An example of my first public utterances about The New World Order
Five years ago it was obvious that NATO was destined to serve the world- mafia in the near future as world police". (The Danish) Parliament had debated the role of the UN and created The International Brigade in the autumn of 1993. I was not yet blacklisted in the editorial offices and felt occasioned to warn:
"Berlingske Tidende", 14th February 1994:
Are our children destined to become cannon- fodder
By KNUD ERIKSEN, attorney(Excerpts)
Now it appears that our sons are to be mercenaries and to be sent out into the wide world in The International Brigade.The big recruiting advertisements in the daylies and cinemaes must be the hight of hypocricy. The nauseating hero-worship lure our young people into disaster.Mr. Hakkerup (eng. ca."Mr. Hacker" or rather "Mr. Butcher" ) apparently the new international spelling for our "minister of war" seems to find it easier to live with our youngsters being hacked to pieces in distants conflicts than in the defense of their own country.Mr. Hakkerup, to whom the defense of Denmark is best taken care of on the other side of the planet, should probably rest and think for a while, before he declares war on Russia or China even if naturally it is only for the sake of preserving or creating peace.Should Mr. Hakkerup decide to send The International Brigade to the Baltic States a thought with which Mr. Hakkerup has also been flirting he must remember to pay road taxes to the Russians. Otherwise the tanks will be returned on the ferry, which would look slobby.He should also make sure that only peace-loving white UN-grenades are used. They look so good on TV.It seems to me that in this matter we miss the "pacifists" of the "Radikale Venstre" (liberals) and the socialdemocratic "peace-doves", who were the ones to make sure, that we were defenseless, when the Germans invaded us on April 9th 1940?And where do we find the loudmouthed conscientious objectors, all the leftist (including the social democrats), "teachers for peace" etc., who for years made the Danes look ridiculous in NATO, because they made us look like a people, which neither could nor would defend itself, by would gladly have others do it?It appears that as long as the target of rearmament is far, far away and incomprehensible enough, then they are all fired with enthusiasm.If we take the logical consequence, The International Brigade should be sent to a peace preserving task among the penguins on the Southpole. The quarrel quite a lot and it is quite far away. Then we leave the defence of Denmark to The Danish Association (Den danske Forening, leading patriotic association) and the National Guard (da.: "hjemmeværnet").If our youngsters are to be sent to the bankrupt remnants of the Balkan in order to judge between good and evil, why not also send some to Mexico in order to help the government there with peace preserving work. Over there it is only a few of the poor aboriginees that are in the way of peace.Isn't that an exciting war, Mr. Hakkerup?The conclusion must be, that Mr. Hakkerup doesn't mind at all, that our children are used as cannon fodder, only solong as it has nothing to do with the defense of our own country.And if they don't want to "dann haben wir andere Methoden!" says Minister of War Hakkerup, as he has just threatened career soldiers all over the country by loss of career - to accept the service in strange countries.A closer scutiny will probably reveal that Mr. Hakkerup has a somewhat strained relationship to the §19 of the constitution.(*) was used satirically by Ekstra Bladet shortly before, because foreign newspapers have difficulty with the danish letter "æ", but Berlingske Tidende changed my "a" back to "æ".
(this provoked the following reply from an officer in the Danish army):
The Brigade is not unconstitutional
Berlingske Tidende, 20th February 1994:
Mr. Cand. jur. Knud Eriksen asks, in his contribution concerning The Danish International Brigade if "our children are to become cannon fodder?" I must admit that I do not see the connection and that the argumentation seems to be amateurish. One thing I do understand: The contribution reveals a shocking ignorance of the factual circumstances.Concerning § 19 of the constitution I must ask Mr. Eriksen to read it again carefully and compare it with the legal basis for The International Brigade.Concerning the defense of Denmark he completely overlooks the fact, that the dansih defense is primarily a mobilazation army with many thousands of soldiers, who are still within the borders of the country and that The DIB only consists of 4.500 soldiers, of which, under normal conditions, only approx. one third will be outside Denmark. Additionally the threats in our part of the world have changed radically during the last 4-5 years, and the fact that 4.500 soldiers are in service outside of Denmark, will make no difference in the defense of Denmark. There has been a lot written about the recruiting campaign. It may well be a bit too "commercial" in the eyes of many, but the purpose was to get young people to enlist and this goal has been achieved. However, the young men and women, who have enlisted in The DIB, have been thoroughly briefed on the kind of job, peace-creating can be in that area. Nothing has been hidden. That the reality does not become fully understandable to one until one is there, f.ex. in Ex-Jugoslavia, is another matter, which can only be remedied by giving the soldiers as thorough an education as possible, which will be the case with the Danish soldiers, who have to go into The DIB.Concerning the more fundamental viewpoints in Mr. Eriksens contribution, I agree with him, that Denmark during the cold War played too much of a inferior role in NATO, even though the Danes have never been "made ridiculous". That is precisely why it is a very positive change, that Denmark for once is a pioneering country even though it is outside of the Danish borders. The world situation has changed completely and Denmark has shown the way for the rest of the international society, which neither can nor should turn away from the conflicts which exist in f.ex. Ex-Jugoslavia, where Danish soldiers are doing a difficult and important job.
(and my answer to this was):
"Mercenaries under the UN is insanity"
Berlingske Tidende 6th March 1994
My contribution "Are our children going to become cannon fodder" was commented on 20th march by Peter Michael Andreasen (PMA), who was of the opinion, that I have misunderstood a couple of things concerning the establishment of a Danish International brigade.PMA passes over the issue of the hypocritical recruiting campaign lightly, probably because he, too, can see, that it is embarrassing and contemptible. That it has worked, he considers to be the most important thing! That career soldiers have been directly threatened to accept foreign military service, he doesn't seem to mind either.I am not a military person, but I have tried to point out the absurdity, that people liberals ("Radikale Venstre") and social democrats who previously could not even accept, that we defended ourselves, when the communist threat was a reality, are now war-maniacs. They will accept that our soldiers are to be ordered about in the world as mercenaries for a thoroughly corrupt UN.The goings-on in the media, among politicians and opinion agitators about "The world society will not put up with this" and "The international society" will demand that" is nonsence. The internationalists are trying to go directly against the development in the world. They demonize natural national feelings, which they have not been able to control. With national feelings go a home country and a defence thereof. But it is outright madness, that Danes should fight in the hundreds of conflicts, that exist today in the world, commanded by a UN, which has been corrupt and partial in all its 49 years.When the social democrat, Lasse Budtz, calls his most recent book "Ravaging nationalism", it is a misrepresentation. It is internationalism, in both communist and capitalist disguise, which has ravaged during this whole century. Nationalsim is a freedom movement after many years of suppression.Furthermore, the are legal problems as far as I can see. I have not investigated this area enough to be able to be certain. It seems to me, though, that a confusing smoke screen is laid out. But when NATO threatens to bomb in Ex-Jugoslavia, I can not make it fit with the fact, that NATO is supposed to be an alliance for defense, where no member country has been attacked. Greece (one of the member countries) was against. Russia was against. World war was looming up ahead with the expansion of the conflict. One moment it is said that the bombing is the decision of the UN, the next moment the UN says, that it is NATO's ultimatum. First we are told, that the Danish tanks are going to Tuzla in consequence of the parliamentary decision. Then suddenly the chairman of the Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs (da.: "Udenrigspolitisk Nævn"), Peter Duetoft (CD) says, that the UN can decide locally, if they are to be directed to Sarajevo.Furthermore it is a civil war, where "The New World Order" (yet another phrase) with surprising unity throughout the West has selected one part (the Serbs) as the culprits.Prime minister Nyrup Rasmussen has talked of peace-preserving military actions, where Denmark would participate together with the Western Union and the Eastern countries in spite of the fact that the "National compromise" (Danish abstentions from total EU-co-operation), completely excludes that possibility. Isn't there a bit of a problem with the legal background then? The constitution of 1953 has since its passage been interpreted solely in internationalistic spirit with the cheerful purpose to bite off larger and larger chunks of Danish sovereignty and giving it in the hands of international organizations. With the "peace preserving" Danish Foreigh Legion (DIB), a new chapter has been begun in the dilution of the control of parliament with Denmarks involvement in wars according to the prerequisites of §19 of the constitution.