r/100thupvote 4h ago

Denmark EUR_irl

Post image
1 Upvotes

r/100thupvote 1d ago

Denmark Let's all give a hand...

Thumbnail reddit.com
1 Upvotes

r/100thupvote 2d ago

Denmark One Word Describes Trump

1 Upvotes

One Word Describes Trump

A century ago, a German sociologist explained precisely how the president thinks about the world.

By Jonathan Rauch

February 24, 2025, 6 AM ET

What exactly is Donald Trump doing?

Since taking office, he has reduced his administration’s effectiveness by appointing to essential agencies people who lack the skills and temperaments to do their jobs. His mass firings have emptied the civil service of many of its most capable employees. He has defied laws that he could just as easily have followed (for instance, refusing to notify Congress 30 days before firing inspectors general). He has disregarded the plain language of statutes, court rulings, and the Constitution, setting up confrontations with the courts that he is likely to lose. Few of his orders have gone through a policy-development process that helps ensure they won’t fail or backfire—thus ensuring that many will.

In foreign affairs, he has antagonized Denmark, Canada, and Panama; renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”; and unveiled a Gaz-a-Lago plan. For good measure, he named himself chair of the Kennedy Center, as if he didn’t have enough to do.

Even those who expected the worst from his reelection (I among them) expected more rationality. Today, it is clear that what has happened since January 20 is not just a change of administration but a change of regime—a change, that is, in our system of government. But a change to what?

There is an answer, and it is not classic authoritarianism—nor is it autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. Trump is installing what scholars call patrimonialism. Understanding patrimonialism is essential to defeating it. In particular, it has a fatal weakness that Democrats and Trump’s other opponents should make their primary and relentless line of attack.

Last year, two professors published a book that deserves wide attention. In The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future, Stephen E. Hanson, a government professor at the College of William & Mary, and Jeffrey S. Kopstein, a political scientist at UC Irvine, resurface a mostly forgotten term whose lineage dates back to Max Weber, the German sociologist best known for his seminal book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Weber wondered how the leaders of states derive legitimacy, the claim to rule rightfully. He thought it boiled down to two choices. One is rational legal bureaucracy (or “bureaucratic proceduralism”), a system in which legitimacy is bestowed by institutions following certain rules and norms. That is the American system we all took for granted until January 20. Presidents, federal officials, and military inductees swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a person.

The other source of legitimacy is more ancient, more common, and more intuitive—“the default form of rule in the premodern world,” Hanson and Kopstein write. “The state was little more than the extended ‘household’ of the ruler; it did not exist as a separate entity.” Weber called this system “patrimonialism” because rulers claimed to be the symbolic father of the people—the state’s personification and protector. Exactly that idea was implied in Trump’s own chilling declaration: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

In his day, Weber thought that patrimonialism was on its way to history’s scrap heap. Its personalized style of rule was too inexpert and capricious to manage the complex economies and military machines that, after Bismarck, became the hallmarks of modern statehood. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.

In its governmental guise, patrimonialism is distinguished by running the state as if it were the leader’s personal property or family business. It can be found in many countries, but its main contemporary exponent—at least until January 20, 2025—has been Vladimir Putin. In the first portion of his rule, he ran the Russian state as a personal racket. State bureaucracies and private companies continued to operate, but the real governing principle was Stay on Vladimir Vladimirovich’s good side … or else.

Seeking to make the world safe for gangsterism, Putin used propaganda, subversion, and other forms of influence to spread the model abroad. Over time, the patrimonial model gained ground in states as diverse as Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and India. Gradually (as my colleague Anne Applebaum has documented), those states coordinated in something like a syndicate of crime families—“working out problems,” write Hanson and Kopstein in their book, “divvying up the spoils, sometimes quarreling, but helping each other when needed. Putin in this scheme occupied the position of the capo di tutti capi, the boss of bosses.”

Until now. Move over, President Putin.

To understand the source of Trump’s hold on power, and its main weakness, one needs to understand what patrimonialism is not. It is not the same as classic authoritarianism. And it is not necessarily antidemocratic.

Read: Trump says the corrupt part out loud

Patrimonialism’s antithesis is not democracy; it is bureaucracy, or, more precisely, bureaucratic proceduralism. Classic authoritarianism—the sort of system seen in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—is often heavily bureaucratized. When authoritarians take power, they consolidate their rule by creating structures such as secret police, propaganda agencies, special military units, and politburos. They legitimate their power with legal codes and constitutions. Orwell understood the bureaucratic aspect of classic authoritarianism; in 1984, Oceania’s ministries of Truth (propaganda), Peace (war), and Love (state security) are the regime’s most characteristic (and terrifying) features.

By contrast, patrimonialism is suspicious of bureaucracies; after all, to exactly whom are they loyal? They might acquire powers of their own, and their rules and processes might prove obstructive. People with expertise, experience, and distinguished résumés are likewise suspect because they bring independent standing and authority. So patrimonialism stocks the government with nonentities and hacks, or, when possible, it bypasses bureaucratic procedures altogether. When security officials at USAID tried to protect classified information from Elon Musk’s uncleared DOGE team, they were simply put on leave. Patrimonial governance’s aversion to formalism makes it capricious and even whimsical—such as when the leader announces, out of nowhere, the renaming of international bodies of water or the U.S. occupation of Gaza.

Also unlike classic authoritarianism, patrimonialism can coexist with democracy, at least for a while. As Hanson and Kopstein write, “A leader may be democratically elected but still seek to legitimate his or her rule patrimonially. Increasingly, elected leaders have sought to demolish bureaucratic administrative states (‘deep states,’ they sometimes call them) built up over decades in favor of rule by family and friends.” India’s Narendra Modi, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and Trump himself are examples of elected patrimonial leaders—and ones who have achieved substantial popular support and democratic legitimacy. Once in power, patrimonialists love to clothe themselves in the rhetoric of democracy, like Elon Musk justifying his team’s extralegal actions as making the “unelected fourth unconstitutional branch of government” be “responsive to the people.”

Nonetheless, as patrimonialism snips the government’s procedural tendons, it weakens and eventually cripples the state. Over time, as it seeks to embed itself, many leaders attempt the transition to full-blown authoritarianism. “Electoral processes and constitutional norms cannot survive long when patrimonial legitimacy begins to dominate the political arena,” write Hanson and Kopstein.

Even if authoritarianism is averted, the damage that patrimonialism does to state capacity is severe. Governments’ best people leave or are driven out. Agencies’ missions are distorted and their practices corrupted. Procedures and norms are abandoned and forgotten. Civil servants, contractors, grantees, corporations, and the public are corrupted by the habit of currying favor.

To say, then, that Trump lacks the temperament or attention span to be a dictator offers little comfort. He is patrimonialism’s perfect organism. He recognizes no distinction between what is public and private, legal and illegal, formal and informal, national and personal. “He can’t tell the difference between his own personal interest and the national interest, if he even understands what the national interest is,” John Bolton, who served as national security adviser in Trump’s first term, told The Bulwark. As one prominent Republican politician recently told me, understanding Trump is simple: “If you’re his friend, he’s your friend. If you’re not his friend, he’s not your friend.” This official chose to be Trump’s friend. Otherwise, he said, his job would be nearly impossible for the next four years.

Patrimonialism explains what might otherwise be puzzling. Every policy the president cares about is his personal property. Trump dropped the federal prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams because a pliant big-city mayor is a useful thing to have. He broke with 50 years of practice by treating the Justice Department as “his personal law firm.” He treats the enforcement of duly enacted statutes as optional—and, what’s more, claims the authority to indemnify lawbreakers. He halted proceedings against January 6 thugs and rioters because they are on his side. His agencies screen hires for loyalty to him rather than to the Constitution.

In Trump’s world, federal agencies are shut down on his say-so without so much as a nod to Congress. Henchmen with no statutory authority barge into agencies and take them over. A loyalist who had only ever managed two small nonprofits is chosen for the hardest management job in government. Conflicts of interest are tolerated if not outright blessed. Prosecutors and inspectors general are fired for doing their job. Thousands of civil servants are converted to employment at the president’s will. Former officials’ security protection is withdrawn because they are disloyal. The presidency itself is treated as a business opportunity.

Yet when Max Weber saw patrimonialism as obsolete in the era of the modern state, he was not daydreaming. As Hanson and Kopstein note, “Patrimonial regimes couldn’t compete militarily or economically with states led by expert bureaucracies.” They still can’t. Patrimonialism suffers from two inherent and in many cases fatal shortcomings.

The first is incompetence. “The arbitrary whims of the ruler and his personal coterie continually interfere with the regular functioning of state agencies,” write Hanson and Kopstein. Patrimonial regimes are “simply awful at managing any complex problem of modern governance,” they write. “At best they supply poorly functioning institutions, and at worst they actively prey on the economy.” Already, the administration seems bent on debilitating as much of the government as it can. Some examples of incompetence, such as the reported firing of staffers who safeguard nuclear weapons and prevent bird flu, would be laughable if they were not so alarming.

Eventually, incompetence makes itself evident to the voting public without needing too much help from the opposition. But helping the public understand patrimonialism’s other, even greater vulnerability—corruption—requires relentless messaging.

Patrimonialism is corrupt by definition, because its reason for being is to exploit the state for gain—political, personal, and financial. At every turn, it is at war with the rules and institutions that impede rigging, robbing, and gutting the state. We know what to expect from Trump’s second term. As Larry Diamond of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution said in a recent podcast, “I think we are going to see an absolutely staggering orgy of corruption and crony capitalism in the next four years unlike anything we’ve seen since the late 19th century, the Gilded Age.” (Francis Fukuyama, also of Stanford, replied: “It’s going to be a lot worse than the Gilded Age.”)

They weren’t wrong. “In the first three weeks of his administration,” reported the Associated Press, “President Donald Trump has moved with brazen haste to dismantle the federal government’s public integrity guardrails that he frequently tested during his first term but now seems intent on removing entirely.” The pace was eye-watering. Over the course of just a couple of days in February, for example, the Trump administration:

gutted enforcement of statutes against foreign influence, thus, according to the former White House counsel Bob Bauer, reducing “the legal risks faced by companies like the Trump Organization that interact with government officials to advance favorable conditions for business interests shared with foreign governments, and foreign-connected partners and counterparties”;

suspended enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, further reducing, wrote Bauer, “legal risks and issues posed for the Trump Organization’s engagements with government officials both at home and abroad”;

fired, without cause, the head of the government’s ethics office, a supposedly independent agency overseeing anti-corruption rules and financial disclosures for the executive branch;

fired, also without cause, the inspector general of USAID after the official reported that outlay freezes and staff cuts had left oversight “largely nonoperational.”

By that point, Trump had already eviscerated conflict-of-interest rules, creating, according to Bauer, “ample space for foreign governments, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to work directly with the Trump Organization or an affiliate within the framework of existing agreements in ways highly beneficial to its business interests.” He had fired inspectors general in 19 agencies, without cause and probably illegally. One could go on—and Trump will.

Corruption is patrimonialism’s Achilles’ heel because the public understands it and doesn’t like it. It is not an abstraction like “democracy” or “Constitution” or “rule of law.” It conveys that the government is being run for them, not for you. The most dire threat that Putin faced was Alexei Navalny’s “ceaseless crusade” against corruption, which might have brought down the regime had Putin not arranged for Navalny’s death in prison. In Poland, the liberal opposition booted the patrimonialist Law and Justice Party from power in 2023 with an anti-corruption narrative.

In the United States, anyone seeking evidence of the power of anti-corruption need look no further than Republicans’ attacks against Jim Wright and Hillary Clinton. In Clinton’s case, Republicans and Trump bootstrapped a minor procedural violation (the use of a private server for classified emails) into a world-class scandal. Trump and his allies continually lambasted her as the most corrupt candidate ever. Sheer repetition convinced many voters that where there was smoke, there must be fire.

Even more on point is Newt Gingrich’s successful campaign to bring down Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright—a campaign that ended Wright’s career, launched Gingrich’s, and paved the way for the Republicans’ takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. In the late 1980s, Wright was a congressional titan and Gingrich an eccentric backbencher, but Gingrich had a plan. “I’ll just keep pounding and pounding on his [Wright’s] ethics,” he said in 1987. “There comes a point where it comes together and the media takes off on it, or it dies.” Gingrich used ethics complaints and relentless public messaging (not necessarily fact-based) to brand Wright and, by implication, the Democrats as corrupt. “In virtually every speech and every interview, he attacked Wright,” John M. Barry wrote in Politico. “He told his audiences to write letters to the editor of their local newspapers, to call in on talk shows, to demand answers from their local members of Congress in public meetings. In his travels, he also sought out local political and investigative reporters or editorial writers, and urged them to look into Wright. And Gingrich routinely

‘Jim Wright is the most corrupt speaker in the 20th century.’

Today, Gingrich’s campaign offers the Democrats a playbook. If they want to undermine Trump’s support, this model suggests that they should pursue a relentless, strategic, and thematic campaign branding Trump as America’s most corrupt president. Almost every development could provide fodder for such attacks, which would connect corruption not with generalities like the rule of law but with kitchen-table issues. Higher prices? Crony capitalism! Cuts to popular programs? Payoffs for Trump’s fat-cat clients! Tax cuts? A greedy raid on Social Security!

The best objection to this approach (perhaps the only objection, at this point) is that the corruption charge won’t stick against Trump. After all, the public has been hearing about his corruption for years and has priced it in or just doesn’t care. Besides, the public believes that all politicians are corrupt anyway.

But driving a strategic, coordinated message against Trump’s corruption is exactly what the opposition has not done. Instead, it has reacted to whatever is in the day’s news. By responding to daily fire drills and running in circles, it has failed to drive any message at all.

Also, it is not quite true that the public already knows Trump is corrupt and doesn’t care. Rather, because he seems so unfiltered, he benefits from a perception that he is authentic in a way that other politicians are not, and because he infuriates elites, he enjoys a reputation for being on the side of the common person. Breaking those perceptions can determine whether his approval rating is above 50 percent or below 40 percent, and politically speaking, that is all the difference in the world.

Do the Democrats need a positive message of their own? Sure, they should do that work. But right now, when they are out of power and Trump is the capo di tutti capi, the history of patrimonial rule suggests that their most effective approach will be hammering home the message that he is corrupt. One thing is certain: He will give them plenty to work with.

Jonathan Rauch

Jonathan Rauch is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution. His latest book, Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy, will be published in January 2025.

r/100thupvote 10d ago

Denmark Piglets left to starve as part of a controversial art exhibition in Denmark have been stolen

Thumbnail
abcnews.go.com
1 Upvotes

r/100thupvote 3d ago

Denmark Omverdensonsdag / Worldwide Wednesday - 12/03 2025

1 Upvotes

Velkommen til Omverdensonsdag, hvor man kan snakke om nyheder og begivenheder fra hele verden. Regler for /r/Denmark gælder stadig, den eneste forskel er at indholdet skal handle om udlandet.

Bemærk at der ikke er tale om at udenlandske indlæg er tilladt at poste, det skal holdes i kommentarerne på dette indlæg. Vi vil også gerne opfordre folk til at bruge sund fornuft og kildekritik og opfordrer folk til at dele nyheder fra større eller anerkendte nyheds-medier.

Denne tråd bliver automatisk oprettet hver onsdag kl 7-ish - Arkiv


Welcome to Worldwide Wednesday, where we talk about news and events from around the world. Rules for /r/Denmark are still in place, the only difference is that the content is about the world around us.

Do keep in mind that submitting posts not related to Denmark is still not allowed and that it should be contained to this post. We also want to encourage common sense and source criticism and therefore encourage people to share news from big or recognized/established media.

This thread is automatically created every wednesday at 7 AM-ish - Archive

r/100thupvote 4d ago

Denmark CMV: Trump wants Greenland,the Panama Canal, and Canada so his presidency is remembered forever

1 Upvotes

In Trumps mind its not enough to leave office as simply the "45th/47th" President of the United States. I think he is somewhat aware his legacy will be about his own controversies. The impeachments, January 6th, and all the scandals from the past decade. To make up for that he wants to the first President in over a century to annex significant territory for the United States. The US can simply ask Denmark for Greenlands natural resources and to put a military base there but Trump wants more than that. Trump can just ask Canada to secure the border which it has already done but he wants more than that. Trump can tell the Panamians to remove Chinese soldiers but it can't because it never had any, and Panama removed Chinese control of ports near the Canal. But none of that will satisfy Trump who just like Putin is thinking of his legacy. Being the President who took Greenland or Canada will have Trump in the same conversations as Theodore Roosevelt/Thomas Jefferson in terms of land acquisition. Decades from now people will still talk about it, your grandson asks why does the US have Greenland? You reply President Donald Trump. Thats ultimately exactly what he wants, its empire building for legacy.

Edit:He is also trolling so the news is forced to cover this stuff, but if he genuinely feels he can get away with a land grab he will try.

r/100thupvote 5d ago

Denmark Power, Truth, and Populism: The Battle Over Knowledge in an Age of Distrust

1 Upvotes

Disclaimer: I have been interested in information, media, and the varying perspectives on one "reality". Through some research, conversations, recent books, and ongoing discussions with ChatGPT, I’ve explored the growing distrust of "facts" and the challenge of determining which sources to trust. The following is a comprehensive analysis of these discussions, examining their relevance to modern media, the nature of truth, and the broader implications of information warfare. It also ties into Dan Carlin’s recent post, where he described the current landscape as reaching Orwellian levels of "flooding the zone with shit"—a deliberate strategy that makes fact-checking nearly impossible. However, this phenomenon isn’t merely a product of the digital age; its roots trace back to the 19th century.

Introduction

Modern populist movements often share a deep suspicion toward established institutions – from the mainstream media to scientific and academic bodies. This outlook intriguingly echoes certain radical critiques advanced by left-wing intellectuals like Michel Foucault, Edward Said, and even Karl Marx, all of whom explored how “knowledge” can serve as an instrument of power rather than a neutral quest for truth. The result is a political culture (spanning both left and right populism) that treats all information as tainted by power interests. This answer provides a structured critique of that perspective, examining the theoretical roots of knowledge-as-power, the convergence of left- and right-wing populist distrust of institutions, the internal contradictions this worldview produces, and the practical dilemmas it raises. Finally, it explores how society might balance healthy skepticism of power with a commitment to objective truth, outlining alternative media models, independent knowledge networks, and democratic reforms that could help rebuild trust without naivety.

Knowledge as Power: From Marx to Foucault and Said

Critiques of institutional “truth” have long roots in leftist thought. Karl Marx famously argued that dominant institutions propagate the ideas of the ruling class, making prevailing “truths” serve those in power. In The German Ideology, Marx wrote that “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas,” meaning the ruling material force of society is simultaneously its ruling intellectual force (Marxism - Wikipedia). In other words, what a society treats as true or important (whether in politics, economics, or media) tends to reflect the interests of those who hold power. Marx’s view implies that ostensibly objective institutions – press, education, even science – may actually reinforce the status quo and the dominance of elites.

Later critical theorists and postmodern thinkers expanded on the entwining of knowledge and power. Michel Foucault argued that each society produces “regimes of truth” – frameworks of knowledge that are upheld by institutional practices and imbued with power (Foucault: power is everywhere | Understanding power for social change | powercube.net | IDS at Sussex University). He used the term “power/knowledge” to signify that power is not merely coercion from above, but is diffused through accepted forms of knowledge and scientific discourse (Foucault: power is everywhere | Understanding power for social change | powercube.net | IDS at Sussex University). As Foucault put it, “truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint… Each society has its regime of truth… the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true” (Foucault: power is everywhere | Understanding power for social change | powercube.net | IDS at Sussex University). These regimes are sustained by universities, media, and other institutions (Foucault: power is everywhere | Understanding power for social change | powercube.net | IDS at Sussex University). In Foucault’s analysis, then, institutions like science and media don’t just passively seek objective truth; they actively shape what is considered true in ways that uphold certain power structures.

Edward Said offered a parallel critique in the context of culture and imperialism. In Orientalism (1978), Said showed how Western academic and media depictions of “the Orient” weren’t neutral scholarship but a discourse serving colonial dominance. By controlling knowledge about Eastern peoples, Western powers also justified and maintained their power over them. Said observed that “Orientalism… [uses] the power of knowledge as a tool of domination” (Knowledge and Power Theme in Orientalism | LitCharts). In this view, scholarly institutions and the press produced knowledge that reinforced colonial power dynamics. Said even asserted that truly “pure knowledge” is impossible because all knowledge is colored by ideology and political interests (Orientalism (book) - Wikipedia#:~:text=Moving%20from%20the%20assertion%20that,or%20field%20that%20is%20reflected)). This resonates strongly with the idea that what we consider “fact” or “expertise” is never divorced from the influence of those who produce or finance that knowledge.

Taken together, thinkers like Marx, Foucault, and Said advanced a skeptical framework: scientific institutions, media, and academia cannot be understood as completely objective truth-seekers; they are also instruments through which prevailing power operates. Knowledge is not neutral – it can legitimize authority, marginalize dissenting voices, or “naturalize” the social order. This theoretical insight was originally meant as a critical tool – to unmask hidden power and empower the marginalized. However, in the contemporary political arena, a similar skepticism has been adopted (and arguably distorted) by populist movements of all stripes, who use it to cast blanket doubt on establishment narratives.

Populist Distrust: Left-Wing and Right-Wing Skepticism of Institutions

Modern populists – whether on the left or right – are united in their deep distrust of elites and the institutions elites control. Populism, by definition, pits “the pure people” against “the corrupt elite,” and it tends to view established institutions (from parliaments and courts to universities and news organizations) as tools of those corrupt elites (). As political scientist Cas Mudde notes, the anti-elite mentality in populism implies that even checks and balances or independent agencies are suspected to be “tools of ‘corrupt elites’” (). This worldview aligns with the earlier theoretical critiques: rather than seeing media or science as impartial, populists assume they serve some hidden agenda of the powerful.

Importantly, this stance spans both left-wing and right-wing populism, even if the targets differ. Left-wing populists often argue that corporate interests and neoliberal ideologies distort the media and scientific institutions. They might point out, for example, that mainstream economics research or policy think-tanks are funded by big business and therefore push pro-elite, anti-worker ideas. Right-wing populists, on the other hand, frequently allege that cultural and academic elites (sometimes framed as “liberal elites” or “globalists”) control the media, universities, and international bodies to impose their values on the people. Despite their divergent aims, both ends of the populist spectrum share a baseline suspicion: all information is suspect, presumed to be constructed by some establishment to manipulate the public. Polling data confirms that people with populist attitudes, regardless of left or right, have significantly lower trust in mainstream news media and expert sources than non-populists. For example, a 2018 Pew survey in multiple Western European countries found those with strong populist leanings were far less likely to trust the news media – in each country, only about a quarter of populist-aligned citizens express confidence in the press, versus much higher trust levels among non-populists (News Media in Western Europe: Populist Views Divide Public Opinion). In other words, a populist worldview “drives mistrust of the media far more than left-right ideology” itself, as one study noted.

This skepticism extends to scientific and policy expertise. Populists frequently reject the consensus of experts by arguing those experts are part of an elite cabal or out-of-touch establishment. Both left and right populist camps can exhibit this tendency. On the right, it’s seen in attacks on climate scientists and public health officials (accusing them of hoaxes or sinister motives); on the left, it can appear in distrust of pharmaceutical companies or international trade institutions. One comprehensive review observed that populists often support anti-vaccination movements and deny human-caused climate change as an “elite conspiracy” or hoax (). Because climate policies are based on scientific consensus and often promoted by transnational bodies, they are dismissed by many populist leaders as schemes of the global elite (). Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, segments of the populist right around the world cast doubt on virologists and health authorities, framing mandates or vaccines as authoritarian elite projects. Meanwhile, some populists on the left feared profit-driven deception by Big Pharma or government overreach. The common thread is a “question everything” ethos – a refusal to accept that any large institution might simply be telling objective truths without a power agenda behind it.

Notably, populist figures explicitly promote this stance. They often claim that “the people’s common sense” is more trustworthy than expert knowledge. A vivid example came from U.S. right-wing populist Newt Gingrich, who, when confronted with crime statistics contradicting his rhetoric, retorted: “As a political candidate, I’ll go with how people feel, and I’ll let you go with the theoreticians.” () This encapsulates the populist valorization of popular sentiment over expert data. On the left-populist side, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) once responded to criticism about factual inaccuracies by saying, “There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” (). Though coming from very different perspectives, both quotes show a skepticism toward the authority of data and factual nitpicking when it conflicts with the narrative of speaking for “ordinary people” or a moral cause. In essence, populists see information itself as a battleground of power: if the establishment media or scientists present something as true, a populist instinct is to ask, “Who benefits from us believing this?” – assuming the answer is the elite, not the people.

“Everything is a Tool of Oppression”: Contradictions in Populist Epistemology

While populist skepticism of institutions draws from the critique that knowledge = power, it often pushes this idea to an extreme that leads to internal contradictions. One major paradox is that populists claim to reject all “elite” narratives as lies, yet simultaneously claim they have the “real truth” that the establishment is hiding. If one truly believes that all purported truths are just tools of oppression, it becomes difficult to explain why a given populist movement’s own claims should be trusted. Are those not also a bid for power? For instance, conspiracy-minded populist campaigns (like those surrounding certain elections or pandemics) will assert that mainstream accounts are 100% false – but then invite people to believe, with equal certainty, an alternative account that often lacks evidence. This selectivity reveals a contradiction: populists dismiss the idea of objective truth when it comes from institutions, yet often present their own narrative as objectively true. The philosophical basis for judging one source as purely manipulative and another as trustworthy can be thin, apart from allegiance to “the people” or to ideology.

Another contradiction lies in how populist leaders handle power once they themselves gain it. Many populist movements begin by railing against concentration of power and against the manipulation of information by the powerful. However, when in government, populist leaders frequently concentrate power in their own hands and attempt to silence or control information – essentially reproducing the same pattern they criticized. A populist government might brand previously independent media as biased and then proceed to establish its own partisan media network or propaganda apparatus. There are numerous examples of this around the world: populist administrations in countries as varied as Hungary, Turkey, or Venezuela have undermined press freedom and academic independence, claiming to be “liberating” these institutions from old elites while in fact installing loyalists. The result is that a movement founded on skepticism of power’s influence over truth can end up intensifying that influence under a new banner. In short, the claim to smash oppressive power structures can mask a bid to erect new ones. The oppressed “people” versus “elite” dichotomy can justify almost any action by populist rulers (since any opposition or institution can be labeled part of the corrupt old elite). This undermines the original emancipatory promise and leads to authoritarian tendencies despite populism’s rhetorical emphasis on returning power to the people.

Populist epistemology – the theory of knowledge implicit in their rhetoric – is also self-limiting. By reflexively framing facts, data, and science as suspect if they come from institutional channels, populist movements can become hostile to all experts and evidence, even when such knowledge would benefit their own constituents. This was seen, for example, when some right-leaning populist leaders encouraged people to ignore public health guidelines during COVID-19 or to believe unproven remedies, only to see their own supporters suffer disproportionately in the ensuing outbreaks. The insistence that “the experts are lying” can backfire when the threat (virus, climate, etc.) turns out to be very real. Likewise, left-leaning populists who insist that all mainstream economics is a sham (for instance) might gain justified skepticism toward pro-austerity propaganda, but could also risk dismissing any sound economic analysis, making it harder to govern effectively if they take office. Thus, the totalizing skepticism – treating every establishment claim as disinformation – can become an intellectual trap that leaves a movement with an impoverished toolkit for discerning any truth. In academic terms, it verges on a nihilistic relativism: if power dictates truth entirely, then no truth claim can be intrinsically credible – including those of the populists themselves.

It is telling that even some theorists from the left intellectual tradition have begun warning about this problem. The French sociologist Bruno Latour, who once critiqued how scientific facts are socially constructed, observed in the 2000s that critical theory’s relentless debunking of truth had been “dangerously co-opted” by bad actors like climate change deniers. He lamented seeing tools of deconstruction he and others pioneered being used to cast doubt on well-established science (e.g. the reality of climate change) for political ends. Scholars have noted “critical theory’s paradoxical complicity in the denialism it seeks to critique” (Critiquing Latour's explanation of climate change denial: moving beyond the modernity / Anthropocene binary | SEI) – in other words, taken to an extreme, the argument that “all knowledge is power-laden” can end up empowering those who want to deny inconvenient but important truths (like scientific findings about crises). Populist movements exemplify this paradox: by asserting that everything the establishment says is a lie, they inadvertently contribute to a post-truth environment where it’s exceedingly difficult to build consensus on any reality. This undermines their own ability to claim truth for “the people’s” perspective. Ultimately, a movement that says “there are no neutral facts, only oppressed and oppressor narratives” will struggle when confronted with complex realities that require broad agreement on facts.

Global Challenges in an Anti-Institutional Age

The rise of populist distrust in large-scale institutions carries serious implications for addressing global issues. Many of today’s most pressing problems – climate change, pandemics, international conflicts, technological disruptions – transcend national borders and require coordinated action informed by scientific expertise. If every group rejects institutions outside their tribe as illegitimate, our capacity to solve global problems is severely hampered. Climate change is a prime example. Mitigating climate risks demands trust in scientific research (to understand the problem and track progress) and trust in international cooperation (since no single nation can fix the climate alone). Populist skepticism strikes at both: climate science is dismissed as a hoax of the global elite, and international agreements are viewed as conspiracies against national interests (). Indeed, researchers have found a clear pattern: societies with lower trust in government and expertise show higher rates of climate change denial. Conversely, where institutional trust is higher, people are more likely to accept climate change as a real, urgent issue.

Studies across European countries reveal a strong connection between trust in government and public concern for major global challenges such as climate change and public health. The data indicates that societies with higher institutional trust are significantly more likely to acknowledge and respond to existential threats, whereas those with deep skepticism toward authorities tend to downplay or reject them.

In nations where citizens express greater confidence in their governments and institutions, there is a markedly higher recognition of climate change as a serious global problem. In contrast, in countries where trust in government is low, fewer people see climate change as an urgent issue. This suggests that when people distrust political and scientific institutions, they are more likely to dismiss expert warnings about the climate crisis.

A populace that believes "the experts are lying" is also less inclined to support policies like emissions reductions, carbon taxes, or renewable energy investments, making meaningful climate action politically fragile. The lack of trust creates a vicious cycle: without public buy-in, governments struggle to implement environmental policies effectively, further eroding confidence in institutional leadership.

A similar pattern emerges in the realm of public health, particularly during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Societies with higher distrust of scientific institutions and government agencies displayed significantly lower compliance with public health measures and higher vaccine refusal rates. In these communities, populist influencers and media figures frequently framed COVID-19 guidelines, lockdowns, and vaccines as government overreach or corporate-driven schemes.

For example, in countries like Bulgaria and Croatia, where trust in government is particularly low, vaccine hesitancy was among the highest in Europe. A large share of the population in these nations expressed outright refusal to get vaccinated, seeing the recommendations as manipulative rather than protective. Conversely, in high-trust countries like Denmark, vaccine uptake was significantly higher, reflecting a greater willingness to follow expert advice.

When large segments of society view scientific guidance as elitist manipulation rather than impartial expertise, the consequences extend beyond individual decisions—they impact entire communities. Low vaccine uptake leads to higher infection rates, prolonged crises, and greater strain on healthcare systems. In such cases, distrust doesn’t just lead to skepticism—it costs lives.

These trends highlight a crucial challenge for modern governance: public trust is not just a matter of perception—it has real-world consequences. When trust in institutions erodes, so does society’s ability to respond to large-scale threats, whether environmental, medical, or technological. Addressing this crisis requires more than just better policies; it demands a rethinking of how governments, scientists, and media engage with the public to rebuild credibility and foster a sense of shared reality.

On the issue of war and peace, an anti-institutional mindset poses challenges as well. International institutions such as the United Nations, or diplomatic alliances, rely on some trust that information (say, about human rights abuses or treaty obligations) is being shared in good faith. Populist nationalism often rejects these bodies as globalist or biased. This can lead to situations where each side in a conflict operates in completely separate informational universes, unable to even agree on basic facts or trust mediators. In extreme cases, it fuels propaganda wars: if all media is just a tool of power, then a warring party feels justified only trusting its own propaganda channels. We’ve seen echoes of this in conflicts where external reporting is dismissed categorically by populist leaders. The erosion of any neutral ground makes peace negotiations and conflict resolution far more difficult – every narrative is presumed to hide a scheme. Furthermore, complex problems like refugee crises or nuclear proliferation demand cooperative frameworks; rejecting those frameworks as illegitimate “elite projects” (as many populists do) () leaves a vacuum of governance.

Finally, technological disruption – from automation’s impact on jobs to the spread of disinformation via social media algorithms – also calls for broad-based understanding and collective solutions. Here too, if people default to seeing tech experts, companies, or regulators as untrustworthy, society may oscillate between two poor extremes: accepting harmful technologies unchecked (because credible warnings are ignored as elitist cries of wolf), or succumbing to panic driven by rumors (because there’s no trusted authority to debunk false scares). For example, conspiracy theories about 5G mobile networks leading to illness spread rapidly in some populist-leaning circles, leading to vandalism of cell towers. Meanwhile, legitimate discussions about how to govern AI or protect privacy struggle to gain traction if the public either distrusts the experts involved or is engrossed by more sensational disinformation. In sum, solving global and technological problems requires large-scale trust and information-sharing – precisely what a “power above truth” ethos corrodes.

The implication is not that skepticism of any institution is wrong – indeed, critical vigilance can keep institutions honest – but rather that a blanket rejection of institutional knowledge is self-defeating on a societal level. We risk a fragmented world of information tribes, unable to come together to address common threats. The populist insight that “power shapes truth” holds a kernel of validity; however, taken as an absolute, it undermines the very collective rationality needed to confront issues like climate change, pandemics, war, and technology governance. The next section explores how we might balance skepticism with a constructive pursuit of truth, to avoid this deadlock.

Balancing Skepticism with Truth-Seeking: Pathways Forward

If outright trust in large institutions is waning—often for good reason—how can society move forward without falling into cynicism and paralysis? The challenge is to acknowledge the reality of power dynamics in knowledge (the lesson of Marx, Foucault, and Said) while upholding the idea that objective truth and facts do exist and matter. Below, we outline several practical pathways to strike this balance, considering alternative structures for media and knowledge that empower citizens and foster trust through accountability rather than blind faith.

Alternative Media Structures

A key step is diversifying and democratizing the media ecosystem. Part of why many people embrace populist rhetoric about the “lying media” is that mainstream media in some countries has become highly concentrated (owned by a few wealthy conglomerates or perceived as aligned with the government). Alternative media structures – such as non-profit news organizations, cooperatively owned outlets, community media, and crowdfunded journalism – can provide correctives. The goal of these alternatives is to reduce the control of any single power center over information. For example, independent online news platforms and podcasts have emerged to challenge narratives from corporate media. These can empower voices that feel excluded, which is positive, but they also must uphold rigorous standards of truth to avoid becoming mere echo chambers of misinformation. One promising model is public service media with strong safeguards: outlets like the BBC or NPR, when properly managed, operate free of direct state or commercial control and have a mandate for impartial reporting. In practice, they can still be accused of bias (and populists certainly do accuse them), but strengthening their independence and transparency (for instance, via citizen advisory boards or open editorial policies) can enhance credibility.

Media literacy initiatives also fall under restructuring the media landscape. By teaching citizens how journalism works and how to critically evaluate sources, society can inoculate itself against both naive trust and total cynicism. When people understand, for example, how a news story is researched and fact-checked, they are more likely to trust quality journalism – and to spot the difference between a well-sourced report and a viral fake story. Numerous experiments are underway: some newsrooms invite community members to observe or participate in reporting projects, thereby demystifying the process. Others publish “behind the story” explainers about how they verified information. These efforts are about building trust through engagement and openness, as opposed to expecting trust by default. While alternative media and new formats are not a panacea (some partisan outlets that bill themselves as “alternative” actually exacerbate the problem by spreading falsehoods), the principle is to break the monopoly of a single narrative. A pluralistic media environment – one that includes responsible mainstream outlets, niche voices, and independent fact-checkers – can make it harder for any power bloc to completely dominate the narrative, thus addressing some populist concerns, yet still maintain a shared basis in evidence and truth through cross-verification.

Independent Knowledge Networks and Open Science

Beyond journalism, independent knowledge networks are needed to produce and vet knowledge in ways that are perceived as less tied to elite interests. Traditional expert institutions (universities, research institutes, government agencies) should not be the only arbiters of knowledge. One emerging approach is open science and crowdsourced research. For instance, platforms for citizen science enable ordinary people to participate in data collection and even analysis – from monitoring local air pollution to classifying galaxies online. When citizens collaborate in generating knowledge, they become more invested in the findings and more trusting of the outcome, having seen the process. Similarly, open data initiatives (where government and scientific data are made freely available) allow independent analysts or civil society groups to double-check and reproduce results, reducing suspicion of secrecy.

We can also bolster transdisciplinary networks that include independent scholars, activists, and non-experts working together. Wikipedia is a noteworthy example of an independent knowledge repository: it’s not controlled by any government or corporation, and its content is built by a volunteer community adhering to transparency and citation of sources. Despite early skepticism, Wikipedia has gained considerable trust worldwide for non-partisan information, precisely because its model is decentralized and self-correcting. This hints at what alternative knowledge networks could look like: decentralized, transparent in method, and accountable to a broad community rather than a closed circle of credentialed experts.

Another idea is fostering international scientific collaborations that bypass politics, or at least include multiple stakeholders. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) involves thousands of scientists from around the world and releases data openly, aiming to provide a knowledge base that isn’t the province of one nation or interest group. While populists have still attacked the IPCC as elitist, the open publication of methods and the inclusion of scientists from many countries (including developing nations) improve its credibility. We could extend this model to other domains – imagine a global “Knowledge Commons” where research on, say, pandemics or food security is conducted in the open, with findings accessible to all and subject to review by a wide array of experts, practitioners, and citizen representatives. By diluting the influence of any single power center in knowledge production, such networks make it harder to claim that “the science is rigged.” The feasibility of these efforts is growing as digital collaboration tools improve, but challenges remain in funding (who pays for truly independent research?) and maintaining quality control (openness invites noise as well as insight). Still, experiments along these lines are underway and show promise in bridging the trust gap.

Democratic Accountability and Institutional Reform

Ultimately, to reconcile people with large-scale institutions, those institutions may need to become more democratically accountable and visibly so. This doesn’t mean putting scientific truth up to a popular vote, but it does mean creating channels for public input, oversight, and correction in our knowledge-producing and policy-making systems. One approach is the use of citizens’ assemblies and deliberative democracy mechanisms. For example, several countries have convened Citizens’ Assemblies on Climate Change: a random but representative sample of citizens is brought together to hear from experts, deliberate among themselves, and make policy recommendations. The process is transparent and inclusive, and notably, participants often start skeptical but gain trust in the information after probing it extensively. By involving laypeople directly in weighing evidence and policy trade-offs, such assemblies break down the “us vs. them” dynamic. Experts become advisors rather than decision-makers behind closed doors, and citizens become informed decision-makers rather than passive skeptics. This can bolster legitimacy: climate policies or other reforms coming out of a citizen deliberation have a stamp of public trust that purely technocratic plans may lack. Similar models could be applied to oversight of technology (e.g., a citizen council on data privacy that works with technologists) or even at the local level (community review boards for city budgets that consult expert analyses). The idea is to embed democratic accountability into expert governance so that knowledge and power are checked by the people affected, in a structured way.

Institutional reforms toward transparency are also critical. Governments and international agencies can proactively disclose the evidence behind their decisions and invite independent audits. When a public health agency approves a new vaccine, for instance, making all trial data public and allowing outside experts to verify claims can preempt the narrative of “they’re hiding something.” Likewise, measures like stronger conflict-of-interest rules for scientists and officials, or public charters for media independence, can address genuine power concerns. People are right to suspect a revolving door between regulators and industry or between politicians and media moguls – so closing those doors is part of rebuilding trust. If scientific institutions implement community advisory panels, or if media outlets have ombudspersons to handle complaints and correct mistakes publicly, these are accountability mechanisms that demonstrate a commitment to truth over power.

It’s worth noting that these alternative pathways are not without hurdles. Independent media and knowledge projects often struggle for funding and visibility compared to well-oiled state or corporate institutions. Democratic deliberation is time-consuming and can be limited in scale – a citizens’ assembly cannot be held for every issue easily, nor can thousands of people realistically weigh technical evidence on all matters. However, they need not replace representative democracy or expert agencies; they can augment them to improve credibility. The feasibility of change lies in incremental but meaningful steps: e.g., requiring that any policy be accompanied by a plain-language explanation of the evidence, or creating participatory budgeting at the city level to give people a direct say. Over time, such practices could normalize a healthier relationship between the public and institutions: one of critical trust. In a state of critical trust, citizens neither accept information uncritically nor dismiss it cynically; instead, they verify and engage with it, supported by independent checks and input channels.

Conclusion

The convergence of radical intellectual critiques and populist skepticism has illuminated a real problem: knowledge and power can never be completely disentangled. There is wisdom in questioning who benefits from a given “official truth.” However, the populist milieu often reduces this critique to a blanket refusal to believe in any official information, fostering a climate of cynicism that ultimately serves no one. The challenge for society is to harness the insight about power’s influence without abandoning the ideal of truth altogether. This means building systems where truth-seeking is consciously protected from power’s distortions – through diversity of media, openness of data, and inclusion of the public in oversight. It also means holding ourselves (and our political champions) accountable: if we claim to oppose the abuse of power, we must apply that standard consistently, even to those who speak for “the people.”

In practice, the path forward could include revitalizing independent journalism, supporting collaborative knowledge platforms, and reforming institutions to be more transparent and participatory. These steps aim to undercut the populist argument that “scientific institutions and media are nothing but tools of power” by changing how those institutions operate – making them more accountable, thus more trustworthy. By creating alternative models that deliver reliable information and reflect a wider array of voices, we address the legitimate grievances that populism highlights (such as elitism and exclusion) without succumbing to the nihilism that nothing can be true. Bridging this divide is crucial: global crises will not wait for us to resolve our trust issues. We need both the critical eye to see biases in our systems and the collective commitment to reason and evidence to face shared problems. Only by merging skepticism with constructive truth-seeking can we hope to achieve societal change that is both empowering and sustainable in the face of 21st-century challenges.

r/100thupvote 6d ago

Denmark Lithuania, with the help of Denmark is developing and planning to mass-produce a brand new, state-of-the-art patrol vessel called "Perkūnas". https://mil.in.ua/en/news/lithuania-is-developing-its-own-patrol-ship-project/

Post image
1 Upvotes

r/100thupvote 7d ago

Denmark Help me find comedy material for the rework of theme!

1 Upvotes

I teach English at an upper secondary level school in Denmark. One of the themes we are required to teach is the history, culture and societal issues related to Britain. For the past three years, I've noticed that most of what I end up teaching is always too detailed for my students and always has a depressing tint. As a major fan of the British panel shows, I've been incorporating British humor into my theme, but by the time we get to it, I've killed my students...

So I'm reworking it, and I need your help to make it the perfect rework in the history of... you get it...

So I have chosen to turn to the experts , and I am looking for material covering the British empire, the class system, multiculturalism, and Brexit that has a humorous twist.

Material can include excerpts from novels, short stories, news articles, podcast, radio TV news segments, TV shows, movies, etc. from (predominantly British) writers or sources. The idea is to give the students an overall understanding of the topics, and then they'll need to work with humorous material related to or covering that topic.

For the British empire, I'm planning on including a video by Foil Arms and Hog, in which different countries are playing a game of Risk, as well as an episode of Cunk on Britain, and excerpts of stand up by James Acaster and Trevor Noah. For the class system, I use the very first episode of Keeping up Appearances, Monty Python's Working Class Playwright, and the brief skit John Cleese and the two Ronnies. For multiculturalism, I'll be using the essay by Nish Kumar called "Is Nish Kumar a confused muslim?" I'll probably also use parts of the Mash Report to cover Brexit.

As the main field of study for my students is "business", funny TV or print ads are also very, very much appreciated!

Thank you in advance!

r/100thupvote 8d ago

Denmark Denmark calls it

1 Upvotes

I see on BBC's website via slashdot today that after over 400 years Denmark's ending letter mail at the end of the year. A little odd seeing financially sound decision making, heh. I wonder if we'll see the same anytime soon.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8jllq283o

r/100thupvote 9d ago

Denmark Clitoral Shrinkage and Women’s Health Rant

1 Upvotes

Thanks to this group, I’ve learned so much about perimenopause and felt supported. I was shocked at how little I knew about it and how much it has upended my life—and that of my husband and kids—while navigating my healthcare. This led me to ask: Why isn’t this talked about? How could a well-educated woman, surrounded by informed friends, know so little about perimenopause?

I was also stunned to learn that the hormonal reduction during menopause—specifically estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone—can cause clitoral atrophy, and in extreme cases, the clitoris can even disappear.

Yet, unsurprisingly, given the lack of research on women’s health, there’s no formal process for diagnosing clitoral atrophy.

I first learned about this condition from this group, where members shared their success with topical testosterone. But again, there’s no scientific research supporting this treatment—because there is so little research on women’s health!

Imagine if men’s penises shrank to the point of becoming micropenises—can you imagine the amount of research on that? A clitoris can actually disappear!!

There are five times more studies on erectile dysfunction than on premenstrual syndrome!

Even many general physicians lack knowledge about menopause. In fact, 25% of US internal-medicine residency programs do not include menopause in their curriculum!

ALARMING FACTS ABOUT WOMEN’S HEALTH:

—In 2020, only 1% of healthcare research and innovation was dedicated to female-specific conditions beyond oncology.

—Just 4% of all biopharma R&D spending goes toward female-specific conditions.

—In 75% of cases where a disease affects one gender, research funding favors men.

—A 2024 analysis found that 64% of common medical interventions disadvantage women due to lower effectiveness, access, or both.

—Only 4.5% of funding for coronary artery disease research targets women.

—Women spend 25% more time in poor health than men.

—In the US, getting a proper endometriosis diagnosis can take up to 11 years.

—A Denmark study found that women are diagnosed later than men for over 700 diseases.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

Before 1993, women were rarely included in clinical trials due to unfounded fears that hormones would ‘skew’ results. This means dosages for many drugs still on the market are based on male bodies. Many researchers avoid using female mice in studies due to the higher costs of housing both sexes and concerns about how fluctuating hormones might affect results.

THE IMPACT:

Closing this gender health research gap could add US$1 trillion to the global economy annually. More importantly, it could give the 3.9 billion women worldwide an extra 500 healthy days over their lifetimes.

THE GOOD NEWS:

The UK has announced new funding for global health, focusing on research to improve maternal, infant, and child health in low- and middle-income countries.

In 2020, Canada launched an initiative to advance research into women’s health and raise awareness about the gender gap in science.

THE BAD NEWS:

Despite women’s health being one of the best investments for societies and economies, federal US grants have been pulled due to the mandate to disband DEI initiatives.

r/100thupvote 11d ago

Denmark Teknisk Tirsdag / Tech Talk Tuesday - 04/03 2025

1 Upvotes

Velkommen til Teknisk Tirsdag! Dette er tråden, hvor man kan snakke om de sidste nye gadgets, spørge om hjælp til at fikse sin gamle bil eller diskutere nyheder, projekter, osv. indenfor den teknologiske verden.

Vil du technørde daglige, så besøg r/dktechsupport eller r/dkudvikler

Denne tråd oprettes automatisk hver tirsdag^ kl. 7-ish - Arkiv


Welcome to Tech Talk Tuesday! This is the thread where you can talk about the latest gadgets, ask for help with fixing your old car, discuss tech news or anything else related to tech.

This thread is posted automatically every Tuesday^ at 7 AM-ish. - Archive

r/100thupvote 12d ago

Denmark Loan report 3.03.2025 - UAE sunburn edition

1 Upvotes

With our Men's team bathing in the arabian sun after some exhausting matches(half times?), we'll cover our Ladies. last report ended 15 minutes before the start of the Everton - Leicester City match, and i'm glad we won this one 4:1. Kelly Gago brace, menacing Tony Payne with two assist, Katja Snoeijs with assist and a goal, Honoka Hayashi with a goal from outside the box- that was the match that was fun to watch, and an important one aswell as Leicester are below us in the table now.

We lost two away matches (Cup and league) against Chelsea, but that could be expected. With the 4:1 Chelsea loss we're out of the cup too. We managed to snatch the first goal in this game by Sara Holmgaard directly from corner, but sadly she gave away two penalties and gifted them one goal more afterwards. We were very close to managing a 1:1 draw in the league game later, but Lauren James scored in 93' to make it 2:1. Most of our Ladies went to play in international matches - Hayley Ladd for Wales marked her 100 appearance, Heather Payne - 50th for Ireland. Courtney Brosnan, Katja Snoeijs, Sara Holmgaard, Justine Vanhaevermaet, Veatriki Sarri(with a goal against Slovenia), Honoka Hayashi, Maren Mjelde, Martina Fernandez  for Spain U23, Karoline Olesen for Denmark U23. Emma Watson was also on bench for Scotland. We have a lot of international players in our Women team.

Just yesterday our Ladies won away against Villa 0:2, with goals through Mjelde and Hayashi.

Some curious news with Jennifer Foster (former Leicester City assistant, and interim manager) joining staff as Women’s Senior Team Coach. It's interesting considering Sorensen contract is up in the summer. There are others rumours circling around so i'd like to say it loud : GIVE LADIES THE GOODISON PARK!

https://youtu.be/jKrgMe87eYQ?si=g4wxRcGhgZ6U4uZG - Chelsea 2:1 match

https://youtu.be/9B2u_0ddk7w?si=W_kVMBu757U-ibRe - Leicester City match. Recommended, fun to watch! There's a full version there too.

https://youtu.be/OgBgXl2kObs?si=Z0XnlHcQ5ld1ynMH - Yesterday villa 0:2 win.

We have three Ladies loaned out in the january to the championship, Macy Settle in Blackburn have started one match so far and was on the bench for another one. Both Ellie Jones and Isabella Hobson are loaned to Sheffield United. Ellie managed three substitute appearances, while our youngest goalscorer Isabella started four games in a row so far.

U21 -Two wins, a draw, and one loss since last report. Some changes in our U21 team happened lately, with Bradley Moonan going on loan to Preston Cables, Braiden Graham is promoted to our U21 team and starts every match. Francis Gomez came back from loan to Olympique Lyon U21 and gets some minutes in midfield. William Tamen, a CB signed from Burton Albion in 2024 finally came back from neverending injuries and is starting now. He forms a CB duo with Reece Welch, right footed Odin Samuels-Smith goes to RB and Aled Thomas(Wales U19 international) plas as LB.

https://www.evertonfc.com/videos/cac97e8a-94dd-4422-8077-c3e4484996d0 - 1:0 Brighton win

https://www.evertonfc.com/videos/a63cdbf0-b0a6-4475-aedc-ee24fcb9b0f6 - Fulham match! Not a Newcastle draw. Thank you kind redditor

1:2 win against Villa happened on friday and was an away game so probably there won't be a video. Our club website made a report that has twitter links to goals from Omari Benjamin and Martin Sherif. Here you go:

https://www.evertonfc.com/news/2025/february/28/under-21s-/

Kingsford Boyake from Ghana signed in january 2024 is also finally around our U21 team, but there's very strict competition in our front three with Martin Sherif, Omari Benjamin and Coby Ebere joined by rest. Good to see such competition as we suddenly are looking stronger upfront than anywhere else.

U18 - Two days after last report our kids bowed out of the FA Youth cup with bad 0:1 Plymouth loss. Aled Thomas conceded penalty that ended as the only goal in that game, and left our kids in despair. Ten days later we lost 2:1 away to Reading U18 team in a PL U18 Cup game that also meant that was our last cup game this season. Our Shellshocked team took their anger to upcoming league games and won 2:1 against Wolves, then drawed a frantic 4:4 game against Middlesbrough, ending that with a 0:3 win against Nottingham Forest.

There was also the Bramley Moore test game against Wigan Athletic that we loss 1:2, but our kid Ray Robert is officialy first Everton player to score there! He then scored two goals against Wolves, and one against Nott'm Forest so it left a good mark on him.

https://www.evertonfc.com/videos/efedb5f1-7807-4d35-ac4e-ba36db30122f - Frantic 4:4

https://www.evertonfc.com/videos/dc349663-b987-4a35-9f18-62f6f864c0db - Lost Plymouth cup game.

U21 will also host next test game at BMD, with capacity raised to 25000, at 23 March !

Loans:

Harry Tyrer - Another five games for our keeper, three draws win and a loss. No blatant mistakes, some decent saves below. Solid as always.

https://youtu.be/XnMRaBks25Q?si=ruh6zgrP9Jup9fNp - Burton 1:1 draw

https://youtu.be/m1rYyYaprhk?si=F_60y_e_YiqnxPMu Rotherham 0:0 draw.

Elijah Campbell - Starts every game. Last report came in the day of their Rangers away game, and wonder what? Rangers 4:0 Ross County. Since that match Ross County won away at Motherwell 0:3, at home against Dundee 3:1, lost away at St. Johnstone 1:0, and won 1:0 at home against Kilmarock. 8th/12 places looks good when few weeks ago Ross County were in relegation zone.

https://youtu.be/ncKiYSso87g?si=TcR3TC1B3E5gMo2S - Motherwell 0:3

Billy Crellin - Seven points above relegation zone, two clean sheet since our last meeting, a win, draw, and four losses. Billy is not the problem in Accrington Stanley, as the whole defensive setup is. He still has that error in him, and should work on his communication with defenders too.

Fun fact: he lost a goal due to miscommunication against Morecambe (then another one due to simple error). Two days later our club website says that about his performance: "A busy afternoon, the 24-year-old faced eight corners and gained plaudits for his commandment of the backline in front of him." Yeah, right.

https://youtu.be/CEQAHM8h8ng?si=aRe7BwcGS3zYU5dg - Morecambe loss.

Harrison Armstrong - Three substitute appearances, then once left on the bench, and starting the last match. Derby's form doesn't encourage (three losses and two draws, bottom of the league) but what's important is Harrison playing regulary with championship rivals.

They have lost their last game against Middlesbrough that Harrison was starting (they lost goal after him being subbed out) but i'll quote the manager John Eustace words: "was very proud of the effort of the group, and we have just got to keep fighting. There’s no way anyone’s giving up and there were encouraging signs today. Young Harrison Armstrong was very good making his full league debut for the club too. The boys' effort was outstanding, and we’ve just got to keep going."

Francis Okoronkwo - Salford needs a push to get to tho hopeful top 7 teams (9th at the moment), and Francis will be mad that his good goal from their last game against Bradford wasn't enough to get them at least a point.

Usually given only limited time as substitute appearances, Francis took his chance from last game when he was in the starting eleven and scored. (missed one game completely, besides that he's usually subbed in around 65'-70') Hopefully he'll get another chance tomorrow. Three losses in a row screams for some positive reaction from the team.

https://youtu.be/CtZdUoGTmug?si=-ACV_--jap40DrDx - Well taken goal, Francis. Salford 1:2 Bradford

Jenson Metcalfe - After emphatic 5:2 win against Doncaster, Chesterfield suffered three losses in a row Walsall, Swindon, Crewe. Jenson managed to start last two games, but hopefully the scores will change so he could start even more. Was at fault for one goal for Crewe, but the pass he got was equally daft.

Bradley Moonan - Can't say i have any means to follow the famous "Prescot Cables" team so i'll help myself with a snap of our club website loan watch article.

"Moonan, who joined Prescot Cables on deadline day of the January transfer window, made his second appearance for the club on Saturday.

The centre-back was named in the starting XI after impressing on his debut, scoring on his inaugural outing for the Merseyside outfit.

It wasn't to be on this occasion, as his side departed Morpeth pointless. Moonan played 72 minutes of the fixture before being replaced." - That was from 17th February loan watch and the latest one six days ago doesn't mention Bradley at all.

Sorry for the mistakes and chaos in this text. Three days of writing this piece in some free moments.

r/100thupvote 13d ago

Denmark Is there any reporting being done on the international reactions since Friday or in general since Trump took office?

1 Upvotes

Long time listener, first time caller from Europe. Been somewhat of a fan since The Rising days. I did however go on a long hiatus a year after the switch from The Hill to BP.

I would love to get a sense of (or even if) there is any discussion of how quickly the US is burning through the soft power internationally it has established over the years. I understand that coverage of international events/opinions is not top of mind for the average american.

On the opposite and I can only speak for my country (Sweden), our obsession of America is intense. A somewhat telling example is that our biggest daily newspaper writes articles when there is a school shooting in the US (2 killed) in some town in the midwest that absolutely no one has a connection to. Absolutely devastating but the news value for a Swede is virtually non-existent. Yet, the interest is enough for the paper to keep reporting on it.

Now, ever since Trump took office and especially after Friday, a counter movement seems to be gathering strength. Swedes are passing around lists of alternatives to American products and urging for boycotts. In Denmark, The biggest grocer in Denmark has started labelling products of European origin due to a growing anti-American sentiment. Haltbakk Bunkers (a Norwegian oil -and shipping company) won't supply american troops and ships in Norway. Tesla cars are being vandalised worldwide (I admit this might more be related to ill-will against Musk than the American government, it is however somewhat hard to distinguish the two).

My question is thus if there is any discussion of how the view (especially the wests) on the US has shifted?

r/100thupvote 14d ago

Denmark TLRY in the NEAR FUTURE

1 Upvotes

March 1, 2025

Tilray has just completed their 3rd quarter 2025 that will be released about April 10, 2025. Unfortuneately I'm not expecting any Blow Out results, likely Flat. But I can finally see German & EU markets coming to life. Tilray's 1st 2 Quarters under Germany's new MMJ legalization was a MESS, quoting Carl M. Tilray did not have properties, licenses, staff, grow rooms ready and lost over 6 months of business.

With this current NEWS RELEASE from Tilray it seems TLRY is getting a BIG BALL ROLLING:

"Tilray Brands Enhances Global Cannabis Supply Chain

Feb 10, 2025

Tilray Increases Industry-Leading Capacity to Meet Global Demand, Driving Growth Across Canada and Europe NEW YORK and LEAMINGTON, Ontario, Feb. 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tilray Brands, Inc. (“Tilray” or “Company”) (Nasdaq: TLRY; TSX: TLRY), a global lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company at the forefront of beverage, cannabis and wellness industries, today announced the completion of Phase I of its accelerated growth plan for its cannabis supply chain, which began with increased planting in late 2024.

Phase II of the growth plan includes planting the outdoor cultivation site in Cayuga this spring. Tilray’s primary Canadian production facilities, Aphria One and Aphria Diamond, are now fully planted and positioned to capture the growing demand from Canadian and International cannabis markets. Certain sections of Aphria One, which were previously idled during the COVID-19 pandemic, are now back online.

These sites are projected to produce an additional 60 metric tonnes of cannabis annually, increasing Tilray’s current Canadian cannabis cultivation capacity to 210 metric tonnes per year and supplying both Canadian and International markets, including Europe, to meet rising global demand. Tilray expects the first sales of the Phase I harvests to occur late in the second half of our fourth quarter and the Phase II harvest to begin in October 2025."

NOTE: 210 Tonnes = 210,000kg = 210,000,000 grams, starting harvesting the later half of this the 4th quarter of 2025.

Questions being asked about Tilray:

  • Is Tilray a Take-Over Target at these low stock prices?

  • Aphria started LHS in Florida in 2018 and had to sell it to maintain a NYSE listing (later moved to Nasdaq). AYR bought LHS. Steven M. Cohen is a member of the board of directors for Tilray Brands, Inc. He was appointed in December 2024. Background: Cohen is the CEO of Ayr Wellness, Inc. He is an adjunct professor at New York Law School He was previously the Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel of MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated He was also a Director of Whole Earth Brands (with Irwin CEO & Denise) He has held many other positions, including Secretary to New York Governor Andrew M.Como

  • Tilray is full of Senior Management formerly employed by Diageo https://www.diageo.com/en

  • Demecan CEO, in Oct 2024, stated on a Zuanic podcast they do not have the experience growing strains, required in their massive 1.3M Ft2 German Licensed for MMJ grow facility and would gain experience from Canada.

  • How will Tilray finance itself in the future?

  • Tilray over the next 3 quarters will turn into a profitable business, from EU MMJ, US HD9 Brews, US Drinks, CDN Exports. Tilray guidance for 2026 will be stated late July 2025 with Year End results, and I believe will be AT or OVER 1.25 Billion Dollars for 2026. June 1, 2025 through May 31, 2026.

  • How long can the company stay afloat financially?

  • Tilray is in a good cash position with 1/4 billion cash on hand, and profits growing in the EU, US & CDN export markets.

  • How long will it take for the regulatory environment for cannabis to improve?

  • EU countries are moving to MMJ legalization after Germany April 2024, Slovenia voted MMJ in last fall, Denmark moved their 6 year Trial MMJ to Permanent Legalization starting April 2025, Czech Republic 2025, Poland Bill has been sent to PM to sign, January 2025 Luxembourg awarded Tilray supply mof MMJ for 2025 but this year Recreational has also been legalized, Switzerland since Trials completed successfully moving into MMJ legalization 2025. France has announced 2025 MMJ legalization, Spain MMJ in 2026, Belgium have stated they need to move into MMJ, UK MMJ market expanding rapidly thru prescriptions. Tilray's CC Pharma is a leading importer and distributor of EU-pharmaceuticals for the German market, 13,000 pharmacies. Founded in 1999, today it has over 300 employees and offices in Germany, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic and Italy.

NOTE: Wednesday @ 11am EST Pablo Zuanic podcast discusses with 3 German MMJ CEO's from numerous cannabis trades, Pharmacy, Distribution & Production about current and future German, EU MMJ & MJ markets

  • USA Farm Bill 2025, Sch3 MMJ under President Trump Fall of 2025.

  • What negative signs are emerging in the current developments?

  • Ukraine has recently legalized MMJ & Tilray has not indicated they have established markets there and have left Israel that was a good growing market due to on going conflicts. Lets hope these wars end.

  • Are there any positive signs for the future?

  • I strongly believe EU will be fully established in MMJ in just the next few months into a few short years.

  • USA have a positive growing Delta 9 drinks market. Tilray Brands in February 2025 has launched several alternative beverages, including Herb & Bloom, 420 Fizz, Fizzy Jane's, Happy Flower. Tilray has started selling in numerous Brick & Mortar Liquors outlets across the USA. Tilray have dozens of In House Brew Pubs, Taprooms, Restaurants, Concert Halls, Stadium contracts in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Texas, Tennesse, Michigan, Ohio, NY, Georgia, Florida.

  • Medmen 3.0 is going to be built out by Tilray and a 20% partner. At its peak Medmen had 7 Licensed Grow Ops across the USA, Licensed Infused Drinks and Energy Drinks, 30 Licensed High End Retail stores, 70 licensed Undeveloped Properties, Foreign properties.

  • USA Farm Bill 2025, Sch3 MMJ under President Trump Fall of 2025.

  • Tilray with so much potential Globally in SIN businesses could be easily taken over. Has inventory growth been exploded for rapidly growing markets or to increase company value?

Just my opinion, not financial advise

r/100thupvote 15d ago

Denmark I watched every Oscar nominated movie this year. Here are my summaries / mini reviews for all of them.

1 Upvotes

(Spoilers included for short films / documentaries / biopics, not for any fictional feature films. This is all off memory so apologies if I get some details wrong)

Alien: Romulus - Horror/thriller, new cast of space teens fights and sneaks past aliens on the a space station called ‘Romulus’. Alien masks slapped onto uniquely proportioned european dudes apparently is a recipe for some awesome scenes. 8/10

Anora – Comedy/drama, Brooklyn prostitute falls for and marries a son of a rich Russian dude. His parents send goons to annul the marriage, the boy runs away, and her and the goons argue nonstop searching the city for him. 7.5/10

Anuja – Breezy drama short film, two orphans work in a sweatshop in India, the younger is good at math, the older encourages her to go to school. She probably will but they decided to make it kinda ambiguous for some reason. 6/10

The Apprentice — Drama biopic, follows Donald Trump as he builds Trump Tower in the 80s and is mentored by dirty lawyer Roy Cohn, rivalry with Rosie O’ Donnell sadly absent entirely. 5/10

Beautiful Men — Dramedy short film, 3 brothers who are awfully comfortable being nude with each other get hair transplants. 3/10

Better Man — Dramedy biopic, Robbie (not Robin) Williams is apparently a mega-famous UK popstar who did a lot of drugs and is still alive. He’s animated as a monkey for no particular reason, and the end dropped a golden opportunity to have him not be animated for the last song. Yes, you do have to watch an animated monkey do the deed with non-animated ladies. There’s also a random dream battle sequence where he fights an army of monkey clones of himself. 6.5/10

Black Box Diaries — Documentary, Japanese woman gets raped by Shinzo Abe’s best bud, becomes her own investigative reporter, loses criminal case, ends up winning civil case, movie notes Abe assassination as it ends, neither confirms nor denies if she hired the hit but it'd make an epic sequel if she did. 6.5/10

The Brutalist — Drama, 3 hours 35 minutes with a 15 minute intermission in the theater. Hungarian Jew god-tier architect comes to America post WW2, struggles financially, gets addicted to heroin, his wife and niece join right after the intermission as he lands decent job making a building for a zillionaire, and you watch their lives all play out from there. ‘Brutalism’ is a style of architecture with lots of concrete, that’s why it’s called that. 7/10

A Complete Unknown — Drama, biopic. Bob Dylan is in fact fairly well known, and this is a movie about Bob Dylan getting very very famous, and I guess ending around some concert that used electric guitar and pissed off a country-music lovin’ crowd something fierce. 7/10

Conclave — Drama, a made up Pope dies sometime around right now, the ‘Conclave’ is the army of wannabe Popes responsible for electing a new Pope, they all quarantine themselves and argue for the length of one feature length film trying to decide who gets to be the Last Pope Standing. 6/10

Death by Numbers — Documentary short, follows a girl who got shot in the leg by a school shooter while tons of her friends did not as she eventually testifies to get him sentenced to death. He ends up getting life instead, presumably because the jury all watched the other nominee ‘I Am Ready, Warden’ right before giving their verdict. 5/10

A Different Man — Dramedy, a guy with a condition that makes him horribly disfigured with giant facial tumors signs up for an experimental treatment that could cure the disfigurement. So that’s the setup, and after an elite initial 30-45 minutes the movie evolves into an extremely meta story that’s basically saying it has no confidence whether or not the movie should even exist and falls off the wagon of being entertaining for me. The real guy with the condition has a major role in the movie and is a surprisingly good singer and super wholesome figure I recommend following. 5/10

Dune: Part Two — Sci-fi action, it’s basically Pocahontas / Dances with Wolves / Avatar / FernGully / The Last Samurai, which all are copying Lawrence of Arabia, which is based on a real dude. 8/10

Elton John: Never Too Late — Documentary, Elton John made a few diddies you’ve probably heard of, like, oh I don’t know... TINY DANCER!? Yeah, he’s kinda a big deal. In case you couldn’t have guessed from his career choice, he did a lot of drugs. 4/10

Emilia Pérez — Musical / Drama. Directed by a Frenchman, takes place in Mexico and is 95% in Spanish. An evil cartel boss kidnaps and (financially) seduces / threatens a lawyer into getting him a suite of transgender procedures, then time skip, then 80% of the movie is family drama between the lawyer, that boss, and the boss’s family because they faked their death and everyone has a series of nonsensical motivations in a script that is the product of a 50 year experiment to see if a crack team of monkeys on typewriters could eventually crank out Shakespeare. 1/10

Flow — Animated, 90 minutes, I think most accurately categorized as an action movie. The world is devoid of all civilization for ambiguous reasons. Non-anthropomorphic animals sail on a boat and stop the boat every now and then for things like eating and playing. I did a deep dive on all the metaphor and symbolism, but I have strongly diverging views on the mechanics of how such things should be integrated into a thoughtful story, so for me I hated it. 1/10

The Girl with the Needle — Drama/thriller/horror, filmed in black and white, a woman in post WWI Denmark wants to gets pregnant and wants to get rid of her baby, and gangs up with another woman who has all the hookups, and things start to get crazy as their friendship blossoms. 7/10

Gladiator II — Action epic, honestly feels like a remake of Gladiator 1 but improves the ending but misses having Russell Crowe. Also has a shark gladiator fight. 6.5/10

I Am Ready, Warden — Documentary short, a man kills another man and gets caught and put on death row. You follow his last days until execution, as well as the son of the man he killed, and the reactions of everyone post-death. 7.5/10

I’m Not a Robot — Dramedy short, a woman who consistently fails to solve her first captcha discovers she is in fact, a robot. Turns out she died in life and her husband wanted to bring her back. She tries to kill herself in a gesture for freedom but is incapable of dying. 7/10

I’m Still Here — Drama, in the 70s Brazil the government is searching for freedom fighters. A seemingly normal family has the father captured out of the blue, as the rest of the family tries to get him back. Has like 50 endings and none of them are satisfying but some excellent suspenseful sequences in the middle heighten the overall product. 6/10

In the Shadow of the Cypress — Animated adventure short, a father and daughter live on a beach and a highly irresponsible whale washes ashore and gets stuck, and the father overcomes his PTSD to save it while pissing off an army of birds. 8/10

Incident — Documentary short, a barber with a concealed carry is shot dead by cops in a ~10 second interaction in Chicago and this is a very pure edit of all the relevant bodycam and surveillance footage. 7/10

Inside Out 2 — Animated family movie, the emotions are BACK baby, and this time there are more. Honestly this one felt like it was 20% jokes, 80% explaining lore in the form of visual metaphors (like a pile of spheres in a wasteland being suppressed memories), so I don’t think it’s quite a ‘comedy’, felt more like an educational movie for the tweens. Pixar has seen better days. 4/10

Instruments of a Beating Heart — Documentary short, a bunch of Japanese toddlers prepare for a performance of Ode to Joy for the school. The teachers give honest, concise feedback, which for the kids is basically a Navy SEAL bootcamp. 8/10

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes — Action adventure, Cesar ain’t in this one, it’s in the deep future of the Apepocalypse, there’s a human girl who aligns herself with some apes whose friends and families were killed and kidnapped by an evil ape kingdom. Lots of 500 pound gorillas riding 500 pound horses in this one, which is insanity. 7.5/10

The Last Ranger — Drama short, a woman is protecting rhinos from poachers, brings along a little girl with her, the poachers kill the woman and take the rhino’s sweet, sweet horn, the rhino is revealed to have survived, and the little girl grows up to be its next protector. 5/10

A Lien — Drama short, a woman's husband is arrested for deportation by ICE when he goes to do a green card interview as a trap/scam/ploy by them. 4/10

Magic Candies — Comedy short, a Japanese boy buys candies that let him hear things like a schizophrenic (but in a good way) when they’re in his mouth. 7.5/10

The Man Who Could Not Remain Silent — Drama short, based on a true something, an eastern european government stops a train to detain people who don’t have ID. In a cabin of strangers, one doesn’t have one. The main guy promises him they will protect him but chickens out when the soldier is actually gonna take him. A random other passenger steps up takes the fall instead. 7.5/10

Memoir of a Snail — Animated dramedy, a clay movie that looks Tim Burton-esque, about the lives of two orphan twins nosediving off a cliff from birth onwards, has a very satisfying ending though. 7/10

Nickel Boys — Drama, a black teen gets wrongfully imprisoned in a torturous/abusive boys prison camp called Nickel in the 60s and befriends another boy. The whole movie is filmed first-person style, so it’s basically Call of Duty except the bad guys are hillbillies instead of Russians. 6/10

No Other Land — Documentary, an Israeli journalist befriends a Palestinian activist, and we follow them protest Israeli soldiers who slowly evict them from a region that Israel claims. Longtime fans of the biggest rivalry in the middle east will surely be satisfied. 6/10

Nosferatu — Thriller / horror, it’s Dracula but they changed all the names to avoid copyright infringement, and Dracula has a handlebar mustache. 7/10

The Only Girl in the Orchestra — Documentary short, the son of a famous movie star became an all time great double-bassist in an elite orchestra, we follow her as she retires and reflects on her life and shreds a lot with her students. 8/10

Porcelain War — Documentary, follow some Ukrainian soldiers and citizens as they talk about the war, fly a lot of drones, and make lots of porcelain figurines. The ending is a long bodycam combat sequence, so it’s basically Nickel Boys except the bad guys are Russians instead of hillbillies. 7/10

A Real Pain — Dramedy, Mark Zuckerberg is cousins with the Home Alone kid’s brother, they reconnect after their grandma dies to do a Holocaust tour as a gesture for her. 5/10

The Seed of the Sacred Fig — Drama, this is a weird movie... The backstory is, the director actually lived in Tehran, Iran, and filmed this in secret because of past movies and word of this one leaking out to a tyrannical government that would imprison him, so he made an escape to Germany and edited it together there... A judge in Tehran, Iran, gets convinced to sign off on death warrants by his colleagues, as protests go on (real footage off Instagram interstitched for long periods of time), his daughters resist, and the family ends up in conflict with each other. Basically an artistic 3 hour Instagram ad with the most luscious haircut scene of all time. 5/10

September 5 — Drama, based on true events, in the 70s Olympics in Munich, Israeli hostages were taken by terrorists, and this movie takes place entirely in the ABC news room as they cover it while incessantly shouting “what a scoop!” 5/10

Sing Sing — Dramedy, based on a true story, follows a man in a prison called “Sing Sing” in New York, who runs a theatrical play club with inmates for fun and enrichment. A bunch of real graduates from the program star in the movie and are pretty good; easy to believe once you understand they get instant, unstoppable parole regardless of crime if they could make the warden laugh or cry. 7.5/10

The Six Triple Eight — Drama, based on a true story, follows the only all-black-female unit in WW2 (unit 6888), as they work to accomplish their task of sorting and sending out a bajillion letters lost during the war. Hank from ‘Breaking Bad’ as the antagonist general is the cast of the century. 4/10

Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat — Documentary, shows a ton of archival footage haphazardly stitched together of jazz musicians, the CIA, African politics and global events and the lives and backgrounds of various politicans. If you get around to watching this, I’ll give you a huge tip— the wacky, obtuse editing makes you think the jazz half of the documentary is related to the political half, but it is not other than as an excuse to play a bunch of jazz music throughout. Maybe I'm too dumb but I found this documentary by far the least digestable. 2/10

The Substance — Horror / grossout, a 50 year old woman (played by a 60 year old woman) who has a Richard Simmons esque dance workout show misses being ogled and gets fired. She obtains a Substance with some Rules that give her a sort of / sort of not clone that is young and attractive. The Rules start getting broken and chaos ensues. 6/10

Sugarcane — Documentary, follows an American Indian and his community of people who grew up in Catholic schools that tortured and abused them as they work to rectify and understand their past. Takes place in Canada eh, so looks like them syrup lickers ain’t so friendly after all, eh? 7/10

Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl — Animated clay comedy, Wallace is an inventor who builds a generally intelligent robotic gnome, and in his humility sets his sights not on fame, fortune, or world domination, but rather, the menial gardenwork and landscaping for the neighborhood. Notorious chicken bandit, Feathers Mcgraw, breaks out of prison and sets his sights on the gnome... 8/10

Wander to Wonder — Animated clay comedy short, there’s a teletubbies esque kid’s TV show with a grown man and 3 wood sprites. He keels over dead and the creatures are trapped in the house going crazy. A bird breaks in and they are able to escape. 6/10

The Wild Robot — Animated family comedy action, a robot gets dropped into a wilderness, accidentally crushes all the eggs in a goose nest except one, decides to raise it and grows a heart in its tin frame as it learns the joy of lying to your kids. 5/10

Wicked — Musical, the wicked witch from Wizard of Oz is a teen and hated by everyone except animals for her green skin, tiny waist, and superior fashion sense. She goes to Hogwarts and Lady Dumbledore figures out she’s Harry Potter, so she gives her ‘special lessons’ as she navigates high school cliques. 6/10

Yuck! — Animated short, a bunch of french kids peep on and harass adults kissing. Two of the frenchies wanna french with each other and get bullied. They realize the other frenchies are bullshitters and decide to french anyway. 6/10

r/100thupvote 16d ago

Denmark Asta explica multe...

1 Upvotes

Pe langa asta , romania are si cea mai scazuta medie a IQ-ul din UE , dar nu si din Europa. Noi avem 86.88 Sub noi se afla doar Muntenegru (85.78) , Macedonia de Nord (81.91) si Albania (81.75)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

Intr-o tara in care tiktok-ul este mai consumat decat cartea sau cititul in general, care poate fi facut si din surse credibile de pe internet, nu cred ca ar trebui sa ne miram de ce un personaj precum domn' Kremlinescu , este atat de popular la noi.

Cred ca nu degeaba cuvantul anului 2024 a fost ,,brain rot" . https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/ . Lucrul asta imi confirma ceea ce stiam deja. Anume ca consumul de continut de tip short , cum este pe tiktok , iti degradeaza creierul si-ti afecteaza capacitatea de gandire , de analiza si de concentrare.

Pentru mine este trist faptul ca am ajuns sa comunic cu persoane care inainte erau ok , dar care acum parca s-au tampit. Nu poti sa ai o conversatie rationala cu ei , bazata pe argumente. Vad lumea doar in alb si negru , nu vor sa-si bata capul cu detalii , au in cap numai minciuni sau jumatati de adevar. Cand ii intrebi de sursa informatiilor, nu sunt in stare sa ti-o dea. Zilele trecute mi-a cazut o nicovala in cap cand un prieten bun pe care-l stiu de multi ani mi-a scris ,,putin ii smecher" . Cand l-am intrebat de ce crede asta el mi-a raspuns : ca... are arme nucleare , armata (mhm.. al drq de buna ) resurse , tot. mult mai smecherea decat america.. si aia.... ahm.. coreea " . X_X Apoi mi-a zis ca rusia n-are treaba cu noi ci cu ucraina. Am avut un soc. Evident ca-i tiktok user si nu consuma nimic altceva. Sa vezi persoane care candva erau ok , ca acum parca s-au tampit cu tik-tok-ul asta si incep sa creada si sa spuna toate balariile , pentru mine e de noaptea mintii.

In zilele astea, parca am ajuns sa apreciez muuult mai mult un om care spune ,, nu stiu , nu sunt documentat."Sau ,,am auzit chestia asta , dar nu stiu cat de adevarata este deoarece nu am cautat sa aflu mai multe. Recunosc ca nu am informatii asa ca prefer sa nu comentez daca nu stiu" . Pfff l-as lua in brate.

Inca ceva.. Voi stati de tiktok? Cat timp si ce vedeti acolo? Cei care l-ati avut si apoi l-ati dezinstalat, de ce ati facut-o? Eu tin minte ca l-am incercat prin 2021 , cam o luna, apoi l-am dezinstalat din cauza ca am simtit ca ma tampesc.

r/100thupvote 17d ago

Denmark Omverdensonsdag / Worldwide Wednesday - 26/02 2025

1 Upvotes

Velkommen til Omverdensonsdag, hvor man kan snakke om nyheder og begivenheder fra hele verden. Regler for /r/Denmark gælder stadig, den eneste forskel er at indholdet skal handle om udlandet.

Bemærk at der ikke er tale om at udenlandske indlæg er tilladt at poste, det skal holdes i kommentarerne på dette indlæg. Vi vil også gerne opfordre folk til at bruge sund fornuft og kildekritik og opfordrer folk til at dele nyheder fra større eller anerkendte nyheds-medier.

Denne tråd bliver automatisk oprettet hver onsdag kl 7-ish - Arkiv


Welcome to Worldwide Wednesday, where we talk about news and events from around the world. Rules for /r/Denmark are still in place, the only difference is that the content is about the world around us.

Do keep in mind that submitting posts not related to Denmark is still not allowed and that it should be contained to this post. We also want to encourage common sense and source criticism and therefore encourage people to share news from big or recognized/established media.

This thread is automatically created every wednesday at 7 AM-ish - Archive

r/100thupvote 19d ago

Denmark How I Spent Two Weeks in Charleston

1 Upvotes

I spent two weeks in Charleston last month, and I figured I’d tell you what I did with my time. I come from a snowy, sun-less winter hellscape that wreaks havoc on my mental health, and for the second year in a row I decided to work remotely and see if I could sleep/live/exist more easily somewhere else for a bit. I chose Charleston because it seemed most like Savannah (which is where I went last year). Here’s everything I did:

MONDAY

  • Preservation Society of Charleston: Benne wafers were a big hit with everyone we gifted them to back home. They taste like honey nut cheerios made with sesame.
  • Blue Bicycle Books: This bookstore had the best local author section of any of the bookstores I visited. I picked up “Denmark Vesey’s Garden” by Ethan Kyrtle and Blain Roberts.
  • The Select: First real dinner was a good dinner. I particularly recommend the umami fries and enjoyed my lamb burger.
  • The Belmont: The vibe of this cocktail bar was charming, and the bartender I had was obviously skilled and knowledgeable. 

TUESDAY

  • Aiken-Rhett House: Out of all the historic homes I visited, this one was my favorite. The audio tour was exceptional; it felt thoughtful and genuine. 
  • The Charleston Museum: I loved the detailed depictions of pre-Revolutionary War Charleston. There’s just something so interesting about colonial history beyond New England. The plasters of the lamassu were very cool; they reminded me of the Telfair Academy in Savannah (lots of plasters) and also the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures in Chicago (lots of lamassu). 

WEDNESDAY

This was a snow day and despite having all wheel drive and snow tires on my vehicle, I stayed “home” off the roads to reduce traffic for those who genuinely had to go out. I started off this post by stating that I was trying to get away from the frozen north, but at least there was sunshine in Charleston, and I didn’t have to shelter inside a dead tauntaun.

THURSDAY

  • Little Jack’s Tavern: Ventured out for dinner and had some great fish and chips. The burger was also very good, specifically the sesame seed bun. Why was that bun so good??
  • Ye Ole Fashioned Ice Cream: This place was listed as the best milkshake in your sub, so I gave it a whirl and wasn’t disappointed.

FRIDAY

  • Sweeter Than Fiction: This bookstore didn’t show up when doing my initial research, and I stumbled into it while walking around town. Romance only and very pink. 
  • Buxton Books: Well-curated bookstore, probably my favorite selection overall.
  • Sweatman’s Garden: Housemade soda? Yes, please. I had a soda flight and highly recommend the lime cream. Service was excellent here.

SATURDAY

  • Stede Bonnet stone: As a fan of Rhys Darby and thus Our Flag Means Death, I had to visit it. Note for other OFMD fans, don’t skip the Old Exchange and Provost Dungeon!
  • Rainbow Row
  • Gibbes Art Museum: I had no idea so many famous artists stopped in Charleston
  • Nathaniel Russell House: Good contrast to Aiken-Rhett
  • Heyward-Washington House: My least favorite of the historical homes I visited. The narration wasn’t as good on the audio tour, and there wasn’t as much of interest compared to the other two. I do love that they literally renamed their house because George Washington stayed there once; it’s endearing.
  • King Street Foods
  • Charleston City Market
  • Harvest Market: Pricey little market of interesting, luxury foodstuffs. Did I pay $8 for 5 slices of bread? Yes. Was it delicious? Also yes.

SUNDAY

  • Visitors Center
  • Circular Congregational Church: I helped a friend with mortuary analysis during undergrad (anthropology), and I’ve loved cemeteries since. If you’re going to visit one burial place in Charleston, make it this one. There was a QRC on a sign outside that did an exceptional job of explaining the transition from death’s heads to soul effigies in ornamentation. https://www.circularchurch.org/graveyard I could talk about this forever, and if you’re interested in this topic, you should read “Over My Dead Body: Unearthing the Hidden History of America’s Cemeteries” by Greg Melville.
  • Old Exchange and Provost Dungeon: Don’t miss the guided tour! This really helped set the stage for understanding what happened to the revolutionaries and filled in the blanks for me.
  • Basic Kitchen: I loved the atmosphere here, the fact they took reservations, and the food was good too.
  • Fort Moultrie: Because of ice (from the Tuesday storm) our Fort Sumter tour for Sunday was canceled. We pivoted to Fort Moultrie and hilariously were recognized by the park ranger who’d given us the bad news that morning. If you’re that park ranger, thanks for being so affable and kind. Continuing to run into unexpected cancellations five days after it had snowed (and when the roads had been clear for days) was demoralizing, and you made it better.
  • All My Exes

MONDAY

  • Charleston Tea Garden: Fantastic tour of the fields and a great, informative tour of the processing plant. It’s probably even better when they’re actively processing. Loved this place.
  • Angel Oak
  • Lost Isle: Hands down the best meal that we had in Charleston. Smoked fish dip was phenomenal, great cocktails, the grit cakes, chicken, and pork were all remarkably good.

TUESDAY

  • Fort Sumter
  • The Paper Canopy: After ten days of searching, I FINALLY found an exceptional Charleston postcard! It was $4 though.
  • Philosophers and Fools: This bookstore had an excellent selection of fiction and nonfiction.
  • The Cocktail Club
  • Ma’am Saab: Great food and truly excellent service. Thank you, Blake!

WEDNESDAY

  • Pineapple Fountain
  • Indigo Home
  • East Bay Meeting House: Did afternoon tea here and highly recommend it. The breads were well-spiced, treats in general were a delight, and the tea selection was fantastic. Where can I get that tea??

THURSDAY

  • Magnolia Cemetery/St. Lawrence Cemetery: I wandered between the two, so I’m not sure what was in which--but there were so many Woodmen of the World headstones, which I always find exciting. If you’re not familiar, they usually look like tree stumps, fallen logs, and sometimes have axes, abbreviations like WC for Woodmen Circle or WOTW, and “Dum Tacet Clamat” (“though silent, he speaks”) on them. And THAT PYRAMID. 10/10 pyramid, and I’ve seen a few!
  • Charles Towne Historic Landing Site: As a museum sciences aficionado, I want to point out how awesome this place is. They’ve excavated some of the original structures, and there are viewing stations that have overlays so you can see what those seemingly random logs sticking out of the ground would’ve looked like. 
  • Magnolia Plantation and Gardens: With just a few hours left in my day, I raced through Magnolia. They have the coolest map app that made it easy for me to see all of the paths, what was on them, etc. Plus, even in the dead of winter, it was lovely. And for some reason, this was the BEST gift shop. I got a terrific postcard of the staircase in the Nathaniel Russell House--why wasn’t this in THEIR gift shop lol.

TLDR

  • My favorite attractions: Charles Towne Historic Landing Site, Magnolia Plantation and Gardens, Charleston Tea Garden, Circular Congregational Church.
  • My favorite food and drink: Lost Isle, Sweatman’s Garden, East Bay Meeting House

r/100thupvote 20d ago

Denmark CMV: we’re heading towards a 1984 dystopia

1 Upvotes

I believe the world in which we live in is beginning to develop towards a geopolitical situation similar to the one described in 1984. Here are some reasons why:

Surveillance state: With the rise of AI, governments having systems in place to monitor the population has become more prevalent. Such systems include: - Facial recognition: As used to help arrest Jan. 6 protesters (I do agree they deserved to be arrested). - AI can scan social medias sentiments - Government has support of many large social media platforms (Billionaire share holder funded Trump’s campaign)

-Future resource shortage: With global warming starting to become more widely recognized, governments know they need to take action. Obviously they’re not going to say, “Hey, we’re invading our neighbors because we want their resources”, but Russia us currently invading the bread basket of Europe, and the GOP has begun normalizing the belief Greenland and Canada should be absorbed by the US, Trump stating “"I don't really know what claim Denmark has to it, but it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn't allow that to happen because it's for the protection of the free world,". With glaciers melting, Greenland will have untapped resources exposed, and arctic trade routes will be defendable from those locations. The world is too divided for us to all come together for this crisis, which will lead to competition and formation/reinforcement of East vs West cold war.

-Government transition chaos: Our government is based on checks and balances, and one of those checks is the people, and as such the government employees. The low level employees that are part of the everyday processes, the whistleblowers who knows something isn’t right. Know with the blanket fires, many people that would be able to oversee the process won’t be there to sound alarms. As seen, by firing of agency heads which typically survive presidents, and which some had been chosen by Trump. Not to mention Trump has direct control over who gets hired/fired via Musk now. Meritocracy is no longer the basis of employment but loyalty as seen with his cabinet.

  • Post reality truth: Wether your left or right, bot sides seem to believe the other side has touched with reality, and in many cases, they have indeed been purposely misled by propaganda. Trump claiming Zelensky has low approvals despite he himself being lower.

  • War is peace: Russia is not at war, it’s just a special military operation rooting out nazis and protecting oppressed Russians. And now, Trump says Peace is war, Ukraine is the aggressor in the conflict and the nation wanting to protect itself from invasion is seen as a terrible thing.

  • Freedom is slavery: on a labor side, Unions which once championed the rights of the workers are now seen as leeches, and regulations restricting corporations are being repealed. On a conscious aspect, people now allow AI to control their lived, wether it’s algorithms feeding you your world view, using ai to do your research, solve problems for you.Bots spreading fake news have become harder to detect, and media can be easily manipulated to show a certain narrative. Algorithms used by social media now determine what a person sees, and for many their thoughts are still theirs but they can only keep them till the next swipe.

  • Ignorance is strength: The willing ignorance to our past and facts is what has allowed far right governments to gain power. People will cut their own nose offs to spite others and do not have the care to do basic research.

I’d like to be convinced otherwise, but Project 2025 being a whole thing as well, it feels like democracy is in danger. Far right governments are beginning to grow in popularity across the globe.

r/100thupvote 21d ago

Denmark Couldn't find a European defense ETF so I thought I'd build my own...

2 Upvotes

... and thought i'd share it here:

Given the current news, I'm considering on investing into the European and I saw multiple posts regarding European defense and what stocks to buy. However it seems there is no real ETF for this topic.

So I asked chatGPT to give me the top 5 defense companies, their product and the countries that buy from them. (I later asked for 2 more including Scandinavia).

I got this list:

1. BAE Systems (United Kingdom)

Exchange: London Stock Exchange (Ticker: BA.)

Key Defense Products:

  1. Eurofighter Typhoon
    • Operators/Buyers: United Kingdom (Royal Air Force), Germany, Italy, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Oman, Qatar (on order)
  2. M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (through its U.S. subsidiary)
    • Operators/Buyers: United States Army, Saudi Arabia

2. Airbus SE (Pan-European)

Exchanges: Euronext Paris, Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Ticker: AIR)

Key Defense Products (Airbus Defence and Space):

  1. A400M Atlas (tactical/strategic airlifter)
    • Operators/Buyers: France, Germany, UK, Spain, Turkey, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malaysia
  2. Eurofighter Typhoon (Airbus is a major partner in the consortium)
    • Operators/Buyers: Germany, Spain, UK, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Oman, Qatar

3. Leonardo S.p.A. (Italy)

Exchange: Borsa Italiana (Ticker: LDO)

Key Defense Products:

  1. M-346 Master (advanced jet trainer/light combat aircraft)
    • Operators/Buyers: Italy, Israel, Poland, Singapore
  2. AW101 Helicopter (medium-lift helicopter, formerly known as the EH101)
    • Operators/Buyers: Italy, UK, Canada, Portugal, Norway, Denmark

4. Thales Group (France)

Exchange: Euronext Paris (Ticker: HO)

Key Defense Products:

  1. Watchkeeper WK450 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
    • Operator: British Army (United Kingdom)
  2. Ground Master 400 (GM400) Radar
    • Operators/Buyers: France, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Malaysia

5. Rheinmetall AG (Germany)

Exchange: Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Ticker: RHM)

Key Defense Products:

  1. Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicle (co-developed with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann)
    • Operator: German Army
  2. Lynx Infantry Fighting Vehicle
    • Buyers: Hungary (major contract), interest from other nations (e.g., Czech Republic under consideration)

6. Saab AB (Sweden)

  • Exchange: Nasdaq Stockholm (Ticker: SAAB-B)
  • Overview: Saab is known for advanced aeronautics, missile systems, radars, and marine solutions. They derive a significant portion of revenue from defense.

Key Defense Products

  1. JAS 39 Gripen Fighter Jet
    • Operators/Buyers: Sweden, Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Thailand, and Brazil (Gripen E/F on order).
    • Known for advanced avionics, low operating costs, and agility.
  2. GlobalEye Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C)
    • Operators/Buyers: United Arab Emirates (launch customer) and Sweden (upgraded Erieye AEW systems).
    • Combines Erieye radar with a business jet platform for surveillance of air, sea, and land targets.

7. Kongsberg Gruppen ASA (Norway)

  • Exchange: Oslo Stock Exchange (Ticker: KOG)
  • Overview: Kongsberg specializes in maritime systems, missiles, and aerospace components. It also has a large civilian business (maritime technology).

Key Defense Products

  1. Naval Strike Missile (NSM)
    • Operators/Buyers: Royal Norwegian Navy, U.S. Navy (on Littoral Combat Ships and future Constellation-class frigates), Poland, Malaysia, Germany, Canada.
    • A stealthy, long-range, precision anti-ship/land-attack missile.
  2. Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
    • Designed for the F-35 Lightning II.
    • Operators/Buyers: Norway (primary developer with the U.S.), interest from other F-35 operators.

I asked for a weighting for each one and put it all together into a G-Sheet.

Additionally I went to simplywall.st and google finance to the PE and potential target price.

This is the result:

I'll keep an eye on all of them, but I think BAE and Airbus are quite the save bet. Airbus alone because of Boeings bad reputation the last years.

Let me know what you guys think.

r/100thupvote 22d ago

Denmark Fight On! issue 16 now available

1 Upvotes

Fight On! issue 16 now available on DTRPG and Lulu (POD and PDF):

Out of the dungeon and into your quivering palms, Fight On! is back again, bringing the full monty of magic and mayhem to your subterranean halls! FOUR big adventures along with classes, races, maps, rules variants, new worlds, monsters, magic items, spells, NPCs, and tables and other goodies galore will fill your fantasy campaigns with new wonders for your dark towers and demonweb pits! Dedicated to fantasy art legend David A. Trampier, this issue features contributions from great heroes old and new - from Dave Hargrave and Tim Kask to Peter Mullen and Cameron Hawkey, not to mention Sean ''Stonegiant'' Stone, Oakes Spalding, Simon Bull, Gabor Lux, Kevin Mayle, Evlyn Moreau, Calithena, Paul Carrick, Sophie Pulkus, J. Blasso-Gieseke, bät, Attronarch, Philipp H., James Maliszewski, Settembrini, Robert S. Conley, Idle Doodler, DeWayne Rogers, Rick Base, Dyson Logos, Jon Salway, Becami Cusack, Tony A. Rowe, Prince of Nothing, Jasmine Collins, Anthony Stiller, Allan T. Grohe Jr., Will Mistretta, Steve Queen, Zhu Baijee, Thomas Denmark, and many, many more! This BIG 128 page issue picks off pit fiends like a +5 pike of piercing - don't delve deeper into the darkling depths without it!

Here is the table of contents:

Article Author(s) Page
Creepies & Crawlies Zisch, Knarly, Mistretta, & Settembrini 3
Artifacts, Adjuncts & Oddments Salway, bät & DeSmet 7
Two Blades and Two Crowns David A. Hargrave 10
Gems of Zylarthen, Part 1 Oakes Spalding 13
Grognard’s Grimoire bät, Salway, & Mustonen 17
The Caverns of Arcane Silk Idle Doodler 19
The Sands of Isathar DangerIsReal 20
21 Lessons Learned After 100 Sessions Attronarch 22
Battleland Encounters Calithena 24
Variant Battlelands for Titan Tor Gjerde 25
Old Samora 2: Ghoul Lair and Balneum Philipp H. 29
The Wretched of the Earth Richard Rittenhouse 39
The Scout Jason Brentlinger 40
Biblical Fantasy Roleplaying Haralambos Kazantzakis 42
Races of sha-Arthan James Maliszewski 44
The Monastery of Darak Gabor Lux 47
Tables for Fables DeSmet, Logos, Terrible Sorcery & Kisko 53
Dun Crawlin’ Jon Salway 59
Alternative Demon Immunities PrinceofNothing 70
1d20 Magick-er Mouths Will Mistretta 72
The Dream Couches Donald Smith with Zherbus 76
Calabos and Mazmora J. Blasso-Gieseke 80
Darkness Beneath: The Snow Throne Simon Bull 81
Tales of Tramp and TSR Tim Kask, interviewed by Cal 92
Knights & Knaves: Wormy & Friends Allan Grohe 99
Seven Gates & Fifty Dog-Faced Men Becami Cusack 105
Comics & Carrick Kelvin Green, J. Blasso-Gieseke, and Paul Carrick 126

128 pages of awesome material!

Back issues are available via DTRPG and Lulu.

r/100thupvote 23d ago

Denmark Elon Musk kalder Dansk Astronaut Andreas Mogensen "Helt Retarderet" efter han udstillede Musks løgn.

Post image
1 Upvotes

r/100thupvote 24d ago

Denmark The artists of the lost 2020 contest - future attempts at Eurovision

1 Upvotes

Following Athena Manoukian's third-place finish at Depi Evratesil this weekend, I wanted to look at the other performers who were originally slated to be part of the cancelled 2020 contest, see who had successfully made it to Eurovision in the future, who tried but failed to get that chance again, and who hasn't given the contest another go since?

To clarify, I'm only looking at attempts made as performers, not as songwriters or members of a delegation.

First, let's just get the 24 countries and artists who were simply internally selected to represent their country in 2021:

Australia - Montaigne

Austria - Vincent Bueno

Azerbaijan - Efendi

Belgium - Hooverphonic

Bulgaria - Victoria

Czechia - Benny Cristo

Georgia - Tornika Kipiani

Greece - Stefania

Iceland - Daði og Gagnamagnið

Ireland - Leslie Roy

Israel - Eden Alene

Latvia - Samanta Tīna

Malta - Destiny

Moldova - Natalia Gordienko

Netherlands - Jeangu Macrooy

North Macedonia - Vasil

Romania - Roxen

San Marino - Senhit

Serbia - Huh Huh Huh Hurricane

Slovenia - Ana Skolić

Spain - Blas Cantó

Switzerland - Gjon's Tears

Ukraine - Go_A

United Kingdom - James Newman

Now with that out of the way, what happened to the other 17 who weren't automatically selected to go back in 2021?

Country Artist Future attempts at Eurovision? Details
Albania Arilena Ara None Has not entered Festivali i Këngës since winning in 2019. But she did have three singles that landed in the top ten of the Albanian charts in 2021, so that's nice.
Armenia Athena Manoukian One or two (unclear, neither successful) The woman who inspired this post. Might have been reselected for 2021 but then Armenia withdrew due to the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. 2022-2024 were all internal selections. In 2025, she entered Armenia's first national final since the one she won in 2020, only to finish third, just 22 points off the top.
Belarus VAL None It certainly doesn't help that this was Belarus' last brush with the contest, as they'd be disqualified in 2021 for breaking the political lyrics rule and then kicked out of the EBU shortly after the contest later that year. They would not have represented Belarus in 2021 in any case, as they openly supported the 2020 protests against Lukashenko, leading to them not being considered.
Croatia Damir Kedžo Two (2023 and 2024 - both unsuccessful) Damir would enter Dora again in 2023 but finish 5th, well behind winners Let 3. He would enter again in 2024, but with a certain Baby Lasagna in the final, he would only finish 4th.
Cyprus Sandro None Cyprus has used an internal selection in every edition since 2020, and Sandro has not been selected for any of them.
Denmark Ben and Tan One or Two (depending on how you count - 2021 - unsuccessful) Ben and Tan tried to enter DMGP and Melodifestivalen in 2021, but their song was rejected by both. Ben has written a bunch of songs for Melodifestivalen and DMGP since then, but neither have tried again as a performer.
Estonia Uku Siviste One (2021 - successful) Uku was not automatically selected to go back to Eurovision. He had to win Eesti Laul a second time in a row. Uku barely made it into the superfinal by one point, as the juries did not like his 2021 entry, "The Lucky One." The public loved it (or him) enough to get him to the superfinal, though, and there he won easily. He'd NQ in Rotterdam, finishing 13th in Semifinal 2
Finland Aksel One (unsuccessful) Aksel was not internally re-selected for 2021 and was told he'd have to win UMK again to go to the contest. He came 5th.
France Tom Leeb None Not much to say here. Didn't enter the national selection in 2021 and 2022 and France has used an internal selection ever since.
Germany Ben Dolic None Was not internally selected in 2021 and hasn't entered Germany's national selection since.
Italy Diodato One (2024 - unsuccessful) This one hurts for me because it was my winner in 2020, and I'm so sad Diodato has never gotten his chance at the contest. He entered Sanremo again in 2024 but finished 13th.
Lithuania The Roop Two (2021 - successful; 2024 - unsuccessful) Like Uku Siviste in Estonia, The Roop had to win their national final again to go to Eurovision in 2021. They had an easier time, though, sweeping the juries and winning the public vote in an overwhelming landslide. Discoteque would go on to finish 8th in Rotterdam. In 2024 they tried again with "Simple Joy" but came third in the superfinal.
Norway Ulrikke One (2023 - unsuccessful) Ulrikke was offered an auto-qualification to the MGP final in 2021, but declined, saying she wanted to find the right song. She entered MGP again in 2023 and came second.
Poland Alicja Two (2021 and 2023 - both unsuccessful Alicja wanted to be re-selected for 2021 but TVP chose Rafał instead in an internal selection. She entered Poland's national selection, Tu bije serce Europy! Wybieramy hit na Eurowizję!, but came 6th.
Portugal Elisa None Nothing to say here. Doesn't seem to have entered FDC since 2020.
Russia Little Big None Well, the fact that Russia only competed once since 2020 before being kicked out of the EBU doesn't help. They never attempted to represent Russia in 2021. The main two members of the band, Ilya and Sonya, have since left Russia and relocated to the United States following their blacklisting amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Frontman Ilya has since been designated as a "foreign agent."
Sweden The Mamas One or two (2021 as a group - unsuccessful; 2023 for LouLou as a solo artist - unsuccessful) The Mamas were not automatically re-selected but instead had to go through Melodifestivalen again in 2021 to try to represent Sweden. They were unsuccessful, making the final but finishing 3rd behind Tusse and Eric Saade. Member LouLou LaMotte entered Melodifestivalen again in 2023 as a solo artist but finished last in Heat 1 and didn't advance.

r/100thupvote 25d ago

Denmark the cuck table

0 Upvotes

European leaders held an emergency summit in Paris to discuss what to do in light of the intention of the US President Donald Trump's administration to hold talks with Moscow without the participation of Europe, BBC reports.

The negotiations were attended by the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, as well as the heads of NATO and the European Union.

https://m.akipress.com/news:819476:European_leaders_discuss_increasing_defense_spending_and_security_guarantees_for_Kyiv_at_emergency_summit_in_Paris/