I want to make an illustration based off of Danish culture during the Viking Age, and I'm trying to find sources for things like fashion and art during this time. However, it's been pretty difficult to find sources for Denmark specifically, and a lot of them just describe clothing as 'Nordic' or 'Scandinavian.'

I also plan on writing a small blurb on my inspiration for the piece. Is it offensive to just say: "The characters are wearing 10th century nordic clothing"? If someone described something as "Asian clothing" or even "East Asian clothing" I would find that quite offensive and an ignorant generalisation of many distinct cultures. Does the word 'Nordic' have the same connotations and does it generalise the cultures of Nordic countries?

I would also be really grateful if anyone had any really good sources on this subject in any language!

To my mind they are, as it is largely an ethnic-linguistic term - and on the other hand Meänkieli speakers and the Norwegian and Swedish Sami surely won't appreciate calling them Scandinavians. As a Finn this question has always bothered me :)

Planning a few days in Lapland next September 11-14. Which of the two of these (or open to others) would y’all pick? Will be coming from Helsinki and then going on to Bergen. Would love to experience ruska and the northern lights (hopefully), like small quieter towns more than bigger bustling cities. I’m a total noob on this part of Europe so please feel free to shoot me straight! Open to all suggestions.

The following is the first half of a program on The Duran.

AC: "... And what are your thoughts on what was signed between Trump, Denmark and Greenland?

AM: "Well, I thought it was very interesting, because it is exactly on the lines of what we anticipated after the Munich Security Conference. If you remember, there was an awful lot of going on about Greenland at that time. And Trump announced that the Danes had agreed to a deal that was being brokered by the Nato Secretary General, Mark Rutte, which basically gave the US security and military control of Greenland. There was a lot of pushback afterwards. People were saying that this wasn't really the case, Trump was fantasizing. We said in the program at that time that probably this is exactly how it would shape out. And now we have the actual deal.

The actual deal in effect gives the US military control of Greenland in exactly the way that we said. So, Trump got what he wanted over Greenland. The Danes caved. The British, the Dutch, the Germans, Ursula, all of them ultimately told the Danes, 'give Trump what he wants. Give the US what they want over Greenland, because we need the Americans involved. We need them involved in Europe. We need their support for Ukraine.'

So, ultimately, Denmark was left by its own, and it gave the US what it wanted, and Fredriksen, who is the Danish PM, and who is obsessively focused on Russia, she too wasn't going to fight hard for Greenland, when it is Russia that she cares about. So, that is what happened."

AC: "Why would she fight hard for Greenland against the US?"

AM: "Well she didn't fight hard for Greenland."

AC: "She's going to do exactly what the US tells her to do. The part that was interesting about this Greenland deal was not, I don't think, was what the US got or what Denmark or the Europeans conceded. I think the interesting part to the Greenland deal was that we had all of these theatrics.

AM: "Yeah."

AC: "Around Greenland, Trump posting the memes, the AI images, the AI slop that he was posting about Greenland, talking about it, how it was going to become the 51st state or the 53rd state. And the US is going to take Greenland, and they're going to annex Greenland and the EU was horrified and they were shocked and they were pushing back against the US's claims, Trump's claims, that he was going to take Greenland, there was even talk about a military confrontation at one point. I mean, it was just all freaking theater. It was a skit. It was theater, the whole thing. It was done on purpose. Because at the end of the day the US could have contacted Denmark. And they could have sat down with Denmark and said, 'Look, here is the deal. We want 3 military bases. We want 10 military bases. We want 100 military bases.' Denmark and Europe were not going to say no to the US."

AM: "No, of course they won't. The key thing to understand about why Fredriksen should have made a stronger position on Greenland is because Greenland is Norwegian, I'm sorry, Danish sovereign territory.

And of course many people in Greenland have an eventual aspiration towards independence. And they're not being consulted about this as far as I could tell. Their PM was basically given this done deal which he had to sign. The Danes, in effect, in other words, sold the Greenlanders out. That's how it looks to me. And Fredriksen as you absolutely rightly said, went through all the motions and all the activities of trying to hand hold out for Greenland, but of course she didn't, because the EU, the leaders of all of the European states, Fredriksen definately, the Baltic states, not just the 3 Baltic states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, but all of the Baltic nations, their governments, what they are overwhelmingly obsessively focused upon is Russia. They're not interested in protecting the sovereignty of their countries from the US, because of course they are themselves vassals of the US as we have discussed in many places.

And the long-term aspirations of the people of Greenland are neither here nor there in this discussion. Now, I'm going to say something btw, and this is for the future. It's not for today or for next year or five years or 10 years time. Maybe actually maybe 5 years or 10 years time. But if we ever do get into a situation where the US does indeed fully disengage from Europe, and I accept that there is no plan or intention to do that now. But if we ever get there, if the US does indeed withdraw into its own geographical sphere of influence, then they will simply annex Greenland. I mean, it's a done thing. Denmark isn't going to be in any position to say no. The American troops will already be there. The people of Greenland will have no choice in the matter. I mean, that, now, if we get into that kind of geopolitical environment, has become irresistible."

AC: "Yea, the deal between the US and Greenland could have been negotiated, if you want to use the word negotiated. Could have been demanded by the US towards Denmark in a week's time, through back channel diplomacy without having to go through all the theatrics of it. Ok, it's the way Trump is utilized for the goals of the globalists and of the deep states is to create this WrestleMania type of theatrical skit."

AC: "And Trump is very good at it."

AM: "Yea, it's also very humiliating for the Europeans. We should not forget that. I mean, I don't know what people think about it in Denmark, or indeed in Greenland, but the fact of the matter is, if it had been negotiated in the quiet way that you have suggested, the US would have got what it wanted obviously.

AC: "Well, that's my question."

AM: "But, it would have been much better for the Danes."

AC: "I know. I know. Well you're predicting my question. My question is why go through all of this? Why do you have to put Trump out there if you're the guys that are really running the show? Why do you put Trump out there to post the memes? Why do you create these memes of the US flag over Greenland, or the AI of a giant Trump overlooking Greenland, eyeing Greenland because he's going to take it and annex it. Why do you create the narratives of Denmark and the Europeans actually getting into a confrontation with the US? Why do you have to go through all of this? Is it to con the people? Is it to feed this stuff to the citizens of Denmark, to the citizens of Europe and the US? That there's tension, that there's anger. That there's this big struggle because you don't want to just make this a quick one-and-done kind of deal? 'We're going to build 10 bases. There's nothing you can say about it Denmark.' Ok, it's over. I mean, why do you have to go through all of this?"

AM: "To humiliate the Europeans and tell them who the master is, it's as simple as that. I mean, to do it in ways that are the most humiliating possible and to put the option of annexation on the table.

To be absolutely clear, with the American troops, the American army now, all over Greenland on a much bigger scale than what we've seen in the past. All that annexation would require now would be a stroke of the pen in Washington. I mean there would no longer be any need, in the future, to discuss this with Copenhagen and with the Danes because the Danes, having already conceded in effect that the US takes over security and protection in Greenland, that is in fact a concession of sovereignty. Sovereignty goes with military protection. A country that is not protecting itself, or a region of a country that is not protecting itself, that is being protected by a different country, has given up the sovereignty of that territory. So that's the reason it was done, obviously.

There's an element of theater on Trump's side, he goes and shows everybody that he's the Emperor and all of that. He doesn't like the Europeans very much. I think that is probably true. Why would he? So he doesn't like the Europeans. He likes to play theater and he likes to provide a big story to people in the US. But ultimately, there was never much pushback against this within the US, because the political class in the US, the deep state in the US, have long had their eyes on Greenland, and they've now got it.

AC: "Why do they have to humiliate the Europeans though? I mean, what does the US gain by humiliating the Europeans? And in your description of Greenland, the fact that you have the US military presence in Greenland is in a way one step closer to just outright annexation and control of Greenland. I mean, you've pretty much described all of Europe."

AM: "Yeah."

AC: "The entire US military is in Europe. A large part of the US military is controlling much of Europe.

AM: "Yes."

AC: "Is there sovereignty in Europe? Is there sovereignty in Germany? Is there sovereignty in the European countries that have large US military presence? Poland is now going from one base to two, is what I'm hearing. Not only are they going to build one American base, but now there's talk of a 2nd American base."

AM: "Yes. Right. I mean, one cannot compare the situation of a place like Germany with a place like Greenland. I mean, however circumscribed sovereignty in Germany or indeed Poland or even Britain is, the fact remains that these are countries with large populations. They do have their own militaries. They do have in theory at least their own foreign policy. They can always, in theory again, and not just in theory, in practice, they can say no. Greenland is no longer in the position to say no. If the US just decides to move forward with annexation, Greenland is too small, its population is too limited. It has never secured independence from Denmark anyway. If the decision is made in Washington to annex Greenland, that's it. It's over. There's no further discussion. Europe, in theory, maybe, one day might strike out on its own. Greenland from this moment never can and never will."

Can anyone recommend any feel good lighthearted tv series or films with a romance element (preferably with a female lead) similar to Home for Christmas /Hjem til jul ? I’ve rewatched it so many times

Prefer more recent or modern rather than 80s/90s

Small Places, Big Imperial Battles

Analysis of Greenland, Korea and Yemen in light of US plans, by KJ Noh from South Korea. He reminds us of the nature of the Danish colonialism, that until a year ago they had intelligense tests for Inuit mothers and took their baby away. Tests were in Danish.

Noh explains why the US can't process rare earths, and probably won't be able to. Next question is what the increased US military presence is supposed to be for. The fixation with Greenland signals that the US is still firmly committed to global hegemony. The base it has is also a space base that can detect missiles and project space assets.

Though the US sees China as its main rival, it is not likely to promote peace with Russia. US presence in Greenland threatens Russia's nuclear powered submarines, stationed off Kola peninsula, and its ice breaker fleet.

"So these are very very agressive moves, and it signals that Western hostility to Russia has not abated despite the surface discussions happening. The US claim and the US desire for hegemony has not changed and Greenland and all of Europe is essentially going along with this plan. So on that level I wouldn't expect any change, either with the Democrats of the Republicans. I think that if we take away the surface scuttlebutt we see that the agenda is still the same. They still want to dominate Russia, they still want to bleed it out, they still want to essentially turn it into a vassalized appendage of Europe.

And ofcourse, this goes back to the larger picture, what we call the 2 + 3 configuration, which is there are two revisionist powers, two great enemies of the US, that's Russia and China, and then there are three smaller enemies that are North Korea, Iran and non-state actors. And essentially, these non-state actors are less important but the two great enemies of the US, the two great revisionist powers are Russia and China. So nothing has changed and I think that we're foolish to think that there'll be anything more that a change of style as far as Democrats or Republicans are concerned."

Both flavours of puppets are controlled by the same puppeteer, which is the ruling imperial deep state. It is not going to take on an anti-war position. The Americans always vote for the candidate they think is the peace candidate, and as they say each time they vote for peace they end up with John McCain again.

Next the interview turns to SK. SK was created by genocide by the US as a bulwark against socialist movements in East Asia and as a bulwark against China. Korea had been a Japanese colony for half a century, until USA 'liberated' half of it and kept it as a colony for itself. So SK doesn't have sovereignty, which is illustrated by the fact that its huge conscription army is controlled by USA. SK was made to participate in almost every major US war, but the SK president has said no to participate in the war against Iran. Noh expects further pressure from the US for SK to send troops. It could try a coup, as it tried before. SK also had to give $350b in tribute just to avoid US tariffs.

So the US wants to use SK as a proxy, but also the US cannot build industry. "It's not profitable, it's much easier to gouge rentier profits. But they still need industrial capacity if they want to wage an industrial war against Russia, against Iran, against China. And so they're turning SK into the quartermaster for US wars. And what that means is taking Korean industrial capacity, which is impressive and vast, along with Japanese industrial capacity, along with some Indian projects as well, and see if they can make a kind of enclosed industrial system that can be the quartermaster, that can be the defence industrial base for the US.

..in particular in terms of ship-building. And ofcourse, the main idea is to exclude China and to create independent economic and industrial structures that banishes and shuns China, like the Biden administration tried to do with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They're still working on that. So once again all of this boils down back to the fact that the US is seeking war with China. It seeks to maintain its hegemony. And it understands that the easiest way to do that is to deputize and to appropriate its vassals into doing some of its fighting and most certainly most of its industrial production."

The culture in SK is all about class war, which divides it between pro-imperialist, pro-Japanese collaborators who became the pro-American collaborators, and the anti-imperialist resistance, which is strongly aligned with NK, the living embodiment of anti-imperialist resistance. SK was created by wiping out, literally, all the progressives in SK, and their children, and their women and their families were lined up and shot and murdered in mass graves. Nobody talks about it.

"Korea was turned into a wasteland on par with Gaza, but on a scale 900 times larger. So class war is at the heart of this political crisis in SK. And for many decades Koreans put up with military dictatorships, with the kind of tacit provisio that we'll put up with all this exploitation and violence but eventually, it will raise our standard of living. Well, in 1997, that promise turned out to be completely bogus. And even the managerial middle class realized that they were expendable tools in this globalized imperial colonial project.

Tens of thousands of South Koreans who thought they had lifetime employment with Samsung or Hyundai realized that they were just expendable labour, and during that period we have what is called the IMF su..ide*,* which is thousands of people committed su..ide after losing work. In Korea the IMF is considered to be an acronym for 'I'm F'd'.

And this was literally what happened. Wealthy middle class Koreans would pick up their children from school, or from piano lessons and take them home, give them a bag with some toys and a teddy bear, drop them off at and orphanage, and then both parents would go home and commit su..ide*.* So we have this entire phenomenon during that period of what we call IMF orphans, middle class people who thought they were middle class, who committed su..ide after being reamed by the global capitalist system.

So that class war and the class dimensions of the Korean society have never ended, and ofcourse people understand this as related to imperial subjugation. There was a period in the late 1970's-early 1980's where Koreans were fighting against the military dictatorships and they were fighting for 'democracy'..

..and they understood that without liberation, without sovereignty from imperial control, you have no chance at democracy. There is a critical path and a sequencing, and you have to wrest back sovereignty first, and you have to fight imperialism before you even have the minimal chance at establishing a people's democracy. But people were mislead.."

This was going on in Taiwan as well. Noh explains more about the resistance movement in the current political landscape in SK and the brutal treatment the PM was subjected to as child slave.

Since the illegal war against Iran started, there's been massive protests in the streets in Korea against being sent to die in it. Yemen has shown that the US is a paper tiger, which gives the Koreans a little bit of maneuver space.

SK has good relations with Iran, and has built ports in Iran which USA is bombing now. Iran said if SK joins the US war, Iran will destroy all of its assets, ports, infrastructure, refineries, data centers all across the Gulf states.

The main obstacle to Korean unity and de-escalation is the US. The US has to have hostility in the region to justify its military presence. Once bitten twice shy, NK has so far as Noh can tell given up on reunification. It has instead closed off transport to SK and is steeling itself for conflict. NK has mutual defence treaty with Russia and is the only country who has one with China. Along with Iran, this is the core of multipolar resistance (Crink).

Between 1/3 and 1/5 of North Koreans were killed in the war, but they rebuilt the country quickly. It's always supported independence, and helped Iran and Yemen with their tunnel defences for example, as well as arms. It has been a stalwart support to Palestine with arms and training. Because of its stalwart support to resistance and its ability to resist, USA has always wanted to obliterate it. NK has sought peace with SK since the war ended in 1953. The US always rejected peace treaties and deceived and betrayed it at every opportunity.

Russia disabled the UNSC monitoring committee for sanctions, which allowed NK some breathing space to get back to being itself, "a highly productive, developmental socialist state, kind of a model of what you can do with socialism if you put your mind to it, and ofcourse that counter example should not, in the minds of the Western elite, should not be allowed to exist, which is why they spent so much energy and effort into trying to strangle it in the crib. But NK has resisted, it's survived, it's re-ascending towards its previous status as both a powerful ally of the Global South and of national liberation movements, and a powerful development state in its own right with tremendous technological capacity. So all of this is just more signals of the way in which the Global South is rising up again, with Yemen, with Iran, with West Asia, with all the developments that are happening in China and in SE Asia as well. And ultimately, it's a signal that the Empire, despite its best and most violent efforts, has not been able to snuff out socialism in the Global South. .."

Yemen and Iran holds the two most important choke points in the world, adding to the pressure on the Empire core and its Gulf satropies. USA wants to release AI as a weapon against workers, against the Global South and against China, who wants to release AI as a public good. So tectonic shifts are going on.

Every year, my family and I are so excited for winter. My kiddo is a more mobile and active and is looking forward to playing in the snow. Aside from winterproof outer layer, are there any good base layers that'll keep my kiddo warm when we are outside?

I’m planning a trip in March with my daughter. We will be there for 7-9 days. Which country between Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland is the best to visit?

We’re Canadian so we don’t mind being outside in cold weather. We like outdoor activities and like to do any type of sports. My daughter wishes to see northern lights.

I would appreciate your help in getting more info and personal insights about your different countries.

Original Swedish title:

Ett val utan alternativ – hur vänstern missade öppet mål - Revolution

Hello, I have the opportunity in March to go to northern Sweden and Finland or Norway. I have never been to Scandinavia and am wondering if anyone recommends one trip over the other (they are pre-planned, so I don't have a say in the itinerary). We understand there is no guarantee of seeing the northern lights so we want to make sure wherever we go will be beautiful and fun regardless. We like to snowshoe, cross-country ski, and spend time in nature.

For Sweden and Finland, we would visit Jukkasjärvi, Köngäs, Pallas-Yllästunturi National Park, and Äkäslompolo.

For Norway, we would visit Tromsø, Storslett, Reisa National Park, Stengelsen, and Alta.

Any recommendations for one trip over the other?

I come from a background that is very homophobic, so it is honestly hard for me to imagine that homosexuality is normalized anywhere, because it seems like it is something that is seen as so non-normal for so long.

I'm curious to ask people in Nordic countries, where it is the most accepted to be gay, would it be normal/fine to ask your parents if they had ever been in a relationship with someone of the same sex? Would it be the same as asking one of your parents if they had ever been with a blonde before?

I would be very interested in reading the responses.