Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark
Legend has it that Viking warrior, Holger Danske, lies asleep beneath Kronborg Castle, ready to awaken and defend Denmark in its hour of greatest need.
And - by the looks of things - that hour is rapidly approaching.
Should you be one of the few still paying attention to the media, you’d know that Italy elected an alleged ‘fascist’… but not that she immediately turned around and sold out her voters1. You’d know that French yellow vest protestors are racists and hooligans… but not that Macron only recently resorted to all sorts of questionable and fundamentally anti-democratic tactics to keep Le Pen out2. You’d know Germany is struggling with an anti-democratic ‘far right’ issue of it’s own… but not that the ruling parties consider an outright ban on the AfD3. And you’d know that the ‘far right’ also found its way to the Netherlands - perhaps even that the farmer’s party worryingly has gained4 rather a lot of traction at the urn5... but not legitimately why6 they’re so upset7. No, wherever you turn, you’re likely to find ‘far right’ parties turning up here, there and everywhere - especially where convenient to the narrative.
And this article could be about any one of those nations… but let’s instead take a look at a small nation further North, generally considered among the happiest8 on Earth. Because although said nation - by and large - has flown under the radar since the start of the alleged pandemic, the reality is… the hyper-corrupt elite target everyone.
Even those of you in otherwise peaceful Denmark.
One of the more recent, influential reports which went practically wholly ignored, was the Kunming-Montreal GBF of 2030. And that’s entirely convenient, because what it proposed was that 30% of land and sea should be protected by 2030. And sure - that sure sounds great and all… unless its your lands being targeted.
This simple fact goes a fair way to explain the issue of the Dutch farmers9, because only 26.5% of the Netherlands is reserved for nature. Consequently, they trail their stated 2030 target of 30% - by 3.5%.
But… Denmark10 is in a somewhat worse state. At present, only 14.9% is reserved, meaning they trail their objective by a massive 15.1% . And that’s somewhat of an issue, given that land - in no uncertain terms - has to be taken from… farmers.
A while back, I reviewed the ‘Roadmap for Sustainable Transformation of the Danish Agri-Food Systems’11. In the meantime, this document has seen an update. Unfortunately, however, it appears to still somewhat… to use their terminology… marginalise the employees of the agricultural industry - farming - itself.
Of the 274 contributors, the vast, vast majority comprise people in academia. I found it only suitable to underline these in red, while blue represent the private industry, orange represents… outsourced research, and finally, the three in green allegedly represent the farmers themselves.
Well, I say that, but visiting12 the alleged representatives13 of the farmers themselves… a somewhat familiar narrative appears. Of course, a farming target of ‘net zero’ is breathtakingly stupid in the first place, not only because these people produce the food we eat, but because emissions are just a singular factor in a large equation.
I don’t have access to the farming milieu i Denmark. However, the few farmers I did manage to dig up on Twitter and Facebook all appear to complain about issues… somewhat familiar to those experienced by especially Dutch farmers. Consequently, I appeal to those of you who do have said faming contacts - please forward this post, and as for those farmers hopefully reading as a result - please leave comments below, relating to your personal experience.
Du kan efterlade dem på dansk, hvis dit engelske ikke er dit stærkeste.
Now, the first few pages of the report goes to list the primary authors, and this… again wholly exclude farmers. The only exception to the rule of people in academia, is the inclusion of two members of ‘SEGES’14, an ‘innovation company’ in the food sector… probably of exactly the sort in which Bill Gates invests.
Beyond contributing to reports relating to agriculture… which exclude the farmers themselves… in 2024 SEGES also released a report (in Danish)1516… well, technically, it’s actually more of a begging letter justified by one-dimensional inputs, ultimately demanding $250m annually in ‘investments’… primarily courtesy of the taxpayer. This, of course, is to allegedly ensure job neutrality (no loss of employment) for the very same farming industry which - per begging letter - by 2030 has to cut their alleged greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 55-65%.
But when the predictably escalating costs hits the stratosphere - and the farming industry collapses due to the failure of said ‘job neutrality’ premise materialising - SEGES of course will not be blamed. No, these technocratic institutions rely on being able to fabricate quack science all day long on the back of Foundation funding - without accountability.
And that constitutes a dynamic which needs to be fixed.
The document includes a link relating to the legislative side of affairs17 which passed into law… in 2021, conveniently while the government was busy injecting the population with alleged vaccines during the alleged pandemic.
Heading over to their website, we can confirm that they have their priorities in the right order18…
‘When we work with concretization of sustainable development in agriculture, we divide it into the areas E (Environmental), S (Social), and G (Governance), which are also known from the ESG reporting format. But we also focus on ensuring that we have financially robust agricultural companies‘
That’s right - ESG takes priority. Whether the industry collapses… well, that’s clearly more of a nice-to-have. After all, it’s not as though that industry butters their bread, right? Gotta take care of the Foundation class first.
Incidentally, the ‘G’ aspect of ‘ESG’ - Governance - naturally lead19 back20 to21 Good (Corporate) Governance practices… which is a defined term, centred around ‘ethical governance’.
But let’s return to the report which outlines -
‘The overall mission goals are: 1) Contribute to achieve the target of 70% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Denmark by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050, as well as to protect the environment and support Danish nature and biodiversity. 2). Contribute to increased competitiveness of Danish business and industry‘
So… a 70% reduction in GSG emissions by 2030… protection of the environment, nature, and biodiversity… while improve the competitiveness of Danish business and industry? I’ve seen some lunatic claims in my life, and this is one such, utterly destined to fail. And setting aside a lack of nuclear energy in Denmark - while Denmark is a global leader in renewable energy generation (wind+solar comprise upwards of 70% of energy consumption), that is entirely predicated on a collaborative partnership with neighbouring countries as this renewable combination itself isn’t… particularly reliable. Sure, the media will tell you that Denmark was fully powered on a single day through renewables… while neglecting to inform you what happened on the days where the weather did not work out as planned. But - sure - there’s nothing inherently wrong with renewables, but it has to be competitive - and practical.
Now, the 70% reduction relates to 1990 levels, and Denmark is doing comparatively well in this category, having reduced GHG emissions by around 50-55% relative to 1990. However, that still leaves 15-20% to be located - and that’s 15-20% of the 1990 figure, not the contemporary. In other words, in order to hit the 70% mark, we speak of further reductions within a range of -
15% / (100%-(70%-15%)) = 33%
20% / (100%-(70%-20%)) = 40%
Thus, in spite of all the reductions up to this point - impressive as they are - Denmark still has to reduce GHG emissions by a further 33-40% And that logically prompts the question - from where will said reductions arrive?
And per 2023 figures22, energy production at present contributes around 30% of this contemporary total, with agriculture being responsible for 22%, transport 30%, and industry 10-15%. Consequenly, we’re looking at entirely closing down agriculture and industry to bridge this gap… within 6 years. Of course, this isn’t the ‘solution’ per official estimates which suggest… a continuous squeeze throughout society.
But already in the following figure (2.4), things start to appear a bit… off. Because - per plan - by 2030, household share of total emissions is… 1%, with a similar service sector percentile, and… electricity and district heating coming in even below! And waste incineration comprise 6%, while agriculture… comes in at 53%???
Figure 2.5 is even worse, as this not only has missing references, otherwise showing households, the service sector, and electricity have all completely collapsed. And beyond, it has two indicators both outlining the progressive decline relating to ‘agriculture, forests, horticulture, and fisheries’, where the first doesn’t detail much of a decline but the other shows a substantial such.
In fairness, the lower of the two likely is mislabelled construction, but it’s not a good look getting something rather this simple wrong in this pivotal a report, given that it will affect every living human being in Denmark, now is it?
I find all of this of sufficiently poor standards that it warrants a closer look -
Agriculture is expected to see a marginal decline of 3% by 2030… however the devil’s in the detail as this goes to reveal that -
Agricultural processes is expected to decline as a result of falling livestock numbers; ‘most pronounced for cattle’. More on that in a minute.
LULUCF23 is expected to decline by a third, ‘due to set-aside and rewetting carbon-rich soils‘. More on that in a minute, too.
And as for the next part… ’Forests will go from contributing net removals of 2.9 million tonnes CO2e in 2021 to net emissions of 0.3 million tonnes CO2e in 2025.’
They are expecting forests to be net negative, while selling us this notion that we need to restore biodiversity for its ability to act as a carbon sink!Transport fares marginally better. A gradual decline is expected from 2025 to 2030 which no doubt will lead to increased duties on fuel, though they naturally claim it’ll come abouts through ‘transitioning from conventional to electric vehicles, renewable fuels blending, and improved energy efficiency for conventional vehicles‘. The former simply moves the issue of emission elsewhere in the equation (more on this in a minute), blending fuel includes biofuel - which has a terrible net energy ratio24 (and competes for arable land, thus driving up the price of food), and improved efficiency is a lagging indicator, because the existing fleet of cars will not magically be upgraded as legislative standards are. And while the average age of cars in Denmark is 8.5 years25, on a background of increased taxation, cost-push inflation (and thus prices)… this might well increase.
Further, by 2025 a mileage-based road tax on lorries will ensure… even higher prices in the supermarket, while increased railway electrification will see further demands for electricity, leading to higher utility bills in a nation already experiencing some of the highest electricity prices, globally26. And both of those will impact agriculture, leading to increasing fuel, food and electricity prices as we inch closer to 2030.
Production of oil, gas and renewable fuels is probably the least bad part of this rundown, though a decline of 25% will probably see a measurable reduction in oil and gas outputs, thus driving higher prices at the petrol station… and this in turn will impact agriculture, leading to higher prices in supermarkets as well.
Manufacturing industries and building and construction expects an almost 50% decline by 2030, meaning that building your own home will become out of reach for most, finally.
Before we move to the next page of… atrocities, let’s address a few items outlined above…
In June, 2024, Denmark was first to target agricultural output through carbon taxation, and this specifically aimed at… yes, cattle27. It’s quite the remarkable foresight, really - especially given that pig farming constitutes around 8% of Danish exports by value28, making it the single largest individual type of export, and certainly bigger than cattle.
As for the call to ‘set-aside and rewetting carbon-rich soils‘… this in short means turning agricultural farmlands into reserves. And switching conventional cars to EVs… beyond driving up demand for electricity, we also have the issue of mining the metals29, and the (distinct lack of) recycling of batteries30 to consider. This equation is far, far more complex than commonly sold to you by corrupt politicians - which, incidentally, is why demand is now crashing in the EU31.
On the next few pages we see…
Households and the service sector, which promise… a total and utter self-destruction through the introduction of technologies which have turned out a disaster in the United Kingdom32. And ‘collective district heating’33 is yet another term which promises a lot without actually caring to explain what it entails. In short, it relates to not only efficiency measures - which naturally will require energy invested, because how else will they be able to achieve ‘free cooling from rivers and later’ - but also the use of the heated water as a biproduct from plants generating electricity through the… burning of coal34 for sakes of heating homes. Ie, coal plants recycle their heated water to nearby consumers - which of course not only makes complete sense, but also significantly improves efficiency. However, this doesn’t appear to be terribly compaticle with future plans…
The electricity and district heating sector is similarly promised to drop like a stone… through the ‘phase-out of the remaining coal-fired CHP plants‘. And they are are absolutely carrying out this plan, because the final coalplant was removed from duty by the end of August, 2024.
The Danish term for the heated water biproduce is ‘fjernvarme‘. And while the energy supplier’s website35 states that ‘our heating is primarily delivered from excess heat as a result of burning coal or the burning of waste (more on that later)’, should you visit the website of the generating capacity36, they helpfully inform - ’We have over the years delivered significant amounts of district heating via DIN Forsyning to the citizens of Esbjerg. DIN Forsyning is in the process of establishing an alternative production capacity that will supply district heating to the Esbjerg Municipality. The cornerstones of the new production at Esbjerg Harbor are a seawater heat pump, an electric boiler, and a wood chip boiler, according to the company’….
That’s right. With the coal plant gone, the heated water biproduct is as well. And to make up for this lack, their ‘green’ alternative solution is pumping seawater, and heating said through electricity or burning wood.
Ie, it’s a scam. A total and utter scam. Either way, a website helpfully exists to inform whether you can be delivered said ‘green’ heating37, and short of living next door to this ‘green seawater immersion heater’, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’. Consequently, we can here declare their top, top savings tip above to be intellectually dishonest trash of exactly the sort you’d expect Marxists in academia to lie about.
The waste sector (including waste incineration) is up next. More fairytale inclusions relating to cutting waste by half by 2035 (achieveable through drastically lower living standards), but the separate section on waste incineration details… less available incineration capacity, leading to a drastic collapse in emissions. And why is that of interest? Because as we discovered only above - the delivered ‘green heating’ - when not from seawater heated through immersion - comes from… waste incineration. In other words, they just kneecapped their proposed solution.
CCS (carbon capture and storage) details… nothing short of a subdidy scheme for some soon-to-collapse public-private-partnership ‘green technologies’, supposed to grow trees faster than trees themselves. It’s nothing short of a complete scam. - and never mind that the growing of trees in Denmark is net negative, per above.
Is there anything legit about this report?
The report carries on, detailing -
‘Following the UN IPCC methodology, emissions from biomass burning are counted as zero emissions in the sector consuming the biomass. This is because emissions from harvesting the biomass have already been accounted for‘
Initially, this could appear reasonable. However, it’s actually not. Why? Because this saddles anyone chopping down trees and selling wood with additional expenses, leading to higher consumer prices through taxation. And, finally -
‘… after 2030 the estimate shows no further (fossil) emissions linked to the consumption of mains gas. For comparison, in CSO22 the renewables share in mains gas…‘
The idea here is that replacing gas pumped out of the ground with, ie, cow farts, and this will magically lead to net zero. However, per above they are planning to gradually reduce the livestock from which biogas is produced. But - sure - let’s engage in a conversation about efficient means of harvesting said biogas. How much energy will that cost? And would it logically entail that livestock should live their entire lives inside, in which case… is that even legally permissable for some livestock types, like cattle? And if so, what’s the associated cost of having to distribute said cow waste?
So let’s quickly summarise -
Households will see a virtual collapse of GHG emissions through the use of district heating
District heating is the biproduct of coal plant energy production (CHP), and the burning of waste
CHP Coal Plants are highly efficient.
Burning of waste is to be slashed in half by 2030
The final coal plant was recently closed, thus eliminating the heated water biproduct used for district heating.
To make up for this loss, seawater is pumped and heated through the burning of wood - or induction.
Another part of the loss will be made up through biogas, which capitalises on methane output from livestock…
… the same livestock which they aim to cull in size.
Induction increases demand for electricity… as will an emphasis on EVs… and an electrification of transport in general… while capacity is eliminated.
Denmark already ‘enjoys’ some of the highest electricity prices on the planet.
… but carrying out this plan will ‘improve competitiveness’.
And in the event you’ve come to the realisation that none of the above makes any sense - that’s very simply explained through all of this being a complete and utter scam. None of this makes sense when you pull even slightly at it, which is exactly why the process is driven by ideologically aligned Marxists in academia (and certainly not the farmers themselves), why it’s not covered by the media, certainly not discussed by the politicians, and those in academia similarly refuse to engage. Because all of this is express quack science, pushed for political expedience only.
But back to the primary document, the ‘Roadmap for Sustainable Transformation’ which further goes to detail -
‘… four long term-goals that are addressed by activities and that sets the direction for the roadmap and the partnership. They are A. Decarbonizing food value chains, B. Fundamentally change the interlinkage between land use and food production, C. Increase the amount of nutrient-rich food, and D. Secure few or no emissions (nitrate and phosphorus and the like) and biodiversity at a measurably high level.‘
The former can be achieved through forcing you to become vegan, thus collapsing the length of said food chain, the second through the confiscation of farmer land, the third… through claims made by dubious quack science, seeking to ‘justify’ veganism, and the final is expressly what they do in the Netherlands.
And as for what needs to be done -
‘The five key tracks are: 1. Land use and management, 2. Animal-based food production, 3. Plant-based food production, 4. Biotechnology-based food production and alternative protein sources, 5. Value chain aspects.‘
Let’s see, we have the Ecosystem Approach (top-down administration of land), the next two are… unclear at this stage, then we have synthetic food followed by insect protein, and finally… another opaque term.
We can finally observe suggested quantities of collaborating Marxists graduating from the same acedemic institutions as the contributors of this report (who they no doubt will ‘educate’), along with outlined GHG reductions, and the number of public-private-partnerships38 ultimately working… to hoover every bit of private wealth out of your pockets along the way of the Great Transition… to Scientific Socialism.
It’s at this stage I’d like to present to you the earlier whitepaper39 of the same report, because the above is the polished version, with some of the more contentious… atrocities… having passed through even more focus groups seeking to diffuse the intent, thus making it indecipherable to the casual reader.
‘The green transition of the agriculture, food and land use sector is a major and highly complex task. Meeting the combined challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-system change requires for actors and agencies in the agri-food complex to rethink, redeploy, and reinvent instruments and mechanisms of governance at all scales, local to global to orchestrate far-reaching green transitions (or transformations) of its socio-technical and socio-ecological systems‘
It’s global. You can rest assured of that. And this is compliant with all the global frameworks, including those of the UNFCCC and CBD… which in reality are wholly connected.
‘About 60% of the Danish land is used for agricultural production. This makes Denmark one of the most intensively cultivated countries in the world. Therefore, the way we use and manage this land and the remaining 40% taken up by cities, infrastructure, forestry, and nature is important for a sustainable development of nature and society…‘
I told you early on about the ‘missing 15%’, no?
‘The numerous measures needed involve land distribution reforms, rewetting of organic soils, changed drainage practices, afforestation and…‘
… those 15% will primarily come out of the 60% currently used by farmers.
‘… contributor to GHG emissions and nutrient, ammonia, and pesticide pollution‘
… and the plan is to cut - drastically - pesticide and fertiliser use, which will reduce agricultural output, leading to a price surge...
‘Substantial investments in research… exploit the full growth potential of the plantbased food value chain and bring Denmark in a position to achieve a global market share of plant-based food between 1% and 3% coupled with the creation of between 9,000 and 27,000 new jobs.‘
Empty promises galore. They, in short, demand taxpayer funding to come up with technologies which perform the same function as trees, and this will allegedly created brazilions of jobs… and never mind the catastrophic job losses caused in traditional farming. They completely ignore the other side of that coin, and that for obvious reasons - to grossly, willingly manipulate and mislead the public.
‘Novel microorganisms and animal cell-based alternatives to animal-based food are projected to reach 10-20% of the global protein consumption by 2035.‘
… oh wow, finally some great news (apart from the mention of synthetic food)…
‘However, for this to happen it demands massive investments in research and innovation within biorefining, cellular agriculture, animal-cell based production, microbial and enzymatic upgrading of current and alternative feedstocks and of inclusion of alternative ingredients from e.g., insects and blue biomasses.‘
… oh wait, no - it’s another Nigeria 419 scam. Pay us money up front and this long lost King of Nigeria will allegedly repay you in gold… and insects. Bon appetit.
‘Reaching the 2030 and 2050 ambitions when it comes to goals for climate, biodiversity‘
I told you this was about the UNFCCC and CBD…
‘… a holistic view…‘
… which require centralisation of information… and thus, eventually power…
‘… involves consumer acceptance and involvement of industry, interest organisations and people from academia with diverse backgrounds…‘
… with the stakeholders…
‘There is a need for disruptive thinking and collaboration between expertise that may not traditionally have worked together thus involving engagement of people from e.g., humanity and social sciences‘
… and as it will take a major effort to brainwash your children into believing that eating carcinogenic, hyper-processed fake meat and ‘insect protein’ will save the planet, never mind cause insufferable hardships…
‘For that to happen data-driven governance is a prerequisite…‘
And that, in effect, is a call for full monitoring of the supply chain, ie input-output analysis and thus surveillance.
‘Agriculture is globally a major factor contributing to pressures on planetary boundaries‘
… which serves as another qualifier for the colossal, momentous fraud they’ve slowly rolled into place over generations. Who controls said ‘boundaries’, and if the science is legitimately open to public participation - ESPECIALLY those who strongly disagree - of course it won’t be.
‘… and cross-scale interactions between human and natural components and major social outcomes, such as ecosystem services, social welfare, and food security‘
… and the report even uses the same monetising-nature terminology…
‘… requiring international collaboration and sharing of knowledge, experiences, and knowhow. Denmark has a long tradition for innovation and research within food and agriculture and strong private-public partnerships…‘
... and we’re back to the Stakeholder Approach, and…
‘setting aside land for multiple functions, including climate change adaptation, nature, and recreational use.‘
… and that would be the confiscation of farmer lands I outlined above.
Let’s return to the more recent version and briefly go through each track… and track A is… contentious, alright. It relates to ‘Land use and management’.
‘Reaching the biodiversity goal requires setting aside large and connected areas for nature protection, … and implementation through transformation of incentives (subsidies) and legal frameworks for nature and agricultural management.‘
They are going to confiscate agricultural land, and they will use your taxes to pay for it. And to facilitate, they will enact enabling legislation.
‘A concept for advising and counselling on speedy land distribution for enhanced biodiversity, higher biomass production, reduced nutrient loads and GHGs based on spatial data, detailed data from automated observation systems (IoT, drones, remote sensing), and IT support for decision making developed and implemented at municipality level.‘
… and this will call for a concept enabling speedy land distribution, aided by comprehensive surveillance. And in the section on ‘implementation’ we find…
‘The municipalities in Denmark have no tools in the spatial planning procedures and no instruments to take active part in land redistribution and land consolation processes and these instruments are empirically needed to promote voluntariness and create benefits for the stakeholders involved. There is a need for simplification of the administrative process in the land distribution work. …. Financing models and incentive structures must be built as well that make the land distribution attractive to the individual farmer.‘
… they are going to confiscate farmer lands, using public taxes as incentive, and they will aim for legislative reform to aid this objective. And as for cost…?
‘The annual financial needs for research and innovation are estimated at around 1.5 b DKK, a substantial part of which will also involve pilot scale and upscaling activities. In addition, there will be a need for funds that support land purchases and land infrastructure developments for rewetting organic soils, afforestation and re-establishing nature areas estimated at 1.5 b DKK annually for the next couple of decades).‘
So 3 billion DKK/yr, which is around $500m/yr. Now, this might now sound like much but with a population just short of 6m (and 335m for the US), that’d be the equivalent of around $30bn/yr in the US.
They carry on, discussing the need for more modelling tools, more data pipelines, more surveillance, all allegedly so that they can reduce emissions and pesticide consumption, and so forth. But unlike most reports, this one actually deliver numbers, which is a rarity -
‘By 2050… Carbon neutrality of the agricultural landscape… reestablishment of acceptable biodiversity in the landscape. The following specific targets are achieved: More than 250,000 ha of low-lying soils have been restored as wetlands…‘
That’s 6+% of Danish landmass, currently used by agriculture. And as 60% of Denmark is currently set aside for farming, that’s 10% of all farmlands which will go. But that’s not quite all -
‘50% of agricultural land converted to perennial cropping‘
Perennial cropping… that constitutes agricultural produces which lives for more than two years, and thus will not have to be replanted. That means fruits, berries, nuts and so forth. In other words - this would lead to a colossal reduction in agricultural output, regardless of what those manipulative Marxist liars will tell you. I try to steer clear of ChatGPT but I asked it about the best-cast reduction in output, going from cereal production to one of the above, and its reply? 50%. A 50% loss in agricultural output - best case - but that with a further 10% of arable land going. Ie, 10%, followed by another 45%. 55% - best case.
Perhaps that’s why they go on to later predict -
‘This should result in a 45% reduction in chemical pesticide use by 2030 and 90% by 2050.‘
Yes, a virtual elimination altogether, which of course will lead to yet another drastic reduction in output. But don’t you worry, because -
‘… breeding along with changes in fertilization, crop protection and novel cropping systems has the potential to increase productivity by 30-50%‘
… yes, their fantasy technology can totally save the day, but only if they’re paid 1.5b DKK ie $250m/yr. Of course, these fantasy technologies will never materialise, and those Marxist academics who put their name to this report are either be fully aware of this fact (and thus, complicit), or they’re breathtakingly ignorant. Which cannot be ruled out from academic types.
But I tell you what. Hey, you Marxist crooks - show what you’ve got. Show technology at present which will deliver on your promises, and this - OUTSIDE OF THE LAB. Inventing something under controlled terms is a COMPLETELY different ballgame to deployed technology, and it’s obvious that these are nothing but outright lies and empty promises. And why am I so confident in that regard?
Because if they could actually deliver said, it would already be in use.
The document continues -
‘The largest part of the value creation will come from three pathways… meeting sustainability targets within agricultural land use and management will become the license to operate for farming as well as a key market driver; improved value of landscapes supporting new functions and jobs linked to recreation, production of clean drinking water, and tourism, and; export of technologies …‘
In reverse - export of fantasy technology, empty promises about alleged job creation, and… well… I wasn’t expecting to find it here. But there it is.
The License to Operate. Ie, some bureaucrat will dictate whether you’re even allowed to run a farm in the first place. No doubt one of the Marxists in academia who penned this ghastly trash considers himself right for that role.
But they saved the truly worst for last.
‘There are several risks that may arise within research and innovation to support the transitions… insufficient effects of measures… lower agricultural productivity with suggested measures… difficulties in adopting measures… negative side effects of measures…‘
They know quite literally nothing. Those Marxists are proposing to drive Denmark at full speed into a wall, but promise that their magic future technology - which doesn’t exist at present - will totally save the day… even if no-one has the faintest idea if any of those problems even can be solved. Or if they’re even problems in the first place.
They are legitimately dangerous, and quite possibly intentionally destructive.
‘… unwillingness among actors for a social and cultural transformation of sustainable green solutions…‘
And not only that, they’ve also identified the enemy. Everyone opposing. Exactly as you would expect from those who’d willingly line up with Pol Pot.
‘The measures needed to manage these risks vary and actions need to target the specific concerns based on a multi-actor analysis, and this will require close monitoring of progress based on critical decision points.‘
THEIR decision points. THEIRS. Certainly not yours. After all, they didn’t even bother asking the farmers, about this… agricultural revolution, now did they?
Lets quickly dash through Tracks B and C which call for a colossal increase in surveillance - to the point of comprehensive input-output analysis (aka circular economy), adaptive management systems, insect protein, automation, …
… no, of course they didn’t bother asking the commoner. Why do you ask such silly questions?
Track D leads exactly where you’d expect. Stem cell meat, cellular milk, alternative protein… bacteria, yeast and funghi… and naturally… insects.
The 274 people who contributed to this trash quite simply must be first to volunteer or be volunteered for this. They go first, including their families. Any unwillingness and any hope of an ‘agreement’ is off. Those 274 want your children eating stem cell ‘meat’ grown in a lab, cellular ‘milk’, and insect protein. They should absolutely, positively go first. Make them eat their words - along with those insects.
A few months back I had a run-in with the press chief of the Danish Society for Nature Conservation40 on Twitter. Well, I say run-in, but what actually transpired was him replying to all the stupid, obnoxious, planted questions while point blank refusing to answer mine. Probably because I know exactly what their game is… which, in fact, is the exact same game played the world over. 30% by 203041.
And though the below is penned in Danish, I’m sure you can grasp the percentages on display, but this document has one further, interesting addition. See, it’s not enough to ‘protect’ nature, no, by 2050, the plan is to ‘protect’ it to the extent that humanity isn’t allowed anywhere near it. That’s what the clusters are meant to indicate.
Cancer spreading.
All of this is about the Convention on Biological Diversity. And the protection of ‘landscapes’ will lead to ‘Biodiversity Reserves’, which will ultimately render ‘Ecosystem Services’42, which will be placed in holding companies, and floated on the market thus ensuring escalating prices yet again in the run-up to 2030.
This is all a scam. All of it. And the scam is global. And it won’t stop at 30%. As soon as we hit that target, they’ll simply move the goalpost to ‘Nature Needs Half’. After that… who knows, probably 100%. After all, their plan is to drive everyone into bankruptcy well before then.
But what I would like to - who granted the IUCN the authority to be considered in line with those United Nations agencies we’ve all grown to hate so much?43
Because although the United Nations promptly needs relocating to the bottom of the Mariana Trench in my book, at least they have a veneer of democracy about them. It’s not, obviously, but at least they same some vague claim of somehow adhering to at least some mild level of democracy.
The theft of land was always going to be a tricky issue to justify. I’ve outlined part of this process, from its inception at the UN Habitat conference in 1976, and through to the International Land Coalition in these two articles. There’s still some work left to be done, in detail documenting the institution of LULUFC.
And through the Copenhagen Accord-launching 2009 COP15 event (the start of large-scale public subsidy of the private sector) we also find LULUCF, in the context of… golly, what a surprise… Al Gore and John Kerry’s GLOBE Legislators.
'... The Land Use Change and Ecosystems Commission... supported by the GEF... adopted at the GLOBE Copenhagen Legislators Forum... in parallel to .. (UNFCCC) COP15'
But even the ‘integrated land management’ aspect itself has historical links to Copenhagen, more specifically through the Global Land Project44.
And per above, the Global Land Project was borne out of the IGBP, and the IGBP is… yes, the brainchild of the awfully conflicted foundation-funded ICSU45.
We could also dive through the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, covered in the context of Good Governance…
… and only the following year, The Danish Social Democrat politician, Ritt Bjerregaard, lent her face to yet more environmental doom porn, though this one further called for ‘shared responsibility’46.
But enough about biodiversity, ‘nature protection’, ‘shared responsibility’ (eventually leading to ‘ethics’), and the future ‘food’ supply - and back to the alleged pandemic, through which Denmark is acknowledge to have performed comparatively better than most nations. Of course, down the line through higher mortality stats we discover that there’s more to that story, but that period of time also gave birth to an outright scandal, as the acting prime minister acted well outside her legal mandate47, on a whim deciding to destroy the once world leading Danish Mink industry. In the aftermath she was of course was prosecuted, found guilty and sent off to jail. She’s currently serving 10 year… wait, no, none of that happened. Her fellow cronies corrupted everything related to the inquity, and none ultimately took the fall - suspiciously like her Social Democrat predecessor - Helle Thorning Schmidt - whose non-dom tax case led to an outcome highly convenient to her husband.
But back to the mink case. The acting Danish PM was caught in repeat lies48, before she was eventually cleared49, not least by herself50. And while they interviewed a range of people, and delivered the equivalent of a stern telling off51 to a few52… and the media failed in rheir duty, neglecting to ask skeptical questions53… and the chief police officer was questionably cleared54 of wrongdoing55… her ‘fixer’56, Barbara Bertelsen57, was cleared of wrongdoing58 which made an absolute mockery of justice.
And in the aftermath, promises of compensation were repeatedly postponed59, leading to many farmers expressing their complete loss of faith in the government60.
And this, of course, followed the same Prime Minister sending an opposition politician to jail for the flimsiest of excuses61. No leniency for those who dare to oppose the corrupt few.
But as for the mink case itself - what actually did take place? A quick check on wikipedia62 states the given reason for culling the Danish mink industry being -
'… potential of spillover to humans could reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines…'
But let’s step back in time to the 31st of January, 2020, as the WOAH on this date issued a press release63 stating that -
'Although an animal source is probable, the scarcity of information leaves significant knowledge gaps, which leaves the door open for speculation and rumours. The lack of evidence also leads to, and in some ways necessitates, several assumptions being made.'
Probable. Lack of Evidence. Assumptions. Knowledge gaps.
And this was followed by this April, 2020 release64 - 'The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven (RIVM) concluded that the infected mink farms do not pose an additional risk to public health.'
No risk to public health.
Two months later - in July, 202065 - they through guesswork and quack science - commit to the precautionary culling of mink.
And immediately prior to the launch of those alleged vaccines - by Nov, 2020 - the fearmongering of course was dialled to a solid 1166… 'found in mink populations and in the humans living...'
In other words - it could be mink… or it could be humans…
… but upon closer look, the July, 2020 press release clearly states -'it is more likely than unlikely (>50%) that the introduction on at least one of the two farms originates from humans infected with SARS-CoV-2.'
Thus - best case - the culling was predicated on an outright guess. Mette Frederiksen, the Danish PM, slaughtered an entire industry, and was never held to accoun … on what, precisely? A hunch.
So much for justice.
And while on the topic of those alleged vaccines67 - one of the early claims of brazilions of lives saved through alleged pandemic vaccination was the output of… five WHO staff members in Copenhagen... doing what can best be described as guesswork on the back of seriously dubious ‘official statistics’. And sadly, this does happen to be rather typical of ‘the best available scientific consensus’ in contemporary settings.
2006 saw Denmark embroiled in a controversy68, covered by the media the world across69. This controversy related to a Danish newspaper - Jyllands Posten - publishing fairly incendiary Muhammad cartoons. The outrage was severe, with Danish missions and embassies in Lebanon70, Iran71, and Syria72 ending up torched.
Ultimately, the then-PM (and later NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen) declined to take action, declaring that it was a matter of free speech principles - with which I absolutely agree. Free speech should not under any circumstances be curtailed by religious sensitivity in Western nations.
But as it transpired, the alleged pandemic accelerated efforts to overturn this principle - though in fairness this effort began a few years prior73. But in 2023, that very same PM who on a whim decided to destroy the Danish Mink industry with absolute impunity decided that many, many years of liberal, free speech tradition also had to go74… by caving to demands relating to the ‘insulting of other cultures and religions’ - regardless of a clear majority opposing these measures.
And, sure - this might not be at the contemporary level of Ireland (or the many other nations pushing through censorship laws of Broadband Commission origin), but it does go to show that even in a place, famous for legalising pornography in 196975… snigger… the politicians couldn’t possibly care less about voter wishes - nor the law itself. They have quite simply exempted themselves from any level of regulatory oversight… and the only way that could possibly come about would be through the outright corruption of the authorities in charge of said oversight.
Sure, Denmark is not the only nation to feel this impact of systemic, gross corruption, carried out by politicians who could not possibly care less about their voters, instead opting to one-up another in what can best be described as an international crime spree carried out at the highest order of international politics. And all these issues experienced in Denmark indeed are practically identical to those, experienced by the Western world in general. Perhaps these manifest in slightly differently ways, but the root cause is identical. And as are proposed solutions.
And these issues experienced by the various nations really do overlap. Censorship, claims of racism, endless migration, mob justice, rule with impunity, gross corruption… all Western nations experience the same issues, because the root cause is identical.
And while people are busy, pointing fingers in the general direction of the almost cartoonish villany of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, truth is that though they’re involved, they do not set the agenda. That, ultimately, is set by those hiding in the shadows, subtly seeking to influence the global legislative process. And though it would here be trivial to drag in the Sustainable Development Goals, that also would somewhat miss the point, because ultimately, those SDGs are a lagging indicator, perhaps better explained as the Millennium Development Goals 2.0. And there will be a version 3.0, because the objective is to subtly influence these goals from behind the scenes in a way almost imperceptible to the average man, distracted by the media and the progressive financial squeeze.
It is in fact more appropriate to think of the SDGs as a contemporary set of societal objectives, to be updated later down the line. Thus, the question to ask in that regard is - by whom? And how will that impact society?
And who stands to gain?
Should they have their way, all nations will end up in the same spot - and all the people of said nations will find their national assemblies ultimately not controlling… much, rendering elections all but pointless exercises, with national media dismissing legit news while amplifying irrelevancies and misleading rhetoric. The world being controlled, top-down in feudalistic fashion by people unknown to the vast majority… that’s the plan - regardless of how exaggerated you may consider that to be.
And if not - please do explain this 2015 paper76 out of EcoHealth Alliance77, because… ‘Barriers to, Efforts in, and Optimization of Integrated One Health Surveillance: A Review and Synthesis‘ … doesn’t ultimately appear to be about health surveillance at all.
And I don’t buy the Gain of Function red herring, because EcoHealth Alliance comes across as though they have… somewhat more of a clandestine78 nature79.
Either way - the few at the top who attempt to subtly push this through are doing so without even once consulting the public in anything approaching an honest, democratic fashion. And they got us here through lies, manipulation, propaganda, corruption, and shameless fraud. And while our odds on occasion may appear almost impossibly long, the sensation of things increasingly being rushed is felt by many. Goliath hasn’t yet won, because the fat lady is yet to sing.
In 1992, Denmark correctly rejected what led to the European Union - the Maastricht Treaty. Simultaneously - with Yugoslavia disqualified due to the outbreak of war - Denmark came off the bench as rank outsiders to win the Euro 1992 which goes to show that on occasion, David indeed does defeat Goliath. And as Uffe Ellemann Jensen - Danish foreign secretary of the day - went to negotiate with fellow European dignitaries immediately prior to Denmark’s semi final versus the Netherlands, he uttered a phrase80 which should perhaps be reclaimed today.
This was an unbelievable post. How did these politicians get into power? My go to comments usually start with vote them out and move on to try this in small way as a test of what is possible… both of which you addressed in your piece (umuligt). Dejlig lille Danmark er gaaet helt agurk. Excuse my darlig dansk, i was there 86 thru 90 working for AP Moeller in O&G based out of Esbjerg and do not recognize your description of the place. I thought there were some recent improvements in illegal immigration and assumed the country was moving in the right direction. I cannot tell you how sad i am.
Great piece. Thanks for the research and effort. Terrifying stuff indeed.