a foreign intelligence service, it is a criminal offense. '
The above politician was a member of the Socialist party, Rødt, which appears to support the story of the conflict presented by Ukraine, which may explain why he was expelled. There are other voices in Norway too, a group of Norwegian Socialist journalists published an article written by: Fredrik S. HeffermehlHendrik Webber: As a politician, I tried to be a voice of reason on Ukraine. For that, my party expelled me
Western European elites willfully ignore the context and history that led to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as reality on the ground.
On cooperation between people in Scandinavian countriesWhat can we learn from the war?
The lesson of Ukraine is how intolerable Russia is experiencing American unfoldment in its neighboring countries, yet the Nordic countries are fleeing further into the arms of the United States. A United States in political disarray and under ever-increasing control of the forces that President and General Eisenhower warned against. After the attack, the media has stimulated the one-sided, one-eyed, war intoxication that a war often triggers. Cultivated the story of the invasion of a free country and forgot how strong the United States was inside Ukraine with weapons and military training, Joe Biden's son, the Supreme Court case against Trump for abusing Ukrainian connections to win the presidential election. And that the United States' expansion of NATO to the east had exactly the consequences it was warned against.
Thinking openly and freely about causes and ways forward towards lasting peace, in a war situation easily leads to accusations of supporting the wrong side. It is still necessary. Almost everyone discusses from the world as it is (immutable), my theme is how it (inevitably necessary) must soon be, if we are to have a chance to survive. There are two different discussions. We always want Russia as a neighbor and need a good neighborhood. In that sense, US and NATO policies in Europe have been a real disaster and are only getting worse.
Thank you for posting this, I have been listening to the material coming from this group in the recent weeks and finding it VERY interesting, as a native Swede. Basically what they are suggesting is that the Wallenberg family is at the very heart of the deep state and the Swedish people is one of the most duped and brainwashed in the world. They have a podcast which is great too which goes into a lot of detail on historical developments etc: The Best Kept Secret of the Deep StateA group out of sweden called freepeoplesmovement has made several short YouTube snippets (14 as of now) claiming that sweden/wallenberg/investor is some kind of center in deep state. May be thats why sweden played a spesial role under the cv pandemi?
(A central man in the movement is podcaster Carl Norberg. (Carl Norberg - Palanthir)).
The #1 of the yt-films named "what is the deep state" is here:, then you can find your way to the rest of the films.
The film is 2 months old and seen by 34k FWIW.
The Wallenbergs (through Investor) own most of Sweden, yes, but they are also behind worldwide telecom and other infrastructures, and many other historical happenings such as the Opium wars through the East Indian trading companies and also providing most of the material for ww2, it seems. And also, it seems, connected to any and every recent scandal. Very interesting to catch a glimpse of this, including the historical "coddling of the Swedish mind" which I have always wondered about. I will definitely continue to keep an eye on this group and what they are presenting.Oh yes... The Wallenbergs and Sweden
Here is e.g. a documentary made from 2006 in Swedish language with English subtitles about the mysterious Wallenberg family, which practically owns most of Sweden.
"To be, not to be seen"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family A documentary that aired on Swedish TV in 2006, a commissioned work, which scratches on the mere surface on the Wallenbergs. PART II: A Despotic Father https://www.bitchute.com/video/a5d39eahnlmH/ …www.bitchute.com
Wallenberg Dynasty, Europe's most powerful - part 1
"A despotic Father"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family A documentary that aired on Swedish TV in 2006, a commissioned work, which scratches on the mere surface on the Wallenbergs. The Wallenberg family are a prominent Swedish family, Europe's most power…www.bitchute.com
Wallenberg Dynasty, Europe's most powerful - part 2
Dr Mercola on the Deep State Swedish Wallenberg Family & The Great Resethttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family Jacob Wallenberg: Bilderberg Steering Committee member 20x (his cousin Marcus Wallenberg 10x and his grandfather Marcus Wallenberg Jr 30x) Honorary Chair of IBLAC, the Mayor of Shanghai's Internat…www.bitchute.com
Ole Dammegård on Wallenberg Familyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family https://www.truthdig.com/articles/andrew-nagorski-on-the-bolsheviks-crimes/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/27/revealed-leaked-files-ericsson-allegedly-helped-bribe-islamic-state https…www.bitchute.com
Sorry, the YouTube videos and the podcast is the same recording. I posted too quickly, before I had checked!Thank you for posting this, I have been listening to the material coming from this group in the recent weeks and finding it VERY interesting, as a native Swede. Basically what they are suggesting is that the Wallenberg family is at the very heart of the deep state and the Swedish people is one of the most duped and brainwashed in the world. They have a podcast which is great too which goes into a lot of detail on historical developments etc: The Best Kept Secret of the Deep State
Curious to hear if anyone else has thoughts on this!
Denmark has a historical habit of being on the wrong side of history, like siding with Napoleon as he was losing or almost welcoming Nazi Germany in WW2 and it appears as if nothing much has been learned from those experiences.Apparently, Denmark is interested in assuming a more active involvement in the conflicts on the European continent, but this can lead the country to make risky decisions in the name of interests that are not its own. According to information from the Danish Ministry of Defense, a 140 meter long frigate is about to be sent to the North Atlantic as part of a special NATO mission.
The mission’s objective is to “deter” Russia through a joint naval operation of Western alliance’s countries. Together with vessels from other countries, the Danish frigate will form a kind of “ring of protection” in the North Atlantic. Canada, France, Spain and the Netherlands have also announced that they will be reserving some of their naval equipment to assist the US Navy in this operation. According to military analyst Mads Korsager, the Danish action reflects the “desire to contribute to the deterrence of Russia”, in addition to being a “signal of friendship” to the Americans.
In the same sense, Danish Navy commander, Carsten Fjord-Larsen, said that this mission will be a “golden opportunity” to train the country’s forces and demonstrate that Denmark has a military potential on equal footing with other states.
It is speculated that at least135 Danish soldiers will be sent aboard the frigate. Long-range radar systems, 76mm and 35mm cannons, machine-gun, torpedoes and a long list of specific missiles for marine and air targets will also be sent. There is also the possibility of helicopters being allocated on the frigate. In addition to naval equipment, Danish F-16 fighter jets are included in the aid sent by the country.
Despite bold, the decision it is not surprising. Denmark has previously participated in some similar missions, employing its naval forces to assist foreign troops in NATO projects abroad. For example, Danish frigates supported US and European forces on missions in the Horn of Africa, Syria and the Strait of Hormuz. Among other functions designated to Danish vessels, the main one in most cases was to work in the protection of American and French aircraft carriers.
This time, the Danish mission, in addition to helping to protect allied vessels, will be to monitor the movements of Russian nuclear submarines, avoiding a possible approach to the NATO ring. According to Korsager, the main monitoring targets will be the Russian Navy’ equipment that circulates in the region departing from the Kola Peninsula, where nuclear submarines would be located.
It should also be noted that the decision is taken in the context of a recent attempt on the part of Denmark to raise the country’s international status. For example, earlier this year, around 750 Danish soldiers were deployed to Latvia, making the country maintain its current biggest mission abroad. However, this attempt of international military projection does not necessarily reflect the country’s real potential. Danish authorities even condemned the mission in Latvia, considering it unprepared and poorly planned. There were reports that Danish soldiers had run out of supplies and ammunition, interrupting the drills for lack of material conditions to proceed with the project – which clearly reveals that the Danish government is trying to make the country look like something that does not correspond to the reality.
The current crisis situation in Europe and tensions between NATO and Russia worsen this scenario. Washington encourages Europe to appear strong and united, funding military operations that gather troops and equipment from different NATO countries with the supposed aim of “dissuading” Russia. The Danish Defense Minister, Morten Bødskov, even commented that his country’s decision to send troops was stimulated precisely by this desire to show that Europe is strong in “times of war” and that it will not accept any “invasion” or “military threat”
In practice, this only reveals that once again European forces are mobilizing for unnecessary militarization in the name of false narratives that serve only US interests. After all, there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as a “Russian threat” to Europe. Moscow’s military operations are territorially restricted to Ukraine and there is no evidence of expanding incursions. So, NATO operation is just aimed at demonstrating force, with no real sense of “protection” against the Russians.
Obviously, it is Denmark’s right to want to “look strong” in the world arena. But it is prudent that the decisions taken by a government correspond to its real potential. Mobilizing troops for a new NATO mega-operation after the failure seen months ago in Latvia will not make Denmark ” look stronger”, it will only reveal how willing the country is to meet American demands even when they do not match its national interests.
Written by Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Behind the push there may be fear.Another article, belonging here, which shows how Denmark's military alignment with the US in postering against Russia.
The US knows that Denmark folded on the first day of the German invasion. Germany crossed the border, took the port in Copenhagen and had bombers over the City until the Danish Government had decided that there should be another day. It is estimated that the number of dead and wounded was less than 100 in total, with most being on the Danish side. Denmark may have a history of being on the wrong side of history, but it can shift quickly. Denmark was left as an independent buffer after the Napoleonic wars situated between Sweden, Germany, Russia and the UK. Even after WWII, it was agreed with the USSR that there should be no US bases on Bornholm. If they try that in their hubris, we would have to wait and see.Denmark has a historical habit of being on the wrong side of history, like siding with Napoleon as he was losing or almost welcoming Nazi Germany in WW2 and it appears as if nothing much has been learned from those experiences.
On his blog, he wrote about the push for US bases in Denmark, if we translate using a machine:Norwegian Attorney General: American soldiers can open fire on protesters
In Norway, the base agreement gives the US military the right to use force against civilians. The Danish government is currently negotiating a deep agreement with the US Department of Defense on a similar agreement.
MEDIA CRITICISM / NATO / RUSSIA
TV-Avisen [State TV News] - NATO's marketing department
27 June, 2022
It is journalistically completely obscene and contrary to all demands for balance, versatility and public information that the Folketing [Danish Parliament] has imposed on Denmark Radio.
TV-Avisen's editorial staff cannot be unaware of what it is they do.
The first feature today at 3 pm is 'NATO will arm itself strongly to the east'. See for yourself here. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg calls it in the feature the biggest change in NATO's collective defense and deterrence since the end of the Old Cold War, ie in 30 years.
That had called for serious, versatile lighting. And if you could not reach it, then just report and provide background in a later broadcast.
What needs to happen is that the special task force of the NATO Response Force, NRF, must be increased from 40,000 men to “well over” 300,000, deployed and trained as far east as possible, and that advance stockpiles of military equipment must be set up.
After the presentation of this news, TV-Avisen chooses to use one expert to comment; it is Lars Banger Struwe who is general secretary of the think tank, the Atlantic Association - and that is how he is presented.
What - quite consciously, one must assume - is not made aware of is that the Atlantic Alliance is a Danish branch of an international organization whose task is to support NATO. Struwe is thus by no means an independent expert, his job is to promote the interest and acceptability of NATO. The Atlantic Association presents itself just fine on its own side and with articles of association.
Here you can read, among other things, that the Atlantic Alliance's task is “to create communication of the importance of NATO and development in NATO's significance for Danish foreign, defense and security policy and the opportunities that follow.
Under the name Atlantsammenslutningen was established in 1950 as a result of Denmark's newly acquired membership of NATO… “The Articles of Association make it all even clearer.
The TV-Avisen responsible must know this.
Thus, there is no other explanation for TV-Avisen's expert choice than that it should be an uncritical pro-NATO expert, and that no one should be interviewed who could relate problematically or critically to this sensational news about NATO's biggest change since 1990.
On the contrary, you could say - because Struwe gets the opportunity to tell viewers in 7 minutes that the Danish government's already adopted armament is far too little too late and that there must be a completely different and quick spit in the NATO gun.
The viewers are naturally given the impression that an independent expert is sitting here, but in reality they see a lawyer or lobbyist for the organization.
This is part of a pervasive technique: never any problematization of armaments, NATO or US policy.
It is, in a nutshell, public service anno 2022. In the service of irrational, wildly exaggerated militarism. Remember that before the whole trouble started, Russia had 8% of NATO's military spending and Anders Fogh Rasmussen has stated that NATO can beat Putin / Russia to pick fish if this “defensive” alliance wants it.
The armament of NATO is likely to reduce Russia's share to 4% or even less of NATO's. But it is guaranteed to still be described as a formidable threat to the West. After all, everything is Putin's fault and NATO is - by definition - never doing anything wrong or problematic.
And so the propaganda is spread 24/7 and if / when the war comes and maybe wipes out part of humanity then it was of course also because of the 4% or less there…