World daily update January 15, 2025

We have a campaign for paid subscriptions as you can see, and I am trying to make several streamlining and improvements – be patient with the chaos I have created, today’s post will be unlocked but the campaign continues until the Dutch are saved.

I maintain that I believe Trump has a job beyond being president, and that is to create friction between the US – Europe because his plan for Greenland is absolutely idiotic and no living person today can be so dumb. It is done for a purpose, and now that Denmark is strengthening Greenland militarily, Norway should immediately send civilian-dressed SOF to Svalbard as they call the cold oil workers.

This is simply too stupid, and the USA is doing this in order to divide and weaken Europe, and divert attention from the Ukraine war – that’s what I believe.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/14/politics/greenland-trump-nato-denmark

By the way, everyone here in the Caribbean is of the opinion that Trump is now taking over this area as a sphere of interest for the USA, and they will do what Trump asks them to do – it happened quickly.

But today we will explain why Johan No.1 condemned Trump’s oil theft in Venezuela, but believes that an international violent and devastating targeted bombing campaign against the dictatorship in Iran is highly justified.

Almost everyone has a political and ideological affiliation that colors their view of everyday events, and they have media they consider reliable that they listen to.

Mainstream media is actually just a group of people who call themselves journalists who have an expertise and channels they get the information from, but with the difference from Johan No.1 that there are three layers above them deciding what they should and can write about – and what should be published.

In the Ukraine war, mainstream media has been shown to be wrong for almost four record-long years, and they have had a poor start with Iran’s liberation struggle, so there is some reason to suspect that “the global south” (where Russia and China are included, I used a buzzword) has some influence in some places.

All political factions, and others, use influence, and we actually live in one big influence operation. We often buy things that come on our radar after killer advertising, for example. Pepsi took up a doomed battle against Coca Cola that went superbly by excelling in marketing.

So when the political party, the people you respect, or the media you read tell you that something is justified and should be done – then you feel it’s good.

And when you don’t read it or the same battery of trusted influencers say no – then the attitude becomes hostile to the project.

Then sometimes as in the Ukraine war or Iran’s liberation struggle, you start to wonder if they are sleeping on the job because they don’t feel the same as you do about the injustices of the world, but then you forget about it when the next domestic political scandal hits like a bomb.

I actually googled Sweden’s by far youngest famous environmentalist and later Palestine activist whose name starts with G and not a word has been uttered about Iran from her channels.

Or the journalist who rhymes on “gadd” who has been in Afghanistan and marketed himself as a great humanitarian fighter for the well-being of the broader area – not a word about Iran there either.

Then it’s good to have independent free-thinking intellectuals who don’t have these loyalties, reins, and blinders on – and who are also world-leading 😀

Now we live in a time of a huge geopolitical shift that will leave its mark on the next 70-100 years, and we who live protected in the West with others defending our freedom have a damn duty to be somewhat right so we can influence our politicians to do what is most right among the choices we have ahead of us.

Not just for us but for the world.

International law, legality, moral duty, obligation, and divine right sound good but are always applied very selectively.

First a little history lesson so we get it right, and then I will clarify the difference between Trump – Venezuela, and Trump – Iran.

International law justifies intervention in countries that are too harsh on their citizens or other countries, but the democracies of the free world take a long time to act – often too long.

USA and Europe also have a long history of not doing right, but then they act quickly instead. The USA became the USA by drowning the land in blood that is within the country’s borders today, and five hundred years ago Europe thought colonizing half the world was a good deed.

Before that, we would spread Christianity by killing everyone with dissenting views, preferably by burning or torturing them to death. Today, Islamism is advancing in the same way – maybe they borrowed a few pages from the Christians’ playbook?

In 1939-1940, Europe showed what passivity results in, and today we have been dragging our feet with Ukraine.

Absolute neutrality also means that if someone believes they have the right to besiege your neighbor, then you become the buddy who betrays.

Then we all have special interests that we in Europe in our great goodness are now trying to appease, but you can’t keep doing that either – look to the majority and do what is right for them, and then add a dose of common sense. Hopefully, teenagers jumping around on all fours in classrooms and identifying as cats will be just a footnote in history.

Yes, it is often a big threshold to start acting against a country with extremely high levels of violence, and our countries are politically weak for such decisions, until they are no longer, and then the risk of going too far is very high when you realize that no one can stop you.

What justifies an international intervention – when a dictatorship starts executing a large number of its citizens, for example. When they cheat in all elections so they never lose power and start using foreign security forces to oppress citizens is another.

Next to consider is if a country is rich and those preparing to liberate it have their eyes on the country’s natural resources, or if the effort is humanitarian.

And further if the country in question has started spreading its influence outward to other countries and terrorizing or warring with them in interstate wars, or fueling internal conflicts in others.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Russia’s further imperial ambitions to restore Soviet borders justified such an intervention, but it never came – the USA had other plans and Europe was too influenced by Russian subversive activities to be able to unite and act. Ukraine is an example of where we failed to do something we should have done, and also the reason why I have written almost daily for four years.

But Ukraine is solving that problem entirely on its own now, and not too many in history have succeeded in doing so.

Zimbabwe should have led to an international effort, but no one cared – another failure.

Libya was a dictatorship, but the country functioned somewhat, and above all, the country was completely destroyed post-intervention – and the USA just wanted to defend its petrodollar.

Rwanda is another modern classic where the UN and all different organizations, led by the USA, stood and argued about whether “genocide” was the right terminology to use while 800,000 people from the minority population were slaughtered with machetes. When the ethnic cleansing was complete, they concluded that “genocide” was justified and could move on to discuss how to stop the genocide, only to discover that it had already been carried out with great success.

Syria also went wrong, exchanging one blood-soaked dictator for another blood-soaked group instead of dividing the country into the different groups populating different areas.

It seems we do more wrong than right even when our goal is to do good – the conclusion is that this is not easy at all, even if you have the right motives and truly try to do the right thing.

It’s actually easier to do nothing, but that is also an action for which one must be held accountable.

Yugoslavia is an example where Europe was completely unable to act, and the Dutch completely messed it up by assisting the Serbs in their ethnic cleansing. The USA then chose, on the right grounds, to sort it out for us. At that time, the Cold War was over, and the area had no natural resources to steal.

The USA is now about to take on Iran – presumably it will be an Israel/USA campaign against the regime’s soft targets such as staff, depots, bases, headquarters, and accommodations for key personnel.

Apparently, Israel and some countries in MENA have asked the USA to hold off on pulling the trigger a bit to see if the people in Iran can succeed on their own first.

Israel is rightfully nervous about Iranian retaliation since their Iron Shield faltered significantly last time.

If the oppressed people do not succeed, there will be an intervention, that we can be sure of, so going back to the status quo is no longer an option – Iran is liberated, and it’s just a matter of time.

Israel is already helping the demonstrators find weapons depots and in other ways increase their ability to defend themselves.

Because the Iranian regime has enlisted Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi militias to help kill citizens.

The civilian casualties are massive – 20,000 according to the freedom fighters’ reports, so expanded right to self-defense is highly justified.

And those who condemn Israel for defending itself are on the wrong side of history.

Iran is, of course, also one of the worst Islamist dictatorships with discrimination against women.

The USA and Israel have a very delicate balance to maintain, and the risk of things getting worse instead of better is significant, but giving the Iranian people a chance is justified.

The Shah should be part of a transitional government, and the West should ensure that the country gets back on track.

China and Russia should be kept out because they are responsible for the current situation.

For MENA in general, calm will settle over the desert, and the geographic vicinity will become a better place to live for men, women, and especially goats.

In the balance of pros and cons, a military intervention weighs heavier in the case of Iran.

Now back to Venezuela – it cannot be said that “socialism destroyed Venezuela,” they crashed in the mid-80s in the oil crisis, and the socialists came to power later in a severely deteriorated country – but not until the late 90s.

By then, Venezuela had already gone from being the richest country in South America to a much worse state, but the socialists, like in Bolivia, made the country take a huge nosedive to become even worse.

Hugo Chavez won an election, and the only thing citizens can be accused of is perhaps believing in pure lies, but they were trying to vote their way out of a bad situation.

Since the early 2000s, the USA has had targeted sanctions against Venezuela, which have also contributed to the misery.

Hugo Chavez was anti-USA, and the country was moving towards Russia and China.

Yes, Maduro had a Cuban bodyguard, and Hezbollah + Hamas were in Venezuela to oppress the citizens.

But there was also political opposition in Venezuela, and the country’s 30 million inhabitants have not taken to the streets in the same way as in Iran, and the number of political prisoners was 1,000.

The country also does not discriminate against women, invade neighboring countries, or spread armed militias across South America. They have not participated in wars or sponsored civil wars in other countries.

What they do have, however, is the world’s largest oil reserves.

The easiest thing for the USA would probably have been to lift the sanctions, start buying Venezuelan oil in large quantities, and through pressure, get the country back on track, right?

Consider that both in Iran and Venezuela, the USA has tried to build resistance against Maduro and the mullahs through subversive operations, and in Iran, it has backfired because the citizens are dissatisfied, broad layers of them.

But in Venezuela, there has not been a popular uprising in the same way, with an armed forces of only 123,000.

Iran could only go in one direction – increased violence against citizens and other countries.

Venezuela has absolutely not shown the same tendencies, and one can argue that some of the misery is due to the USA.

In the case of Venezuela, the USA wanted to send a message to China and Russia, they wanted to cut off oil to China, and they wanted to solve a problem in their backyard – while also securing oil reserves to defend the petrodollar.

None of this gives the USA the right to attack Venezuela as they did.

Now, this is not so significant because the USA will continue to do what is good for them even if it means bad for others – that’s what the USA has always done.

But I believe that as a free-thinking individual, one should be able to hold two thoughts in one’s head at the same time and that the USA/Trump is not always right or always wrong – they should be judged by their actions, and Iran is justified with a bonus that weakens the axis of evil, but Venezuela was a coup to steal the oil.

We welcome Iran’s liberation and hope that Venezuela can navigate to a better situation from here.

Similarly, in the opposite direction – the population of El Salvador absolutely adores Bukele, and he has strengthened his power, and in Argentina, things are going well for Milei. The citizens of these countries are free to continue voting for these right-wing politicians, and as long as they do, the rest of the world should not interfere – it is mostly the political left that is raging against them.

There is a line that, in my opinion, must be crossed, and it was crossed in Iran but not in Venezuela.

One must also be careful about which parameters to follow – Sweden is No. 2 in the world for bombings in a country not at war, and we are on the Top 20 list of countries with shootings.

We are also on the Top 5 list for rapes.

Does the international community have the right to invade us to save citizens from murder and rape?

Possibly if the Green Party regains power, but otherwise I would probably say no.

Sweden actually ranks high on the lists of sexual abuse against children, so now my image of Sweden has taken a hit.

Greenland is just nonsense – the USA has 20 military bases or similar there, and only one is open, and they have all the agreements they need. They can increase military presence in Greenland at any time because the infrastructure is already in place and there is no threat at all.

Trump – Putin have agreed that the USA will get Greenland if Putin gets Svalbard, that’s what’s behind it and Trump is doing Putin’s bidding, again…

Now you have become more knowledgeable, so look for a paid subscription on Substack and join the new movement that I call “the Age of Enlightenment,” realize it now.